Monday, October 3, 2016

You Shouldn't Always Believe What You See

 Apparitions are a hot topic among Traditionalists. I have, unfortunately, seen the exaltation of  private revelation over public revelation too many times to count. Rather than study what the Church teaches (in public revelation which ended with the death of the Apostle St. John in 100 AD), they seek to quibble over what Our Lady of (fill-in-the-blank) is alleged to have said to the seer (private revelation). Note well that the term "private revelation" has nothing to do with the number of people who witnessed the revelation, but rather that it never needs to be accepted as authentic, unlike the Deposit of Faith which comes to us from Christ and the Apostles (deemed "public revelation"). As a matter of fact, in the comments section of one of my posts earlier this year, a person accused me of sin/heresy for stating that private revelations need not be accepted!

 I will attempt to demonstrate Church teaching on apparitions, and how we must not let devotion to them (even when approved by Holy Mother Church), obfuscate what is really of the Faith. The apparitions most talked about involve the appearances of the Mother of God, Mary.

Apparitions, Visions, and Their Causes

 In Catholic theology, "visions" (when authentic) are of an internal nature; i.e., God produces a concept or image in the seer without anything external to the person. An "apparition" (when authentic) occurs when God causes something external to the person to be seen through the senses--it is usually, but not necessarily---seen by people present other than the seer. Notice I mention authentic visions and apparitions, because in the words of theologian Farges, "True visions are rare, but visionaries are legion ..." (See Farges, Mystical Phenomena,Burns, Oates and Washbourne, London, [1926], pg. 323). All apparitions are caused by one of three things, God, people, or demons. 

 People who see authentic apparitions (i.e. "seers") are usually children, because of their innocence and due to the fact that visions usually occur in the saintly to whom God can act more directly on the soul as they have grown close to the Almighty. According to Farges, "Amongst sinners ... visions are always very rare, and therefore must always seem suspect and attributable to illusion or the devil, unless there is a proof to the contrary." Since most of us adults in the world fall into "the sinner" category, it follows that apparitions that come from God are very rare. From the sixteenth century until the Great Apostasy at Vatican II, only nine (9) apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary have been approved as "worthy of belief" by the Church. 

The vast majority of "seers" are either charlatans or have mental illness. Hallucinations, whether from schizophrenia, drugs/alcohol, brain tumors, or highly suggestible states, comprise most false apparitions. Mass hysteria, whereby a group of people exhibit similar physical or emotional symptoms, can manifest itself in shipwrecked people all apparently seeing a rescue ship, and can equally explain how some people "see" what the false seers "see." Some, such as in Medjugorje, are perpetrated by individuals who never cease to have these so-called apparitions. They even operate an online store and pilgrimages costing thousands of dollars "not including tips" to the tour guides of the numerous "holy places." A sure case of charlatan-ism. 

Demonic Apparitions

 In discussing the diabolic origin of some apparitions, it is important to know what demons and Satan can and cannot do. They cannot:

  • Raise the dead, since this would entail allowing the soul back into the body after final judgement by God. God can suspend such judgement and raise the dead (Lazarus, etc.), but Satan and his demons cannot. They can make it appear as such, perhaps by allowing a demon into the corpse, but this is doubtful.
  • Create anything, because substances can only be created by God.
  • Know the future or read minds. According to theologian  Delaporte, the devil does not know the future as God does. However, "A pure spirit, not subjected to ...know only through the medium of corporeal organs, sees more things at once, and sees more than we do. He may, besides, thanks to his potent intelligence and long experience draw better from the present, what he knows by conjecture of the future. Finally, he may announce things he counts on accomplishing himself, or having accomplished by those who willingly receive his inspiration." (The Devil pg. 70).Therefore, Satan can "know the future" and "read minds" in that sense. However, he does not know the future as God does, and is not infallibly sure of what will transpire, unlike God Who is omniscient. 
 They can:

  • Produce corporeal or imaginative visions.
  • Falsify ecstasy.
  • Instantaneously cure sicknesses that have been caused by diabolical influence. Tertullian writes, "First of all, they [the demons] make you ill; then to get a miracle out of it, they prescribe remedies either completely novel, or contrary to those in use, and thereupon withdrawing hurtful influence, they are supposed to have wrought a cure." (Apology of the Christian Religion, 22)
  • Simulate miracles (i.e. walking on water, levitation, etc.)
  • Make people or objects seem to disappear by interfering with a person's sight 
  • Cause a person to hear sounds or voices.
  • Cause a person to speak in tongues.
  • Have someone reveal a fact which is hidden or distant.

