I believe the imposter is supposed to have been installed at the time Sr. Lucy was "transferred" to a different convent. I forget what year that happened, but the evidence points to that being the time the switch was made.Good post, but, depending on what you mean by your last sentence, the real Sr. Lucy met with Wm. Thomas Walsh in the 1940s, and she told him about the whole world being communist, including the USA, in that interview. That interview was ~1946, and she was supposed to have joined the Carmelites a few years later.
.
That makes sense, because it would be by far the easiest way to switch her out. You can't exactly get a bunch of cloistered nuns to pretend that some new person who showed up in the convent is Sr. Lucy, and not ask questions as to what happened to the real Sr. Lucy. The cleanest way would be to tell the nuns at one convent that Sr. Lucy is leaving, transfer her out, and send the imposter to the new convent. Since the nuns at the new convent don't know Sr. Lucy personally, they would have no way to know the new nun who showed up is not her.
...
The ramifications of this are interesting, too, in that it would mean that the famous Fr. Fuentes interview was with the imposter. That was when Sr. Lucy supposed made prophecies about the future of the United States and also of Russia.
Good post, but, depending on what you mean by your last sentence, the real Sr. Lucy met with Wm. Thomas Walsh in the 1940s, and she told him about the whole world being communist, including the USA, in that interview. That interview was ~1946, and she was supposed to have joined the Carmelites a few years later.Sister Lucia of Fatima in 1946 said that the whole world would become communist
Good post, but, depending on what you mean by your last sentence, the real Sr. Lucy met with Wm. Thomas Walsh in the 1940s, and she told him about the whole world being communist, including the USA, in that interview. That interview was ~1946, and she was supposed to have joined the Carmelites a few years later..
Okay, I found that article (https://diesilli.com/some-questions/). It argues that Sr. Lucy was switched in or before 1948, when she supposedly transferred to the Carmelite order.If Sister Lucy was replaced in 1948, the Fr Fuentes interview from 1957 would have to be a fɾαυd- that's a hard one. I think they took her out after that interview.
If Sister Lucy was replaced in 1948, the Fr Fuentes interview from 1957 would have to be a fɾαυd- that's a hard one. I think they took her out after that interview..
I've never found it on line since but you could always write to the address at the bottom of the docuмent or they also give their phone number..
There won't be any records of her death in any newspaper as she was supposed to have been transferred remember?
This subject was covered extensively in 2014.
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/sister-lucy-attended-the-novus-ordo-mass-for-decades/60/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/sister-lucy-attended-the-novus-ordo-mass-for-decades/60/)
In that thread I posted the page from the convent records (which has been removed from the net) that shows sister Lucy died on May 31, 1949. It also gives her birth date, date she professed her vows etc
Notice that she is listed with others in the year 2005. Did someone really want the truth known?
.
Here is the page from the convent records See entry # 265 Just click on it to enlarge.
(https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/WebSources/B_741_LucyDeath.png)
The online convent records suggested the real Sr. Lucy died in 1949 and was buried in their cemetery.
As we get closer to the Truth. The idea that Sister Lucy of Fatima died in 1949 on account of "death announcement" by the Carmelites, is clearly false. The notice says that "Maria Lucia of the Immaculate Heart" was Professed on October 3, 1928. The real Sister Lucy was CERTAINLY not professed in the Carmelites then, but 20 years later. Whoever the nun was who died in 1949, it wasn't SISTER LUCY, SEER OF FATIMA. That was easy. And No Fees!Dr. Chojnowski put your exact quote on his blog:(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-FzwPky5mt1k/UdW4keTLeXI/AAAAAAAADwA/-JzR9qFLJKA/s1600/sisterlucia1949c.jpg)
Source (https://tinyurl.com/y43bjp9t)
Dr. Chojnowski put your exact quote on his blog:Donkath actually put Dr. Chojnowski’s blog as his source.
As we get closer to the Truth. The idea that Sister Lucy of Fatima died in 1949 on account of "death announcement" by the Carmelites, is clearly false. The notice says that "Maria Lucia of the Immaculate Heart" was Professed on October 3, 1928. The real Sister Lucy was CERTAINLY not professed in the Carmelites then, but 20 years later. Whoever the nun was who died in 1949, it wasn't SISTER LUCY, SEER OF FATIMA. That was easy. And No Fees! (chojnowski.me) (http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2021/01/as-we-get-closer-to-truth-idea-that.html)
Donkath actually put Dr. Chojnowski’s blog as his source.Thanks for the clarification. I guess I was confused as Dr. Chojnowski put CathInfo as the source, but maybe he intended to lead his readers to CathInfo to view the discussion.
