Monday, July 22, 2019

When Apparitions Become Dogma


 For decades now, I've been warning people against exalting private revelations (even when approved by legitimate Church authority), to the status of authoritative Church teaching. (I’ve called such people “apparitionists”). Think of the late "Fr." Nicholas Gruner. He made solving everything that is wrong in the world dependent upon the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Vatican II wasn't even a blip on his radar. All would be wonderful if the "Collegial Consecration" of Russia to Mary's Immaculate Heart were carried out according to the instruction given by Our Lady to the three children at Fatima. Of course, somehow only Mr. Gruner had the authentic interpretation and knew what needed to be done. His Fatima Crusader magazine in the 1980s would warn of immanent nuclear annihilation by the Soviet Union unless you helped him "petition the pope and bishops" with the largest donation you could afford. Even after the 1980s, constant warnings of disaster continued unless the Consecration was carried out.

Mr. Gruner would not even consider sedevacantism or the evils inherent in Vatican II. How could he when his entire raison d'etre was getting the pope and bishops to Consecrate Russia. If there's no pope, there goes his entire thesis and claim to hold the "true meaning" of Fatima. Notice too, that his interpretation of the message was a "Collegial" Consecration, the pope alone isn't good enough, he "needs" the bishops. Collegiality was a big heresy pushed at Vatican II and is part of the Vatican II sect. In this post, I will show the dangers of such exaltation of apparitions/visions (even before Vatican II) and how the Church discerns the true from the false when someone is claiming an apparition or vision is taking place.

What You See Isn't Always What You Get
A good example of apparition-exaltation gone awry is the Mariavites. The name comes from Latin phrase qui Mariae vitam imitantur--- "[those]who imitate the life of Mary." They were founded by Feliksa Magdalena Kozlowska (d.1921) of Poland, known by the religious name Sr. Maria Franciszka. In 1887 she and five other women entered into communal living in the town of Plock. They followed a Franciscan spirituality. They supported themselves doing embroidery, and followed a relatively strict regimen, abstaining from all meat and fish.

Beginning in 1893, Kozlowska claimed that she experienced religious visions. The first vision allegedly instructed her to form a new clerical order with the primary goal of propagating the Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament and devotion to the "Mother of God of the Eternal Help." All of this seems most laudable, but Satan will introduce 99.9% goodness, if he can get 0.1% evil accepted. In April of 1904, the Polish nun, with the help of  Father Jan Maria Michał Kowalski, tried to get canonical recognition from their bishop and Rome. The bishop rejected the visions, and the Holy Office declared her visions "mere hallucinations." Pope St. Pius X outlined the strange beginnings of this sect, when he promulgated Tribus Circiter which reads:

Venerable Brethren, Health and the Apostolic Benediction.

1. About three years ago this Apostolic See was duly informed that some priests, especially among the junior clergy of your dioceses, had founded, without permission from their lawful Superiors, a kind of pseudo-monastic society, known as the Mariavites or Mystic Priests, the members of which, little by little, turned aside from the right road and from the obedience they owe the Bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed to rule the Church of God," and became vain in their thoughts.

2. To a certain woman, whom they proclaimed to be most holy, marvelously endowed with heavenly gifts, divinely enlightened about many things, and providentially given for the salvation of a world about to perish, they did not hesitate to entrust themselves without reserve, and to obey her every wish.

3. Relying on an alleged mandate from God, they set themselves to promote without discrimination and of their own initiative among the people frequent exercises of piety (highly commendable when rightly carried out,) especially the adoration of the Most Holy Sacrament and the practice of frequent communion; but at the same time they made the gravest charges against all priests and bishops who ventured to express any doubt about the sanctity and divine election of the woman, or showed any hostility to the society of the Mariavites. Such a pass did matters reach that there was reason to fear that many of the faithful in their delusion were about to abandon their lawful pastors.

