Author Topic: Tragic Disappearance of the Real Sister Lucy dos Santos Foretold (Read 1341 times)

Mark 79 · « **on:** September 27, 2019, 09:19:26 PM »

Tragic Disappearance of the Real Sister Lucy dos Santos Foretold
http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2019/09/tragic-disappearance-of-real-sister.html

An excerpt:

…The Death of Francisco and Jacinta and Our Lady’s Warning about Lucy
After Francisco died on April 4th, 1919 from the Spanish flu, Jacinta fell ill also. What I have found to be truly telling and extraordinary is the prophecy which Jacinta made before here death that speaks to us even now, especially now. Just before her death, Jacinta received two messages from the Blessed Virgin Mary, that she entrusted to Fr. Formigao. The second said that, “Portugal would suffer a terrible cataclysm of the social order” in which sinful Lisbon would “become a real image of hell.” Of course, in the 16 years following the Masonic Republican revolution there were 16 violent revolutions and 40 changes of government. Most of the violence was between Freemasons and Communists.

It is the first prophecy COMING FROM THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY HERSELF AND ENTRUSTED AT THE CRITICAL TIME BEFORE DEATH TO JACINTA HERSELF. THIS PROPHACY OF OUR LADY TO JACINTA WAS CONVEYED BY FR. FORMIGAO TO LUCY HERSELF. THE MESSAGE WAS A “WARNING OF THE GRAVE DANGERS THAT THREATED LUCY” BOTH AT THAT TIME AND IN THE FUTURE.…

Alan · « **Reply #1 on:** September 27, 2019, 11:57:12 PM »

Very interesting and explains a lot. Do you think the Sr Lucy that appeared in 1984 is fake??

Incredulous · « **Reply #2 on:** September 28, 2019, 08:53:31 AM »

Quote from: Alan on September 27, 2019, 11:57:12 PM

Very interesting and explains a lot. Do you think the Sr Lucy that appeared in 1984 is fake??

Around the time Tradition In Action broke the story of Lucy, the imposter, or "Two Sr. Lucy's", they had done several other background and cross-checks.

Sister Lucia's Carmelite convent had actually transcribed the convent death records and placed it online..
I believe it was referenced to her family surname and that she died in 1949.
But we know Sister Lucy had an interview with Father Fuentes in 1957, where she gave him her dire warnings of a Church leaders gone astray. So, it would seem she may have died in 1959 and the death record was just altered to throw any inquisitors off the trail of her end.

TIA did not claim that Sister Lucy was murdered.
They did not know, but suggested that secretly trasferring her to another location, if often the "Roman way".

But Sister Lucy was too important of a figure not to be martyred (murdered) and an imposter brought forward to misrepresent her.

So, I speculate, what would they do with her body?
Stick it in a grave and change the death date... possibly?
It would seem the Carmelite's grave-site will need to be visited and the body exhumed one day.

Here's is a related exchange on the subject from TIA.

Sr. Lucy’s Death

TIA,

I read your info:

“Entry 265 lists the correct birth and profession dates of Lucia dos Santos: she was born March 22, 1907 in Fatima, and took her first vows as a Sister of St. Dorothy on October 3, 1928. It is difficult to understand why the official archival docuмents would list her as deceased on May 31, 1949. Perhaps it is because she really died at that time, and another person, who died in 2005, took her place.”

I was wondering how do you explain that #265 death info via the Discalced Carmelites site that she died in 1949. Have you looked into this? Do you continue to believe that she lived beyond that time frame?

Thank you.

A.S.
______________________

TIA responds:

A.S.,

Many things in the life of Sr. Lucy are mysteries. One is this information about her death. Was this datum real? Was it just a mistake?

If true, how can one explain the many good statements Sr. Lucy made after that, for instance, the things she told Fr. Augustin Fuentes in her last interview with him in 1957? Should we suppose another fake Sr. Lucy already existed at that time? Why would an impostor warn Catholics to not trust Rome, the Bishops and the priests? Why did the Hierarchy punish Fr. Fuentes for disseminating that interview with Sr. Lucy if she were a fake?

