How the Vatican made someone disappear in order to silence Mary the Mother of God!

For any observant person, whether Catholic or not, there are ample evidences showing that the religion at the Vatican has nothing to do with Jesus Christ! The religion is just making use of Catholic symbols and buildings to deceive the world claiming that it is the Catholic Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ. But critical observers know this claim to be false. The religion at the Vatican, and which occupy Catholic parishes worldwide is NOT the Catholic Church! A peripheral look, with a Catholic sight, will reveal the truth!

The month of May is traditionally dedicated to Mary. It is a special month Catholics use to reaffirm their love for Mary Mother of God. The love Catholics have for Mary is an “always love” but the month of May is used to make special emphasis to Her special place in the history of our salvation.

The false religion at the Vatican also goes out to claim that they love Mary and they even talk about May being the Month of Mary. But in actual fact, all they do, as far as Mary is concerned is to silence Her and make her voice mute.  The most obvious example is John Paul II’s adding more “mysteries” to the Rosary. Traditionally, the Rosary is seen as the Psalter of Mary. Just as the Psalms are 150 in number, the Rosary is made up of 150 Hail Marys representing the Psalter of Mary. But this grand heretic truncated this and made his false rosary 200 Hail Marys against Mary who specifically gave us 150 Hail Marys. Those who love Mary have already rejected such abomination.

The most mind-boggling example of the “mission to silence Mary” is the Fatima affair. In this, we see that the Vatican is willing to make people who talk about Mary disappear or as some people say “be killed” so that Mary will not be heard from.

In 1917, Mary Mother of God appeared to three shepherd Children, Jacinta, Francisco and Lucy, in Portugal and showed them hell as a place where poor souls of sinners go to. She showed them many things and revealed a lot to them. But the Masonic Vatican, starting from anti-Pope John XXIII wanted these silenced. They lied, manipulated the children and deceived the world. The sole surviving person that saw the Mother of God and who was given a secrete for the world to be made known in 1960 was disappeared, never to be heard from again.

She was replaced with a look alike, (not so look alike though, as evidence revealed) an impostor who posed for 38 years, clamming to be Sister Lucy!

The crux of the matter is that Lucy gave a secret, from Our Lady, to Pope Pius XII which is to be opened in the year 1960. In this secrete, which many people read, Mary warned about a council that would corrupt the Catholic Church. She admonished that this secrete be opened and read to the world in 1960 so that it would make sense to the world then. John XXIII knowing that Mary was warning about his upcoming council suppressed the warning and so the secret was buried.

The Second Vatican Council was called in 1959 and it started in 1962 and went ahead to eclipse the Catholic church as Our lady had warned.

In order to prevent Sister Lucy was revealing the foul play, she was disappeared and was replaced with an impostor Sister Lucy. So in the Fatima affairs, there were two sister Lucys, one the authentic one, the second the Freemasonic manipulator who deceived the world for 38 years, claiming to be Sister Lucy.

An extensive study has been done to prove this and as usual, the Vatican is silent on this fact and many people call this “conspiracy theory”. However, given the timely computer analysis of the real Sister Lucy and the impostor, the truth is as clear as the blue sky!

The suspicion has always been there as soon as the false sister Lucy appeared in public with Paul VI in 1967. Many who knew the real Sister Lucy wondered whether she has had a facial reconstruction surgery! There were rumors and innuendos. But nothing concrete.

The first concrete evidence showed up when Sisters Lucy’s Congregation posted the congregation’s files online. One of the files posted contained information about the death of the real Sister Lucy in 1949!

This was copied and republished elsewhere and the congregation quickly changed the information to read that Sister Lucy died in 2005, which was when the false Sister Lucy died! This raised eyebrows!

This is the original Birth and death notice published on the website of the Carmelite sisters

This was the Second notice published after they really made the costly mistake. They changed the date of death.

If there is nothing wrong somewhere, why change this? Who then is this woman claiming to be Sister Lucy?

Then there was a need for an extensive analysis of the pictures of the real Sister Lucy and the false one. The computer analysis was used to show how the real sister Lucy will look like if she were to live to the year 2000 and how that is different from the false Sister Lucy.

Those who know about computer analysis of pictures and facial recognition software will know that the computer analysis is usually accurate!

The following analysis by Marian Horvat is instructive. Sister Lucy I is the real Sister Lucy. Sister Lucy II is the fake who he Masonic forces at the Vatican has been presenting to the world as the real Sister Lucy. but we now know that this is false! 