4. Hence, on the advice of Our Venerable Brethren the Cardinals of the General Inquisition, We had a decree issued, as you are aware, under date of September 4, 1904, suppressing the above-named society of priests, and commanding them to break off absolutely all relations with the woman. (Emphasis mine)

They did not listen to the order of Pope St. Pius X, and in December of that same year, he solemnly excommunicated them. The disintegration of faith and morals rapidly began. Fr. Kowalski received episcopal consecration by the Old Catholic sect. Koslowska's "visions" were turned into a book called The Work of Great Mercy. It was considered "second only to the Bible" in authority. Clerical celibacy was abolished. Women were "ordained priests," and the common priesthood of believers (a purely Protestant concept) was introduced. They split off into two groups in 1935, and small numbers remain today. (See, e.g., https://web.archive.org/web/20121223001317/http://www.mariavite.org:80/chhistoirea.htm).

Everything sounded good and noble. However, even frequent works of piety are highly commendable "when rightly carried out" as per Pope St. Pius X; this clearly shows even approved works of piety can be carried out incorrectly and to the detriment of all involved. There are numerous red flags that their followers ignored, and un-Catholic responses given to these "visions." First, they assumed  supernatural private revelation by their own authority. Next, they made the "seer" into some "living saint." Finally, the messages of the alleged visions took the place of the Church's authority. The supposed messages were to be obeyed over the pope and bishops. Authentic Church teaching took an inferior role to the "direct messages of Mary from God." Once you believe God is speaking to you directly (or through His Mother, etc.) who needs a Magisterium? This is a danger private revelations pose (approved or not), and Traditionalists must keep them in their rightful place.

Brief History of Approving Private Revelations
As established in the Council of Trent (1545-63), the local bishop is the first and main authority in apparition cases, which can be defined as instances of private revelation.

From the 25th session of the Council of Trent:
And that these things may be the more faithfully observed, the holy Synod ordains, that no one be allowed to place, or cause to be placed, any unusual image, in any place, or church, howsoever exempted, except that image have been approved of by the bishop: also, that no new miracles are to be acknowledged, or new relics recognized, unless the said bishop has taken cognizance and approved thereof; who, as soon as he has obtained some certain information in regard to these matters, shall, after having taken the advice of theologians, and of other pious men, act therein as he shall judge to be consonant with truth and piety. But if any doubtful, or difficult abuse has to be extirpated; or, in fine, if any more grave question shall arise touching these matters, the bishop, before deciding the controversy, shall await the sentence of the metropolitan and of the bishops of the province, in a provincial Council; yet so, that nothing new, or that previously has not been usual in the Church, shall be resolved on, without having first consulted the most holy Roman Pontiff.

Prior to this, the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-17) reserved the approval of new visions,  prophecies, and revelations to the Holy See. Prospero Lambertini (1675-1758), the future Pope Benedict XIV, provided several rules for discernment of private revelations and the miracles needed with the canonization of saints in De Servorum Dei Beatificatione et de Beatorum Canonizatione  in 1840. Such events must present themselves to human reason as being truly extraordinary and beyond the scope of natural causes. The Code of Canon Law (1917), Canon 1399, forbade the publication of anything about "new apparitions, revelations, visions, prophecies, and miracles" without the local bishop's approbation. Interestingly, Montini (Paul VI) abolished this requirement allowing every person with a "vision" or claiming an "apparition" to publish what they want, and in many cases sounding as if these private revelations were approved, such as the phony "Our Lady of the Roses" in Queens county, New York City.

Rules for Discernment
Since there is no pope, and no local Ordinary one can approach to make decisions regarding allegedly supernatural private revelations, what can a Traditionalist do? First, there can be no apparition or vision declared "worthy of belief" in this time of the Great Apostasy. In my opinion, you should steer clear of ALL of them. Concentrate on learning the faith from approved theologians and canonists. Use approved devotions, of which there are many (Rosary, Sacred Heart, etc.), and use them under the guidance of a spiritual director. If you are still curious about a claimed vision or apparition, remember to ask yourself the following questions:

1. Are facts in the case free of obvious errors? If a vision reports wrong dates, incorrect citations, promotes ecumenism, states blatant heresy (e.g., Mary is equal to God), or urges you to stay in the Vatican II sect, it cannot be of God.

2. Is the person or people receiving the alleged messages psychologically balanced, honest, and moral? If they exhibit odd behavior, claim to be "special," or belong to the Vatican II sect and see nothing wrong with it, it cannot be of God. If the "seers" are children, are they mature, or do they seem manipulated by their parents?

