Objections
Answering an Open Letter from Spain
On the Death of Sister Lucy
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).
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
Posted June 23, 2015
______________________
______________________
______________________
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:
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:
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?