The Fake Sister Lucy - And Why It Matters

After the Fatima apparitions, the children said that Our Lady confided three secrets to them and that they were to be announced no later than 1960.  Moreover, the consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart was supposed to be done by the pope as soon as possible but no later than 1960.  To date, neither has happened.  Ironically, Francis is the one who has come closest to fulfilling the consecration request in that he explicitly mention Russia by name, but he did not order the bishops to join him in the consecration (a number of them did, though, on their own initiative).

In the middle of the 20th century, Sister Lucia stated several times that Our Lady was displeased at the delay in fulfilling her requests.  Then, in the 1980s, after John Paul II consecrated the world - not mentioning Russia by name - to her Immaculate Heart, Sister Lucia was quoted as saying that this consecration fulfilled Our Lady's request.  That is, of course, a flat-out lie.  Our Lady was quite specific when she said that Russia must be consecrated.  She singled out Russia, and the consecration should have done the same.  I had always hypothesized that Sister Lucia was being misquoted by bad-actor bishops and that may indeed be the case.  Now that some are coming forth with evidence that the Lucy that we've been seeing for the past few decades may be an imposter, we can reasonably entertain the possibility that this bogus Lucy did claim that John Paul's consecration was according to Our Lady's stipulations.

Think of it.  This woman, if she was an imposter, was lying anyway.  Why would she have any compunctions regarding her false claim?  For that matter, her claim regarding the third secret is probably also a lie and we still aren't being told the full story, contrary to Our Lady's wishes.  I post three videos below and ask that you watch these closely.  I will have more commentary below them.

In the Lifesite clip, Dr Chojnowski mentioned (the real) Sister Lucy's insistence that the third secret be announced no later than 1960 or the time of her death.  However, in a 1993 interview, the imposter said that the secret was not to be released.  This is at the 29:03 mark of the video.

Not only do we have a clear contradiction, but perhaps we have here a motive for replacing Sister Lucy with an imposter.  During much of the 1950s, Pius XII was pope.  Aside from his own faulty consecration (he mentioned Russia but did not involve the bishops) he seemed ready to obey the Fatima message, meaning that he would have released the third secret in compliance with those deadlines.  I am now hypothesizing, but perhaps the real Sister Lucy passed away in the 1950s.  To prevent the pope from revealing the Third Secret, is it possible that the masons in the Vatican coughed up a scheme to present a phony Lucy so Pius would not believe it incumbent to reveal the Third Secret?

Perhaps several popes were deceived by her.  She was cloistered and not seen frequently.  Pope John XXIII still could not have been held blameless as 1960 happened during his pontificate.  Again, this is just a theory, but it sounds more humane than if the masons actually harmed the real Sister Lucy.

At any rate, it seems to be the case that what we have here is a brazen attempt to thwart the intentions of the Mother of God, and of Our Lord Himself.  If nothing else, it shows that the masons believe in the spiritual ramifications of the Fatima message; why else would they work so feverishly to thwart it?  And no, it wasn't just mere fear of insulting the Soviet Union.  They knew what they were doing - engaging in yet another attempt to undermine Holy Mother Church.

So how have they gotten by with this scam for so long?  There are a multiple of factors.

• Catholics today, even well-meaning Catholics, are simply ignorant of both Church teaching and Church history.  In this day and age, with the internet at our disposal, such ignorance is inexcusable.  I would recommend some serious reading and study.  For details about Fatima, read accounts dated 1950-ish or older.  Compare that with what the imposter said.
• Well-meaning Catholics are way too naïve regarding clergy and other leaders.  One would think that the sex scandals might have knocked off some rose-colored glasses but for too many, that has not been the case.  There is evil in the Church, even in the Vatican itself.  Wake up

Above all, pray and  frequently avail yourselves of the Sacraments.  Go to a Traditional Latin Mass if at all possible.  Pray your Rosaries daily and wear the brown scapular.  Practice the Five First Saturday devotions, as requested by Our Lady of Fatima.  Pray for a pope who will consecrate Russia exactly as she stipulated and who will reveal the Third Secret.  We are in a time of chastisement (in case you haven't noticed) and it will worsen, barring a direct intervention from God.  We don't have time to waste.

