Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: untitled on October 19, 2014, 12:50:03 PM
-
CURRENT ISSUE INSIDE STORY – I October 18, 2014
Number CCCLXXIX (379)
If Mary tells us how to save the Church,
All other means will leave us in the lurch.
After 1917 it was made clear to the world by Our Lady of Fatima that the salvation of Church and world (“a period of peace”) depended upon two things: not only upon the Consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart by the Pope with all the bishops of the world, but also upon Catholics making reparation to her Heart by receiving Confession and Communion and by meditating for 15 minutes and praying a rosary on each first Saturday of the month. Therefore let no Catholic think that there is nothing they can do to help Church and world out of their present appalling crisis. Every single Catholic responding to her second request will help the Pope to respond to her first request.
But this response has not yet been sufficient. For instance in the 1930’s, Pope Pius XI was well aware of Our Lady’s first request, but he never performed the Consecration of Russia. Why not? According to Brother Michael of the Holy Trinity in the second of his excellent three volumes on The Whole Truth About Fatima, it was because Pius XI was engaged at that time in diplomatic contacts with the Russian authorities in Moscow, and he thought that his own diplomacy was a better way of dealing with Communists than Our Lady’s Consecration. He preferred the human to the divine way of dealing with the problem, and so of course the problem remained unsolved. The world plunged into World War II, and the Church was broken from within by Vatican II.
Now in the 2010’s a parallel story has been coming to light of Our Lady appealing through a messenger to Bishop Fellay for the Society of St Pius X to organize a Rosary Crusade to pray for the Consecration of Russia to take place. If this story is true (as I believe it is, and some other priests also believe), it is worth telling in a few issues of these Comments, not to discredit Bishop Fellay (whose preference for human means is as understandable as that of Pius XI – God is their judge), but in order to emphasize how urgent the Consecration of Russia remains, and especially the devout practice of the five first Saturdays, even nigh on 100 years later. But is the story true? In particular, how reliable is the messenger?
I myself have met with her several times, and I believe her story has every likelihood of being true, firstly because she is a serious adult person who gives every sign of telling the truth, but mainly because what she tells is an inside story that corresponds to, and explains, a large number of public facts and well-known events on the outside, so to speak. As to the messenger, readers are entitled to distrust my personal judgment, but as to the perfect correspondence between inside story and outside facts, readers can judge for themselves.
The story begins on Good Shepherd Sunday of 2004, when the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to the messenger and gave her a message to be passed on to the Bishop of the Society of St Pius X. In it she asked for the SSPX to lead the faithful in a Rosary Crusade for the Consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart, that same Consecration that Heaven has been asking for since the 1920’s. The understanding in the 2000’s was that if this were done as she asked, it would at last obtain, through her, the graces to bring about the much needed Consecration.
In June of 2006 the messenger gave the message in person to Bishop Fellay. He discussed it with her, but did not yet know that it was in fact a directive from the Mother of God. And so on his way back to Switzerland he took a first important decision. As Americans say, “Stay tuned”!
Kyrie eleison.
-
Hmmmm.
OK, so on the face of it, Our Lady presented this "message" intending it be heeded, and obviously the more Rosaries the better. Why ever then would she settle for Bp. Fellay to promulgate it, and his few million Rosaries at best??? It's now proven beyond all shadow of doubt he'd already begun the process of subverting SSPX by 2004, a fact Our Lady was not oblivious to then (obviously) and had she chosen say, e.g., Cdl. Burke (who I understand is well disposed to praying the Rosary), there would have been far better odds of success. We can take as a given there are at least a few 10 millions of eager, true Catholics who have no access or knowledge of Tradition/SSPX, and their Rosaries have the same value.. Perhaps even more, since this is the means she provided for those who would be separated from the Sacraments.
I might become less the sceptic over the next few EC's, IF, and ONLY if, those EC's reveal EACH and EVERY knowable detail regarding message and messenger. Just like Fatima; no "secret seer" games.
-
"Appararition-ism" has always been a good way to explain what the apparent events cannot.
Along with Garabandal why is Bishop Williamson always falling for false apparitions ? Why is not Public Revelation sufficient for him ?
I fear the good he does in many other things is about to be severely undermined with this nonsense.
Anybody who subscribed to Ignis Ardens or Archbishop Lefebvre forum will be well-versed in "Dawn-Marie-isms" by now.
-
I REMEMBER THAT THIS WAS DISCUSSED ON A PREVIOUS THREAD ON THIS FORUM. BUT NOT FROM BISHOP WILLIAMSON.
Bp. Williamson seems to be prone to believe in private revelations. Just remember Father Constant Louis Marie Pel (EC 376), Akita and Maria Valtorta…
-
By that logic, why does Our Lady need Rosaries at all? By + Burke? +Fellay? +Ratzinger?
The reason, perhaps, that she chose a bishop from the SSPX was to use tradition as the means to her end. Or maybe, just maybe, she got tired of waiting 80+ years for a Novus Ordo prelate that she thought a traditional bishop might actually get the job done? Who are we to question the mother of God?
-
By that logic, why does Our Lady need Rosaries at all? By + Burke? +Fellay? +Ratzinger?
The reason, perhaps, that she chose a bishop from the SSPX was to use tradition as the means to her end. Or maybe, just maybe, she got tired of waiting 80+ years for a Novus Ordo prelate that she thought a traditional bishop might actually get the job done? Who are we to question the mother of God?
To question the Mother of God?…
Did She really give such messages? How could we know so? What else has She reveled?
-
Good questions!
I always thought that the timing of+Fellay's Rosary Crusade for the consecration was oddly timed....seemed to come out of no where.
-
I REMEMBER THAT THIS WAS DISCUSSED ON A PREVIOUS THREAD ON THIS FORUM. BUT NOT FROM BISHOP WILLIAMSON.
Bp. Williamson seems to be prone to believe in private revelations. Just remember Father Constant Louis Marie Pel (EC 376), Akita and Maria Valtorta…
Williamson, we believe, has blown his cover many months ago. At least in our perception: others could see it years ago.
Please Explain!
-
Countless numbers of Catholics used private revelations as beacons of hope only to have that hope crushed when things never materialized. Heck, hard to wave the Fatima flag when after almost a hundred years folks are still making excuses why things have occurred as they have (and are). Hard to explain why 8 popes and thousands of bishops and cardinals have ignored Our Lady's request. Seems like +Williamson is not the only one who has made a few errors regarding private revelations. That doesn't mean he is not a good bishop.
Which reminds me, there are plenty of internet accounts of St. Padre Pio telling pilgrims to go to Garabandal. Perhaps St. Padre Pio isn't all we thought he was cracked up to be (sarcasm).
-
Bravo, Cantatedomino!!! The CI software prevented me from giving you "thumbs up".
-
Bravo, Cantatedomino!!! The CI software prevented me from giving you "thumbs up".
*Hate-filled slander of a Catholic bishop censored*
Cantatedomino, you need to look inwards at your spiritual life and the state of your soul. What motivates you to such black hatred of Bishop Williamson?
Say what you will of +Williamson and/or his faults, but he is certainly not as black as you paint him. What did he do to you? If he didn't kill your mother in cold blood, consider me baffled by your hatred!
You clearly hate him, as you should hate NO man, much less a man with the priestly character (and the fullness of the priesthood, no less) who has suffered and worked so hard for the Church as long as +W has.
-
They deleted my post!!!!!
Ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
They deleted my post!!!!!
Ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You're right.
1. There's no "they" -- just me. It's a monarchy, not an oligarchy or a committee.
2. As a corollary, if you ever see red ink in a post, you can automatically assume it's me.
I won't have hatred spewed at any consecrated man of God on my forum. This is a Traditional Catholic forum. Hating bishops isn't Catholic. To allow it, I'd be approving of it, and I'd have to answer at MY judgment and it might cost me my salvation as well.
I don't care what the Novus Ordo has done to Charity's good name, but the fact remains that we are under an obligation to be charitable to our fellow men, but especially those who bear the sacred character of the Priesthood.
-
Sorry to see you go, but you need to go calm down somewhere for a while.
Might I suggest an Ignatian retreat to get your spiritual house in order?
P.S. No, you're wrong about "I've seen worse stuff against +Fellay". No one can show me a single *existing* post that is slanderous, uncharitable, etc. towards a Bishop.
Keeping in mind, of course, that criticizing a bishop's actions does NOT count as uncharitable!
But that is not what you were doing. You crossed the line. You called +W a bunch of slanderous, foul names.
May ALL good Catholics forever steer clear of imitating you in your hatred for a consecrated man of God.
Because in your hatred of +Williamson you share company with none other than the devils in hell.
-
Countless numbers of Catholics used private revelations as beacons of hope only to have that hope crushed when things never materialized. Heck, hard to wave the Fatima flag when after almost a hundred years folks are still making excuses why things have occurred as they have (and are). Hard to explain why 8 popes and thousands of bishops and cardinals have ignored Our Lady's request. Seems like +Williamson is not the only one who has made a few errors regarding private revelations. That doesn't mean he is not a good bishop.
Which reminds me, there are plenty of internet accounts of St. Padre Pio telling pilgrims to go to Garabandal. Perhaps St. Padre Pio isn't all we thought he was cracked up to be (sarcasm).
All of that was hearsay. All of it.
-
Was there some rule made after the apparitions at Fatima that there could never be any more authentic apparitions again? I understand the need to be cautious, and I have not followed any of the supposed seers such as Garabandal or Medjugorge, but is it not possible that there could be a true apparition in or times? And how can we be so quick to judge it's authenticity without obvious proof one way or the other?
-
Was there some rule made after the apparitions at Fatima that there could never be any more authentic apparitions again? I understand the need to be cautious, and I have not followed any of the supposed seers such as Garabandal or Medjugorge, but is it not possible that there could be a true apparition in or times? And how can we be so quick to judge it's authenticity without obvious proof one way or the other?
I would not trust a "seer" who attended the Novus Ordo Missae, even after having received revelations...
-
Was there some rule made after the apparitions at Fatima that there could never be any more authentic apparitions again? I understand the need to be cautious, and I have not followed any of the supposed seers such as Garabandal or Medjugorge, but is it not possible that there could be a true apparition in or times? And how can we be so quick to judge it's authenticity without obvious proof one way or the other?
We can be quick to judgment when the "seer" had a history of obliquely trumpeting her "locutions" on the net; and then going quiet after learned she would be published.
-
By that logic, why does Our Lady need Rosaries at all? By + Burke? +Fellay? +Ratzinger?
The reason, perhaps, that she chose a bishop from the SSPX was to use tradition as the means to her end. Or maybe, just maybe, she got tired of waiting 80+ years for a Novus Ordo prelate that she thought a traditional bishop might actually get the job done? Who are we to question the mother of God?
To question the Mother of God?…
Did She really give such messages? How could we know so? What else has She reveled?
As H.E. said: “Stay tuned”!
What for? To read this (http://sspxkorea.org/board/board_view.html?board_data_id=408677&config_id=5147)?
I don't think His Excellency is going to quote Fr. Grossin's opinion nor in which conditions Fathers Ortiz and Jely found the "seer".
-
By that logic, why does Our Lady need Rosaries at all? By + Burke? +Fellay? +Ratzinger?
The reason, perhaps, that she chose a bishop from the SSPX was to use tradition as the means to her end. Or maybe, just maybe, she got tired of waiting 80+ years for a Novus Ordo prelate that she thought a traditional bishop might actually get the job done? Who are we to question the mother of God?
To question the Mother of God?…
Did She really give such messages? How could we know so? What else has She reveled?
As H.E. said: “Stay tuned”!
What for? To read this (http://sspxkorea.org/board/board_view.html?board_data_id=408677&config_id=5147)?
I don't think His Excellency is going to quote Fr. Grossin's opinion nor in which conditions Fathers Ortiz and Jely found the "seer".
Mr. Adolphus: If you think Bp. Williamson is talking about Mme. Rossiniere, you are very wrong. Get informed before inoculate your poison.
-
If Our Lady did appear to Bp. Fellay, and instruct him to conduct a Rosary Crusade, then I, for one, am going to have to rethink the whole matter. We have a pretty deep attachment to Bp. Williamson, accompanied by a very deep suspicion of Bp. Fellay and most of what he says or does. If the SG inaugurated these Rosary Crusades under direct,(or indirect), instruction from Our Lady, then why wasn't that fact announced from the very beginning? Why didn't the bishop indicate then that he was acting under obedience to what was, or what he thought sincerely to be at the time, the Holy Virgin's request? To tell you the truth, I have always thought that the Rosary Crusades were rather cynical ploys, designed to bind the sspx faithful more tightly to their leaders. If I'm wrong, then I suppose I must repent in leisure.
-
Adolfito, How about doing your homework? That’s a different seer. And, you
say “I would not trust a "seer" who attended the Novus Ordo Missae”. Can a mexican (you) who has never attended Resistance Masses offered by Resistant Fathers in Mexico be trusted? Or, is that ok for ashke…nαzιs ? Just saying...
-
But.... Our Lord would not be too pleased for one of His bishops to espouse falsehoods...
That's neither here nor there. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
We're not talking about criticizing a bishop's actions or beliefs. I explicitly stated that criticizing a Bishop's actions was A) compatible with Catholicism and B) allowed on CathInfo.
What I will not allow on CathInfo is an outburst of name-calling and hate towards ANY Bishop. And yes that includes Bishop Fellay.
Go ahead and look -- you won't find such a post on CathInfo.
"But I was told CathInfo is the cesspool of humanity. That no one on the forum can even remember what being in the State of Grace felt like. That..."
Well maybe you were misinformed!
-
But.... Our Lord would not be too pleased for one of His bishops to espouse falsehoods...
Then I would suggest respectfully addressing the falsehoods and exposing them here.
