From the recent Gnosticon. We ask ourselves the question as to why this ritual, intentionally heretical and invoking all the major heretics of the distant past --- resembles so much the Novus Ordo Missae of the Masonic Paul VI, both in the ritual itself, the attitude of the celebrant (I think he would be classified as a "reverent" "conservative" "priest" --- by our friends on EWTN), and in the naturalistic Teilhardian theology articulated by the "priest." Could it be that the effective banning of the "Latin Mass" is payback by people associated with this Kabbalistic sect for the "burning of the Cathars," who are mentioned here as "saints"? The rejection of vicarious atonement by these heretics is very interesting, since we see the same thing in the theology of the Neo-Modernist heretic Josef Ratzinger. It is not the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ that is offered by these Neo-Manicheans, but rather the "
Tradition In Action posted a letter a few years ago which conjectured that Sister Lucy II may have been a relative of the real Sister Lucy. The letter showed a photo of one of SIster Lucy's aunts. The aunt did have a facial resemblance to the faux Sister Lucy, as I recall. The aunt was not accused of being the imposter, but her picture was shown to demonstrate that other family members might share similar features. I though this was an intriguing hypothesis, since it would also explain how SIster Lucy II could persist in such a monumental deception for decades. If she were indeed a relative of the real Sister Lucy, perhaps a cousin or niece, then she may have felt obligated to continue the charade to preserve the reputation of her family as well as her renowned relative. This hypothesis could also explain how family members could visit the imposter Sister Lucy in later years and think she was the real Sister Lucy, as she would no doubt have intimate knowledge of the family and would be able to discuss these matters with the visitors.
ReplyDelete