Mission of Divine Mercy rebuked by their Bishop

[crossingtherubicon]

https://www.ncregister.com/cna/san-antonio-archbishop-bans-retreat-center-for-false-teachings-against-pope-francis

"According to the archbishop's statement, MDM's founder, Father John Mary Foster, refused to remove the messages from the group's website despite repeated admonitions, thus breaking his vow of obedience and necessitating that he be barred from publicly practicing his priestly faculties."

[drummerboy]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DmUpLGfNwnk&pp=ygUsUmV0dXJuIHRvIHRyYWRpdGlvbiBkaXZpbmUgbWVzc2FnZXMgaW4gdGV4YXM%3D

Dr. Stine covered this topic thoroughly. 

My take is, of course the bishop will not allow the messages (from about 30 years it seems in the comments) to be released because they directly target bad bishops like himself! So the priest is essentially forces into disobedience to his bishop.

[crossingtherubicon]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DmUpLGfNwnk&pp=ygUsUmV0dXJuIHRvIHRyYWRpdGlvbiBkaXZpbmUgbWVzc2FnZXMgaW4gdGV4YXM%3D

Dr. Stine covered this topic thoroughly. 

My take is, of course the bishop will not allow the messages (from about 30 years it seems in the comments) to be released because they directly target bad bishops like himself! So the priest is essentially forces into disobedience to his bishop.

Seems like a lack of trust in God.  Even if true, God could want the messages held back for his own reasons.  If a Bishop denies its not their fault for not distributing their messages.  The messages arent that different from what we have heard so many times.

[crossingtherubicon]

I deleted this post, this forum wont like that one much and I dont blame them.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

So the priest is essentially forces into disobedience to his bishop.

No one is ever forced into disobedience except if ordered to sin.

Obedience to one's bishop is the traditional test of the authenticity of an apparition.

[james03]

Seems like a lack of trust in God.

Don't know anything about this case, but you have to balance Trust in God against the Sin of Presumption. It was this error that gave us the Vee Poo church.

[drummerboy]

So the priest is essentially forces into disobedience to his bishop.

No one is ever forced into disobedience except if ordered to sin.

Obedience to one's bishop is the traditional test of the authenticity of an apparition.

But in this case it's a bishop who is the target of the message, along with all the other corrupt clergy.  That muddies the water from other apparitions and messages.  What makes me believe these are genuine is they've been going on for 30 years with the bishops' knowledge.  If they just came now I'd dismiss them too.  Times are coming, and already are here, when many of us will be called to "ecclesiastical disobedience"

[crossingtherubicon]

So the priest is essentially forces into disobedience to his bishop.

No one is ever forced into disobedience except if ordered to sin.

Obedience to one's bishop is the traditional test of the authenticity of an apparition.

But in this case it's a bishop who is the target of the message, along with all the other corrupt clergy.  That muddies the water from other apparitions and messages.  What makes me believe these are genuine is they've been going on for 30 years with the bishops' knowledge.  If they just came now I'd dismiss them too.  Times are coming, and already are here, when many of us will be called to "ecclesiastical disobedience"

Sounds like a punishment on us.

[james03]

"You have not only let the smoke of Satan infiltrate into My Sanctuary; but you have allowed a whole army of demons to take your places. And you have allowed the usurper to sit on the chair of My Peter — he who is carrying out the Great Treason that will leave My Church desolate."

Seems like my kind of people.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

But in this case it's a bishop who is the target of the message, along with all the other corrupt clergy.  That muddies the water from other apparitions and messages.  What makes me believe these are genuine is they've been going on for 30 years with the bishops' knowledge.  If they just came now I'd dismiss them too.  Times are coming, and already are here, when many of us will be called to "ecclesiastical disobedience"

I would suggest reading about the lengthy discernment process that took place before the approvals or condemnations of previous apparitions.

[josh987654321]

No one is ever forced into disobedience except if ordered to sin.

Obedience to one's bishop is the traditional test of the authenticity of an apparition.

What about COVID? Many of us disobeyed our Bishops and rightly so when we received the sacraments in secret. This is the grey, is withholding the sacraments a 'sin' per se? maybe, maybe not... So yes, obedience in all but sin, but this is easier said than done when they are so cunning, either way, Priests were absolutely right to disobey their Bishops and administer the Sacraments in secret according to their prudential judgement if they wished to IMO.