Seventy years on...
Means nothing, but my take is that it is a given she died before 1960, just to pick an important date because of instructions related to public revelation of the message/s, etc.
Then there is the photographic issue, wherein anyone with an ounce of sense, can see the woman brought forth as Lucy was not the same as before. God gave her an unmistakable, donkey-like jaw for a reason. The Fake wasn't even close.
Thanks for the clarification. I guess I was confused as Dr. Chojnowski put CathInfo as the source, but maybe he intended to lead his readers to CathInfo to view the discussion.
As we get closer to the Truth. The idea that Sister Lucy of Fatima died in 1949 on account of "death announcement" by the Carmelites, is clearly false. The notice says that "Maria Lucia of the Immaculate Heart" was Professed on October 3, 1928. The real Sister Lucy was CERTAINLY not professed in the Carmelites then, but 20 years later. Whoever the nun was who died in 1949, it wasn't SISTER LUCY, SEER OF FATIMA. That was easy. And No FeeHow many times can you profess vows? If she professed in 1928 with the Sisters of St. Dorothy what happens to those vows when she joins the Carmelites 20 years later?
How many times can you profess vows? If she professed in 1928 with the Sisters of St. Dorothy what happens to those vows when she joins the Carmelites 20 years later?.
If she was ordered to change convents could not the Carmelites have been told to accept the vows she'd already professed?
.These are excellent questions that someone who knows more about her life could probably answer better than I can, but to give you a few broad strokes ...
How did the imposter convince her visiting relatives she was their sister, aunt? The name of the house next door, her first pet, the old lady who used to chased them away, what her father used to whistle and other past memories? Any suspicion from those relatives and it would be incredibly easy to catch the imposter out and impossible for the imposter to protect against. "Remember Sergio our neighbour, he died, please pray for him". The neighbour's name was Noel. A huge risk. The relatives would tell other relatives and word would get out.
What about the sisters who spent 30 years with the real sister Lucia in the convent? Surely at some point they would bump into the fake Lucia. If you think the difference is that obvious, from several pictures, then surely they would have known from two people in the flesh in 3D and colour..
What is in it for the actress? Nuns are in convents living lives shut away from the world for their eternal salvation. The actress would know she was perpetrating a fɾαυd. Why would she be motivated to commit her entire adult life to that? What about her parents, sisters, brother, friends? She effectively had to cut off all her past forever. Who would do that and for what reward?
You failed to address the other point. The imposter also has family and other nuns, still with faith, who know her..
Suddenly they pick up a Catholic newspaper in Portugal in the 1960s to 1980s and recognise someone they were in another convent with who is being put forward as the most famous nun in Portugal. Surely they would notice, suspect and go to the press.
How did they stop the imposter nun's family visiting her? Or did they get an orphan, apostate nun who wanted to play make believe for 45 years?
It is a hugely complex and risky operation. What did it gain compared to simply bumping Sister Lucia off and not replacing her. The stooge accomplished very little.
It is a hugely complex and risky operation. What did it gain compared to simply bumping Sister Lucia off and not replacing her. The stooge accomplished very little.
Here is the page from the convent records See entry # 265 Just click on it to enlarge.Do click it on, the entire page! Everyone has failed to notice the obvious. The sisters are listed chronologically by date of death, all except for #265! Whoever changed the record isn’t even subtle!
(https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/WebSources/B_741_LucyDeath.png)
Do click it on, the entire page! Everyone has failed to notice the obvious. The sisters are listed chronologically by date of death, all except for #265! Whoever changed the record isn’t even subtle!.
Someone passed on that date in 2005, most likely the fake Sr. Lucy!
Now if we could see the convent records for 1946-1960 or so...
Everyone has failed to notice the obvious. The sisters are listed chronologically by date of death, all except for #265!No one failed to notice the obvious that read my original post which you deleted when quoting.
No one failed to notice the obvious that read my original post which you deleted when quoting.Oops! Sorry! I’m guilty of not reading carefully.
I specifically pointed that out.
"Notice that she is listed with others in the year 2005. Did someone really want the truth known?
I think Sister Lucia was wrong. As evidenced by the fact that some of the things she said being completely wrong. There's nothing faithful about Portugal. It is an apostate nation with Euthanasia just legalised as well as sơdơmite marriage, abortion and the lowest birthrate in the world.I still wonder about the whole impostor theory. This post makes a lot of sense though, and the bolded is especially spot-on.