Whatever nature or science can cause, the demons can cause, according to what God may permit by His Will. (See e.g., the Book of Job, and Exodus 7:11-12; 7:22; 8:7; 8:18-19; 9:11 N.B. The magicians of Pharaoh were able to replicate only some of what was done by Moses and Aaron). With this impressive arsenal, it wouldn't be too hard for demonic forces to produce an apparition.

How to Discern the Real from the False/Evil

My advice is to stay away from apparitions other than the nine approved by the Church since the 16th century and prior to Vatican II. There are six (6) "warning signs" you need to beware when hearing of an "apparition" of Our Lady, Our Lord, or any angel or saint. In the case of the first warning sign below, it is a clear indication that the apparition is a fraud and must be rejected, as God cannot contradict Himself; He is Truth itself. The second warning sign below means the apparition should be rejected, or you may wind up a heretic. Warning signs three through six indicate you should have (at the very least) suspended judgement regarding said apparition. Here are the warning signs:

1. Any apparition that states something against Traditional Faith and/or morals must be rejected as false. (e.g. Palmar de Troya declared Our Lady "Irredeemed"; meaning "not redeemed." This is a total misunderstanding of the Immaculate Conception and rank heresy.)

2. Any apparition that states something contrary to the unanimous (or even common) teaching of the approved pre-Vatican II theologians.

3. A fulfilled prophesy being claimed as automatic proof of authenticity. Demons could be responsible.

4. Apparitions that contain mundane (and even strange) matters (e.g. in one apparition, it was stated that the so-called Blessed Mother "played hide-n-seek" with the seers).

5. Apparitions where novel doctrines (not incompatible with Church teaching) are introduced, a definitive date is given (or strongly suggested) for the Second Coming, or the "Blessed Mother" either "blesses" objects or demands that only un-blessed sacramentals be brought to the site (as was the case regarding the "apparitions" in Bayside, NYC).

6. The seer is neither a child nor an adult known for great sanctity and mental stability. Also where the apparitions never end, and there is profit to be made by the "prophet" (think: "Medjugorje"). 

Tried and True

 Rather than obsess over unapproved apparitions (and we have no hierarchy with authority to approve new apparitions since 1958 when the last known pope, Pius XII died) stick to the nine major apparitions that have the solemn approbation of Church authority:

1. Our Lady of Guadalupe (1531): The Blessed Virgin Mary appeared four times to Juan Diego in 1531 at Tepeyac hill near Mexico City. She proclaimed herself the Spiritual Mother of all humanity and left her miraculous image on Juan Diego's outer garment, his tilma.

2. Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal (1830): The Mother of God appeared to St. Catherine Labouré, in the chapel of the Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, at Rue du Bac in Paris, three times in 1830. She showed her the design of the the medal of the Immaculate Conception, the "Miraculous Medal." This medal, when propagated, helped to renew devotion to Our Lady throughout the world. 

3. Our Lady of La Salette (1846): Our Blessed Mother appeared to two children, Maximin Giraud, aged 11, and Mélanie Calvat, aged 14, in 1846, while they were looking after their animals high up on the mountain. She asked for penance, an end to work on the Sabbath (Sunday), and an end to blasphemy.

4. Our Lady of Lourdes (1858): The Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to St. Bernadette Soubirous, aged 14, a total of eighteen times at Lourdes in southern France, at the Grotto of Massabielle. She called herself "The Immaculate Conception" as Heaven's delight in (and affirmation of) Pope Pius IX's infallible decree Ineffabilis Deus of December 8, 1854 defining the Immaculate Conception of the BVM a dogma of the Faith. A miraculous well sprung up there, and has been the occasion of many miraculous cures. 

5. Our Lady of Hope (1871): Our Lady appeared in the sky over the small town of Pontmain in north-western France to a group of young children for about three hours in January 1871, as the Franco-Prussian war was threatening the area. Slowly, a message appeared beneath her: "But pray, my children. God will hear you in time. My Son allows Himself to be touched." The crowd prayed and the Prussians, for reasons unknown to secular historians, abandoned their advance on the little town. The Prussian general is reported as having said, "We cannot go farther. Yonder, in the direction of Brittany, there is an invisible 'Madonna' barring the way."

6. Our Lady of Knock (1879): The Blessed Mother appeared at Knock, a small village in County Mayo, Ireland, in August 1879. A number of villagers of diverse ages saw a silent apparition, which lasted about three hours, outside the gable end of the local church. They saw three figures, Mary, St. Joseph, and St John the Apostle, as well as a lamb on an altar and angels. Many speculate the silence of the apparition was to show the future silencing of Fatima as well as the destruction of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. 

7. Our Lady of Fatima (1917): Our Blessed Mother appeared to three children, Lucia de Santos, aged 10, and her two cousins, Francisco Marto, aged 9, and Jacinta Marto, aged 7. Our Lady asked for recitation of the Rosary, prayers and penance for poor sinners, the Five Saturdays Devotion to Her Immaculate Heart, and the consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart. There were three secrets given (one never revealed in 1960 by Roncalli), and a Miracle of the Sun witnessed by thousands.

8. Our Lady of Beauraing (1932-1933): The Immaculate Mother of God appeared thirty-three (33) times to a group of children in the winter of 1932-33 at Beauraing in Belgium. She called herself  "the Immaculate Virgin" and "Mother of God, Queen of Heaven," while asking for prayers for the conversion of sinners.

9. Our Lady of Banneux (1933): The Ever-Virgin Mary appeared eight times to Mariette Beco, aged 11, outside the family home at Banneux, a small village, in Belgium. She called herself "The Virgin of the Poor" and promised to help the poor, sick and suffering who turn to her. She said, "If you believe in me, I will believe in you." 


 No one must believe in any apparition; even those approved by the Church. If you have a devotion to an approved apparition, please do NOT let it become some kind of "dogma," and do not waste valuable time and energy debating with others over the "true meaning." Instead, read the approved theologians and learn about what the Church really teaches, since we live in this time of near universal apostasy. As far as "new" apparitions, my advice is to stay away. Some are obvious frauds (Medjugorje, Bayside) and others are highly dubious because we have no hierarchy in the aftermath of Vatican II which can make a definitive judgement. Don't let a dangerous curiosity of the spectacular detract from your spiritual life. The next time someone wants you to read about "the true meaning" of an apparition, or believe in some alleged new apparition of Our Lady or Our Lord, remember the warning of Our Savior Jesus Christ Himself, "If therefore they shall say to you: Behold he is in the desert, go ye not out: Behold he is in the closets, believe it not." (St. Matthew 24: 26). 


  1. Actually, one should always believe the senses as such.

    A visionary having had a false apparition should believe the details he does remember by sight - though not the theological conclusion of it being a true apparition.

    Hesiod was warned by the Muses themselves, twice over (1: they had sung hymns to Kronos with the crooked thoughts; 2: they had said they could speak both truth - and falsehood), and Mohammed had an emotional warning after seeing the false Gabriel.

    Would using Excalibur count as believing the apparition by the Lady of the Lake?

    1. Points well taken. The purpose of my post titles is to grab the reader's attention; not necessarily make a veridical statement . The two things which admit of no doubt are your own existence and your immediate sense impressions. The fact of the vision someone is having can't be denied, but the source can certainly be questioned--and in most cases SHOULD be questioned!!


  2. I just heard a sermon by a traditional Catholic priest (whom I hold in high regard) talking about Fatima for what seemed over 10-12 minute's.
    My dilemma isn't that I blow off Church approved apparitions nor do I doubt they happened.My problem is we truly honestly do not know if these people who have visions are 100% honest.
    Without going into detail,some of my research on Fatima is troubling to say the least.
    Simultaneously I wear a miraculous medal and pray the divine praises on the Sacred Heart of Jesus feast day.
    They do not define my faith and I agree with you we need to learn our faith inside and out.
    These apparitions seem to make some people downright obsessed with dates and future events.
    These same obsessed folk also seem to draw other like minded kindred spirits who long for and need visions.
    Nicholas the fraud Gruner comes to mind.This man outright and publicly disobeyed his superiors and his so-called "Pope" yet condemned sedevacantism in the same breath. People have free will and I fully acknowledge this as truth.Back in the day I would read some of his materials.Some of his followers were adamant that to deny Fatima is akin to blasphemy and heresy.
    This sort of talk,even though I didn't know better at the time,rubbed me the wrong way and it felt extremely wrong.