We do not have clear answers to these questions. We believe that when we are facing a mystery, the best thing to do is to be humble and acknowledge that we do not know, rather than take one of these data as certain and, based upon it, elaborate theories that would not hold up to criticism.

Thus, what we do at TIA is to assemble the data that exist, even when some facts seem to be contradictory, and continue our fight in peace. One day, after all the confusion that fell over the Church with the present day apostasy will be over, we hope that light will come on the mysteries surrounding Sr. Lucy,

In brief, to answer straightforwardly your question – Do you continue to believe that she lived beyond that time frame (1949)? – we would say:

We do not know with certainty whether she died in that year or not; but it seems probable that she did not and was at least alive up until the mentioned interview with Fr. Augustin Fuentes in 1957.

Cordially,

TIA correspondence desk

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** September 28, 2019, 09:29:15 AM »

My feeling is that Our Lady would certainly have spared Sister Lucy from the ravages of Vatican II, of being stuck in a convent and forced to assist at the New Mass. My feeling is that she passed away in the early 1960s. She stated that the Third Secret needed to be revealed by 1960 at the latest ... because it would be "much clearer then". So there's something about the state of the Church in the late 1950s in the Third Secret. What happened in the late 1950s? Well, the imposition of Roncalli on the Holy See. My money is on the fact that the Third Secret had to do with the Jєω/Mason/Communists taking over the Holy See and implanting one of their agents. Roncalli's close ties with the Communists are well docuмented. And one of the central themes in the messages of Our Lady of Fatima had to do with the "errors of Russia". In 1958, these "errors of Russia" (Judaeo-Masonic atheism) concretely found their way into the Church. Montini was also famous for his Communist ties, including the incident where he ratted out a couple of Iron Curtain secret bishops to the Communists, resulting in those bishops being executed. Then there was Wojtyla, who has been accused of being a collaborator with the Communists, a so-called "Peace Priest". While Cardinal Wyszynski was under house arrest by the Communists, Wojtyla was on a world lecture tour speaking about phenomenology. If Wojtyla was any kind of threat to them, he too would have been under close surveillance ... if not under arrest. Bergoglio sounds like a straight-out liberation theology Marxist. This is what I felt Our Lady came to warn about regarding the "errors of Russia", not so much about Communism as a political threat, but about how they were going to infiltrate the Church. Furthermore, the reports around the Cardinal Siri situation are that their agent Tisserant relayed threats from the Communists (to execute Iron Curtain bishops and nuke the Vatican) if he didn't step down. People who read the Third Secret have said that it refers to an apostasy in the Church "from the top down". Putting all these dots together creates a very coherent picture of what has transpired here

It's no accident that the chief doctrines of Vatican II are around Liberty (religious liberty), Equality (priesthood of the faithful, collegiality), and Fraternity (collegiality, non-Catholics are our separated brethren). Vatican II clearly tried to create an "Egalitarian" concept of the Church that lines up closely with the Masonic platform.

So by the time Roncalli was inserted into the Vatican, since the agents had taken over, it was no longer possible, naturally-speaking, to have the Secret revealed ... since the Communist infiltrators about who it warned took control of the Secret. Once this was the case, Sister Lucy's mission was over ... and God called her home. There was something so horrible in this Third Secret that Sister Lucy couldn't physically bring herself to write it down; she became violently ill in the face of doing it. What could be more horrible than what has happened to the Church, the complete takeover of the Church at the highest levels by the Church's enemies.

Pope Leo XIII's original prayer to St. Michael, composed after he had the vision of Satan taking over the Church, he wrote about their plan to replace the See of Holy Peter with the "throne of their abominable impiety" with the intent of bringing down the papacy and scattering the sheep: "These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where the See of Holy Peter and the Chair of Truth has been set up as the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered."

People need to snap out of their "R&R" this and "these V2 papal claimants are heretics" nonsense, and realize that it's FAR WORSE than any of that. It's obvious that the Church has been taken over by her enemies, and infiltrators have bee planted on the Holy See. Heresy doesn't even apply here. That's like saying an atheistic Jєωιѕн infiltrator of the papacy is a "heretic"; the term is meaningless in this scenario.

