Author Topic: Sister Lucy attended the Novus Ordo Mass for decades (Read 17171 times)

PerEvangelicaDicta · « **Reply #15 on:** October 10, 2014, 08:11:27 PM »

a.c., by the 'fruits of Fatima', I was referring to the concerted re-dedication of the Catholic world to an old and holy devotion. Unlike Garabandal or Medjugorje, the words recanted by the children do not indicate conflicts of Faith or questions re: the 'voice' of Our Holy Mother.

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #16 on:** October 10, 2014, 09:24:05 PM »

Quote from: awkwardcustomer

Either a fake Sister Lucy attended the Novus Ordo Mass for all those years in a Novus Ordo convent, and never once spoke out against Vatican II, or something is desperately wrong with Fatima.

Or, option #3, the odious Novus Ordo Mass, while a clear attempt by modernists to overtake the Traditional Church, is still a legitimate mass that people can attend and receive the sacrament.

Miseremini · « **Reply #17 on:** October 10, 2014, 10:43:59 PM »

Quote from: awkwardcustomer

Miseremini said,
Quote

The convent records show Lucia Santos from Fatima died May 31, 1949. If this is true, she never attended the Novus Ordo.
Also she did not have to be alive to witness the 3rd secret being revealed. Most saints never saw the result of their work.

Are you sure you're not getting mixed up with the date that Sister Lucy made her profession as a Discalced Carmelite?

I found the following on the EWTN website.
Quote

In 1946, seeking a more contemplative life, Lucia entered the Carmelite convent of St. Teresa in Coimbra, where she made her profession as a Discalced Carmelite on May 31, 1949. She took the name Sister Maria Lucia of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart.

https://www.ewtn.com/fatima/children/lucia.htm

Years ago you could go to the convent website and though written in Portugese you could see the death records for all the nuns. At the time it was all over the net that #265 was Sister Lucy. It gave here birth, town born, date of entry into the convent and her death. Each one was exactly as could be verified in any book on Fatima. Withing a year this site was taken down. I do remember printing the sheet that contained her record ( I just have to find it now.) I believe Tradition in Action mentions this site also.

EWTN is not reliable on tradition. HOWEVER for arguments sake lets say that's true.
Now wouldn't that be the perfect time to introduce a fake Sister Lucy. Think about it. No one at the new convent would know her, what she looks like or have any personal knowledge of her. They'd take her at face value. They couldn't have done that at her old convent.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #18 on:** October 10, 2014, 11:07:28 PM »

Quote from: Miseremini

Quote from: awkwardcustomer
Miseremini said,
Quote

The convent records show Lucia Santos from Fatima died May 31, 1949. If this is true, she never attended the Novus Ordo.
Also she did not have to be alive to witness the 3rd secret being revealed. Most saints never saw the result of their work.

Are you sure you're not getting mixed up with the date that Sister Lucy made her profession as a Discalced Carmelite?

I found the following on the EWTN website.
Quote

In 1946, seeking a more contemplative life, Lucia entered the Carmelite convent of St. Teresa in Coimbra, where she made her profession as a Discalced Carmelite on May 31, 1949. She took the name Sister Maria Lucia of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart.

https://www.ewtn.com/fatima/children/lucia.htm

Years ago you could go to the convent website and though written in Portugese you could see the death records for all the nuns. At the time it was all over the net that #265 was Sister Lucy. It gave here birth, town born, date of entry into the convent and her death. Each one was exactly as could be verified in any book on Fatima. Withing a year this site was taken down. I do remember printing the sheet that contained her record ( I just have to find it now.) I believe Tradition in Action mentions this site also.

EWTN is not reliable on tradition. HOWEVER for arguments sake lets say that's true.
Now wouldn't that be the perfect time to introduce a fake Sister Lucy. Think about it. No one at the new convent would know her, what she looks like or have any personal knowledge of her. They'd take her at face value. They couldn't have done that at her old convent.

So you have an actual picture of it! I saw it once, too, and it was gone. So glad someone captured it. :jumping2: Oboyoboyoboy! I wanna see! :jumping2:

stbrighidswell · « **Reply #19 on:** October 11, 2014, 01:22:44 AM »

Quote from: awkwardcustomer

PerEvangelicaDicta said,
Quote

It's one or the other, isn't it?
Either she was fake (and the heart of Roman freemasons is black as can be, and capable of anything), or - going by your initial statement a.c. - something is desperately wrong. I fear we will never know until all is revealed.
In the meantime, the fruits of Fatima are good and holy vs., for example, Medjugorje, wouldn't you say?

