Vatican Fraud Exposed! Sworn Declaration from Professional Handwriting Analyst that Letter from Sister Lucy II in 1969 Was Written By Imposter and Not By Sister Lucy I. Here is Scientific Evidence that the Sister Lucy II, post-1958 Was a Fraud. Read the 125 page declaration here.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MkDef5qDNj2OV22t93Y0wSHrXkknY_RD/view?usp=sharing
And Much Much More To Come. The Fraud Has Been Exposed. The Evidence Mounts.
Just in case you missed it on October 13th, here is another expert report, this time from a plastic surgeon concerning the case of Sister Lucy I and Sister Lucy II.
there-was-imposter-on-day-of-miracle-of.html
Well done!
ReplyDeleteDonkath, I sent you one page of Church teaching including statements of the doctors of the Church to show you the Pope had been replaced with an impostor and you refused to read it and called it "sedevacantism". Now RadTrad sends you an expert declaration of 125 pages saying Sr Lucy is an impostor and I note that your attitude is quite different. Well, if they could replace Sr Lucy, why not the Holy Father?
DeleteTo 'Catholic'
DeleteChurch teachings that you claim to have sent (where and when?) are you interpretation of a a selected variety. Others have sent Church teachings of a selected variety claiming the opposite interpretation. If you believe the Chair of Peter is vacant that is your private opinion. I am not interested in private opinions....only what my basic catechism has taught me since childhood which, in a nutshell, means that Catholics need to be told whether the Chair of Peter is vacant by a recognised authority who has the power to make the decision. No individual sedevacantist/s hashave the power/authority to declare the chair of Peter vacant.
Regarding Lucy as impostor - Rad Trad has provided visible proof from experts in their field of expertise. They have nothing to do with Church doctrine/teachings.
Dear Donkath,
DeleteThe things you said you would not read were not my interpretation. You have borne false witness against me to say such a thing. You cannot name this supposed catechism which says what you claim, quite simply because it does not exist. Instead it is the "private interpretation" of certain clergy which you have blindly accepted. What all catechisms DO say and what you ignore is that 1) THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CANNOT ERR, THAT IT IS INDEFECTIBLE, (CAN NEVER DEFECT FROM THE FAITH / THAT IT CAN NEVER TEACH ANYTHING DIFFERENT). 2) THAT A HERETIC IS NOT, I REPEAT, NOT, A MEMBER OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THAT 3) TO BE A CATHOLIC YOU HAVE TO PROFESS THE CATHOLIC FAITH, NOT SOME OTHER FAITH OR ANY OR ALL FAITHS, BUT THE CATHOLIC FAITH and 4) IF YOU DENY AN ARTICLE OF FAITH YOU BECOME A HERETIC. 5) FURTHERMORE THE BALTIMORE CATECHISM SAYS THAT AN ANTIPOPE IS SOMEONE WHO PRETENDS TO BE POPE.
I would be very interested to know which catechisms teach that Catholics need to be told by a 'recognized authority who has the power to make the decision' that the Chair of Peter is vacant, for I have never seen a catechism stating this. Who decides who the 'recognized authority' is? This is truly a 'private opinion' which was demolished by St Robert Bellarmine who said it was unable to be defended, and stated that the true position, held by all the ancient Fathers of the Church, is that a pope falling into manifest heresy falls from office immediately without any declaration. This was also the teaching of Pope Paul IV in his Bull 'Cum ex apostolatus', and St Pius X included it in the 1917 Code of Canon Law under Canon 188.4. St Robert Bellarmine was declared a Doctor of the Church precisely due to his writings on, and defence of, the Papacy. For some reason these true teachings have been covered up by groups such as the SSPX and Resistance, and have produced their own 'selected variety'. One must ask what is their motive for doing so? Why do they insist that we recognize these heretics, these wolves, to be our shepherds (that even they don’t follow anyway)?
DeleteThis Sr Lucy project has proven that something very evil has been going on in the past 50+ years. So what the poster 'Catholic' has said is quite pertinent: if there has been an impostor Sr Lucy for all this time, how can one refuse even the *possibility* that these Vatican II popes, who have promoted the fake Sr Lucy, have been impostors too?
Wow! But why is thus not making headlines in the Catholic press?
ReplyDeleteYou have worked hard and achieved something significant, but the message is not getting out there, and sadly, it is down to presentation and an understanding of how information needs to be directed to achieve awareness through the internet.
I hoped that at least Louie Verechio would do you a solid and publish an article, because if he did, the chances are it might provoke a response from The Remnant, and that will get things moving.
It would help if you wrote an article summarizing your findings and presenting your evidence to date, that websites could just fact check and publish if they chose to. It must be thorough, but no longer than it needs to be, to make the points, you have laboured so long to prove.
I pray with all my heart that the truth becomes known, but sadly, in the world we live in, its just as simple as dropping the evidence on a webpage.
...and yet the Catholic media ignores the issue! Unbelievable.
ReplyDelete