Mission of Divine Mercy rebuked by their Bishop

[josh987654321]

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.

Now imagine your King Louis XIV of France... the horizon might not look that great but it doesn't look that bad either, a Religious Nun claims she received private revelation and wishes you to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart of Christ.

How are you to discern whether this is a phony apparition/message or not? Do you even try to discern or you just dismiss it out of hand, because don't we already have the Sacred Scriptures, Teachers and Hierarchy? Why take the risk?

Fast forward 100 years to the French Revolution... and France is completely destroyed, what was started years ago snowballed into an unstoppable force resulting in the French Revolution and war to all of Europe with France in the end totally decimated never to rise to such heights ever again.

How about Our Lady of Fatima? It's just Private Revelation... you don't have to believe it... turns out Russia and the USA after WWII became the world's two largest super powers and the whole world was divided between east and west...

How about Constantine the Great receiving the Chi-Rho? Do we believe it? Maybe it's another phony message or apparition, pretty crazy to take such a risk by making the Chi-Rho your military standard... when outnumbered and odds stacked against you... what if you lost? What an embarrassment that would be. 

Conclusion:

One needs discernment, as of course phony apparitions and messages exist, but they are not all phony, and indeed if they are legitimate and you fail to properly discern them, then you do enormous harm by spurning such graces, which are given to you precisely because the era we live in is so bad and precisely because we need these extra graces... to remind us and spur on our fervour for such challenging times.

With Bergoglio usurping the chair, we are fighting with our hands tied behind our backs, if the status quo does not change you will lose, I guarantee you that, such private revelation as these are precisely to awaken people, to get on the front foot and know how to fight back. 

One can't on one hand say that Bergoglio is a valid Pope, but on the other hand despise him and fight against all he says and does and one can't on one hand, call him the Vicar of Christ, and then sit idle by while he publicly worships idols (pachamama) and blesses sodomy which is an abomination as well as countless other heresies. Such cognitive dissonance cannot last.

Knowing that Bergoglio is a usurper, we have the confidence to hold steadfast to the faith while we wait him out and work to restore the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

In terms of the SSPX, remember too that the Vendée lost. If Pope Paul VI is King Louis XIV of France, then we are already well and truly into this, you may wish to copy the Vendée, but it didn't work out so well for them and it didn't save France, the King of France needed to do it and we have Private Revelation, many, even Church approved with St Francis of Assisi and St Faustina calling out Bergoglio, in ways that I have discerned and are in no way coincidence, as well as practically it all adds up so that I am very sure that Bergoglio is a usurper, rather than Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II etc who erred, much like the declining aristocracy of France, the snowballing effect and when it goes off, nobody is making it out unscathed including the Vendée.

"Our Lady of Victory, Ark of the New Covenant, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, Pray for us."

Co-Redemptrix should've occurred years ago when the Franciscans correctly pushed for it, but just like the Immaculate Conception, seems to take a massive crisis beforehand (French Revolution and Revolutions of 1848), as when everything is going well nobody wants to rock the boat, when everything is going badly, what have you got to lose. 

God Bless   

[josh987654321]

John 18:12-13
12 Then the band and the tribune, and the servants of the Jews, took Jesus, and bound him: 13 And they led him away to Annas first, for he was father in law to Caiphas, who was the high priest of that year.

A strange thing to do if Caiphas were the legitimate High Priest of Israel.