1. The slightly smiling Sister Lucys

Set 1 shows a close-up of Sister Lucy I slightly smiling. The photo is undated but she wears the habit of a Dorothean sister and appears to be in her late 30s. At most, she is age 41, since she was born in 1907 and entered the Carmel in 1948. 

The close-up of Sister Lucy II, also slightly smiling, is a photo dated May 13, 1982, so she would be age 75. There are many points of difference in the features that indicate to me we are looking at two different people.

• The natural line of the thick, heavy eyebrows of Sister Lucy I is straight (photo 1a). The brows extend into the forehead area above her nose and past the inner corner of her eyes. 

The eyebrows of Sister Lucy II, partially concealed by the dark frames of her glasses, are not straight, but slightly arched and taper off; the arch begins directly over the eye. There is a broad space without brows above the nose between the two eyebrows. 

• Some people have objected that eyebrows thin with age on some people, which would explain the clear difference between the brows. I don’t believe this is necessarily so. Even if this were admitted, without surgery or some artificial means, the shape of the one’s brows does not change from a straight line to an arched one, because the shape of the brows follow the shape of the bone structure of the forehead. 

• Regarding the focus of the eyes of Sister Lucy I, they seem normal with a small tendency toward extropia, or divergent strabismus, that is, the eyes slightly drift outward. However, the eyes of Sister Lucy II clearly suffer from esotropia, or convergent strabismus, that is, the eyes strongly turn in toward the nose.

• When Sister Lucy I smiles, her upper cheeks (photo 1b) appear like two small round apples. 

Although the cheeks of Sister Lucy II are partially covered by her large glasses, it seems clear she lacks these bulges. 

• I could not find any photo of Sister Lucy I, smiling or serious, with her nostrils open. They do not flare naturally. All the photos of Sister II, however, show her with her nostrils flaring. They open naturally.

• Under the apple cheeks of Sister Lucy I are definite dimple creases (photo 1c). William Thomas Walsh (the author of the first Book on Fatima called Our Lady of Fatima) mentions “the little dimples that creased her cheeks when she smiled” in his description of her in his well-known book Our Lady of Fatima. 

But, the cheeks of Sister Lucy II are flat and broad, with no creases or dimples when she smiles. 

• In his description of Sister Lucy, Walsh also notes her protruding upper lip and “heavy lower one” that hangs. The two lips have different widths. 

The lips of Sister Lucy II, however, are flat, thin, tight and of an equal width. 

• Objectors argued that a possible denture would explain the different teeth of the two Lucys. I will treat the teeth as a special topic below in set 4. Here I will simply discuss the effect of the teeth on the lips of these two photos.

If a person has large lips to cover long teeth, as Sister Lucy I evidently had when she was young, then if someone replaced her long teeth with short ones, the lips of this person should easily cover these now much-smaller teeth. So, we should have photos of an older Sister Lucy with lips more than sufficient to cover her smaller teeth. But the opposite happens. Sister Lucy II’s lips do not normally cover her much smaller teeth. 

• When Sister Lucy I smiles, the ends of her mouth point upward. But when Sister Lucy II smiles, the ends of her mouth point downward. 

• Another distinguishing feature of Lucy as a child that can be seen in her photos up to age 40 is a protuberant muscle in the middle of her chin, pronounced enough to form a dimpled area underneath (photo 1d, see also Set 6). But this muscle never appears in the photos of Sister Lucy II. 

• Sister Lucy I’s chin is strong but not salient. On the contrary, the chin of Sister Lucy II is a prominent chin. The latter has a square jaw, which does not appear in the photos of Sister Lucy I. 

2. The profiles of the two Lucys

The profile picture of Sister Lucy I was taken May 22, 1946 in the Chapel of the Apparitions at Fatima. 

Sister Lucia II is seated next to the tomb of Francisco at Fatima on May 13, 2000. 

Their heads are in very similar positions, they are staring straight forward, and both have expressions of meditation or prayer.

• Although the face of Sister Lucy I is shadowed, the profile of her nose is very clear. It aptly fits the description of Walsh, who noted that “the tip of her snub nose turned up.” 

However, the nose of Sister Lucy II is rounded at the tip, pointing slightly downward. 

The different shapes of the noses can be measured by the angle formed by the intercession of the line of the nose with the space above the upper lip. In Sister Lucy I the angle formed by these lines is an obtuse angle. On the contrary, the angle of these lines in Sister Lucy II is an acute angle. 

