Frankenherring: Francis as Red Herring. Neo-Cons and Neo-Trads , Practicing Gallican Revivalism, Act as if There is Only One Cuckoo in the Cuckoo's Nest.











https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/renowned-philosopher-signs-petition-calling-on-bishops-to-investigate-pope-for-heresy

Dr. Chojnowski: At the above link, we find Dr. Josef Seifert endorsing and adding his name to the admonition to Francis I about his heresies. In Dr. Maike Hickson's article, it is mentioned that Dr. Seifert is mentioned as a close friend of "Pope Saint John Paul II." Dr.  Seifert is known for being a "realist" phenomenologist --- having a von Hildebrandian version of the "realist" phenomenology practiced by Karol Wojtyla (John Paul II) himself. Seifert was also head of the International Academy of Philosophy in Liechtenstein, which for decades was sponsored by John Paul II to propagate this version of philosophy put forward by Edmund Husserl to deal with the problem of knowledge stumbled into by Descartes and Kant which breaks the self-evident connection between our minds and the really existing material and non-material things in the world around us. Seifert's "realist" phenomenology ---- as in all forms of phenomenology --- "brackets" the question of WHETHER THE THINGS BEING KNOWN ACTUALLY EXIST --- and focuses on the "essential" structure of things AS THEY APPEAR TO THE MIND. Bad start for any investigation into reality, whether natural or supernatural. 

Now, while remaining silent on the endless heresies of Francis's post-Vatican predecessors, Seifert and, by implication, those at LifeSite News, are urging the "bishops of the Catholic Church" ---- all having been appointed by John Paul II, Benedict XVI or Francis himself (because they agreed with these men) to DO SOMETHING about Francis and his heresies. Here --- to use a little logic --- we find Seifert and the other signatories of this Gallican declaration, to be using Francis as a Red Herring that is used to distract us from the fact that the "official" doctrinal apostasy has been going on for 60 years now. John Paul II --- see the doctrinal work on this question done by Fr. Johannes Dormann ---- was the primary purveyor of the apostate doctrine of Universal Salvation. The notion that Christ unites himself in grace to all men IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE HUMAN. Good-bye need for the Catholic Church, the Sacraments, 10 Commandments --- pretty much everything. 

The idea of a "red herring" stems from the practice of fox hunters which involved training dogs to get the scent of the fox and not that WHICH SMELLED WORSE --- by putting herrings in a bag and dragging the back of smelly herrings down a fork in the road and then releasing a fox down another fork in the road. If the dogs smelled the stinky herrings and ran after them instead of smelling the slight scent of the fox, they were not much of a hunting dog. 

Let us, indeed, go after the heretical Modernists who have corrupted the faith of millions. But let us not get distracted by the obvious stench of Frankenherring. Granted, there is nothing worse than pickled fish!

Comments

  1. The signatories are using Francis as a red herring all right! We can bet most so-called conservatives, including the SSPX, are ready, willing and able to embrace another JP II or worse. They've become so lukewarm and anti-Catholic--any "Pope" will look like a saint to them after Frankenherring leaves.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Let us, indeed, go after the heretical Modernists who have corrupted the faith of millions." Shouldn't we start somewhere, at least? Let be Jorge then.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't know when we can begin to say the Orwellian Papacy came into being, but it has certainly existed in spades since Vatican 2. But before we lay the entire accounting of that evil council on our own times consider the 13th rule of Ignatius of Loyola On Thinking in Conformity with The Church "The white you see is black if the Hierarchical Church so judges." Modernism was preceded by Humanism and lots of new philosophies from the banker popes of the Renaissance and their defenders.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At least the banker popes weren't like the wicked, slothful servant in the Parable of the Talents:

      "And his lord answering said to him: Wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sow not, and gather where I have not strewed:
      Thou oughtest therefore to have committed my money to the bankers, and at my coming I should have received my own with usury" (Matt. 25: 26-27 Douay-Rheims version).

      Delete
  4. Sounds like an argument for sedevacantism.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Another red herring: Dr. Josef Seifert compares the letter of accusations against Francis to Paul's correction of Peter. The R+R are always comparing the heretic to St. Peter because they want to change reality and mislead people into thinking Francis isn't all that bad.

