Yesterday, several people sent me this article by Thomas McDonald, which makes it sound as though if you’re listening to guys like me and my apocalyptic musings, you’re somewhere between a crazy person in the making and a pitiable apostate. I had some back and forth with the author on Twitter, and it got contentious, but in the end I tried to salvage the debate. I knew that there would be people who would disagree with and even malign me, and I said in advance that I don’t doubt the sincerity of their faith even if I think they’re reaching the wrong conclusions. There is no surprise here.
What is surprising is this.
Posted in the comments today or yesterday, this article is strikingly similar in its analysis and conclusions to what I wrote in “Something Wicked.” Certain specific insights — like the relationship between Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich’s prophecied concession that “could not be granted” with the possible move to admit the divorced and remarried to communion — are things I haven’t seen elsewhere.
Then I looked at the date, and it was written a solid two weeks before I wrote mine. But today is the first time I’ve seen it.
The author, Dr. Kelly Bowring, has seemingly solid credentials. Certainly stronger bona fides than my own:
Dr. Kelly Bowring, a theologian, author and popular speaker, received his pontifical doctorate from the University of St. Thomas Aquinas (Rome), his licentiate from Dominican House and the John Paul II Institute (Washington DC), and his masters from Franciscan University of Steubenville (Ohio), and has the Church’s mandatum to teach theology.
Dr. Bowring has been Dean of the Graduate School of Theology & Program of Catholic Studies (GST) at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary, Dean of Spiritual Mission and a professor of sacred theology at Southern Catholic College and an institute director and theologian at St. Mary’s College of Ave Maria University.
He has been featured as a Who’s Who among America’s teachers. He has traveled widely to international Catholic and Marian libraries and shrines and has spent years researching solid sources to utilize in his presentations, writings and books.
Known for his dynamic yet understandable teaching style, his books are sure to please any reading audience. Dr. Bowring and his wife, Diana, have eight children.
Dr. Bowring cites certain sources that are questionable, including Maria Divine Mercy (which he attempts to assess for veracity here) and reaches some bold hypotheticals. In fact, despite his obvious caution, he takes my concerns about Pope Francis further than I have felt comfortable doing:
As a Catholic theologian, I say this with great trepidation, and I ask the reader to hear me out before drawing your own conclusion. It is apparent to faithful Catholics today, and more and more so as the past year progressed, that some of Pope Francis’ actions and teachings have raised legitimate and serious concerns. This article asks you to look at the disconcerting actions and statements of Pope Francis and the “Francis effect” in the light of the potentially related prophecies about him. Of course, time will make things clearer as to his plans and agenda, as he moves beyond his now famous rhetoric toward implementation. So for now, I withhold any conclusions, instead giving Pope Francis the benefit of the doubt, always remaining obedient to the Church as a faithful Catholic theologian. But, alert and investigative I shall remain, and I think that if he is a valid Pope, and the prophecies are wrong and his disturbing rhetoric is just for effect, he will be glad for my vigilance on behalf of the Church.
Nevertheless, it is incumbent upon me to present to you the reader some of the reasons that have led me to this current supposition. First, I will present the credible heavenly prophecies about the False Prophet, then what to expect from the False Prophet according to the prophecies, and finally how Catholics should respond to the possibility and growing concern that Pope Francis might be the False Prophet.
He gives extensive citations from private revelation and prophecy. He applies these to some of the disturbing things we’re seeing happening in the Church today, and it’s impossible not to see that they could fit. It’s a very compelling read. He also gives the reason why we should be talking about these things, which some people (like McDonald, cited above) can’t seem to understand:
Catholics believe that by the will and teaching of Christ, the Magisterium of the Church is protected with the charism of infallibility such that by the power of Holy Spirit the Pope cannot ever err in his official teaching on matters of faith and morals. The true Church will never err in faith and morals. As Catholics, we know this is true. So let no one tamper or interfere with the Word of God.
On the other hand, if a Pope personally embraces a heresy (false doctrine or immorality), even in secret, then he is de facto no longer Pope. So then, if a Pope teaches a false doctrine (or changes doctrine), then this is the sure “sign” he is not a valid Pope, as I have addressed in another article. In such a case, his teachings should not be obeyed and he should not be followed. Faithful Catholics must be attuned to this possibility, especially given the heavenly prophecies related to this and given the serious concerns Pope Francis continues to raise, as well as the path he seems to be leaning toward. But, due to our required obedience to the Magisterium, we cannot decide exclusively for ourselves whether he is in heresy and thus invalid. We must wait until the Church’s otherwise highest authority (like Pope Emeritus Benedict) declares it so and presents the clearest evidence.
[…]
Remain alert and investigative. Don’t bury your head in the sand and hope it will all blow over. Given both the prophecies and the Pope’s track record of troubling statements, it is permitted and even proper given these circumstances to be evaluative and even somewhat critical of Pope Francis’ actions and teachings. As Catholics, it is permitted to consider the possibility that he may be the False Prophet, while not yet concluding it. Thus, at this point, it is not helpful to excessively praise everything he says and does, mistakenly thinking that this will make you a better or more faithful Catholic in the process. Instead, we should look at what he is saying and doing with a critical eye of reason, as the times call for it, while keeping our faith intact. Indeed, this situation that is brewing may scandalize us. But, let us recall St. Thomas Aquinas who quotes Gregory saying: “If people are scandalized at the truth, it is better to allow the birth of scandal, than to abandon the truth.” Remember, suspicion does not mean a conclusion of guilt, only the possibility of guilt, and thus the need for an investigation. And, as far as what we should do, just share these prophecies and papal concerns – “The truth is like a lion. You don’t have to defend it. Just let it loose. It will defend itself,” says St. Augustine. So be watchmen of the Church’s morals and doctrine and ambassadors of these heavenly prophecies. For a time still, even if things get worse, do not be surprised if even good Bishops and theologians are confused and misdirected in their leanings and enthusiasms. Soon enough, if things are as prophesy indicates, they will become clearer to them and to large numbers of the faithful. Be patient and persevering.
There’s much more. I recommend reading the whole thing.
So. What to make of all this? Well, I pass this along solely for your consideration, but it strikes me that multiple people may be reaching the same, unlikely conclusions for a reason. I don’t know this for a fact, but it is possible that there are certain…promptings at work.
And it really is time for us to be critical thinkers. We should apply a healthy skepticism to everything under the guise of religious truth right now, whether it’s coming from the Vatican or from prophecy and private revelation. We know what the Church teaches, so if we stay close to the source, we shouldn’t come unmoored. Any theory (and of course, I apply that to my own) should be taken as just that. At the same time, I think it’s important to know that when there is an absence of definitive facts, we should also listen to our instincts. They’ve been given to us for a reason. We should be praying daily to God for guidance and discernment in all things. We should be spiritually preparing ourselves for battle.
All of that being said, one thing I agree with McDonald about is this:
Those who have faith don’t fear the future. We already know the end: we win.
It’s true. But the parts between now and then get pretty dicey. Souls will be led astray, and ultimately lost. Whether the final battle is next week or next century, it’s not going to be a picnic. My faith could be a lot stronger, and so could my sacramental life.
To be perfectly honest, I’d really rather not face the Eschaton right now, or I’m in big trouble. How about you?
UPDATE 4/10/14: I’ve come to the conclusion that I don’t believe the messages of Maria Divine Mercy (MDM) are genuine. You can read more about that here.
I’d be very careful with anything to do with this Maria Divine Mercy character Steve. Everything I’ve read and heard on “her” seems to point to fraud.
I’m not offering an imprimatur. I found Bowring’s defense of her interesting, though, I’ll admit. I do wonder if she were for real, considering what she’s saying, how likely it would be that any bishop would support her.
You make a very good point.
Dear Mr. Skojec. In “Trials, Tribulations & Triumph Before, During and After Antichrist,” the author, Desmond A Birch, dismisses the putative prophesy of St Malachy (p.236) having to do with a list of Popes (he does, however, accept St Malachy as regards his, accurate, prophecy about Ireland (p.307)
I recommend a close reading of this excellent book – especially the testing of spirits p. 194.
The author cites St Theresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross having taught that …divine interventions and normal gifts….They are not rare…illusion and deception are not rare, either…the need for objective ecclesial discernment
I do hope to rain hope on this parade of woe that so many soi disant traditionalists are beginning to fall in line behind.
How can this be of any good; how can this help to build-up the Body of Christ; where is the objective ecclesial discernment </B about these prophecies?
I see none at all.
I do see a lot of private judgment which is the subtext of so much of this wallowing in woe.
It is an infallible teaching (I posted it on your original piece that has garnered such favorable commentary in certain quarters) that the Holy See is forever protected form teaching error (Vatican One).
Period.
Why the distress and darkness?
There have been far worse times in Ecclesiastical History but owing to the fact that so few read Ecclesiastical HX it is not surprising that so many are beginning to be seduced into a false sense of doom.
That is a clear sign that behind all of this worry and woe, Satan lurks.
The promises of Jesus are trustworthy but looking at how so many are reacting, one would think that He is not worthy of trust.
The peace of Christ, anyone?
Far too many soi disant traditionalists have their Faith far too subject to conditions outside of themselves.
Were they to have been alive during other ecclesiastical epochs, perhaps they would be unshakeable in their Faith and if that is so, then what does that say about the quality of their Faith if it is tied to forces over which they have no control.
Oncet, G. K. Chesterton replied, I am to a question asked by the London Times – What is wrong with the world?
If anyone is experiencing a diminution in the strength and quality of their Faith they ought to seriously consider that the cause of that diminution is not owing to others.
And that ought be especially true of soi disant traditionalists for it is a liberal praxis to blame others for their own failures.
I don’t think there’s any dispute that the Holy See is protected from teaching error. Only a contention that if one teaches error while holding the Petrine office, one automatically expels oneself from that office, thus protecting the infallibility of the Holy See.
In other words: no valid pope may teach heresy, therefore if you hear a pope teaching heresy, he is not a valid pope.
Were a Pope to plan to officially teach error, God would withdraw His Providence and that Pope would immediately become bereft of life.
Jesus taught – he who hears you, hears me – and so what makes you think Our Triune God would allow error to be taught?
What sort of situation do you imagine pertains here?
Do you think the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity would just remain idle while a Pope took a decision to teach error?
What sort of a Church – The Pillar and Ground of Truth – did Jesus establish that would even possibly be faced with a situation where it is left up to each individual layman to decide for himself whether or not what the Pope teaches is error ?