No one is afraid of the truth; least of all me.
Good men can be deceived or wrong. It happens all the time. I don't believe Bishop Williamson is infallible. Hearing that he might be espousing some kind of false apparition doesn't shake my "faith" in him. I don't believe him to be super-human or perfect.
I just believe him to be a good Bishop who has labored many years amidst poverty and persecution to teach as many men the Truth as possible, and help us all get to heaven. I don't have to take others' word for it; I knew him personally for 3 years. So for me it's "not open for debate".
I can't expect others to have that kind of "inside scoop", but I can expect everyone to act within the bounds of Catholic morality and Catholic charity when dealing with a consecrated Bishop.
-
By that logic, why does Our Lady need Rosaries at all? By + Burke? +Fellay? +Ratzinger?
The reason, perhaps, that she chose a bishop from the SSPX was to use tradition as the means to her end. Or maybe, just maybe, she got tired of waiting 80+ years for a Novus Ordo prelate that she thought a traditional bishop might actually get the job done? Who are we to question the mother of God?
To question the Mother of God?…
Did She really give such messages? How could we know so? What else has She reveled?
As H.E. said: “Stay tuned”!
What for? To read this (http://sspxkorea.org/board/board_view.html?board_data_id=408677&config_id=5147)?
I don't think His Excellency is going to quote Fr. Grossin's opinion nor in which conditions Fathers Ortiz and Jely found the "seer".
Mr. Adolphus: If you think Bp. Williamson is talking about Mme. Rossiniere, you are very wrong. Get informed before inoculate your poison.
Thank you very much for the clarification. I am glad to know His Excellency is referring to a different seer.
I apologize for the confusion I might have caused.
-
Adolfito, How about doing your homework? That’s a different seer. And, you say “I would not trust a "seer" who attended the Novus Ordo Missae”. Can a mexican (you) who has never attended Resistance Masses offered by Resistant Fathers in Mexico be trusted? Or, is that ok for ashke…nαzιs ? Just saying...
Elsa,
First of all, I would like you to behave as a mature person and stop referring to me using diminutive names.
Secondly, whether or not I have pending homework is a personal business, and as such, there is no reason to be ventilated in a public forum.
Now, regarding your last question, I must say that I only attend Catholic masses. There is no such thing as resistance masses.
Now, if what you mean by resistance masses is Catholic masses celebrated by priests who do not agree with Bp. Fellay's directives, then I could say that I do attend to such masses when I can. Not in Mexico, since I am not in Mexico, though.
-
"Appararition-ism" has always been a good way to explain what the apparent events cannot.
Along with Garabandal why is Bishop Williamson always falling for false apparitions ?
It allows him an alternate answer to the types of question that otherwise would likely lead to drawing sedevacantist conclusions.
-
"Appararition-ism" has always been a good way to explain what the apparent events cannot.
Along with Garabandal why is Bishop Williamson always falling for false apparitions ?
It allows him an alternate answer to the types of question that otherwise would likely lead to drawing sedevacantist conclusions.
Yes that is almost certainly the reason since as he said:
If Mary tells us how to save the Church,
All other means will leave us in the lurch.
It occurred to me last night that I had asked the Bishop some time ago about these "apparitions" and "revelations" and he told me then that he had been in favor and then against these apparitions together with his specific reasons why and why not.
The Bishop communicated them to me via e-mail so I have my question and his answer on file. I will be very interested to hear why he has changed his mind yet again.
Of course I am not going to pre-empt his next few EC installments but if necessary I will publish the communications to show the evolution in his own thought process for the record. Surprisingly the reasons he is now giving in favor, he gave against to me 2 years ago.
-
Surprisingly the reasons he is now giving in favor, he gave against to me 2 years ago.
It's very unsettling that H.E. threw caution to the wind regarding these "apparitions", especially this one. The next few EC emails are sure to be anti-climatic, just a rerun of Dawn Marie's wavering ideas about "what would Our Blessed Mother Do". We all know the sick routine by now.
I'd like to read your correspondence after the EC comments have been published.
-
This woman said she had an apparition experience. Whether anyone believes it or not is up to them...If someone I respect ( Williamson ) tells he believes her then that definitely moves me to examine it/her. But how is he spreading falsehoods? She certainly seems to believe herself. So you're free to believe her or not. We all KNOW that praying the Rosary for the Consecration is something Our Blessed Mother wants. So it's not a stretch to believe.....again, how does that opinion constitute "spreading falsehoods"? If you can't contain your contempt for a holy bishop then shut up. Don't you have some buttons that need to be re-sewn onto your kids' jacket or something? I mean can't some of you people find something remotely edifying to do/say/contribute?
-
Well the cat's outta the bag now! This story has been kept secret for a while. I certain well known priest mentioned her name to me a few days ago. If I am not mistaken she is American. I think that this is something that could be very significant soon. We will see where this is going.
-
This woman said she had an apparition experience. Whether anyone believes it or not is up to them...If someone I respect ( Williamson ) tells he believes her then that definitely moves me to examine it/her. But how is he spreading falsehoods? She certainly seems to believe herself. So you're free to believe her or not. We all KNOW that praying the Rosary for the Consecration is something Our Blessed Mother wants. So it's not a stretch to believe.....again, how does that opinion constitute "spreading falsehoods"? If you can't contain your contempt for a holy bishop then shut up. Don't you have some buttons that need to be re-sewn onto your kids' jacket or something? I mean can't some of you people find something remotely edifying to do/say/contribute?
Because if they agree with the good Bishop that Our Lady did come with a message then they would have to accept the maybe BenedictXV1 was Pope after all and that would not help their Sede views now, would it?.
Anyway the message states that if Bishop Fellay does not comply the SSPX would be no more.....well it certainly not looking too crash hot at present.
-
If Our Lady did appear to Bp. Fellay, and instruct him to conduct a Rosary Crusade, then I, for one, am going to have to rethink the whole matter. We have a pretty deep attachment to Bp. Williamson, accompanied by a very deep suspicion of Bp. Fellay and most of what he says or does. If the SG inaugurated these Rosary Crusades under direct,(or indirect), instruction from Our Lady, then why wasn't that fact announced from the very beginning? Why didn't the bishop indicate then that he was acting under obedience to what was, or what he thought sincerely to be at the time, the Holy Virgin's request? To tell you the truth, I have always thought that the Rosary Crusades were rather cynical ploys, designed to bind the sspx faithful more tightly to their leaders. If I'm wrong, then I suppose I must repent in leisure.
Hollinsworth,
I think you missed the point. Bishop Fellay was not obeying Our Lady. He disbelieved the apparition, no fault there, but then decided he liked the idea and would use it for the gain of his position e.g. lifting invalid excommunications, Summorum Pontificuм etc.
-
Well the cat's outta the bag now! This story has been kept secret for a while. I certain well known priest mentioned her name to me a few days ago. If I am not mistaken she is American. I think that this is something that could be very significant soon. We will see where this is going.
Secret ? she has a website that has been pushing this stuff even demanding people to pray novenas to made up titles of Our Lady and telling people to "shut up" if they oppose her in any way. She's a "legend" in the other Trad Cath fora.
I can't quite square this with authentic signs of piety that according to the standard ascetical mystical theology text books one ought to see in real "seers" - humility, docility, meekness - in other words if Our Lady is the interlocutor - then the recipient of these graces would effectively seek to imitate the Blessed Mother's virtues not promote websites, and health food recipes and anything else that takes her fancy.
If Bishop Williamson is in the business of promoting this woman (after saying to me at least he disbelieved her) then ALL of this is fair game since he brought up the subject.
Note: Bishop Williamson is not fair game ! Just his opinion concerning the veracity of these "revelations".
From here on in I expect the "Dawn Marie" surrogates (or even "herself" under pseudonymous posts) to fill this thread with pro-apparition bilge. Anybody who has the nerve to refer to herself as "La Petite Plume" (The little Pen of Our Lady) is already out to lunch and I have privately opposed this to the priests of the resistance and will do so publicly even to the trashing of my reputation if I have to.
Consider this:
A woman claiming locutions may be receiving them from:
(a) God, Angel, Saint i.e. BVM (supernatural in origin)
(b) Evil Spirit (Preternatural)
(c) human agency:
(i) Others telling her what to say
(ii) Delusions - which subdivide into from an overactive pious mind, weak mind - imaginings (not necessarily malicious) or mental issues far more serious.
The usual authority to examine these questions are the local bishop (Yes "mickey-mouse eared Noonan) but more importantly competent psychiatrists, medical doctors, learned priests and a barrage of "real" tests.
The standard operating procedure is take it all with a grain of salt and disbelieve it until the contrary is proved.
Then examine the content of the messages:
Do they square with other apparitions, teachings of Scripture, questions of Faith and Morals ?
Are there prophecies ? Are they fulfilled ? Are they made at a great distance from the fulfilment so that the thing accomplished could not easily have been known beforehand ? If they are not fulfilled - well then case closed !
Subjective criteria: personal sanctity of the seer ? Lives life of virtue ? Faithful to the Sacraments ? Attachment to venial or mortal sin ? Has a confessor ? Submits to him in all that he says even the smallest degree ?
Only after years of careful observation can answers be concluded to these questions. They are not decided on the internet, nor by opinion polls, and with all due respect to the Bishop neither in personal columns that may have other motives other than just revealing his belief (now) of the veracity.
It will be noted that Bishop Williamson took a side-swipe at Bishop Fellay in this column - Our Lady is not a bludgeoning weapon to settle old scores. Either she has a message FOR US or She does not.
I wait to be enlightened more by further columns but so far I have very little that I know of that convinces me these "apparitions" are real.
One other powerful but highly subjective motive for credibility is: how is this devotion received by the faithful ? Do we find our own personal sanctity increased or diminished by exposure to all of this - do we respond with courtesy and charity towards one another right here and now on this forum ? If it produces bitterness and angst - then who produces that - God or the devil ? If it is an authentic call from Our Lady She will confirm it Herself as She did in Portugal after Fatima with a whole country converted or Mexico with the Tilma of Guadalupe.
-
Great post. :applause:
-
Agree with every word, curioustrad.
-
Well the cat's outta the bag now! This story has been kept secret for a while. I certain well known priest mentioned her name to me a few days ago. If I am not mistaken she is American. I think that this is something that could be very significant soon. We will see where this is going.
Centroamerica, there was some of this in 2013:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=22543&min=0&num=3
-
Old news from at least 2012.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=21105&min=0&num=5
http://sspxkorea.org/board/board_view.html?board_data_id=406470&config_id=5147
-
And:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Rosary-crusade-for-the-Consecration-of-Russia
-
And:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Rosary-crusade-for-the-Consecration-of-Russia
Thanks for this link. Found this interesting post by Incredulous:
Does anyone remember when Bp. Fellay was going around the US telling the SSPX faithful the little girl's story from the Chapel of Rue de Bac?
It went like this: A French Catholic mother dropped her young daughter off at the Rue de bac Chapel, while trying to find parking.
While the child was alone in Church, she spoke to Mother Mary and was told
that the SSPX was where the true Mass was. The mother learned this story after the child returned from Church. I believe the child went back a second time at her mother's urging and confirmed the message from the Blessed Virgin.
Posted Aug 14, 2012, 3:03 am
If asked about this today I wonder if Bp.Fellay would say that what was mean't was " the SSPX was where the true extra-ordinary rite of Mass was"
-
There are reasons why priests believe the story. I do not believe that this is the same woman who runs a website. Fr. Faure was the first priest to mention the lady who is reported as having received the message. These priests have talked to the lady several times and believe her story to be credible for a number of reasons. Since you seem to be a professional expert on dealing with apparitions perhaps you should visit her and tell all the priests and bishops what they should believe regarding the matter.
-
Everyone who made a rash judgement could probably make a quick trip to confession. The lady´s name is NOT DAWN MARIE.
-
Everyone who made a rash judgement could probably make a quick trip to confession. The lady´s name is NOT DAWN MARIE.
So pray tell? Is Dawn Marie fronting for her?
-
Everyone who made a rash judgement could probably make a quick trip to confession. The lady´s name is NOT DAWN MARIE.
So pray tell? Is Dawn Marie fronting for her?
The real question is "Who is the priest or bishop who said that this is about Dawn Marie?"
No one, only a bunch of people who don´t know anything about anything and consider themselves the experts of everything. Like a plague in our chapels this arrogance....
We are all extremely limited in our intelligence, but some more than others.
-
Everyone who made a rash judgement could probably make a quick trip to confession. The lady´s name is NOT DAWN MARIE.
So pray tell? Is Dawn Marie fronting for her?
The real question is "Who is the priest or bishop who said that this is about Dawn Marie?"
No one, only a bunch of people who don´t know anything about anything and consider themselves the experts of everything. Like a plague in our chapels this arrogance....
We are all extremely limited in our intelligence, but some more than others.
You apparently are the expert about who this seer is then, so please answer the direct question. Who is she?
-
There are reasons why priests believe the story. I do not believe that this is the same woman who runs a website. Fr. Faure was the first priest to mention the lady who is reported as having received the message. These priests have talked to the lady several times and believe her story to be credible for a number of reasons. Since you seem to be a professional expert on dealing with apparitions perhaps you should visit her and tell all the priests and bishops what they should believe regarding the matter.
Fr. Faure mentioned her, but not in a positive light. He did not believe her story and was trying to convince Bp. Williamson and the other priests.
-
Everyone who made a rash judgement could probably make a quick trip to confession. The lady´s name is NOT DAWN MARIE.
So pray tell? Is Dawn Marie fronting for her?
The real question is "Who is the priest or bishop who said that this is about Dawn Marie?"
No one, only a bunch of people who don´t know anything about anything and consider themselves the experts of everything. Like a plague in our chapels this arrogance....
