THE REAL SISTER LUCIA AND THE IMPOSTER SISTER LUCY

Sections from MOST HOLY FAMILY MONASTERY and their investigation into the Vatican's murder of this 20th Century Saint

Q. What about Sr. Lucy’s statements after 1960? She seems to be quoted every which way? Some quote her saying that John Paul II successfully consecrated Russia; others quote her as saying just the opposite. Some quote her as saying that the third secret was never intended to be revealed and that no one goes to hell, while others quote her as talking about the diabolical disorientation in the Church.

A. After 1960 we are undoubtedly dealing with a massive conspiracy and an impostor Sr. Lucy. We will now cover the striking evidence that the enemies of the message of Fatima , starting during the reign of the Freemason, John XXIII, actually implanted an impostor Sr. Lucy who falsely acted as if she were the real Sr. Lucy. Nothing coming from Sr. Lucy after 1960 is reliable.

Part I of the Imposter Sister Lúcia- When and Why after 1960 from MHFM.

Part II of the Imposter Sister Lúcia- When and Why after 1960 from MHFM.

Part III of the Imposter Sister Lúcia- When and Why after 1960 from MHFM.

First of all, we know that there was a conspiracy involving Sr. Lucy starting in 1959. In 1957, Sr. Lucy gave her famous interview to Fr. Augustín Fuentes, postulator of the cause of Beatification for Jacinta and Francisco. In this interview, Sr. Lucy said that she had determined that we are in the last times, and that there are punishments in store for the world. Sr. Lucy also said not to wait for the hierarchy for the call to penance. Following the interview, in 1959 the Diocese of Coimbra issued a note. This note declared that Fr. Fuentes fabricated basically all the statements attributed to Lucy in the interview not dealing specifically with Jacinta and Francisco. Included in this note was a statement allegedly from Sr. Lucy, in which she supposedly declared that Fr. Fuentes’ claims were not truthful. Here is a portion of the note:

Note from the Diocese of Coimbra, July 2, 1959, on the Fuentes interview: “Father Augustín Fuentes, postulator of the cause of beatification for the seers of Fatima… visited Sister Lucy at the Carmel of Coimbra and spoke to her exclusively about things concerning the process in question. But after returning to Mexico …this priest allowed himself to make sensational declarations of an apocalyptic, eschatological and prophetic character, which he declares that he heard from Sister Lucy’s very lips. Given the gravity of such statements, the chancery of Coimbra believed it its duty to order a rigorous investigation on the authenticity of such news… but also with regard to things reported as having been said by Sister Lucy, the Diocese of Coimbra has decided to publish these words of Sister Lucy, given in answer to questions put by one who has the right to do so.

[Sr. Lucy]: ‘Father Fuentes spoke to me in his capacity as Postulator for the causes of beatification of the servants of God, Jacinta and Francisco Marto. We spoke solely on things connected with this subject; therefore, whatever else he refers to is neither exact nor true. I am sorry about it, for I do not understand what good can be done for souls when it is not based on God, Who is the Truth. I know nothing, and could therefore say nothing, about such punishments, which are falsely attributed to me.’

The chancery of Coimbra is in a position to declare that since up to the present Sister Lucy has said everything she believed it her duty to say about Fatima, she has said nothing new and consequently has authorized nobody, at least since February 1955, to publish anything new that might be attributed to her on the subject of Fatima .” (WTAF, Vol. 3, pp. 550-551)

Even “Fr.” Gruner’s apostolate holds the Fuentes interview to be authentic, and this statement from the Diocese of Coimbra, in which Sr. Lucy supposedly disavows much of the Fuentes interview, to be a lie. Thus, we are dealing with a conspiracy surrounding Sr. Lucy as early as 1959 – the diocese attributing and publishing false statements in Sr. Lucy’s name to disavow important warnings for the world. At the same time, it was conveniently declared that Sr. Lucy “has said everything she believed it her duty to say about Fatima”; in other words, Sr. Lucy has nothing more to say about Fatima . Frere Michel also notes that after the Fuentes interview it became increasingly difficult to get access to Sr. Lucy; she became “invisible.”

Frere Michel de la Sainte Trinité, The Whole Truth About Fatima, Vol. 3, pp. 748-749: “From then on [after the Fuentes interview and diocesan note disavowing it], she was bound to a much more rigorous silence on everything concerning Fatima, and especially the great themes of the Secret… As we have seen, in its note of July 2, 1959, the chancery of Coimbra declared authoritatively that ‘Sister Lucy has nothing more to say on Fatima ’! It also became increasingly difficult to see her, and for years no more of her writings were published. Her testimony was becoming bothersome. In 1962, Maria de Freitas remarked that ‘more and more, visits to Sister Lucy are forbidden; more and more she is becoming invisible.’”

Well, we believe that the following photographs (in addition to other evidence) reveal why, following the Fuentes interview, Sr. Lucy was subjected to a rigorous silence, why she became “invisible.” It’s because after that point it wasn’t Sr. Lucy at all, but an impostor posing as Sr. Lucy. Here are pictures of the real Sr. Lucy from 1945, when she was 38 years old:

The real Sr. Lúcia in 1945, at age 38. Some believe she was forced into the pose on the right. In 1958, Masonry had had enough of her and killed her.

Now here is the picture of “Sr. Lucy” in 1967 at age 60!

”Sr. Lucy” in 1967 at age 60

You can judge for yourself, but the woman pictured here is not the same as the woman pictured above. First, this photograph is from 1967. Thus, this is supposedly “Sr. Lucy” 22 years later, at age 60! But this woman looks as young, or even younger, than Sr. Lucy when she was 38 years old!

Second, the real Sr. Lucy (the first picture) has a different nose structure than this “Sr. Lucy.” This “Sr. Lucy's” nose is much broader; it's a different woman. Of course, while a person can (and often does) noticeably age when going from middle-aged to late middle-aged, he or she is still noticeably the same person – unlike in this case.