What sort of sly Saviour is it who establishes a Church where this is even possible?
He did not leave us orphans.
Where in Scripture or Tradition do you find even one, just one, teaching from the Magisterium even hinting that is is even remotely possible?
(And no, citing this or that statement by this or that Saint is not probative owing to the reality that those statements have not be baptised by the Magisterium and, thus, absorbed as part of Tradition.
The fact is it is not left up to us (all of us effected, one way or another, with the spiritus mundi of whatever epoch we are born into) to decide whether or not a Pope is teaching error or not.
He can’t.
Period.
Jesus established His Church as the Pillar and Ground of Truth and He sent the Holy Ghost upon it to teach it all truth and to remain forever with it as its spiritual guarantor that His Church will never teach error.
Jesus loves His Bride and He is faithful to His Bride and He will never ever permit His Bride to be be dragged into the gutter to be raped by Satan and become impregnated with error.
Would you have let some thug grab your bride, drag her into the alley, and rape her without you putting up a fight?
Now, try to imagine Jesus standing there and letting Satan do that to His Bride who, we know (or used to know ) remains pure, holy, and forever undefiled.
There wil be a great apostasy but it will not be the apostasy of His Church.
It will be an apostasy of men.
OK, Vatican 1 and its Infallible Teaching:
And indeed, all the venerable Fathers have embraced, and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed, their Apostolic doctrine; knowing most fully that this See of holy Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error, according to the Divine promise that the Lord our Savior made to the Prince of His disciples: “But I have prayed for you, so that your faith may not fail, and so that you, once converted, may confirm your brothers.” (Lk 22:32). [21]
This gift, then, of truth and never-failing faith was conferred by heaven upon Peter and his successors in this Chair, that they might perform their high office for the salvation of all; that the whole flock of Christ, kept away from the poisonous food of error by them, might be nourished with the pasture of heavenly doctrine; that the occasion of schism being removed, the whole Church might be kept one, and, resting on its foundation, might stand firm against the gates of Hell
That infallible teaching can not be any clearer.
So why the fear of a successor of Peter teaching error?
The answer lies within the weak and/or failed Faith of those who think a Pope can teach error.
I say, put-up or shut-up.
Post the Infallible Teaching that a Pope can teach error.
You can’t.
The Catholic Church can not infallibly teach that a Pope will have never-failing Faith and also teach infallibly that he might have failing Faith.
That is like saying God can create a stone too heavy for Him to lift.
Come on….
Our Faith is not a contradiction or an absurdity
This isn’t complicated. It’s a matter of not violating the principle of non-contradiction. The pope can’t teach error, so any pope attempting to teach error is not the pope.
Dr. Bowring discusses the how of this in his own writing:
“Pope Paul IV’s Papal Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio teaches that if anyone was a heretic before the Papal election, he could not be a valid Pope, even if he is (validly) elected unanimously by the Cardinals.
As well, Canon 188.4 (1917 Code of Canon Law) states that if a cleric (pope, bishop, etc.) becomes a heretic, he loses his office, without any declaration, by operation of law.
St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Antonius, St. Francis de Sales, St. Alphonsus Liguori, and many other theologians all taught that a heretic cannot be a valid pope.
“If however, God were to permit a pope to become
a notoriously and contumacious heretic,
he would by such fact cease to be pope,
and the apostolic chair would be vacant.”
St. Alphonsus Liguori, Church Doctor”
We ought rightly to presume as Cardinal Bellarmine declares, that God will never let it happen that a Roman Pontiff, even as a private person, becomes a public heretic or an occult heretic.”
Dear Mr. Skojec. I can’t seem to get the reply buttons below to work so I am seeing your Saint Alphonsus Liguroi quote and raising you a different Saint Alphonus Liguori quote :
We ought rightly to presume as Cardinal Bellarmine declares, that God will never let it happen that a Roman Pontiff, even as a private person, becomes a public heretic or an occult heretic.”
I see that we are ultimately in agreement that a Pope can not teach error although the area of our agreement is reached by wildly divergent paths.
C’est la vie.
Pax tecum
I think people are not taking into account the fact that we have an unusual situation at present, that of two popes in the Vatican. therefore if one of them is not a valid pope then the other certainly is valid, so there is still a successor of Peter on earth.
The comments are nested. They only go so deep before they’re too narrow.
As for St. Alphonsus Liguori’s other quote, I don’t know that prooftexting him against himself is going to work. Nor does the formulation “we ought rightly to presume” exclude the possibility that this could happen, only the presumption that it has happened.
I can’t stress this enough. There is nothing in Church teaching (that I am aware of) that says there is some guarantee that a man who is elected pontiff is preserved from espousing heresy either before his election or after it, the latter action thus nullifying his papacy. There is only teaching that the Petrine office is gauranteed, by God, against the promulgation of error in faith and morals.
We know that popes can die; we also now know (in a more concrete sense) that popes can abdicate for their own reasons. Yet Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is not once again Cardinal Ratzinger. He has retained the title of “Pope”. Is he also still preserved from error in matters of faith and morals should he choose to speak on them? Is he not? Are there truly two popes in Rome? Are they equals? If not, why not? Is the difference merely juridical?
This is an unprecedented situation. And if a pope were to excommunicate himself, latae sententiae, by espousing heresy from the Throne of St. Peter, it would also be unprecedented. There have been 30 antipopes, but to my knowledge not one of them because they crossed the line of doctrinal error. That it has not happened does not mean that it could not happen, nor that the language of Vatican I excludes this interpretation.
So again, if a pope is a heretic, he is not a pope (though he would continue to appear to be until a successor demonstrated otherwise) and thus he cannot, as pope, teach error. The teaching of Vatican I stands, untouched, in this hypothetical instance.
This is a basic problem of logic. It’s a series of if/then statements.
Where the sedevacantists get it wrong is not the possibility of a vacant seat; it is vacant every time a pope dies, or when an antipope reins for a time, which, again, has happened dozens of time throughout history. What they get wrong is that they think they have the authority to reach this conclusion definitively on their own, without waiting for a legitimate successor of the pope to declare his predecessor an antipope. This belief that they have the authority is, I believe, the flip side of the “presumption” that St. Alphonsus speaks of. We are to presume that a pope IS the pope, unless we are given a definitive reason to believe otherwise. I agree with this wholeheartedly.
And yet it doesn’t change my belief of what is possible. A belief which I think is entirely congruous with Catholic teaching.
By the way, I edited that last comment of mine (I have the power!) so if you saw it in email, please be sure to re-read the last two paragraphs again before responding. I think I tied something in there that is important, which I missed the first time.
Steve, I will grant you that the Magisterium has not yet officially declared that the Pope is protected from being a heretic, but I believe that one day it will. I say this because if your scenario were to come true where a Pope ceases to be a Pope because he is a heretic and then teaches error in a solemn act, from a practical perspective, the gates of hell will have prevailed because I as a faithful Catholic will need to submit to an error (remember that I do NOT know the Pope is a heretic and ceased to be Pope) and there is no way God will let that happen.
I want to modify one point from my previous reply. I can accept the proposition that a Pope could become a heretic and lose his office but that God will still protect the Papal office by making sure the anti-Pope will not make a solemn act that teaches error. So the key for me is that the faithful are protected from having to submit to error.
Infallibility isn’t magic. There’s a famous quote from Pope Pius IX floating around on the Internet. It says, “If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him.”
It’s simple but sage advice.
It’s simple alright. And the people who use it never provide an original source for it. Mainly because they can’t.
Well, the infallible teaching of Vatican 1 says that will not happen whereas speculative theology entertains that as a possibility.
Which ranks higher in order of belief?
We have but One Pope. Pope Emeritus is not the same as a reigning Pope.
Pope Emeritus in not protected by the charism of infallibility which attaches to the Office (and the person holding the office)
You keep making the assertion that Vatican I says it will not happen, but it doesn’t in fact say that the man who is elected pope cannot be a heretic, either before or after his election.
The protections of papal infallibility doctrinally apply to anyone legitimately exercising the petrine office. They do NOT apply to antipopes, which HAVE existed. It’s a historical fact:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01582a.htm
I don’t know why we have to keep going around in circles. I completely agree that the legitimate petrine office is guaranteed against the promulgation of error in faith and morals. This is doctrine which I accept.
But there is NOTHING which I have read that indicates that the man who is in the office of pope CANNOT invalidate his holding of that office by espousing heresy. In fact, it only makes sense that this would be one of the safeguards of the authority of the office, since GOD DOES NOT IMPEDE FREE WILL. There is no magic bullet to keep a pope from becoming a heretic, but there is clearly a juridical safeguard against him exercising his papal authority AS a heretic.
The minute he embraces heresy, he is not the pope, the office is preserved, and error is not taught in an official capacity. End of story.
Having said this, the notion of papal infallibility is not yet sufficiently defined. The personal infallibility of the Pope must be more accurately defined it itself in the following way: it does not belong to the Roman Pontiff inasmuch as he is a private person, nor even inasmuch as he is a private teacher, since, as such, he is equal with all other private teachers and, as Cajetan wisely noted, equal does not have power over equal, not such power as the Roman Pontiff exercises over the Church Universal. Hence we do not speak about personal infallibility, although we do defend the infallibility of the person of the Roman Pontiff, not as an individual person but as the person of the Roman Pontiff or a public person, that is, as head of the Church in his relation to the Church Universal. Indeed it should not be said that the Pontiff is infallible simply because of the authority of the papacy but rather inasmuch as he is certainly and undoubtedly subject to the direction of divine assistance. By the authority of the papacy, the Pontiff is always the supreme judge in matters of faith and morals, and the father and teacher of all Christians. But the divine assistance promised to him, by which he cannot err, he only enjoys as such when he really and actually exercises his duty as supreme judge and universal teacher of the Church in disputes
about the Faith. Thus, the sentence “The Roman Pontiff is infallible” should not be treated as false, since Christ promised that infallibility to the person of Peter and his successors, but it is incomplete since the Pope is only infallible when, by a solemn judgment, he defines a matter of faith and morals for the Church universal
Dear Mr. Skojec. At my crummy blog the entire Inffalibility Relatio by Bishop Gasser at Vatican 1 is posted as a series.
One can even learn, despite countless claims to the contrary, that there have been thousands of infallible teachings…
http://bornacatholic.blogspot.com/2014/02/infallibility-vatican-1-relatio-of.html
Anti-popes are a historical fact. God apparently permits them.
It appears to be the position of some commenters here that the divine guarantee of infallibility given to Peter also somehow covers the anti-popes aswell.
The reality is that all of the anti-popes throughout history had NO divine guarantee of infallibility – it was entirely possible for ANY of them to teach error.
In certain cases in the Church history, it has not been immediately obvious to all the faithful who the legitimate successor of Peter was, divine guarantees notwithstanding.
Its a possibilitythat we should all be aware of, without exaggerating the likelihood of that possibility.
Kelly Bowring, as soon as the Archbishop ruled on MDM, immediately withdrew support.
http://midwaystreet.wordpress.com/updates/
I see a fatal flaw with Dr. Bowring analysis. He claims a Pope could officially teach a false doctrine and we would then need to wait for a future Pope to correct the false doctrine that was taught. This is NOT Catholic teaching. If a validly elect Pope were to officially teach false doctrine than that is the end of Catholicsm, full stop. In regards to Pope Francis, there is every reason to believe he is a validly elected Pope and no reason to believe otherwise. This does not mean I have no concerns about Pope Francis, but officially subverting the Faith is not one of them.
If Pope Francis officially taught a false doctrine, that would indicate that he is an anti-pope, not that Catholicism is false.
Naturally its horrible to even consider such a thing, even hypothetically. But when we have a pope – who’s job it is to safeguard the deposit of faith, including dogma – publicly criticise the Church for putting dogma ‘before love’, and who states that God ‘does not save us in our certainties’, then I think its entirely prudent to be aware of the possibilities.
The Never-Failing Faith of Peter And His Successors
There is one final doctrine which needs examination in our consideration of Vatican I’s Constitution Pastor Aeternus. It is becoming common fare among some who style themselves “traditionalists” to claim that a pope can lose the faith, and in so doing, lose the papacy. Vatican I is so explicit and repetitious in its denial of this error, and in affirming its opposite….
It is extremely important to understand that those who attempt to contradict this doctrinal teaching, even if they do so by quoting statements made in the past by famous men, theologians, saints, or even the private and non-universal teaching of a Pope, are promoting and teaching a heresy. It has been said that all the early Church Fathers were guilty of teaching at least one objective heresy (with the possible exception of St. Irenaeus). St. Thomas Aquinas was confused regarding the truth concerning the Immaculate Conception.
Most of these men, however, were not guilty of the sin of heresy simply because they taught falsely before the Church had officially defined these truths. This would also be the case for those who taught that a reigning pope might lose the faith, if they did so before the Church had defined its teaching in the First Vatican Council. Those who do so now, however, have no such excuse and are clearly promoting a well-defined heresy.
James Larson – Part X:The War Against the Papacy
http://www.waragainstbeing.com/node/50
Obviously all that is true only of every VALID successor of the apostles. It simply doesn’t apply if – IF – the person referred to isn’t a valid pope. As I said, in the context of the theoretical discussion above, an indication that such a person ISN’T would be that he ‘officially’ ‘teaches’ false doctrine.
In the purely hypothetical case of a Cardinal being a Mason, would not that immediately make his subsequent election to the Papacy, invalid?
I think Steve Skojec has answered this in his above exchange with Mr. bornacatholic: yes, with the qualification – also not contradicted in either of my posts – that it would take a higher legitimate authority to formally declare him an antipope for obstinately embracing a heresy.
We would never be bound to obey this hypothetical antipope if he ‘officially’ taught that his heretical doctrine was compatible with Catholicism.
I wish I had more time to spend on this today, but work stuff is going to keep me hopping all day.
I think Bowring makes the case that this could at least be considered fairly well when he writes:
From: http://twoheartspress.com/the-great-battle-has-begun/concerning-maria-divine-mercy-pope-francis-and-the-false-prophet/
Many of these quotes are being generated by the Recognise The Pope & Resist the Pope type of Traditionalist but none of those quotes have been addressed by an Ecumenical Council nor do they appear in any Universal Catechisms nor in any Papal Encyclical, at least as insofar that I know.
And it is worthy of note that these quotes have been used against Pope Blessed John 23rd, Pope Paul VI, Pope Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, nit just Pope Francis.
Hoever, we do have an teaching from an Ecumenical Council that even the crummiest of Popes retains his authority;
If a pope is foreknown as damned and is evil, and is therefore a limb of the devil, he does not have authority over the faithful given to him by anyone, except perhaps by the emperor
was a proposition of Wyclif which was condemned at the Council of Constance.
What accounts for the rise of private judgment amongst so many Catholics?
Do they really think they know more about the Faith that do the modern Popes?
Sadly, yes; they sift Popes and Encyclicals looking for possible contradictions and they pit Pope against Pope and Ecumenical Council against Ecumenical Council.
They are judge of both the living and the dead Popes.
If this be Faith, it is not the Catholic Faith I was learnt
Steve, I’ve never seen anything conclusive regarding the idea that if a Pope is a personal heretic, he’s no longer Pope. That is the thinking behind the sedevacantists, but it doesn’t make sense to me, since the popes in our lifetime occasionally say and do things that seem heretical – think JPII. Many think the Novus Ordo was quite a protestant idea for example. Someone had a piece out recently where they called sedevacantist thinking sort of a reverse papolotry. While we have many today that think anything the Pope says or does must be applied and approved somehow, the sedevacantists tend to think if he screws up at all he’s not pope!
Even if it’s true that a clear heretic cannot in fact be Pope, I choose not to explore Dr. Bowring’s treatment of prophecies and false popes since I see his makes a living going on Medjugorje pilgrimages.
http://twoheartspress.com/blog/2014-special-pilgrimage-with-dr-bowring/
I’ve read things about Medjugorje over the years and I’m fairly convinced it’s a fraud. Faithful people do travel there and they are devoted to Mary, and respected voices like Scott Hahn take part in pilgrimages. Still, daily apparitions for 30+ years, visions-on-demand as the ‘seers’ travel the world (There was a Medjugorje seer near me recently. The announcement said I could have gone to visit, pray, and take part in the apparition at 7pm.), and consistent condemnation by local bishops for all these years all speak well against it. I don’t think Pope Benedict was too keen on it either, though Cardinal Schonborn is always very supportive!
These two links look like they give it some treatment.
http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/medjugorje.htm
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2008-0930-allesio-vatican_disciplines_exspiritual.htm
I know there are many respected and even reputable Catholics who go to Medjugorje (a faithful priest friend of mine thinks of it as approved), but if someone so well-acquainted with it as Dr. Bowring cannot detect these blatant issues, how can we trust him to discern and apply prophecies?
Unfortunately, I share your same concerns in regards to Dr. Bowring’s Medjugorje affiliations. I was hopped-up,so to speak, on his “12 Prophecies” article, but not sure now how much weight I’m willing to give to it. I also thought Fr. Gobbi (Marian Movement of Priests), who is also mentioned, was problematic.
Frank,
I agree. Medjugorje has always made me uncomfortable. And having been close to people I trust who have received what are (in my opinion) legitimate private revelations, I know first hand how incredibly confusing this stuff can be. Why God allows certain things to be seen or known without more specific guidance is a mystery. Why he allows some people to sense both demonic and angelic activity with no understanding of why they are sensing it is also hard to understand. And just as I’ve been present when I believe that God has given legitimate revelations to individuals, I’ve also had someone close to me be quite manifestly deceived. (This individual was not aware of it until I pointed out to him how uncomfortable his “message” made me.)
So, I’m not in a hurry to go looking for additional sources of revelation. I’m most interested in what the Church has already approved. That said, I find interesting the specificity of these MDM revelations, particularly as regards their prediction of the wholly unanticipated abdication of Pope Benedict. I am — and I can’t overstate it — incredibly cautious in my approach to believing these. Luckily, I’m a natural skeptic.
When it comes to Dr. Bowring’s credibility, I remain optimistic but not yet entirely convinced. I found the argument he makes here about his compliance on Medjugorje a persuasive case for his own adherence to orthodoxy, but less prudent than I would care for: http://twoheartspress.com/blog/two-hearts-press-remains-compliant-on-medjugorje/
My serious concerns regarding Pope Francis have to do with the salvation of souls. He appears to be making light of serious sins in informal speaking, such that those who follow his lead may believe that grave sins are not so. I experienced an illumination of conscience years ago, and it was severe. It was a searing profound pain unlike anything I have ever felt, and worse than the grief of the death of a loved one. How can I be silent in the face of this Pope’s dangerous remarks when I know that the payment for sins, even within the great mercy of God, is almost unbearable? There were many things shown me at that time, and what I was shown agrees with the Church’s understanding of the severity of sin, and runs counter to some of Pope Francis’ casual comments and tone. If we are our brother’s keeper, we care for souls, that they may not be lost.
Forgive the length of the extract…
Catholic Charity and Obedience
We have previously mentioned the extraordinary ignorance on the part of most Catholics in regards to the dogma of Papal Primacy in the government and discipline of the Church. This is an ignorance which long pre-dates Vatican Council II. Catholics have certainly been aware of the fact that the Pope was the governing head of the Church. This awareness did not extend, however, to the fact that it is a dogma of our faith that all Catholics must submit to the Pope in his decisions concerning the government and discipline of the Church. I have yet to find an adequate treatment of this doctrine in a pre-conciliar catechism.
There is a reason for this ignorance. It lies in a terrible loss of the truly Catholic sense of obedience, and in a corresponding failure to understand the relationship of obedience to the uniquely Catholic concept of charity within the Mystical Body of Christ. The following quotation from one of St. Peter’s Letters will help us to rediscover this relationship:
“Be ye subject therefore to every human creature for God’s sake: whether it be to the king as excelling; Or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of the good: For so is the will of God, that by doing well you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not as making liberty a cloak for malice, but as the servants of God. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king. Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this is thankworthy, if for conscience towards God, a man endures sorrows, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if committing sin, and being buffeted for it, you endure? But if doing well you suffer patiently, this is thankworthy before God. For unto this are you called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow his steps. Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth. Who, when he was reviled, did not revile: when he suffered, he threatened not: but delivered himself to him that judged him unjustly (1st Pet 2:13-23).”