You don't need a second Sister Lucia. The original one was simply dragged along with modernism like 99 percent of priests, bishops and Cardinals.
I have never met a single novus ordo Catholic using Fatima as a major excuse for not becoming a Traditionalist. And I have been in Traditionalist circles for over 4 decades and in plenty of debates between Novus Ordo and Traditionalists.
They use obedience, infallibility of councils, Lefebvre LS excommunication, that Trads are uncharitable, schismatic spirit and a few other arguments, but I have never once had Fatima weaponised.
I have only ever seen Fatima brought up as argument against sedevacantism by other Traditionalists.
I think Sister Lucia was wrong. As evidenced by the fact that some of the things she said being completely wrong. There's nothing faithful about Portugal. It is an apostate nation with Euthanasia just legalised as well as sơdơmite marriage, abortion and the lowest birthrate in the world.I disagree. That phrase is followed by an ellipsis, and we have no idea what follows. Also, the term "sempre" (always) in Portuguese, and many of the Romance languages, doesn't necessarily mean an absolute "always" ... as in until the end of time ... but more like "continually". So the phrase "will always be preserved" could easily be translated as "will continue to be preserved" ... [UNTIL] and then the Third Secret. So, the dogma of the faith will continue to be preserved ... until Vatican II. It's the opposite of how the Prots always interpret the Scriptures to deny the perpetual virginity of Our Lady where it says that she did not know man UNTIL she gave birth to her son. In that case, there's no implied "but then she did later". So different languages have different nuances with regard to continuity and sequence.
God is not the Author of confusion to His children. God is clear and open to His children. No secrets, no confusion, nothing esoteric that causes misunderstanding in His children. Only the wicked and pagans are bewildered and confounded by God's word.Some good points here. I never felt comfortable with the absolute necessity of all the bishops consecrating Russia. BTW: I’m fairly certain that Pope Pius XII did the consecration.
The whole "secrets" thing of Fatima makes the account dubious. The confusion of "Portugal the dogma of the faith will be preserved ..." makes it more dubious. Adding the "Fatima prayer" is a novelty because why wouldn't God already include it into the Rosary from day one, if it was so necessary? This makes Fatima even more dubious.
Tell me, where does St. John the Revelator mention that Russia needs to be consecrated? Catholics act like the salvation of the world and world peace hinges on Russia being consecrated. If that is true, why isn't it mentioned in the last Book of the Bible?
Now, the argument can be made that the last Book is "confusing" and "esoteric" but it's not. It's written that way because it was the only language in St. John's day that could be used to describe the future (which is now) modern world and events, and understanding of the text would be be made manifest to God's children as they approach those days.
Then why use the word always?
I didn't think Church approval of a private revelation/apparition meant it was free from error.
The whole "secrets" thing of Fatima makes the account dubious.
Then why use the word always?
Why give the world the misleading first part of a conditional prophecy that Heaven knows will not pan out?
That is indistinguishable from a false prophecy.
All Heaven needs to do is avoid mentioning Portugal altogether. Or include the word if or unless. Then there would be no room for doubt.
We are told to test prophecy but how is that possible if some is held back which entirely changes the meaning? Any false prophecy could be true if we add a fanciful unless blah blah blah to it.
Germany will win World War 2, unless...
The world will end on December 21, 2012, unless.
Not directly, but if the Church holds the apparition to genuine, then it would be problematic to attribute error to Our Lady, since God's Providence would not allow it.I don't think it needs to mean error is being attributed to Our Lady. It could be that Sister Lucia was in error in repeating Our Lady's words given she was just human.
And, of course, there's no strict obligation of faith to believe in it, but this TT is hell-bent on discrediting Sister Lucia.
Realistically speaking, at what point in history would any Pope get all the Bishops of the world to play ball and do anything?
Must be a very rare Pope that has every bishop obedient to his demands.
:facepalm:It didn't continue to keep the faith. It took a downward trajectory like all other European nations. So why single it out compared to Spain or Italy or France?
I JUST finished explaining to you the nuances of the word in the Romance languages, that it doesn't mean always in the English sense but merely a persistent activity, i.e. could be translated as "Portugal will continue to keep the faith ... [until]".
If the Virgin Mary said the Consecration of Russia is needed,That prophecy was not very difficult as it was only published after the start of World War 2.
