Dear Tradition,

Most of the comments that Mr. Grasmeier made in relation to the two Sister Lucy's article were pure speculation. Not in any sentence or paragraph was Dr. Horvat uncharitable. She never made any assumptions (although Mr.Grasmeier made many) as to what happened to Sister Lucy. She never so much as implied that there was a Vatican cover up involving murder or kidnapping. She simply pointed out the photographic evidence and left it up to the reader to hypothesise what may have caused the change.

Again, not only do I have advanced education in dentoalveolar surgery, I've also assisted in the OR on facial reconstruction surgery including complete prosthetic temporomandibular joint replacement, double jaw surgery (repositioning both the midface, pallet, and mandible using plates screws), as well as chin and cheek bone implants. I can testify that even with these extensive surgeries, the muscles of facial expression (unless the reason for the surgery is due to facial trauma, in which these muscles are damaged) do not change.

The argument of age and poor dentures causing her chin / profile to protrude is also not based in fact. All one needs to do is look at photos of themselves over time or pictures taken over time of older relatives and they will see that their smile lines, cheekbones, brow bones etc... are the same. The soft tissue around them may start to droop, sag, wrinkle, and change color but the hard tissue is the same.

I've read nothing of Mr. Grasmeier on these facts, only a bunch of speculation on what he thinks he read "between the lines". Mr. Guimaraes' reply was a very thourough and kind reply to Mr. Grasmeier's uncharitable and assuming condemnation of Dr. Horvat's "Two Sister Lucy's?".

     Cheers & God Bless,

     Dr. M.J.S., DMD

Mr. Michael Cain, recognized valorous fighter against the Revolution in the Catholic Church, placed on The Daily Catholic, his multi-million-hit website, the following warning to its readers:

The Daily Catholic to its Readers

Warning
The Daily Catholic furnishes the following continuous headline sites below for the convenience of the reader to be up on the latest news. We do not, we repeat, we do not give our approval of them, but only provide them information-wise.

We caution, especially with Angelqueen, to beware of comments following stories posted for the "so-called authorities" have unfortunately turned out to be - more often than not - merely run-of-the-mill anonymous bloggers who take no accountability for what they say and set themselves up as self-appointed experts who exist on emoticon epithets against anything they don't like. Their latest attack on Tradition in Action is just proof of their unprofessional and dubious position and brings into great question their own credibility and whether they are even really practicing Traditional Catholics.

The Novus Ordo sympathizers more and more logging on gives credence that Angelqueen has lost its edge in informing true Catholics. In addition, the attacks led by its blogmeister John Grasmeier (who few know anything about), has exhibited to posters a Gestapo-like vice grip over all who disagree.

Therefore, we issue this necessary warning caution: proceed at your own risk.

Dear TIA,

The Angel Queen website is a "spin-doctor" for the SSPX faction bent on coming to a deal with Modernist Rome.

Recently, this faction has told the Traditional world that the New Order sacrament of Holy Orders is valid. This validity issue clouds the minds of many Traditionalists and hinders an agreement with Rome. Having got that out of the way, (so they think), they dont want to be tripped up by another problem such as the Sister Lucy issue.

     Best wishes & God bless

     N.C.

Marian,

Just want to thank you for your "Labor of Love," for your scholarly research on the very apparent physical differences between Lucy I and Lucy II, as pointed out by you in your extremely detailed articles and photographs.

It certainly adds to the conspiracy theory of how far the Church has fallen since Vatican II !!! My Best.

     JMJ

     J.L.

Dear TIA,

I remember that when I was a young girl, about 15 years ago, the newspaper said that Sister Lucy was dead, and the day after said that there was a mistake... I think it was TRUE, I can't remember the date, but I'll try to make an investigation.

TIA, excuse my bad English, I'm from Guadalajara, Mexico, I read Tradition in Action very often, I like it very much.

     Thank you.

     A.L.

Sir,

If the nuns at Coimbra are still not allowed to see visitors, how did Mel Gibson manage to see "Lucy" shortly before her death? The photos of this event were widely published.