Third, a reader of ours named Barbara Costello has pointed out that Sr. Lucy has a characteristic dimple in her chin and in her cheeks. We see this in the following photograph of Sr. Lucy in 1945, again at age 38 (as well as first picture above, the right-hand picture from 1945):

Notice the characteristic dimple in the real Sister Lúcia's cheeks and the center of her chin

But the post-1958 “Sr. Lucy” below does not have the characteristic dimples in her cheeks and the center of her chin. This “Sr. Lucy” has a predominant characteristic of a protruding, forward chin, which the real Sr. Lucy doesn't have (besides the different nose structure).

This woman is not Sr. Lúcia of Fatima, but a phony Sr. Lucy that was implanted and specially picked to serve the purpose of the false Fatima line and the Vatican II religion that has been foisted on the world since the Fuentes interview. In addition to the photographic evidence, the fact that the post-Vatican II “Sr. Lucy” is not the real Lucy screams out all over the place.

Francis Alban, The Fatima Priest, Intro page: “On October 11th, 1990, Carolina , the blood sister of Sister Lucy, told Father Gruner that she had visited Sister Lucy in the Carmel of Coimbra for more than 40 years and never had she been able to speak alone with her sister in the same room. They were always separated by a grille and many other sisters of the convent were in attendance at all visits.” (Good Counsel Publications, Pound Ridge, NY, 1997)

For more than 40 years, “Sr. Lucy” was unable to be seen even by her sister except through a grille and with other nuns present! This would explain why her sister would not have uncovered the fraud – she was never able to see “Sr. Lucy” except behind a grille and fully clothed in a habit, and never able to speak intimately with her because of the constant presence of “many” other nuns! This strange quarantining of “Sr. Lucy” was not, as “Fr.” Gruner has suggested, because she would tell the world the truth about Fatima . It was because the conspirators in the Vatican didn't want their fake “Sr. Lucy” exposed for the impostor she was, which would have occurred if she were subjected to any tough examination or scrutiny. (And this did happen in the few cases that the Vatican allowed to her to be interviewed, such as the notorious Two Hours with Sr. Lúcia by Carlos Evaristo, as we will see.)

Sister Lúcia was never allowed to speak with her family except from behind a grille, but when they needed “Sr. Lucy” to publicly endorse the Vatican II sect, its Antipopes, and their failure to release the third secret, she was neatly presented to the world at Fatima in 1967, so that she could be seen hobnobbing with her fellow conspirator, Anti-Pope Paul VI (below). Above photograph is an example of such a grille that some nuns live behind.

The phony Sr. Lucy brought out from behind the grille to be seen by the world at Fatima in 1967 with her fellow conspirator, Anti-Pope Paul VI - to endorse the new religion, his ripping apart of Tradition, his promulgation of V-2, and his failure to release the third secret.

Same thing here: the phony Sr. Lucy brought before the world to be seen hobnobbing with Anti-Pope John Paul II

Another question that springs to mind after viewing these photographs is: when did Sr. Lucy get her teeth fixed? Here is a picture of the real Sr. Lucy; her front teeth were characteristically mangled.

“When Lúcia’s second teeth began to come in… they were large, projecting and irregular, causing the upper lip to protrude and the heavy lower one to hang…” (William Thomas Walsh, Our Lady of Fatima, p. 11)

But in the photographs of the phony post-1960 Sr. Lucy, we see that her teeth are neat and straight, not large, projecting and irregular. Sure, it's possible that Sr. Lucy had massive dental surgery or had her teeth replaced to get them looking so neat and straight as the impostor Sr. Lucy's do, but it is more likely just another proof of the fact that the woman pictured above: right is not the real Sr. Lúcia.

For those who find this hard to accept, I ask them to focus on two things: 1) Our Lord said that in the last days the deception will be so profound that even the elect would be deceived if that were possible (Matthew 24), and an impostor Lucy was crucial to the Devil’s plan of deceiving the world on Fatima. 2) Every traditionalist who doesn’t accept the Vatican ’s version of the third secret of Fatima (released in the year 2000) already believes that there was an impostor Sr. Lucy, but simply hasn’t figured it out yet, or isn’t honest or logical enough to admit it. It is undeniable that the Vatican ’s “Sr. Lucy” fully endorsed its version of the third secret, and its accompanying interpretation that it refers to John Paul II. This fact is not known from a letter that can be forged, but from undeniable video evidence of “Sr. Lucy” at Fatima in 2000 for the “Beatifications” of Jacinta and Francisco.

At this event, “Cardinal” Sodano (in view of “Sr. Lucy”) announced that the Vatican would be releasing the third secret of Fatima , and that it refers to the assassination attempt on Anti-Pope John Paul II. Everyone who was watching the event (as we were) could see “Sr. Lucy’s” reaction, so there could be no doubt about her being hidden away in order not to tell the truth on the matter (as the Grunerites might claim). “Sr. Lucy” made clear gestures signifying that she fully endorsed and agreed with “Cardinal” Sodano, that the third secret of Fatima refers to the assassination attempt against John Paul II! To anyone who is honest and logical, this is absolute proof that she cannot be the real Sr. Lucy, but is an impostor and an agent of the Vatican II sect.

In the following quote, notice that even a Grunerite acknowledges the problem. He admits how “almost disquieting” it was to see “Sr. Lucy” endorse “Cardinal” Sodano’s interpretation of the third secret – yes, I would say so! – but he fails to draw the appropriate conclusion.

Mark Fellows, Fatima in Twilight, p. 327: “In fact, her [Sister Lucy’s] exuberance at Fatima in 2000 was almost disquieting. Surely the cause of her radiance, and her new graciousness towards John Paul, was her happiness over the beatification of her two cousins. Yet she remained exuberant even in the face of Cardinal Sodano’s version of the Third Secret, going so far as to make large, awkward gestures to the crowd.”

There you have it: the phony “Sr. Lucy” fully endorsed the Vatican ’s version and interpretation of the third secret of Fatima. The only way that one could even consider her to be the real Sr. Lucy is if one fully accepts the Vatican ’s version of the third secret, and its interpretation that it refers to the assassination attempt against John Paul II. But almost all traditionalists agree that the Vatican ’s version (and interpretation) of the third secret was not authentic, but another lie – another conspiracy. The impostor “Sr. Lucy” is of the same order. And that is why the Grunerites are forced to bend over backwards to attempt to explain away statement after statement emanating from the impostor Sr. Lucy which contradicts their position.

