Author Topic: "The Impostor Sister Lucia" (Read 11111 times)

sspxbvm · « **on:** October 07, 2012, 02:36:11 PM »

The Sede Vacantist, "Brother Michael" has a video out on his belief that Sister Lucia was replaced with an impostor sometime in the late 1950's. At first I thought it was just another conspiracy theory from one who doesn't believe we have a pope. But much of his material is very convincing.

Sister Lucia got very ill in 1943. Her Bishop told her to write the 3 rd secret out which she did in 1944. It was sealed with the direction to not open it until 1960 or her death which ever came first. After watching this video I ask myself why give such direction? Was her illness of 1943 a lingering thing that she believed might eventually take her life? If so there is no way she would have lived until 2005. In 1959 John XXIII reportedly made mention of "dealing" with the seer of Fatima. And in the mid 1950's (cant recall the date right now) Sister Lucia came out publicly to correct statements made by a priest who had interviewed her and was giving a false report. Sister Lucia said many times that the consecration of Russia must be done but later in the 1980's she supposedly says the consecration has been done and God is satisfied (umm..Okay....). She also supposedly said the 3rd secret wasn't intended for all to see which was a contradiction to what she said years earlier. My conclusion is that it is very possible that Sister Lucia died in the late 1950's and was replaced with a phony.

This phony actually took the hand of Pope John Paul II after receiving "communion"and kissed it.The video makes one's stomach sick. Taking ANY pope's hand and kissing it forcibly with our Lord on your tongue is horribly sacriligious.

This "Brother Michael" sneaks in about 30 minutes of reasons why he believes the seat of Peter is empty. Those are determinations reserved for the Holy See in some future date as stated by Archbishop Lefebvre here:
However, seeing recent events between the sspx and our current heretic pope makes me wonder!!!

Some of the "evidence" in this video is very questionable but for the most part the information looks credible. Here is the video.....warning....it is long...

The kissing of JP II's hand is in there somewhere. I had never seen nor heard of that before. Shameful.

sspxbvm · « **Reply #1 on:** October 07, 2012, 02:54:00 PM »

Meant to put "This "phony" actually took the hand....."

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #2 on:** October 07, 2012, 03:09:37 PM »

Yes, the evidence is convincing. I have no doubts that the "Sister Lucia" from the 1960s onward was an imposter.

Maria Elizabeth · « **Reply #3 on:** October 07, 2012, 11:54:48 PM »

I ran across the following article:

The Two Sister Lucys
Photos and Facts
Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D.

on the Tradition in Action website: http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g12htArt2_TwoSisterLucys.htm

I, too, had dismissed the "2 Lucys" theory... until I read Dr. Horvat's article. I found her article pretty convincing.

Belloc · « **Reply #4 on:** October 08, 2012, 10:00:37 AM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Yes, the evidence is convincing. I have no doubts that the "Sister Lucia" from the 1960s onward was an imposter.

I dont, have not seen anything convincing at all......possible, grant you, nothing convincing and we really sink our ship if we hold to this, many starting to see the light over the Third secret, likely lost if we throw in this type of thing....best to stick to the facts about the secret,etc.....

for me the Dimonds lack any credibility and Horvat and her merry men are complete twits.....TIA is a crap site, if they dont like you or a topic, they do a superficial drive by and childish reporting.....plus, they are very neoconny.....

Belloc · « **Reply #5 on:** October 08, 2012, 10:04:33 AM »

Photos from different time periods, many grainy and do not include illnesses, aging,accidents, etc.....

re-read, very, very poor quality in pics and definition.

there is this gem "As one reader pointed out, the greatest difficulty of this whole problem is that Sister Lucy said one thing up until the 1960's and then changed her thinking years later. What could be the reason for this? "

um, senility? perhaps, she was misquoted and/or others purposely making up statements or putting words in her mouth....etc....

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #6 on:** October 08, 2012, 01:06:19 PM »

You can study the evidence of the Two Sister Lucys on the Tradition in
Action Site. Very convencing.

www.traditioninaction.org

Cheryl · « **Reply #7 on:** October 08, 2012, 02:52:54 PM »

I'd have to say I'm the fence on this issue. The question I have for the those computer literate folks, is there any evidence of tampering with these photos. I would like to get a good look at the Sister Lucys' hands as well as their necks. These two parts of the body help tell one woman from another as well as telling the age of the woman.