St. Peter instructs us, “For unto this you are called.” Unto what? To submission, to obedience and even slavery. Further, this obedience and patient suffering is to be rendered not only to the just master but also to the “froward” and the unjust. We need to seriously meditate on this passage of scripture to understand how foreign it is to our way of thinking. As Americans we need to understand that our country is founded upon a principle which is almost the perfect negation of Peter’s teaching:
“That to secure these rights (Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness), Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; That whenever any Form of government becomes destructive of these ends it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it . . .” (Declaration of Independence)
The right to reject any act of government or discipline, which we subjectively believe to be unjust, is deeply imbedded in our consciences.
It was not in Christ’s conscience. He was the first to practice this apparently unreasonable obedience, and we must follow and imitate Him if we are to merit salvation. The above passage from St. Peter also explains the reason why we must do so: this patient, obedient, and unearned suffering is “thankworthy before God.” The Greek word translated in the Douay-Rheims as “thankworthy” is none other than “charis” – the word used throughout the New Testament for “grace”. In other words, our obedience, and the suffering which it might entail, is “grace” before God.
Now, let us apply this truly Catholic sense of obedience to the question of Papal Primacy. We are instructed by the Constitution Pastor Aeternus that we must submit to the Pope in all matters pertaining to his discipline and government of the Church. We know that the Pope is neither infallible nor impeccable in such matters. He can do things in his rule of the Church that are neither wise nor prudent. Vatican Council I tells us that it is still God’s will that we submit to his government and discipline. As an example, let us suppose that I am absolutely sure that God wants me to establish a Religious Order or some other “work” for the salvation of souls. I may even believe, as did Archbishop Lefebvre, that this “work” is necessary for the salvation of the whole Church. Let us also suppose that the Pope refuses permission for me to establish this order or work. In such a case, even if the Pope was manifestly wrong in the eyes of many experts, I am called upon By God and our Faith to obey and to suffer patiently, for this is “thankworthy before God.” If I choose to disobey, then I am simply asserting the primacy of my works over the Cross and the hidden workings of God’s grace.
We have reached a point in our discussion of the Catholic concept of obedience where it becomes obvious that the demands of our faith run absolutely counter to what might be called the “religion” of our culture. The Catholic truth regarding the virtue and necessity of obedience may be stated in the following manner:
For a Catholic, the demands of supernatural charity, according to the Will of God, can supersede the demands of natural justice and natural reason.
Christ’s offering of Himself on the Cross defies all natural justice and reason. It makes no rational sense to us that the Infinitely Good God should suffer infinite pain for man who is nothing in himself. Christ’s obedience to the Cross is an act of supernatural charity which supersedes natural justice and reason, while at the same time satisfying supernatural justice. We also are called to this same “unreasonable” obedience and charity: “For unto this are you called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow his steps (1st Pet 2:21).”
We are used to thinking of the Papacy as something which guarantees truth in Christ’s Church. And so it is. Equally important, however, is the fact that Christ established His Church on the Rock of the Papacy in order to guarantee charity and the continual flow of reparative grace within His Mystical Body. This “charity through obedience” is not an option. It is a demand of our faith. The dogma of the Papal Primacy locks us into a sacrificially obedient love towards the Papacy in much the same way as marriage locks spouses into a sacrificial relationship to one another and to the sacrament which they have received. We have previously quoted St. Gregory’s statement, “Divine Justice provides shepherds according to the just desserts of the faithful.” We may now look at this statement in a deeper light. Bad shepherds are not just a punishment. They are a wound in our own Body which requires the reparative grace of our suffering charity. They are a specific call from God for an increase in this charity.
It is therefore astonishing, in any real “Catholic sense”, that this moment in history which is characterized by so many poor shepherds has called forth from many who are most ready to call themselves traditional Catholics, not reparation and suffering obedience in imitation of Christ, but reviling and rebellion in imitation of he who hates the cross of Christ. It simply is not true that we are faced with only two choices – either to fight them or join them in their errors. Christ did neither of these. He chose a third way, the way of the Cross. Nor does this mean that we are forced to surrender ourselves to the pervasive influence of Modernism within most dioceses. The family and its divinely mandated authority for the rearing of children is prior to any diocesan authority. We have the perfect right and obligation to protect our children from the errors of priests or bishops.
The rebellion against the Papal Primacy of Jurisdiction is possibly the most insidious fruit of Liberalism. It is a revolution so pervasive that it unites and spans the distance between a Hans Kung and an Archbishop Lefebvre. It denies the Church of its very life-blood, of that grace produced by suffering, obedient love which is necessary for the fulfillment of Christ’s mission for the Church: the conversion of the nations. If there is anything that appears most striking about the Church at this moment in history, it is its apparent weakness. The Church seems drained of power. Priests have no power to resist the temptations of the world. The Pope seems to have no power over bishops, clergy, or religious. The Catholic man or woman in the world has no power to defend his or her faith against either militant secularism or Fundamentalism. Catholic “works” without a Catholic “Heart” is impossible. Faith without works is dead. We have become impotent because we have become independent. We must pray for the grace to return to the “first love” and “first works” which is the Cross of Christ, and, the “power” that overcomes the world.
James Larson – War against the Papacy
Steve, my husband happens to agree with you. Just this morning, he reminded me of Our Lord asking if He would find any faith when He returns.
On the other hand, I do not know how I could adopt your view without jumping ship again. I mean, what good Catholic wants to be in a Church full of heretics and heresy? If we can’t look to the Vicar of Christ for solace and guidance, we are poor indeed.
If anyone here thinks that they can continue to take refuge in their little TLM haven, think again. Eventually, they will all be taken away and all you will have left is what I endure every week – a CINO Mass.
As for praying for guidance, I have been the past four years and am still at a loss as to what to do.
What MDM, Dr. Bowring and others are failing to see, this didn’t begin with Pope Francis. It has been in the works for decades.
Lorra, I think it’s quite obvious that our Church is full of heretics and heresy. And this isn’t an unprecedented situation in the life of the Church. Think of how poor St. Athanasius must have felt, enduring exile after exile just for standing up for the truth.
I really have no temptations to sedevacantism. If for some reason it is determined that Francis is an antipope, it won’t be decided until we have a real one. For now, we bide our time, and stay as close as we can to the truth.
I’m sorry for your Mass situation. Personally, I couldn’t do it. If there was no TLM I could get to, I’d go Byzantine until I could sort it out. If there was no local option, I’d work on getting one, and if that didn’t work, I’d make plans to move. I would attend the Novus Ordo only as long and as often as is absolutely required.
FWIW, I agree with you that this didn’t begin here. Part of what I tried to establish in the “Something Wicked” post is that this is the fruit of a long campaign to destroy the Church from within. They won’t prevail, but even Christ spent a few days in the tomb. Would anyone really argue that the gates of hell prevailed against Him because of that? Let’s not assume that the Church, His mystical body, won’t follow His lead.
I don’t believe anyone is “failing to see” anything, or allege that this has begun with Francis. The thread here is all over the place. One either accepts and believes in church approved prophecy and can discern for themselves what is authentic and/or inauthentic personal revelation, or they don’t or can’t. I have read every single message conveyed to MDM, every one, more than once, and find it quite incredible if there is even a possibility I am hearing from Jesus or Mary or God. I do actually find refuge in my “little TLM haven” and if anyone here thinks the Novus Ordo is suddenly going to magically transform into something better than the CINO Mass, you’re mistaken. I have shared the messages of MDM with our TLM Priest, and the only fruits of our having read these messages this past year, are finding a wonderful TLM close to our home, reciting daily the Chaplet of Divine Mercy, Daily Rosary, weekly Adoration and a much keener appreciation of ALL of the Sacraments, but especially the Real Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist and the Sacrament of Penance/Confession. Before you are quick to condemn and judge either MDM or Dr. Kelly Bowring because he leads a pilgrimage to Medjugorje, stop and consider that the MDM messages predicted to the day, when Benedict would resign and described Francis two years before his arrival on the scene.
Thank You Lord Jesus.
Steve J.
Thomas L. McDonald’s penultimate point goes: “Let’s stop whining and get fighting, not each other, not the Church, not the pope, not people who are fine with a plain ole Novus Ordo mass, but the enemy we’ve been trained to fight: the devil and his minions. The fight is out there, not in here.” A valid point lies buried in there, but the argument misleads.
If the visions of Emmerich and if the messages from Our Lady of Quito and at Akita, and from other private revelations, are being noticed by Catholics today, it’s precisely because they seem to describe what is already becoming the staple of our daily news: cardinal against cardinal, bishop against bishop, two churches, etc.
Catholics need not be castigated for taking note of such prophecies in the tradition, especially if they appear to be coming true. Christ himself commanded us to stay alert and to watch for the signs of the times. We would be remiss in our duty not to consider these things. As for criticisms of the pope causing others to lose their faith, I just don’t buy that. Genuine faith is usually made out of sterner stuff.
As for McDonald’s refrain “and we’re still here”, whether or not one references prophecies, and however one might interpret the gates of hell not prevailing, plain numerical trends indicate that in the not too distant future something we call the institutional Church will no longer be here, at least not in any form that we’ve known before. There are even prophecies about that!
Yet I do believe that some traditionalists take their points too far, into vitriolic. But by now I’ve come to see them as being like the canary in the coal mine. When traditionalists start getting distressed about survival, the rest of us better perk up and take notice! Yes, there are devils to fight, as McDonald says. There have always been. But we haven’t always noticed.
In particular, McDonald’s cavalier dismissal of the “who am I to judge?” fiasco seems to ignore the context in which it is happening: the contemporary assault on marriage and the family as traditionally understood. Any number of fine theological minds have pointed out that though violence against human beings is ultimately also an attack against God, the ideological assault on man and woman joined together in procreative love–the imago Dei of Genesis–is a direct attack against the very heart of the divine image in human life.
I do believe that many other people have independently moved towards conclusions of equally apocalyptic nature as those of Dr. Bowring, but have done so without venturing into revelations of problematic integrity. In my own view, the message of Fatima, including the vision of the third secret that Cardinal Ratzinger helped remove from the life of the Church in the year 2000, but which he gave back in 2010 as Benedict XVI, as future prophecy about that very life, tells us what we need to know.
The city of God–the whole institutional set up–will lie in ruins and will no longer serve towards sanctification. Only the red and white martyrdom of a long procession of faithful lives (offered as sacrifice and reparation) at the foot of the Cross (the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass), will produce saints. For as we see in the Book of Revelation, when there are no more saints, when history is no longer marked by their passage, then history itself will be brought to an end. So no, contra McDonald, we don’t say about the apocalypse, “Bring it on!” As Christians we still do seek the sanctification of the human race. That, and the Lord Jesus, we wish to see brought on. McDonald’s advice does not help prepare us for the final battle.
