Is Anyone familiar with the Third Secret of Fatima?


Greetings. Is anyone familiar with the Third Secret of Fatima? If so, can anyone tell me, Catholics only please, what you all think about it? Thanks.


My understanding is that it referred to the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II.

From Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Vatican

Text of The Third Secret of Fatima


VATICAN CITY, JUN 26, 2000 (VIS) - Given below is the complete translation of the original Portuguese text of the third part of the secret of Fatima, revealed to the three shepherd children at Cova da Iria-Fatima on July 13, 1917, and committed to paper by Sr. Lucia on January 3, 1944:

"I write in obedience to you, my God, who command me to do so through his Excellency the Bishop of Leiria and through your Most Holy Mother and mine.

“After the two parts which I have already explained, at the left of Our Lady and a little above, we saw an Angel with a flaming sword in his left hand; flashing, it gave out flames that looked as though they would set the world on fire; but they died out in contact with the splendor that Our Lady radiated towards him from her right hand: pointing to the earth with his right hand, the Angel cried out in a loud voice: ‘Penance, Penance, Penance!’. And we saw in an immense light that is God: ‘something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it’ a Bishop dressed in White ‘we had the impression that it was the Holy Father’. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God.”




I will share my opinion though I know there are those who may strongly disagree with me…for the most comprehensive treatment of this issue I recommend Fr Gruner’s website - The Fatima Crusader

see for his articles relating to the Third Secret.

perhaps the following would be the best to start off with:

The Secret of Fatima…Revealed

Under Pope John Paul II the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published The Message of Fatima


which gives us the vision of the Third Secret but not the words of Our Lady to the three seers of Fatima which would have accompanied the vision (and following the train of thought of Our Lady from the words “In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved,” to which Sister Lucy added “etc.” to indicate that more was said.)

See Reply to the Hoax at for a discussion of problems raised by the Vatican’s commentary.

Basically my opinion is that

  1. the actual words of the Third Secret have not yet been revealed but that the Vatican has allowed the message of the Third Secret to be revealed in “bits and pieces” through statements made by then Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II of Blessed Memory.


Socci’s conclusions are consistent with reported remarks of the current Pope himself (when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger) that his “hands were tied” on Fatima by the dictates of the former Vatican Secretary of State, whose recent departure was celebrated in this column.

And Socci’s theory that it was decided to reveal the contents of the missing text of the Secret indirectly through papal remarks — such as John Paul II’s reference to Chapter 12 of the Apocalypse at Fatima in 2000 — would also explain how the Vatican could state that all has been revealed without telling a lie, strictly speaking.

  1. the Third Secret essentially speaks of an apostasy from the True Faith and of spiritual and physical evils accompanying it. (Could it be the mass apostasy foretold by St Paul in 2 Thess 2:3 ?)

To the various objections and counter claims that can be made, Fr Gruner’s site answers them all convincingly to my satisfaction. Fr Gruner himself is maligned (yet see: but regardless of Fr Gruner’s true status as a priest it doesn’t detract from the logic he applies to the questions surrounding Our Lady of Fatima’s messages to us which, as I see it, are still unfolding and still requiring a response from both the laity and our Bishops.

Keep the Faith


[quote=John Taylor;1757461To the various objections and counter claims that can be made, Fr Gruner’s site answers them all convincingly to my satisfaction. Fr Gruner himself is maligned (yet see:

) but regardless of Fr Gruner’s true status as a priest it doesn’t detract from the logic he applies to the questions surrounding Our Lady of Fatima’s messages to us which, as I see it, are still unfolding and still requiring a response from both the laity and our Bishops.Fr. Gruner’s priestly faculties have been suspended for about ten years. He has accused JPII, among other things, of having failed to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart, though Sr. Lucia, who lived to see it done, said it was done right and according to Our Lady’s wishes. She also said that it averted a nuclear war (check out this link to This Rock and scroll down).

Here is the cover story from the October 2000 issue of This Rock about the Third Secret.