Pope Francis Bergoglio and new cardinals visit Benedict XVI
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2022-08/pope-francis-and-new-cardinals-visit-benedict-xvi.html

St Francis of Assisi Prophecies, Great Schism and Tribulations in the Church.
https://www.virgosacrata.com/st-francis-of-assisi-prophecies.html

[Michael Wilson]

Josh,
Sr. Margaret Mary's superiors had approved the legitimacy of the messages. The same for the Fatima apparitions. There was an incident in St. Teresa of Avila's life where Our Lord ordered her directly to found a Carmel in a city, and when she requested permission from her bishop to make another foundation, he denied her permission. St. Teresa obeyed, and Our Lord appeared to her and told her that He was pleased with her obedience.
Constantine at the time of the miraculous intervention was not a Catholic, and had not even been baptized; as a Pagan, can act outside of the visible bounds of the Church.
The Catholic Church is not a "charismatic" Church i.e. One that depends on the faithful receiving messages directly from Heaven. One of the tests that spiritual directors apply to the souls that claim to be receiving messages and apparitions, is their obedience and docility to Church authorities.
Our Lord established a visible Church, with a hierarchy endowed with full powers to teach the true doctrine and direct the faithful to salvation.
It is not left to the judgement of individual Catholics to decide which apparitions they consider legitimate, that is the role of the hierarchy. 

One can't on one hand say that Bergoglio is a valid Pope, but on the other hand despise him and fight against all he says and does and one can't on one hand, call him the Vicar of Christ, and then sit idle by while he publicly worships idols (pachamama) and blesses sodomy which is an abomination as well as countless other heresies. Such cognitive dissonance cannot last.Knowing that Bergoglio is a usurper, we have the confidence to hold steadfast to the faith while we wait him out and work to restore the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I agree.

[Kephapaulos]

Perhaps this might help:

[josh987654321]

Sr. Margaret Mary's superiors had approved the legitimacy of the messages. The same for the Fatima apparitions.

Often these approvals come well and truly after the fact. Sometimes you can get an Imprimatur in a timely fashion though.

Put another way, if this were a court case, this would not be my primary evidence, I would not build my case around just this, as it needs these official approvals, miracles etc to raise the quality of the evidence but it's not inadmissible either IMO, it's not to be totally disregarded and ignored, so I'll try and pay attention and take it with a grain of salt, see what comes of it and what they have to to say.   

There was an incident in St. Teresa of Avila's life where Our Lord ordered her directly to found a Carmel in a city, and when she requested permission from her bishop to make another foundation, he denied her permission. St. Teresa obeyed, and Our Lord appeared to her and told her that He was pleased with her obedience.

Fair enough, but I would argue the very nature of this situation makes it very different, are you really guilty of disobedience when they are serving a usurper? In any case, there is many more, with Church approval, such as St Francis of Assisi, so it's not like my argument would rest on this Private Revelation, but I certainly don't think one should just dismiss it and it corroborates with a massive body of evidence that I'll probably create a separate thread on at some point.

Constantine at the time of the miraculous intervention was not a Catholic, and had not even been baptized; as a Pagan, can act outside of the visible bounds of the Church.

lol, I think that's a bit of a stretch. So if they were pagans it'd be more licit?

The Catholic Church is not a "charismatic" Church i.e. One that depends on the faithful receiving messages directly from Heaven.

Of course, of course, one cannot accept revelations that contradict or go against the deposit of faith, e.g. Galatians 1:8

But IMO that's not what this is. In fact, Galatians 1:8 is coming from the current Hierarchy, with a mountain of evidence showing and pointing to the usurpation of Pope Benedict XVI and faux election of Bergoglio.

Our Lord established a visible Church, with a hierarchy endowed with full powers to teach the true doctrine and direct the faithful to salvation.

He also established a visible head of the Church whom they usurped, they had no right to elect a new Pontiff when one had already been given and Pope Benedict XVI if erred ought to have been corrected. Celestine V set the precedent, which is farcical, and the first act of his successor (Boniface VIII the usurper) was to imprison him... fair and square baby... that's their precedent, as ridiculous as the idea that Aaron or St Peter could "retire" from their position once chosen and appointed by God. 

It is not left to the judgement of individual Catholics to decide which apparitions they consider legitimate, that is the role of the hierarchy.

Good thing St Francis of Assisi's prophecy received the Imprimatur so long ago, that'd be struck from the record so fast if they decided today. 