You can go to the bank on that.
Our Lady was dead right about the start of WWII.
I’ve only noticed sedes debunking Fatima.See? TT was right. There it is again. Are you sure that TT is even sede this time?
See? TT was right. There it is again. Are you sure that TT is even sede this time?
I have noticed that Fatima divides Catholics which I find troubling.
Like Mirari Vos, I believe that Pius XII did the consecration, but not with all the bishops. Our Lady said that if her request (consecration with all bishops) wasn't heeded Russia would spread its errors (ie. ƈσmmυɳιsm) throughout the world. Aren't we seeing ƈσmmυɳιsm coming even to the US now? As a result, I believe the time for the consecration has passed. That particular ship sailed.
My friend, check the record.My friend, did you read my post? I said I believe that Pius XII consecrated Russia BUT NOT WITH ALL OF THE BISHOPS...which is what she requested. Because he did not do as she requested, there has been no era of peace and the spread of Communism is upon us. The Consecration Ship has sailed, IMO.
The promulgation of the Pius XII 1952 “consecration” was from the biggest sede source in Jєω-mєdια, Bro. Dimond.
He and his jew script writer team produced that piece of brilliant propaganda around 2007.
In that doc, he claimed, the world had it’s era of peace already, cause the “consecration” was done.
Do you believe that?
You believe we’ve had the era of peace Our Lady spoke of?
If so, you’ve been disoriented by the sedes, which is the express mission of Bro. Dimond and Jєω-boys like Jerry Matatics.
How would a Pope ever consecrate with ALL the bishops?The Pope would command all bishops who are able body (not seriously sick, hospitalized etc. - those would be excused, as God does not require the impossible) to do the consecration on the particular day and time with the pre-emptive order that all bishops who are physically able to do the consecration but do not intend to do so, are hereby excommunicated and thus no longer bishops of the Catholic Church.
The Pope would command all bishops who are able body (not seriously sick, hospitalized etc. - those would be excused, as God does not require the impossible) to do the consecration on the particular day and time with the pre-emptive order that all bishops who are physically able to do the consecration but do not intend to do so, are hereby excommunicated and thus no longer bishops of the Catholic Church.
So even if only five bishops do the consecration properly and the rest "fake it" or ignore it, then the consecration would be done as those five bishops would by ALL the bishops, the rest would have been outside the Church.
Right, and also when the Pope commands it of all the bishops, they're considered to be virtually doing it because they're under obedience to the Pope, even if some or even many of them don't actually comply. I believe the key point from Our Lady was that this should be very public so that the miracle that followed would be attributed to her and that there could be no other explanation. By contrast, Pius XII made an oblique consecration in an obscure docuмent that was probably read by a few hundred people."Because I want My WHOLE Church to recognize that consecration as a triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, etc.." Our Lord to Sr. Lucia.
Right, and also when the Pope commands it of all the bishops, they're considered to be virtually doing it because they're under obedience to the Pope, even if some or even many of them don't actually comply. I believe the key point from Our Lady was that this should be very public so that the miracle that followed would be attributed to her and that there could be no other explanation. By contrast, Pius XII made an oblique consecration in an obscure docuмent that was probably read by a few hundred people.Well put. The same applies to JPII which many Novus Ordo conservatives claim consecrated Russia. If there is debate whether Russia was consecrated, then it is unknown to the world, and not really public "so that the miracle that followed would be attributed to her and that there could be no other explanation". The consecration of Russia will be a scandal to the world. The pope, the bishops, and the Church will be made a laughing stock to the world, the mєdια will make stooges of them. Then the miraculous conversion will be totally attributed to her and known by everyone, without a doubt.
How would a Pope ever consecrate with ALL the bishops?Do you not believe that anything is possible for God? There is no such thing as an impossible task. Who are you to limit what is possible? There could come a time when God’s anger will cause the bishops to fall on their knees and beg for mercy, or completely apostatise. Then the house will be cleansed.
That is an impossible task. There are thousands of bishops. Some of them would be ill in bed, some would be awkward and refuse to do it. Some would think it was offensive to Russia. Some would not believe in Fatima. When, in the history of the Church, has any Pope had the power and respect from the Bishops to make 100% of them obey? Never.
If one or two bishop don't do it then that is not all the bishops. So it seems to me an impossible request to fulfill. There would always be an escape clause if Russia was not converted. They did not All do it.