We are all extremely limited in our intelligence, but some more than others.
It is Dawn Marie! But some priests may be going by the name of Mrs. A******* (I don't need to disclose the name myself) But Dawn Marie is the public name she used on forums (although it seems to be her real first and middle name). This is not a matter of being "expert" but only one of remembering who she is on the forums and realizing in how much trouble we might find ourselves if this non sense keeps on going.
And although that is really pitiful and possibly very harmful to the counter fight, we shouldn't be all that surprised, after all, we know that this is one of the weakest points of H.E anyways (e.g believing in strange apparitions and visions).
For those who have been on the fora for quite a few years and remember Ignis Ardens will know how to stay away from the nonsense and the self proclaimed visionary called Dawn Marie.
The support for +Williamson does not depend on this it is true, but neither can't we deny this is disturbing and has caused (and will scandal, even in recent times. The last visit of Bishop Williamson to Mexico for instance, when he took Dawn Marie with him and people (including priests) denied she was there with him committed a mistake because in reality she really was.... That has caused some frictions and I'm afraid it might cause even more in the future.
Pray that these "stay tuned" Eleisons may take a u-turn so it won't cause any more chaos in our extra chaotic world.
*And even if this wasn't about DM, it would've been from Mrs. Rossiniere and we would be just in as much trouble as far as nonsense goes.
-
Pray that these "stay tuned" Eleisons may take a u-turn so it won't cause any more chaos in our extra chaotic world.
Amen. I and some others are actually praying God intervene and thwart plans so the remainder ECs are not published.
-
Bishop Williamson's 'mystic' is indeed the infamous trad-cat trouble-causer, who goes by the screen name Dawn Marie.
Some of you have been ignoring this giant elephant in the room for the last two days, despite knowing full well that she is the alleged "seer" mentioned in the Bishop's latest Eleison Comments. Some of you are intentionally trying to keep her from being exposed as this fraudulent seer, even denying the obvious. That is very curious, but yet also understandable because it's pretty embarrassing for his supporters to read from Bishop Williamson's own pen just who and what has been influencing him during these past few critical years.
Those of us who've been on various traditional Catholic forums over the past 7 years or so have come to know the real DM, and it has not been a pleasant experience. We've all seen her masterful manipulations, her power-trips, tantrums, flip-flops, dishonesty, her mental twists and turns, the bragging, name-dropping, berating, pious rantings, pity-parties, pouting, exaggerations, insults, accusations, and the list goes on and on. We know that she is not the pious Rosary Novena Lady one at first comes across via her website... that's just the persona she uses to reel in those of good will. We've seen that she is an incurable schemer, with a pathological need to be recognized as someone special and important with powerful connections. We've seen how she simply MUST control others, how she finds their Achilles Heal and goes in for the kill.
DM has always been her own worst enemy, though, because she has a problem: she talks too much about herself. Over the years she has shared much of her private correspondence, so there's no point in anyone denying that she IS the "seer" that His Excellency references in his latest writing. Way too many people by now have copies of the emails between her and Bishop Williamson, and it is a fact that she is the woman behind the bishop, as his future ECs will show more and more. Her "Heaven's Peace Plan" (the ever-expanding versions of her timeline/stories/messages) are notorious and laughable. It has been posted, unposted, reposted, unposted, reposted, unposted too many times to keep track of in various places on the internet. One has wearied of her games.
It is well-known that one of Bishop Williamson's particular weaknesses is being too inclined to believe in apparitions and prophecies that match up with his world view. DM is undeniably clever, and has been able to exploit that weakness to the hilt in him. She simply never gave up her goal of getting a bishop to publicly endorse her, and when she couldn't get that from Bishop Fellay, she went after Bishop Williamson full force until she finally convinced him to do it. In her many, many emails and phone calls to him, as well as from her network of other contacts and her constant monitoring of the rumor mills, it would have been child's play for her to obtain the information she needed to make her "Inside Story" match the "Outside Story".
It has been out of respect for Bishop Williamson being a priest and bishop, despite his departure from the SSPX, that I and others have never been willing to bring embarrassment to him by publicly talking about his strange relationship with this woman. One always hoped that ultimately he couldn't go as far as to fully believe she is a legitimate visionary, that his reason and intelligence would bring him back from making such a colossal blunder, and that he'd be able to maintain at least a modicuм of healthy skepticism regarding the woman... whose nastiness he himself sometimes personally experienced.
Bishop Williamson was thoroughly warned against believing in her, and priests have very recently tried their best to talk him out of publicly giving her his "imprimatur". But now he has made his choice and so the chips must fall where they may.
-
It is Dawn Marie! But some priests may be going by the name of Mrs. A******* (I don't need to disclose the name myself) But Dawn Marie is the public name she used on forums (although it seems to be her real first and middle name). This is not a matter of being "expert" but only one of remembering who she is on the forums and realizing in how much trouble we might find ourselves if this non sense keeps on going.
.....
Judging by this thread, I am inclined to believe you. There was always the strife, secrecy, and double-dealing associated with this "seer".
-
There are reasons why priests believe the story. I do not believe that this is the same woman who runs a website. Fr. Faure was the first priest to mention the lady who is reported as having received the message. These priests have talked to the lady several times and believe her story to be credible for a number of reasons. Since you seem to be a professional expert on dealing with apparitions perhaps you should visit her and tell all the priests and bishops what they should believe regarding the matter.
Secret ? she has a website that has been pushing this stuff even demanding people to pray novenas to made up titles of Our Lady and telling people to "shut up" if they oppose her in any way.
Could you could provide examples of this?
-
Secret ? she has a website that has been pushing this stuff even demanding people to pray novenas to made up titles of Our Lady and telling people to "shut up" if they oppose her in any way.
Could you provide a link to her website? I am curious about her and would like to see her website. I remember a Dawn Marie who used to post on Angelqueen, but I have never seen her website.
-
Secret ? she has a website that has been pushing this stuff even demanding people to pray novenas to made up titles of Our Lady and telling people to "shut up" if they oppose her in any way.
Could you provide a link to her website? I am curious about her and would like to see her website. I remember a Dawn Marie who used to post on Angelqueen, but I have never seen her website.
Be careful. She monitors the IPs that visit her site. In between her visions, that is. :pc:
-
It has been out of respect for Bishop Williamson being a priest and bishop, despite his departure from the SSPX,.....
Bishop Williamson was kicked out. Are you a supporter of Bishop Fellay?
-
It has been out of respect for Bishop Williamson being a priest and bishop, despite his departure from the SSPX,.....
Bishop Williamson was kicked out. Are you a supporter of Bishop Fellay?
I think the poster is aware of that. I understood him to be speaking in broad terms, insofar as that was the only reason most people who began looking askance at +W did so. (Too much XSPX kool-aid in other words)
-
Secret ? she has a website that has been pushing this stuff even demanding people to pray novenas to made up titles of Our Lady and telling people to "shut up" if they oppose her in any way.
Could you provide a link to her website? I am curious about her and would like to see her website. I remember a Dawn Marie who used to post on Angelqueen, but I have never seen her website.
Matto: I was asking if someone could provide examples of her demanding people pray novenas to our lady.
-
This woman said she had an apparition experience. Whether anyone believes it or not is up to them...If someone I respect ( Williamson ) tells he believes her then that definitely moves me to examine it/her. But how is he spreading falsehoods? She certainly seems to believe herself. So you're free to believe her or not. We all KNOW that praying the Rosary for the Consecration is something Our Blessed Mother wants. So it's not a stretch to believe.....again, how does that opinion constitute "spreading falsehoods"? If you can't contain your contempt for a holy bishop then shut up. Don't you have some buttons that need to be re-sewn onto your kids' jacket or something? I mean can't some of you people find something remotely edifying to do/say/contribute?
Because if they agree with the good Bishop that Our Lady did come with a message then they would have to accept the maybe BenedictXV1 was Pope after all and that would not help their Sede views now, would it?.
Anyway the message states that if Bishop Fellay does not comply the SSPX would be no more.....well it certainly not looking too crash hot at present.
If there's no Pope who's going to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary? Sedes are just wrong. It's a pretty disheartening position to hold.
-
Bishop Williamson told me since several years ago, that he thinks the message is true. It's a lie to say otherwise. He has always supported the seer.
Some good priests also believe the message is true. I think the same. I've met the seer and I can say she's a very good catholic woman, devout, humble, charitable. She has dedicated her life to promote the Rosary for the Consacration of Russia. I do belong to her site, a site for praying. A site dedicated to Our Lady.
A very good priest, thomist, told me the messages fullfils all the conditions requested by Saint John of the Cross.
I know how she has been persecuted, mocked, attacked.
The real seer is always attacked. Because the proud people cannot understand a message full of charity. They always mock the messenger, they try to discredit the message. And this is a sign the message comes really from God.
I support Bishop Williamson, I thank him for publicly support the message and the Messenger. I also support the seer. And I thank God for such big grace.
-
Are there any examples of instances where God used people who were less than exemplary to do His will or bring His messages? Should they have been disqualified?
-
I know how she has been persecuted, mocked, attacked.
The real seer is always attacked. Because the proud people cannot understand a message full of charity. They always mock the messenger, they try to discredit the message. And this is a sign the message comes really from God.
I and many others have seen this "seer" with her claws out as she cries persecution. likewise, less than charitable behavior from her in other respects. There's a lot of long memories in the Traditional world, and they won't be erased by endorsements she manages to wrest.
-
Bishop Williamson told me since several years ago, that he thinks the message is true. It's a lie to say otherwise. He has always supported the seer.
Some good priests also believe the message is true. I think the same. I've met the seer and I can say she's a very good catholic woman, devout, humble, charitable. She has dedicated her life to promote the Rosary for the Consacration of Russia. I do belong to her site, a site for praying. A site dedicated to Our Lady.
A very good priest, thomist, told me the messages fullfils all the conditions requested by Saint John of the Cross.
I know how she has been persecuted, mocked, attacked.
The real seer is always attacked. Because the proud people cannot understand a message full of charity. They always mock the messenger, they try to discredit the message. And this is a sign the message comes really from God.
I support Bishop Williamson, I thank him for publicly support the message and the Messenger. I also support the seer. And I thank God for such big grace.
Indeed !
As I predicted last night that the authenticity (or otherwise) of the message was also proved by its reception by the faithful - do we see charity and harmony as a result of the message - are there good fruits in those who accept and embrace it ?
On the contrary ! I see name calling and questions about "loyalty" to Bishop Williamson. Here we have a problem:
Why is this question concerning Dawn Marie / Mrs. Anderson being made a question of adherence to the Bishop ?
Surely our loyalty is to the Faith as expressed in the Magisterium which is the Sacred Scriptures, the Tradition of the Church, the continuous teachings of the Fathers, Popes and Councils up to the Second Vatican Council. This is what the Archbishop taught and this is what Bishop Williamson teaches. To this he superads a private opinion of which he carefully wrote himself:
As to the messenger, readers are entitled to distrust my personal judgment, but as to the perfect correspondence between inside story and outside facts, readers can judge for themselves.
Insofar as he espouses the Faith then we are in agreement, but as he always said of the SSXP it is a human institution and as such capable of defecting and we put human trust in a human institution - I would think that he would expect nothing more of himself - certainly he has always said that both publicly and privately. I do question his judgment (as he allows) but not the man - he's generally spot on in my opinion.
That he told you he believes her, he repeats here; that he told me 2 years ago he didn't believe her any more is a fact - at least I know it to be true.
Can a person change their mind ? Evidently !
The fact that he has changed his mind (and quite often on this question) does not exclude the possibility that he is wrong now even as he thinks he is right when previously he held the contrary position.
Why speak of "lies" ? St. Anselm spoke of "fides quaerens intellectum" (Faith seeking to understand). As Gamaliel said of Christianity: "If it is of God it will prosper, if not..." we can say no more !
Cannot civilized Catholics debate with virtue not venom ?
-
I know how she has been persecuted, mocked, attacked.
The real seer is always attacked. Because the proud people cannot understand a message full of charity. They always mock the messenger, they try to discredit the message. And this is a sign the message comes really from God.
I and many others have seen this "seer" with her claws out as she cries persecution. likewise, less than charitable behavior from her in other respects. There's a lot of long memories in the Traditional world, and they won't be erased by endorsements she manages to wrest.
I'm on the forums since 2009. I don't remember anything like that. Besides, I trust more the judgement of the Bishop and priests than yours.
-
Bishop Williamson told me since several years ago, that he thinks the message is true. It's a lie to say otherwise. He has always supported the seer.
Some good priests also believe the message is true. I think the same. I've met the seer and I can say she's a very good catholic woman, devout, humble, charitable. She has dedicated her life to promote the Rosary for the Consacration of Russia. I do belong to her site, a site for praying. A site dedicated to Our Lady.
A very good priest, thomist, told me the messages fullfils all the conditions requested by Saint John of the Cross.
I know how she has been persecuted, mocked, attacked.
The real seer is always attacked. Because the proud people cannot understand a message full of charity. They always mock the messenger, they try to discredit the message. And this is a sign the message comes really from God.
I support Bishop Williamson, I thank him for publicly support the message and the Messenger. I also support the seer. And I thank God for such big grace.
Indeed !
As I predicted last night that the authenticity (or otherwise) of the message was also proved by its reception by the faithful - do we see charity and harmony as a result of the message - are there good fruits in those who accept and embrace it ?
On the contrary ! I see name calling and questions about "loyalty" to Bishop Williamson. Here we have a problem:
Why is this question concerning Dawn Marie / Mrs. Anderson being made a question of adherence to the Bishop ?