"Our Lady of Victory, Ark of the New Covenant, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, pray for us."

God Bless

[josh987654321]

"[The Church] has one head, not two heads like a monster."
- Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam 1302.



Both for today and for Boniface VIII, who had Pope Celestine V imprisoned and killed.

God Bless

[LausTibiChriste]

Why do you always post two posts, can't you formulate your posts into 1?

[josh987654321]

Why do you always post two posts, can't you formulate your posts into 1?

Because I'd finished the post to Michael Wilson and this was more a new post, furthermore, It doesn't seem fitting to write one thing, and then edit it massively many hours later, so someone thinks they've read it and it turns out over several hours I've added lots of different stuff to it so that it's almost an entirely different post.

When I've had a post up for a considerable amount of time I generally create a new post rather than just keep editing, as I don't think that's what 'edit' is for, which is more for punctuation, grammar and spelling mistakes etc IMO.

Also, when I reply to one person, I don't know how long it'll take, so if I run out of time then I just reply to them, whereas if I have more time, then I can do another reply, that's why sometimes there will be two, because if I just decided to do one large post, I'd gather all the people to reply to, then I'd start it, get half way and run out of time.

It's the same amount of text anyway, what difference does it make breaking it up into two posts for each person versus a large single post with multiple people in it?

The other reason for it, is if something happens such as the 1 hour auto log out thing or something else and I lose what I've typed, if I've spent 2 hours on one large post, that's a big loss.

God Bless

[Michael Wilson]

Josh,
thanks for your responses.
On Constantine: not a "stretch" at all; Constantine was a pagan, and he received what he considered a divine augury; he was not bound by obedience to consult the Church.
"Serving a usurper"; as far as I have investigated, there is not a single apparition that has happened after Vatican II that is legitimate; and many are probably diabolic in origin; such as the "Divine Will" revelations of Luisa Piccaretta etc. Catholics should avoid all these like the plague.

But IMO that's not what this is. In fact, Galatians 1:8 is coming from the current Hierarchy, with a mountain of evidence showing and pointing to the usurpation of Pope Benedict XVI and faux election of
Bergoglio.

Both are public heretics before being elected to office and after assuming office.
Re. Boniface VIII and Celestine: This is whole "scenario" was cooked up in your head; give me a quote from a Catholic (pre-Vatican II) source that states that Boniface was not a true Pope.
re. Saint Francis of Assisi's fake prophecy was not "discovered" until after his death by the heretical and schismatic "spiritual Franciscans" that were excommunicated for their opposition to the Pope.
You are the prime example of a Catholic that has been misled by erecting yourself as the ultimate judge of the authenticity of private revelations. You have cut yourself off from all objective reality in this matter. 

[Bonaventure]

"[The Church] has one head, not two heads like a monster."
- Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam 1302.



Both for today and for Boniface VIII, who had Pope Celestine V imprisoned and killed.

God Bless

I would not compare Ratzinger, who since the 1960s had been a coat and tie modernist, with St. Celestine V.

[josh987654321]

I would not compare Ratzinger, who since the 1960s had been a coat and tie modernist, with St. Celestine V.

I absolutely would!

Pope Benedict XVI compared himself to St Celestine V, furthermore, Pope Celestine V erred greatly in listening to his usurper regarding the farce of 'resignation' and he ended up imprisoned and killed for it. Pope Benedict XVI had to know this including the crisis it sent the Church into with the Avignon Papacy, but he did it anyway and furthermore, still wore white, remained in the Vatican, still Pope Benedict XVI "Emeritus" etc etc, he was not then known as 'Cardinal Ratzinger' and clearly, we cannot have two Popes.

The idea by itself is absurd, anymore than St Peter or Aaron could simply decide to 'retire' after being appointed by God.