    Also, remember when the R+R maintained that canonizations were infallible, a pope could never be a heretic, and he would never "officially" teach an error to the Church? That's all gone down the memory hole. Somehow the R+R mastered the techniques of changing the facts and persuaded people to deny the evidence of their own senses. This way the truth could either exist, or not, depending on the agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Good-bye need for the Catholic Church"

    The irony is that it this not only the result of the phenomenology of JP2, but also the result of 40+ years of R&R Gallicanism. The R&R Gallicans are utterly confused as to what or where the Church is, to the point that they regard the Church as not being infallible (such as councils and canonizations), and that the Church can actually teach error and heresy, and that the pope can be a heretic. And this is why they think they can judge the (man they consider the) pope. They need to go back and read and study what the Church teaches. The problem for them is that the catechism is either full of errors (yes an R&R priest told me this) or they skip the bits on the infallibility and authority of the Roman Pontiff because it shows that their position is erroneous, or they brush it off as "sedevacantism". The party line is more important, or following the right football team.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Nothing about the Open Letter or the R&R position suggests Gallicanism, and anyone who thinks it does clearly does not understand in what the heresy of Gallicanism consists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Everything about the Open Letter and the R&R position represents Gallicanism. It's not surprising that the followers of the R&R don't know what Gallicanism is; that's probably because their leaders don't want them to know. Here is the definition from A Catholic Dictionary, Attwater, Third Edition, 1958:

      The second, third, and fourth Gallican propositions were condemned by Vatican Council I. The second proposition declared the supremacy of ecumenical councils over the pope; the third affirmed the force and validity of the laws, customs and constitutions of the Gallican and other local churches; the fourth declared that the pope's judgment is not final unless the consent of the Church be added.

      Gallicanism is now professed only by the heretical sect of the Old Catholics (and the R&R).

      Delete
  8. The petition is preposterous because the authors still insist that the infernal, blaspheming, anti-Catholic, apostate, Destroyer is still "Pope"---until the "bishops" say he ain't. The Gallicans obviously took the opportunity to put a plug in for themselves.

    For decades, the faith is dried up and almost vanished, a whole multitude of souls is lost, and all that they could come up with was another stupid petition for the heretic "bishops" to laugh at. It would've been better if the signatories just sat and did nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Pope Innocent IV (1200-1254) "usury is generally prohibited because if it were allowed all manners of evil would ensue...it is clear that practically every evil follows from usury." Aquinas and Augustine both write that original sin most clearly manifests itself in the love of money as do the scriptures and the most odious form of money making is usury. Dante coupled sodomy and usury as spiritual sins both born of the unnatural.....contra naturam. We had the renaissance banker popes who loved money. In 1822 Pius Vll dropped all charges against usurers. Ten years later Gregory the XVl took out a 35 million dollar loan from the House of Rothschild at 5%. Pius IX along with his financial advisor Pacelli (grandfather of Pius Xll) would take out another loan with the Rothschilds. The Vatican bank is a Rothschild operation. Can Peter love both God and money? We need to recover a sense of the papacy before the marrano jews got hold of it in the form of jesuitry. Back to the good old "dark" middle ages. Do I hear the distant voice of St Francis?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We should bury our money in the ground (so that it doesn't gain interest) like the wicked, lazy servant in the parable of the talents.

      Delete
    2. We should hide our money in the ground (so it doesn't gain interest) like the wicked servant in the parable of the talents.

      Delete
  10. The first see is judged by no one, but the signatories to the Open Letter, acknowledging Francis to be pope, are judging him and are demanding that he be brought to trial. You cannot threaten the Roman Pontiff that he will suffer canonical consequences for a crime, because he is above the law. Gallicanism is, effectively, the restricting of the Roman Pontiff’s powers in such a manner that it can only practically be exercised with the consent of those subordinate to him. In a nutshell, it is an attitude of "we know better" than the pope. This attitude is within the Open Letter. Not a great definition I’m sorry, but there are plenty of books, articles, catechisms, the Catholic Encyclopaedia, etc, in which to find out more details concerning Gallicanism. Vatican I’s Pastor Aeternus is anti-Gallican.