In 1992, there was the infamous Two Hours with Sr. Lucy interview, conducted by “Cardinal” Padiyara of Ernaculam, India , “His Excellency” Bishop Francis Michaelappa of Mysore , India , and “Father” Francisco V. Pacheco of Fort Ce , Brazil . Mr. Carlos Evaristo, a journalist, was also present at the interview, and he acted as the official translator. In this interview, “Sr. Lucy,” among other things, said that the third secret was never intended to be revealed by 1960, and that it should not be revealed. This totally contradicts everything that we know the pre-Vatican II Sr. Lucy said on this matter. In the interview, this “Sr. Lucy” also said that John Paul II’s consecration of Russia was accepted in heaven. Here is a portion of the interview:

Cardinal Padiyara: 'And, was this [consecration] accomplished by Pope John Paul II on March 25th of 1984?'

Sister Lucy: 'Yes, Yes, Yes (In a low affirmative voice which also seemed to show that she was expecting this question)…

Carlos Evaristo: “So this consecration was then accepted by Our Lady?'
The Imposter Sister Lucy: “Yes.”
Carlos Evaristo: “Our Lady is content and has accepted it?”
The Imposter Sister Lucy: “Yes.…”
Cardinal Padiyara: “Does God and Our Lady still want the Church to reveal the Third Secret?”
The Imposter Sister Lucy: “The Third Secret is not intended to be revealed. It was only intended for the Pope and the immediate Church hierarchy.”
Carlos Evaristo: “But didn't Our Lady say that it was to be revealed to the public by 1960, at the latest?”
The Imposter Sister Lucy: “Our Lady never said that. Our Lady said that it was for the Pope.”
Father Pacheco: “Does the Third Secret have to do with the Second Vatican Council?”
The Imposter Sister Lucy: “I cannot say.”
Carlos Evaristo: “Can the Pope reveal the Third Secret?”
The Imposter Sister Lucy: “The Pope can reveal it if he chooses to, but I advise him not to. If he chooses to, I advise great prudence. He must be prudent.”

The Grunerites have desperately tried to discredit this interview, since it is so devastating to their position; but Bro. Michael Dimond (superior of Most Holy Family Monastery) had a chance to speak with “Fr.” Pacheco when he came to visit the Monastery once for a conference in the 1990’s. “Fr.” Pacheco told Bro. Michael that something is very wrong with this Sr. Lucy, and that she couldn’t answer simple questions about her life. It’s quite obvious that the interviewers were simply probing too deeply in areas with which the impostor was unfamiliar.

The Grunerites attempt to discredit this 1992 interview by pointing out that Sr. Lucy was always behind the grille, but in this interview she was supposedly out in the open, even holding hands with people. But this makes sense: the Vatican allowed one selective interview to an independent group – with Sr. Lucy out in the open and not behind the grille – in which she would tell them (and thus the world) that John Paul II successfully consecrated Russia so that it would be on the record with an independent group. But when “Sr. Lucy” was to meet with her sister (who could more easily have identified that she was an impostor), she was always kept behind the grille and with many other nuns.

Besides the 1992 interview, Two Hours with Sr. Lucy, there are numerous other statements from the phony Lucy in which she fully endorses the Vatican II sect’s line on Fatima , thus proving that she is an impostor. In 2001, in an article printed in L’Osservatore Romano, “Sr. Lucy” was specifically asked about the consecration of Russia and even “Fr.” Gruner’s attempts to still get it done. This interview was reported around the world:

VATICAN CITY, DEC 20, 2001 (Vatican Information Service): “With reference to the third part of the secret of Fatima, she [“Sr. Lucy”] affirmed that she had attentively read and meditated upon the booklet published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and confirmed everything that was written there. To whoever imagines that some part of the secret has been hidden, she replied: ‘Everything has been published; no secret remains.’ To those who speak and write of new revelations she said: “There is no truth in this. If I had received new revelations I would have told no-one, but I would have communicated them directly to the Holy Father.” Sister Lucy was asked: ‘What do you say to the persistent affirmations of Fr. Gruner who is gathering signatures in order that the Pope may finally consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of (Our Lady), which has never been done?’ She replied: ‘The Carmelite Community has rejected the forms for gathering the signatures. I have already said that the consecration that Our Lady desired was accomplished in 1984 and was accepted in Heaven.’”

Of course, the Grunerites will claim that this interview was fabricated or distorted, but then they are admitting that there is a conspiracy! If the Vatican will go that far, it is certainly conceivable that it would implant an impostor; and, as we saw, the claim that all of these statements from “Sr. Lucy” endorsing the phony third secret are just fabrications is blown away by the video evidence in which anyone could see her endorse the Vatican’s version of the third secret at Fatima in 2000.

A bizarre picture of “Sr. Lucy” kissing the hand of Freemason John Paul II immediately after receiving “Communion.”

Another point worth mentioning is “Sr. Lucy’s” bizarre activity when receiving “Communion” from John Paul II at the aforementioned 2000 “Beatification” ceremony at Fatima (the same one where she clearly endorsed the Vatican ’s version of the third secret). “Sr. Lucy” first extended her hands, as if she wanted to receive “Communion” in the hand. Being too smart for that, and knowing that it would blow the entire scheme, John Paul II hesitated, and extended his hand to give her “Communion” on the tongue. But immediately after receiving “Communion,” “Sr. Lucy” grabbed John Paul II’s hand and kissed it (as pictured above). This is totally bizarre, for “Sr. Lucy” had every chance to pay her respects to the Anti-Pope, but apparently she couldn’t even wait until after her thanksgiving for “Communion” and “Mass” had ended! The real Sr. Lucy would never have done this – thus interrupting her Communion and thanksgiving. It’s clear that the impostor Sr. Lucy was simply overzealous in playing her part of filial devotion to the Anti-Pope, and jumped the gun by grabbing his hand immediately after “Communion.”

Q. So what do you think happened to the real Sr. Lucy?

A. They clearly eliminated her at some point. Whenever that may have occurred, there is no doubt that the woman playing the part of “Sr. Lucy” since Vatican II was not the real one. Readers can take this for what it is worth (and it is not essential in any way to the facts above which prove that there was indeed an impostor Sr. Lucy), but a few years back we received a very disturbing letter. We received a letter from a woman (a traditional Catholic convert) whose family was involved in the higher-echelons of the Illuminati and Freemasonry. We also spoke to this woman both before and after she sent it. There was much more in the letter and in the telephone conversations that added context and creditability to her claim, but we can only give a portion of the letter below. As hard as this may be to believe, we really did receive the following letter and speak at length with this woman (she asked that we withhold her name for obvious reasons):

“Dear Brothers of Holy Family Monastery… As I told you on the phone I have some very dark relatives…[a world famous Freemason] is the brother of [x- name removed to preserve anonymity of author] who was married to my Grand Aunt. All of my relatives on my mother’s side were 33rd degree Illuminati Freemasons. My Grandparents were in Eastern Star… I know I must sound like a screaming weirdo by now. I am not… When I was five my Mother hosted a gathering. There are many things that went on that are too gruesome to put in print about these gatherings. They are basically sacrificing to satan to put it briefly. I had a new baby brother named [x]… My mother didn’t know ahead of time [that x] was to be part of the ‘ceremonies’. They were going to put him in what looked like a large brass wok [and torture him] in order to tell the future. …[thankfully, this didn’t happen because of intervening events]… [But] One of the things that was said that awful day was they had just killed sister Lucy (I thought they were talking about a sister I didn’t know I had that they had killed). When I asked they said ‘No stupid…she’s a nun’ It only made sense years later what this meant. It was 1958, late Oct when this happened. [I remember because my brother had just been born]. I know that I sound like a mad woman but it is the truth…”

We have spoken with this woman at length; she is a traditional Catholic convert, and we believe that she is telling the truth. But regardless of whether one accepts this testimony or not, the fact is that there was an impostor Sr. Lucy. There is no doubt about this; the evidence is undeniable. The Vatican conveniently kept her alive until 97 years old, until it had revealed the phony third secret and she had finished playing her part, then a few years later she “died” and her cell was ordered sealed by “Cardinal” Ratzinger.

There are so many souls who have dismissed the evidence against the Vatican II apostasy and the New Mass simply because they saw that “Sr. Lucy” accepted them. We always informed them that they cannot dismiss facts of the Faith based on what they think another person believes.

Alas, but lacking true Faith, they chose to follow man instead of God, and were actually following a complete impostor.

THE FALSE MESSAGE OF “FR.” NICHOLAS GRUNER

Prior to examining this issue in detail, like almost everyone else we also held the popular position on the consecration of Russia : that the conversion of Russia necessarily means that the nation of Russia would be converted to the Catholic Faith, resulting in an astonishing reign of universal peace and Catholic renewal. We held it because that’s what every person writing on Fatima was saying, and there was really no reason to question it. However, as shown in this article, after studying the basis for this position, we came to discover that there is no basis for this position, and that it finds no proof in the words of Our Lady; on the contrary, a vastly different and much more plausible position does find its evidence in the words of Our Lady.

There are many people who have held, and do hold, the erroneous position on the consecration and conversion of Russia in good Faith. (And strictly speaking, one is free to hold whatever opinion he feels inclined to on this matter, since it is not a matter of Catholic doctrine – even though the evidence presented in this article shows that the position of Nicholas Gruner on this issue is false.) Those who have held it in bad faith would be those who have dismissed the facts from the teaching of the Church on the present apostasy, and remained with the Vatican II sect or the New Mass, simply because they believed that one of the Vatican II “Popes” must consecrate Russia.

That being said, I believe that the Fatima Enterprise of “Fr.” Nicholas Gruner has become a colossus with the assistance of the devil. His enterprise has been hugely important to the devil in distracting souls from the real issues of the Faith to get a phony Anti-Pope to consecrate Russia . Even if Russia had not already been consecrated, it is a fact that the Vatican II Antipopes are not Catholic and therefore have no authority to do it anyway. Thus, “Fr.” Gruner’s massive apostolate attempting to get the Vatican II Antipopes to consecrate Russia is a waste on two fronts: 1) he is trying to get non-Catholic, manifestly heretical Antipopes to do the consecration, when they can’t; and 2) his entire position on the consecration of Russia is wrong. Think of all the wasted time, resources and effort! Think – most importantly – of the souls who have been misled and distracted and have obstinately accepted the Vatican II Antipopes because (through their own lack of love of the truth) they dismissed the facts from the Magisterium, and held on to the Vatican II Antipopes because they believed that one of them must consecrate Russia.

We hear from these people very frequently, and we’ve always assured them that they cannot dismiss facts from the teaching of the Magisterium based on their question of who will fulfill a prophecy. We always told them that against a fact there is no argument (heretics cannot be Popes), and truth cannot contradict truth, and therefore there is a good answer to their question about the consecration, even if one didn’t have it at the time. But alas, they dismissed all the facts from the teaching of the Magisterium, and accepted the Vatican II apostates because of their false idea that one of them must consecrate Russia . Now they can see not only that the sedevacantist position doesn’t contradict the message of Fatima in any way, but that their position was actually a deception that has kept them mired in darkness on the present situation. “Fr.” Gruner has actually become the fourth largest employer in Ft. Erie , Ontario based on his apostolate!

That “Fr.” Gruner’s apostolate has been assisted by the devil finds corroboration in his devilish mixture of truth with error – of Catholicism with apostasy. We see this so clearly in the next quote about the apostasy in the Church.