• One can also note in this profile close-up of Sister Lucy II how arched the brows are, confirming the previous observations.

• The chin of Sister Lucy I, even though she is younger and not overweight, recedes sharply into her neck, with the tendency to disappear into a double-chin. 

However, the chin of Sister Lucy II, although she is older and heavier, juts forward and outward. It is so prominent that it forms a kind of platform extending out further than her nose. It is “lantern-shaped,” as one of my readers so aptly described it 

3. The large smile of the Lucys

Set 3 of photos, both undated, shows the two Sister Lucys with broad smiles. I have already analyzed these pictures in my previous article, so I will repeat only the essential points and make some new observations.

• In photo 3a, one notes the heavy, straight eyebrows that project forward on the forehead of Sister Lucy I. The arching eyebrows of Sister Lucy II are lighter and the forehead is flat where it meets the eyebrows.

• In photo 3b, when Sister Lucy I smiles the shape of her mouth forms a U with the edges pointing upward. When Sister Lucy II smiles, the edges of the lips point downward in the form of an upside-down U. 

• Even when she smiles broadly, the lower lip of Sister Lucy I is thick, heavy and still a bit slack. When Sister Lucy II smiles, her lower lip is thin and tight.

• The dimple and creases of Sister Lucy I appear again in this smile. But they are completely missing on the smooth cheeks of Sister Lucy II. 

• The nose of Sister Lucy II has marked nostrils that do not show on Sister Lucy I’s nose. 

• The round tip of Sister Lucy II’s nose extends downward. But the angular tip of Sister Lucy I’s nose extends upward. 

• The teeth of Sister Lucy I are clearly different, but since many readers pointed out the possibility that dentures would explain these differences, I will discuss this below in set 4 of photos.

• The lower face of Sister Lucy I (photo 3c) is moon-shaped, narrowing at the bottom, with the strong chin sinking into the neck. The base of her face is oval. But, the shape of the lower face of Sister Lucy II is square, with her long chin extending outward. 

4. Sister Lucy’s teeth 

The objections raised by readers about the bad teeth of Sister Lucy I (photo 3, above) and the blatantly different teeth of Sister Lucy II can be summarized in two arguments as follows: 

First argument: Sister Lucy I has very long and bad teeth. This would make her a candidate for dentures. Now then, dentures can change the mouth structure. Therefore, all the changes of her face can be explained by the extraction of all her teeth and the use of dentures. 

Second argument: in the photos of Sister Lucy II, she would appear to be wearing a set of dentures, even though they are small teeth. Therefore, the conclusion of the first argument is confirmed. 

Regarding the first argument, I agree with its first premise, that is, Sister Lucy I had bad teeth and was a candidate for dentures. 

But its second premise – dentures change the structure of the face of a person – is open to dispute. I looked at many before-and-after pictures of persons who had full mouth reconstruction dentures, and did not notice any significant structural change in the smile or face. From what I have read, only cheap and badly constructed dentures show short teeth and too much gum. 

However, it is difficult to imagine that the prestigious Carmel of Coimbra, to which Sister Lucy I was transferred with her bad teeth, would contract an incompetent dentist to change the teeth of a person so important to the Catholic world as Sister Lucy. It is much more probable that the dentist was good, the dentures of good quality, and that they would not have significantly changed her smile or face. 

Regarding the conclusion – all the differences we see in the two collections of photos would be explained by the dentures – I clearly disagree with this. How can false teeth change the shape of the nose, the eyebrows or the bone of the chin? Only a complete plastic surgery could explain such differences. 

Regarding the second argument, that Sister Lucy II appears to be using dentures, its premise is weak. It is not indisputable that Sister Lucy II is wearing dentures. Some common sense observations pointing to the fact that her teeth could be natural follow: 

• No one replaces bad and ugly teeth by another set of bad and ugly teeth. Indeed, why would a competent dentist build dentures with an ugly ¼” gum appearing on a person who is often smiling? (see photos 4c and 4d) Why did he choose to set such short, ugly teeth for such a prominent person destined to play a public role? Professionally speaking, it is highly unlikely he would have made such a set of teeth. That is, ugly teeth more likely suggest natural teeth, not dentures 

• In addition, since dentures are artificial, they never change their appearance. But at times Sister Lucy II's gums seem inflamed, covering one tooth (see arrow in photo 4a), as a reader pointed out; at times her gums seem to retract making some teeth appear longer as in photo 4b. 