Incredulous · « **Reply #4 on:** September 28, 2019, 09:57:49 AM »

I'm not endorsing the Dimond brothers, but they posted an interesting excerpt from a letter they claim to have received about 13 years ago: A ordered assassination does seem to fit the general Freemasonic MO against Catholic leaders.

"... but a few years back we received a very disturbing letter. We received a letter from a woman (a traditional Catholic convert) whose family was involved in the higher-echelons of the Illuminati and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. We also spoke to this woman both before and after she sent it. There was much more in the letter and in the telephone conversations that added context and credability to her claim, but we can only give a portion of the letter below. As hard as this may be to believe, we really did receive the following letter and speak at length with this woman (she asked that we withhold her name for obvious reasons):

“Dear Brothers of Holy Family Monastery… As I told you on the phone I have some very dark relatives…[a world famous Freemason] is the brother of [x- name removed to preserve anonymity of author] who was married to my Grand Aunt. All of my relatives on my mother’s side were 33rd degree Illuminati Freemasons. My Grandparents were in Eastern Star… I know I must sound like a screaming weirdo by now. I am not… When I was five my Mother hosted a gathering. There are many things that went on that are too gruesome to put in print about these gatherings. They are basically sacrificing to satan to put it briefly. I had a new baby brother named
… My mother didn’t know ahead of time [that x] was to be part of the ‘ceremonies’. They were going to put him in what looked like a large brass wok [and torture him] in order to tell the future. …[thankfully, this didn’t happen because of intervening events]… [But] One of the things that was said that awful day was they had just killed sister Lucy (I thought they were talking about a sister I didn’t know I had that they had killed). When I asked they said ‘No stupid…she’s a nun’ It only made sense years later what this meant. It was 1958, late Oct when this happened. . I know that I sound like a mad woman but it is the truth…” [/i][/color]

We have spoken with this woman at length; she is a traditional Catholic convert, and we believe that she is telling the truth. But regardless of whether one accepts this testimony or not, the fact is that there was an impostor Sr. Lucy. There is no doubt about this; the evidence is undeniable. The Vatican conveniently kept her alive until 97 years old, until it had revealed the phony third secret and she had finished playing her part, then a few years later she “died” and her cell was ordered sealed by “Cardinal” Ratzinger.

Link

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** September 28, 2019, 10:23:51 AM »

Interesting. What else happened in October of 1958?

Oh, yes, that was the "election" of Roncalli. One of their first acts was likely to silence Sister Lucy, who knew the Third Secret, that it had to do with a Communist Masonic agent being installed on the See of Peter.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** September 28, 2019, 10:35:47 AM »

We're sitting here quibbling about sede-this and sede-that, while the Masons laugh. Sede-anything-ism doesn't even apply when you have conscious deliberate infiltrating agents in the See.

"Cardinal" Angelo Roncalli a.k.a Anti-Pope John XXIII, was a Docuмented Freemason
(Angelo Roncalli [with hand on right knee] seated next to his "confidant," Edouard Herriot, Secretary of the Radical Socialists
whom he (Roncalli) hosted, along with other officials of the Masonic "Fourth Republic" of France, in 1953)

Cera · « **Reply #7 on:** September 28, 2019, 11:10:54 AM »

Quote from: Incredulous on September 28, 2019, 08:53:31 AM

TIA correspondence desk

Most Holy Family Monastery charges that TIA stole their research and slapped their name on it.

“Two Sister Lucys of Fatima” - We were the first organization to come out with the facts that there was an impostor Sr. Lucy.

We were definitely the first organization to come out with the facts that there was an impostor Sr. Lucy. We had been referring to the false Sr. Lucy as an impostor for years on our website, and publicly stated that the Vatican’s Lucy is an impostor in issue #5 of our magazine, which was published years ago. Our recent article was simply the detailed treatment containing all the facts and points about an issue we’d been saying things about for years.