Belloc · « **Reply #8 on:** October 08, 2012, 03:08:41 PM »

Quote from: RomanCatholic1953

You can study the evidence of the Two Sister Lucys on the Tradition in
Action Site. Very convencing.

www.traditioninaction.org

um, yeah, I noted above I have and it is NOT convincing at all, grainy photos, vague articles.......TIA is not that great with research when they dislike something/someone and are enthuased about something/one.

See again my post, I read and re-read, if you want to beleive it, fine, but it is not convincing nor a smoking gun, closed book,etc.......there are too many questions and little hard evidence.....
Cheryl, you bring up valid points......

Too many here want to beleive in these pics and articles as it "fits", but we ahve to have some hard proof and some grany photo examining noses is not conclusive, esp as the nose in 2 shots is not that different at all and again, grainy.
Where is the proof from Mother Superior there? family? as thin as the "Siri hiding-in plain site-and suppsoedly Pope, but only decided in 1989 to tell an obscure priest, when he had access to many, many, many clerics and laity from 1958 onwards"

sspxbvm · « **Reply #9 on:** October 08, 2012, 03:29:35 PM »

Some are missing the point. The diffferent chins and facial characteristics are important but compare the blatant contradictions about Our Lady, her secret, etc. The issue here is if new Rome planted a fake Lucia to convince the world the 3rd secret is really pretty mild and in fact a dead issue.

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #10 on:** October 08, 2012, 03:34:06 PM »

Belloc said:

Where is the proof from Mother Superior there? family? as thin as the "Siri hiding-in plain site-and suppsoedly Pope, but only decided in 1989 to tell an obscure priest, when he had access to many, many, many clerics and laity from 1958 onwards"

Can you explain this further, and the source!?

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #11 on:** October 08, 2012, 03:48:46 PM »

So many unanswered questions.

So little actual hard evidence.

I fear the really damning evidence was destroyed by new church decades ago.

However, what evidence would we realistically expect to have? Would the convent maintain medical records on Sr Lucy? Were these records destroyed long ago?

The photos of her on TIA are scant, but how many pre-Vatican II nuns had a portfolio of sundry different poses?

If Sr. Lucy received instruction and even Holy Communion from a Heaven sent angel, then did another missionary from the celestial beyond give her assurance that it was okay to receive communion in the hand?

The photos on TIA are interesting but not completely conclusive. I say interesting.

In 2000, didn't a new cardinal announce during one of those Wednesday public announcements tying JP II's assassination attempt to the third secret, with the adoring crowd cheering aloud at this - if that was the secret all along with did John XXIII say this is not for our time?

So many questions.

So many reasons to doubt new vatican.

I mean, if everyone sat around and just let it happen when the Tridentine Mass was replaced by something that is indistinguishable from the Lutheran worship service then just foisting an imposter on the world would be a pretty small task.

Sister Lucia lived her life in a convent, it's not like she was Howard Cosell or some public persona with paparazzi following her around everywhere.

Weren't all her immediate family dead by the 1960's? Who would be able to point a finger at her and declare her a phony?

rowsofvoices9 · « **Reply #12 on:** October 08, 2012, 06:40:33 PM »

Agree with Belloc. If you look very closely at the pictures it's obvious to me at least that the two Sr. Lucia's conspiracy is lunacy. Look real close at her eyes. It's the same person. Case closed.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #13 on:** October 08, 2012, 10:10:10 PM »

No gravitas in the demeanor or eyes of Lucy2. I find this impossible for someone who had seen actual Hell, and who knew the Third Secret of Fatima.

My other theory would be a trans-orbital lobotomy would likely produce the same effect in Lucy2. (they were common in those days and the man who invented them was Portuguese, etc.) This procedure can be done easily in 10 minutes outside of an operating room.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #14 on:** October 09, 2012, 12:08:56 AM »

Quote from: rowsofvoices9

Agree with Belloc. If you look very closely at the pictures it's obvious to me at least that the two Sr. Lucia's conspiracy is lunacy. Look real close at her eyes. It's the same person. Case closed.

This isn't correct. Let's have a look at the pictures:

Real Sister Lucia:

Fake Sister Lucia:

rowsofvoices claims the eyes are the same, but they don't look the same to me, nor do their faces.

Here's another comparison: