Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Fatima Reality Check…

New Evidence Confirms
Two Sister Lucys of Fatima

twolucys2.jpg

Is this really one and the same woman?

Some Background

On May 13, 1917, the very day when Pope Benedict XV consecrated the future Pope Pius XII a bishop, the Mother of God first appeared to three shepherd children at a place called Cova da Iria at Fatima, Portugal. The eldest of the three was Lucia de Jesus dos Santos, who later widely came to be known simply as “Sister Lucy” of Fatima. The Blessed Virgin appeared a total of six times to the children, always on the 13th day of the month, from May to October of the same year.

During the July apparition, Our Lady confided a three-part secret to Lucia and her two cousins Francisco and Jacinta Marto. The most famous of these is the third part, commonly called the “Third Secret”, which Sr. Lucy wrote down on a sheet of paper after being ordered to do so by her local bishop, though this did not happen until 1943. By that time, Sr. Lucy was a Discalced Carmelite nun, her cousins Francisco and Jacinta having died a long time before (in 1919 and 1920, respectively). This letter containing the Third Secret was put in an envelope and sealed and was not to be revealed until later, but, by the express order of Our Lady, no later than 1960, because then it would “be clearer” for Catholics to understand.

The year 1960 came, but by that time, Antipope John XXIII was ruling the Vatican, and he simply refused to disclose the text of the Third Secret, on the specious and arrogant grounds that it did “not pertain to [his] pontificate”.

Over the years a great deal was written about the possible contents of the Third Secret. It is not difficult to imagine that it speaks of the Second Vatican Council, which was announced on January 25, 1959, and preparations for which were already under way by 1960.

On June 26, 2000, the Vatican, then under Antipope John Paul II, publicly released what it claimed was the authentic Third Secret. However, based on what was already known with certitude about the Third Secret at the time (for example, that it was fairly short, that it was written on only one sheet of paper, and that in contained the verbatim words of Our Lady), it could be definitively concluded that the text released by the Vatican, though perhaps related to the actual Third Secret, could not possibly be the genuine Third Secret Sr. Lucy had written down on that sheet of paper and sealed in the envelope in 1943.

No, we are not talking about some wild conspiracy theorizing here but about solid facts — so much so that when Italian journalist Antonio Socci set out to debunk those “Fatimists” who did not believe the Vatican’s version of the Third Secret was the “real thing,” over the course of his research he could not help but conclude that the Fatimists were actually right and the Vatican had indeed not presented the real Third Secret. The authentic text, therefore, still remains hidden, and Socci has called it the Fourth Secret of Fatima, which is also the title of his book in which he presents his evidence:

Socci’s book caused panic at the Vatican, and “Cardinal” Tarcisio Bertone, then the Secretary of State, saw himself  obliged to respond to Socci’s powerful case. Bertone, in turn, published his own book and also went on Italian television to attempt to convince the people that the Vatican was not in fact hiding the real Third Secret.

During this damage control process, however, Bertone made the matter worse, unwittingly providing even more evidence that the true Third Secret had still not been released yet. This evidence is presented convincingly in the following work:

Over the years, various texts have emerged claiming to be the authentic Third Secret of Fatima, and we point readers to the following two as being, in our opinion, of the greatest value:

A summary of what we know about the Third Secret — and various attempts to spread misinformation — can be found at this link.

Sister Lucy and “Sister Lucy”

But enough of the background on Fatima and the Third Secret. In recent years, credible evidence was first brought to light that as of the 1960s, the person presented to the world as Sr. Lucy of Fatima is most likely not in fact Sr. Lucy.

This may seem outlandish at first, but the available evidence is not insignificant. It would make sense, too, that once Antipope John XXIII, “elected” in 1958, illegitimately ascended the Throne of St. Peter and instituted the Novus Ordo religion by means of his false pontificate and especially the Second Vatican Council, the Modernists needed a substitute “Sr. Lucy” that would publicly go along with all the changes in the church and so confirm the revolutionary program of John XXIII, Paul VI, and the other papal impostors.

Sadly, experience has confirmed that a lot of good-willed Novus Ordo adherents and Semi-Traditionalists refuse to accept the clear evidence regarding the charlatan popes and the apostasy of the Vatican II Church simply on the grounds that “Sr. Lucy accepted them.” It is truly tragic that some people allow their piety to disregard doctrine, preferring the apparent words and actions of a nun to the clear doctrines and theological conclusions of the Church’s Magisterium.

“Diabolical disorientation” — a phrase coined and employed by the suspect post-1960 “Sr. Lucy” — has been used ad nauseam by the Semi-Traditionalists (in particular by the Fatima CenterThe Remnant, and Catholic Family News) to dismiss any Novus Ordo doctrine or practice at odds with Catholicism, yet without having to draw the necessary though often inconvenient and unpleasant conclusions that follow from the acknowledged premises. It has become the carte blanche, the one-size-fits-all excuse to dismiss whatever doesn’t fit into the Semi-Trad agenda (like sedevacantism) while allowing them to continue railing against the New Church. It is the one concept that validates their best-of-both-worlds position of “recognize and resist.”

The next big event that proves the New Church to be false yet will once again be dismissed by the usual Neo-Traditionalist suspects on the expedient grounds of “diabolical disorientation” is the impending “canonization” of John Paul II. The Catholic Church teaches that canonizations are infallible, that the Church is incapable of erring in this regard; that is, it is impossible for Holy Mother Church to venerate and make people venerate as a saint and intercessor in Heaven a person who is actually in hell, or who was no role model for Catholics. The “canonization” of the apostate Antipope John Paul II is definitive proof that the Novus Ordo Church cannot be the true Catholic Church.

The Evidence So Far

But what is the evidence that the real Sr. Lucy was replaced by an impostor “Sr. Lucy”?

To be up front about it: All the evidence available is circumstantial. Obviously, there is no direct evidence, such as DNA samples. Nevertheless, circumstantial evidence can easily lead to moral certitude about a matter, and a lot of criminals are convicted in court based on circumstantial evidence alone. We must not dismiss the evidence, then, merely because it is not direct.

A few years ago, the non-sedevacantist web site Tradition In Action published and meticulously analyzed sundry photographs of Sr. Lucy before the Vatican II Revolution and after, giving great credibility to the thesis that the pre-1960 and post-1960 Sr. Lucys are not the same person. Here is a list of links to sources that present, dissect, and discuss this evidence:

An objective, dispassionate observer would have to conclude that, at the very least, the thesis that the Sr. Lucy before 1960 is not identical with the “Sr. Lucy” after 1960, has merit and deserves to be looked into further.

The New Evidence

At the time the initial claims were made by Tradition In Action regarding two Sister Lucys, someone brought up the idea that it would be desirable to have a computerized age progression done on the photo of the younger Sr. Lucy so it could be compared to the photos of the purported later Sr. Lucy to see how much or how little they resemble each other. Thankfully, a benefactor was found to do just that, and more: the photos of the later Sr. Lucy were regressed to visualize how she would have looked as a child.

This evidence, which clearly confirms the original thesis, is presented here:

While this is obviously not a matter of Catholic doctrine, it seems to us that the case for two Sister Lucys is quite compelling. And this case, it has been made clear, is based on circumstantial evidence, not wild hypothesizing based on a desire for sensationalism or conspiracy mongering.

Francisco and Jacinta Marto, the two other Fatima shepherd children, died at the tender young age of 10 and 9, respectively. The impostor “Sr. Lucy” died on February 13, 2005. It is not known when the real Sr. Lucy died, but it may be supposed that it was some time between 1958 and 1960, and that her death was not a natural one.