@Carol H You said: ". . .the fact that the Vatican's version ties in beautifully with parts one and two, then, intellectuallyand logically, Cardinal Ratizinger was telling the truth."

Seewald reports Ratzinger saying much more than what appeared in the 2000 release of the so-called Third Secret. What he told Seewald (and which he approved) did NOT appear in the 2000 release. Ergo: his denial of Dollinger's testimony is placed in doubt because of the Sewald omissions. Therefore, your appeal to logic seems a tad deficient.

@SonoftheChurch No, it's not that simple. +Vigano recognizes the authority of the Holy See (a requirement of being Catholic). He simply rejects the heretic who occupies Peter's Chair. Submitting to a heretic (have you read Bergoglio's remarks about the Psalms?) is not a vice; it's a virtue.

Sarah, Burke, Brandmuller, Muller, etc, etc, etc: ALL assisted in the policy of the conciliar church's policies of desacralizing the One True Faith. If they weren't guilty of such, they wouldn't have miters. Only the Conciliar revolutionaries got miters. So, please, spare me (and probably quite a few others) the pom-pom adulations.

@Tony M Hopefully, Bergoglio is merely the apogee of the Revolution that began 60 years ago. Sacrilegious Communion? Benedict did that with non-Catholic Brother Roger of Taize. Vatican II states that individual non-Catholics may receive the Eucharist. Benedict even urged the formation of more ecumenical communities like Taize. Benedict and John Paul II were the anthropomorphic expressions of Vatican II - full of contradictions that confused and demoralized. Wojtyla and Ratzinger created dogmatic antiquarianism by reigniting the Judaizing debate settled at the Council of Jerusalem (c.50 AD!) - with Benedict even participating in a synagogue service. Bergoglio is impossible without Wojtyla and Ratzinger.