1. Moscow Conference

    image
  2. Rome 2017

    Rome 2017
  3. Fatima Portugal

    Fatima Portugal 2017
  4. Ask Father

    image

“We had the impression it was the Holy Father”

by Christopher A. Ferrara
January 15, 2015

The evidence for the existence of a suppressed text of the Third Secret, a companion to the ambiguous vision published by the Vatican in 2000 that would explain its exact significance, is impossible to ignore. That evidence has been presented exhaustively in my own study of the matter which I am happy to say received the endorsement of no less than the former Papal Nuncio to the United States, the late Archbishop Pietro Sambi, not long before his passing.

But there is a little discussed yet quite telling piece of internal evidence worth mentioning here. In the third paragraph of the text of the vision published in 2000, which depicts a mysterious "Bishop dressed in White" and also prophesies that a future Pope ("the Holy Father") will be executed by soldiers outside a devastated city, Sister Lucia included two peculiar phrases within quotation marks:

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 [the three seers] had the impression that it was the Holy Father."...

Several things are significant here:

First, Lucia appears to be quoting another document — the document we are looking for. Why else would she have employed quotation marks within a text written by her own hand?

Second, the phrase "we had the impression it was the Holy Father" — again, quoted as if it were from a different source — indicates serious uncertainty as to who is actually being seen in a manner "similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it." Tellingly, the word Sister Lucia used in the original Portuguese is presentimento, which the Vatican badly (or tendentiously?) translated as the bland "impression," when in fact it connotes something much more dramatic: premonition, foreboding, or an uneasy feeling that something is wrong.

Third, it is quite inconceivable that Our Lady would leave the visionaries in a state of uncertainty as to the identity of this "Bishop dressed in White." At some point the Virgin must have clarified the point, for later in the same text Lucia unambiguously refers to "the Holy Father" as the one who is executed by a band of soldiers. Is she, then, as Antonio Socci has argued, referring to two different people: a bishop in white who only appeared to be the Pope and another, the Holy Father, who was definitely executed? If the "Bishop dressed in White" was certainly the Pope, why would Sister Lucia write that the seers merely had the "impression" it was the Pope? The only reasonable conclusion is that the Blessed Virgin answered these questions in the document from which Lucia is quoting, which is not the text of the vision itself.

Fourth, while bishops in India, the Philippines and other tropical countries wear white cassocks, no one would have the "impression" that any of them was the Pope. If the devastated city in the vision is Rome, however, and the white-clad bishop is fleeing from the Vatican over the bodies of his subjects, the vision would coincide with a vision of Pope Saint Pius X that a future Pope bearing his name — Giuseppe (Joseph) Sarto before his election — would flee the Vatican under such circumstances only to die a horrible death a short time later. Benedict XVI was named Joseph Ratzinger before he ascended to the throne of Peter.

The question presents itself: Does the vision published in 2000 take place during a time when there is more than one white-clad bishop living in the Vatican? That is, does it take place in our time — the only time in Church history when a Pope has not only resigned under suspicious circumstances but has made it clear that he considers himself to have resigned only the "active exercise of the Petrine ministry" (as if one could resign only one aspect of the papal office) while retaining the Pope's white cassock, the papal coat of arms, and even the very name he had as Pope?

Here, as elsewhere, we see compelling evidence for a missing text that would tie up the loose ends that abound in the published vision standing alone, which the Vatican ludicrously expects us to believe has been definitively "interpreted" by the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Sodano — the same bureaucrat who spent decades blocking any investigation into the abominable crimes of the late head of the Legionaries of Christ.

The Third Secret cover-up continues and the world moves closer to the abyss, while Rome is inhabited — for the first time in her history — by two bishops dressed in white who bear a papal name. Something dramatic this way comes.