Objections

Answering an Open Letter from Spain
On the Death of Sister Lucy

Atila Sinke Guimarães

A recent e-mail from a reader regarding TIA’s comments on the mysterious death of Sister Lucy provided the opportunity for the Editor of the blog Amor de la Verdad in La Coruña, Spain, to enter the controversy.

As readers may recall, some time ago TIA posted a document from the archives of the Carmelite Order affirming that Sister Lucy died on May 31, 1949, see photo below. Shortly after our posting, the website of the Carmelite Order changed the information to February 13, 2005, the date of the death of Sister Lucy II, see photo below. The episode was strange, giving margin to some speculation that she in fact died on the first date and then was replaced by someone similar to her who continued to perform as if she were the true Sister Lucy.

Above, the original entry 265 regarding Sister Lucy; to check the full page as it originally appeared in the archives of the Carmelite Order in Rome, click here. Below, the same entry 265, modified some days after our publication, which remains until now. To check the present day page, click here

Although I believe that the original register in the archives is strongly suspicious, I do not go so far as to affirm that she actually died in 1949. I think this because she continued to make strong, good statements, as in the 1957 interview with Fr. Augustin Fuentes, where she warned people not to wait for the Pope, Bishops and priests to give the good example, but stated that each should answer individually the call of Our Lady. That was a counter-revolutionary warning for the faithful about Progressivism in the Church, an infiltration that would assume the proportions of an avalanche after John XXIII (1958) and Vatican II (1962).

After cordially explaining this position to the editor of Amor de la Verdad (I don’t name him because he remains anonymous to me), I told him that I was open to know his arguments. I deem that a discussion on this topic can shed some light on it. So, in substance, his open letter to me is an explanation of his arguments.

For the convenience of TIA’s English-speaking readers, I will summarize his arguments. The full content of his Open Letter to me can be read in Spanish here.

These are three presuppositions that the Editor of Amor de la Verdad (AV) makes:

In 1925, Sister Lucy entered the Convent of the Dorotheans in Tuy, Spain. She spent one year there as a postulant, two years as a novice, and on October 3, 1928 she made her provisory vows. She made her solemn perpetual vows only on October 3, 1934.
On May 31, 1949, according to most documents, she professed as a Carmelite in the Convent of Coimbra.
In the archives of the Carmelite Order, after the correction of the “error” regarding her death, the date of the profession of Sister Lucy continued to be wrong: Instead of recording her official profession in the Dorothean Congregation as October 3, 1934, or her new vows as a Carmelite as May 31, 1949, the archives simply give the date of October 13, 1928, which is the date of her provisory vows.

These presuppositions are used by the Editor of AV to demonstrate to the author of the e-mail on Sister Lucy’s death that it does not make sense for him to sustain that the date of her profession as a Carmelite on May 31, 1949, is the “death” of the old Lucy and the rebirth of a new one. She had already made her solemn profession on October 3, 1934, that is, “she had died” at that previous date. The vows she made as a Carmelite were more a renewal of her perpetual vows than anything else. Therefore, the e-mailer should reconsider his argument.

Next, the Editor of AV believes that Sister Lucy I died in 1949 and was replaced by one or two clones. He bases his affirmation on some facts:
Analyzing other entries in the Carmelite archives, with photocopies that he reproduces, the Editor of AV, who himself is an archivist and an expert in documents, makes a chronological comparison of the dates of the sisters who died before and after the date of the death of Lucy II. He concludes that – besides the error about her profession – the whole entry was misplaced. This would prove that a deceitful correction was made.
Another fact would lead him to accept that she died on May 31, 1949: This date is the Feast of the Queenship of Our Lady and it would fit with what she told Lucy in 1917. When Lucy asked Our Lady to be taken to Heaven, she answered: “Yes, I will bring Jacinta and Francisco soon [to Heaven]. But you will stay here for some time. Jesus wants to use you to make me loved and known. He wants to establish in the world the devotion to my Immaculate Heart.” The expression “some time” would apply much better to the 32 years she remained on earth (until May 1949) than the 90 years of the Sister Lucy II who died in February 2005.
This possibility of her death in May 1949 would explain why the Vatican would have concealed it, because when Lucy spoke about the date that the Third Secret should be revealed, she said that it should be “before 1960 or at my death.” The concealment of her death and her substitution by one or two religious women served the designs of the Conciliar Church.
Besides these considerations, the Editor of AV analyzes some photos, going a step further than Dr. Marian Horvat in her famous demonstration that there were two Sisters Lucy. He believes there were three and adds to the known photos a third one, below.