Pope Francis (Bergoglio) and new cardinals visit Benedict XVI
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2022-08/pope-francis-and-new-cardinals-visit-benedict-xvi.html

Just 1 year later the US Deep State conducted the violent and undemocratic coup in Ukraine, remember this was also during Obama's reign, where regime change and coups were a common practice in their foreign policy and Wikileaks proves them targeting the Catholic Church.   

The Hermit Pope Who Set The Precedent For Benedict XVI -
https://www.npr.org/2013/02/26/172890937/the-hermit-pope-who-set-the-precedent-for-benedict-xvi

The significance of the two visits is "quite staggering," says Ferzoco. To him, it's amazing no one saw the message behind Benedict's actions.

"He was showing that it is permissible, licit, and in some cases spiritually beneficial that a pope may resign for the good of his soul and for the benefit of his flock," Ferzoco says.

Pope Celestine V -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Celestine_V

While inspecting the earthquake damage during a 28 April 2009 visit to the Aquila, Pope Benedict XVI visited Celestine's remains in the badly damaged Santa Maria di Collemaggio and left the woolen pallium he wore during his papal inauguration in April 2005 on his glass casket as a gift.

Pope Boniface VIII -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Boniface_VIII

One of his first acts as pontiff was to imprison his predecessor in the Castle of Fumone in Ferentino, where he died on 19 May 1296 at the age of 81.

Fair and square baby... fair and square lol.

St Francis of Assisi Prophecies, Great Schism and Tribulations in the Church -
https://www.virgosacrata.com/st-francis-of-assisi-prophecies.html

My thoughts are either Pope Benedict XVI greatly erred, or he knew he would be killed and they could then have got their man legitimately to the chair, and so he prevented that, the same could be true for Pope Celestine V but there is no way to know, either way they both erred greatly and it's a serious error that hasn't been corrected yet in either cases IMO.

The Prophecy by St Francis of Assisi would apply very much to Boniface VIII, and amazingly, Pope Benedict XVI (Celestine's are a branch of the Benedictine Order) followed in Pope Celestine V's same footsteps to be usurped by one who took the very name of none other than St Francis of Assisi, in about 800 years the first to do so under such circumstances as these!... stunning, absolutely insane! No way a coincidence. 

"Our Lady of Victory, Ark of the New Covenant, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, Pray for us."

God Bless

[Bonaventure]

I would not compare Ratzinger, who since the 1960s had been a coat and tie modernist, with St. Celestine V.

I absolutely would!

Pope Benedict XVI compared himself to St Celestine V, furthermore, Pope Celestine V erred greatly in listening to his usurper regarding the farce of 'resignation' and he ended up imprisoned and killed for it. Pope Benedict XVI had to know this including the crisis it sent the Church into with the Avignon Papacy, but he did it anyway and furthermore, still wore white, remained in the Vatican, still Pope Benedict XVI "Emeritus" etc etc, he was not then known as 'Cardinal Ratzinger' and clearly, we cannot have two Popes.

Ratzinger could compare himself to whomever, I don't care.

St. Celestine V would have had him burned at the stake, if he saw that he closed his eyes in, at best, deep reflection, inside of a mosque. Rome Reports even flat out says, Ratzinger "prayed at the Blue Mosque."



St. Celestine V would have preferred being drawn and quartered, than to pray at an altar besides Greek and Oriental Schismatics, and an Anglican heretical, layman posing in vestments reserved to actual clergy.

[josh987654321]

Yea, they erred significantly on several occasions, starting of course with Vatican II where the smoke of satan entered the Church, but I cannot say they were not valid Popes, as they were validly elected despite their failings and the similarities between what Pope Benedict XVI did, his using Pope Celestine V as precedent and the prophecy of St Francis of Assisi, with Pope Benedict XVI's usurper taking that very name itself... is absolutely insane. In terms of probabilities, I'm just gonna call that impossible straight up.

