A Phantom Sister Lucy? Was there a Co-Existence for 40 years of the Real Sister Lucy with the Imposter Sister Lucy? Let's Think.

 

    There are some who, when facing the overwhelming evidence pointing to the existence of an Imposter Sister Lucy dos Santos who took the place of the real Seer of Fatima from approximately 1958 to 2005, cannot accept the implications of this now well established fact. In order to get around the "harsh" idea that officials high up in the Catholic Church, likely at the very top, would order Sister Lucy dos Santos, the most famous nun in the world, to be "disappeared" or eliminated, so that she would no longer have interactions with those who could report her statements and opinions, perhaps even private revelations, these people will put forward the idea that, yes, there was an Imposter, but that the real Sister Lucy continued to live in the Coimbra Convent, behind the scenes, and that she would regularly interact with all sorts of people, clergy, family, and famous laity, through letter or personal conversation, even though the Imposter was  "Sister Lucy" for all the world to know and see and, even, hear from. Most recently, this was the official published position of the Fatima Center, which was fully presented in the Fatima Crusader in the issue for the Spring of 2024. Using our reason, our recognition of the imposture, our forensic and historical evidence, and just our common day experience of how life works in this world, can we judge with moral certainty that this is the case or not the case? 

    I would say that we can. We must judge that this "co-existence" theory, or the Phantom Sister Lucy Theory, as I call it, cannot be the case. In fact, such a scenario is so implausible that we can even say that it is morally certain that such is not the case. Why? Why can we be so certain, without it being absolutely impossible? First of all, what can we be certain of? We can be certain of the fact that in pictures and videos from at least 1967 to 2005, the woman who appears to the world and to history as "Sister Lucy of Fatima" was not the real Sister Lucia dos Santos, Seer of Fatima. If you seek the evidence behind this statement, see sisterlucytruth.com. From 1959 on, certainly, we have no forensic/photographic/video evidence that the real Sister Lucy continued to exist. For about 8 years there is a eclipse of her public presence, until "she" comes back onto the world stage with "her" "appearance" at Fatima on May 13, 1967 at the side of Paul VI for the celebration of the 50th Anniversary of the Apparitions at Fatima. "Her" sudden reappearance, after nearly a decade of being visually "eclipsed," was followed by 15 more years of a second eclipse that only ended with her appearance with John Paul II when he came to visit her in 1982. From then on, the Imposter, appeared often in videos, in interviews, in pictures, on book covers, in papal meetings, in big Fatima events, and is being constantly quoted by clergy and laity that have said that they have met with "Sister Lucy" and, then, report on what "she" said about one topic or another, for example, concerning the Third Secret, or, the Consecration of Russia, or the problems of the modern world. Could there be two nuns "switching off," the Imposter doing some of the work of communicating and the real Sister Lucy, in the same locale or regularly living her Carmelite life in a convent, likewise meeting with people, living in community, writing letters, and granting interviews with laity or clergy that are certainly going to report that,"Sister Lucy said........."?

    Clearly, in order to answer the question of whether there was a Phantom Sister Lucy, we have to first deal with the question of why an imposter was put in the place of the real Sister Lucy in the first place. For aesthetic and dramatic reasons? Did the Vatican, who were the only ones who could have ordered such a substitution, need a more photogenic and "fun" "Sister Lucy" for the "modern" age? This idea is absurd. No one expects a nun to be photogenic or "click-bait" for the people. Everyone knew that Sister Lucy was of Portuguese peasant origin and everyone would expect her to be and look as she did. This, in fact, was part of the ambiance that she projected, an ambiance of reserve, profundity, and lack of over concern with worldly affairs and styles. I mean, the woman had Our Lord Jesus Christ, Our Lady, Michael the Archangel appear to her, she asked for and witnessed the greatest public miracle since the Resurrection. She would be, if she lived, treated with awe. This awesome seer and peasant of Portugal was the woman that the millions turned out to see on May 13, 1967, not realizing that they were actually seeing someone else. 