3. Is God or the Church accused of "making errors"? For example, "The Church needs to change Her stance on clerical celibacy. It is not good for the clergy to abstain from marriage."

4.Are there monetary considerations? ("Give us the largest contribution you can because God [or Mary] wants this message spread."). 

5. Are approved devotions supplanted by new ones? Are the new devotions strange? (Pray to the "Holy Hands of Jesus"--or some other bizarre devotion).  Are Traditional devotions made mandatory or excessive? (You must pray all 15 decades of the Rosary every day under pain of eternal damnation). 

These are some basic questions that need serious answers.

What About Apparitions or Visions Claiming Miraculous Happenings?

It is very easy for someone to claim some malady was "miraculously cured" because they saw a vision or did something an apparition allegedly said to do. I've written about miracles before, and there is one point of Church teaching I'd like to stress:

 Miracles cannot be used to help give credibility to that which is false. Any "miracle" that does so is either (a) naturally explained, and therefore not a miracle, or (b) of demonic origin.

Proof: A miracle is a deed that is sensible, extraordinary, and of divine origin. Hence, since transubstantiation is not sensible, it cannot be considered a miracle in the strict sense. Miracles can only be used to support that which is true and good. It is impossible for God to deceive. Moreover, God would equivalently be producing falsehood if He were performing some miracles in order to demonstrate that some false doctrines or a doctrine that is altogether human has been revealed by Himself. We should recognize that God allows extraordinary things to be performed by the devil. (See theologian Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology,Desclee Company, [1959], 1:40-45; Emphasis mine)

In Exodus 7: 8-13, we read:

The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "When Pharaoh says to you, 'Perform a miracle,' then say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and throw it down before Pharaoh,' and it will become a snake." So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the Lord commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake. Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts: Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake. But Aaron’s staff swallowed up their staffs. Yet Pharaoh’s heart became hard and he would not listen to them, just as the Lord had said." (Emphasis mine).

Since "miracles" cannot be currently affirmed or rejected by the pope, we cannot determine what alleged miracles are true. Any "miracle" that gives credence to V2 or Francis, or in any way promotes such cannot be true.

 Conclusion
Traditionalists must not exalt private revelations as superior to (or even on par with) Church teaching. Seek to understand the teachings of the Church as well as you can by reading the approved theologians and canonists. It will be of enormous help during this time of the Great Apostasy. The best advice comes from St. Louis de Monfort's classic True Devotion to Mary

"It is all the more necessary to make the right choice of the true devotion to our Blessed Lady, for now more than ever there are false devotions to her which can easily be mistaken for true ones. The devil, like a counterfeiter and crafty, experienced deceiver, has already misled and ruined many Christians by means of fraudulent devotions to Our Lady.

Day by day he uses his diabolical experience to lead many more to their doom, fooling them, lulling them to sleep in sin and assuring them that a few prayers, even badly said, and a few exterior practices inspired by himself, are authentic devotions.

A counterfeiter usually makes coins only of gold or silver, rarely of other metals, because the latter would not be worth the trouble. Similarly, the devil leaves other devotions alone and counterfeits mostly those directed to Jesus and Mary ... It is therefore very important, first to recognize false devotions to our Blessed Lady so as to avoid them, and to recognize true devotion in order to practice it." (See pgs. 90-91).

61 comments:

  1. Thank you, Introibo.
    From personal experience I learned that one's own feelings can not be counted on in matters of Faith. After leaving our NO parish, we ended up hearing masses at the private home of a true priest. But we began to notice he would spread unusual teachings during his sermons. He claimed Mary was part of the Holy Trinity, or that the church has now abolished auricular confession, things like that. Those things were a red flag but there was more! He was always pushing his group's religious books for sale. The loony teachings in it were bizarre. Fortunately I knew enough of my Faith to say this is not right. Looking up the name of the group he belonged to we found out it was a sect founded by one Michel Collin who had been declared vitandus excommunicate by Pope Pius XII. That was enough; we lwft and never went back. Sadly, the priest is a true priest who seemed devoted to tradition and preached the truth that we are living in the age of apostasy, but his cure for it is to spread further false teaching with the cover of Latin language "masses" with all the traditional trappings. Thankfully it wasn't long before we found a Chapel where the True Mass is said.
    It is bitterly hard to go wandering without the comfort of a Faith community, but we can pray sincerely to God, not desiring what we personally want, but for what He wants for us, and He will direct us where we need to be.
    BTW, Intro, what is your opinion on Marie Julie Jahenny's LaSallette vision? Rather, what does the Church say, if anything? I haven't seen anything really for or against.
    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jannie,
      Thank you for your powerful testimony! I’m glad God delivered you from that phony sect posing as Traditionalist and fueled by private revelations. If I’m not mistaken, Collins declared himself “pope.”