    The R&R position has the hallmarks Gallicanism. The man whom you say is the Roman Pontiff suppresses your pious union and seminary? It was unjust and we’ll carry on regardless. The man whom you say is Roman Pontiff canonizes saints? We’ll just check if he did it properly. The man whom you say is Roman Pontiff orders you to not consecrate bishops without his permission? We’ll just go ahead with it because the hotels have been booked for all the people coming and the tents are rented. The man whom you say is Roman Pontiff promulgates new ordination rites? We’ll have to go through them on a case by case basis to check whether your Orders are valid. This attitude destroys the Papacy in the minds of Catholics, just as much as accepting a heretic as pope. A few years ago, one of the "Resistance" priests gave a series of conferences against sedevacantism. In one of the conferences he admitted that all the 19th-20th century theologians taught that a pope falling into heresy loses office immediately without any declaration (as per Pope Paul IV's "Cum ex apostolatus", St Robert Bellarmine, Canon 188.4 of St Pius X’s Code of Canon Law, etc – not that he mentioned these), but he brushed them off and disagreed with them as they were all just "ultramontanists". So yes, they are Gallicans, and they pretty much admit it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Librorum, you better try again. What is evident is that neither you nor Dr. Chosnowski have any idea in what the heresy of Gallicanism consists.

    You say the R&R position has all the hallmarks of Gallicanism. I respond that the sede-vacantist position has all the hallmarks the Old Catholic heretics, the Donatist heretics, Wycliffe and Huss, the Spiritual Franciscans, and just about every other heretical sect that has ever split from the Church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous, instead of playing games, please, do go ahead and explain in what you think the heresy of Gallicanism consists. Explain also how the R+R is not Gallican when it rejects 100% of the "Pope's" teaching authority---including his canonizations and synods. If you're Catholic, tell us why you are clueless that canonizations are infallible and irreformable---and that synods are binding when the pope fully co-operates with them, participates in them, or confirms them?

      Tell us what happened to the R+R's promises that a true pope would never, ever "officially" teach errors to the Church. Also, tell us what happened to the R+R's promises that the Holy Spirit would never, ever allow a false canonization. You do think Francis is a real pope, don't you?

      You haven't provided a jot of evidence for your conclusions. Instead of demanding from your opponent that he address more and more points after he has already provided enough, why don't you go ahead and prove to us that your "Pope" is Catholic? Also, please answer all the other questions above... We are waiting. If you keep on submitting baseless opinions, it only shows how badly you want to be in the dark.

      Delete
  12. What a laugh. If anything resembles the Old Catholics, it's the R&R. They practically deny the infallibility of the pope. He's just a figurehead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Liborum,

      What's required for a pope to be prevented from erring when he exercises his Supreme Magisterium by teaching the entire Church?

      Delete
    2. Before letting Pius X explain why this is unholy, I thought to say that the very question could have come from Luther or Calvin or Henry VIII or... SSPX/Resistance. The great list of those who are happy to put themselves outside the ordinary jurisdiction of the Church and claim that she needs to be "reformed" and that they can do it. What pride and audacity they had, and all have, who think they know better than the Church themselves, the Church which Christ gave us which can never err in Her teachings of faith and morals, which is guided by the Holy Ghost Himself, which is infallible and indefectible. Perhaps you could get a copy of an old catechism and just read the sections on the Pope and the Church. Perhaps you could read the lives of the (real pre-Vatican II and canonised) saints and absorb their attitude to the Holy Father. Perhaps you could avoid clergy who "advise" you to contradict those two things. But most certainly, you should read every word of Vatican I which defined the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff and know that all Catholics "love the pope". You will never have to "separate" yourself from the Catholic Church and set up something new, because God made the Church so that She cannot err and She will never fall away from the faith. I will leave you with a little prayer and a quote of the great saint, Pope St Pius X: "Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times, not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey - that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.

      Delete
    3. To Anonymous, May 18, 2019 at 11:01 PM

      "What's required for a pope to be prevented from erring when he exercises his Supreme Magisterium by teaching the entire Church?"