BornaCatholic, thank you for all you have posted here.
Steve you are right on and I could not be more in agreement.
I have a story for all of your readers who are scandalized by the truth you tell. My mother met a black man at a catholic conference who was a preacher at an inner city detroit church who converted to the Catholic Church and brought with him the majority of his congregation. At the time, all of the priestly sex scandals were in the news and all were horrified. My mother asked him how he was dealing with all of this news in light of his recent conversion and he responded:
“I know im in the right church because Satan wouldn’ t want the wrong one this badly”.
We cannot lose sight that we are in the only true Church … As Peter said to Jesus when his followers left him after the Eucharist discourse … “to whom shall we go you have the words of salvation”
We must not flee from the Bride of Christ when she is in the midst of enduring her passion.
Find a Latin Mass and become a daily communicant so that you may truly see the reality of our times. My family picked up and moved across the country to have the Latin Mass.
Genevieve and Steve, you both say to pick yourself up and move. Has it ever occurred to either one of you that not everyone has the financial means to do so? That some of us are actually poor?
Also, I see no reason, if what Steve says is true, why going to a sedevacantist chapel would not be all right. I liken it to getting into a life boat. Why should I continue to have my faith eroded on a weekly basis? And it does erode, imperceptibly at first. By the time you notice a change in how you think and view things, there is a bit of backtracking to do to get yourself back in sync.
In essence, what you are saying Steve is no different from what the sedevacantists say. I know this for a fact because I spent years with them.
I know people can’t just pick up and move. My day job is real estate sales. Things are a lot more complicated than that.
I too suffer from not having access to a daily TLM. And I can’t just uproot and go to make that happen without upsetting other things that are in balance. My children’s fantastic Catholic school that is just minutes from home. Our business. Our lives.
I didn’t mean to be glib about it. I know it’s hard.
I think that there’s a key distinction between what I’m saying and what the sedevacantists say. Sedevacantism is a sort of ultra-Catholic protestantism. They have imputed the authority to themselves to decide that a man is not the pope, rather than relying on the authority of the Church and God’s providence to make that decision in due time.
In the process, they begin making other decisions they have no right to make. They decide that Masses are invalid, as are the ordinations of priests and other sacraments. They back themselves into a corner where they create a parallel Church. They fail to honor what bornacatholic quotes from St. Alphonsus, namely, the presumption that the pope is the pope — unless the Church tells us otherwise.
It’s very tricky to detect error coming from the highest levels of the Church and yet not leap to a conclusion that is not ours to make. But not following the apparent errors we see coming from Rome and being careful to warn others about them does not exclude us from communion and sacramental life.
That said, this is a time of chastisement. It’s going to be hard. I have a terrible time accepting that, just as I have a terrible time fasting or committing acts of penance. I’m selfish and enjoy the legitimate pleasures of this world, and my weak and sinful soul recoils at asceticism. This is a cross I have to learn to embrace. I can’t stand having to drive at least half an hour at odd times on a Sunday to get to a (often badly-done) TLM. But I should be more grateful that I can at least get to one.
Christ said it in the Gospel of Mark when he spoke to the hemorrhaging woman who was healed by touching His garment: “Fear is useless. What is needed is trust.”
These things that I see make me initially fearful, not unlike that first hill going up a rollercoaster. You know what’s coming, and there’s a certain trepidation that goes with that. But like a rollercoaster, there’s an adventure to it as well, provided that you trust that God will keep the whole thing on the rails. There is a real danger to souls, but trusting in Him will get us through the ride.
It’s a bad analogy, but I hope it’s illustrative. We are afraid of the unknown and the unknowable, and this is a time of great uncertainty. We have to cling to what we know, and use the light of Faith to guide us through the rest.
just wanted to share 2 REALLY good analyses from an awesome site. This clears up a WHOLE lot for me….the road is indeed going to get a lot bumpier….
http://corbiniansbear.blogspot.com/2014/04/major-pope-francis-reveal.html
http://corbiniansbear.blogspot.com/2014/04/pope-francis-picture-on-puzzle-box.html
The greatest puzzle is why Benedict resigned. Whether one is an extreme conspiracy theorist, an agnostic (on Fatima and/or conspiracies), or a “level-headed” moderate traditionalist or neo-Catholic, why did he do it? Surely he must have realized that Bergoglio or someone like him would be a possible result of the vote. And Benedict of all people would presumably have feared that. It doesn’t make sense from ANY point of view. No answer. Just a question. Why?
I agree that there’s no sense in it. It seems entirely out of character for a man who took every aspect of his job so seriously.
I often wonder if these men aren’t the victims of some type of blackmail. Someone threatening to reveal some horrid bit of news if they don’t do their bidding?
Personally, if there are any skeletons in the Vatican closet of that nature, I would rather know than be “spared” the details.
How much more scandalized can we be?
It seems to me that with a man like Ratzinger, the only effective threat would be against some other, perhaps the Church herself. The threat of schism? Of throwing the Church into some chaos by an action or revelation of some kind? I don’t know. Something bigger than just him, though.
Not saying this is the case, but if there were a threat, my opinion is that it would have to be of this nature.
An astute observation, Steve. The threat of schism may well have been the reason.
I think most Christian Catholics would be shocked to learn that thousands and thousands of infallible judgments have been issued by the Pope;
http://bornacatholic.blogspot.com/2014/02/infallibility-thousands-of-dogmatic.html
02/25/2014
Ratzinger: “My resignation is valid. Speculations are simply absurd”
(©ANSA) BENEDICT XVI AND FRANCIS: A BLENDING OF PAPACIES
Benedict XVI responds to a letter sent to him by the Vatican correspondent Andrea Tornielli. The journalist sent him some questions regarding the alleged pressures and conspiracies which some claim led to his resignation
ANDREA TORNIELLI
VATICAN CITY
“There is absolutely no doubt regarding the validity of my resignation from the Petrine ministry” and the “speculations” surrounding it are “simply absurd”. Joseph Ratzinger was not forced to resign, he was not pressured into it and he did not fall victim to a conspiracy: his resignation was genuine and valid and there is no “diarchy” (dual government) in the Church today. There is a reigning Pope, Francis, who leads the Catholic Church and an Emeritus Pope whose “only purpose” is to pray for his successor.
If there were something so severe that it could be used as a catalyst to force a pope to abdicate for the first time in many centuries, do we honestly believe that he would be at liberty to divulge the plot after he stepped down?
Or is it more reasonable to conclude that the threat still existed, and that anything sufficiently perilous that it would coerce such a severe retreat from duty and vocation as papal abdication might also prevent him from telling the truth about his decision?
I’m asking for common sense here. Coercion by its nature forces people to do what they otherwise would not do. Often it forces them to do things they might otherwise consider to be wrong.
Food for thought.
I wholeheartedly agree with the excellent questions you raised. This is an unprecedented situation, and something just isn’t right. Of course, Benedict isn’t going to suddenly give different reasons for why he abdicated. Why leave in the first place if you don’t plan to stick to the original story?
When I first read the following link from The Remnant, it certainly gave me even more pause as to whether Benedict’s abdication was the result of coercion, therefore invalidating the election of Francis. And coupled with the prophecies out there of the “two popes” one can’t help but to be unnerved by it all.
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/274-latest-updates-from-socci-the-papal-games
Fascinating. Ferrara writes:
“I start with that to which I myself have given testimony. In the summer of 2011 I received the news from a reliable source: Benedict XVI has decided to resign and will do so after having completed 85 years, i.e., in April 2012.”
Now, if MDM is, in fact, a fake, and she had access to the same information that Ferrara did, that could explain this message, dated June 1, 2011:
“My prophecies are accurately communicated to you, My daughter. Satan will continue to chip away and hurt you when you least expect it. So be on your guard at all times. My beloved Vicar’s days are now numbered. He will have left the Vatican before The Warning takes place. Trust in Me. Obey Me. You are now progressing well. But never take your eyes away from Me.”
If we do not take men at their word then we will never have any peace at all.
I see no reason to judge the Emeritus Pope as having lied about his reason for retiring.
However, this search for real motive cuts both ways; that is, what spiritual or temporal forces were at work to cause Ferrara et al to write and publish their, “We resist you to the face” polemic?
I know what he and his conferes said publicly about their motives but what were their real motives?
Filthy lucre; demonic possession; weakness of character; threats of job loss and/or fear of lost friendships in the trad movement and loss of presumed intellectual prestige if they returned to Full Communion with the modern Popes?
I don’t know what it is that accounts for the egos of some men to be so out of control that they dare publicly claim that what a man says about his own motives are wrong and that they know the real reason.
Where is the proof of their afflatus?
Imagine the audacity of one claiming they know more about the motives for the action of a particular man than that man knows about his own motives.
And when the Emeritus Pope publicly repeats his reasons for retirement it is taken as proof that really really powerful occult forces were the actual cause of his retirement and that the word of a Pope can not be trusted.
Poor Pope Emeritus. No matter how many times he might repeat his reasons for retirement many of his former sheep will treat him as a lying goat.
And, of course, we see this type of putative occult knowledge being claimed all over the place and especially in relation to Fatima.
St Theresa of Avila and St John of the Cross counsel the crucial importance of objective ecclesial discernment re private revelation and yet we see the private judgment of men repudiating that very objective ecclesial discernment when it comes to Fatima and the Consecration of Russia.
He-who-is-to-be-Canonised said the Consecration was done; Lucy said it was done; Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, as Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a teaching about Fatima and yet all of that objective ecclesial discernment has been striven against if not axiomatically gainsaid by those exercising private judgment – including Messrs Ferrara, Matt, Sungenis, Vennari, Fr Gruener etc etc,
Oncet, Roma locuta, causa finita obtained.
Not any more as private judgement has rapidly impregnated an entire movement.
There are those who think their loftiness of reason is such that they can not be expected to simply Pray, Pay, and Obey the Church but, rather, that they can exercise their private judgment based upon their own putative reason, forgetting the teaching of Saint Vincent Ferrer; Those whose faith rests on reason will lose it when they hear the specious reasoning of Antichrist.
Me?
I bless God that He created me with such obvious intellectual limitations. I believe the Church and the Pope who occupies the sole existing Divinely-Constituted Office and who is far more worthy of trust than those who create schisms and who publish their own schismatic newspapers and magazines.
O, and I am not even going to get into the reality that the Popes since Pops Pious XII are infinitely more intelligent and Holier than those who judge them.