      As to La Salette, beware. It is approved but the Supreme Sacred Congregation Of The Holy Office issue a decree which I will here publish in full:

      THE SUPREME SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE DECREE CONCERNING THE COMMONLY CALLED "SECRET OF LA SALETTE."


      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.

      God Bless,
      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Marie Julie and Mellony of La Salette are 2 dif. seers. Though they were in spiritual contact from a far. La Salette was approved but the Breton stigmatist was not. Marie was denied the sacrament by her Bishop for about 10 years. She was in contact with the Pope. He lifted her restriction and also lifted the ban on her books if I am not wrong. But was never approved. Very heavy superesion like Fatima. But our men coming back from war allerted us to Fatima or we would not know today. She was obedient unto death. She was a confidant to the pope and right on every thing. Even knowing the day and the hour of death of her friend Mellony. How do you understand a seer who's not approved BUT her superession on books was lifted? Very confusing.

      Delete
    3. That is confusing. All we can do is follow the Church. Having a censure removed is not the same as being approved. In my opinion, stay away since there is currently no authority to settle the issue.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  2. Thank you for taking the time to post this, I had not seen this decree before. It clarifies the issue very well for me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I loved your article. You used good distinctions and your conclusion was excellent.

    I have to say one thing that bothers me about a lot of traditionalist clergy is that they say things against the Mystical City of God and Ven. Mary of Agreda. Granted they don't have to believe it since it's private revelation but it still strikes me as odd when some say it's condemned by the Church (Bp. Sanborn) or that it's neither condemned nor approved by the Church as a few CMRI priests do (don't get me wrong I still love the CMRI). It has all kinds of imprimaturs from bishops and many popes approved of it.

    I recommend people read Mr. Tim Duff's website showing the papal approval's here (read the whole thing if you do): http://www.neemcog.com/OfficialPapalApproval.htm

    For me if the Church approves of any apparition, private revelation, or any specific devotion then why not get excited and spread devotion to it? It's impossible for the Church to approve of anything harmful just like it's impossible for Christ to deceive any of us and when Catholics make errors on any approved apparitions it's not the Church's fault just like it's not the Church's fault when a Catholic reads the bible and interprets it wrongly and ends up becoming Protestant because of it (trust me I know some).

    Lee

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lee,
      I agree with you that if the Church approved it, there’s nothing contrary to Faith and morals. You may propagate it. I feel the same about Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich’s works which inspired the awesome movie “The Passion Of The Christ.”

      My only complaint is when people get involved in the “true meanings” of such private revelations. For example, I’ve heard and read countless arguments over what Our Lady Of Fatima REALLY meant when she said, “Portugal will always keep the Faith.” Why not just keep to the message of repentance, the Rosary, Scpular, And First Saturday devotions?

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. That's a really good point. Thank you for your input.

      Lee

      Delete
    3. What I take away so far is that as long as there is nothing calling into question morals and doctrine, the Church has basically taken a "neutral" approach, without giving full encouragement to such visions and writings. I have a book called "The Life of Mary as Seen by The Mystics", a collection of quotes from both Mary of Agreda and St Bridget relaying what they saw and heard. It doesn't get into prophecy or discuss Church teaching; I think it's just a really lovely devotional book that gives us a look into the measure of graces Our Lady was given. I think it stirs the soul of a reader to more devotion to her...at worst it is harmless; it would seem strange to me that Bridget,a true future saint, would be permitted to misinform the faithful in her lifetime. I don't know the status of M of A, although I have read she is considered Venerable.