      What’s required is that he be a Catholic, and not a heretic (heretics and schismatics are outside the Church and cannot be validly elected), and, being validly elected, he is then protected and guided by the Holy Ghost, which prevents him from teaching error and heresy to the entire Church. This is not something I’ve made up. Virtually every pre-Vatican II catechism and book on the teachings of the Church says this.

      People really have to get back to basics and re-read, re-learn, re-study the catechism. St Pius X said we should be doing this for an hour every Sunday (Acerbo Nimis, 15 April 1905). Especially the parts concerning the Church and the Papacy. And also, to pray the Act of Faith: "O my God, I firmly believe all the truths that the Holy Catholic Church believes and teaches; I believe these truths, O Lord, because Thou, the infallible Truth, hast revealed them to her; in this faith I am resolved to live and die. Amen."

      Delete
  13. Responding to: AnonymousMay 11, 2019 at 12:03 PM

    Gallicanism denies the Pope’s jurisdiction extends to the temporal realm, limits his jurisdiction in the spiritual realm, and did not believe the Pope is a ‘subject’ of infallibility, distinct from the rest of the Church. They held that there’s only one subject of infallibility, namely, the Church as a whole, and hence rejected the doctrine known as the “separate infallibility” of the Pope.

    The logical consequence of denying the separate infallibility of the Pope, is the belief that if a Pope defines a doctrine, ex cathedra, it is only to be considered infallibly true, and hence irreformable, if it is accepted by the entire Church (the entire ‘subject’ of infallibility).

    That is the Gallican error concerning the infallibility of the Pope. It is condemned in the last sentence of the definition of Papal Infallibility, which states: “Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are OF THEMSELVES, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”

    Traditional Catholics who have remained in the Church, and continue to recognize the Pope as the Pope (real Traditional Catholics), do not believe ex cathedra definitions of a Pope are only infallible if they are accepted by the Church. Hence, they are not guilty of the heresy of Gallicanism.

    The error is on the part of the accusers - the sede-vacantists – and the cause of their error is two-fold: 1) they do not understand in what the Gallican heresy concerning infallibility consists; and 2) they err by extend the infallibility of the Pope beyond the conditions set down in the carefully worded doctrinal definition.

    As a result of these errors, the sede-vacantists falsely accusing Catholics of the heresy of Gallicanism for: 1) believing a Pope can teach heresy publicly; or 2) for believing a Pope can err in an “official” magisterial document. Of course, neither one of these have anything to do with Gallicanism, nor did Vatican I rule out the possibility of either.

    A related heresy of Gallicanism is the belief that it is permissible to appeal to a Council against infallible teachings or judgments of the Pope. This error flows logically from their rejection of the doctrine that the Pope is a distinct ‘subject’ of infallibility, separate from the Church as a whole. If the definitions of a Pope are not infallible “of themselves”. and without receiving the consent of the Church, it would logically follow that appealing his judgments to a council would be permitted, since the council would represent the entire ‘subject’ of infallibility.

    The Gallicans also erred by limited the Pope’s authority in matters of discipline, by maintaining that he is not permitted to alter the disciplinary canons approved by ecumenical councils. Some of the things they said a Pope *could not* change sounded reasonable, and indeed normally he *should not* do so (because it would be imprudent), but in principle the Gallican teaching erred since it limited the authority of the Pope in an area in which it cannot be licitly restricted.

    Needless to say, no Traditional Catholic holds to any of these Gallican heresies, although I’m sure there’s many false Traditionalists (i.e., sede-vacantists), who would deny that the Pope has right to change long-held disciplinary laws found in the canons of the early councils.

    In fact, I bet many of these false Traditionalists would manifest their Gallicanism if the Pope nullified the ancient disciplinary canons that prohibited priests to marry. I can only imagine what these Gallican sede-vacantists would say if Pope Francis attempted to restore the original discipline, explicitly taught in the Bible, no less, that permitted a married clergy. Of course, you wouldn’t object to that in principle, would you?