Nobody forced Bergoglio to choose the name St Francis of Assisi... he fell perfectly into a Divine trap set about 800 years ago, the first to ever choose St Francis of Assisi in 800 years and under these circumstances!!!

Pope Benedict XVI, whether he intended to leave signs or was truly deceived, also chose Pope Celestine V to imitate, Celestine's a branch of the Benedictine Order. This is just impossible. 

https://www.virgosacrata.com/st-francis-of-assisi-prophecies.html

God Bless

[josh987654321]

"Serving a usurper"; as far as I have investigated, there is not a single apparition that has happened after Vatican II that is legitimate; and many are probably diabolic in origin; such as the "Divine Will" revelations of Luisa Piccaretta etc. Catholics should avoid all these like the plague.

I've not read that one, but I have heard about it and I would agree with that assessment on the outset, especially if they are praising Bergoglio, that's an immediate red flag given his heresy. In terms of none after Vatican II, I know of one, with Roman Catholic Imprimatur from the late 1990's to early 2000's and I am confident about it's authenticity, however I have not read everything yet, but it changed my life and much of it was put to the test, not some faceless and nameless person that one just has to 'trust'.

Anyway, it's a bit early to be talking about it, until I have finished reading it all I will wait, nevertheless, it also involves Bergoglio, as some of those involved gave their scientific findings in regards to a Eucharistic Miracle and Private Revelations to the Cardinal of Buenos Aires at the time called Jorge Mario Bergoglio, in the hopes of presenting their findings to Pope Benedict XVI... it's safe to say that never worked out and he successfully buried it, but he will not succeed IMO.

You are the prime example of a Catholic that has been misled by erecting yourself as the ultimate judge of the authenticity of private revelations. You have cut yourself off from all objective reality in this matter.

Granted I've used Private Revelation to make my case, but the thing I find so odd, is that this case is easily made without Private Revelation at all and the reason I use it, such as St Francis of Assisi, is that at the very least there is word of it in Latin in the 1700's that I could find as well as this being said during the time of Boniface VIII (no sources for this yet) but the main thing here are the parallels are truly, truly stunning, there is just no way, St Francis of Assisi of all the names to choose, the first to do so and under such circumstances as these! It's absolutely impossible to have even guessed such a thing!

Furthermore, how is it possible, that God can appoint Aaron as High Priest and St Peter as the first Pope, to lead His Church on Earth, and that these people, without any Divine intervention, could decide on their own authority that they know better than God and 'retire' thus saying to God that he got it wrong by giving him the keys and to choose again? It's almost a form of Euthanasia, deciding for oneself matters that are not for them to decide.

The Pope is the highest authority on Earth, but he does not outrank God who provided him with the keys and position in the first place, therefore he cannot renounce this authority and position. Otherwise this is just a human institution made up of fallible men coming and going as they please for any reason.   

"Our Lady of Victory, Ark of the New Covenant, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, Pray for us."

God Bless 

[Michael Wilson]

josh,

Furthermore, how is it possible, that God can appoint Aaron as High Priest and St Peter as the first Pope, to lead His Church on Earth, and that these people, without any Divine intervention, could decide on their own authority that they know better than God and 'retire' thus saying to God that he got it wrong by giving him the keys and to choose again? It's almost a form of Euthanasia, deciding for oneself matters that are not for them to decide.

What is the position of the Church on this issue?
The person who is elected is free to accept the office or reject it; and once accepted, he can resign at any time.

The Pope is the highest authority on Earth, but he does not outrank God who provided him with the keys and position in the first place, therefore he cannot renounce this authority and position. Otherwise this is just a human institution made up of fallible men coming and going as they please for any reason.   

This is putting your opinion before the teaching of the Church. The 1917 Code of Canon Law states explicitly that the Pope can resign from office.
canon 221 (on Papal resignation)

Canon 221 (1983 CIC 332)
If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns, for the validity of this resignation, acceptance by a
Cardinal or another is not necessary