      Delete
    4. Jannie,
      Yes, that’s the Catholic attitude!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. Here is a video just under 5 minutes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4vJ_M32mDU explaining Ven. Mary of Agreda's bilocations being in Spain where she was from and also being in west Texas converting the Native tribe called the Jumanos. It also shows her incorrupt body at the end. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4vJ_M32mDU

      I think your readers might like it.

      Lee

      Delete
    6. Thank you for the information, Lee!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    7. I agree with you, Introibo. The central message of Fatima is penance and devout life against the modern world. Fatima shows the true path, contrary to the ridiculous and crazy message that many traditional Catholics preach about facing the modern world with merely human actions, such as intellectualism, pagan politicking and armed militancy. Now on the writings of the Venerable Mother Mary of Agreda, hear that her writings have undergone alterations in France by enemies of the not-yet-dogma of the Immaculate Conception, hence of some suppressions and misunderstandings. Here in Brazil there was a teacher named Orlando Fedeli, a great denunciator of Gnostic heresy, who criticized Mother's writings. The same was confusing, Vatican II denounced, but it was faithful to the antipopes and its students still maintain that mistake. I trust that there is nothing wrong with the writings of a woman who has performed many extraordinary miracles and has her body uncorrupted today. God would not confirm the lie with miracles of this level.

      Jose Ribeiro Junior

      Delete
  4. Medjugorie is reported to be full of demonic activity,especially at night.
    Thank you for reminding people that private revelation is not Magisterium.
    -ANDREW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Andrew
      Yes, Medjugorie is a complete sham and in some aspects resembles a cult. Demonic activity? I’m not surprised at all.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  5. Whenever in discussions with trads, as soon as I hear “third secret” or “Russia” or “three days of darkness” I immediately tune out and walk away. For I know Im usually talking to a dogmatic apparitionist and not a person who understands Catholic Theology.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom A.

      I do the same as you upon hearing those kinds of discussions. I automatically tune out and walk away.

      JoAnn

      Delete
    2. @Tom and Joann,
      I agree with you. I also notice that if you tell one of these “apparitionists” that private revelations need not be believed, many get very angry and tell me I “lack faith”!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    3. Yes they believe the apparition message becomes magisterial and infallible because the Church approved. Again, an absolute ignorance of Sacred Theology.

      Delete
    4. I have had people become absolutely furious with me over Padre Pio and his stigmata. I was told I was not Catholic for questioning him and the stigmata.

      JoAnn

      Delete
    5. Joann,
      Padre Pio is an enigma. One thing is for certain: his “canonization” by Wojtyla proves nothing about his sanctity.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. Hi Introibo,

      I just started following your blog. Interesting articles. Why Padre Pio is an enigma? Are there some of his teachings contradicted seriously to the Catholic Faith?

      Delete
    7. Robertus,
      For more on Padre Pio, please see my post:
      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2017/01/was-padre-pio-ecumenist.html

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  6. Interesting to note that Our Lady of Guadalupe told Juan Diego to report to his bishop. Our Lady, being humble, pious, and deferent to religious authority (as seen in the Presentation/Purification) respects the Church that her Son (God) founded. She respects the duly appointed ministers of that Church, the priests and the bishops.

    Good metric to compare against today's myriad of alleged apparitions! Great article as always, Introibo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon1:06
      Thank you my friend!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  7. Many semi-trads will frequently fall back on these kinds of apparitions when their other arguments don't work. Taylor Marshall used the exorcism of "Emily Rose" (I forget the poor girl's real name) against sedevacantism. "Father" Hesse used a phrase from our Lady of La Salette (the priests will be defiled) to "prove" that the Novus Ordo priests are valid priests. Some personal friends have done similar things too.

    It's hard getting people to calm down and understand that in this hard time, we can't be lured by cults or fix-all elixers! The Church as an impersonal institution has the answers, not personal spirits that promise us easy answers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon1:08
      Very well stated! Thank you for the excellent comment. The R&R are guilty as charged for using apparitions to “prove their stance.”

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  8. Funny enough, all of Eastern Orthodoxy is stagnant because of an analogous issue. The Hesychast Revival among the monks of Mt. Athos popularized a type of breathing prayer that promised direct access to God's uncreated light. Gregory Palamas defended this pietism with his infamous essence-energies distinction.