“Fr.” Gruner, “God Have Mercy on us all,” Crusader 71: “‘In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great Apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.’ These are the very words of Cardinal Ciappi (personal Papal Theologian to Pope John Paul II). The result of “the great Apostasy” starting “at the top” is corruption of the clergy and the laity in doctrine, in morals and in liturgy… God is very angry with His people because He is not only sending us bad priests, He has also apparently sent us bad bishops and bad Cardinals too… Pope John Paul II at Fatima, on May 13, 2000 told us that: ‘The message of Fatima is a call to conversion, alerting humanity to have nothing to do with the ‘dragon’ whose ‘tail swept down a third of the stars of Heaven and cast them to the earth.’ (Apoc. 12:4) To put that statement in plain English, Pope John Paul II is saying as follows: Do not follow the one-third of the Cardinals, one-third of the Catholic bishops, and one-third of the Catholic priests, who have been dragged down by the devil from their exalted position of leading the faithful to Heaven. In other words, the Holy Father is telling us what the Message of Fatima is warning us about today. That is that one-third of the clergy (who are the stars of Heaven) have been dragged down by the devil and his co-workers — the Masons, communists, homosexual networks — and are now working for the devil himself; not for God, not for the Church of Christ , but for the devil.” (fatima.org)

This really encapsulates “Fr.” Gruner’s evil methods and evil apostolate. Here we see Gruner discussing the truth of how it is predicted that the apostasy in the Church will begin “at the top.” Who could that be? Obviously it would apply first and foremost to John Paul II, the man who claimed to be the Pope (claimed to be the top of the Church) and led the entire apostasy by his idolatrous prayer gatherings at Assisi , his massive false ecumenism all over the world, etc. But while telling people about this truth (that the apostasy will begin at the top, or what seems to be the top of the Church), does he then warn them about the man to be most aware of, John Paul II? No, instead he does just the opposite: he then leads them directly to John Paul II – the one they should be most aware of regarding the apostasy – by quoting him as if he is their ally against the apostasy of the bishops and priests! This is totally wicked, even more so, in certain ways, than other more overt forms of wickedness, since it mixes truth with error (apostasy with Catholicism) and is more effective in leading conservatives back to the sources of the apostasy, the Vatican II Antipopes. That is why he has been able to effectively mislead and distract so many with a false message on Fatima .

In addition to his deadly mixture of truth with error, one of the ways by which “Fr.” Gruner’s apostolate has become so influential is by propaganda. Here are some of the things that you can find on the website of his apostolate: His website (Fatima.org) calls his magazine “Our Lady’s magazine.” It states: “Click here to read more about Our Lady’s magazine…”! Boy, who would want to disagree with or not support “Our Lady’s magazine” – the magazine of Our Lady herself!

He calls his Book Service “Our Lady’s Book Service”! Wow, we wish we could have the privilege of being “Our Lady’s Book Service.” He calls his radio program “Our Lady’s Radio Program”! And – yes, you guessed it – he calls his Apostolate, not just a Fatima Apostolate, but “Our Lady’s Apostolate”! His website states: “Shortly following the formation of Our Lady's Apostolate, Father Gruner began publishing the Fatima Crusader magazine. In 1980, Pope John Paul II directly encouraged Father Gruner in his Fatima work and the periodical has grown…”

Wow, he must be some “priest” to run “Our Lady’s Apostolate” – the Apostolate of Our Lady herself! – as well as her Radio Program, her magazine and her Book Service. Does anyone fail to see how presumptuous – and arguably blasphemous – this is? Oh, never mind… it’s okay… I almost forgot… Gruner is, according to his Apostolate (i.e. “Our Lady’s” Apostolate), “the Fatima Priest”!

In truth, this is simply propaganda from a false prophet, and that is why “Fr.” Gruner has had such an influence on what people think about Fatima and the present situation. Propaganda is defined as “…organized scheme, for propagation of a doctrine or practice.” To dub almost every aspect of his apostolate “Our Lady’s” is an organized scheme on the part of his apostolate to build itself up as the voice of Our Lady herself.

Besides being wickedly presumptuous, this propaganda brainwashes people just like the propaganda from the mainstream media. When they hear this stuff over and over – this is “Our Lady’s apostolate” and “Our Lady’s magazine” and “Our Lady’s Book Service” – they are often brainwashed to follow everything he says on Fatima, support him vigorously (for who wouldn’t want to support Our Lady?) or consider Gruner to be Our Lady’s personal representative. Since people are so gullible, it has been a major factor in how big his apostolate has become. That is why his apostolate continues to use this type of propaganda so often. It is why so many have been brainwashed not to consider anything on this issue that doesn’t conform to “Fr.” Gruner’s views.

By the way, Gruner stated in one of his letters that he wants to send the book “Fatima Priest” (which is the story of his life) to every “Bishop” in the country! What a complete waste. The book Fatima Priest, which is replete with pictures of Gruner from throughout his life including as a baby, which is basically all about him and what a hero he supposedly is, has been translated into various languages to spread the “Good News” of Nicholas Gruner around the world.

All of this explains why Gruner consistently promoted pictures of Anti-Pope John Paul II in his magazine for years (in a positive light) after he was aware of John Paul II’s apostasy. For Gruner, it wasn’t about telling people the truth; it was about keeping himself popular and seen as a hero with a somewhat mainstream “Catholic” audience – by promoting John Paul II and Fatima at the same time. Only a very wicked man would not have denounced John Paul II once he became aware of his apostasy, and that’s exactly what Nicholas Gruner is.

www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com

Copyright © 2006: Most Holy Family Monastery.

More evidence from TRADITION IN ACTION:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g12hArt2_TwoSisterLucys.htm

The Two Sister Lucys
Photos and Facts
Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D.

I was invited by the Editor of the TIA website, Atila Guimarães, to write more about the possibility of having not one, but two Sister Lucys, a question I raised in another article. Because of misinformation regarding one of the photos I used in the article, I am returning to the topic in order to defend that the hypothesis remains valid.

I had no idea that raising the possibility of having two Sister Lucys would ignite the huge controversy that is still spreading like wildfire. Independent of any other conclusion, this simple fact seems to show how many Catholics are suspicious of whatever comes from the top regarding Fatima. For them, Fatima is not a finished story, as some ecclesiastical authorities have pretended. It is still alive, very much alive. It is a curious reaction that I note in passing and leave for whoever wants to analyze it.

This controversy brought many new plates to the table: historical data that had been forgotten regarding Sister Lucy, observations about her features and psychology that enriched the picture, as well as many photos I had never seen before. I am incorporating these additions from my readers without quoting sources to assure their privacy and allow them to express themselves freely to TIA. I thank them for the collaborations.

Also, objections of all kinds were made. I cannot refrain from sharing with some amusement one genre of objection. When, in my previous article, I gave my opinion that the first set of photos showed two different persons, some protested adamantly, stating that I was wrong and the persons in the first two photos were quite obviously the same person. Some remarks were violent and offensive – “You must be on drugs if you are seeing two different persons…”

Shortly afterward, the source for one of those photos, a known magazine, issued an apology for their caption identifying the nun in it as Sister Lucy, actually she was not. My violent objectors were caught in their tracks … Their partiality was fully revealed with this mix-up. How true it is that people often don’t want to see the reality before their eyes.

