Rad Trad Wackadoodle Finally Listens to 2018 Video in Which Both Taylor Marshall and Timothy Gordon Dismiss the Idea of an Imposter Sister Lucy as "Not Needed." "Not Needed" By Whom? Reality or those who Make Money Off the Novus Ordo Hegelian Dialectic?
Dr. Chojnowski: Since when is something not true because it is "not needed"? Since when do you use such a phrase when dealing with the question of whether something IS OR IS NOT. Is the woman who was Sister Lucy of Fatima pre-1967 the same woman as the one who appeared with Paul VI and John Paul II and on many other occasions until 2005? Philosophically speaking, does Sister Lucy I and Sister Lucy II have the same act of existence? If they did have the same act of existence, they would not have had two distinctly different bodies that can be identified as such by an eight year old.
The discussion of the "wackadoodle" theory of the Two Sister Lucys begins at the 28 min mark and goes to about the 30 minute mark. During this 2 minute dismissive segment, Marshall and Gordon use the odd words "not needed" when discussing the now scientifically verified fact that Sister Lucy I and Sister Lucy II are not the same person.
Of course, the interesting point in these few minutes is the comment that Gordon makes concerning the report of how upset Sister Lucy was when she heard about the election of John XXIII. She wanted, suddenly, to get on the radio to proclaim the Third Secret to the world because she obviously knew that the Secret would never be released if it was up to Angelo Roncalli. The word of such "enthusiasm" (a favorite derogatory expression of Immanuel Kant used for any one who thought metaphysically about the ultimate nature of things) must have gotten back to Roncalli and he acted immediately. It seems, historically and evidentiarily, very likely.
This aside, what does it mean when our friends Marshall and Gordon say that the question of "is or is not" comes down to "needed" or "not needed." Needed for what? Have they looked at the pictures, the videos, the interviews, the handwriting samples? Anything? It is "not needed" if your sole purpose is to ride the temporary wave of allowable smart ass comments concerning the "hierarchy of the Catholic Church," in which you attempt to critique and whine about their doctrinal and moral stances, while at the same time legitimizing everything they do by indicating how all of the grand actions of the Novus Ordo hierarchs are valid and legitimate even if "subject to abuse." The Novus Ordo Missae, the Vatican II Council, the Modernists' sacraments and their "pro-family" teachings, are all legitimate, but subject to abuse, not by "our people" but by the "liberals." In order for us to continue to hobnob with the smart set of those who "don't" (wink wink) but do accept the Modernist Revolution in the Church, we "don't need" to think about the question of "is or is not," we can speak endlessly of "deviations"or "abuses" and, thereby, continue to participate in the Conciliar shuffle board game between "conservatives" (i.e., Opus Dei) and "liberals" (not "wackadoodles," of course, but those who "abuse" their legitimate office of authority and jurisdiction).
Friends, reality, the cold IS OR IS NOT, will cleanse us from all of the lies and all of our confusion and all of our "diabolical disorientation."