Surely our loyalty is to the Faith as expressed in the Magisterium which is the Sacred Scriptures, the Tradition of the Church, the continuous teachings of the Fathers, Popes and Councils up to the Second Vatican Council. This is what the Archbishop taught and this is what Bishop Williamson teaches. To this he superads a private opinion of which he carefully wrote himself:
As to the messenger, readers are entitled to distrust my personal judgment, but as to the perfect correspondence between inside story and outside facts, readers can judge for themselves.
Insofar as he espouses the Faith then we are in agreement, but as he always said of the SSXP it is a human institution and as such capable of defecting and we put human trust in a human institution - I would think that he would expect nothing more of himself - certainly he has always said that both publicly and privately. I do question his judgment (as he allows) but not the man - he's generally spot on in my opinion.
That he told you he believes her, he repeats here; that he told me 2 years ago he didn't believe her any more is a fact - at least I know it to be true.
Can a person change their mind ? Evidently !
The fact that he has changed his mind (and quite often on this question) does not exclude the possibility that he is wrong now even as he thinks he is right when previously he held the contrary position.
Why speak of "lies" ? St. Anslem spoke of "fides quaerens intellectum" (Faith seeking to understand). As Gamaliel said of Christianity: "If it is of God it will prosper, if not..." we can say no more !
Cannot civilized Catholics debate with virtue not venom ?
Have you read the history of Melanie of La Salette? The reception of the message is not always a proof.
And please, don't misunderstand. I wanted to say I support Bishop Williamson for publishing this story. Of course you can support him and not believe in the message. I do believe.
-
Have you read the history of Melanie of La Salette? The reception of the message is not always a proof.
And please, don't misunderstand. I wanted to say I support Bishop Williamson for publishing this story. Of course you can support him and not believe in the message. I do believe.
Yes indeed and I'm glad you raise La Salette because I'm sure you are aware that the Cure of Ars changed his mind several times over the authenticity of those messages - eventually siding with the truth of the apparitions.
My point is that apparitions are not dogma to be defended tooth and nail. That these "apparitions" have world consequences if true - I accept.
My point about the "reception" of the messages is more to do with how other people act upon them - that is - other than the seer. You see everybody is bickering over here about the messages. My point is that if Our Lady were in the matter - we would see interior conversion and peace, not bitterness and division - in ourselves, first.
Then we would see people being drawn together to work towards the fulfilment of the requests. Then (ultimately) we would see a movement growing to achieve the requests.
All I see is back-biting and carping. Early converts to Christianity came in droves because they saw the supernatural charity the Christians had for each other, and their willingness to be martyred for their Faith.
I see a good deal of people martyring each other here and I ask, therefore, how can this (the martyring) be from God ? Additionally, if the "martyring" is the fruit of the dissemination of the messages, then how can the message be from God ? That is the dilemma as I see it.
-
Interesting passage from Acts Chapter 5:
34 But one in the council rising up, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, respected by all the people, commanded the men to be put forth a little while.
35 And he said to them: Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do, as touching these men.
36 For before these days rose up Theodas, affirming himself to be somebody, to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all that believed him were scattered, and brought to nothing.
37 After this man, rose up Judas of Galilee, in the days of the enrolling, and drew away the people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as consented to him, were dispersed.
38 And now, therefore, I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this council or this work be of men, it will come to nought;
39 But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God. And they consented to him.
-
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=27106&min=12&num=3
A sincere post written by Matthew in Sept 2013:
I see we have another fight here --
One thing I'd like to interject is that dmarie is filled with the most INTENSE hatred of CathInfo, probably due to the fact that she was "outed" here a while ago.
Dmarie is the one who had the purported "visions" from the "blessed virgin" involving the SSPX Crisis. First she went to +Fellay, then to +Williamson, basically looking for whoever would believe her. She went online (IA, then CI) posing as someone who WASN'T the seer (because that's always more believable than the seer promoting herself, right?) but then it came out that the seer was none other than Dmarie herself!
She also had several accounts on CI -- a nice, trustworthy thing for the mouthpiece of the "blessed virgin" to do, right?
Long story short, she was outed, NOT banned, and she basically slunk away into the night. She stopped coming here, and stopped posting.
Fast-forward to today -- She is posting stuff so virulent, I couldn't come up with worse things to say about CathInfo if I spent hours brainstorming. But it's no wonder; she's still stinging from the humiliation of being exposed.
But come on! Who's fault is it, really? Is it my fault for running a Catholic forum, or Dmarie's for cooking up the sacrilegious scam to begin with?
If a woman will fake having visions from the Blessed Mother, then she's capable of pretty much anything. And if she'll cook up a massive scam like that -- would she lie about me or CathInfo?
I'll leave the reader to decide."
Thank you, Matthew, for saying the truth there about DM and not letting her and her devotees manipulate you.
-
And I for my part have even defended DM here on Cath Info myself - as surprised as I was to find the other night - I don't even remember writing the post - but computers always tell the truth: so...
You see inquiring minds can change and be wrong - this kind of confusion (St Ignatius says) is not from God !
-
I've met the seer and I can say she's a very good catholic woman, devout, humble, charitable. She has dedicated her life to promote the Rosary for the Consacration of Russia. I do belong to her site, a site for praying. A site dedicated to Our Lady.
Perhaps these have been your experiences because you are in agreement and have not opposed her. But, I can honestly attest if anyone tries to disagree with the supposed "seer" or have their own opinion about something, they will quickly be shouted down, told they are wrong, and made to feel very humiliated. I have personally witnessed the control, manipulation, humiliation, name-calling and so much else not in keeping with how we are to live a virtuous Catholic life. Should someone fear being treated with scorn if they simply say something disagreeing with the so called "visionary"? I cannot believe someone to whom Our Lord's Blessed Mother has personally appeared, would behave like that and have that effect on people, causing them to fear. That is not from God. I know of several that have experienced this first hand. And I do not delight in having to recount these, it is very sad indeed.
-
Trads, of various sorts, in Asia are now glued to their seats and are indeed staying tuned. Will a future EC reveal heaven's displeasure at the neo-colonial way the X-SPX Asia District has been run for all these years?
-
What I will not allow on CathInfo is an outburst of name-calling and hate towards ANY Bishop. And yes that includes Bishop Fellay.
Go ahead and look -- you won't find such a post on CathInfo.
I recall it being permitted on here to refer to Bishop Fellay as "+Fallacious"... by a poster who remains in good standing to this day: Ferdinand. Those posts remain.
and I've found these quotes from posters too:
(Moderator note: I have removed the objectionable (inappropriate or against Catholic charity) quotes. These are shown "crossed off" in his list, below.
Also, please note that these instances of "criticism" towards the person of Bishop Fellay (both charitable and non-charitable) were collected from a total of 47,600 posts in the "SSPX Resistance" subforum! They weren't taken from one discussion or something. On the contrary, these quotes were ALL taken out of their context. Many were by the same person, etc.
Fellay is acting worse than Pontius Pilate. ... Pilate tried to cop out and wash his hands of Christ's death. ...
Bishop Fellay is a master deceiver
Opus Fellay strikes again. The treatment Fr. Chazal has received is disgusting.
+Fellay is a fourth string bishop
it is not possible to say that +Fellay is a freemason; however, he certainly is busy cooperating with them!
Fellay's is a deception worthy of a Modernist!
This man (+Fellay) is a walking contradiction. Good riddance.
Breaking the simonious monopoly of +Fallacious and his NSSPX would certainly throw a monkey wrench into the sell-out to apostate rome
Are you going to let some accordista cleric or chapel coordinator (getting their marching orders from +Fallacious)
I feel that Fellay is a great deceiver.
Mgr. Fellay, is a traitor, either a sellout or a mole right from the begin.
Bp. Fellay is a tragic figure similar to Captain Ahab from the novel Moby Deck.
The Opus Fellay funhouse is full of smoke (of Satan?) and mirrors.
Bishop Fellay is a liberal.
So Bishop Fellay has turned out to be a liar and a deceiver and a traitor
I am of the opinion that +Fellay is a Freemason and is an infiltrator.
IF you follow the cult of Opus Fellay, you will be headed into the One World Church of universal apostasy.
Fellay is a modernist as he has proved by his double talk
But then Bp. Fellay is a modernist at heart and would readily join the pantheon if he could get away with it.
Bishop Fellay is a Machiavellian character.
He has proven to be a Judas...there is no trust left in his leadership anymore.
Bishop Fellay is a dictator
He was a bookkeeper for ABL, like Judas Iscariot was for the Apostles.
Bp Fellay cowardly traitorous rat
I hold Bishop Fellay in utter contempt. Taking those who attend the SSPX for fools. If he does sell out, I will gladly call him Judas.
Fellay is a Sellout, dancing with the Devil, and courting that Prostitute openly. (Moderator: This was a quote from a rah-rah Fr. Cekada fan, NOT an SSPX or Resistance supporter!)
Bishop Fellay is clearly Judas Fellay now.
I think the root of evil is that, I am unfortunately very sorry to say and hope I am allowed to say so, the head, Mgr. Fellay, is a traitor,
Bishop Fellay is a Liberal. He's completely unhinged from doctrine.
Fellay is a great stage actor and is ably supported by all his supporting actors.
In Opus Fellay, one is dealing with a cult that makes up its own rules as it goes along.
Satan is requiring Bishop Fellay hand over the souls in the Surrendered SSPX without any stumbling blocks,
I just hope Bernie the Rat is visited by three ghosts this Christmas
Bishop Fellay is a theological disaster.
What it shows is that Bishop Fellay is a traitor; ... Yes. Bishop Fellay is a traitor.
Bishop Fellay prayed an evil prayer.
He is behaving like Judas.
Fellay is also very devious and dishonest.
They need to find a way to KICK Bishop Judas Fellay out !
he's becoming "Bernie the Rat" or "the menace of Menzingen"....also " the backstabber of bp Williamson"
It's disgusting and shows the real spirit of the Opus Fellay formerly known as SSPX
Fellay has undoubtedly licked the boots of the devil,
-
What I will not allow on CathInfo is an outburst of name-calling and hate towards ANY Bishop. And yes that includes Bishop Fellay.
Go ahead and look -- you won't find such a post on CathInfo.
I recall it being permitted on here to refer to Bishop Fellay as "+Fallacious"... by a poster who remains in good standing to this day: Ferdinand. Those posts remain.
Those posts by Ferdinand have all been deleted.
-
and I've found these quotes from posters too:
Fellay is acting worse than Pontius Pilate. ... Pilate tried to cop out and wash his hands of Christ's death. ...
Bishop Fellay is a master deceiver
Opus Fellay strikes again. The treatment Fr. Chazal has received is disgusting.
...
But who's counting? :laugh1:
Seriously, man, you need to find yourself a better hero.
Apparently you are most impressed by those who are skilled at politics and manipulating public opinion...
Not exactly my kind of hero, but "to each his own".
However, although you can choose to admire who you will, you can't complain when we rightfully criticize your hero when that hero does something wrong. Quite a few of your "list" I have no problem with at all. The man is not above criticism!
Criticizing a man, and lambasting him with hatred are two different things. I believe I (and many others) can tell the difference. That's why it's not possible to have some kind of simplistic rule that can be explained to (or understood by) a literal moron (that used to be a scientific term, you know). I have to rely on my common sense and judgment on this one.
When does criticism end and uncharitable hatred begin? For one thing, "criticism" will offer some kind of proof or reasoning to back up a charge. And "criticism" will stick to one charge at a time, very humbly and reluctantly bringing up a single negative point. Hatred is usually more "throw a bunch of crap on the wall, and see how much of it sticks."
P.S. You don't have sources for any of those quotes, do you? I suspect that many of them weren't posted on CathInfo, or not for more than a few hours (until I found the post). For all I know you wrote those yourself, or collected them from all sorts of online/offline sources. Sorry, but I can only moderate posts here on CathInfo.
-
It is well-known that one of Bishop Williamson's particular weaknesses is being too inclined to believe in apparitions and prophecies that match up with his world view.
In the end, this is one of major reasons why I see the Resistance folding. Some will return to the SSPX. Others will be absorbed into sedevacantism. Many will abandon traditionalism completely.
It is the natural inclination of a movement to follow its episcopal leadership. In this case there is only one bishop, and he appears to be enthralled by a certain alleged visionary.
-
It is well-known that one of Bishop Williamson's particular weaknesses is being too inclined to believe in apparitions and prophecies that match up with his world view.
In the end, this is one of major reasons why I see the Resistance folding. Some will return to the SSPX. Others will be absorbed into sedevacantism. Many will abandon traditionalism completely.
It is the natural inclination of a movement to follow its episcopal leadership. In this case there is only one bishop, and he appears to be enthralled by a certain alleged visionary.
Sedevacantism and what is called the resistance are not mutually exclusive.
-
and I've found these quotes from posters too:
Fellay is acting worse than Pontius Pilate. ... Pilate tried to cop out and wash his hands of Christ's death. ...
Bishop Fellay is a master deceiver
Opus Fellay strikes again. The treatment Fr. Chazal has received is disgusting.
...
But who's counting? :laugh1:
Seriously, man, you need to find yourself a better hero.
Apparently you are most impressed by those who are skilled at politics and manipulating public opinion...
Not exactly my kind of hero, but "to each his own".
However, although you can choose to admire who you will, you can't complain when we rightfully criticize your hero when that hero does something wrong. Quite a few of your "list" I have no problem with at all. The man is not above criticism!
Criticizing a man, and lambasting him with hatred are two different things. I believe I (and many others) can tell the difference. That's why it's not possible to have some kind of simplistic rule that can be explained to (or understood by) a literal moron (that used to be a scientific term, you know). I have to rely on my common sense and judgment on this one.