He analyzes the teeth of the three to conclude that there are three different teeth structures, and in the Portugal of that time – 1949 – it would have been practically impossible to change the teeth of the fake Sisters Lucy. And why, if both were the same person, would anyone change from the natural-looking teeth as they appear in the 1967-Lucy to the short, unattractive teeth as seen in the Lucy who died in 2005?
The Editor of AV believes that the arguments he presents and the obvious differences in the teeth are decisive for him to resolve what I call the “mystery” of Lucy.
He tells me that other mysteries are likewise resolved in another study he posted in 2013 here. These mysteries are:

What was the reason for her to abandon the Dorotheans, and who induced her to do so?
Why was her death hidden?
Why was the replacement made?
What advantages did this exchange give to the Conciliar Church?

This is the summary of his open letter to me.

______________________

My answer to the Editor of Amor de la Verdad

Dear Sir,

I thank you for the respect shown for my remarks and for explaining your arguments to me. Out of consideration for you and my readers I will try to be as clear as I can in this reply. I think the following points explain my agreement with some parts of your position and my disaccord with others:

I believe that a substitution was made and that the true Lucy left the public stage. I also have no problem in admitting that two persons replaced the true Lucy. This does not mean, however, that she necessarily died – by natural or imposed causes. She could have been sent away to another place and continued to live there either as a prisoner or as an inaccessible cloistered nun. So, your conclusion that replacement equals death is not necessarily correct. Although highly unlikely, in principle, the true Lucy could still be alive to reveal the authentic Third Secret.
Supplying doubles for important personalities is not rare in History. Given that Sister Lucy was/is one of these important persons, her superiors could have appointed, with her knowledge, one or two doubles for her to make her convent life easier. So, a replacement per se is not necessarily proof of an usurpation by enemies to thwart her mission, as you seem to think.

What a “good double” could never do was to contradict the messages that the true Lucy had previously given. Thus, for us to clarify this situation, we should analyze what Lucy – the true or the false one – did after the replacement was made. Since, in the 1957 interview to Fr. Fuentes, she gave a good orientation in harmony with what she had said before, I believe that, until then, she was alive.
My position about the Fatima mysteries is different from yours. You consider the case of Lucy to be similar to one of criminal law. A good investigation necessarily leads to a definitive result. My approach is different: I believe that the mysteries of Fatima and Lucy will be resolved only when Our Lady decides to bring light to the matter.

So, the investigations we undertake may help – and we at TIA are doing what we can to decode the Fatima mysteries – but the problem lies far beyond our human capacities and reach. Here we are facing an ensemble of mysteries related to a major one: To what degree does God allow the Devil to destroy His Holy Church and muffle the messenger Our Lady chose to warn about this precise destruction? Consequently, the solution for those mysteries relies much more on an intervention of Our Lady and on our prayers than on our detective skills.
As far as I can see and as far as good dialectics is concerned, your analysis of the archives of the Carmelite Order offers arguments of probability (my summary of your letter, nn. 4, 5 and 6). They raise in any person with Catholic sense serious suspicions; they do not, however, permit certainties. The argument of the teeth structures proving that there are three different women is factual and indisputable (your letter, n. 7). However, this does not lead necessarily to the death of Sister Lucy, as you desire (my answer, nn. 1 and 2).

This is what I have to say in response to your open letter.

I wish you, dear Sir, good success in your endeavors under the mantle of Our Lady of Fatima. May she lead you at Amor de la Verdad and us at TIA to a secure port in the coming Deluge of fire. I hope that, before this inevitable Chastisement, she still may reveal to us indisputable explanations for many of the mysteries she concealed in Fatima.

Cordially,

Atila Sinke Guimarães

Share