While the website to which you refer says that they haven’t yet “read” our analysis – that’s an interesting way of putting it considering that one can get the gist of what was being said without “reading” the entire thing but by looking quickly at the pictures – they didn’t deny that they were familiar with the article or that their idea to publish their own article came after hearing about or browsing through our exposé. It’s almost certain that they were familiar with our article because a website which links to their articles and our articles had a major link with pictures to our treatment of the issue. They may have browsed it without “reading” the entire thing. And once they saw that this idea was now circulating due to our having “broken the story,” they then had the courage to do their own article seeing that others were already beginning to accept the idea on a wide scale. That’s a key point: many people who don’t love God first and don’t stand for the truth will come out with things – even things they may have privately known were true for some time – only once the idea has already gained some popular support thanks to the stand of others, so that they can latch on to the now-popular bandwagon.
For until very recently the website to which you refer was one of the promoters of the false idea that the phony Lucy was the true Lucy, consistently referring to her as Sr. Lucy without ever issuing a clarification. What changed in the past few months that they suddenly “discovered” this possibility? In our opinion, it was obviously the publication of our article and the popular support for the idea that resulted from it in traditionalist circles.

For more details and video:
https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholic/two-sister-lucys-traditioninaction/

Incredulous · « **Reply #8 on:** September 28, 2019, 11:24:46 AM »

Quote from: Cera on September 28, 2019, 11:10:54 AM

Most Holy Family Monastery charges that TIA stole their research and slapped their name on it.

The "research" started in 2006 when Dr. Marian Horvat questioned a photo by Inside the Vatican claiming to be a young Sister Lucy. After repeated unanswered letters to the publisher, Dr. Horvat decided to dig deeper.

"Sister Lucy as a young nun"
Inside the Vatican, March 2006

Having recently carefully examined these pictures of Sister Lucy, I was truly taken aback to see a photo representing Sister Lucy published in the March 2006 issue of Inside the Vatican. The caption reads, “Here, a rare photo of her as a young nun.”

This nun is dressed in a Carmelite habit; therefore, she would have to be at the very least 41-years-old since Sister Lucy only entered the Carmel in 1948 at age 41. My inquiry to Inside the Vatican about the exact age of Sister Lucy in this photo still has not received a response. Therefore, one can suppose that she is in her 40s.

Making a close inspection of this photograph, however, one does not find the same features of the Sister Lucy I pointed out above.

I invite my reader to make a comparison of the photos with me. For the sake of precision, permit me to call the person in the set of earlier photos Sister Lucy I, and the person shown at left in the Inside the Vatican picture and later photos Sister Lucy II.

In the first set of pictures to be compared below, the faces are serious. In the next set further down below, they are smiling.

Sister Lucy I, in her early 40s Sister Lucy II, in her 40s or early 50s

The first point that catches one’s attention is the difference of age of both persons. At left above Sister Lucy I is at an age that cannot be older than 41. At right above is Sister Lucy II, at an age that cannot be younger than 41. However, the person on the left looks much older than the one on the right. It is difficult to imagine that with a few years of difference, the suffering somber face of the Dorothean Sister at left could have changed into the cheerful, positive countenance of the young Carmelite at right.

But the age is not the only point of discrepancy.

Analyzing the faces, one can see that Sister Lucy I has an oval face with high cheekbones and a concave chin; Sister Lucy II has a squarer face and jaw.
The lips of Sister Lucy I are thick and generous; the lips of Sister Lucy II are very thin and tight.
When Sister Lucy I smiles, below left, one can see that the mouth forms the shape of a U with the edges pointing upward. When Sister Lucy II smiles, the edges of the lips point downward in the shape of an upside-down U.
The nose of Sister Lucy I is broad. The nose of Sister Lucy II is longer and more narrow, with a rounding curve that turns under at its tip forming a lobe, as can be seen above right.
Sister Lucy I has small eyes that normally squint. Very little of the white of the eyes appears. Sister Lucy II has large, bulging eyes with a good amount of white appearing.
The eyebrows of Sister Lucy I are straight and very heavy from one end to the other, coming together closely in the middle of her forehead. Sister Lucy II has lighter arched eyebrows that taper off in width at the ends. It is clear that there is a large space over her nose without any eyebrows. This notorious difference between the brows of the two persons is slightly disguised by the use of large glasses.