When does criticism end and uncharitable hatred begin? For one thing, "criticism" will offer some kind of proof or reasoning to back up a charge. And "criticism" will stick to one charge at a time, very humbly and reluctantly bringing up a single negative point. Hatred is usually more "throw a bunch of crap on the wall, and see how much of it sticks."
P.S. You don't have sources for any of those quotes, do you? I suspect that many of them weren't posted on CathInfo, or not for more than a few hours (until I found the post). For all I know you wrote those yourself, or collected them from all sorts of online/offline sources. Sorry, but I can only moderate posts here on CathInfo.
Matthew,
It took several minutes, but I just now highlighted each line one by one on peterp's list, then right clicked on each one and asked Google to search for the highlighted phrase. Every single quote came up as a real quote found on Cathinfo, still on live links right now. Peterp made nothing up, and all his sources are from cathinfo.
Peterp,
Amazing list. Thank you.
-
Matthew is only one person. It must be hard for him to manage this forum with so many of us here.
I have noticed slander and detraction on this forum against many people, most often against traditional priests (like father Cekada or Bishop Williamson). I don't blame it on Matthew but on the posters who posted the slander or detraction.
-
This you wrote is really interesting Green Scapular:
“…it would have been child's play for her to obtain the information she needed to make her "Inside Story" match the "Outside Story"”.
So are you suggesting that Monseñor Fellay was in so close a relation with the messenger that she knew of all his plans in advance? Can't be Monseñor Williamson because he got in touch with her years later.
-
Matthew is only one person. It must be hard for him to manage this forum with so many of us here.
I have noticed slander and detraction on this forum against many people, most often against traditional priests (like father Cekada or Bishop Williamson). I don't blame it on Matthew but on the poster who posted the slander or detraction.
Indeed he is only one person, but since he did issue that challenge ("Go ahead and look -- you won't find such a post on CathInfo."), you can't fault anyone for taking him up it. Surely he can be a good sport and admit he was wrong, and peterp was right.
-
In the end, this is one of major reasons why I see the Resistance folding
Recently there were 2 Resistance Masses over a weekend in 2 different cities, but each within 1.5 hours of my home. It seemed appropriate to go, after 2 years of consideration.
What surprised me:
1. Each Mass was quite well attended.
2. Each Mass has apparently grown substantially in attendance recently. At the second Mass, a "regular" was shaking his head in wonderment, and said attendance had tripled since Father's last visit. Another seemed puzzled also, saying they don't know what triggered the sudden growth - it had been slow but steady - but they were pleased.
Can anyone else confirm the same? Perhaps my experience is unique.
And now, therefore, I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this council or this work be of men, it will come to nought; But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God. - Acts 5: 38
-
What surprised me:
1. Each Mass was quite well attended.
2. Each Mass has apparently grown substantially in attendance recently. At the second Mass, a "regular" was shaking his head in wonderment, and said attendance had tripled since Father's last visit. Another seemed puzzled also, saying they don't know what triggered the sudden growth - it had been slow but steady - but they were pleased.
Can anyone else confirm the same? Perhaps my experience is unique.
I have only been to two resistance Masses and both of them were not well attended. I am glad that the Masses you attended were well attended. But I have not been to a resistance mass in a while because I am not near enough one of the locations where they have mass regularly because I do not have anyone to drive me there.
-
Calling deceiver someone who makes of deception a common resource cannot be considered a detraction nor slander.
Could you say it is slander to call Judas Iscariot a traitor? He was a bishop, but also a traitor, since he betrayed Our Lord.
I would say that most of the quotes listed use justified adjectives, but not all of them. For example, "Bernie the Rat" clearly shows hatred.
-
Matthew is only one person. It must be hard for him to manage this forum with so many of us here.
I have noticed slander and detraction on this forum against many people, most often against traditional priests (like father Cekada or Bishop Williamson). I don't blame it on Matthew but on the poster who posted the slander or detraction.
Indeed he is only one person, but since he did issue that challenge ("Go ahead and look -- you won't find such a post on CathInfo."), you can't fault anyone for taking him up it. Surely he can be a good sport and admit he was wrong, and peterp was right.
He didn't find much. I actually thought there would be a few hiding here and there, but they really have to hide because I delete them as soon as I find them. I'll admit, it was something of a challenge or a dare. After all, I can't get members -- even Friends of +Fellay -- to report posts like that to me otherwise!
The inappropriate ones, that is.
A bunch of his list, if I had the chance, I would give them a THUMBS UP rather than a censure, because they are descriptive and critical, yet do not evince any hatred or sins against charity.
Edited 10/23/14: One of the quotes was from a hardcore Fr. Cekada supporter -- not anything resembling an SSPX or Resistance supporter! Someone without a dog in the fight at all.
"Fellay is a great stage actor and is ably supported by all his supporting actors."
"Bp. Fellay is a tragic figure similar to Captain Ahab from the novel Moby Deck."
"Bishop Fellay is a dictator."
Seriously? Man, you need to go back and read my posts on this issue. I never said we couldn't criticize a bishop and/or his actions! But it must be done with all dignity and Catholic charity.
Criticism can take the form of similes (the boat was as dilapidated as a junk heap) or metaphors (the boat was a junk heap).
I was actually quite pleased that "this is all he could come up with" on CathInfo. If anything, I think I was vindicated, rather than proven wrong. Remember, this is a hard-core fan of Bishop Fellay digging his best to find "dirt" on CathInfo that slanders his hero. And to the +Fellay supporter or accordista, finding slander on CathInfo should be easy -- "slander is what the forum is made of", right? Isn't that what all the propaganda says? And the SSPX Resistance subforum alone has over 47,600 posts! But most of the phrases he collected were quite tame, quite restrained and were given in a charitable context of fraternal correction/the common good.
And in a haystack of 47,600+ posts, his list was pathetically short.
There were a few that I thought crossed the line, and you won't find them anymore. I'm sorry but I can't catch every such violation -- especially when no one in the entire CathInfo membership saw the need to let me know about them! I can't read every post, not with hundreds of new posts every day.
Again, it all has to do with the manner of delivery. If an adjective (or even a straight up noun, like "traitor") is delivered together with plenty of evidence or reasons why, and the person maintains a certain decorum/sadness/restraint and a certain respect is maintained for the man (and the priestly character), then I see no problem with such a post.
-
To all members, except acordistas:
Is H.E. +Williamson your beloved bishop, worthy of your trust? Or, do you believe him to be insane? Or simply (if you wish) trust worthy but easily deceived by visionaries?
If the good bishop considers it important enough to dedicate the next E.C. on this matter, why are you so afraid to read it? At most, you would come to the same conclusion you already have, that H.E. has been deceived.
I have read many posts throwing stones at Dawn Marie, yet, except for one (Matthews), no one of you have signed your real names to it.
Even on a forum such as C.I. we have to keep the presence of God in mind. If everyone here did that, Dawn Marie would not have received any more stones than "the woman caught in adultery".
I have spoken to her many times over the phone and I find her very sincere. If the message is believed NOT to be from heaven after all the facts are out, does not necessarily means that she deceived but rather she herself was deceived. My opinion. I have no more to add.
-
Sedevacantism and what is called the resistance are not mutually exclusive.
Agreed.
However, without another bishop, what is called the Resistance currently must eventually be absorbed into sedevacantism. In Canada and the U.S. the likely beneficiary will become the CMRI.
-
Even on a forum such as C.I. we have to keep the presence of God in mind. If everyone here did that, Dawn Marie would not have received any more stones than "the woman caught in adultery".
I have spoken to her many times over the phone and I find her very sincere. If the message is believed NOT to be from heaven after all the facts are out, does not necessarily means that she deceived but rather she herself was deceived. My opinion. I have no more to add.
Here is one of DM's friends clearly admitting that DM claimed to have received "messages" that she believes are from heaven.
Maybe now the ridiculous farce wherein she and her believers publicly pretend that DM is not "the visionary", even to the point of lying about it, will now stop. Thank you, Maria, for helping to put a stop to those games once and for all.
"Our Lady would never appear to one such as me" are the public words of DM (and they are probably the truest words she ever wrote). Despite posting that, all the while she was privately telling people like Maria (and bishops, too!) about her "messages" or "visions", as Maria confirms.
One recalls that the children of Fatima were willing to be tortured and killed, rather than to utter one small lie.
-
This you wrote is really interesting Green Scapular:
“…it would have been child's play for her to obtain the information she needed to make her "Inside Story" match the "Outside Story"”.
So are you suggesting that Monseñor Fellay was in so close a relation with the messenger that she knew of all his plans in advance? Can't be Monseñor Williamson because he got in touch with her years later.
-
If all else fails, try the Fatima route! Some would turn it into a new religion to compete with the mainstream ecuмenical one and the stalled trad one. Fatima was a creature of its time and was never realised because the institution that was once the Church knew better. It had the right to file it away with all of the other stale prophesies....... and why hand over the Church to a bunch of impoverished ignorant peasants in Portugal?
We now have another excuse to remain inactive and inert and rely on 'mysterious voices' because we are not inclined to remake the Church on earth. What power the bishop did have while at the top of an organisation protesting the advance of modernism has been reduced to finding a market for online prophecy and speculative historical extrapolation. My email tray has thousands of messages in the same vein. I go with Michael Hoffman in declaring that the Church on earth existed because of the actions of armies and kings in adopting an ideological system that provided them with a system of law and order. Trillions of rosaries have not and will not be a substitute for the earthly struggles of men; they merely turn them into cabbages, unwilling to use the resources given them to change things. It is a feminine prescriptive and the bishop would be advised to ditch these associations.
-
It is well-known that one of Bishop Williamson's particular weaknesses is being too inclined to believe in apparitions and prophecies that match up with his world view.
In the end, this is one of major reasons why I see the Resistance folding. Some will return to the SSPX. Others will be absorbed into sedevacantism. Many will abandon traditionalism completely.
:sleep:
-
If all else fails, try the Fatima route! Some would turn it into a new religion to compete with the mainstream ecuмenical one and the stalled trad one. Fatima was a creature of its time and was never realised because the institution that was once the Church knew better. It had the right to file it away with all of the other stale prophesies....... and why hand over the Church to a bunch of impoverished ignorant peasants in Portugal?
We now have another excuse to remain inactive and inert and rely on 'mysterious voices' because we are not inclined to remake the Church on earth. What power the bishop did have while at the top of an organisation protesting the advance of modernism has been reduced to finding a market for online prophecy and speculative historical extrapolation. My email tray has thousands of messages in the same vein. I go with Michael Hoffman in declaring that the Church on earth existed because of the actions of armies and kings in adopting an ideological system that provided them with a system of law and order. Trillions of rosaries have not and will not be a substitute for the earthly struggles of men; they merely turn them into cabbages, unwilling to use the resources given them to change things. It is a feminine prescriptive and the bishop would be advised to ditch these associations.
This. One thousand times over.
With one comment. It is not so much a "feminine perspective", as a domestic perspective. The Taditionalist movement is almost entirely domesticated. The soldiers of Christ, the Saints, were never that.
-
This. One thousand times over.
With one comment. It is not so much a "feminine perspective", as a domestic perspective. The Taditionalist movement is almost entirely domesticated. The soldiers of Christ, the Saints, were never that.
What do you have in mind?
It's an honest question, but I'll admit that I'm sick of hearing people complain that we Traditionalists are not "activist" enough. Every time I hear someone whine and complain that we're not "getting off our butts", I see images of dynamite belts and AK-47's. I know that's not what you mean but...what exactly DO you mean?
I know it's not glorious, but just raising a family in 2014 requires heroic effort and virtue. Other Trad dads will back me up on this one. We don't have the wherewithal (time OR money) to save the world. We can only save the world one child (of ours) at a time. And, frankly, that's all God expects of most laymen. Do whatever you can; don't worry about what you can't.
I will also add that Wessex's post was extremely deficient in piety. You can't dismiss the Rosary. It's a classic mistake that many men make. Trying to rely on themselves TOO MUCH.
Remember -- dismissing the Rosary in favor of "action" is exactly what happened right before, during, and after Vatican II. Ex-priests make the same mistake: ditching their meditation and prayer in favor of active works.
Read "The Soul of the Apostolate". This isn't my idea.
ACT as if everything depended on you, but PRAY as if everything depended on God.
I think Wessex goes too far, missing the second half of the axiom.
-
I know it's not glorious, but just raising a family in 2014 requires heroic effort and virtue. Other Trad dads will back me up on this one.
One hesitates to speak on one's own behalf, but thumbs up Matthew,,,
-
I should add --
It's not only difficult to raise a family in 2014 (with inflation, the state of the world economy, what's happening to the job market, etc.), but successive generations (such as, those who are old enough to get married today) will be lucky if they can manage to get established, married, and start families at all!
Because I see the basic goal of job/house/spouse/family as moving further and further away from the grasp of many in their early 20's and beyond. It's getting harder and harder to get established.
This is one of the many reasons I see the world (as we know it) being doomed to failure. Somethings GOT to give. And, unfortunately, that will probably be very soon.
-
Here is an idea which I reckon there are enough Trads in the word to accomplish.
Go to St. Peter's Square in Rome and camp there. Say the Rosary, have masses, pray, have priests and monks hold talks and lectures. Give up your family vacation and spend a few grand going to Rome for a sit-in. As you leave someone else replaces you. Some people who are unemployed anyway could stay there for a few months.
If you are camping with clean moral people it is a lot of fun. You can have sing songs in the evening, light barbeques and get lots of fresh air.
Hand in your terms and conditions, show them to the media. No violence, no shouting. Just singing at the top of our lungs, blocking the square with your presence and generally causing a nuisance. Don't leave until they acceed to the demands. Make the demands short but realistic.
We want the old mass everywhere in the world without let or hinderance.
We want Vatican II explained in clear and plain language consistent with Tradition.
