Author Topic: Sister Lucy attended the Novus Ordo Mass for decades (Read 27191 times)

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #30 on:** October 11, 2014, 10:42:52 PM »

I like this discussion. Because I do not believe it was the same Sister Lucy in 2000 than
in 1949.
They were entirely two different people. And for what reason, to obscure the real
importance of the messages of our Lady of Fatima.
The modernists treat Fatima at no great importance, and now it is an ecuмenical
shrine that includes false and pagan religions.

OHCA · « **Reply #31 on:** October 12, 2014, 02:55:13 AM »

Quote from: awkwardcustomer

If Our Lady did indeed choose Sister Lucy to be her messenger - and to announce the 'miracle of the sun', the greatest public miracle since biblical times - does this mean that Our Lady approved of Sister Lucy's silence on the disaster of Vatican II? If so, should Trads also remain silent? And if not, why not?

Because she was a mere fallible sinful creature with free will, borne of, and unpreserved from, original sin and man's fallen nature.

Either Fatima must be false, or we, at least by default, should fall in line and accept the bastardized "mass" and "sacraments?" Not true.

But if Fatima is true and conciliardom is despicable in His eyes, then why would God have let His instrument for the Fatima message to march into conciliardom? I claim not to know the mind of the Lord, nor to have counseled Him.

I am bit of a skeptic about Fatima, too. But the tenor set by the title and initial post is that if Fatima is true, then there's no conceivable reason that Lucy shouldn't be followed into the NO. That, in turn, elicited responses dealing with Lucy-gate (a/k/a fake Lucy) and dribble about how the real Lucy would never have participated in conciliardom.

The implication is that if Lucy is this saint-like figure, then she should be followed into conciliardom. I would sooner follow Padre Pio, Archbishop Fulton Sheen, etc. other "good" priests and bishops into conciliardom. But I recognize that all of these people are mere fallible mortals of free will and sinful nature, and do not find the example of any human being strong enough to take me down that path.

OHCA · « **Reply #32 on:** October 12, 2014, 03:04:26 AM »

Quote from: Viva Cristo Rey

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.

As to your reference to the NO "sacraments" and "mass," I ultimately found the fullness of the Faith and true Catholicism. I can't help but think that I would have been much less likely to have done so away from conciliardom (the only Catholicism that I knew at the time).

But now that I realize the doubtfulness of the NO "mass and "sacraments" and that the NO is exponentially more sacrilegious than I had known before, it would be a grave sin for me to return.

ggreg · « **Reply #33 on:** October 12, 2014, 03:22:50 AM »

Quote from: OHCA

Quote from: awkwardcustomer
If Our Lady did indeed choose Sister Lucy to be her messenger - and to announce the 'miracle of the sun', the greatest public miracle since biblical times - does this mean that Our Lady approved of Sister Lucy's silence on the disaster of Vatican II? If so, should Trads also remain silent? And if not, why not?

Because she was a mere fallible sinful creature with free will, borne of, and unpreserved from, original sin and man's fallen nature.

Either Fatima must be false, or we, at least by default, should fall in line and accept the bastardized "mass" and "sacraments?" Not true.

But if Fatima is true and conciliardom is despicable in His eyes, then why would God have let His instrument for the Fatima message to march into conciliardom? I claim not to know the mind of the Lord, nor to have counseled Him.

I am bit of a skeptic about Fatima, too. But the tenor set by the title and initial post is that if Fatima is true, then there's no conceivable reason that Lucy shouldn't be followed into the NO. That, in turn, elicited responses dealing with Lucy-gate (a/k/a fake Lucy) and dribble about how the real Lucy would never have participated in conciliardom.

The implication is that if Lucy is this saint-like figure, then she should be followed into conciliardom. I would sooner follow Padre Pio, Archbishop Fulton Sheen, etc. other "good" priests and bishops into conciliardom. But I recognize that all of these people are mere fallible mortals of free will and sinful nature, and do not find the example of any human being strong enough to take me down that path.

Why not just choose someone stubborn and with a visceral dislike of fαɢɢօtry and hand-wringing modernist bullshit, like me? I am sure in the Global population they could find someone like this.

Imagine if Sister Lucia had joined Marcel Lefebvre in 1973. Or written to the Media about the critical deadline in 1961 and the earth-shaking implications of the Pope's disobedience. That would have caused a HUGE focus on the problem.

awkwardcustomer · « **Reply #34 on:** October 12, 2014, 07:51:48 AM »

OHCA said,

Quote

Because she [Sister Lucy] was a mere fallible sinful creature with free will, borne of, and unpreserved from, original sin and man's fallen nature.

Either Fatima must be false, or we, at least by default, should fall in line and accept the bastardized "mass" and "sacraments?" Not true.......

.... The implication is that if Lucy is this saint-like figure, then she should be followed into conciliardom.....

Do people have to be saints to recognise the errors of Vatican II? I'm not a saint. Are you? And yet we both recognise Vatican II for what it is. Aren't all Traditionalists "fallible sinful creature with free will, borne of, and unpreserved from, original sin and man's fallen nature"?

Traditionalists, who are not saints, reject Vatican II. Sister Lucy, who is not a saint either, accepted Vatican II by attending the Novus Ordo Mass every day in a Novus Ordo convent and never speaking out against the Council. Surely that is ample reason for Traditionalists to question Sister Lucy.

Your whole argument here seems to be based on Sister Lucy not being saint-like enough to reject Vatican II, that she was a fallible human being, like the rest of us, and that we shouldn't expect sinless perfection from her. In my twenty years in the Church, I've never met a Traditionalist who claimed to be a saint. But from what I've observed and studied, Traditionalists can at least claim to have enough Catholic sense, Catholic common sense, to recognise Vatican II for what it is.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Sister Lucy. I wouldn't expect Sister Lucy to demonstrate saint-like perfection. But I would hope that she could at least have displayed the kind of Catholic common sense that Traditionalists display by rejecting Vatican II and all its errors.

And yes, Sister Lucy's behaviour does make me question Fatima. The veracity, or otherwise, of the three secrets depends entirely on the testimony of Sister Lucy, and no-one else. Why should I believe the words of someone who spent over thirty years as a Novus Ordo nun?

You also said,

Quote

..... But if Fatima is true and conciliardom is despicable in His eyes, then why would God have let His instrument for the Fatima message to march into conciliardom? I claim not to know the mind of the Lord, nor to have counseled Him......

My problem is that I find it almost impossible to believe that God would have let His instrument march into conciliardom. Therefore my logic tells me that Sister Lucy cannot have been God's instrument. I could be wrong, of course. But I cannot reconcile Sister Lucy being God's instrument with her embracing of conciliardom.

ggreg said,

Quote

Imagine if Sister Lucia had joined Marcel Lefebvre in 1973. Or written to the Media about the critical deadline in 1961 and the earth-shaking implications of the Pope's disobedience. That would have caused a HUGE focus on the problem.

Exactly. Just imagine if Sister Lucy had walked out of her Novus Ordo convent and joined Archbishop Lefebvre. What a message that would have sent.

Alas, she didn't.