Author Topic: Sister Lucy attended the Novus Ordo Mass for decades (Read 17181 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.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #35 on:** October 12, 2014, 08:27:24 AM »

Dear awkward, if you don't believe in Fatima, that is your choice, most here do believe in the message of Fatima and it does have Church approval, although the apparition was never declared dogma. Yet, the message of Fatima is Biblical. Penance, amendment of life, and prayer, is that what you object too?

Many of the apostles did not agree about things, read the book of Acts. Things that were not dogma, yet they all served God, with the exception of Judas, but then he was replaced. Proving no one is indispensable.

What difference does it really make, when Sister Lucy died, she, Sister Lucy has gone to her eternity, she has been judged and rewarded, so why are you even here putting doubt in the minds of those who are trying to live their Faith by obeying the message of Fatima?

What is your real point? I wonder!

Quote

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.

Why not, she was human, as long as she kept the Faith. There was a time when most of us embraced conciliarism, but we kept the Faith, and God brought us out of it with His grace. His timing is most perfect for all of us. Sister Lucy died in His grace that I am sure of.

2Vermont · « **Reply #36 on:** October 12, 2014, 09:12:41 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Dear awkward, if you don't believe in Fatima, that is your choice, most here do believe in the message of Fatima and it does have Church approval, although the apparition was never declared dogma. Yet, the message of Fatima is Biblical. Penance, amendment of life, and prayer, is that what you object too?

Many of the apostles did not agree about things, read the book of Acts. Things that were not dogma, yet they all served God, with the exception of Judas, but then he was replaced. Proving no one is indispensable.

What difference does it really make, when Sister Lucy died, she, Sister Lucy has gone to her eternity, she has been judged and rewarded, so why are you even here putting doubt in the minds of those who are trying to live their Faith by obeying the message of Fatima?

What is your real point? I wonder!

Quote
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.

Why not, she was human, as long as she kept the Faith. There was a time when most of us embraced conciliarism, but we kept the Faith, and God brought us out of it with His grace. His timing is most perfect for all of us. Sister Lucy died in His grace that I am sure of.

This made me think of St Vincent Ferrer. God allowed him to follow an anti-pope for a time and still made him a saint.

ggreg · « **Reply #37 on:** October 12, 2014, 10:02:35 AM »

Did st. Vincent Ferrer die following an anti-pope?

2Vermont · « **Reply #38 on:** October 12, 2014, 10:11:04 AM »

Quote from: ggreg

Did st. Vincent Ferrer die following an anti-pope?

No. Do we know the mind of Sister Lucia when she died?

OHCA · « **Reply #39 on:** October 12, 2014, 10:23:48 AM »

Quote from: awkwardcustomer

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.

The notion of your thread, "If Fatima is real; and if Sister Lucy followed then NO; then we too should follow the NO," attributes to such an instrument of the Lord used at Fatima as being God-like, omniscient, sinless, and infallible. I used the term saint-like as a rough summary. But this even goes beyond saint-like.

The whole notion that you posit is that if Fatima is real, then Sister would not have, or could not have, marched into conciliardom if doing so was wrong. This does not follow. But why would God have let it play out like this?

Consider Romans 11:33-34

[33] O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are His judgments, and how unsearchable His ways! [34] For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been His counsellor?

2Vermont · « **Reply #40 on:** October 12, 2014, 10:26:21 AM »

Quote from: OHCA

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!!

Thank you.

Some folks put way too much into private revelations anyway. This thread is a good reason why I try not to get too involved with them.

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #41 on:** October 12, 2014, 12:06:54 PM »

If I saw real Hell and souls falling into it, I would be the most sinless person alive.
And I was thinking of Sister Lucy. If I knew the contents of the Third Secret, I
would be the most sinless person alive, and I am thinking about Sister Lucy.

OHCA · « **Reply #42 on:** October 12, 2014, 12:46:49 PM »

Quote from: RomanCatholic1953

If I saw real Hell and souls falling into it, I would be the most sinless person alive.
And I was thinking of Sister Lucy. If I knew the contents of the Third Secret, I
would be the most sinless person alive, and I am thinking about Sister Lucy.