I wouldn’t listen to anything Father Gruner has to say. He has shown nothing but arrogance. He is disobedient to Rome, insulting to the Pope and flies in the face of what Lucia herself actually said. In effect he is calling Sr Lucia a liar!


“…but the real shocker - at least to a certain faction of Fatima devotees - is that Sister Lucia said that Pope John Paul II forestalled a nuclear war when he consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 1984. What the Fatima seer was saying, in other words, was that the consecration in fact took place.”

Wow. That’s…creepy. :eek: :eek: :eek: But in a good sort of way.
Really makes you wonder what the world would be like today if not for Our Lady’s intercession.


:thumbsup: Right on! Infact Fr.Gruner not only called Sr. Lucia a liar but also JP II and B16.:mad:


(Victorious) Fr. Gruner’s priestly faculties have been suspended for about ten years.

(jmt) For what has Fr Gruner been suspended for? do you know the circumstances of his alledged “disobedience”?

As I understand the issue he was ordered by the Bishop of Avellino (after the Bishop had received “worried signals” about Father Gruner’s criticism of the Secretary of State’s anti-Fatima agenda) to be incardinated ( but Fr Gruner’s efforts to gain incardination were subsequently blocked the Secretary of State and the Congregation for the Clergy - which amounts to a policeman ordering a stopped motorist to “get out of the car!” but who then preceeds to have others hold the car doors shut. Does this seem unjust to you?


But despite the Secretary of States efforts Fr Gruner did gain incardination from the Archbishop of Hyderabad. So what are the grounds for his “suspension”?

Finally, Fr Gruner has appealed his “suspension” and from my understanding the suspension cannot take effect until his appeal has been heard:

Catholic World News : CORRECTION: re. Father Nicholas GrunerVATICAN ( – A story on the work of Father Nicholas.

Apr. 06, 1998

VATICAN ( – A story on the work of Father Nicholas Gruner, which appeared in Catholic World News last week, contained several errors.

Father Gruner was ordained to the priesthood-- not suspended from priestly duties-- in 1976. He was threatened with suspension by the Diocese of Avellino in May 1995, when he failed to obey an order to return to that diocese after an approved absence of many years. Father Gruner has appealed that suspension, and under canon law the suspension does not officially take effect while the appeal is in process.

Supporters of Father Gruner charge that the order to return to Avellino was the result of intense lobbying by “Vatican bureaucrats” who have consistently opposed his Fatima crusades. In 1992 the Vatican Congregation for the Clergy took the unusual step of announcing that these Fatima conferences were undertaken without ecclesial approval.

Keep the Faith


I’ve heard of something called the week of fatima, and read somewhere that we are in the third day of the week of fatima.
Does anyone know about this, and can someone explain this more?


Do not accept an accusation against a presbyter unless it is supported by two or three witnesses. 1 Tim 5:19

For which specific actions do you accuse Fr Gruner of arrogance? disobedience to Rome?

See The Question of Obedience by Father Paul L. Kramer

On what occasions are you aware of Fr Gruner “insulting the Pope?”

As far as calling Sr Lucia a liar, are you refering to Fr Gruner’s rejection of the “computer generated letters” as forgeries?

The letter to Mr. Walter Noelker is not a genuine letter of Sr. Lucy, but a forgery!