    Without doubt, the Vatican replaced the real Sister Lucy with an imposter, because the real Sister Lucy would not go along with their fundamental refashioning of the Fatima Message and of the Catholic Faith and Religion itself. This grave plan, sought after for centuries -- at least with regard to the refashioning of the Catholic Religion and Faith -- apparently would be seriously threatened by, on the stage of the global consciousness, the continued presence of and the possible intervention of the real Sister Lucy dos Santos. That is why they eliminated her from the scene. This is the only thing that makes sense. And that her "transformation," actually substitution, was simultaneous with the transformation or, rather, substitution of the "old" Catholic Religion for the "new Catholic Religion," further substantiates the veracity of this judgment. We need a new Sister Lucy, for a new Church, and for a new Catholic Religion. The little "prophet of doom" would not do!

    But, according to the Fatima Center and others, the real Sister Lucy continued to live and think and write and speak behind the scenes, during the time that the Imposter was 'Sister Lucy," from say about 1960 through 2005 or, at least, through a substantial part of that time. The date currently given as possible by the Fatima Center is 1967 to 2001. Is this plausible? No, it is not. Why is it not? First, part of the reason that they hold this position, is because they hold that whenever "Sister Lucy" said something to someone which was in accord with the current position of the Fatima Center, this must be the real Sister Lucy speaking. Fathers X, Y, or Z or Cardinals A, B, or C or grandnephew P met with her and said, "Russia has not been consecrated properly.......," therefore, the real Sister Lucy met with these Fathers, and Cardinals, and family members. At least when "Sister Lucy" said what the Fatima Center holds to be true, this was evidence that the real Sister Lucy actually, behind the scenes, met with these people and said these things. However, when there was video or photographic evidence of the encounter --- since it always portrays the Imposter --- that was a meeting with the Imposter, not the real one. The real one is to the world invisible, but still meeting with people, giving private interviews, writing letters, and making profound and definitive statements about the Fatima Apparitions and Message. So, according to this Phantom Sister Lucy view, even though the Vatican had pulled off the substitution of the ages, replacing the most famous nun in the world with a different person --- bizarre to the extreme --- and risking total exposure and opening themselves up to great scandal if they should be found out, they would risk daily exposure by allowing the real Sister Lucy to meet with and communicate with hundreds of people over the course of those 40 years? Think about it, if ONE person decided that they could not keep the secret of the two "Sister Lucys" hidden anymore or if the real Sister Lucy felt compelled by conscience to expose the evil and penultimate fraud, the Modernists in the Vatican would risk being exposed for the criminality and lies that they have perpetrated on God, the faithful, and history itself. It would risk the entire Modernist plan for the Catholic Church collapsing due to one press conference. NO WAY. If we could imagine, from the old 60s spy comedy Get Smart, Sgt. Larrabee at the red phone, now placed at the Vatican, ready to get the latest emergency call on the "Sister Lucy Hot Line" about, "Cardinal Sin whispered to Señor Gomez as he left the Coimbra Convent!" or "Father Gabby just said to Mother Superior, 'If THAT is Sister Lucy who is the woman with the chin? Wait until they hear about THIS at the next Brazilian Bishops' Conference!" or, possibly, "Sister Lucy!!!! No the REAL ONE!!!! IS ABOUT TO GIVE AN INTERVIEW TO CNN! SOMEBODY LET HER OUT!!!" Would those who have everything to lose risk EVERYTHING EVERY DAY on the continued existence behind the scenes of the real Sister Lucy? No way. It is a moral and even mathematical impossibility. Psychologically implausible to such a degree that it is ridiculous. 

    Moreover, and most importantly, what would we be imputing to the character and moral state of the real Sister Lucy if she, knowing that the fraud was going on, allowed her persona to be stolen and someone else to speak for her with regard to the most profound and relevant messages from Heaven itself? SHE was the Seer of Fatima, not the lady with the chin. The real Sister Lucy would put this, the gravest of charges, aside because she was "being obedient," being shy, worried about assassination, or just through laziness? The woman who, at the age of 10, was fully reconciled to the apparent fact that her beloved cousins had just been boiled in oil, that she was about to be boiled in oil, rather than reveal the Three Secrets to those who were not yet to know it, this woman would remain withdrawn and silent as the Third Secret was not revealed when it was supposed to be revealed, the Mass was replaced by a Modernist Lord's Supper, Catholic Doctrine was inverted and dissolved, the very purpose of the Russia Consecration totally falsified in 1993 in the interview with Carlos Evaristo? She would allow all this and not come out publicly and tell us that it was wrong, against the Will of Heaven, and a lie? She, chosen by Heaven Itself, would become the greatest coward in the history of the Catholic Church, committing the gravest sins of omission? Look at the picture below. No chance!