Anybody care to post the resumes of those who oppose the modern Popes versus the resumes of the Modern Popes whose education and expertise makes their critics seem like 1930s toothless snake-handlers living in caves in the Ozarks.
Go ahead, just for the enlightening experience of it some time; go read what their qualifications are; Doctorates in Sacred Theology, Doctorates in Philosophy, Doctorates in Canon Law; with scores of years of orthodox ecclesiastical praxis as Priests, Bishops, and Cardinals prior to their election; and ALL of that merely on the natural level – absent the spiritual guidance promised to he who occupies the Holy See/Office of the Papacy.
And then compare THAT to what is possessed by the critics of the modern Popes.
Doing that will make you feel embarrassed for the critics of the modern Popes for they are, collectively, but one flint strike in comparison to the sun each individual modern Pope is.
It is time for the soi disant traditionalists to slough-off their skepticism; slough-off their skeptical reasoning; slough-off their private judgment, and to simply trust the Church Jesus established and to stop judging it.
It’s one thing to judge that the Pope Emeritus is lying. It’s another to speculate that in the event of a coerced abdication, it is reasonable to assume that the threat would still be in force in any followup statements he would make about his abdication.
I don’t necessarily agree with the polemics of other trad writers, but I don’t doubt their sincerity. What I do doubt is that the only thing keeping them from changing their stance is some fear of an anticipated loss of prestige. It’s remarkably disingenuous for you to condemn judging the motives of others and in the same breath engage in the same sort of judgment as a hypothetical thought exercise, just to show that the sword “cuts both ways.”
I’m also entirely unconvinced that intelligence or education should act as some sort of inoculation against error. That’s the academic equivalent of a “might makes right” proposition, ie., “I have more degrees/years of study than you, ergo, I’m right and you’re wrong.”
We of course see the lie in this when we consider the state of modern academia and its championing of every error counter to God’s truth. It’s often the “best and brightest” who are the most ardent persecutors of what is good and right.
And as Pope St. Pius X warned in Pascendi:
“Further, none is more skillful, none more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious devices; for they play the double part of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; and as audacity is their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance To this must be added the fact, which indeed is well calculated to deceive souls, that they lead a life of the greatest activity, of assiduous and ardent application to every branch of learning, and that they possess, as a rule, a reputation for irreproachable morality.“
It does not however explain the Message of 11 Feb 2012, entitled ‘My poor Holy Vicar, Pope Benedict XVI will be ousted from the Holy See of Rome’ given at 11.30hrs exactly one year to the day and hour before his resignation and published in the Book of Truth vol.II.
Well, if the information was there in advance, it could at least be a coincidence. But I will concede that it’s one hell of a coincidence, if so.
“Ousted” is not the same as resigned. A later message, that of March 13, 2013 said “he was persecuted and has fled” but he didn’t flee he went to Castelgandolfo and then came back. If he is really still pope then why does he appear in public with Francis and play along with the charade?
Mr. Skojec,
Maria Divine Mercy is a fraud and a hertic. She has sown great confusion w/ my sister in law and mother in law. The family is split because of it. MDM’s real name is Mary Carberry. See this article outing here money making agenda.
http://midwaystreet.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/8/
Mr. Skojec please don’t lend any credence to her or Mr. Bowring who spread her message. She has many misses with regard to dates of events like “the warning’, etc.
I’m not happy with some of the statements from Francis but let us contiue our prayers for him. Stick to Fatima, Akita, Faustina, etc. Our Lady is pleading with us at authetic places, no need to go to charlatans.
God bless!!!!
Maxkolbe,
I’m very sensitive to the possible dangers in these sort of private revelations. I’ve certainly seen people hurt by them in the past.
I must say, though, that just as I don’t have the authority to say that MDM’s messages are real, I also don’t have the authority to say that they’re not, or that she is a heretic. I leave it to the Church to decide. Hopefully her bishop will make a decision soon.
I have only read a handful of her messages. I admit that there’s something about them that seems a bit off, but nothing I’ve read seems to contradict doctrine or move people away from genuine prayer. If you know of particularly troubling messages, I’d be interested in looking at those specifically. The only reason I took any interest in this at all is because Dr. Bowring’s own writings on what he sees coming so closely mirrored my own. I remain cautiously interested in the parallels.
I don’t have time at the moment to read that rather long page you sent me, though I did start it. If the investigation turns up what you suspect, then she’ll no doubt be discredited. That said, enough of what she is allegedly receiving matches up with apparitions from other approved sources to be, it seems to me, worthy at least of prudent consideration.
I would never suggest that people need to read any private revelation. They certainly don’t. And I don’t mean to lend credibility to it by considering it here. I’m simply connecting my own dots, and I have to consider the evidence I run across that seems to confirm my suspicions.
Here you go Steve, condemnation of MDM.
http://mariadivinemercytrueorfalse.blogspot.com/2013/06/official-church-condemnation-of-maria.html
I’m aware that certain bishops have taken these steps, but their authority extends only to their own dioceses. Her bishop has not spoken. There is often controversy over messages that are eventually approved.
It’s worth noting that the Divine Mercy devotion (related to Saint Faustina’s diary of apparitions) was originally condemned by the CDF (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. 51 (1959), p. 271). If you can read Italian/Latin, you can still see the document here:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS%2051%20%5B1959%5D%20-%20ocr.pdf
My point, again, is not to give credibility to MDM, but rather to highlight that controversial apparitions often go through a period of turmoil before the matter is decided with finality.
Steve,
I will leave you to your discernment but to compare St. Faustina to MDM in any way is, I would suggest way off base. Be very careful that you don’t lead your readership astray by making these kind of comparisons. More Bishops condemn:
http://mariadivinemercytrueorfalse.blogspot.com/p/bishops-on-mdm.html
I will hang up and wait for your response (and last word). God bless you and yours.
Likewise maxkolbe, you should also be very careful of your condemnation of these messages because if you are wrong, what you have accomplished by dismissing the prophetic words of Jesus, Mary and God the Father, cannot be good! I don’t discern much discernment on your part. You seem more bent on proving them wrong then on accepting them for their content. Ironic, Who was it? Urban VIII who said:
“In cases which concern private revelations, it is better to believe than not to believe, for, if you believe, and it is proven true, you will be happy that you have believed, because our Holy Mother asked it. If you believe, and it should be proven false, you will receive all blessings as if it had been true, because you believed it to be true.”
Now, that said, when I shared with someone that our reading these messages and believing in them, has resulted in our praying the Rosary daily, reciting the Chaplet of Divine Mercy daily, seeking out a TLM, and partaking of the Sacraments more often, that same person suggested that could be Satan….wow! Really? Wow! The fruits of these messages for us have been all good, and has us reading scripture and seeking spiritual guidance more than at any other time in our lives. I must be careful myself as we are told not to defend these messages, so I am sorry, I am human. What would the purpose be for someone to take on this daily mission since 2010 and be the subject of bitter scorn and ridicule. I simply cannot imagine, and many of the messages speak of the suffering and anguish MDM has endured as she said early and often, “Why Me”?
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J and Pope Benedict XVI made a factual error : Analysis
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/04/cardinal-luiz-ladaria-sj-and-pope.html#links
The messages of “Maria Divine Mercy” have been rejected by a number of bishops. This site has those statements as well as a lot of other information. : http://mariadivinemercytrueorfalse.blogspot.com/p/bishops-on-mdm.html
Why anyone would choose not to give the benefit of doubt to Jesus over those who have devoted themselves to destroying this mission, is almost beyond comprehension. It is one thing to believe or disbelieve in silence, but to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit and steer others in that direction, is very very serious. Yes, some Bishops have “condemned” these messages (we all know Bishops are above reproach these days, right?) but the only authority with the jurisdiction to condemn them despite massive campaigns asking him to do so, the Archbishop of Dublin, has not. It is much better to believe these messages than not to, if one does with purity of heart. For if you are wrong, and have encouraged others to reject the Holy Spirit, the ramifications are serious. This message from August 2012 speaks clearly to this. Read it carefully please:
By declaring the Voice of the Holy Spirit to be evil you are guilty of a blasphemy of such magnitude proportions
August 8, 2012 @ 11:20 pm
My dearly beloved daughter when people ask what I mean by the Word of God let Me explain.
The Word of God, as contained in the Holy Bible, both the Old and the New Testaments, the Word of God, the Truth, is being given to the world through these messages by the Gift of the Holy Spirit.
These messages are being presented by the Holy Trinity and are the only ones of their kind ever delivered to humanity by a prophet.
The reason is that this is the last mission, the final form of Divine communication and intervention being presented to the world because of My Second Coming.
Never interfere with the Power of the Holy Spirit for this is a very serious sin.
In these messages the Voice of the Holy Spirit is being poured out to save mankind from eternal damnation.
You may deny Me, your Jesus, or the Divine messages given to you by My Beloved Mother and you will be forgiven.
For all of you have the right to discern such Holy Messages because of your gift of free will.
However, when you reject the Holy Spirit and publicly blaspheme against it this is an eternal sin and only a miracle, sanctioned by God the Father, can save your soul.
You must remain silent if in doubt about any Divine message given to the world and pray for the seer. Pray and follow your faith and continue in your ways of honouring God. It is very important that you do this.
By declaring the Voice of the Holy Spirit to be evil you are guilty of a blasphemy of such magnitude proportions that this is deemed an unforgiveable sin.
You need to ask God to forgive you now, because should you continue to mount deliberate campaigns to block the Voice of the Holy Spirit, the Voice of the Holy Trinity and declare it to be an evil spirit, you will not, nor can you be forgiven, for this is a grave sin.
Many well-meaning Christians pull this work apart. The messages, they say, do not conform with Holy Scripture.
When they say this they do not know the Truth, which is contained in the Holy Bible.
They either attack these messages based on hearsay by others who claim to know the Truth or they declare them to be untrue based on their flawed interpretation of the Truth.
Worse still, they twist the truth and compare these messages with new and ludicrous interpretations of the Holy Bible.
Listen to Me now, your Jesus, as I tell you this.
The high priests in My time on earth tried to twist the Truth of God’s Laws in order to justify their rejection of Me.
They used lies to stop people from hearing My Voice.
They declared Me a liar, a false prophet and accused Me of Heresy.
I blasphemed against the Laws of the Church, they said, and violated the Sabbath by conducting the Paschal Meal on a different day to the one they deemed to be correct.