When Sister Lucy I smiles her mouth forms a U. When Sister Lucy II smiles her mouth forms an inverted U

These are the physical features that, as far as I can judge, are different in the two persons.

The appearance of glasses on Sister Lucy II also raises a question. The glasses of Sister Lucy II seem to have thick lenses, which speaks of nearsightedness. However, Sister Lucy I never appeared with glasses up to her 40s. It is worth considering that most serious cases of nearsightedness show up before this age. Furthermore, if one observes the pictures of the down-to-earth peasant family of Sister Lucy I, there is no one using eyeglasses. It would not seem to be a problem that runs in the family.

One could also consider the postures and gestures of the two Lucys. Sister Lucy I stands in a collected way, her hands in a discrete gesture. Her posture and demeanor are quite composed, as befitting a religious woman.

The pose of Sister Lucy II as a young nun is in many senses different. She rests her face on her hand as if she were in a classroom listening to a lecture. Her somewhat artificial air catches one’s attention. Her wrists are deliberately showing, as well as a small bit of her hair at the top and side of the habit, more in keeping with the manner of a progressivist nun, clashing with the extreme discretion of Sister Lucy I.

Sister Lucy II’s glasses are very modern in style for a nun of the 1950s. One can certainly say that it reflects a person sensitive to the appeals of fashion. Again, an attitude foreign to Sister Lucy I.

These are the comparisons I would like to offer to my reader. My conclusion is simple: the face, the features, the gestures, and the spirit of the two Sister Lucys are dissimilar. It would seem, then, that we are looking at two different persons.

If this is true, we would have been duped by some impostor who was presented as the authentic witness of the visions of Our Lady.

In this case, some hypothetical questions arise. What happened to the true Sister Lucy? When was the replacement made? And more importantly, why was such an exchange necessary?

Perhaps if we ask the classical question – Qui bono? [Who benefits?] – the answer emerges. The retirement of Sister Lucy I and introduction of Sister Lucy II before 1960, the year the secret was to have been revealed, would prevent the true witness from telling the world the full content of the Third Secret. This could only have been to the benefit of the progressivist wing that is dominating the Church in our days.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #9 on:** September 28, 2019, 01:16:54 PM »

Quote from: Cera on September 28, 2019, 11:10:54 AM

Most Holy Family Monastery charges that TIA stole their research and slapped their name on it.

Who cares? Don't ruin another thread with your anti-TIA/TFP rants. I'm interested in the facts, and I don't care who uncovers it and who "stole" what from whom. There are also about a dozen websites that have reported on the Cardinal Siri election.

Croixalist · « **Reply #10 on:** September 28, 2019, 02:04:38 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on September 28, 2019, 01:16:54 PM

Who cares? Don't ruin another thread with your anti-TIA/TFP rants. I'm interested in the facts, and I don't care who uncovers it and who "stole" what from whom. There are also about a dozen websites that have reported on the Cardinal Siri election.

TIA deserves all the criticism it gets. as it rode in on the coattails of SSPX traditional Catholicism, and the Our Lady of Good Success devotion. They have some very good writings to be found, it's not all terrible, but the asterisk has been earned unfortunately. I will say that in Horvat's case it is interesting that it was a simple misidentified sister that started her investigation, though it eventually led to a closer scrutiny of the actual modern Lucy versus the pre-1960 Lucy version.

To be fair, before anyone is tempted to grant too much sympathy for the Devil in regards to the MHFM, whose self-proclaimed Benedictine monks, suspicious circuмstances surrounding the death of Joe Natale (himself questionable) and complete takeover of the HFM by a junior monk who had no superior and no solemn vows, all combine to form a highly problematic foundation. They too have many solid articles attacking everything VII, but their poison is never far away. I still find it amazing how anyone can take them seriously after they held onto their JPII was the Antichrist long after he was dead and buried (not slain by St. Michael and not sent bodily into Hell). But wherever there is desperation, there will be excuses for everything and anything. I have learned over time there is no stopping a certain level of fraud and infiltration no matter where you end up.