But I also received serious objections, and I am answering them here as the topics come up. Again, I will not quote the sources. I also thank my objectors for their contributions.

I have separated six sets of pictures of Sister Lucy from the collection of photos I have been gathering. In the comparison sets, I tried to find similar positions and states of spirit in both the young Sister Lucy and the older one in order to validly support this assessment: they seem to be different persons.

After presenting the pictures in each set, I will zoom in on parts of the face – the eyebrows, nose, mouth, and chin – to better analyze the different features and allow the reader to follow my points, as near to a scientific analysis as I can make, without the need of too much elaboration.

As in my previous article, for the sake of convenience, I will call the person in the set of earlier photos Sister Lucy I, and the older person Sister Lucy II.

1. The slightly smiling Sister Lucys

Set 1 shows a close-up of Sister Lucy I slightly smiling. The photo is undated but she wears the habit of a Dorothean sister and appears to be in her late 30s. At most, she is age 41, since she was born in 1907 and entered the Carmel in 1948.

The close-up of Sister Lucy II, also slightly smiling, is a photo dated May 13, 1982, so she would be age 75. There are many points of difference in the features that indicate to me we are looking at two different people.

• The natural line of the thick, heavy eyebrows of Sister Lucy I is straight (photo 1a). The brows extend into the forehead area above her nose and past the inner corner of her eyes.

The eyebrows of Sister Lucy II, partially concealed by the dark frames of her glasses, are not straight, but slightly arched and taper off; the arch begins directly over the eye. There is a broad space without brows above the nose between the two eyebrows.

• Some readers objected that eyebrows thin with age on some people, which would explain the clear difference between the brows. I don’t believe this is necessarily so. Even if this were admitted, without surgery or some artificial means, the shape of the one’s brows does not change from a straight line to an arched one, because the shape of the brows follow the shape of the bone structure of the forehead.

• Regarding the focus of the eyes of Sister Lucy I, they seem normal with a small tendency toward extropia, or divergent strabismus, that is, the eyes slightly drift outward. However, the eyes of Sister Lucy II clearly suffer from esotropia, or convergent strabismus, that is, the eyes strongly turn in toward the nose.

• When Sister Lucy I smiles, her upper cheeks (photo 1b) appear like two small round apples.

Although the cheeks of Sister Lucy II are partially covered by her large glasses, it seems clear she lacks these bulges.

• I could not find any photo of Sister Lucy I, smiling or serious, with her nostrils open. They do not flare naturally. All the photos of Sister II, however, show her with her nostrils flaring. They open naturally.

• Under the apple cheeks of Sister Lucy I are definite dimple creases (photo 1c). William Thomas Walsh mentions “the little dimples that creased her cheeks when she smiled” in his description of her in his well-known book Our Lady of Fatima. (See note 1)

But, the cheeks of Sister Lucy II are flat and broad, with no creases or dimples when she smiles.

• In his description of Sister Lucy, Walsh also notes her protruding upper lip and “heavy lower one” that hangs. The two lips have different widths.

The lips of Sister Lucy II, however, are flat, thin, tight and of an equal width.

• Objectors argued that a possible denture would explain the different teeth of the two Lucys. I will treat the teeth as a special topic below in set 4. Here I will simply discuss the effect of the teeth on the lips of these two photos.

If a person has large lips to cover long teeth, as Sister Lucy I evidently had when she was young, then if someone replaced her long teeth with short ones, the lips of this person should easily cover these now much-smaller teeth. So, we should have photos of an older Sister Lucy with lips more than sufficient to cover her smaller teeth. But the opposite happens. Sister Lucy II’s lips do not normally cover her much smaller teeth.

• When Sister Lucy I smiles, the ends of her mouth point upward. But when Sister Lucy II smiles, the ends of her mouth point downward.

• Another distinguishing feature of Lucy as a child that can be seen in her photos up to age 40 is a protuberant muscle in the middle of her chin, pronounced enough to form a dimpled area underneath (photo 1d, see also Set 6). But this muscle never appears in the photos of Sister Lucy II.

• Sister Lucy I’s chin is strong but not salient. On the contrary, the chin of Sister Lucy II is a prominent chin. The latter has a square jaw, which does not appear in the photos of Sister Lucy I.

2. The profiles of the two Lucys

The profile picture of Sister Lucy I was taken May 22, 1946 in the Chapel of the Apparitions at Fatima. Sister Lúcia II is seated next to the tomb of Francisco at Fatima on May 13, 2000. Their heads are in very similar positions, they are staring straight forward, and both have expressions of meditation or prayer.

• Although the face of Sister Lucy I is shadowed, the profile of her nose is very clear. It aptly fits the description of Walsh, who noted that “the tip of her snub nose turned up.” (See footnote 1)

However, the nose of Sister Lucy II is rounded at the tip, pointing slightly downward.

The different shapes of the noses can be measured by the angle formed by the intercession of the line of the nose with the space above the upper lip. In Sister Lucy I the angle formed by these lines is an obtuse angle. On the contrary, the angle of these lines in Sister Lucy II is an acute angle.

• One can also note in this profile close-up of Sister Lucy II how arched the brows are, confirming the previous observations.

• The chin of Sister Lucy I, even though she is younger and not overweight, recedes sharply into her neck, with the tendency to disappear into a double-chin.

However, the chin of Sister Lucy II, although she is older and heavier, juts forward and outward. It is so prominent that it forms a kind of platform extending out further than her nose. It is “lantern-shaped,” as one of my readers so aptly described it.

3. The large smile of the Lucys

Set 3 of photos, both undated, shows the two Sister Lucys with broad smiles. I have already analyzed these pictures in my previous article, so I will repeat only the essential points and make some new observations.

• In photo 3a, one notes the heavy, straight eyebrows that project forward on the forehead of Sister Lucy I. The arching eyebrows of Sister Lucy II are lighter and the forehead is flat where it meets the eyebrows.