You've summed up my dilemma. Either a fake Sister Lucy attended the Novus Ordo Mass for all those years in a Novus Ordo convent, and never once spoke out against Vatican II, or something is desperately wrong with Fatima.

Meanwhile, what exactly are the fruits of Fatima? To me, they seem to amount to little more than an endless fretting over the Consecration of Russia and the period of peace that is supposed to follow. [/b] Didn't the real Sister Lucy quote Our Lady as saying, in the Second Secret, that,

"... In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world."

Endless fretting over a direct request from Our Lady!!! its worth fretting over.

Replacing Sr Lucy with a fake in a closed convent is not beyond difficult when you have the resources available to Freemasons. She may have been a simple peasant girl but when threatened with her life she held fast to her faith and the revelation even at such a young age. There is no way that Our Lady would pick a weak Catholic girl in the first place and think of all the graces she would have received. There is no way that she would have gone along with Vatican II.

awkwardcustomer · « **Reply #20 on:** October 11, 2014, 07:43:41 AM »

Okay, the fake Sister Lucy ......

I have only one question to ask in response to the claims that the real Sister Lucy died, on an unspecified date, and was then replaced by a fake Sister Lucy who went along with Vatican II and all its dreadful reforms.

Why bother?

I mean, why would the Vatican do this? And why would it be worth the trouble? Suppose for the sake of argument that Sister Lucy did die in, say, 1951. Why wouldn't the Roman authorities leave it at that? She had already written down the Third Secret and given it to the local bishop. What was to be gained by setting up a fake Sister Lucy? Nothing, as far as I can see.

It could be argued that a fake Sister Lucy going along with Vatican II and attending the Novus Ordo Mass every day in a Novus Ordo convent, gave Vatican II an added legitimacy. But did the Conciliarists really need this? They had almost the entire hierarchy, including the pope, supporting the Council? They didn't need a fake Sister Lucy to go along with the reforms, never criticising them, adoring JPII as she did. They had all the support they needed, and some.

The fake Sister Lucy thesis is far too difficult to pull off successfully, even for the Conciliarists. Her early death would have suited them just as well. As for those photographs. Try comparing photos of someone in their eighties with photos of that same person in their twenties.

Many Trads find it hard to believe that Sister Lucy attended the Novus Ordo Mass every day in a Novus Ordo convent. They also find it hard to believe that the the nun shown adoring JPII at the beatification ceremony for Jacinta and Franceso is the real Sister Lucy.

Well I'm sorry, but if Trads have to make up a story about a fake Sister Lucy in order to save Fatima, then what does that say about Fatima?

awkwardcustomer · « **Reply #21 on:** October 11, 2014, 08:02:03 AM »

stbrigidswell said,

Quote

Endless fretting over a direct request from Our Lady!!! its worth fretting over.

Replacing Sr Lucy with a fake in a closed convent is not beyond difficult when you have the resources available to Freemasons. She may have been a simple peasant girl but when threatened with her life she held fast to her faith and the revelation even at such a young age. There is no way that Our Lady would pick a weak Catholic girl in the first place and think of all the graces she would have received. There is no way that she would have gone along with Vatican II.

But we don't know for sure that the Consecration of Russia was a direct request from Our Lady. We only have Sister Lucy's word for it, and no-one else's, the same Sister Lucy who accepted Vatican II - in public, remember!

Was there no-one still alive in the year 2000 who had known Sister Lucy when she was growing up? Wouldn't they have seen her, either while watching the beatification ceremony for Jacinta and Francisco on television, or while attending the ceremony in person?

And did no family member or person from her village ever try to visit Sister Lucy after she had died and been replaced by a fake? Or were they all in on the plot too?

And who was this fake anyway? Does anyone have any idea who she was? Did she have childhood friends and family? Wouldn't they have recognised her as being the fake Sister lucy? Or were they also in on the plot?

That's a lot of people who either have to be silenced, or who are part of the conspiracy. I'm quite open to conspiracy theories, but this one is going too far.