They not only misunderstand Me, they out-rightly rejected Me because they were not prepared to welcome the True Messiah at that time.
They were not ready.
They never thought that they would witness the arrival of the True Messiah in their lifetime.
So wrapped up were they in their ceremonies, their hierarchical regulations – which at that time exalted their leaders and placed them on pedestals as the real kings of their church –that they had no room in their hearts for Me, the Redeemer of Mankind.
The same will happen again as I prepare the world for My Second Coming.
The Pharisees could not understand the importance of humility.
They could not accept how God works in that He does not exalt the powerful or the most experienced religious leaders in His Church to unveil His plans, or warn His children.
God chose the ignorant, the humble and the generous of heart to deliver His warnings to humanity.
He raised the weak and elevates them, through suffering, to become pure of heart so that He can manage how He communicates with them. In this way, human pride, on the part of the prophet, is unlikely to interfere with the Truth.
They rejected John the Baptist and murdered him. They murdered the prophets of old. They tormented chosen souls, through whom God communicated with.
In your world today do you think it will be any different?
Will you, devoted followers of Me, and those who claim to be experts in My Christian or other churches who believe in My Eternal Father, accept the Word of God today?
No. You will do exactly onto the prophets, the true prophets as has been done to them since the beginning. You will vilify them in My Father’s Name.
But remember this. When the Truth is finally revealed to you, there will be no turning back if you are found guilty of the one eternal sin. That is if you blaspheme against the Holy Spirit.
Should you blaspheme against Me, Jesus Christ, you will be forgiven.
If you deny the gift of prophecy you, too, will be forgiven.
But if you block the final plan of salvation by ridiculing openly and gathering believers of My Church to consistently proclaim the Voice of the Holy Spirit to be false and evil, you will suffer eternal damnation.
Your Jesus
It isn’t “blasphemy” to question a private revelation as one is NEVER bound to accept them, that is what the Church says. That message promising damnation to those who reject mdm is pretty solid proof that they are bogus.
Except they are not rejecting MDM, they are rejecting the Holy Spirit…again:
The problem with this response is that it is based on mis-interpretation of the actual MDM message being cited.
The MDM message does not say that you cannot personally ignore or personally reject the messages, which the Church always allows us to do in regard to private revelation. It says that one may not publicly blaspheme the HS, who is the reported Author of these messages. Going over the MDM quote point by point:
1. Should we interfere with the Holy Spirit – no.
2. The MDM messages are from the HS – reportedly yes.
3. You may personally deny the messages – yes.
4. You may use your free will to discern the messages (and thus to accept them or ignore/reject them personally) – yes.
5. But you may not publicly blaspheme this work, as it is the work of the HS – beware.
No, they are not rejecting the Holy Spirit. Someone would have to formally define that mdm is a work of the Holy Spirit. That can’t happen, it’s private revelation. This mdm can never claim to be public revelation.
Tim: Nuances…sorry. I guess what I’m saying is that it makes no sense to me for people to be so vitriolic in their rejection of what may or may not be divinely inspired messages,(I choose after discernment to believe they are divinely inspired) and they risk much in rejecting what could be the words of our Lord and Our Lady. It makes no sense to me that someone would build a website and look for mud on the poor messenger for undertaking what has been a massive sacrifice, the objective which is to warn and save souls. Believe or don’t believe, thats your choice, but be very careful about trying to convince others not to believe, because if you are wrong, its very serious. Start at the beginning and read the messages silently and prayerfully, but if you are not willing to do that, then by all means don’t rely on those who believe they know with certainty they (the messages)are false and are “hell bent” literally to get their view across, no matter the price. I will continue to pray for MDM.
Wrong on all counts Steve. Obedience to church authority is always primary. In the audio interview “Maria Divine Mercy” said she had told her bishop about these messages and he had rejected them. That should have ended the matter right there. No graces are lost by ignoring or criticizing the messages. Father William Most, a distinguished theologian said to those who think there are graces being lost : “We reply: They lost nothing at all. Visions are not like sacraments, which produce their effect by their own power (that is, the power of Christ working through them) in those who do not place an obstacle. One of the most approved series of visions are those of the Sacred Heart to St. Margaret Mary. On one occasion, He had told her to do something, but her Superior did not approve. When He came again, she asked Him about this, and He replied: “Therefore not only do I desire that you should do what your Superior commands, but also that you should do nothing of all that I order without their consent. I love obedience, and without it no one can please me” (Autobiography of St. Margaret Mary # 47).” That’s quite a contrast from the “Jesus” of mdm who says” Obedience to Me at all times is expected of you.” (message of Oct. 13, 2011)
It may not make sense to you that someone like mdm would go to such troubles, but it has been done before. I was a victim of one such bogus apparition myself. We have no idea that she has made a “massive sacrifice”, in fact she may have reaped massive profits, that has happened before too. Let her open her books and show us. I have read plenty of these messages and have enough knowledge of theology to see the blatant errors as well as the prophecies that didn’t come true. The assertions about Pope Francis are absurd. The messages claim he will abolish the Eucharist! He celebrates one every day and is scheduled to attend the Eucharistic Congress in the Philippines in 2016.
The Vatican guidelines on discernment of apparitions are what we should be looking at. Just consider one of those: The ” Personal qualities of the subject or of the subjects (in particular, psychological equilibrium, honesty and rectitude of moral life, sincerity and habitual docility towards Ecclesiastical Authority, the capacity to return to a normal regimen of a life of faith, etc.). She needs to produce herself and subject herself to examination. Now whenever I tell an mdm follower that they say “Oh her life would be in danger” That is nonsense, God protects true seers and never told any of them to hide. The burden of proof is on the one claiming visions. That has always been the case. It still is. I have read plenty of the messages Steve and it is a waste of time. I prayed for mdm myself this morning. I pray she comes to her senses. Lately she has been attacking some of her own supporters and I am glad to make friends with those who escaped this. And by the way the messages of mdm tell you not to defend them, so why are you defending them?
Time will soon tell. You are right, I shouldn’t be defending. Peace
I asked that question Steve, to see how familiar you are with the messages. The problem here is the contradictions in the messages of mdm themselves. Just consider these examples:
18/3/2011: “Defend these messages.
“Respect this most Holy Scripture. Defend it.”
23/5/2011: “My daughter you must not respond or try to defend My word.”
14/8/2011: “My dearly beloved daughter you continue to defend My word when, in fact, there is no need.”
13/10/2011: “My dearly beloved daughter I must inform you of the need to refrain from defending My Most Holy Word.”
15/11/2011: “You, My beloved faithful are now being called by me to stand up and defend My Holy Word so that mankind can be saved.”
Time has already told Steve. Did you know the “Jesus” of mdm promised the great “Warning” would occur in 2011? Please read this: Message 31st May 2011: “The prophecies given at Garabandal will now become a reality. Prepare now for this event for you have only a few months left to prepare your souls.” See also message 1st July 2011: “If I say months that could mean anytime within a year” k
Peace to you also Steve, please join those who have left mdm, I know some of them and they have real peace now.
I have peace Thank You
Well, as a sometime insomniac, I just spent the last hour looking into MDM. To me, it seems to be a clear fraud. The messages-many of them signed “Your Jesus”-appear calculated to appeal as much to end-times evangelicals as Catholics. And she’s selling printed versions of them on Amazon. (You’re not going to make a lot of money only tailoring your message to Catholic Traditionalists.) It now appears that her actual identity is that of a very much “in the world” PR professional with a somewhat shady past. A bit far from Saint Bernadette or Sister Lucia, I think.
On the other hand, it does seem quite a coincidence that the Benedict prophecy was “fulfilled” precisely a year after it was made. Could the diabolical element be involved? Dr. Bowering writes that “the devil does not know the future!” That’s not quite accurate. According to Aquinas, among others, while the devil cannot know the future in the perfect sense that God can and does, he’s pretty good at extrapolating from empirical observation and the laws of cause and effect (if that makes sense). And, of course, if the devil was involved in the abdication, then presumably he would have had some influence on its timing. That Ms. Carberry is in it for the money is not inconsistent with the devil deciding to have a bit of fun by using her to create yet another false flag operation.
Just speculation, as they say.
I admit, the more I read, the more wary I become. There’s just too much in here that feels “wrong”. We know from approved apparitions the way Our Lord or the Blessed Mother tend to speak, and some of these messages really don’t fit that style, while others are closer.
I’m intrigued as well about the possible nature of the predictions. What I don’t see here is anything that appears calculated to lead people away from God, so I’m curious, if it’s indeed a deception, what the point of the deception would be.
I suppose that if we are living in the end times, there’ll will be an uptick in false prophets to match the true ones, as I think Jesus implied. But to be a “successful” false prophet you generally need to establish some “cred” first. Perhaps someone down there is giving her a bit of anonymous help.
But I’m not saying that poor Ms. Carberry is willingly doing the work of the devil, or even that the devil is involved here at all. Her pretty clear heresies concerning the Holy Spirit and private revelation could just be attempts to maximize profits–“if you don’t take me seriously (and buy my books), you’ll be damned”. Almost certainly, that’s what she thinks she’s doing. Concerning the Benedict abdication “coincidence”, the science of statistics tells us that coincidences happen more often than would appear likely–that’s because so many of them are possible, so to speak. And if you’re making prophecies almost every day, the odds get even better.
Oh well. God bless you all. Everyone here seems to have it all figured out, and have decided for everyone, what is authentic and not authentic. I take all of this much more seriously, and know I am better off for believing. I could certainly figure out better ways to make a living than MDM allegedly has. I wonder if anyone here could hold up under the burden of what she has taken on daily for almost 4 years. If there is an ounce of possibility I am hearing from our Lord and his Mother, I consider it a blessing. If proved false, I will still be blessed for having believed, because my believing has not damaged anyone. In the words of “The Bishop of Rome” “Who am I to judge?” Peace
There is nothing within the messages calculated to lead people away from God. However there is a great amount of concerted, calculated effort made to steer people away from the messages, and demean the messenger. If people would only spend as much time reading them and giving them the benefit of the doubt as opposed to the amount of time they spend doing everything they can to refute them, eyes and ears would be opened. Too much time is focused on the messenger, rather than the messages. I also got sucked into going to the naysayer’s websites which only created dark seeds of doubt. When I stopped doing that and focused on the messages, I was overcome with a sense of peace and acceptance, and the fruits of that decision were and are, daily Rosary, Chaplet of Divine Mercy, a more serious approach to the Sacraments, especially the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and a seeking out and finding a wonderful Priest who is devoted to the TLM. I have begged the Lord at Adoration to guide me, and find comfort and solace in His response.These fruits can hardly be considered “diabolical”. Could any of us undertake the burden of these daily messages for almost 4 years? PLEASE read the message I have posted above from August 8, 2012, and take it seriously. If you decide or discern these messages do not ring true to you, be very careful about letting people discern for themselves, but do not risk speaking out against the Holy Spirit. I offer my opinion with a sincere and contrite heart, and only care about the salvation of souls.