Let's imagine the traditional bishops from Vigano to Williamson asked everybody to say 15 decades of the Rosary on one particular day. How many people attending their masses actually would? 50%, 80% perhaps but never all of them. There would always be some proportion who would not comply.
So that would mean that none of the many Bishops who were excommunicated could confer orders on priests or confirm Catholics.I have to admit that this doesn't make sense.
If there is no obligation on Catholics to believe in private revelation, which Fatima is, then I don't see how a bishop can be excommunicated for not following the demands of a private revelation.
It makes no sense that a bishop can be validly excommunicated for refusal over Fatima, but not be validly excommunicated for consecrating 4 bishops without permission.
How would a Pope ever consecrate with ALL the bishops?And, like I said above, they did not all do it and now we are seeing the results of that: Communism spreading even to the US.
That is an impossible task. There are thousands of bishops. Some of them would be ill in bed, some would be awkward and refuse to do it. Some would think it was offensive to Russia. Some would not believe in Fatima. When, in the history of the Church, has any Pope had the power and respect from the Bishops to make 100% of them obey? Never.
If one or two bishop don't do it then that is not all the bishops. So it seems to me an impossible request to fulfill. There would always be an escape clause if Russia was not converted. They did not All do it.
1.) So that would mean that none of the many Bishops who were excommunicated could confer orders on priests or confirm Catholics.1.) Since we are talking about a hypothetical future situation on what a Pope could do, then the same Pope can either replace those excommunicated bishops or in certain cases re-instate them as some of them will repent once they see the resulting Period of Peace.
2.) If there is no obligation on Catholics to believe in private revelation, which Fatima is, then I don't see how a bishop can be excommunicated for not following the demands of a private revelation.
3.)It makes no sense that a bishop can be validly excommunicated for refusal over Fatima, but not be validly excommunicated for consecrating 4 bishops without permission.
Interesting thread, a very good read, although I fail to see what difference it makes today who the real Sister Lucy was. For sure she is in Heaven with Our Dear Lady, that we all can agree, for she was promised, Heaven.I am happy that you are back.
Whoever it was that posted those who hold to the sedevacantist position debunk Fatima are mistaken, take CMRI, for example, every year they have a Fatima conference, each year beginning May 13 through Oct 13, we have a public procession in DownTown Spokane through the main park there. Banners and images of Our Lady of Fatima are constantly displayed.
Please speak not as a parrot just repeating what you hear or at least mention you don't know for sure but ................
Here is a link that proves my point https://cmri.org/?s=fatima
Justice for Sr. Lucy - Updated Videohttps://tinyurl.com/4qp35c9b (https://tinyurl.com/4qp35c9b)
Fatima also perfectly prophesies the Communist infiltration that would happen through the Kremlin's orders only decades later. Bella Dodd, Manning Johnson and others testified the Communists infiltrated national governments and even the Catholic Church. Once more, the prophetic evidence should be another clear sign of Fatima's manifest supernatural origin.
Yep, and Roncalli was the first such Communist infiltrator in the papacy. You get all this, how the Church has been infiltrated, but refuse to accept the possibility that they made it into the papacy?Well, the Church has certainly been infiltrated, but can the Papacy be infiltrated? Theologians say God can not permit a false Pope to have Universal Acceptance. Thus, at least some Bishops would have refused to recognize Pope John XXIII if he was a false Pope.
Nevertheless, the bottom line is, Our Lord did not say to His Church. "I will be with you until 1958/62/65/69" only. He promised to be with Her until the end of time. As Fr. Gleize said recently, echoing Fr. Hunter it would seem, "That the Church can be habitually deprived of Her Head is an absurdity and contrary to the promises of indefectibility", i.e. of Christ's promise to be in Her in His Spirit for all time..
The question for sedevacantists regarding Fatima is, "If most Latin-Rite Bishops aren't even Bishops now, as most sedes hold, and if there is no Pope either right now, as all sedes hold, can the Consecration of Russia even be done, and the Period of Peace finally come?"
| RadTrad Thomist (http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/) |
Cardinal Ciappi: "In the Third Secret(Fatima), it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.”Cardinal Oddi on the Third Secret:
Cardinal Oddi: "The Blessed Virgin was alerting us against apostasy in the Church."
Both of them read the Secret. Well, I'm not 100% sure about Oddi, but Ciappi certainly did.
Hmmm, an "apostasy that will BEGIN at the top". What is the "top" of the Church? What happened in 1960 (the year called out by Sister Lucia)?