• So, rather than dentures we could well be looking at the natural teeth of Sister Lucy II. 

Therefore, neither the premise nor the conclusion of the second argument is secure. Whether Sister Lucy II is wearing dentures is open to discussion, as far as observation of photos goes. 

And if these are the natural teeth of Sister Lucy II, then they are clearly different from the natural teeth of Sister Lucy I. In that case, how can it be explained except that we are looking at two different persons? 

5. The two Sister Lucys in a serious attitude

It is not difficult to find a serious expression among the photos of Sister Lucy before 1950. As a child, her expression was serious, and the air of gravitas deepened with age. In almost every picture, she is solemn and grave, with a somber, brooding expression. Inphoto 5 (circa 1946), in response to a request, Sister Lucy was trying to duplicate how Our Lady of Fatima looked when she appeared. 

It is not so easy to find a picture of Sister Lucy II with a serious expression. Even when she is not smiling, her face lacks the swarthy tonus and brooding look of Sister Lucy I.Photo 5 of Sister Lucy II, in which she appears serious, is from the cover of the 2004 edition of Fatima in Lucia's Own Words.

• Photo 5a emphasizes the typical brooding heavy eyebrows of Sister Lucy I that almost meet in the center of her face when she shows concern. A kind of furrow appears over the brows, stressing their heaviness. None of this is seen in Sister Lucy II. 

• The slight divergent strabismus can again be noted in the eyes of Sister Lucy I. On the contrary, a strong convergent strabismus is apparent in the eyes of Sister Lucy II.

• In photo 5b, Sister Lucy I’s lips are set and closed tightly in an undulant line. Still, ample lips are apparent. The shape of the mouth of Sister Lucy II, however, points down as always, the upper lip forming an upside-down U shape. Her thin, tight lips normally do not cover her teeth. 

• The two creases in the cheeks of Sister Lucy I that extend down past her mouth form two very straight lines. But the cheek creases of Sister Lucy II form arches. 

• Under the lower lip of Sister Lucy I there is a concave shadowed area. In it the contours of the muscle in her mid-chin can be noticed. However, there is no concave space under the lower lip of Sister Lucy II, nor protrusions of any kind on the chin, even though one might expect this kind of defect to intensify rather than disappear with age. 

• Sister Lucy II seems to have lost the strong peasant-like rude features and skin of Sister Lucy I and taken on a much clearer skin tone, indicating to me a person of a different social background. 

• Admitting this change of skin tone, some readers argued that it could be explained by age, which makes the skin flaccid and clearer. Therefore, they argued, this would give the impression of a person of different nationality or social level. 

Perhaps this can happen sometimes, but regarding the case of Sister Lucy I, the radical change of skin color one can observe in the photos does not seem probable. At right is a close-up of two old Portuguese women who appear in the famous photo of the miracle of the sun. They are peasants like Lucy, and most probably from that same area, since they came to witness the miracle the children had said would take place. They seem to be a good example of what normally happens with peasant people of that area when they get old. Their faces remain rude and retain their peasant features. 

Also, Lucy’s mother, at the right of the old women, who probably is in her 50s, does not show any tendency to have a different skin tone. 

6. The space above the lip

Since she was a child, Sister Lucy I had a long space between the base of her nose and the tip of her upper lip (photos 6a, 7a, 8a). 

In this space we also note a defined vertical groove, the philtrum, in the center. 

However, the space between the base of the nose and top lip on Sister Lucy II appears much shorter, and there is no visible groove above the lip. 

7. The gestures and spirit 

The last two sets of pictures present six photos each of Sister Lucy I and Sister Lucy II in various poses. Most of the photos of Sister Lucy I are dated 1946. The photos of Sister Lucy II are from her May 2000 visit to Fatima.

Sister Lucy I appears solemn, composed and reserved in this first set of photos (9 to 14). She always stands in a very collected way, her hands in a discrete gesture. She appears to be a person unaccustomed to being photographed, a bit awkward and uncomfortable with it. This observation is confirmed by Walsh, who also commented on her timidity. 

From her postures, gestures and expression, it is easy to believe that she is the person who saw Our Lady and understood the gravity of the message and the role she should play in it. Her expression also fits with a person who saw Hell as she did on July 13, 1917. 