    Hesychasm was wildly popular with the people, and threatened to upset the hierarchical nature of the Eastern church (which was in schism at this time). Promising direct access to God also undercut the sacramental life. Hesychasm was denounced by some clerics, but it was too popular to condemn. (As always...) Imperial favor of the new style of prayer caused Hesychasm to be dogmatized in 1351.

    100 years later, at the reunion Council of Florence, most of the Eastern bishops favored reunion and the Latin doctrines (Filioque, the Papacy, etc.) But when the bishops returned, the people rioted, pressuring the bishops to renege on the reunion agreement. Populism and pietism won out against Church authority. Constantinople fell a year later.

    We Catholics cannot afford to make the same mistake! Doctrine and authority overrule personal feelings and alleged direct access to the supernatural. God want us to obey the Church and her authorities!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon1:15
      Thank you for your insightful comment! That’s an excellent lesson from history. I learn from my readers—you taught me a great lesson today!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  9. I believe Fr. Gruner was suspended not laicized. So he was still Fr. Gruner not Mr. Gruner. His facilities were to be restored if he returned to his assigned parish.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon1:47
      Gruner was “ordained” in the invalid new Rite Of ordination back in 1976. As such he was never a valid priest. Hence, “Mr.” and NOT “Fr.”

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  10. And then there’s the Divine Mercy cult. No small surprise that true authority suppressed this nonsense and fake authority approved the fake devotion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom,
      Divine Mercy is one of the biggest shams perpetrated by Wojtyla. The V2 sect even celebrates it the Sunday after Easter. Blasphemous.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. I read parts of the Divine Mercy and it actually made me nauseated. I don't understand how anyone who reads it cannot see how blasphemous it is. I imagine the majority of the Divine Mercy followers just blindly follow it without ever taking the time to read it for themselves. However, I have come across people who have read it and just have nothing but praise for it.

      JoAnn

      Delete
    3. Joann,
      It’s ignorance of theology on their part.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. Please remember Sr.Faustina was barely literate,spoke a unique minority dialect within Poland,and the original D.V image was of a suffering Jesus during his Passion.
      I'm not defending the D.V. nor do I have any knowledge of Sr.Faustina:s orthodoxy besides my comment.
      The diary being a forgery is highly possible while subsequent events and images may have been falsely attributed to
      Sr.Faustina.
      If you read the prayer in print there's nothing heretical.
      However it's origins,history,subsequent endorsement and the people involved are mysterious,obscure,and possibly nefarious.
      Sr.Faustina herself may have been unknowingly propped up as a pawn for the Novus Ordo ecumenical charade after her death.
      -Andrew

      Delete
    5. Andrew,
      I’m sure there’s more to the story, but as DM was condemned, and especially after how the V2 sect idolizes it, it’s bad news. You make a valid point, that it may have been very badly twisted by Wojtyla and company to further their nefarious ends!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. Introibo,

      I know of R&R Priests that accept and propograte the Divine Mercy cult. You state that it is "ignorance of theology on their part" in my above comment regarding those that accept and praise the Divine Mercy. How can Priests be ignorant of theology? I sure don't know much theology as I am fairly new to Tradition and I don't accept the Divine Mercy after reading it. Could it be a matter of discernment instead of or as well as ignorance of theology?

      Delete
    7. Joann,
      For the overwhelming majority of V2 sect “priests” it is ignorance and failure to discern. The training is so poor, I had a conversation with one V2 sect priest “ordained” in 1982 who was trying to tell me about the TWELVE Ecumenical Councils! (If you include V2–which he does—there are 21! I don’t think he had dyscalculia either!!).

      Validly ordained V2 priests (now elderly; the youngest would be 77 this year) and SSPX priests should know better. The former gave up the Faith, and the latter pick and choose.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  11. JoAnn

    What's truly a pitiful sight is when you flip on EWTN (Eternal Wishful Thinking Network) around 3 PM and they pray and sing the chaplet of Divine Mercy. In fact, they sing it like one of those annoying Novus ordo hymns you here such as Sing a New Church video here (if you can handle it) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXlWsRk0QPg&t=24s

    The false devotion of the Divine Mercy is a replacement in the Novus ordo of the true devotion of the Sacred Heart of Jesus which is where we find mercy.