  Bro. Francis of Mary of the Angels informs us that in 1989 and 1990, five letters, purportedly by Sr. Lucy, were diffused by the religious authorities of Fatima, in the context of a veritable propaganda and disinformation campaign (the origin of which seems to be several very highly placed personages of the Vatican and the bishopric of Leiria-Fatima) destined to persuade public opinion to believe that the consecration of March 25, 1984 met all the criteria of the consecration demanded by Our Lady.
   Well, some of these letters contain crass historical errors: in particular, the two letters to Maria de Belem (dated August 29, 1989) and to Walter Noelker (dated November 8, 1989) speak of a consecration made May 13, 1967, by Pope Paul VI during his visit to Fatima. But Pope Paul VI made no consecration that day, Sr. Lucy knows very well, for she was present. And the hypothesis of a deliberate lie on the part of Sr. Lucy can be completely excluded. Not only is such a hypothesis repugnant to reason, but it is completely contradicted by the life of Lucy, in whom her mother had inculcated, from early childhood, a horror of even the slightest lie, and who, in fact, never lied, preferring to suffer imprisonment and the threat of death with her little cousins, rather than lie by saying that she had not seen the Blessed Virgin (see her Memoirs, the second one).
   The only hypothesis that remains is that the letters are "apocryphal," and critical analysis of the letters themselves reveals it fully: these letters do not contain even the slightest breath of devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary; they develop rhetorical themes entirely foreign to Sr. Lucy (for instance, a characteristic term of progressivism and Vatican II is "the people of God," which occurs as many as seven times in the letter to Mr. Noelker, in just 35 lines); finally, they are drafted in a spirit absolutely the opposite of the heart and soul so simple and devoted of Sr. Lucy. (For the explanation of why Sr. Lucy has never denounced these letters publicly, see footnote 8. Moreover, does Sr. Lucy even know of the existence of these letters? It is quite unlikely.)
   The following fact also proves that from 1989, there has been disinformation and media manipulation concerning the consecration of 1984: in the first official editions of the Memoirs of Sr. Lucy, the 11th note of the third memoir affirms this:
   Have the conditions for the consecration of Russia, and consequently for its conversion, as requested by Heaven, been complied with? Lucy does not seem to think so. Therefore, we are continuing to suffer from the evils of atheistic Communism, a scourge which God uses to punish the world for its sins.

continued next post


continued regarding forged Sr Lucia letters:

Now, this note still appears in the second edition of the Memoirs published in Italian in May 1988, that is, more than four years after the consecration of 1984! This clearly shows that in 1988, there still had been no letter or word of Sr. Lucy that could be used to change this note and affirm that the 1984 consecration had been the right one! And, what is more, it is evident that Sr. Lucy would not have waited four or five years to inform the authorities of the Church that the consecration had already been made!

   Despite this, the note suddenly disappears in the sixth edition of the Memoirs in Portuguese published in March 1990, to be replaced by the following note, which contradicts it:
   Sr. Lucy affirms that the consecration made by John Paul II in union with the bishops on March 25, 1984, complied with the request of Our Lady, and was accepted by Heaven. She clarifies the point that a numerical union of all the bishops was not required, as a moral union was enough. The surprising developments that have begun to take place in the Eastern bloc countries in 1989, might they not be the first responses of Heaven to the promise of 1917: "The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me; Russia will be converted and a period of peace will be granted to the world"?
   What happened between May 1988 and March 1990? Fr. Caillon gives us the answer: In 1988, "an order came down from Rome, obliging each and all to say and to think: 'The consecration has been done. As the Pope has done everything in his power, Heaven has deigned to accept his gesture.'"
   A historian of the University of Coimbra, in a letter dated January 16, 1991, asked Fr. Kondor to reveal the person to whom Sr. Lucy had declared that the consecration of Russia had been accomplished; and he received this reply dated January 26, 1991:
   Rumor has it that the person who affirmed for the first time and publicly that she had heard Sr. Lucy say that the consecration was accepted is one of her cousins, Maria do Fetal. She is a teacher and lives at the Casa Velha, at Fatima; as a relative of Sr. Lucy, she has permission to visit her.
   Now, this Maria do Fetal affirmed until June 1989 that Sr. Lucy had told her that the consecration was not done, before suddenly presenting, in January 1990, a new line quite to the liking of the religious authorities of Fatima, who had become, since 1988, the standard-bearers of the maneuver aimed at neutralizing, as far as possible, the realization of the triumph of the Church by the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
   It should also be noted that, in his letter, Fr. Kondor presented the "testimony" of this person as being at the origin of "the rumors," and that, by this new note, he had transformed a simple "rumor" into the affirmation of "an incontestable fact," reproduced as such by all the mass media, curiously interested in disseminating certain aspects of the Conciliar Church.
   See Bro. Francis of Mary of the Angels, Fatima: Intimate Joy, World Event. [All subsequent references to this work by Bro. Francis are to the French edition. This work has been translated and published in English, but it was divided into four short books.]