Novus Ordo Second Eucharistiic Prayer - Composed On A Restaurant Napkin

While I attend a Traditional Latin Mass on Sundays, I am constrained by availability to attend the Novus Ordo during weekdays.  Since Traitorous Custodians came out, the Second Eucharistic Prayer is by far the most frequently used at the Novus Ordo.  What is particularly troubling and peculiar is that even priests who have a relatively decent sense of the sacred are now preferring that prayer, whereas before they were using the Third and even First Eucharistic prayer.  Bear in mind that the First Eucharistic prayer is the traditional Roman Canon with a rather sloppy English translation.

Of the Eucharistic prayers in the Novus Ordo rite, the Second is the shortest, most stripped-down version.  I think that is a key reason why even the more reverent priests are being strong-armed into using that one.  Here is some background regarding the Eucharistic prayer that was hastily thrown together in a restaurant.

Benedict XVI May Still Be Pope

Last week I posted a video from Taylor Marshall that offered commentary on Cardinal Robert Bellarmine's treatise on the deposition of a heretical pope.  The Cardinal is a Saint and Doctor of the Church.

Below I post a video of John-Henry Westen's interview with Dr. Edmund Mazza, a professor of Church history.  The topic of discussion is whether or not Cardinal Bergoglio's election to the papacy was valid.  More to that point, the question is whether or not Pope Benedict's resignation was valid.  There may be enough canonical anomalies to render it invalid, meaning that the real pope is Benedict XVI, not Francis.  We know that progressive prelates lobbied for Pope Francis, in possible violation of Canon Law.

Please consider these matters.  Moreover, please do NOT beg off your obligation to be informed about them.  We are lay people, yes, but no more can we content ourselves with just minding our own spiritual houses, as it were.  If this evil continues without YOU shining a light of truth on them, you may well be held culpable for your indifference to these matters.  No more of this "but we're only little lay people" cop-out.  No more can we blindly trust our prelates to tell us the unvarnished truth; in fact, that may never have been a morally valid option for us to take.

By the way, things may be falling apart for Francis in the Vatican.  Please continue to pray your daily Rosaries.

Ulterior Motives Behind The Sham-azon Sin-Nod

In this clip, Michael Hichborn lays out what he believes the real purpose of this Sham-azon Sin-nod to be - in other words, the ulterior and sinister motives of the Vatican crowd and their progressive accomplices in the secular world.  He lays out a very convincing case, comparing various synodal and preparatory documents with other writings such as:

• Communist Manifesto
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Agenda 21
• Communist Goals for the Takeover of America

The above list is a list of hyperlinks.  There are undoubtedly additional links with more information on each topic.  I post these so that you can examine the points that Hichborn makes.  Long-time readers of this blog will recall that I have already commented on the Vatican's flirtations with the "sustainable development goals".

The writings of one group that Hichborn didn't mention deserves some consideration, in my opinioin.  I refer to the Humanist Manifesto.  The link that I just posted is a link to the American Humanist Association.  It's worth noting that this latest version of their manifesto is rather vague.  Follow the links to the two earlier manifestos to see more nitty-gritty about their beliefs.  Also note that the first manifesto was signed by John Dewey, regarded to be the "father of modern education".

Now the Hichborn video, and I'll have more to say below that.

A few days ago John-Henry Westen of LifeSiteNews intereviewed Bernardo Kuster, a Brazilian Catholic commentator who believes that some of the money sources behind the synod, e.g. Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation and others are interested in mineral resources in the Amazon region.  He believes that they are using the Church to get to these minerals.  Now what was that again about not exploiting resources of indiginous peoples??  Sshhh!  We shouldn't ask such pesky questions!

So who's correct?  Hichborn or Kuster?  Well, maybe they are both correct!