New Order "Sister Lucy": An Obvious Fraud that Cries Out for Scientific Verification
 |
| This is the woman who was taught by an Angel from Heaven how to adore the Eucharistic Lord Jesus? Um, I don't think so. Update: If you look at the video on the front page of my site --- click the video to make it full screen --- you will see the awkwardness with which "Sister Lucy" received communion from JPII. Clearly she shows no awareness of how to receive communion properly as a traditional Catholic would. She demonstrates no Eucharistic piety. What you do see in this video is that clearly "Sister Lucy" is used to receiving communion in the hand --- note how she raises her hand as soon as JPII offers her communion. She then shows no awareness of how to stick out her tongue when receiving communion --- she barely opens her mouth for it --- and IMMEDIATELY after receiving she goes to grab the hand of JPII and kiss it with the host barely in her own mouth. Again, this is the woman who received holy communion from an angel??? |
I have posted a video of "Sister Lucy" receiving communion from John Paul II at Fatima. The worshipful reverence which she shows to the man that putatively just handed "Sister Lucy" Our Eucharistic Lord is odd to the extreme. Can this possibly be the woman who in 1916 had an angel appear to her and her two friends Jacinta and Francisco and had the angel prostrate himself before the Blessed Sacrament which appeared for their worship? Is the hand that gives you communion more venerable then the Eucharistic Lord that you believe to be the God Incarnate Himself? Would you then demand to stay on the altar when you know that it is not the place of a cloistered nun or even a woman at all, to be in the sanctuary?
Also, consider the demonstrative and public-comfortable "Sister Lucy" with her photogenic affability. Compare this to the pictures and accounts of the extremely reserved and solemn Sister Lucy of the 40s and 50s. You have two different women that seem to be on two different religious planets. I will try to upload some indicative pictures of the two women.
The picture below clearly demonstrates that the false "Sister Lucy" was already in place in 1967 when "she" met with Paul VI. There seems to be a photographic gap of "Sister Lucy" from 1957 to 1967 at the 50th Anniversary celebrations of the Fatima Apparitions.
I am currently involved in trying to bring expert analysis to this fascinating case. I will keep you posted. I should know soon.
I very strongly think these are two different women. The entire body habitus of the Sister Lucy is so profoundly different than the latter day poseur. Shape of face, lips, dentition, maxilla and mandible are remarkably different. Surely there must be experts who can render an expert opinion.
ReplyDeleteOne thing in particular struck me. The real Sister Lucy did not have pretty teeth--they were long teeth, described as "ugly" by at least one commentary. Even if she got dentures, why would they be replaced with equally ugly little corn kernel teeth that the latter-day nun exhibits? Look at Sister Lucy's receding weak chin. Compare that to the jutting "ham bone" of the latter day nun. Did she have her mandible surgically broken and re molded?
That this new Lucy is trotted out as the real Sister Lucy is mind blowing. That the powers-that-be would engage in such deception is horrifying.
Lord, help us discover the truth of the matter. Sister Lucy, pray for us, the Church Militant!
There is no doubt the Carmelite is a fraud. Tradition in Action have some excellant research on this.
ReplyDeleteWhen I saw the photos and video of the fake Sr Lucy with JPll, that did it. And of course Traditioninaction did comparative photos a few years back which point out the obvious also. Then too, I have a friend who was given an audience with her a few years ago when promoting a movie. How would he get an audience and Bishops and Cardinals could not?
ReplyDeleteThank you for posting. I have had well intentioned friends say to me that it isn't important. I believe it is very important, as it also matters who is the True Pope! How can anyone think these things unimportant when the Truth is hidden so evil can get an upper hand and put souls in danger of being lost?
There is absolutely no way this 2nd "Sr. Lucy" is the real one. Her lips, mouth shape, jawline, smileshape, eyes, teeth, not to mention her lack of dignity, modesty (in the way she carries herself), constant huge smiles, rubber necking and complete lack of reverence. Whoever this second nun is she sure enjoys the limelight whereas anyone who's done the least amount of reading on Fatima knows how dignified, serious, grave and worried looking the real Sr. Lucy was. She saw HELL for ring out loud! You don't go around smiling and yucking it up with the higher ups if you have seen such a terrifying and life changing event. This whole scam makes me sick. Our popes have been such corrupt liars and criminals that I can't believe this is our church. Christ will not stand for this blatant slap in the face to His Immaculate and Beloved Holy Mother! These men are playing with fire, literally. TFP.org also has much detailed information on this subject. Check it out.
ReplyDeleteI've always thought they look nothing alike. Very strange.
ReplyDeleteThe real Sr Lucia was murdered towards the end of 1958 around the same time that Pius XII was murdered. By this time the enemies of the Church almost certainly knew the contents of the Third Secret of Fatima, for it had been brought to Rome in 1957, and there was no way they would have rested easy until they knew its dangerous contents. Had 1960 come with Pius XII still on the throne of St Peter, it would almost certainly have been published to the world, as the Blessed Virgin had requested. Hence the double murder.
ReplyDeleteMontini, who became Antipope Paul VI, is likely to be the one who wrote the false secret released in 2000. It was due to be fulfilled in the murder of Albino Luciani (Antipope John Paul I), who was chosen to be sacrificed exactly according to its finely detailed 'predictions'. But Luciani acted too fast for them, for he sought clear the Vatican of freemasons before they had a chance to carry out the assassination in the manner they wanted. So Villot and his fellow freemasons had him killed with digitalis, thus scuppering the original plan. The false text was then lamely explained away in 2000 as being fulfilled in the assassination attempt on Antipope John Paul II.