    1. I agree with you! "Fr." Gruner was dubbed "The CEO of the Fatima Industry." His whole "mission" needed a "pope" to make the consecration of Russia, otherwise donations would dry up if he can't deliver on the "cure for our age." I remember reading his "Fatima Crusader" magazine back in 1989. He was telling everyone that nuclear war was "immanent" unless the consecration of Russia was performed. Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, he did not let up on "the fact" that nuclear war from Communists was just around the corner, and he needed funds more than ever before. "Fr" Chicken Little kept telling us about nuclear war happening soon right up until his death in 2015. I remember one shameless issue of the Fatima Crusader that urged all readers to "let Mary guide your hand to write the largest check possible" for his organization. Truly reprehensible. I can only hope he somehow repented and the Lord was merciful to Him when he went to his judgement.


  3. Could you please write a post on the history of the supposed secret of La Salette? I know the apparition itself was approved, and even has a feast day, but I thought the text we have now that was supposedly the secret was actually condemned by the Church and put on the Index. It's a complicated and interesting history, and I'm curious what you would make of it.

    1. Thank you so much for your inquiry! Thanks to you, I was made aware of the decree of the Holy Office which I reprint in full below. It is because of this decree that I will not do a post on La Salette, and I have redacted that part of my post today which mentioned the supposed secret. The decree forbids discussion of the "secret of La Salette." As this decree was approved by His Holiness Pope Benedict XV in 1915 (and was not rescinded by Popes Pius XI or XII) the duty of a Traditionalist is to obey. The approved facts of the apparition are reported above and nothing more.


      It has come to the attention of this Supreme Congregation that certain ones are not lacking, even from among the ecclesiastic assemblage who, responses and decisions of this Holy Congregation itself having been disregarded, do proceed to discuss and examine through books, small works and articles edited in periodicals, whether signed or without a name, concerning the so-called Secret of La Salette, its diverse forms and its relevance to present and future times; and, this not only without permission of the Ordinaries, but, also against their ban. 
So that these abuses which oppose true piety and greatly wound ecclesiastical authority might be curbed, the same Sacred Congregation orders all the faithful of any region not to discuss or investigate under any pretext, neither through books, or little works or articles, whether signed or unsigned, or in any other way of any kind, about the mentioned subject. Whoever, indeed, violates this precept of the Holy Office, if they are priests, are deprived of all dignity and suspended by the local ordinary from hearing sacramental confessions and from offering Mass: and, if they are lay people, they are not permitted to the sacraments until they repent. 
Moreover, let people be subject to the sanctions given both by Pope Leo XIII through the Constitution of the offices and responsibilities against those who publish books dealing with religious things without legitimate permission of superiors and by Urban VIII through the decree "Sanctissimus Dominus Noster" given on 13th March 1625 against those who publish asserted revelations without the permission of ordinaries. However, this decree does not forbid devotion towards the Blessed Virgin under the title of Reconciliatrix commonly of La Salette. 

      Given at Rome on 21st December, 1915. 

      Aloisius Castellano, S. R. and U. I. Notary.

  4. Haven't the apparitions at Quito, Ecuador to Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres been approved by the Church?

    1. Our Lady of Good Success is much touted by the Tradition In Action website which is run by "recognize and reisiters;" most notably Theresa Horvat and Antila Guimares. Almost no documentation exists as to this apparition prior to 1930. It contains dubious messages which would seem to "vindicate" the "recognize and resist" position of Horvat and Guimares. Contemporary documents from the period confirm that the various people involved did indeed exist and there was a huge fight between the bishops and the Franciscans over the control of the convent (which went all the way to the Pope) but no mention is made of Our Lady of Good Success. n the 1940s when the current document was made public the Bishop of Quito investigated the matter and was satisfied enough to declare a novena for Our Lady of Good Success. However, a novena in honor of the Blessed Mother given a title of honor, does not constitute Church approval for the apparition itself.

      The short answer to your question appears to be "No."


    2. Thank you for clarifying the matter. Yes, the supposed apparitions are much touted by the TIA website and other SSPX types.

  5. I appreciate this cautionary article. However, the book "Miracles" by Jean Helle, 1952, gives sufficient detail about Beauraing to raise very serious doubts about the authenticity of this alleged apparition. I have no belief in this apparition, nor do I give credence to the Banneux. But these two are rather insignificant.