God Bless

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

No one is ever forced into disobedience except if ordered to sin.

Obedience to one's bishop is the traditional test of the authenticity of an apparition.

What about COVID? Many of us disobeyed our Bishops and rightly so when we received the sacraments in secret. This is the grey, is withholding the sacraments a 'sin' per se? maybe, maybe not... So yes, obedience in all but sin, but this is easier said than done when they are so cunning, either way, Priests were absolutely right to disobey their Bishops and administer the Sacraments in secret according to their prudential judgement if they wished to IMO.

God Bless

You were obedient to a higher authority.  Salus animarum, and all.

But you cannot compare the sacraments to the publication of an unapproved apparition.

[josh987654321]

You were obedient to a higher authority.  Salus animarum, and all.

I would argue the exact same thing applies here concerning the very nature of some of this Private Revelation.

But you cannot compare the sacraments to the publication of an unapproved apparition.

I disagree, especially when put into context. If the Private Revelation of St Francis of Assisi regarding a non-canonically elected destroyer were to occur today, it would be roundly condemned in an instant, because of course, it puts into question some very powerful people in control today.

Furthermore, I have many other sources to confirm my suspicions of Bergoglio usurping the chair, nevertheless, Private Revelations like these help to reinforce any doubts, so I'll keep an eye on it and in any case, I always take Private Revelation with a grain of salt, they can help point one in the right direction, e.g. I'll pay attention and see if anything else comes up which can corroborate such findings.

So I not only already have Church approved Private Revelation speaking of the same or similar thing, but I also have Wikileaks proving their involvement in co-opting the Catholic Church, the largest Christian Church in the world (plenty of motive) and I have the fact that the US Deep State are no strangers to usurpation and regime change around the world, just 1 year after Pope Benedict XVI's faux resignation, they committed the violent and undemocratic coup in Ukraine backed by the CIA.

With Pope John Paul II, the US Deep State had an ally in the Vatican against Communism, with Pope Benedict XVI Communism was not the main threat anymore after the USSR collapsed, they turned their sights elsewhere, thus this was no longer the case, which is why the propaganda ridiculed and attacked him constantly, which they then succeeded in removing him from the equation in the most suspicious way possible I might add, still in white, two 'Popes' at the same time etc.

When the collage of cardinals elect a Pope, then he has the keys and authority of St Peter, given to him by Christ Jesus, thus no man then has the authority to depose him not even Pope Benedict XVI himself, anymore than St Peter could have 'retired' from the position after being appointed by Christ Jesus, or Aaron 'retired' from the position after God appointed him for Moses.

Both St Peter and Aaron also fell and erred greatly, with St Peter denying Christ Jesus three times and Aaron making the golden calf, but nobody had the authority to depose them, it was the same with Pope Benedict XVI once validly elected, the same with Celestine V too IMO.

If the New Covenant is modeled after the Old Covenant, then among Israel's High Priests they also had some suspicious characters with one not coming from the Aaronic line and Caiaphas usurping Annas who then had Jesus crucified. All perfectly fitting within Divine Providence as IMO the true High Priest of the Old Covenant Annas could not have crucified the Messiah, hence sending Him to the usurper Caiaphas who then sentenced Him.

It's also strange to take Christ Jesus to Annas first if Caiaphas were the legitimate High Priest.  

God Bless

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

You were obedient to a higher authority.  Salus animarum, and all.

I would argue the exact same thing applies here concerning the very nature of some of this Private Revelation.

No, the same reasoning does not apply.

You knew before coronavirus that, while the bishops have the authority to regulate the administration of the sacraments, they do not have the authority to deny (most of) the sacraments to people who are properly disposed.  This was established in canon law and in tradition.

No such prior law would have mandated your disobedience concerning the publication of a private revelation.

[Michael Wilson]

C.J. Is correct; Our Lord instituted a visible, hierarchy with the power to teach and rule. Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, St. John (circa 100 A.D.). I have seen many Catholics, trads and non, deceived by phony apparitions and messages. We have our traditional Catechisms, Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the pre-Vatican II Popes, saints and doctors to guide us in this time of confusion.