Although I do find many aspects to this theory regarding the two Lucys compelling and worthy of more research, I think we would also be well advised not to pin too much hope on any one seer having all the answers to this Crisis of all Crises. Even if it was the same Lucy (and I say that with considerable reservations), it could never discount the original visions or the messages contained therein. I have similar issues with how the seers of La Salette lived out the rest of their lives, but it does not serve to discount the original message. It might be enough to discount Calvat's later expanded edition, but the first holds as far as I'm concerned. If only they were all St. Bernadettes, St. Catherine Labourés, or Mother Marianas...

Mark 79 · « **Reply #11 on:** September 28, 2019, 05:34:01 PM »

Quote from: Alan on September 27, 2019, 11:57:12 PM

Very interesting and explains a lot. Do you think the Sr Lucy that appeared in 1984 is fake??

Yes, to a moral and scientific certainty.

Mark 79 · « **Reply #12 on:** September 28, 2019, 05:40:18 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on September 28, 2019, 09:29:15 AM

My feeling is that ….

I agree on all your points.

Texana · « **Reply #13 on:** September 29, 2019, 12:06:29 PM »

Want scientific analysis and proof that Sr Lucy dos Santos of Fatima was replaced by an imposter?: https://sisterlucyimposter.org/an-indictment/

https://www.facebook.com/Sister-Lucy-Truth-117864292938071/

https://radttradthomist.me/search?q=sister+lucy+truth+evidence

Dr. Chojnowski is a Catholic Hero! Stop wandering in a circle--it is much worse than you think! Sister Lucy Truth offers many answers to your questions.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #14 on:** September 30, 2019, 10:00:36 PM »

Don’t you agree that it is better to say that the Church was eclipsed by the enemies of Christ, rather than saying that the Church was taken over or corrupted? Because the Church is the spotless Bride of Christ, it cannot be corrupted nor ever fail. If you only consider those members of the Church’s hierarchy who have remained faithful then you can see that the Church continues to be holy and produces good fruits. It’s only when you include heretics in the hierarchy that you will start thinking the Church is corrupted. Yes members of the hierarchy do sin also but they don’t lead people to hell with officially promulgated doctrine. Re-read the Pope Leo quote above while holding this thought of eclipse in your mind. It makes more sense to me at least. Maybe you will agree?

Author Topic: Tragic Disappearance of the Real Sister Lucy dos Santos Foretold (Read 1341 times)

Mark 79

Tragic Disappearance of the Real Sister Lucy dos Santos Foretold

Alan

Re: Tragic Disappearance of the Real Sister Lucy dos Santos Foretold

Incredulous

Re: Tragic Disappearance of the Real Sister Lucy dos Santos Foretold

Ladislaus

Re: Tragic Disappearance of the Real Sister Lucy dos Santos Foretold

Incredulous

Re: Tragic Disappearance of the Real Sister Lucy dos Santos Foretold

Ladislaus

Re: Tragic Disappearance of the Real Sister Lucy dos Santos Foretold

Ladislaus

Re: Tragic Disappearance of the Real Sister Lucy dos Santos Foretold

Cera

Re: Tragic Disappearance of the Real Sister Lucy dos Santos Foretold

Incredulous

Re: Tragic Disappearance of the Real Sister Lucy dos Santos Foretold

Ladislaus

Re: Tragic Disappearance of the Real Sister Lucy dos Santos Foretold

Croixalist

Re: Tragic Disappearance of the Real Sister Lucy dos Santos Foretold

Mark 79

Re: Tragic Disappearance of the Real Sister Lucy dos Santos Foretold

Mark 79

Re: Tragic Disappearance of the Real Sister Lucy dos Santos Foretold

Texana

Re: Tragic Disappearance of the Real Sister Lucy dos Santos Foretold

Clemens Maria

Re: Tragic Disappearance of the Real Sister Lucy dos Santos Foretold