    Lee

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. New devotions for a new religion.

      Delete
    2. Lee and Tom,

      The NO can throw into their new religious devotions the Luminous Mysteries of JP II as well as the Chaplet of Divine Mercy. Everything new for a new religion of Protestantism called the Novus Ordo!!

      Delete
    3. @Tom and Joann,
      Exactly right!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  12. And right on cue, Michael Matt is posting about Akita. Pick and choose. They like the message of Akita so they accept what the NO authority tells them. But if they dont like what is told to them, they resist the same authority.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom,
      The R&R pick and choose even among apparitions!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  13. One of the things that has always bothered me about "apparitions" is that it proffers the well-intentioned a false hope; and one that, furthermore, is incompatible with the Sacred Text. It is Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition which constitute the Deposit of Faith; there is nothing else. Many people on the one hand admit that we live in the Great Apostasy as foretold by the Apostle St. Paul; and the other hand pine for a time when things will "turn around" and "get better". Such thinking belies a lack of familiarity with God's Sacred word.

    There is not one line of Sacred Scripture that anyone can point to which suggests that after the "conclusion" of the Great Apostasy there is a period of respite or rebirth of Holy Mother Church, and a corresponding conversion of the "entire world".

    Promoters of such --- well, frankly, unbiblical and ahistorical ways of thinking --- seem also to be quite adept at divorcing the "Wishfuls" from what little remains in their wallets. Wearing rose-colored glasses doesn't change the admonitions of St. Paul about the end of the world. But it sure serves as a great pretext for depleting your bank account.

    But, not to be completely critical, I give these Hustlers their due: They know how to capitalize on the phrase 'A fool and his money...'

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Zweber
      Well put! The Apparitionists are easy prey for those who perpetrate these private revelations in terms of taking advantage of both their money and their hopes. Unfortunately, they also run the risk of putting themselves outside the Church like The Mariavites.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  14. Introibo,

    To clarify my above comment, I was referring to Priests such as the SSPX, not V2. I know V2 Priests don't know much if any theology, except for theology of the self!! I just don't understand how some of the SSPX can accept the Divine Mercy. I know they pick and choose, but the Divine Mercy is so balantenly blasphemous it is hard to grasp why some SSPX accept it.

    JoAnn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its hard to grasp how SSPX priests accept modernists as Popes.

      Delete
    2. Joann,
      The answer is in their whacky concept of the papacy. If you can pick and choose what the so-called pope approves, some will pick DM. It mimics the Sacred Heart and thereby leads some astray who don’t look into what DM really is all about.

      ——Introibo

      Delete
    3. @Tom,
      Yes, it's all part of the pick and choose false doctrine they’re taught in seminary. Some wake up, some want to be in denial.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. Just read an article written by a R&R Priest insisting the "Pope" is Catholic!!!

      Delete
  15. What do you think of the Mystical City of God?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @John Gregory,
      I never read it but if it is approved by the Church it may be believed without injury to Faith and/or morals.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Key work “may.” None of it “must” be believed.

      Delete
    3. @John Gregory: When was the last time you read a single book from Sacred Scripture? Mary of Agreda can't save you.

      Delete
  16. Rowdy WindwalkerJuly 29, 2019 at 6:13 PM

    I sent Michael Matt several reasons why Akita is to be doubted, and he wouldn't print my comment. Then I asked him why, if he can resist Francis, why I couldn't resist the bishop who approved Akita?

    ReplyDelete
  17. I believe that, at most, approved private disclosures should be of minor importance, such as a footnote. In the message of Fatima, for example, its core is the warning of the devotion of the Rosary and the Saturdays, not an external apocalyptic scenario, when we already live the great apostasy warned by Our Lord in the Gospels (Luke XVIII, 8, II Thess. II, 3). And such an apocalyptic view is seen more in neoconservative circles, such as Mr. Grunner's, and among the false traditionalists. Having a strong devotion and prayer life has always been asked of the faithful, whether in times of persecution or in times of Christendom. No one has to live by putting a private message in place of Revelation, Tradition, and Magisterium to do this.

    ReplyDelete