Another website, Tradition in Action, recently came out with things suggesting that there was an impostor Sr. Lucy. Did they get this from you? Someone wrote to their website about this… here is their response:
Question.. Next, the first time I saw this “Two Sister Lucys” controversy was a few months ago on the Most Holy Family Monastery website. Did you pick up on this from them, or did they pick up on this from you, or did you both arrive at the analysis separately, or were you both tipped off from another source I am not aware of?
Finally, the “picture confusion” over Sister Lucy in the March 2006 issue of Inside the Vatican may have been a deliberate ploy. Once the “Two Sister Lucys” controversy was kicked off by www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com or someone else, it may have seemed advantageous to “new-Church” insiders like Robert Moynihan of Inside the Vatican to start using the “JFK assassination” strategy: once suppressed evidence starts coming to light – start as much confusion as possible about it so that most people throw up their hands and take a “we can’t know” attitude.
Answer… We still have not had the opportunity to read the analysis on The Most Holy Family Monastery website about Sister Lucy.
We were definitely the first organization to come out with the facts that there was an impostor Sr. Lucy. We had been referring to the false Sr. Lucy as an impostor for years on our website, and publicly stated that the Vatican’s Lucy is an impostor in issue #5 of our magazine, which was published years ago. Our recent article was simply the detailed treatment containing all the facts and points about an issue we’d been saying things about for years.
While the website to which you refer says that they haven’t yet “read” our analysis – that’s an interesting way of putting it considering that one can get the gist of what was being said without “reading” the entire thing but by looking quickly at the pictures – they didn’t deny that they were familiar with the article or that their idea to publish their own article came after hearing about or browsing through our exposé. It’s almost certain that they were familiar with our article because a website which links to their articles and our articles had a major link with pictures to our treatment of the issue. They may have browsed it without “reading” the entire thing. And once they saw that this idea was now circulating due to our having “broken the story,” they then had the courage to do their own article seeing that others were already beginning to accept the idea on a wide scale. That’s a key point: many people who don’t love God first and don’t stand for the truth will come out with things – even things they may have privately known were true for some time – only once the idea has already gained some popular support thanks to the stand of others, so that they can latch on to the now-popular bandwagon.
For until very recently the website to which you refer was one of the promoters of the false idea that the phony Lucy was the true Lucy, consistently referring to her as Sr. Lucy without ever issuing a clarification. What changed in the past few months that they suddenly “discovered” this possibility? In our opinion, it was obviously the publication of our article and the popular support for the idea that resulted from it in traditionalist circles. Nevertheless, it’s good that others are now exposing this. More research from various parties will undoubtedly discover more angles from which to expose and reveal the fraud, as well as circulating this piece of truth to more people.
However, the point is that there are probably many, many false traditionalists who have privately speculated that the Vatican’s “Sr. Lucy” was a false Lucy – since her statements and positions so obviously cannot be reconciled with the true Lucy – but never had the courage to come out with their views or even suggest it because of the fear of other people: not receiving much or any support or being denounced by them. That’s unfortunately the case with many: only until there appears to be enough support for an idea will they come out with it even if they know it’s true. And that’s why we now see other websites coming out about the false Lucy after our article blazed the trail.
On a related matter, the website to which you refer almost certainly doubts that the Vatican II “Popes” are true Popes, but never says so publicly. As quoted in one of our newsletters, a few years ago one of us had a conversation about sedevacantism with Atila Guimaraes (an editor of the site):
Bro. Peter Dimond: “I had a telephone conversation recently with Atila Sinke Guimaraes. In our conversation, I was surprised to learn that Mr. Guimaraes has doubts about Antipope John Paul II's validity as a Pope. He told me this himself. Surprised by this, I asked why he does not communicate these doubts in his writings, and he responded by saying that he does point this out in his writings! I quickly answered by saying, never - to my knowledge - have you explicitly stated that Antipope John Paul II is not or might not be a true Pope. He responded with the words: "You must take into account the psychology of the people." In Guimaraes' mind, providing some evidence of how Antipope John Paul II has contradicted past Magisterial teaching is showing the people that he is “doubtful” (whatever that means) without saying so explicitly. This may be why his books - such as Quo Vadis Petre? - so weakly denounce the blasphemies of Antipope John Paul II. It is clear that Mr. Guimaraes is doing nothing but bringing a watered-down message to his readers which he thinks will be more acceptable. This is heretical, dishonest and quite despicable.”
So, even though he thought that John Paul II might not be Pope (and probably thinks the same about Benedict XVI), he never comes out with it because of “the psychology of the people”! That’s why their website has never denounced John Paul II or Benedict XVI as heretics, even though it’s constantly showing how they deny Catholic teaching! In fact, their organization specifically denies that they are heretics at all! But if a group such as The Remnant or Catholic Family News were to take the sedevacantist position, then you would probably see the website to which you refer (as well as many others like it) go sedevacantist at that point; for, in that case, there would then exist enough popular support for the position to take it publicly. It’s sad, but that’s the way it is. People such as that are very deceived: they think they will be rewarded for their efforts, publications, etc. which do contain some truth, but God knows that they are hiding other aspects of important truth or that they wouldn’t take the stands they’re even taking if others didn’t do so. So, while they think they’re pleasing to God because of all the activity in which they are engaged allegedly for Him, they are actually rejected by Him and will receive no reward, for it’s not how much one does but the purity of intention with which one does it:
St. Alphonsus, The True Spouse of Jesus Christ, p. 597: “In the estimation of men, the value of an act increases in proportion to the time spent in its performance; but before God the value of an act increases in proportion to the purity of intention with which it is performed.”
So, to summarize, it’s a good step that this website is now slightly exposing the false Sr. Lucy; but if they really stand for truth let’s see them be honest and denounce the Vatican II Antipopes for the manifest heretics they are.