    More to follow…

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You will not find any truly Catholic person who thinks canonizations are some kind of optional thing. Being raised to the glory of the altar is the greatest thing that can happen to you. It's sad it doesn't mean much for you. I note you are an SSPX apologist, "Catholics are only bound to obey what was always believed." What a load of poppycock. Catholics are bound to obey the Pope. You have faithfully imbibed what you learnt in the seminary or what your SSPX priest told you. This is not Catholic teaching, it is SSPX teaching. It doesn't matter how nicely written your anti-Papal tripe is, I would be no more inclined to accept it than would Thomas More. One day we will give our blood to defend the Church from people like you. Ours will be the victory with the woman who will crush the head of the demon.

      Delete
  14. Continuation of previous comment

    “Also, please answer all the other questions above... We are waiting.”

    Here you go.

    Q: “Explain also how the R+R is not Gallican when it rejects 100% of the "Pope's" teaching authority.”

    A: Sorry, but it’s the sede-vacantists who reject 100% of the Pope’s teaching authority, which they delude themselves into imagining is perfectly acceptable as long as they tell themselves he not the Pope. The R&R position accepts 100% of the Pope’s teaching authority, while at the same time realizing that if a Pope abuses his authority by contradicting what the Church has always taught, it is permissible to reject it.

    R&R is the balanced Catholic approach, supported by two millennium of Catholic doctrine and practice. The unbalanced and irrational approach of the sede-vacantist is also deeply rooted in tradition. You can find it by studying all the ancient heresies, as well as many from the Middle Ages.

    Q: If you're Catholic, tell us why you are clueless that canonizations are infallible and irreformable…”

    A: Speaking of clueless, the Church has never taught that canonizations are infallible and irreformable. The idea has emerged has become the common opinion over the past three or four centuries, but a common theological opinion does not equate to a teaching of the Church. But since you brought up a theological opinion, I’ve got one for you: it has always been held, as a certainty, that the Church of Rome cannot fall away from the Faith. Do you believe the Church of Rome still has the faith today? If so, why are you separated from it? If not, how can you complain if an R&R advocate doubts the infallibility of canonization, which is far less certain that the doctrine you deny?

    Q: “…and that synods are binding when the pope fully co-operates with them, participates in them, or confirms them?”

    A: Catholics are only bound to give the assent of faith to the what the Church has always been believed, and what is proposed definitively. Non-definitive teachings that come from organs of the magisterium may require a conditional ‘religious assent’ (which would not bind if the teaching was clearly contrary to the Faith), but the truth is that you don’t have an obligation to even read the garbage that’s being pumped out of the shame synods. Since when are the laity required to read everything that comes from Rome? Do you think the average Catholic for the first 1900 year had any clue what was happening in Rome? Of course not, and if it wasn’t necessary for them, it isn’t for us either. So why pay any attention to it?

    A: Tell us what happened to the R+R's promises that a true pope would never, ever "officially" teach errors to the Church.”

    Q: Whoever promised that? And do you think Francis is the first Pope to “officially” teach an error? Did not the R&R position get its name for resisting errors that have been officially taught by Popes? The only time a pope is prevented from teaching error is when he defines a doctrine, ex cathedra. In every other instance, it is *possible* for him to err when teaching.

    Where did you get the idea that a Pope cannot err in an “official” teaching?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What you provided was Gish Gallop, individually weak arguments that did not answer the most crucial question: I asked you to prove that your "Pope" is Catholic. You completely ignored the question, as if it didn't matter.

      The R+R now claims that a "Pope" can teach heresy to the entire Church, not only heresy, but that he can also change the moral laws, blaspheme God Himself, and destroy a multitude of souls. Yet, the R+R still defends the apostate's pontificate. To them, he's a true pope no matter what. They would defend the devil himself if he were elected by the "Cardinals" and sat on the Chair of Peter. They'd say something like, "Oh, Our Lord said to St. Peter 'Get behind me Satan' and Our Lord still made him pope..."

      You said, "The Church has never taught that canonizations are infallible and irreformable". I don't think you know the difference between a subjective claim and an objective claim. In order to keep your fake "Pope" on the throne, you're willing to throw away the saints as well. You think it's possible for a "Pope" to make an erroneous public and official declaration of canonization? What you're professing is not compatible with the sanctity of the Church. You're denying the De fide dogma on the sanctity of the Church, "The Church founded by Christ is holy."