• In photo 3b, when Sister Lucy I smiles the shape of her mouth forms a U with the edges pointing upward. When Sister Lucy II smiles, the edges of the lips point downward in the form of an upside-down U.

• Even when she smiles broadly, the lower lip of Sister Lucy I is thick, heavy and still a bit slack. When Sister Lucy II smiles, her lower lip is thin and tight.

• The dimple and creases of Sister Lucy I appear again in this smile. But they are completely missing on the smooth cheeks of Sister Lucy II.

• The nose of Sister Lucy II has marked nostrils that do not show on Sister Lucy I’s nose.

• The round tip of Sister Lucy II’s nose extends downward. But the angular tip of Sister Lucy I’s nose extends upward.

• The teeth of Sister Lucy I are clearly different, but since many readers pointed out the possibility that dentures would explain these differences, I will discuss this below in set 4 of photos.

• The lower face of Sister Lucy I (photo 3c) is moon-shaped, narrowing at the bottom, with the strong chin sinking into the neck. The base of her face is oval. But, the shape of the lower face of Sister Lucy II is square, with her long chin extending outward.

4. Sister Lucy’s teeth

The objections raised by readers about the bad teeth of Sister Lucy I (photo 3, above) and the blatantly different teeth of Sister Lucy II can be summarized in two arguments as follows:

First argument: Sister Lucy I has very long and bad teeth. This would make her a candidate for dentures. Now then, dentures can change the mouth structure. Therefore, all the changes of her face can be explained by the extraction of all her teeth and the use of dentures.

Second argument: in the photos of Sister Lucy II, she would appear to be wearing a set of dentures, even though they are small teeth. Therefore, the conclusion of the first argument is confirmed.

Regarding the first argument, I agree with its first premise, that is, Sister Lucy I had bad teeth and was a candidate for dentures.

But its second premise – dentures change the structure of the face of a person – is open to dispute. I looked at many before-and-after pictures of persons who had full mouth reconstruction dentures, and did not notice any significant structural change in the smile or face. From what I have read, only cheap and badly constructed dentures show short teeth and too much gum.

However, it is difficult to imagine that the prestigious Carmel of Coimbra, to which Sister Lucy I was transferred with her bad teeth, would contract an incompetent dentist to change the teeth of a person so important to the Catholic world as Sister Lucy. It is much more probable that the dentist was good, the dentures of good quality, and that they would not have significantly changed her smile or face.

Regarding the conclusion – all the differences we see in the two collections of photos would be explained by the dentures – I clearly disagree with this. How can false teeth change the shape of the nose, the eyebrows or the bone of the chin? Only a complete plastic surgery could explain such differences.

Regarding the second argument, that Sister Lucy II appears to be using dentures, its premise is weak. It is not indisputable that Sister Lucy II is wearing dentures. Some common sense observations pointing to the fact that her teeth could be natural follow:

• No one replaces bad and ugly teeth by another set of bad and ugly teeth. Indeed, why would a competent dentist build dentures with an ugly ¼” gum appearing on a person who is often smiling? (see photos 4c and 4d) Why did he choose to set such short, ugly teeth for such a prominent person destined to play a public role? Professionally speaking, it is highly unlikely he would have made such a set of teeth. That is, ugly teeth more likely suggest natural teeth, not dentures

• In addition, since dentures are artificial, they never change their appearance. But at times Sister Lucy II's gums seem inflamed, covering one tooth (see arrow in photo 4a), as a reader pointed out; at times her gums seem to retract making some teeth appear longer as in photo 4b.

• So, rather than dentures we could well be looking at the natural teeth of Sister Lucy II.

Therefore, neither the premise nor the conclusion of the second argument is secure. Whether Sister Lucy II is wearing dentures is open to discussion, as far as observation of photos goes.

And if these are the natural teeth of Sister Lucy II, then they are clearly different from the natural teeth of Sister Lucy I. In that case, how can it be explained except that we are looking at two different persons?

5. The two Sister Lucys in a serious attitude

It is not difficult to find a serious expression among the photos of Sister Lucy before 1950. As a child, her expression was serious, and the air of gravitas deepened with age. In almost every picture, she is solemn and grave, with a somber, brooding expression. In photo 5 (circa 1946), in response to a request, Sister Lucy was trying to duplicate how Our Lady of Fatima looked when she appeared.

It is not so easy to find a picture of Sister Lucy II with a serious expression. Even when she is not smiling, her face lacks the swarthy tonus and brooding look of Sister Lucy I. Photo 5 of Sister Lucy II, in which she appears serious, is from the cover of the 2004 edition of Fatima in Lúcia's Own Words.

• Photo 5a emphasizes the typical brooding heavy eyebrows of Sister Lucy I that almost meet in the center of her face when she shows concern. A kind of furrow appears over the brows, stressing their heaviness. None of this is seen in Sister Lucy II.

• The slight divergent strabismus can again be noted in the eyes of Sister Lucy I. On the contrary, a strong convergent strabismus is apparent in the eyes of Sister Lucy II.

• In photo 5b, Sister Lucy I’s lips are set and closed tightly in an undulant line. Still, ample lips are apparent. The shape of the mouth of Sister Lucy II, however, points down as always, the upper lip forming an upside-down U shape. Her thin, tight lips normally do not cover her teeth.

• The two creases in the cheeks of Sister Lucy I that extend down past her mouth form two very straight lines. But the cheek creases of Sister Lucy II form arches.

• Under the lower lip of Sister Lucy I there is a concave shadowed area. In it the contours of the muscle in her mid-chin can be noticed. However, there is no concave space under the lower lip of Sister Lucy II, nor protrusions of any kind on the chin, even though one might expect this kind of defect to intensify rather than disappear with age.

• Sister Lucy II seems to have lost the strong peasant-like rude features and skin of Sister Lucy I and taken on a much clearer skin tone, indicating to me a person of a different social background.

• Admitting this change of skin tone, some readers argued that it could be explained by age, which makes the skin flaccid and clearer. Therefore, they argued, this would give the impression of a person of different nationality or social level.

Perhaps this can happen sometimes, but regarding the case of Sister Lucy I, the radical change of skin color one can observe in the photos does not seem probable. At right is a close-up of two old Portuguese women who appear in the famous photo of the miracle of the sun. They are peasants like Lucy, and most probably from that same area, since they came to witness the miracle the children had said would take place. They seem to be a good example of what normally happens with peasant people of that area when they get old. Their faces remain rude and retain their peasant features.

