[/b]
12/27/2012   KAZAKHSTAN
Christmas in Astana, at Mass with Orthodox and Muslims

 Swiss-born, Fr. Roland has been in Astana for three years. "In addition to the cathedral - says the priest - there's another Catholic Church, Mary the Mother of all nations". It is located in a poor neighborhood and was the first church in the city, which was granted in 1979 by the Soviet regime to the local community, when the Astana with skyscrapers and shopping malls of today were not even in the plans of Nazarbayev.


Is Father Roland's comment about the Mother of all nations Church, the "tip-off" on the origins of the the One World Religion plot?.

In hindsight, we can see that this "One World Religion" construct was planned-out by тαℓмυdic (zionist) rabbis after WWII.   It was all part of their bigger plan to infiltrate the Church and take it over by their masonic proxies.



Ida Peerdeman, the Amsterdam prophetess, who appears to be a Jєωess "convert" had some apparitions from 1945 to 1959 and beyond.

She had concocted the "One World" rabbinic theme, that Mother Mary would no longer be called "Mary", but the "Lady" of all Nations.



But it wasn't approved:
 Lady of all nations approved link ?

From 1945-1959, Mrs. Ida Peerdeman of the Diocese of van Haarlem (Amsterdam) claimed to receive private revelations.  The claims became known popularly as “Our Lady of All Nations” or simply “Amsterdam.”

The case was examined by the local Ordinary of van Haarlem, Bishop Johannes Huibers, who decided the claims were not supernatural in origin.  His decision was affirmed in May, 1974 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in a Notification.[ii]  The Notification ordered the immediate ceasing of all publications on the claims.  Efforts to rehabilitate the claims began sometime after the Notification was issued.

On May 31, 1996, the above efforts led the new Bishop of van Haarlem, Henricus Bomers, to approve the devotion to Our Lady under the title of “Our Lady of All Nations.”  He fell shy, however, of approving the alleged messages attributed to the “apparitions” to Ida Peerdeman.  The docuмent approving the devotion but not the alleged messages was undersigned by Bishop Jozef Marianus Punt—then auxiliary of van Haarlem.

On July 21, 2001, Bishop Punt succeeded Bomers after the latter’s death in 1998.[iii]  Less than a year later on May 31, 2002, Bishop Punt declared the “apparitions” to Ida Peerdeman to be supernatural in origin.  A subsequent development, however, questions Bishop Punt’s authority in this matter.

In September, 2008, Msgr. Charles Scicluna, Promoter of Justice for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was present at the 22nd Mariological Congress in Lourdes, France.  He delivered an essay on the Church’s 1978 Norms of discerning presumed apparitions and revelations (“Normae S. Congregationis” or simply “NC”).  In 2010, the essay was published in the scholarly journal of the Pontificia Academia Mariana Internationalis for the general public.[iv]

In his essay, Scicluna states once a decision of the CDF is rendered on an alleged private revelation, the decision is of “undisputed hierarchical authority,” meaning a lower authority cannot overturn it.  Interestingly, within this section Scicluna provides a footnote citing the “Our Lady of All Nations” case.  He says:

Another case, that still continues to be problematic, would be Amsterdam for the alleged apparitions and revelations of the “Lady of All Nations.”  The Servant of God, Paul VI, on 5 April, 1974 approved the decision of the Congregation to publish the negative judgment “Constat de non supernaturalitate” taken 27 March, 1974.  The Notification of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith bears the date of 25 May, 1974 and has been newly proposed in “Docuмents of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” published in 2006 (Docuмents 22, p. 90).

Scicluna’s point raises some questions: First, if the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a negative judgment on the Amsterdam claims, did the local Ordinary, Marianus Punt, have the requisite authority to declare the claims to be supernatural in origin in May, 2002?  Given the hierarchical nature of the Congregation’s Notification, one would have expected Punt to say something of this matter in his May 31, 2002 letter but strangely he did not and there is nothing elsewhere in any of the literature about it.

Was the case of Our Lady of All Nations approved?  It appears as though there are some explanations in order.