Until you do this we are not leaving. I could commit 3 maybe 4 weeks per year to this and still keep the wolf from the door. To maintain a crowd of 50,000 which would easily fill the entire Vatican Real Estate you'd only need 2 million people to spend a week there each. Between conservatives and Trads there are easily that many. I think most people could spend a week easily because it would simply mean replacing your holiday with a week sitting around in Rome praying and on a sort of "open air retreat".
What could the Italian cops do? Drag of peaceful protestors, for a religious dispute? Beat up monks and nuns? They are not going to do that.
I think a bit of militancy like this would shine a huge light on the problem. Various Bishops who are hiding scared now would come down on the side of Orthodoxy, the modernists would over-react and show themselves to be scuмbags.
And sure Rome might try to backtrack, but that would simply show the world what a bunch of duplicitous bastards they are. There is a time when one just has to stand toe-to-toe and slug it out.
Think grass roots campaigning and militancy does not work? Look at UKIP in the UK. The entire establishment is dead against them, the Media are constantly slagging them off, but people are voting for them at the ballot box because they are telling the electorate the truth and it is clear that they are less corrupt and have more good will and good intent than the main three other parties.
As much as we Trads like to write off people in the world and damn 99% of humanity to the flames, there are a lot of good people out there who know good and truth when they see it. They can recognise civility and virtue over barbarism and selfishness.
If we were smart about it and a little Machiavellian I think it could work.
-
I should add --
Somethings GOT to give. And, unfortunately, that will probably be very soon.
Why do you see that as "unfortunate"?
The alternative is spending another 100 years stuck in this liberal custard.
Come, friendly bombs, and fall on Slough!
It isn't fit for humans now.
There isn't grass to graze a cow.
Swarm over, Death!
-
Hmmmm.
OK, so on the face of it, Our Lady presented this "message" intending it be heeded, and obviously the more Rosaries the better. Why ever then would she settle for Bp. Fellay to promulgate it, and his few million Rosaries at best??? It's now proven beyond all shadow of doubt he'd already begun the process of subverting SSPX by 2004, a fact Our Lady was not oblivious to then (obviously) and had she chosen say, e.g., Cdl. Burke (who I understand is well disposed to praying the Rosary), there would have been far better odds of success. We can take as a given there are at least a few 10 millions of eager, true Catholics who have no access or knowledge of Tradition/SSPX, and their Rosaries have the same value.. Perhaps even more, since this is the means she provided for those who would be separated from the Sacraments.
I might become less the sceptic over the next few EC's, IF, and ONLY if, those EC's reveal EACH and EVERY knowable detail regarding message and messenger. Just like Fatima; no "secret seer" games.
Dear Friend;
Glad to have seen your comment No Secret Seer --- No Secret Games !!
Completely agreed and up my street!
Hurrah, for openness and clarity, something similar as requested on the comment re TCW website, where it's all vagueness, hiding behind phrases, borrowed info from other sites and books, but .... no concrete and courageous 'come to the fore'.
Bishop Williamson has the courage to write under his own name and the fortitude to take the consequences if he quotes something not particularly 'politically correct' as one says.
Thanks for your comment. You've got my support.
Bill.
-
Even on a forum such as C.I. we have to keep the presence of God in mind. If everyone here did that, Dawn Marie would not have received any more stones than "the woman caught in adultery".
I have spoken to her many times over the phone and I find her very sincere. If the message is believed NOT to be from heaven after all the facts are out, does not necessarily means that she deceived but rather she herself was deceived. My opinion. I have no more to add.
Here is one of DM's friends clearly admitting that DM claimed to have received "messages" that she believes are from heaven.
Maybe now the ridiculous farce wherein she and her believers publicly pretend that DM is not "the visionary", even to the point of lying about it, will now stop. Thank you, Maria, for helping to put a stop to those games once and for all.
"Our Lady would never appear to one such as me" are the public words of DM (and they are probably the truest words she ever wrote). Despite posting that, all the while she was privately telling people like Maria (and bishops, too!) about her "messages" or "visions", as Maria confirms.
One recalls that the children of Fatima were willing to be tortured and killed, rather than to utter one small lie.
You misunderstand my meaning (perhaps my fault as English is my 2nd language).
To be clear: Based on the sincerity and opinion of H.E. +W and of Dawn Marie, I'm willing to read all the facts to form my own informed opinion . That is also all H.E. asks. Nothing more.
I also said: "If the good bishop considers it important enough to dedicate the next E.C. on this matter, why are you so afraid to read it? At most, you would come to the same conclusion you already have, that H.E. has been deceived.
I have read many posts throwing stones at Dawn Marie, yet, except for one (Matthews), no one of you have signed your real names to it. "
-
I have read many posts throwing stones at Dawn Marie, yet, except for one (Matthews), no one of you have signed your real names to it. "
Yet it seems that you have no problem with DM creating multiple identities on this forum and others.
-
Matthew,
First of all, I don't thing Wessex was talking about dismissing the Rosary. I'm certainly not anyway. This is not an either/or situation - either staying at home and praying the Rosary or going into battle armed with "dynamite belts and AK-47s". Yes, you acknowledge I didn't mean it quite like that. So what do I mean?
I can only answer that by acknowledging the heroism and virtue of those who are called to raise true Catholic families in these terrible times - and then adding that not all Catholics are called to raise families. My criticism of the various Trad groups is not directed at those, like yourself, who are called to raise families, but with the leadership of these groups who run things as if family life was the only viable vocation a lay Catholic can have. Of course, they call young men to the priesthood, but they do little to encourage any other way of life. I have read and heard the advice given to lay Catholics by the SSPX and other groups. It's all about duties of state, by which they mean, of course, the duties of family life.
No-one is asking you, as a Trad father to save the world. It is not within the bounds of your calling to do so. And you are already doing more than enough with Cathinfo, one of the most valuable and informative forums available - and indispensable in my opinion, given the times we live in. So, thank you for that.
So what am I doing? Well, I have done quite a lot, actually, which I won't go into here. But recently, to be honest, I have become quite disheartened by the situation which I think is irreversible and beyond repair.
What do I propose. Well, I have suggested the kind of action that Greg has proposed - only to be shot down in flames by Trads who seem concerned only with preserving their lifestyles and chapels. That is fair enough for those with families. But it is not how the Apostles, the Saints, the Evangelists and the Soldiers for Christ thought or acted.
Again, this is not an either/or situation - either families or Apostles, Saints, Evangelists and Soldiers for Christ. Surely the Trad movement has room for both.
-
Here is an idea which I reckon there are enough Trads in the word to accomplish.
Go to St. Peter's Square in Rome and camp there. Say the Rosary, have masses, pray, have priests and monks hold talks and lectures. Give up your family vacation and spend a few grand going to Rome for a sit-in. As you leave someone else replaces you. Some people who are unemployed anyway could stay there for a few months.
If you are camping with clean moral people it is a lot of fun. You can have sing songs in the evening, light barbeques and get lots of fresh air.
Hand in your terms and conditions, show them to the media. No violence, no shouting. Just singing at the top of our lungs, blocking the square with your presence and generally causing a nuisance. Don't leave until they acceed to the demands. Make the demands short but realistic.
We want the old mass everywhere in the world without let or hinderance.
We want Vatican II explained in clear and plain language consistent with Tradition.
Until you do this we are not leaving. I could commit 3 maybe 4 weeks per year to this and still keep the wolf from the door. To maintain a crowd of 50,000 which would easily fill the entire Vatican Real Estate you'd only need 2 million people to spend a week there each. Between conservatives and Trads there are easily that many. I think most people could spend a week easily because it would simply mean replacing your holiday with a week sitting around in Rome praying and on a sort of "open air retreat".
What could the Italian cops do? Drag of peaceful protestors, for a religious dispute? Beat up monks and nuns? They are not going to do that.
I think a bit of militancy like this would shine a huge light on the problem. Various Bishops who are hiding scared now would come down on the side of Orthodoxy, the modernists would over-react and show themselves to be scuмbags.
And sure Rome might try to backtrack, but that would simply show the world what a bunch of duplicitous bastards they are. There is a time when one just has to stand toe-to-toe and slug it out.
Think grass roots campaigning and militancy does not work? Look at UKIP in the UK. The entire establishment is dead against them, the Media are constantly slagging them off, but people are voting for them at the ballot box because they are telling the electorate the truth and it is clear that they are less corrupt and have more good will and good intent than the main three other parties.
As much as we Trads like to write off people in the world and damn 99% of humanity to the flames, there are a lot of good people out there who know good and truth when they see it. They can recognise civility and virtue over barbarism and selfishness.
If we were smart about it and a little Machiavellian I think it could work.
I love this suggestion and completely agree with you that this is the kind of action that needs to be taken for all the reasons you state. But let's be realistic, it is unlikely to happen. Why is that?
Well, there are various reasons, many of them historical. But primarily, the Trad priests and bishops, of all groups, would actively discourage it. I'm almost certain of this. They are just too caught up in catering to the domestic sphere of family life and Sunday Mass to consider any other approach. I'm not saying that the domestic/parish life - or quasi-parish life - isn't important. It is. But the Pagan lands were not converted by Catholic families. They were converted by evangelisers accompanied by soldiers of Christ, and these individuals were, mostly, single. And, Matthew, they took their rosaries with them, along with their swords.
What is needed, I think, is for single people to fast, pray and so penance in the wild mountains, on remote islands, in the desert. Or to live as hermits and solitaries in these locations, perhaps loosely connected, but not attempting to set up any kind of community which would probably fall apart in no time. People like the Northern Saints, or the Desert Fathers, bearing in mind that this was what they became, not how they started out.
Don't laugh, but I have thought of doing this myself, packing a small bag containing a few possessions including my Missal and Rosary and finding a cave somewhere, in the Pyrenees maybe, or the west of Ireland. We can all have our dreams, or rather fantasies.
Having said all that, perhaps a mass camp-out in St Peter's Square could be arranged. You never know. With God, anything is possible.
-
Was there some rule made after the apparitions at Fatima that there could never be any more authentic apparitions again? I understand the need to be cautious, and I have not followed any of the supposed seers such as Garabandal or Medjugorge, but is it not possible that there could be a true apparition in or times? And how can we be so quick to judge it's authenticity without obvious proof one way or the other?
I would not trust a "seer" who attended the Novus Ordo Missae, even after having received revelations...
Didn't St Lucy of Fatima attend NO Masses before her death in 2005? Did she never commit any sin again, and thus never need receive the Sacrament of Confession?
-
Here is one of DM's friends clearly admitting that DM claimed to have received "messages" that she believes are from heaven.
Maybe now the ridiculous farce wherein she and her believers publicly pretend that DM is not "the visionary", even to the point of lying about it, will now stop. Thank you, Maria, for helping to put a stop to those games once and for all.
"Our Lady would never appear to one such as me" are the public words of DM (and they are probably the truest words she ever wrote). Despite posting that, all the while she was privately telling people like Maria (and bishops, too!) about her "messages" or "visions", as Maria confirms.
One recalls that the children of Fatima were willing to be tortured and killed, rather than to utter one small lie.
To be clear: Based on the sincerity and opinion of H.E. +W and of Dawn Marie, I'm willing to read all the facts to form my own informed opinion . That is also all H.E. asks. Nothing more.
But, you have already "read all of the facts", you know full well who is the author of "Bishop Fellay Peace Plan Proposed by the Mother of God".
-
There are reasons why priests believe the story. I do not believe that this is the same woman who runs a website. Fr. Faure was the first priest to mention the lady who is reported as having received the message. These priests have talked to the lady several times and believe her story to be credible for a number of reasons. Since you seem to be a professional expert on dealing with apparitions perhaps you should visit her and tell all the priests and bishops what they should believe regarding the matter.
Fr. Faure mentioned her, but not in a positive light. He did not believe her story and was trying to convince Bp. Williamson and the other priests.
For your information I spoke with Fr. Faure in person Saturday (4 days ago) and before the Eleison Comment was released. He said nothing negative about her and said nothing of disbelieving her story. And the lady´s name that he told our chapel was not Dawn Marie.
What you have said here about Fr. Faure is incorrect.
-
Here is one of DM's friends clearly admitting that DM claimed to have received "messages" that she believes are from heaven.
Maybe now the ridiculous farce wherein she and her believers publicly pretend that DM is not "the visionary", even to the point of lying about it, will now stop. Thank you, Maria, for helping to put a stop to those games once and for all.
"Our Lady would never appear to one such as me" are the public words of DM (and they are probably the truest words she ever wrote). Despite posting that, all the while she was privately telling people like Maria (and bishops, too!) about her "messages" or "visions", as Maria confirms.
One recalls that the children of Fatima were willing to be tortured and killed, rather than to utter one small lie.
To be clear: Based on the sincerity and opinion of H.E. +W and of Dawn Marie, I'm willing to read all the facts to form my own informed opinion . That is also all H.E. asks. Nothing more.
But, you have already "read all of the facts", you know full well who is the author of "Bishop Fellay Peace Plan Proposed by the Mother of God".
That was based on limited information. On what H.E. was willing to release at that time and from DM but the article was ultimately approved by some of the SSPX clergy for accuracy and published on the SSPX Korean website even before it was properly formatted. The one that was for a short time in the Missions website was the finished product but deleted after no one stepped forward to support it. The intention was to try to keep the SSPX from going to Rome. David Drew had no horse on that race. It was a good gesture for which H.E. + W remains grateful. I don't know how much more is there that I don't know.
-
There are reasons why priests believe the story. I do not believe that this is the same woman who runs a website. Fr. Faure was the first priest to mention the lady who is reported as having received the message. These priests have talked to the lady several times and believe her story to be credible for a number of reasons. Since you seem to be a professional expert on dealing with apparitions perhaps you should visit her and tell all the priests and bishops what they should believe regarding the matter.