    I do have a question about the 1929 apparition to Sister Lucia of Fatima, in which our Lady said that the time had arrived for the consecration of Russia. The apparitions of 1917 at Fatima were confirmed by the marvelous miracle of that October. But we have only the word of Sr. Lucia about that 1929 event, no confirming miracle.

    Whatever the case on various specifics, your column is spot on.

    1. Thank you for the kind words, Fred. I have hardly heard anything of significance regarding Beauraing or Banneux. As far as Fatima is concerned, I do recite the Fatima prayer at the end of each decade of the Rosary, I try to go to Mass on First Saturdays, and I venerate the Immaculate Heart of Mary. I gave up (a long time ago) trying to discern what, exactly, is authentic as there is just too much conflicting information. I study to know the Faith and keep it.
      God bless you!


    2. Its rather disrespectful for Roman Catholics to say Pope Pius XI "refused to consecrate Russia" when there is no evidence this was required nor does the Pope take orders from a Nun in Southwest Europe.

    3. You are correct that the Pope is not bound to believe in (or follow directions from) an apparition. It would be better to simply state, "He did not consecrate Russia."

      It does raise the interesting question, "If the pope declared Fatima worthy of belief, why didn't he do as the BVM asked?" Wasn't HE convinced? Maybe not. There's probably more to the story than we will ever know!


    4. Exactly what I have been saying for years! There is most likely much more to this story than we will ever know.
      Like the "rapture" the problem with putting 100% faith in apparitions is people are possibly going to lose faith when the predicted event doesn't come to pass.
      Great post I hope this entry goes viral.
      God bless you and your family.

  6. Have you ever done a post on locutions, or ever considered doing one? I keep encountering people who speak of locutions and have no idea what they are referring to. I have only found my way home to the True Roman Catholic Church 2 years ago and have a lot to learn!

    1. Joann,
      A locution is an internal manifestation (usually auditory) impressed upon an individual from without by God. Authentic locutions are very rare. Most can be explained as the apparitions; the result of human mental illness, human fraud, and demonic activity. Locutions are, for the most part, the auditory version of a vision as explained above. There were some very great saints who received authentic locutions (e.g. St Francis of Assisi whose feast we celebrate today).

      My advice regarding locutions is identical to what you read above concerning visions and apparitions.

      God bless, and be assured of my prayers!


  7. Bishop Richard N. Williamson is currently dividing R&R Traditional Catholics over his nonsensical views on the New Mass and his support for Maria Valtorta.

    1. Yes. Bp. Williamson has been saying more and more strange things. At the risk of sounding uncharitable, he may want to trade in his miter for a tinfoil hat.


    2. It's a shame because Bishop Williamson would make a great leader for Roman Catholics.
      Bishop W seems to put an emphasis on apparitions.(approved and not approved i.e. Akita)
      The Recognize & Resist position is not consistent nor logical.
      With that said I harbor nor ill will towards either SSPX camp.They do have valid Catholic priests & valid Catholic Sacraments.
      God willing they will entirely reject the novus ordo very soon.
      Deo Gratias

    3. I too hope and pray they wake up and reject Midernist Rome outright. It would be a glorious day should they see the wolf in Peter's clothing.


  8. You wrote that we must study the good Catholic theologians. What are they and what books you recommend? Thank you.

    1. May I guess he will put St John of the Cross first?

      Here is anyway a less suspicious and more allround saint:


      Question 171. Prophecy

      Question 172. The cause of prophecy

      Question 173. The manner in which prophetic knowledge is conveyed

      Question 174. The division of prophecy

      Question 175. Rapture

      That said, before you (or Introibo or any priest he might know) asks whether someone is a true or a false prophet, having true or false visions, ask first if he is at all claiming to have any kind of prophecy like thing.

      Writing essays would normally NOT be considered pretending to prophecy, but SOME would from their content being Catholic and expressed with certainty actually conclude from that alone that I am claiming to be a prophet. Which I am not.

    2. Dear Mr. Ribeiro,

      The "good theologians" are those learned men from the pre-Vatican II era whose writings were approved by Holy Mother Church as free from error and were used to educate Her priests. They faithfully express the teachings of the Church.

      There are many of them, but three stand out as exemplary whose writings are in English.

      1. Fr. Joseph Pohle. He had written 12 volumes of dogmatic theology, which you can now purchase in a set of six hardcovers for $319 on If you get it and read through them, you will have an exemplary understanding of our Faith!