Also, Lucy’s mother, at the right of the old women, who probably is in her 50s, does not show any tendency to have a different skin tone.

6. The space above the lip

Since she was a child, Sister Lucy I had a long space between the base of her nose and the tip of her upper lip (photos 6a, 7a, 8a). In this space we also note a defined vertical groove, the philtrum, in the center.

However, the space between the base of the nose and top lip on Sister Lucy II appears much shorter, and there is no visible groove above the lip.

7. The gestures and spirit

The last two sets of pictures present six photos each of Sister Lucy I and Sister Lucy II in various poses. Most of the photos of Sister Lucy I are dated 1946. The photos of Sister Lucy II are from her May 2000 visit to Fatima.

Sister Lucy I appears solemn, composed and reserved in this first set of photos (9 to 14). She always stands in a very collected way, her hands in a discrete gesture. She appears to be a person unaccustomed to being photographed, a bit awkward and uncomfortable with it. This observation is confirmed by Walsh, who also commented on her timidity.

From her postures, gestures and expression, it is easy to believe that she is the person who saw Our Lady and understood the gravity of the message and the role she should play in it. Her expression also fits with a person who saw Hell as she did on July 13, 1917.

She had maintained this same state of soul at least up until December 26, 1957 when Fr. Augustín Fuentes had an interview with her. Fr. Fuentes was the official Fatima archivist at the time and confidante of Sister Lucy. At that interview, he confirmed that she appeared quite serious and “very sad.”

He said she expressed great concern that “no one – neither the good nor the bad – was paying any attention to the Holy Virgin’s message.” She was also very worried about the revelation of the Third Secret, and stressed once again that a great chastisement would come for the world, where nations would disappear, if mankind remained oblivious to Our Lady’s message and Russia did not convert. What was coming, she warned, was a decisive battle between the Devil and the Blessed Virgin, where souls of the faithful would be abandoned by the religious authorities.

She told him, “Father, we should not wait for an appeal to the world to come from Rome on the part of the Holy Father, to do penance. Nor should we wait for the call to penance to come from our Bishops in our diocese, nor from the religious congregations” (emphasis added). Each person would have to save his own soul, relying on the Rosary and devotion to the Immaculate Heart of (Our Lady). She was also worried because the Holy Father and the Bishop of Fatima, the only ones permitted to know the Secret, “have chosen to not know it so that they would not be influenced by it.” [for the complete text of the interview, click here]

These most grave concerns were reflected in her expression and general demeanor.

However, in the set of photos of Sister Lucy II (photos 11-9 to 11-14), we see a person with a different state of spirit. She is always smiling, at ease in public and relaxed in her postures and gestures.

She has lost the natural timidity typical of Sister Lucy I; she became not only fearless but also completely comfortable and integrated in ambiences external to her contemplative life. In photos 13 and 14, a friend has his arm around her, a protective gesture she accepts without reservation.

In a tête-à-tête with John Paul II (photo 11), she leans forward, her face smiling and jovial. She no longer seems anxious about the future, her mission, a coming chastisement, the corruption of consecrated souls, or the many other concerns she had before. She seems optimistic and content.

8. Acceptance of a different doctrine

As one reader pointed out, the greatest difficulty of this whole problem is that Sister Lucy said one thing up until the 1960's and then changed her thinking years later. What could be the reason for this?

If Our Lord and Our Lady continued to appear to her, why did she say nothing about Vatican II and the so-called reforms that came from it, such as the Novus Ordo Mass, other liturgical novelties, and the loss of religious vocations? On the contrary, Sister Lucy II appears completely adapted to these novelties; for example, in the photos at right, she is receiving Communion standing on May 13, 1991 (top) and on May 13, 2000 (bottom).

If she expressed such serious concern about the importance that the Third Secret be revealed in 1960, why was she silent about it for the next 40 years? Contradicting what she had previously stated, how could she confirm the supposed secret that was unveiled by the Vatican in 2000, along with an “official interpretation” by Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone who then declared the Fatima episode closed, “a part of the past” ?

These, and many other questions, could be explained by the fact that there was a different Sister Lucy being presented to the public after 1960. I have pointed out the differences not only between the faces of Sister Lucy I and Sister Lucy II, but also in their spirits and attitudes. I present them to my readers with the honest concern to expose the truth so that Catholics may judge whether they are being fooled or not.

Footnote 1: On July 15, 1946, William Thomas Walsh met with Sister Lucy in an interview that lasted three hours. In his book Our Lady of Fatima, he made these two descriptions of the Dorothean sister: “[Lúcia’s teeth] were large, projecting and irregular, causing the upper lip to protrude and the heavy lower one to hang, while the tip of her snub nose turned up more than ever. Sometimes her swarthy face suggested a nature that could be sullen, stubborn and defiant, if not perverse. But the appearance was deceptive, for under the stimulus of any emotion, the light brown eyes could flash or twinkle, and the little dimples that creased her cheeks when she smiled contributed to an expression quite charming.” (p. 11)

“She seemed uncomfortable at first, and probably was, for she dislikes such interviews intensely, and submits to them only when ordered to do so. She wrung her hands nervously. Her pale brown eyes looked rather guarded and unfriendly. There was not much conviction in the high and timorous voice. A few moments later I had almost forgotten this first impression. She had begun to feel more at ease. She laughed readily; and when she smiled, a little dimple would appear on each cheek. The voice now sounded natural and sincere. There was intelligence in this face, too, and charm. It was impossible not to like her and to trust her.” (p. 218)

Some believe that this song is Jewish-Freemasonry making fun of Sister Lúcia or Lucy and Our Lady's 1917 Miracle of the Sun for the “rocking horse people” of Fatima, Portugal in 1917.

Above: a mysterious email posted on the VaticanCatholic.com website regarding the assassination of St. Lucia. (Thanks to M.H.T. for finding this)

More info:

http://greenappleproductions.blogspot.it/2011/10/lucia-dos-santos-which-is-which.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%BAcia_Santos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%BAcia_dos_Santos
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%BAcia_dos_Santos