Author Topic: ELEISON 379 - OCTOBER 18, 2014 (Read 51127 times)

ultrarigorist · « **Reply #190 on:** October 24, 2014, 02:16:04 PM »

Quote from: Militia Jesu

We DO NOT need to bring up Hoffman into this, or even Bishop Fellay and his betrayals for that matter, common sense and the "seer" herself should suffice.

I'm afraid it is one of Dawn Marie's charismatic-like supporters who keep mingling controvertial figures and/or stories to deviate from the simple, cold and hard truth.
Let us not fall for that...

Yes people,pay heed to this wise advice. And as an example, here we have a supporter of the "seer" attempting to conflate well- justified suspicion regarding said "seer" with total distrust of H.E.+Williamson. "good AND credible"

Quote from: 1st Mansion Tenant

No. I was thinking more along the lines of his treachery involving trying to sell out the SSPX and the 2012 Declaration. I thought this was a resistance-supporting site? Do you support the resistance? (Meaning one concerning the SSPX, not the general one against Rome) Do you think Bishop Williamson is a good and credible bishop?

JPM · « **Reply #191 on:** October 24, 2014, 02:46:45 PM »

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

Quote from: JPM
Quote from: Elizabeth
Quote from: curioustrad
Quote from: holmoak
Your previous post makes sense, Matthew. These supposed "visions" are a made up sham, not true, never happened. The forthcoming ECs are going to provide even more fodder for folks to easily dissect and come to rational conclusion that this whole thing is a very sad and pathetic made up story.

I am afraid that is true and then what will we make of all the flip-flopping back and forth by many of the major "players" ?

Leaving aside the flip-flopping (which will no doubt be denied unless someone can pull up archived Ignis Ardens threads)--how can someone who creates multiple personas for online forums possibly be talking to the Queen of Angels?

I have no idea who the alleged seer really is, and I like it that way (because I don't want personal feelings to sway me one way or the other).

As I mentioned in my first post, the visions (as presented) are objectively not factual. The dates and historical record (i.e. the reign of BXVI) simply don't match with what the vision claims AND the ensuing inquiry of the seer actually confirms this.

I try to keep an open mind; my disbelief has nothing to do with the seer. The facts, the claims, and the calendar just...don't...match.

My limited intellect simply won't allow me to clear that hurdle. And, once you've published the specifics of the visions, you can't credibly go back and edit an apparition. Maybe Bishop Williamson didn't read (or even have knowledge of) Drew's article.

For me, case closed.

I have an email from Feb. 6th, 2014 in which H.E. is looking for the article which he recommended to friends in Switzerland and they could not find it. He end the email saying: "Please give him [D.D] my good wishes. He rendered us all a service with his article on Mrs. xxx".

Thank you for the reply. Unfortunately, for me, it creates more questions than answers. H.E. did not have Drew's article (even though it is easily found) as late as Feb. 6, 2014? Even though he was, based upon posts here, being drug in and out of the entire conversation concerning whether or not he endorsed the visions.

He has been in the middle of this for years according to posts, yet he didn't have the article in his possession (at the ready) 8 months ago?

Or, maybe, as a good bishop, he simply didn't know about, and wasn't concerned with, the internet tsunami; which seems rather likely considering he asked you for Drew's article earlier this year.

At least that is what I am hoping for because the specifics of the vision don't add up.

This revelation, coupled with the impossible timing for the visions I already noted, makes me wonder if Bishop Williamson ever actually read Drew's article and, instead, was supplied a different version of the events that made chronological and historical sense.

You simply cannot read Drew's article and come to the conclusion that the visions are accurate. One doesn't even have to know the persona (internet or otherwise) of the seer or any other character in the act.

Again, like I said, 'but maybe I am missing something.'

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #192 on:** October 24, 2014, 03:10:46 PM »

Quote from: JPM

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora
Quote from: JPM
Quote from: Elizabeth
Quote from: curioustrad
Quote from: holmoak
Your previous post makes sense, Matthew. These supposed "visions" are a made up sham, not true, never happened. The forthcoming ECs are going to provide even more fodder for folks to easily dissect and come to rational conclusion that this whole thing is a very sad and pathetic made up story.

I am afraid that is true and then what will we make of all the flip-flopping back and forth by many of the major "players" ?

Leaving aside the flip-flopping (which will no doubt be denied unless someone can pull up archived Ignis Ardens threads)--how can someone who creates multiple personas for online forums possibly be talking to the Queen of Angels?

I have no idea who the alleged seer really is, and I like it that way (because I don't want personal feelings to sway me one way or the other).

As I mentioned in my first post, the visions (as presented) are objectively not factual. The dates and historical record (i.e. the reign of BXVI) simply don't match with what the vision claims AND the ensuing inquiry of the seer actually confirms this.

I try to keep an open mind; my disbelief has nothing to do with the seer. The facts, the claims, and the calendar just...don't...match.

My limited intellect simply won't allow me to clear that hurdle. And, once you've published the specifics of the visions, you can't credibly go back and edit an apparition. Maybe Bishop Williamson didn't read (or even have knowledge of) Drew's article.

For me, case closed.

I have an email from Feb. 6th, 2014 in which H.E. is looking for the article which he recommended to friends in Switzerland and they could not find it. He end the email saying: "Please give him [D.D] my good wishes. He rendered us all a service with his article on Mrs. xxx".