      2. Fr. Ludwig Ott. His "Fundamentals of Dogmatic Theology" is one-volume and available at for only about $28. You will learn a great deal (obviously not as much, but it is excellent!).

      3. Fr. Heribert Jone. His "Moral Theology" is also available from and contains all the moral principles and basic teachings in morality all in one volume for about $40.

      If you can get at least OTT and JONE you will reap great benefits from your better understanding of the Church!

      God bless,


    3. Joseph Pohle (* 19. März 1852 in Niederspay bei Koblenz; † 21. Februar 1922 in Breslau) war ein katholischer Dogmatiker.
      Ludwig Ott (* 24. August 1906 in Neumarkt-St. Helena; † 25. August 1985 in Eichstätt) war ein römisch-katholischer Theologe und Mediävist.
      Pater Heribert Jone OFMCap (* 30. Januar 1885 in Schelklingen, Württemberg; † 25. Dezember 1967 in Stühlingen, Baden) war ein katholischer Priester, Kirchenrechtler und Moraltheologe.

      Citing German wiki for each.

      All of these are far more recent than EITHER St Thomas OR St JOhn of the Cross.

      Though I don't think of these as apostates, two of them continued within Vatican II sect. All of them were educated in a Prussian or post-Prussian Germany with heavy debts to Protestantism.

      I don't think they are bad, but they certainly don't trump the earlier ones. Also, the reference to Superiors has become very much less applicable through the modern crisis. Try to keep in sufficient touch with Pope Michael and his men who are saying they are a renewed hierarchy ... not quite feasible. Not like walking half an hour from home to confess to a priest I then considered as belonging to correct hierarchy. If you don't accept Pope Michael (who btw is not a mysticist claimant, I presume he referred more than once to Ott for his emergency conclave, not a single time to any apparition in a decisive way, except as to steer away, perhaps unjustly as to Collin/Clement XV) it is not just a matter of not being able to contact the hierarchy, its a question of its not being there in a fully hierarchic way.

      By contrast, Ott thought you could safely ask if not Montini, at least Ottaviani, if not Wojtyla, at least Ratzinger and Stickler. Jone thought you could ask Montini or Ottaviani.

      All of these wrote obviously in German, so the English versions would be (often at least) as much translations as those of St John of the Cross or St Thomas Aquinas.

      Ott was also not considering the act of 1633 in condemning two errors of Galileo as a truly Papal act. He is suspect of having been Heliocentric. If he was born under Prussian auspices, that is no great wonder.

    4. Hans,

      I have no problem with either St John of the Cross or St Thomas Aquinas. The modern authors I picked are more up to date having published in the 20th century and are relatively cheap to purchase (except Pohle).

      They went over to the Batican II sect, but they were orthodox in belief prior to that time as the Magisterium assures us. "Pope" Michael's "conclave" was put together by one Theresa Benns, who is back to being a Home Aloner. Mrs. Benns frequently cited....St Thomas Aquinas! None of these authors discussed conclaves, so any attempt to twist their teaching is an obvious act f sophistry from which no one is immune. This is why I chose as I did.

      I too (for reasons I will not go into at this time) am heliocentric. I think the Big Bang and other findings of modern science all help to prove the existence of God.


    5. Introibo,
      What does "heliocentric" mean?

    6. Joann,
      It's the belief that the sun is the center of the solar system and the earth revolves around it. "Geocentric" is the defunct (and discredited) belief of the earth as the center around which the sun revolves. You wouldn't even think such issues would come up in 2016.


    7. Thanks, Mrs.

      St. Peter and St. Paul: pray for us!

    8. // "Geocentric" is the defunct (and discredited) belief of the earth as the center around which the sun revolves. //

      Neither defunct, nor discredited.

  9. What is your take on John St.Thomas.Both SSPX camps cite this Saint frequently.
    The SSPX is an embarrassment and was wondering if John St.Thomas is worth reading?

    1. The problem with some of the older theologians (by "older" I mean from prior to the First Vatican Council) is that what they wrote was perfectly orthodox at the time but the teaching of the Church decided questions differently. For example, Aquinas did not teach the Immaculate Conception when he wrote in the 13th century.

      That doesn't mean that the Angelic Doctor, as he is rightfully called, shouldn't be studied as he was correct in 99% of what he wrote when viewed in the 1950s under the last pope.

