It isn't anyone. It is just flame. I split second before and a split second after this photograph was taken it looked completely different.
You are correct. Some photographer snapped a photo, and it's just a photo. It is
not even a private revelation. It's like a reported image of the Virgin Mary in a
reflection of the sun in a dirty window, or a "tempest in a teapot."
In the collected works of Sor Juana De la Cruz there are meditations of the fifteen decades of the rosary and they do not correspond to the fifteen decades as we have them today.
Why don't you post a copy of her "meditations," or are you just repeating a
meaningless sentence you have read somewhere without knowing what you're
talking about? Do you have her "collected works?" Do you know someone else
who has the book? All the references I see attest that Sor Juana de la Cruz did
not write on the subject of the Rosary in general, but rather on many other topics.
Therefore, she was not a Rosary scholar, or one given to much commentary on
the practice of the Rosary prayers. She was a writer of plays, poetry and prose.
Her purpose was not to be an historian or to docuмent facts of history. She wrote
to entertain her readers. As such, proposing some manner of Rosary meditations
that were NOT in common practice would be more likely her intention.
Some see her as a feminist who was ahead of her time. Her life and literary works
are held up as an example of how women were unjustly suppressed in previous
centuries, and therefore if she had written about Rosary meditations that were of
her own imagination, that would be hailed by feminists as a
positive attribute,
since anything that talented women in those days did that was NOT traditional is
made to seem like it was a mark of "genius" or "creativity."
Even if adding the luminous mysteries to the Rosary was a bad idea, and I think it was, they involve events from Our Lord's life from the Gospels. I see no way that meditating on events from Christ's life could ever be evil.
Truth admixed with lies is a mark of Satan, not God.
Meditate on the events, but not as part of the Most Holy Rosary—not as part of Wojtyla's outrageous pride in claiming to "to bring out fully the Christological depth of the Rosary" (Apostolic Letter Rosarium Virginis Mariae §19). He claimed to perfect the imperfect Rosary that the Blessed Mother gave us. So typical of his forebears the rabbis, what a demon he was!
Of all the evil he wrought, that single proud claim outraged me more than any other act of his.
The list of the novelties of JPII is extremely long.
One cannot argue that the man was not intelligent.
But sometimes intelligence can be a great temptation to vice.
For example, how did Our Lord give us the Lord's Prayer, the
Pater Noster?
Pater Noster, qui es in coeli, sanctificetur nomen tuum...
Panem nostrum quotidianum, da nobis hodie, ...
...sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris.
Et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo.Then along comes JPII, saying that we should not pray "And lead us not
into temptation," because "God does not lead us into temptation."
Now, someone in the future 100 years from now, researching our age, might
come across that quip, and say that since the Pope is the supreme authority in
the Church, there is no way that the Our Father could have had "And lead us not
into temptation" in it, because here is the Pope saying that should not be how we
pray; and therefore, even though a lot of extant prayer books have those words
in them, certainly Catholics would not have been DOING something that the Pope
had so clearly denounced in his "infallible" teaching.
So then, if anyone has followed his advice and has changed the Our Father to
have omitted "And lead us not into temptation," they are no longer praying the
Our Father as given to us by Our Lord. If they would like the indulgence given
by the prayer, they won't get it, because they have not said the prayer. If they
are praying this way in the Rosary, they won't get the Rosary indulgence
either, because they are not praying the Our Father in the Rosary, and therefore
it's not the Rosary anymore. JPII did not provide any new indulgences for his
warped version of the Rosary, or for his remodeled
Pater Noster. In fact,
he didn't provide any indulgences for anything. Maybe he thought that indulgences
were no longer of any importance.
Now,
that could hardly be the case for anyone in Purgatory. There can be no
reasonable doubt that EVERYONE in Purgatory is a great advocate of the
importance of indulgences! Just like everyone who is in the process of suffering
shipwreck is a great advocate of the importance of lifesaving efforts, or everyone
inside a crashing airplane is a great advocate of Star Wars technology of getting
"beamed up." But
it is quite likely the case for everyone in hell. Why would
someone in hell think that indulgences are of any importance?