OHCA · « **Reply #22 on:** October 11, 2014, 09:41:12 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Let me remind everyone, please! Catholics are not called to follow Sr. Lucy, we are called to follow Christ and His teachings, period.

Do you think Sister Lucy will be at your side when you stand before God, when He asks you, DID YOU KEEP THE FAITH?

This is the most sensible thing that I have read in this entire thread. Both sides, starting in the very first post, are putting far too much weight on what Sister Lucy did and did not do. Was Sister Lucy a pope or otherwise infallible? NO. Does anything about Fatima guarantee that Sister Lucy would never sin? NO. Did many good Catholics get duped (mainly by virtue of being "obedient") into following the conciliarists and its "popes?" YES. Is it possible that Sister Lucy was one of those good Catholics who obediently followed the path of conciliardom? YES. If so, does that make conciliardom right or acceptable? HELL NO!!!!

awkwardcustomer's initial post invited you all into proceeding as though Sister Lucy was some sort of sinless, divine, infallible persona, and y'all (laughably) fell for it. I argue with heretics all the time accusing Catholics of thinking that the saints are divine. You sound as though if it were unequivocally proven to you that Sister Lucy attended NO "masses" and "sacraments," that you would suddenly decide that conciliardom is perfectly fine. And that's what awkwardcustomer baited you for.

I don't know for sure (nor do any of you), but I expect she did and that she was who ggreg saw all giddy with JPII. But that's absolutely MEANINGLESS as an indication of whether the NO is good or not. Just like this whole thread--MEANINGLESS--not worth a $#!+ for anything.

And then somebody like Hirsch comes strolling by who has been putting sentences together and making a little sense of late, and he has a relapse and takes this Sister Lucy's actions as the golden nugget of an indicator that the NO and its sacraments are acceptable. UGH!!

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #23 on:** October 11, 2014, 10:45:39 AM »

So my Sacraments and all the times I went to NO Mass doesn't count??
Where were traditional Catholics to be "apostolic" and reach out to Catholics.
There were knocks on our door and it wasn't traditional Catholics.
There were invitations to churches not by traditional Catholics.

History shows us that there were Popes who were in error sin or herectics.

Well got to go. Going to Rosary Rally with Father Romanowski who no longer does the Vatican II
Mass but the Latin Mass. Our Lady of Fatima pray for us!!
Deo gratias!

Larry · « **Reply #24 on:** October 11, 2014, 05:00:28 PM »

Doesn't anyone think it's possible that Sister Lucy in 2000 was an old lady with dementia? Even saints can go senile. I saw the beatification ceremony when it was broadcast, I thought Lucy acted strange(I remember her waving strangely at the crowd). But the reason doesn't haven't to be that Lucy was an imposter, or that Fatima is a fraud. Maybe she was acting like what she, in fact, was- an old lady in her dotage. What was she, 90 plus years old?

awkwardcustomer · « **Reply #25 on:** October 11, 2014, 05:03:54 PM »

OHCA said,

Quote

....Both sides, starting in the very first post, are putting far too much weight on what Sister Lucy did and did not do. Was Sister Lucy a pope or otherwise infallible? NO. Does anything about Fatima guarantee that Sister Lucy would never sin? NO. Did many good Catholics get duped (mainly by virtue of being "obedient") into following the conciliarists and its "popes?" YES. Is it possible that Sister Lucy was one of those good Catholics who obediently followed the path of conciliardom? YES. If so, does that make conciliardom right or acceptable? HELL NO!!!!

awkwardcustomer's initial post invited you all into proceeding as though Sister Lucy was some sort of sinless, divine, infallible persona, and y'all (laughably) fell for it. I argue with heretics all the time accusing Catholics of thinking that the saints are divine. You sound as though if it were unequivocally proven to you that Sister Lucy attended NO "masses" and "sacraments," that you would suddenly decide that conciliardom is perfectly fine. And that's what awkwardcustomer baited you for.

I don't know for sure (nor do any of you), but I expect she did and that she was who ggreg saw all giddy with JPII. But that's absolutely MEANINGLESS as an indication of whether the NO is good or not. Just like this whole thread--MEANINGLESS--not worth a $#!+ for anything.

And then somebody like Hirsch comes strolling by who has been putting sentences together and making a little sense of late, and he has a relapse and takes this Sister Lucy's actions as the golden nugget of an indicator that the NO and its sacraments are acceptable. UGH!!