She had maintained this same state of soul at least up until December 26, 1957 when Fr. Augustin Fuentes had an interview with her. Fr. Fuentes was the official Fatima archivist at the time and confidante of Sister Lucy. At that interview, he confirmed that she appeared quite serious and “very sad.” 

He said she expressed great concern that “no one – neither the good nor the bad – was paying any attention to the Holy Virgin’s message.” She was also very worried about the revelation of the Third Secret, and stressed once again that a great chastisement would come for the world, where nations would disappear, if mankind remained oblivious to Our Lady’s message and Russia did not convert. What was coming, she warned, was a decisive battle between the Devil and the Blessed Virgin, where souls of the faithful would be abandoned by the religious authorities. 

She told him, "Father, we should not wait for an appeal to the world to come from Rome on the part of the Holy Father, to do penance. Nor should we wait for the call to penance to come from our Bishops in our diocese, nor from the religious congregations" (emphasis added). Each person would have to save his own soul, relying on the Rosary and devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. She was also worried because the Holy Father and the Bishop of Fatima, the only ones permitted to know the Secret, “have chosen to not know it so that they would not be influenced by it.” [for the complete text of the interview. 

These most grave concerns were reflected in her expression and general demeanor. 

However, in the set of photos of Sister Lucy II (photos 9 to 14), we see a person with a different state of spirit. She is always smiling, at ease in public and relaxed in her postures and gestures. 

She has lost the natural timidity typical of Sister Lucy I; she became not only fearless but also completely comfortable and integrated in ambiences external to her contemplative life. In photos 13 and 14, a friend has his arm around her, a protective gesture she accepts without reservation. 

In a tête-à-tête with John Paul II (photo 11), she leans forward, her face smiling and jovial. She no longer seems anxious about the future, her mission, a coming chastisement, the corruption of consecrated souls, or the many other concerns she had before. She seems optimistic and content. 

8. Acceptance of a different doctrine

As one reader pointed out, the greatest difficulty of this whole problem is that Sister Lucy said one thing up until the 1960's and then changed her thinking years later. What could be the reason for this? 

If Our Lord and Our Lady continued to appear to her, why did she say nothing about Vatican II and the so-called reforms that came from it, such as the Novus Ordo Mass, other liturgical novelties, and the loss of religious vocations? On the contrary, Sister Lucy II appears completely adapted to these novelties; for example, in the photos at right, she is receiving Communion standing on May 13, 1991 (top) and on May 13, 2000 (bottom). 

If she expressed such serious concern about the importance that the Third Secret be revealed in 1960, why was she silent about it for the next 40 years? Contradicting what she had previously stated, how could she confirm the supposed secret that was unveiled by the Vatican in 2000, along with an “official interpretation” by Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone who then declared the Fatima episode closed, “a part of the past” ? 

These, and many other questions could be explained by the fact that there was a different Sister Lucy being presented to the public after 1960. I have pointed out the differences not only between the faces of Sister Lucy I and Sister Lucy II, but also in their spirits and attitudes. I present them to my readers with honest concern to expose the truth so that Catholics may judge whether they are being fooled or not. 

Ask yourself: can these two in the picture below be the same person?

Clearly, from the forgoing analysis, the answer is a resounding NO!

Basically, people remain the same from birth to death. That is is their facial and physical features remain about the same. but where is the sameness in this? please critically examine them yourself to see that the current Vatican which started in 1958 is pure evil!

As a sample, please look at these photos of these aged nuns from when they were younger to when the were older to see that they remained the same.

Here is a picture of Mother Theresa of Calcutta from a young age to aged.

Look at another Sister, Sister Joan Sobala

Look at yet another sister, Sister Chittister

But then look at this Picture to know is the person appearing here is the same person depicted when she was young.

Clearly, the woman in the background is the true Sister Lucy whom Our Lady appeared to. The Second picture in color is the Picture of the Impostor Sister Lucy who is acting to help the Vatican Silence Our Lady and who died in 2005.

Are these two the same person?

So do not be deceived by the apostate Vatican that occasionally, VERY occasionally, speak as if they love Mary. But in actual fact, the hate her since She seeks to end their reign of infamy.

Those who deceive themselves that the religion at the Vatican is the catholic Church should have a rethink.

Given by Malachy Igwilo

On 9th of May 2016,

on the Feast Day of St. Gregory of Nazianzen 

Note Well: I acknowledge Marian Hovart at Tradition in action for the analysis of the two Sister Lucy.