The big problem with that message you’re referring to in that particular message is this:
I have been skeptical since I first encountered the messages, but some of them confirmed my own suspicions or predicted things that seem impossible to have predicted. But it was when I read the words above that I felt strongly for the first time that these messages are fake. The Church never demands that we follow private revelation. Instead, she teaches:
God would never demand that people believe what the Church — to which He has given the power to “bind and loose” — does not compel them to believe. Nor would He say that those who are skeptical of private revelation are “blaspheming” against the Holy Spirit. This is a major red flag.
First, because this is not the Church’s understanding of the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The Church believes (see Aquinas/Augustine http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3014.htm ) that the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is actually the act of “final impenitence” — namely, that a person has so cultivated a habit of malicious sin that he is unable to be repentant at the hour of death. It has also at times been understood to mean suicide, because again, final penitence for the mortal sin of taking one’s own life is impossible. (You could argue that these are both sins against hope, especially hope of eternal salvation, which is a virtue strongly associated with the Holy Spirit).
Secondly, because this seeks to squash criticism or critical analysis of these private revelations. Truth bears every scrutiny and stands unscathed. Trying to create the fear of hell in those who might be critical of private, non-binding revelation is simply not in line with any Catholic conception of God.
As much as there is something interesting happening here, I am growing very wary of it’s nature and source. That it could bear good fruit in your life may have nothing to do with the messages themselves and everything to do with God rewarding your faith in Him, even if these are not real messages *from* Him. He can certainly draw good from evil, so the experience you’ve had is not outside the realm of possibility.
The problem with this response is that it is based on mis-interpretation of the actual MDM message being cited.
The MDM message does not say that you cannot personally ignore or personally reject the messages, which the Church always allows us to do in regard to private revelation. It says that one may not publicly blaspheme the HS, who is the reported Author of these messages. Going over the MDM quote point by point:
1. Should we interfere with the Holy Spirit – no.
2. The MDM messages are from the HS – reportedly yes.
3. You may personally deny the messages – yes.
4. You may use your free will to discern the messages (and thus to accept them or ignore/reject them personally) – yes.
5. But you may not publicly blaspheme this work, as it is the work of the HS – beware.
Steve,
I understand the points that you’re making, and I got those from the MDM quote.
Respectfully, I can’t say you taking the time to extrapolate changes my interpretation in any way. How could someone “blaspheme” a message? One can only blaspheme God. And as I said, the implication in the text is that to criticize or condemn the messages is tantamount to an unforgivable sin. But this is impossible. The only unforgivable sin is the sin left unrepented before death.
It is this set of claims about the nature of these messages and how they must be treated that is incredibly suspect. I don’t understand why people have to be vitriolic in their responses to them — it’s better to attack ideas than people — but there’s genuine reason for concern here.
Steve: Thanks. I hope you dont see anything I have said as vitriolic. I wish this discussion was in another forum other than a blog discussion. Like you, I have a business to attend to. I wish we could share a nice bottle of wine on the deck, grill up some steaks, and discuss all of this. We are closer than you might think. These are unusual times we are living in now. Theres enough genuine concern on both sides of this equation to be concerned about. I choose to give Jesus the benefit of the doubt, irrespective of who the messenger might be. Peace
No, Steve, I wasn’t referring to you. Those who condemn the messages with extreme prejudice is what I mean. “Let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no” should be sufficient. The bishop of Dublin really needs to weigh in here. (Curious: if he condemns these messages, will it change your belief that they are true?)
Anyway, now you’ve got me thinking about wine, steak, and theological discussions in the finally warming spring weather. That sounds excellent.
Touche. As mentioned previously, given some of the “leadership” manifested by many Cardinals, let alone Bishops,(even the Bishop of Rome…his preferred title, no disrespect intended) and perhaps even more specifically the Archbishop in Dublin who has remained silent with respect to the abortion tragedy in Ireland of all places, creates a double edged sword of credibility that makes your question difficult to answer. We live on a lake here, and have family places on Lakes Superior and Michigan…I can visualize our steak and wine fantasy quite easily. God Bless you and everyone here and pray pray pray. It would be fun to discuss the TLM too. Interestingly, Michael Matt, the Editor of The Remnant attends TLM at the same Parish we do. We have a wonderful priest who is aware of both the messages and Kelly B.
It’s over Steve Jacobson et al.
STATEMENT OF ARCHDIOCESE OF DUBLIN
ON THE ALLEGED VISIONARY “MARIA DIVINE MERCY”
Requests for clarification have been coming to the Archdiocese of Dublin concerning the authenticity of alleged visions and messages received by a person who calls herself “Maria Divine Mercy” and who may live in the Archdiocese of Dublin.
Archbishop Diarmuid Martin wishes to state that these messages and alleged visions have no ecclesiastical approval and many of the texts are in contradiction with Catholic theology.
These messages should not be promoted or made use of within Catholic Church associations. http://www.dublindiocese.ie/content/statement-maria-divine-mercy
Time will tell…
Wednesday 16 April 2
Faustina Kowalska. Instance of a complete reversal of the C.D.F.
«This whole episode
makes clear that a Notification
of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
is not an infallible statement of the Teaching Authority!»
The case of Blessed Faustina Kowalska is the most remarkable instance of a complete reversal of judgment by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when an outright condemnation was withdrawn and the way opened for the world-wide devotional practice in honor of Divine Mercy, which originates in the writings of this Beata. The full texts of the two Notifications on Blessed Faustina Kowalska, one condemning her and the other, about nineteen years later, withdrawing this condemnation, were published in the official Vatican register, Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
Notification on Blessed Maria Faustina Kowalska
Supreme Sacred Congregation on the Holy Office (1959)
Be it known that the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, having examined the alleged visions and revelations of Sister Faustina Kowalska, of the Institute of Our Lady of Divine Mercy, deceased in 1938 near Cracow, has decided as follows :
Distribution of the images and writings which present divine mercy in the form proposed by the said Sister Faustina is to be forbidden;
The prudence of Bishops is requested as a duty to ensure the disappearance of the said images, which have already been exposed to cult.
From the Palace of the Holy Office, 6 March, 1959.
Hugh O’Flaherty, Notarius
Notification of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
From various places, especially from Poland, even proceeding from competent authority, it has been asked whether the prohibitions contained in the “Notification” of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, published in the Acts of the Apostolic See, in the year 1959, p. 271, regarding the devotion to The Divine Mercy in the forms proposed by Sister Faustina Kowalska, must be regarded as still in force.
This Sacred Congregation, having now in possession the many original documents, unknown in 1959; having taken into consideration the profoundly changed circumstances, and having taken into account the opinion of many Polish Ordinaries, declares no longer binding the prohibitions contained in the quoted “Notification”.
from the seat of the Sacred Congregation, April 15, 1978.
His Eminence Franjo Cardinal Seper, Prefect
Archbishop Jerome Hamer, O.P., Secretary
That does not mean mdm will have the same luck. Information “unknown in 1959” made the difference. We know of the errors in mdm, so do the bishops.
Dr. Kelly Bowring has complied and will no longer sell his book on this. See his FB page: “Compliance on MDM
Posted on April 16, 2014 by twohearts
On Wednesday of Holy Week 2014, the Archdiocese of Dublin issued a statement on its website on the writings of the “alleged visionary” Maria Divine Mercy (MDM) stating that the Archbishop wishes to state that “these messages should not be promoted or made use of”. In compliance with this statement, Two Hearts Press and Dr. Bowring will no longer be selling the book, “The Great Battle”, which had “made use of” MDM as a source.”
The threat of schism does not necessarily have to be from an identifiable group verbalized to B XVI. It could simply have been his assessment that, if he continued and stayed true to his vision of his papacy, that schism would come without anyone or group making some sort of “step aside or else” type of threat. Maybe he thought that, if he did step aside, his successor would hav a better shot at avoiding schism becuase B XVI thought that he himself had become too polarizing of a figure. Speculation, I know.
The point of the deception may simply be to erode confidence inthe current pontificate, or create dissention and anxiety. Or simply a “loss leader” – allow some measure of good to come forth in order to buy some street cred for a bigger deception down the road.
“…if a Pope personally embraces a heresy (false doctrine or immorality), even in secret, then he is de facto no longer Pope. So then, if a Pope teaches a false doctrine (or changes doctrine), then this is the sure “sign” he is not a valid Pope…”
If that’s true, then Saint Pope John Paul II was not a valid pope because he definitely taught error concerning capital punishment. He tried to mandate an abolitionist stance that neither Scripture nor Tradition (as expressed by two Doctors of the Church, SS Augustine and Thomas Aquinas) justifies:
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=1463
Hello, Steve, I’m curious now as to what you think about Pope Francis at this point. It has been 2 years since this blog post. In the interim we have seen “even atheists go to heaven”, “who am I to judge”, ” the failure of the cross”, and now this exhortation that has more holes than a block of Swiss cheese. He’s a crafty one, this prelate. Not wanting to directly change doctrine ( that would be too obvious) he instead writes as you say “craftily”, and emphasizes “mercy”, “tenderness”, etc., which has just enough truth in it to render it, at least perfunctorily, palatable to the masses.
Also I read with great interest the back and forth on the “infallibility” of the pope and our obligation to obey him. I am with you on that: if a pope or any religious for that matter, preaches or teaches anything contrary to Church doctrine, he cannot be valid. And so what if the bishop of Dublin condemned Maria Divine Mercy’s messages. He is not the final authority, especially since his own stances on issues have been controversial, as far as homosexuality and abortion are concerned. As well it turns out that Sister Faustina’s messages were condemned at first, the many years later that condemnation was removed. Bottom line, the Church is made up of human beings who sometimes make mistakes. The only perfect being is God Himself Who was revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ. I myself will be praying that our Church will always be obedient to the teachings of Jesus, no matter what sort of shenanigans she gets herself into…