Excuse me, but I didn't bait anyone for anything. If you object to the topic of this thread and choose to declare it "MEANINGLESS" in a loud voice, and "not worth a "$#!+", then that's up to you. But I think you have misunderstood the point of this topic.

My questions were not intended to demonstrate that the Novus Ordo Mass is acceptable because Sister Lucy attended it. Most certainly not. They were intended to ask whether or not someone is worthy of belief given that they attended the Novus Ordo Mass every day for over thirty years in a Novus Ordo convent, while never once objecting the Vatican II and its reforms.

There is no suggestion here that Sister Lucy should have been entirely perfect and sinless, or needed to be in order to be believed. But the three secrets of Fatima, and more besides, are entirely dependent on the testimony of Sister Lucy and no-one else. Catholics, especially Traditionalists, put a lot of weight on her testimony and are entitled to consider her conduct in the post Vatican II years regarding the reforms introduced by the Council.

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #26 on:** October 11, 2014, 05:34:03 PM »

Quote from: OHCA

And then somebody like Hirsch comes strolling by who has been putting sentences together and making a little sense of late, and he has a relapse and takes this Sister Lucy's actions as the golden nugget of an indicator that the NO and its sacraments are acceptable. UGH!!

Bah! Everyone's throwing every wild speculation on the table except THAT ONE. As if every law of physics would prevent the Novus Ordo from being a valid Mass. Every speculation, no matter how kooky, is welcomed onto the table of this discussion except THAT ONE.

And just to clarify, I did not say that the Novus Ordo Mass is acceptable. I said it is legitimate.

I do not think the Novus Ordo Mass is acceptable. At least, not to me personally, which is why I attend Tridentine Latin Mass through my diocese. The Novus Ordo Mass should be done away with forever, and it is a clear mark of Modernism's assaults on the Church. It is likely that it is odious to God, and when I think of it, I liken it to being fed from a garbage can. You can survive, but it is a pathetic way to celebrate a Consecrated Host.

It has always been obvious that I do not like the Novus Ordo Mass, and that it should be gotten rid of, among other problems in the Church.

My guess is that Lucy was a prisoner of sorts, and probably a simple woman who didn't know any better.

ggreg · « **Reply #27 on:** October 11, 2014, 06:25:30 PM »

She also saw Hell and knew the Third Secret of Fatima. One might therefore realistically think, regardless of how simple she was, that if Fatima in anyway whatsoever suggested that the Church would lose its way, then she would have known not to go along with it

And if Fatima's third didn't warn against that, or at least imply it, then what relevance does it have to us in 2014?

Because for the last 25 years THAT is the problem we are facing? Not primarily immodest fashions or the errors of Russia, but the total abandonment of the Church's mission to teach morality and save souls.

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #28 on:** October 11, 2014, 08:27:59 PM »

Quote from: ggreg

She also saw Hell and knew the Third Secret of Fatima. One might therefore realistically think, regardless of how simple she was, that if Fatima in anyway whatsoever suggested that the Church would lose its way, then she would have known not to go along with it

And if Fatima's third didn't warn against that, or at least imply it, then what relevance does it have to us in 2014?

Because for the last 25 years THAT is the problem we are facing? Not primarily immodest fashions or the errors of Russia, but the total abandonment of the Church's mission to teach morality and save souls.

True. Common sense would have us think she surely would've seen this.

However, maybe she was dense. Many people are. The very existence of people who continue to attend Novus Ordo--in spite of being told of what it is, its nature, and its effects on the Church--the very existence of these people is a testament to the fact that people can be dense.

Or...

Another possibility is that she recognized that the Novus Ordo, while odious, is legitimate, yet she was only allowed to attend N.O. Mass.

PerEvangelicaDicta · « **Reply #29 on:** October 11, 2014, 08:54:09 PM »

Quote from: ggreg

She also saw Hell and knew the Third Secret of Fatima. One might therefore realistically think, regardless of how simple she was, that if Fatima in anyway whatsoever suggested that the Church would lose its way, then she would have known not to go along with it

And if Fatima's third didn't warn against that, or at least imply it, then what relevance does it have to us in 2014?

Because for the last 25 years THAT is the problem we are facing? Not primarily immodest fashions or the errors of Russia, but the total abandonment of the Church's mission to teach morality and save souls.

This.