 <http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/amsterdam/index.html>

[ii] <http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19740525_signora-amsterdam_en.html>

[iii] <http://www.bisdomhaarlem-amsterdam.nl/?p=info&ids=bisdom>

[iv] Msgr. Charles J. Scicluna, Orientamenti dottrinali e competenze del vescovo diocesano e della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede nel discernimento delle apparizioni mariane in “Pontificia Academia Mariana Internationalis”, Apparitiones Beatae Mariae Virginis in Historia, Fide, Teologia.  Acta Congressus marioligici-mariani internationalis in Civitate Lourdes Anno 2008 celebrati. Studia in sessionibus plenaria exhibita, vol 1, PAMI, Città del Vaticano 2010, 329-356.  A full translation in Spanish can be found on the Archdiocese of Salta’s web site.  Citation for the Italian (with a partial citation of the Italian text) can be found here.


Kevin Symonds writes from South Carolina.  He received his B.A. and M.A. in Theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville and is the author of the book, Private Revelation: What Does the Catholic Church Teach?



   

The One Peter Five blog also pushes for the SSPX to reconcile, and usually posts Bishop Schneider's latest bid to try to get the SSPX to reconcile. What's distressing is that Bishop Schneider has stated that he believes that Archbishop Lefebvre would have reconciled at this time. Which is ridiculous. Either Bp. Schneider doesn't know anything about what the Archbishop believed, or he does indeed know, and he's being untruthful. It's reckless to say that Archbishop Lefebvre would reconcile at this time. I think that One Peter Five is being used to push for the SSPX to reconcile - to get a certain segment of trads (who read that blog) to get on board with the idea.

Quote from: Meg

Quote from: Incredulous

Quote from: Meg

The One Peter Five blog also pushes for the SSPX to reconcile, and usually posts Bishop Schneider's latest bid to try to get the SSPX to reconcile. What's distressing is that Bishop Schneider has stated that he believes that Archbishop Lefebvre would have reconciled at this time. Which is ridiculous. Either Bp. Schneider doesn't know anything about what the Archbishop believed, or he does indeed know, and he's being untruthful. It's reckless to say that Archbishop Lefebvre would reconcile at this time. I think that One Peter Five is being used to push for the SSPX to reconcile - to get a certain segment of trads (who read that blog) to get on board with the idea.

Good observation about the Trad website, "One Peter Five" Meg.

I was unaware of their editorial agenda?

It's just my opinion that at least part of the agenda of that blog is to try to get trads to get on board with an SSPX reconciliation.

Here's a piece from the excellent Non Possumus blog, which comments on One Peter Five's recent interview with Bishop Schneider. As usual, the little American flag icon on the top of the page will have to be clicked in order to translate the page into English:

http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2017/01/mons-schneider-nuevamente-instiga-la.html

Here's the One Peter Five interview with Bishop Schneider, which the Non Possumus blog is commenting on:

http://www.onepeterfive.com/bishop-schneider-offers-hope-amidst-crisis-permitted-by-divine-providence/

Thanks for the links Meg and the tip on the American flag "thingy".  
(It would have taken me five minutes to figure it out otherwise)

Since Steve Skojec, a Steubenville, Franciscan University alumni, is the founder of
One Peter Five, I understand the agenda now.  

Whether he knows it or not, he's functioning as a "Watch-dog of the Revolution".  
i.e., Herd them sheep... keep em all in line.

I'm thankful we still have the gift of truthful information, like "Non Possumus" to help guide us.  

They explained St. Athanasius's position correctly, as quoted:

(Schneider) claims the opposite: that the SSPX joins the unrepentant moderators and moderates who are unrepentant, unrepentant, to fight the liberals and extreme modernists. But in addition to inciting this true betrayal, he pretends that the "alliance of traditionalists and conservatives" is subject to the most damaging of all modernists and liberals today: Pope Francis, which is as absurd as if St. Athanasius had intended to put himself under Orders from Arius himself in order to combat Arianism.)