      The Church teaches that "the secondary object of the Infallibility is truths of the Christian teaching on faith and morals, which are not formally revealed, but which are closely connected with the teaching of Revelation..." The canonisation of saints falls into the category of the secondary object of the Infallibility (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott). Furthermore canonizations are a final judgment of the Church; they are "infallible and irreformable" (A Catholic Dictionary, Attwater, 3rd Edition).

      As for the charge that the R+R is Gallican, it still stands. The second and fourth Gallican propositions, which were condemned by Vatican council I declared "the supremacy of ecumenical councils over the pope"; and "that the pope has the principal share in questions of faith and that his decrees regard all the churches and every church in particular, but that his judgement is not final unless the consent of the Church be added" (A Catholic Dictionary, Attwater, 3rd Edition). The R+R recognizes and resists their "pope", therefore, they profess the Gallican heresy.

      You don't seem to be arguing in good faith. You can't even prove that your "Pope" is Catholic.

      Delete
    2. Q. Where did I get the "idea" that a Pope cannot err in an “official” teaching?

      A. We used to subscribe to the Remnant and a couple of other R+R publications. That's where we first got the "idea". But, a few years ago, we cancelled our subscriptions and threw out what we had at home into the recycling bin. Now, we get our "ideas" from the (true) Catholic Church.

      Regarding canonizations: "If the Church could err in her opinion, consequences would arise which would be incompatible with the sanctity of the Church" (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott).

      And regarding the sanctity of the Church: "The Church founded by Christ is holy" (De fide.) (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott.).

      Can't help but notice you're still offering baseless opinions. Do you know the difference between baseless opinions and objective truths? Never mind. Just prove that your "Pope" is Catholic. We're still waiting...

      Delete
    3. Conclusion: Ask the R+R/SSPX to prove their "Pope" is Catholic, and they"ll change the meaning of the word "Catholic" instead.

      Delete
  15. R+R/SSPX, you said the infallibility of canonizations is "far less certain" than the doctrine regarding the indefectibility of the Church. But what you said is completely untrue. The infallibility of canonizations is also classified as "theologically certain" (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott.).

    BTW, sedevacantists don't deny the indefectibility of the Church. They only deny that heretics, or anti-Catholic apostates, can be popes.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Amazon Facial Recognition Technology Determines that Sister Lucy I and Sister Lucy II are not the Same Person. Not One Match Amidst Thousands of Comparisons.

Sister Lucy Truth Update: Michigan State Facial Recognition Lab Finds that Sister Lucy II (post-1967) was NOT Sister Lucy I (pre-1967). How Much Do We Need to Put Out Until the Crickets Stop Chirping?

More Than Metaphor: Our Lady at La Salette seems to have told us not only THAT the Church would be in "Eclipse," but WHEN IT WOULD GO INTO ECLIPSE, October 27th, 1958.

Long-Standing Fatima "Consecration of Russia" Narrative Implodes as Handwriting Expert Demonstrates 1980 Letter from "Sister Lucy" to Fr. Umberto Pasquale is Definitely a Forgery. Whatever the Real Sister Lucy Knew about the Requested Consecration of Russia DOES NOT Appear in this Letter. Fatima Center, Are You Listening? Report from Bart Baggett to be Posted Imminently.

ALERT: World-Class Handwriting Analyst Demonstrates that the Writings of "Sister Lucy" from after 1957 Were Forgeries. Analysis of "Third Secret" Released by Vatican in 2000, Forged 1969 Letter Urging Obedience and Submission to Paul VI, Signatures on Letters from 1967 and 1969, Letter about Consecration of Russia From 1980, and Manuscript Released by Carmelites of Coimbra and Used as the Basis for Sister Lucy's Official Biography Published by the Blue Army WERE ALL FORGERIES. Follow the Links to the Sworn Testimony Below.

Revised and Updated Edition of Handwriting Analyst Declaration in which 1969 Letter of "Sister Lucy" Advocating Submission to Paul VI is Proven to be a Forgery. Soon to be Released on SisterLucyimposter.org. Includes Analysis of the Purported Third Secret Released in 2000. Socci's "4th Secret" Looking More Plausible. Folks, if Sister Lucy was around in 1969, she would have been able to write her own letters.