Fr. Faure mentioned her, but not in a positive light. He did not believe her story and was trying to convince Bp. Williamson and the other priests.
For your information I spoke with Fr. Faure in person Saturday (4 days ago) and before the Eleison Comment was released. He said nothing negative about her and said nothing of disbelieving her story. And the lady´s name that he told our chapel was not Dawn Marie.
What you have said here about Fr. Faure is incorrect.
You may be correct that 4 days ago Fr. Faure did not mention anything negative about the so called seer, I can't speak to that I was not there. However I do know directly from him, five weeks ago he stated he did NOT believe her story. Like others he could have changed his mind.
-
And the lady´s name that he told our chapel was not Dawn Marie.
I'll repeat my question to you CentroAmerica: Who were you told the "seer" is?
Surely you can answer directly and truthfully.
-
Here is an idea which I reckon there are enough Trads in the word to accomplish.
Go to St. Peter's Square in Rome and camp there. Say the Rosary, have masses, pray, have priests and monks hold talks and lectures. Give up your family vacation and spend a few grand going to Rome for a sit-in. As you leave someone else replaces you. Some people who are unemployed anyway could stay there for a few months.
If you are camping with clean moral people it is a lot of fun. You can have sing songs in the evening, light barbeques and get lots of fresh air.
Hand in your terms and conditions, show them to the media. No violence, no shouting. Just singing at the top of our lungs, blocking the square with your presence and generally causing a nuisance. Don't leave until they acceed to the demands. Make the demands short but realistic.
We want the old mass everywhere in the world without let or hinderance.
We want Vatican II explained in clear and plain language consistent with Tradition.
Until you do this we are not leaving. I could commit 3 maybe 4 weeks per year to this and still keep the wolf from the door. To maintain a crowd of 50,000 which would easily fill the entire Vatican Real Estate you'd only need 2 million people to spend a week there each. Between conservatives and Trads there are easily that many. I think most people could spend a week easily because it would simply mean replacing your holiday with a week sitting around in Rome praying and on a sort of "open air retreat".
What could the Italian cops do? Drag of peaceful protestors, for a religious dispute? Beat up monks and nuns? They are not going to do that.
I think a bit of militancy like this would shine a huge light on the problem. Various Bishops who are hiding scared now would come down on the side of Orthodoxy, the modernists would over-react and show themselves to be scuмbags.
And sure Rome might try to backtrack, but that would simply show the world what a bunch of duplicitous bastards they are. There is a time when one just has to stand toe-to-toe and slug it out.
Think grass roots campaigning and militancy does not work? Look at UKIP in the UK. The entire establishment is dead against them, the Media are constantly slagging them off, but people are voting for them at the ballot box because they are telling the electorate the truth and it is clear that they are less corrupt and have more good will and good intent than the main three other parties.
As much as we Trads like to write off people in the world and damn 99% of humanity to the flames, there are a lot of good people out there who know good and truth when they see it. They can recognise civility and virtue over barbarism and selfishness.
If we were smart about it and a little Machiavellian I think it could work.
Excellent idea. Except that trads probably wouldn't agree with each other on the demands to be requested. I would be able to commit to a week at least. It would be wonderful if trads could be gathered together to peacefully yet resolutely protest by camping out in St. Peter's square. I would like to think that St. Athanasius himself would agree - compared to what he went through in order to safeguard the Deposit of Faith - camping out in St. Peter's square wouldn't be all that bad....at least I don't think so.
-
Everyone who made a rash judgement could probably make a quick trip to confession. The lady´s name is NOT DAWN MARIE.
No kidding. That's just her screen name. Just like Centroamerica isn't your real name. And my parents didn't name me Green Scapular, either.
-
"La Petite Plume"?
:facepalm:
I didn't need to read another word from this false seer.
-
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=27106&min=12&num=3
A sincere post written by Matthew in Sept 2013:
I see we have another fight here --
One thing I'd like to interject is that dmarie is filled with the most INTENSE hatred of CathInfo, probably due to the fact that she was "outed" here a while ago.
Dmarie is the one who had the purported "visions" from the "blessed virgin" involving the SSPX Crisis. First she went to +Fellay, then to +Williamson, basically looking for whoever would believe her. She went online (IA, then CI) posing as someone who WASN'T the seer (because that's always more believable than the seer promoting herself, right?) but then it came out that the seer was none other than Dmarie herself!
She also had several accounts on CI -- a nice, trustworthy thing for the mouthpiece of the "blessed virgin" to do, right?
Long story short, she was outed, NOT banned, and she basically slunk away into the night. She stopped coming here, and stopped posting.
Fast-forward to today -- She is posting stuff so virulent, I couldn't come up with worse things to say about CathInfo if I spent hours brainstorming. But it's no wonder; she's still stinging from the humiliation of being exposed.
But come on! Who's fault is it, really? Is it my fault for running a Catholic forum, or Dmarie's for cooking up the sacrilegious scam to begin with?
If a woman will fake having visions from the Blessed Mother, then she's capable of pretty much anything. And if she'll cook up a massive scam like that -- would she lie about me or CathInfo?
I'll leave the reader to decide."
Thank you, Matthew, for saying the truth there about DM and not letting her and her devotees manipulate you.
That was a nasty old fight.
-
Everyone who made a rash judgement could probably make a quick trip to confession. The lady´s name is NOT DAWN MARIE.
No kidding. That's just her screen name. Just like Centroamerica isn't your real name. And my parents didn't name me Green Scapular, either.
AFAIK, Dawn Marie is not a screen name.
She said so herself...
I take responsibility for my words and don't hide behind the cover of a pseudo-name.
I, too, would like to know who Centroamerica thinks this is all about if not Dawn Marie.
-
And the lady´s name that he told our chapel was not Dawn Marie.
I'll repeat my question to you CentroAmerica: Who were you told the "seer" is?
Surely you can answer directly and truthfully.
While we are finding out names just what is your name ultrarigorist?
Surley you can answer directly and truthfully?
-
Everyone who made a rash judgement could probably make a quick trip to confession. The lady´s name is NOT DAWN MARIE.
No kidding. That's just her screen name. Just like Centroamerica isn't your real name. And my parents didn't name me Green Scapular, either.
AFAIK, Dawn Marie is not a screen name.
She said so herself...
I take responsibility for my words and don't hide behind the cover of a pseudo-name.
I, too, would like to know who Centroamerica thinks this is all about if not Dawn Marie.
If I may answer. Dawn Marie is her real name, in that Dawn is her given middle name and Marie is her confirmation name. However, the priests when addressing her would call her Mrs. (her last name). If they spoke about her in public, as Centroamerica claims, they may have addressed her as her given first name and last name. Obviously those names are not Dawn Marie.
-
Everyone who made a rash judgement could probably make a quick trip to confession. The lady´s name is NOT DAWN MARIE.
No kidding. That's just her screen name. Just like Centroamerica isn't your real name. And my parents didn't name me Green Scapular, either.
AFAIK, Dawn Marie is not a screen name.
She said so herself...
I take responsibility for my words and don't hide behind the cover of a pseudo-name.
I, too, would like to know who Centroamerica thinks this is all about if not Dawn Marie.
He has made a completely fool of himself already.... Let it just drop, it'll be better for everybody. This is definitely a topic he has NO CLUE whatsoever, that much was clear.
Who has made a complete fool of himself?
-
"La Petite Plume"?
:facepalm:
I didn't need to read another word from this false seer.
If the good Bishop Williamson kept abreast of the trad forums, it's pretty safe to assume his opinion would change on these matters. But if I recall, he made it clear that he does not read forums, so it looks as if he's getting one side of a story. She already published some emails between the two of them in which he was agreeing that the outrage expressed was sort of from the devil, and to be expected. (that's the jist of it--anyone else who remembers can correct me if I'm mistaken).
-
All this talk about this girl called DM, Dawn Marie or whatever pseudonym she hides behind! I decided to investigate her website.
Moderator: Silliness and lame attempt at satire was removed, to prevent confusion.
-
All this talk about this girl called DM, Dawn Marie or whatever pseudonym she hides behind! I decided to investigate her website.
"I decided to investigate her site". Sounds reasonable... until one remembers that you're already a long-time member of her site so are already familiar with it. More games.
Let's be serious. It is no joke what "Mrs. A." has done. This woman has put her selfish need to be recognized ahead of what was best for a Catholic BISHOP. As Matthew wrote, she has been trying for years to get a bishop to recognize her as a true visionary. She has gotten what she craved so badly now, but at what price to the poor bishop who succuмbed to her machinations?! Has his reputation not suffered as a result, internationally? She has used him. Maybe one day he will see this, if he isn't starting to already. BOTH Resistance and SSPX supporters can and should be praying for that intention. Souls are at stake.
-
"La Petite Plume"?
:facepalm:
I didn't need to read another word from this false seer.
If the good Bishop Williamson kept abreast of the trad forums, it's pretty safe to assume his opinion would change on these matters. But if I recall, he made it clear that he does not read forums, so it looks as if he's getting one side of a story. She already published some emails between the two of them in which he was agreeing that the outrage expressed was sort of from the devil, and to be expected. (that's the jist of it--anyone else who remembers can correct me if I'm mistaken).
Is this the letter? It was one one the letters released by H.E. +W for the article by D.D.:
April 14th 2012
Dear [removed for privacy]
As to your letter to Bishop Fellay, it seems to me that you show a remarkable degree of understanding for why he has done what he has done. He cannot object to your manner, nor to your lack of comprehension.
So your letter may of course be useless, but you can content yourself that you did all you could. Do be content with that, is my advice, even if you continue to be possessed by such anguish as Sister Lucy must have suffered, and in spades..
As to that English bishop, your counselor's advice is good, as it seems to me. And I am delighted that you have had it from somebody else that he has no position of authority, nor standing of credit, to tell the world at large such truths as you wish told. Indeed BpF is the key figure. Dare I hope that wise counsel will be heeded ?
Personally I think the Devil is after you. How could he not be ?
All good wishes, +Richard Williamson.
-
"La Petite Plume"?
:facepalm:
I didn't need to read another word from this false seer.
If the good Bishop Williamson kept abreast of the trad forums, it's pretty safe to assume his opinion would change on these matters. But if I recall, he made it clear that he does not read forums, so it looks as if he's getting one side of a story. She already published some emails between the two of them in which he was agreeing that the outrage expressed was sort of from the devil, and to be expected. (that's the jist of it--anyone else who remembers can correct me if I'm mistaken).
Is this the letter? It was one one the letters released by H.E. +W for the article by D.D.:
Released by +RW, or by DM? Did David Drew receive permission from His Excellency to make his private correspondence with "Mrs A." public?
-
"La Petite Plume"?
:facepalm:
I didn't need to read another word from this false seer.
If the good Bishop Williamson kept abreast of the trad forums, it's pretty safe to assume his opinion would change on these matters. But if I recall, he made it clear that he does not read forums, so it looks as if he's getting one side of a story. She already published some emails between the two of them in which he was agreeing that the outrage expressed was sort of from the devil, and to be expected. (that's the jist of it--anyone else who remembers can correct me if I'm mistaken).
Is this the letter? It was one one the letters released by H.E. +W for the article by D.D.:
Released by +RW, or by DM? Did David Drew receive permission from His Excellency to make his private correspondence with "Mrs A." public?
David Drew received a copy of the email from H.E. permitting the use of his letters in the writing of the article. David Drew would not have written it without it. I don't know if H.E. knew who was writing the article at that time but at least one priest did. H.E. highly praised the article to me personally.
-
April 14th 2012
Dear [removed for privacy]
As to your letter to Bishop Fellay, it seems to me that you show a remarkable degree of understanding for why he has done what he has done. He cannot object to your manner, nor to your lack of comprehension.
So your letter may of course be useless, but you can content yourself that you did all you could. Do be content with that, is my advice, even if you continue to be possessed by such anguish as Sister Lucy must have suffered, and in spades..
As to that English bishop, your counselor's advice is good, as it seems to me. And I am delighted that you have had it from somebody else that he has no position of authority, nor standing of credit, to tell the world at large such truths as you wish told. Indeed BpF is the key figure. Dare I hope that wise counsel will be heeded ?
Personally I think the Devil is after you. How could he not be ?
All good wishes, +Richard Williamson.
It is sad that Bishop Williamson didn't continue to heed the wise counsel he counseled her to follow (and was counseling her himself) just 2 years previously. Namely, that he had no position of authority to tell the world about her alleged visions as she wished him to. In the intervening time, one wonders why he completely changed on that point, and how he came to believe that he DOES have the authority to tell her story. Perhaps a more recent "vision" of DM's conveniently "just happened" to give him that authority? It would not surprise me in the least to learn that this is how she finally convinced him to "validate" her to the world.
If she can so much manipulate him like this, dare we ask what else has he done because of and under her influence during these past few critical years? One can't help but wonder. And precisely the growing concerns about his judgement is now what is so damaging to him by the publishment of the infamous Peace Plan, revised yet again and renamed "The Inside Story".
-
"La Petite Plume"?
:facepalm:
I didn't need to read another word from this false seer.
If the good Bishop Williamson kept abreast of the trad forums, it's pretty safe to assume his opinion would change on these matters. But if I recall, he made it clear that he does not read forums, so it looks as if he's getting one side of a story. She already published some emails between the two of them in which he was agreeing that the outrage expressed was sort of from the devil, and to be expected. (that's the jist of it--anyone else who remembers can correct me if I'm mistaken).
Is this the letter? It was one one the letters released by H.E. +W for the article by D.D.:
Released by +RW, or by DM? Did David Drew receive permission from His Excellency to make his private correspondence with "Mrs A." public?