Then if you were deluded into thinking conciliarist "popes" have been true popes and that being separated from them meant being separated from the true Church, then you would have been skipping down the aisle with Sister Lucy. That's how I was born and came of age in conciliardom.

awkwardcustomer · « **Reply #43 on:** October 12, 2014, 12:50:59 PM »

MyrnaM said,

Quote

Dear awkward, if you don't believe in Fatima, that is your choice, most here do believe in the message of Fatima and it does have Church approval, although the apparition was never declared dogma. Yet, the message of Fatima is Biblical. Penance, amendment of life, and prayer, is that what you object too?

Many of the apostles did not agree about things, read the book of Acts. Things that were not dogma, yet they all served God, with the exception of Judas, but then he was replaced. Proving no one is indispensable.

What difference does it really make, when Sister Lucy died, she, Sister Lucy has gone to her eternity, she has been judged and rewarded, so why are you even here putting doubt in the minds of those who are trying to live their Faith by obeying the message of Fatima?

What is your real point? I wonder!

How could I object to the Catholic parts of the Fatima message? Why would you imply that I would? And is your reference to Judas meant to suggest something about me? What is your real point, I wonder!

Did Catholics in 1917 need a 'miracle of the sun' to remind them of the need for penance, amendment of life and prayer? Perhaps they did. Do Catholics still need this 'miracle' to remind them of this? Perhaps they do. If so, then fine. The Catholic parts of the Fatima message are not the issue here.

The problem is that most Catholics today have succuмbed to Vatican II, despite the Fatima message. And judging by appearances, so did Sister Lucy, who announced the 'miracle of the sun'. I find that perplexing to say the least. What's more, many more Catholics have abandoned the Faith altogether, again despite the Fatima message.

But surely the main point of the Fatima message is not the Catholic part. It is the Secret, particularly parts two and three. According to Sister Lucy, Our Lady said in part two:

Quote

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

Do you believe this is going to happen? Many Traditionalists do - I've met them. How many hours, days, months, years have Traditionalists spent anticipating the consecration of Russia, praying for it, expecting it to happen only to be disappointed yet again? How many conferences have been held, apostolates been formed, articles been written, all on the subject of whether or not Russia has actually been consecrated, when it will be, which pope will do it?

As for part three of the Secret - how much time have Traditionalists spent agonising over whether or not it has actually been revealed? How many books have been published claiming Vatican cօռspιʀαcιҽs? I have one in my possession, by Christopher Ferrara, titled 'The Secret: Still Hidden'.

This is the part of the Fatima message that I question.

As for your accusation that I am "putting doubt in the minds of those who are trying to live their Faith by obeying the message of Fatima" - penance, amendment of life and prayer are Catholic and their practice does not depend on Fatima.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #44 on:** October 12, 2014, 02:42:36 PM »

Firstly I am shocked that you thought the Judas reference was meant for you. I only mentioned his name because if I didn't someone would come along to correct me, for saying they "ALL" served God.

Quote

The problem is that most Catholics today have succuмbed to Vatican II, despite the Fatima message. And judging by appearances, so did Sister Lucy, who announced the 'miracle of the sun'. I find that perplexing to say the least. What's more, many more Catholics have abandoned the Faith altogether, again despite the Fatima message.

I find that perplexing to say the least. What's more, many more Catholics have abandoned the Faith altogether, again despite the Fatima message.

So, most Israelites succuмbed to the old covenant even after Jesus proved He was the Messiah.

Quote

..... In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she shall be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.
Do you believe this is going to happen?

Did it ever occur to you that maybe its not the end yet... at least not the end in the eyes of God. It only makes sense that in the end SHE WILL REIGN. With or without Fatima.

Who put you in charge of when the end will be? Why worry about it, your end will come when you die, as mine will. We are called to think of that, till then pray for your loved ones. As the Bible says, "Watch and Pray".

I suggest your write to Christopher Ferrara for answers, since he is the one who wrote your book that you put so much faith in.