If No Communist Connection to the Assassination Attempt on John Paul II, How does the Ratzinger/Sodano Interpretation of the Third Secret Make Any Sense?
I am trying to look at the "Third Secret" released by the Vatican in 2000 again in light of our handwriting experts judgment that the text from January 1944 WAS WRITTEN BY THE REAL SISTER LUCY, since it is consistent with her earlier writings. See, https://drive.google.com/open?id=1JidVbASgcxT5yGZ5AgzrloI1TwjZRYda
If we consider the whole question of the Third Secret again, we wonder why the Vatican would focus its "interpretation" of the Third Secret on the assassination attempt on John Paul II and the suffering of the Church under the Communist regime of the past. Why this if John Paul II HIMSELF did not believe that the Communist Soviets were behind the assassination attempt on him? You can hear his spokesman from those days speaking above. Even more, if John Paul II knew that he was meeting with an imposter and that the message of Fatima was going to be fundamentally distorted both by the imposter and by his own Vatican, if he knew that the whole Communist-attempt theory was false, what was the whole thing about --- the girl with the picture of Our Lady of Fatima pinned on her blouse, which he bent down to greet when he was shot --- the fact that the date was May 13th? What is this all about? The Vatican interpretation of this text seems totally forced and not even related to what the text actually said. Why would the imposter publicly state that the Secret was for the pope alone and not for the people? How does any of this make sense?
It seems that one issue is whether to interpret the part of the Secret released in 2000 literally or figuratively. If literally, it hasn't happened yet. If figuratively, it is a good allegory for the post-Conciliar ChurchReplyDelete