Keep the Faith


So you’re saying, then, that both JP2 and Benedict XVI, not to mention untold numbers of priests, cardinals, and other lay people, have lied about the third secret, to hide some nefarious scheme (else why lie?)

And *only * Fr. Gruner, and those who trust in him, know the ‘real truth’ because all the ‘authorities’ are somehow deluded at best, corrupted at worst?

Sounds like a conspiracy theory. . .


This is the first I’ve heard of this so I Googled for “week of Fatima” and found the following article by the late John Haffert, who was co-founder of the World Apostolate of Fatima, aka The Blue Army.

Sister Lucia and the Third Day of the Week of Fatima

If my memory serves me correctly Mr Haffert at first was of the same opinion as Fr Gruner regarding the continued need for the Consecration of Russia even after Pope John Paul II’s 1984 “consecration of the world” but then he changed his opinion in line with that of the Vatican Secretary of State to which Fr Gruner has remained opposed.

I link the article but I’ve not read it yet.

Keep the Faith


(Tantum ergo) So you’re saying, then, that both JP2 and Benedict XVI, not to mention untold numbers of priests, cardinals, and other lay people, have lied about the third secret, to hide some nefarious scheme (else why lie?)

(jmt) Only those who have actual knowledge of the Third Secret could lie about their knowledge of it so automatically we need not concern ourselves with “untold numbers of priests, cardinals, and other lay people”. We all form our opinions based on the information available to us and the fact remains that Catholics are legitimately divided over this issue and will remain so until a reigning Pope addresses the issue unambiguously or otherwise the conflicting information is somehow clarified.

As for those who have read the Third Secret (which does include Pope John Paul II and the then Cardinal Ratzinger) it’s my understanding that you can piece together from what they have said about the Third Secret the following:

From the Pope John Paul II on Oct 1981: "Given the seriousness of the contents, my predecessors in the Petrine office diplomatically preferred to postpone publication so as not to encourage the world power of Communism to make certain moves. “On the other hand, it should be sufficient for all Christians to know this: if there is a message in which it is written that the oceans will flood whole areas of the earth, and that from one moment to the next millions of people will perish, truly the publication of such a message is no longer something to be so much desired.”


From then Cardinal Ratzinger Nov 1984: the Secret refers to “dangers threatening the faith and the life of the Christian and therefore (the life) of the world” plus “the importance of the Novissimi (the Last Times / the Last Things)” and that “If it is not made public, at least for the time being, it is in order to prevent religious prophecy from being mistaken for a quest for the sensational …”

Cardinal Ratzinger further revealed that “the things contained in this ‘Third Secret’ correspond to what has been announced in Scripture and has been said again and again in many other Marian apparitions, first of all that of Fatima …”


For Father’s Gruner piecing of the evidence see: and and especially:

Pope John Paul II Gives Us the Key to the Real Third Secret

Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:

So no, I don’t believe either JP2 or BXVI have lied about the Third Secret. The information is out there but for prudential reasons (to avoid sensationalism and perhaps a panic and “as not to encourage the world power of Communism to make certain moves”) the information has been suppressed.

as to whether or not the Consecration of Russia has been done “correctly” I’m willing to say, “fine, if you think it has been”, it’s an issue out of hands anyways. Only the Pope and the Bishops in union with him can do it. But I see nothing “un-Catholic” in petitioning the Pope to “do it again” but with “specfic mention of Russia” as the object of the Consecration and with the Pope “commanding every bishop in union with him” to join him.