      In my opinion, John of St Thomas isn't worth the effort. If you want older theologians I recommend Aquinas, St Alphonsus Liguori, and St Robert Bellarmine.


    2. In Latin books, I suppose all three are available, amply enough.

      But in either English translation or ONLINE, even Latin, do you have any resources for Sts Liguori and Bellarmine?

    3. I have some rare books in Latin, but St Robert Bellarmine can be found on his name.


    4. Not much, but inexpensive to buy.


    5. As to Controversies, English translation had NO preview, and I can't buy any books in my situation. Especially not that thick ones. I am homeless and carry my luggage.

      That is why I was asking for Latin original text, online, without having to buy anything.

    6. Hans,
      I'm so sorry to hear of your situation. I don't know if they are available online. Let me know if there's anything I can do besides pray for you.


    7. Email Hans they can hopefully point you to online translations.
      They always answer every email sent their way.

    8. Arrange for someone putting Latin text of St Robert Bellarmine online.

      And (if your means allow that) pay for a few nights on hotel, so that I can treat my scabies. Note, tell the hotel owner I need to do just that, so it doesn't come as an unpleasant surprise for him, and arrange so that I can actually confirm to you the hotel owner got the right one.

      And, further on, what Pope Michael (if such) would so far not do for me : print my book of essays defending reliability of Gospels against the most common attacks these days, as I see it on internet.

      HGL's F.B. writings : What is the Pastoral Outlook of Pope Michael?

    9. Hans,
      It seems you have some serious issues beyond what a couple of days in a hotel could do. Scabies? Why not go to a hospital? Are you capable of working? Why are you homeless? Maybe I can start a "Go Fund Me" page for you.


    10. "Scabies? Why not go to a hospital?"

      In a hospital I would get ascabiol, as has happened lots of times before. Each time I was received for applying it and changing clothes, which means I had to apply it the next time myself, which would have been easier in a hotel.

      On the other hand, in a hotel, I could use tea tree oil two to three times a day. Doesn't smell bad like ascabiol. Isn't making going to the toilet and wiping yourself a risk for the appplication (or for cleanliness) like ascabiol. And so on.

      "Are you capable of working?"

      I actually AM working, just not getting paid for it. I write every day, and the day someone starts printing from my blogs, and starts sending me voluntary royalties (and I have already provided for his - anyone's - juridic rights to do so), my poverty is over.

      hglwrites : A little note on further use conditions

      Linked to from more than one of my active blogs (this one isn't).

      "Why are you homeless?"

      Because Catholics who would be most interested in printing the blogs of a Catholic who is quite outspoken as such have been too busy asking why I don't do as other homeless do for doing what I asked them to do.

      "Maybe I can start a "Go Fund Me" page for you."

      Maybe you can either start printing some of my work yourself, or ask your nephew or niece or son or daughter to do so. FIRST earning money for yourselves and THEN sending what you can afford from that. That is the kind of project I did set up.

      Look here too, for clarification on how I figured this out.

      Btw, if you can find a youth hostel either it's cheaper for you or more days for me. Don't take the one in Rue Mouffetard, I don't feel welcome there.

    11. You need to get a job in the public sector until you can support yourself by writing for a living.

    12. No, for two reasons:
      1) With my teeth, my pronunciation is faulty and sometimes inaudible, I yesterday asked how many Euro are 30 ("trente") livres sterling, and he answered 40 ("quarantehuit") which would be correct for 40 ponds.

      42 Euro buy 40 pounds + 6 Euro as charge.

      2) The teaching profession, which is closest, though closed by my defective teeth, is rotten.

      There is another reason, less about public sector, than about "until you can support yourself by writing for a living."

      I can support myself on writing, as soon as someone else:

      1) wants to support himself on my writing
      2) send me a fair share thereof.

      BUT some creeps who pose as Catholics seem hellbent on giving me advise such as would interrupt my actual writing while at same time encouraging a boycott of my writings (including among those who could make THE difference) in referring to my disregard for that (in fact bad) advise as "proof" (or presumed) I am imprudent and so could not be a very good writer.

      I am a very specialised man. A very good writer, but a VERY bad project for someone trying to be my mentor.

      And creeps wanting to be my mentor rather than arguing against my points are exactly what I refer to as "posing as Catholics" - not to mention the open non-Catholics who are often also in that league.