Why I did not Submit the Tradition in Action "Third Secret" for a Costly Professional Analysis. The More You Look at it, the More Bizarre it Seems to Be.
There are many reasons why I decided to not go ahead with commissioning an official analysis of the TIA "Third Secret."
1) I have only received one donation to Sister Lucy Truth from someone interested in the TIA Third Secret. The donation was a tax-deductible donation to "Sister Lucy Truth" for $200. When discussing the cost of the analysis and of writing up the results for this document, I found out that the cost was going to be $500. The document itself, with its obvious problems, did not warrant the expenditure of the extra money when we have so little to spend. Every dime donated to "Sister Lucy Truth" goes to either the investigations themselves, maintaining the website, or paying the fees to the bank for upkeep of the various accounts.
2) The document itself had a very questionable origin, we discovered this when we had 3 different people at Sister Lucy Truth actually look at the document, check it using computer programs, and look up the scriptural references that are made in the document. a) computer analysis seems to show that many of the words of the text were cut and pasted on to it. b) this document has an unknown origin --- coming from "someone in Portugal" and being advertised, other than on TIA, on a website whose address is "Our Lady is God." c) the "letter" is from a fax of a copy of the letter.
3) The date is truly odd. If you turn over the letter the year appears as 666. When has a year ever been written with 3 numbers? Also it is dated April 1st, which seems to indicate that it could very well be an "April fools" joke meant to discredit those who are genuinely interested in the actual content of the Third Secret.
4) The thumb mark, supposedly meant to prove that this is Sister Lucy's writing, was smudged. Why have a thumb print when it is smudged? How would that prove anything? Sister Lucy NEVER used a thumb print in any of her other authentic writings.
5) The biblical references, supposedly given by Our Lady in this Secret, are clearly and traditionally meant to refer to Christ and not to the Church or to the Church in our time.
6) The text is heretical since it clearly indicates that the origin of authority in the Church shall be transferred from Rome to Fatima. Rome is the Apostolic See of Peter and it would be heretical to say that that can be transferred to any other place. The pope could live in another place, as has been the case, but he is pope because he is bishop of Rome.
7) The "cathedral of Rome" is clearly misidentified as St. Peter's rather than St. John Lateran --- which is the true cathedral church of Rome. Our Lady would not misidentify this church in such a way.
8) By a description of the "church" entered into by the "pope of the evil eyes" which exactly describes the new church built at Fatima, along with mentioning the name of John Paul II, I think those who produced this document were creating foresight from hindsight.
9) Also, just as an aside, I have never received one bit of help or cooperation from any one at Tradition in Action, even though I have asked for it.
After looking at this text intensely over the course of days, I can tell you that I believe that it is a joke, meant to discredit those who are interested in finding out the full message of the Third Secret and who have doubts about the completeness of what was released by the Vatican in 2000.