Keep the Faith


The article in the second link is, frankly, self-serving, hyperventilating, and contemptuous of Church authorities. I can’t help contrasting this to the humble submission of, say, Padre Pio, whose priestly faculties were suppressed almost in their entirety, on account of slanders against him.


Did Padre Pio’s superiors ever command him to obey them on a matter while they at the same time blocked his abilty to fulfill their command?

Keep the Faith


I’d expect Padre Pio to respond to any injustice to himself precisely as he responded to the particular injustices that in fact were inflicted. It’s unthinkable that he would have ever behaved as Fr. Gruner has done, even if Fr. Gruner’s derisive-quote-laced version of events were true (which I frankly don’t accept).


okay…so Fr Gruner is not a Padre Pio…I would suspect you are right…but let me get this straight: if Padre Pio was in Fr Gruner’s shoes…leading an Apostolate dedicated to Our Lady of Fatima…living in Canada with his Bishop’s approval (the Bishop of Avellino, Italy) and he (Padre Pio) was commanded to find another bishop to incardinate him or else return to Avellino (for which he would be arrested at the border and deported because his Bishop didn’t provide for his immigration and support as required by Italian law)…you say Padre Pio would, of course, obey the command.

Good. Because that’s what Fr Gruner did as well. So far so good.

Back to our imaginary Padre Pio’s response. He subsequently finds three friendly Bishops willing to incardinate him. But each are persuaded by representatives of the Vatican Secretary of State to withdraw their offers of incardination. This seems unjust to me (to command someone to do something and then block their efforts to obey the command) but in your view of what it means to be a saintly Catholic, Padre Pio continues to seek to obey the command…which eventually he does!!! As we would expect a good catholic priest to do. On March 10, 1999 the Archbishop of Hyderabad affirmed his earlier incardination of Father Gruner. In his decree of that date the Archbishop declared:

**“After due discernment, I am convinced that I am acting correctly though I was partly misled by influential people. I strongly feel that the good work he [Father Gruner] is doing in spreading devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary should not be hampered for the present, especially through undue canonical or juridical pressures. May Jesus Christ be praised!” **

So there, Padre Pio, living within the shoes of Fr Gruner has obeyed the command given him. And it’s important to note, such (if I am informed correctly) is exactly what Fr Gruner did.

But hereafter, Padre Pio’s response (as you seem to imagine it) and Fr Gruner’s response will diverge. The Vatican Secretary of State declares the Archbishop of Hyderabad’s incardination “non-existent”…on what Canonical grounds? I imagine you would say, “It doesn’t matter”, Rome has spoken , to hell with “canonical procedure and Church Law” and let Padre Pio demonstrate his willingness to suffer injustice. Off to Italy he goes, and if his bishop doesn’t comply with Italian immigration law, Padre Pio is arrested at the border, subsequently deported and of course “suspended” for his failure to “obey” the command given him.

But Fr Gruner acted differently. He appealed his “suspension” (as is his right under Canon Law, I’m told) and for this you say (essentially) he’s a “bad priest”.

Now, personally, I don’t get it. If you, Victorius, was given a command by someone with legitimate authority over you and had your efforts to obey the command “blocked” would you consider it your Catholic duty to suffer the injustice? Could it possibly be within the realm of “Christlikeness” to speak out against the injustice and use the legal means within your rights to expose the injustice and correct it? Is it more Catholic to suffer injustice and do nothing about it when failing to fight the injustice might very well mean others will suffer the same kind of injustice?

I can see how a “Padre Pio” type response is praiseworthy when it’s simply a matter of your own character being maligned but what of a case like Fr Gruner’s when the abuse of power may be used to silence other priest’s who disagree with prudential judgments (not matters of precepts and/or doctrine) of the hierarchy?

I don’t know. I guess I’m just not the “let me lay down and make out like a rug so you can walk all over me” type of Catholic you seem to want to champion.

I guess for now, we’d best agree to disagree.

Keep the Faith

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit