Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Sister Lucia and Opus Dei  (Read 8986 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Sister Lucia and Opus Dei
« Reply #5 on: December 28, 2025, 08:04:38 AM »

It would seem unlikely that the lying  murdering jew, Josemaria Escriva would allow the 24 Volumes of true Fatima history to exist.

Perhaps a 2nd copy was made and hidden. since Father Alonso knew that the Church's enemies wanted to destroy the truth.

Ironic you would accuse him of that since he was an alleged supporter of Hitler and Franco and vehement anti communist.

Do you have any docuмentation of those accusations of him being a murderer or marrano jew before you slander a saint in the RC Church?

Offline Twice dyed

  • Supporter
Escriva a Saint?... Opus Dei, Rules were bent!
« Reply #6 on: December 28, 2025, 11:40:31 AM »
Looks like there was even corruption in the canonisation process!?? You can't trust Modernists...

https://odan.org/tw_opposition_to_canonization
"...17. Officials of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Causes of Saints not only gave the cause top priority but, as the official positio on Escriva shows, they also bent rules to exclude damaging evidence about Escriva’s character and commitment to the church.

18. The positio claims that the volatile Escriva lost his temper only once, yet many former members who knew him will insist he was routinely abusive of anyone suspected of being an enemy of Opus Dei, including Pope John XXIII and Paul VI. Former numerary Maria del Carmen Tapia relates in her book Beyond the Threshold: A Life in Opus Deithat Escriva routinely lost his temper, and that as secretary in charge of writing down his words and actions, she was not allowed to right down anything negative that she witnessed. She herself was subjected to abusive words from Escriva, who called her the most filthy names, e.g. WHORE, SOW, PIG, and then screamed during this meeting with both men and women present, that someone should “pull down her panties…. and give her a spanking,” referring to a fellow numerary woman who had assisted Tapia by mailing letters for her. Regarding this statement, a supporter of ODAN wrote the following: “This is the most bizarre and perverted talk coming from anyone, man or woman, but for a man to say this to an adult woman…for a priest to use this language and make this statement to a woman; for a saint to make this statement, completely perverts not only the rules of civilized behavior, but sanctity itself. There is no excuse for this conduct, no excuse at all. This, in and of itself, belies his sanctity.”

19. A Vatican source said, contrary to established procedure, no published writings critical of Escriva were included in the docuмents given to the judges of his cause; nor did the congregation investigate Escriva’s celebrated conflicts with the Jesuits, reports of his pro-fascist leanings and Opus Dei’s involvement with the Franco government.

20. 40% of the testimony came from just two men, (Alvaro) Portillo (deceased Opus Dei prelate and Escriva’s successor) and his assistant Father Javier Echevarria, (current Opus Dei prelate).

21. Although 1,300 bishops and cardinals from all over the world had written to the Vatican giving positive statements on the Opus Dei founder, only 128 of them had actually met him in person.
22. According to [Woodward’s] research, Opus Dei members allegedly have put hundreds of bishops under financial pressure in order to have them send positive reports about Escriva to the Vatican. Especially in the Third World, bishops were allegedly told that financial contributions from Opus Dei might be in jeopardy if they did not answer the request for positive testimony.

23. The “devil’s advocate” that had been part of the canonization process before 1983 was replaced by a “relator”; thus the door was open for the rapid canonization of Escriva. (Note that the current Opus Dei prelate at the time, Portillo, was part of the committee that eliminated the devil’s advocate.)

..."


Re: Escriva a Saint?... Opus Dei, Rules were bent!
« Reply #7 on: December 28, 2025, 11:48:06 AM »
Looks like there was even corruption in the canonisation process!?? You can't trust Modernists...

https://odan.org/tw_opposition_to_canonization
"...17. Officials of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Causes of Saints not only gave the cause top priority but, as the official positio on Escriva shows, they also bent rules to exclude damaging evidence about Escriva’s character and commitment to the church.

18. The positio claims that the volatile Escriva lost his temper only once, yet many former members who knew him will insist he was routinely abusive of anyone suspected of being an enemy of Opus Dei, including Pope John XXIII and Paul VI. Former numerary Maria del Carmen Tapia relates in her book Beyond the Threshold: A Life in Opus Deithat Escriva routinely lost his temper, and that as secretary in charge of writing down his words and actions, she was not allowed to right down anything negative that she witnessed. She herself was subjected to abusive words from Escriva, who called her the most filthy names, e.g. WHORE, SOW, PIG, and then screamed during this meeting with both men and women present, that someone should “pull down her panties…. and give her a spanking,” referring to a fellow numerary woman who had assisted Tapia by mailing letters for her. Regarding this statement, a supporter of ODAN wrote the following: “This is the most bizarre and perverted talk coming from anyone, man or woman, but for a man to say this to an adult woman…for a priest to use this language and make this statement to a woman; for a saint to make this statement, completely perverts not only the rules of civilized behavior, but sanctity itself. There is no excuse for this conduct, no excuse at all. This, in and of itself, belies his sanctity.”

19. A Vatican source said, contrary to established procedure, no published writings critical of Escriva were included in the docuмents given to the judges of his cause; nor did the congregation investigate Escriva’s celebrated conflicts with the Jesuits, reports of his pro-fascist leanings and Opus Dei’s involvement with the Franco government.

20. 40% of the testimony came from just two men, (Alvaro) Portillo (deceased Opus Dei prelate and Escriva’s successor) and his assistant Father Javier Echevarria, (current Opus Dei prelate).

21. Although 1,300 bishops and cardinals from all over the world had written to the Vatican giving positive statements on the Opus Dei founder, only 128 of them had actually met him in person.
22. According to [Woodward’s] research, Opus Dei members allegedly have put hundreds of bishops under financial pressure in order to have them send positive reports about Escriva to the Vatican. Especially in the Third World, bishops were allegedly told that financial contributions from Opus Dei might be in jeopardy if they did not answer the request for positive testimony.

23. The “devil’s advocate” that had been part of the canonization process before 1983 was replaced by a “relator”; thus the door was open for the rapid canonization of Escriva. (Note that the current Opus Dei prelate at the time, Portillo, was part of the committee that eliminated the devil’s advocate.)

..."

If you believe a man is a true pope who canonized a person, that means you must believe the Saint is truly a Saint.


Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Escriva a Saint?... Opus Dei, Rules were bent!
« Reply #8 on: December 28, 2025, 12:23:20 PM »
If you believe a man is a true pope who canonized a person, that means you must believe the Saint is truly a Saint.

R&R have to throw the infallibility of canonizations under the bus to save the Conciliar Church.  I just wonder where they draw the line, what are they not willing to throw under the bus, calling Holy Mother Church a whore just so they can put up their Bergoglio / Prevost posters in the vestibule.

So, the standard R&R theory is that Conciliar canonizations are not infallible since their process is defective.  Of course, that makes "infallibility" no longer a divine guarantee but the outcome of human diligence, and what says mistakes had not been made in prior canonizations.  This is again their "have their Pope and eat him too" position, where they can uphold that the pre-Conciliar saints are certainly saints, but there's doubt about Saint Montini, Patron of Sodomites.

Offline Mark 79

  • Supporter
Re: Escriva a Saint?... Opus Dei, Rules were bent!
« Reply #9 on: December 28, 2025, 01:46:44 PM »

Excellent production quality, but I think there are three key weaknesses in the vid.

(1) The 1967 photo is indeed pivotal in exposing the substitution of the imposter for the real Sr. Lucy, but the vid does not address another layer of fraud—the 1967 photo is a pre-Photoshop composite. Forensic analysis of the photo reveals that Montini was "double-exposed" (the Photoshop of its day) into the photo with the imposter. Look at the tip of Montini's left index finger. It displays a clumsy artefact of the double exposure-the tip is a distinctly unnatural straight line. I also recall seeing the base photo that is exactly the same as the fraud, except that Montini is not in the photo at all. Hence, two layers of fraud: (1) the imposter and (2) Montini wasn't even in the original photo.

(2) Any fan of the Perry Mason or Columbo genres knows that motive is one of the keystones to obtain a conviction. The vid only briefly discusses the diametrically opposite theologies of the real Sr. Lucy (detachment from the world and penance) and the Opus JuDei/imposter theology (embrace the world), but the vid completely avoids discussing the motive for removing Sr. Lucy—the subversion of the Church at a Council called by the Masonic Anti-Pope and promulgated by the Sodomite Anti-Pope spear-headed by the forces of the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan.

(3) No mention of the distinctly anti-Catholic Judaizing Kabbalistic theology of Opus JuDei's  founding Marrano or of his behavioral perversities: https://archive.ph/PjGsd


Side note: Since archive.is has been under attack by the Jews, it is increasingly difficult to access that archive via VPN. Ostensibly archive.is is under attack due to "digital rights infringement" (=Jew lawfare to ensure Jew profit), but archive.is and other mirrors of archive.today have archived considerable "antisemitic" evidence against the Jews. Hence, attacks to block and disappear archive.today are a "two-fer" for the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan.
https://www.cathinfo.com/members-only/opus-dei-72878/msg1012424/#msg1012424