Also, regarding her family... even if they did not see her, couldn't they have seen photos of her that would have made them wonder if there was an impostor? Photos of Lucy II with John Paul II and Paul VI were published all over the world. The family must have seen them, didn't they?

I have a friend who disagrees VEHEMENTLY with the 'two Lucys' explanation, and I'm sure she will read your column and point them out to others.

I myself share your view that there were two Lucys. It makes perfect sense.

     Many thanks for your response.

     C.S.

The Editor responds:

Dear Mrs. C.S.

Let me clarify what I defended. I did not write that none of Sister Lucy's family members have ever seen her directly after 1958. I argued merely to prove it is not "absurd" to imagine that her family members would not have recognized her. It could well be just a demand of the contemplative rule. Also the case of Lucy's blood sister Carolina, who was not able to see her closely or alone, is a concrete case that speaks of how difficult it was to see her. So, it is not absurd. I presented two reasons that could explain it. I could have presented more. This was my only intention.

To answer objectively your question regarding the family knowing about the public photos of Sister Lucy, I would need to have clarified many points:

1. For how long did Sister Lucy remain "invisible"?

2. How many of her relatives knew her before this period and were still alive when she started to have her pictures published in the papers? As far as I know there were no pictures of Sister Lucy from 1948 until 1967, when she appeared at Fatima with Paul VI. That is a period of 19 years. Then, the next set of pictures at Fatima with John Paul II was taken in 1982, another 15 years. After that she appeared more often.

3. Was there a possibility that a "double" could have been used for her public appearances? If so, it would be easy to explain to Sister Lucy's family that given her natural timidity and reserve, her spiritual director would have advised her to remain recollected, and let another person take her place in public appearences at Fatima with Paul VI and John Paul II. Personally, I don't have any difficulty in admitting the use of a "double" for such purposes. I do have a problem, however, when the "double" starts to offer new interpretations of the message of Fatima. From this moment, the "double" becomes an impostor. Up until this moment, she could very well be a charitable sister who was trying to help Sister Lucy and the Church. In such a case, if a "double" were used, the family members would have been informed and would not have complained about the pictures.

4. What were the criteria that the religious authority that controls the Convent of Coimbra used regarding interaction with her relatives? It doesn't seem to be a uniform criterion because her sister Carolina was never able to see her closely till 1990 when she died. And at least one of her relatives, whom I know, was able to be with her without obstacles between his eyes and her face. This man, however, didn't know her before her "invisibility."

5. I also know several persons who were able, like Mr. Gibson, to see her face-to-face directly in the Convent - which by the way indicates a great relaxation of the rule regarding contemplative Carmelites nuns. None of these persons, however, had known her before, and so lacked a point of reference for comparison. This would seem to indicate two different criteria being used: Strangers could see her closely, and her sister could not.

These are some observations your questions suggested to me. You see that they do not allow me to go further than hypotheses.

The conclusion is that nothing is simple regarding Sister Lucy. Whoever tries to cut this topic short, is cut by it. The photographic and factual evidence presented by Dr. Horvat cannot be ignored or silenced by arguments ad absurdum. This topic is open to discussion. This discussion is a way to bring light to a matter that should be crystal clear. The smoke that is surrounding it only benefits those who want to bury the message of Fatima.

I hope these considerations may be of some assistance.

Cordially,

A.S. Guimarães

Follow us

The opinions expressed in this section - What People Are Commenting -
do not necessarily express those of TIA



Other Articles in the Polemic

  Forebodings about the Death of Sister Lucy

  Two Sister Lucy's of Fatima

  Wildfire Spreading Over Sister Lucy's Photos

  You are Conspiracy Maniacs

  The Controversy Grows

  Photos and Facts

  Readers Concur on Two Sister Lucys

  The Opinion of Experts on the Two Lucys

  The Anathemas of John Grasmeier

  Compliments for Guimaraes' Response to John Grasmeier

  Readers Raise More Questions

  Sister Lucy at the Word Processor

  Photographic Studies Confirm Two Sister Lucys

  Mysteries Around the Two Sister Lucys

View the 5-card Set of Postcards