Thank you for the reply. Unfortunately, for me, it creates more questions than answers. H.E. did not have Drew's article (even though it is easily found) as late as Feb. 6, 2014? Even though he was, based upon posts here, being drug in and out of the entire conversation concerning whether or not he endorsed the visions.

He has been in the middle of this for years according to posts, yet he didn't have the article in his possession (at the ready) 8 months ago?

Or, maybe, as a good bishop, he simply didn't know about, and wasn't concerned with, the internet tsunami; which seems rather likely considering he asked you for Drew's article earlier this year.

At least that is what I am hoping for because the specifics of the vision don't add up.

This revelation, coupled with the impossible timing for the visions I already noted, makes me wonder if Bishop Williamson ever actually read Drew's article and, instead, was supplied a different version of the events that made chronological and historical sense.

You simply cannot read Drew's article and come to the conclusion that the visions are accurate. One doesn't even have to know the persona (internet or otherwise) of the seer or any other character in the act.

Again, like I said, 'but maybe I am missing something.'

I quoted from the email. If that is not good enough for you, there is nothing I can do to make you believe me. I can not post the email without +Williamson's permission since it has his personal address. You said: "but maybe I am missing something", yes you are. It is called candor.

Edited: I forgot to mention the link below. You can see the links above the article do not longer work.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Revelations-about-Rosary-Crusades

1st Mansion Tenant · « **Reply #193 on:** October 24, 2014, 03:26:04 PM »

Quote from: ultrarigorist

Quote from: Militia Jesu
We DO NOT need to bring up Hoffman into this, or even Bishop Fellay and his betrayals for that matter, common sense and the "seer" herself should suffice.

I'm afraid it is one of Dawn Marie's charismatic-like supporters who keep mingling controvertial figures and/or stories to deviate from the simple, cold and hard truth.
Let us not fall for that...

Yes people,pay heed to this wise advice. And as an example, here we have a supporter of the "seer" attempting to conflate well- justified suspicion regarding said "seer" with total distrust of H.E.+Williamson. "good AND credible"

Quote from: 1st Mansion Tenant

No. I was thinking more along the lines of his treachery involving trying to sell out the SSPX and the 2012 Declaration. I thought this was a resistance-supporting site? Do you support the resistance? (Meaning one concerning the SSPX, not the general one against Rome) Do you think Bishop Williamson is a good and credible bishop?

What makes you think I am a "Supporter of the Seer"? (I assume you are talking about me) I don't know if she is a purposeful fraud, a deranged person, or an authentic receiver of messages from Heaven. I spoke up because I hate to see any person maligned without absolute proof. And you have none. That's the point- I don't know if the vision was real, and neither do any of you. Not for sure, despite your arguments otherwise. Unless you are God, you don't know for sure.

I have never met this lady. I have belonged to her site. From my personal experience there I can say: (to the best of my knowledge)

I have never seen references to her visions there.

She hasn't solicited donations except for Mass stipends on behalf of the group.

She was a strong supporter of +F until her conscience evidently caused her to change her mind.

There is a certain gaggle of people who appear to track her from place to place, stirring up contention at every opportunity. I believe some of these bear grudges unrelated to the subject at hand. Coincidentally, some of them are disrespectful of +W as well. It seems to me that there is sometimes a secondary agenda where she is concerned.

I have never seen her post the contents or details of this message. All the details about it that I know of come second or third hand. So I don't think any inconsistencies can be directly attributed to her at this time. I await the rest of +W's EC's which I believe will give a credible account.

I have read posts where she sniped back at her tormentors. While not virtuous, it was very human and understandable. I am not sure if it can be said that once one has a genuine message from Our Lady they never sin again. If that were true those who were later declared saints wouldn't have needed confessors. (And no, I am not equating "the seer" with the saints, so don't even go there.)

I have never followed any visionaries not approved by the Church. I understand that one must be extremely cautious regarding visions and prophecies. But one must also be cautious of the other extreme. Detraction and calumny are always sins, even when they are about someone you don't like.

ultrarigorist · « **Reply #194 on:** October 24, 2014, 04:40:49 PM »

Where do I start..
1. You didn't see me malign her, I recalled certain uncharitable behavior on her part, but spared the gory details. You sort of allude to such behavior yourself.
2. Absolute proof. YOU HAVE NOT 1 IOTA OF KNOWLEDGE RELATIVE TO MINE! You falsely assumed I have no proof.
(There is actually proof a-plenty in this thread alone, if you wanted to truly discern)
3. Nobody EVER "tormented" her. Such claims were gratuitous on her part (or yours, as the case might be). People did frequently call out her inconsistencies and shameful deportment. Apparently that equates to "torment".
4. The people "who track her from place to place" are, put simply and succinctly, her chicks come home to roost. There are a lot of long memories out there.
5. I know for a FACT that whatever she thinks/claims to be messages from Our Lady are not. To falsely claim they are is an extremely grave matter, and no good will EVER come from their promulgation. This is why myself and others are concerned. There is absolutely nothing personal about this whatsoever. (I don't presume to speak for everyone though)
6. Anyone who does not believe these "messages" and who also is disrespectful of +W (assuming such exist) would not be calling out DMA now, they would simply sit back and laugh.