David Drew received a copy of the email from H.E. permitting the use of his letters in the writing of the article. David Drew would not have written it without it. I don't know if H.E. knew who was writing the article at that time but at least one priest did. H.E. highly praised the article to me personally.
Thank you for that clarification. So at the same time His Excellency is giving permission for his letters to be used by David Drew to write the Peace Plan, and approving of it afterwards to you, around the same time he is writing to the "visionary" telling her that he has no authority to go public? Somethings not making sense, unless the whole Peace Plan was written, released, approved, and yet pulled back (except nothing is ever completely pulled off the Internet, is it?) as something of a Trial Balloon?
Is that what one does with authentic "messages from heaven"? Does one then release them again 2 years later, but this time in installments like a TV show, asking people to "stay tuned" until next week?
-
"La Petite Plume"?
:facepalm:
I didn't need to read another word from this false seer.
If the good Bishop Williamson kept abreast of the trad forums, it's pretty safe to assume his opinion would change on these matters. But if I recall, he made it clear that he does not read forums, so it looks as if he's getting one side of a story. She already published some emails between the two of them in which he was agreeing that the outrage expressed was sort of from the devil, and to be expected. (that's the jist of it--anyone else who remembers can correct me if I'm mistaken).
Is this the letter? It was one one the letters released by H.E. +W for the article by D.D.:
Released by +RW, or by DM? Did David Drew receive permission from His Excellency to make his private correspondence with "Mrs A." public?
David Drew received a copy of the email from H.E. permitting the use of his letters in the writing of the article. David Drew would not have written it without it. I don't know if H.E. knew who was writing the article at that time but at least one priest did. H.E. highly praised the article to me personally.
Thank you for that clarification. So at the same time His Excellency is giving permission for his letters to be used by David Drew to write the Peace Plan, and approving of it afterwards to you, around the same time he is writing to the "visionary" telling her that he has no authority to go public? Somethings not making sense, unless the whole Peace Plan was written, released, approved, and yet pulled back (except nothing is ever completely pulled off the Internet, is it?) as something of a Trial Balloon?
Is that what one does with authentic "messages from heaven"? Does one then release them again 2 years later, but this time in installments like a TV show, asking people to "stay tuned" until next week?
I only comment on what I know.
-
"La Petite Plume"?
:facepalm:
I didn't need to read another word from this false seer.
If the good Bishop Williamson kept abreast of the trad forums, it's pretty safe to assume his opinion would change on these matters. But if I recall, he made it clear that he does not read forums, so it looks as if he's getting one side of a story. She already published some emails between the two of them in which he was agreeing that the outrage expressed was sort of from the devil, and to be expected. (that's the jist of it--anyone else who remembers can correct me if I'm mistaken).
Is this the letter? It was one one the letters released by H.E. +W for the article by D.D.:
Released by +RW, or by DM? Did David Drew receive permission from His Excellency to make his private correspondence with "Mrs A." public?
Thanks, Marie Aux. That's the one.
This was released by DM on Ignis Ardens, if I recall. It certainly was not Bp. Williamson. Anyone who knows how to retrieve old forum threads could read IA and draw an informed conclusion about some of the various personas involved in this web of confusion and manipulation. I will see if I have any luck.
-
"La Petite Plume"?
:facepalm:
I didn't need to read another word from this false seer.
If the good Bishop Williamson kept abreast of the trad forums, it's pretty safe to assume his opinion would change on these matters. But if I recall, he made it clear that he does not read forums, so it looks as if he's getting one side of a story. She already published some emails between the two of them in which he was agreeing that the outrage expressed was sort of from the devil, and to be expected. (that's the jist of it--anyone else who remembers can correct me if I'm mistaken).
Is this the letter? It was one one the letters released by H.E. +W for the article by D.D.:
Released by +RW, or by DM? Did David Drew receive permission from His Excellency to make his private correspondence with "Mrs A." public?
Thanks, Marie Aux. That's the one.
This was released by DM on Ignis Ardens, if I recall. It certainly was not Bp. Williamson. Anyone who knows how to retrieve old forum threads could read IA and draw an informed conclusion about some of the various personas involved in this web of confusion and manipulation. I will see if I have any luck.
How about contacting H.E. and see what he has to say? I will report his answer when available.
-
This entire thread has been highly entertaining.
I never knew things got this out of hand for the woman in question here. I guess there are long periods of time where I am away from the various forums.
I did come across a thread a couple of years ago about her when she was banned from IA that had me laughing out loud. And I mean I had tears coming out of my eyes.
Either way, I tagged this Dawn Marie as dangerous and a complete phony upon reading her first post on AQ. And that is the truth.
I think she has a natural talent for creating a sense of group think which is borne of a type of political correctness which I have managed to label pious correctness. Many women have this "gift" and I for one am tired of it.
We should be able to intelligently disagree around here on things that are OK to disagree on without throwing bombs at each other.
Fatima as some kind of litmus test is a lightening rod. And it divides us so much that I can no longer believe any of it. Worthy of belief simply means there are not contradictions with morals and dogma. That is hardly an endorsement of all the later claims that have been made that come from the original apparitions.
God became incarnate and dwelt among us, folks. I don't know what more we need. He comes to our altars daily. Popes just can't listen to every lay person or perform actions based on the words of someone meek nun.
-
April 14th 2012
Dear [removed for privacy]
As to your letter to Bishop Fellay, it seems to me that you show a remarkable degree of understanding for why he has done what he has done. He cannot object to your manner, nor to your lack of comprehension.
So your letter may of course be useless, but you can content yourself that you did all you could. Do be content with that, is my advice, even if you continue to be possessed by such anguish as Sister Lucy must have suffered, and in spades..
As to that English bishop, your counselor's advice is good, as it seems to me. And I am delighted that you have had it from somebody else that he has no position of authority, nor standing of credit, to tell the world at large such truths as you wish told. Indeed BpF is the key figure. Dare I hope that wise counsel will be heeded ?
Personally I think the Devil is after you. How could he not be ?
All good wishes, +Richard Williamson.
It is sad that Bishop Williamson didn't continue to heed the wise counsel he counseled her to follow (and was counseling her himself) just 2 years previously. Namely, that he had no position of authority to tell the world about her alleged visions as she wished him to. In the intervening time, one wonders why he completely changed on that point, and how he came to believe that he DOES have the authority to tell her story. Perhaps a more recent "vision" of DM's conveniently "just happened" to give him that authority? It would not surprise me in the least to learn that this is how she finally convinced him to "validate" her to the world.
If she can so much manipulate him like this, dare we ask what else has he done because of and under her influence during these past few critical years? One can't help but wonder. And precisely the growing concerns about his judgement is now what is so damaging to him by the publishment of the infamous Peace Plan, revised yet again and renamed "The Inside Story".
I have sent an email to H.E. +Williamson for a confirmation (or denial).
Sorry, I meant to reply to Elizabeth but I had this post on my screen.
-
If all else fails, try the Fatima route! Some would turn it into a new religion to compete with the mainstream ecuмenical one and the stalled trad one. Fatima was a creature of its time and was never realised because the institution that was once the Church knew better. It had the right to file it away with all of the other stale prophesies....... and why hand over the Church to a bunch of impoverished ignorant peasants in Portugal?
We now have another excuse to remain inactive and inert and rely on 'mysterious voices' because we are not inclined to remake the Church on earth. What power the bishop did have while at the top of an organisation protesting the advance of modernism has been reduced to finding a market for online prophecy and speculative historical extrapolation. My email tray has thousands of messages in the same vein. I go with Michael Hoffman in declaring that the Church on earth existed because of the actions of armies and kings in adopting an ideological system that provided them with a system of law and order. Trillions of rosaries have not and will not be a substitute for the earthly struggles of men; they merely turn them into cabbages, unwilling to use the resources given them to change things. It is a feminine prescriptive and the bishop would be advised to ditch these associations.
Just curious, Wessex. Has this been your opinion for some time, or all along? Or have you recently changed your position?
I hope you don't mind my asking. But it seems I am seeming more of this opinion than ever and have recently seen big supporters of Fatima change their tune recently.
I'm trying to discern if there is something going on that is causing a change in perspective or is it just that for whatever reason people are no longer caring about voicing their true opinions.
-
Thurifer,
Would you like to put your name where your mouth is? It's amazing how boldly and sinfully people write anonymously as if God was not aware.
I'm referring to your second to the last post.
-
"I don´t like the message, hence I shoot the messenger". That is what is happening here. PRAY THE ROSARY as Our Lady has time and time again requested of us. Pray the Rosary all the time.
-
Thurifer,
Would you like to put your name where your mouth is? It's amazing how boldly and sinfully people write anonymously as if God was not aware.
I'm referring to your second to the last post.
I know God is aware. And I'm OK with that.
-
It seems like anytime the subject of Dawn Marie comes up on trad fora, Green Scapular comes out of the woodwork, using whatever screenname she fancies at the time. If you notice, she has been a member since just Oct 21, and her very first post was a long diatribe smearing the messenger. It's pretty obvious she created this account mainly for that purpose. More than half of her 15 posts are on this thread. It is obvious she has some ax to grind here, and I don't believe it is out of concern for Bishop Williamson's reputation. She is no fan of +W, and holds the resistance in great contempt. So unless there is a personal vendetta here, I see no reason why she feels the need to stalk this subject whenever it comes up. She and her crony, I believe, would post the messenger's name,address and a map to her house ( as well as supply rotten eggs and fruit) if they weren't afraid it would do more harm than good to their cause. Such longstanding and active hatred only makes sense if there is a personal grudge of some kind. Such Perseverence is otherwise unfathomable.
If you don't believe the message, well, all you have to say is "I don't believe it." There is no need to spend years trying to ruin someone's reputation when there is no way any of us could possibly know the absolute truth of whether this was an authentic apparition or not.
-
It seems like anytime the subject of Dawn Marie comes up on trad fora, Green Scapular comes out of the woodwork, using whatever screenname she fancies at the time. If you notice, she has been a member since just Oct 21, and her very first post was a long diatribe smearing the messenger. It's pretty obvious she created this account mainly for that purpose. More than half of her 15 posts are on this thread. It is obvious she has some ax to grind here, and I don't believe it is out of concern for Bishop Williamson's reputation. She is no fan of +W, and holds the resistance in great contempt. So unless there is a personal vendetta here, I see no reason why she feels the need to stalk this subject whenever it comes up. She and her crony, I believe, would post the messenger's name,address and a map to her house ( as well as supply rotten eggs and fruit) if they weren't afraid it would do more harm than good to their cause. Such longstanding and active hatred only makes sense if there is a personal grudge of some kind.
If you don't believe the message, well, all you have to say is "I don't believe it." There is no need to spend years trying to ruin someone's reputation when there is no way any of us could possibly know the absolute truth of whether this was an authentic apparition or not.
We can know the ABSOLUTE truth by her fruits. It so happens,all this "seers" visible fruits are, shall we say, less than good. Is it my vendetta too? Go carefully tweeze through all my posts trying to get a "read" on me as well. You'll find precious few concerning the FALSE seer.
-
How about contacting H.E. and see what he has to say? I will report his answer when available.
Ordinarily that is a very good idea, for example when a group of people including the alleged seer and the alleged exorcist fabricated an untruth about Bishop Tissier's living situation and elder abuse. A simple phone call settled some of the manipulation.
But, first I would need a collated online history, printed out, and His Excellency would need hours to read through forum wars.
But very importantly, I do not need assistance from any bishop to know what I should believe about this particular situation, having been on the receiving end of very ugly and distressing attacks by the seer and her groupies.
-
If you don't believe the message, well, all you have to say is "I don't believe it." There is no need to spend years trying to ruin someone's reputation when there is no way any of us could possibly know the absolute truth of whether this was an authentic apparition or not.
I don't think anyone is trying to ruin the so called "seer's" reputation, that job is being done by herself. People are just tired of the game and manipulations, and are going to speak out against it. One can hardly do that by omitting mentioning the one (so called seer) who started all this. Just look at where it's going now with some even daring to denigrate Fatima. God, forbid!
-
Is there such a thing as Dogmatic Fatimism?
Here's Marie Auxiliadora practically accusing Thurifer of sinning for questioning Fatima and then being applauded by Elsa Zerdini.
Thurifer,
Would you like to put your name where your mouth is? It's amazing how boldly and sinfully people write anonymously as if God was not aware.
I'm referring to your second to the last post.
And here's holmoak, again referring to those who dare to question Fatima.
Just look at where it's going now with some even daring to denigrate Fatima. God, forbid!
Well, sorry, but every Catholic has the right to question Fatima. I've said it before on another thread, but I think there's a distinct possibility that Fatima is a deception, a decoy, intended to distract Catholics from the real job of challenging the Modernists and to have them chasing their tails, hanging on in anticipation as the next news of the 'consecration' makes the headlines only for their hopes to be dashed yet again.
And the same goes for all these silly visions and prophecies. Look how much time and energy has been spent on discussing this one here, on this thread. Who cares about this Dawn Marie. Just ignore her and she'll go away.
-
,
I don't think anyone is trying to ruin the so called "seer's" reputation, that job is being done by herself. People are just tired of the game and manipulations, and are going to speak out against it. One can hardly do that by omitting mentioning the one (so called seer) who started all this. Just look at where it's going now with some even daring to denigrate Fatima. God, forbid!
I think some of us are more concerned with the reputations of our beloved Traditional Catholic bishops!
And comparing this "message" to Fatima, just boggles the mind, frankly.
-
I think some of us are more concerned with the reputations of our beloved Traditional Catholic bishops!
And comparing this "message" to Fatima, just boggles the mind, frankly.
Right. Referencing or comparing the deluded "visions" to Fatima is one of the more disturbing aspects of this ECs content.
-
But the message in itself is the same.
-
But the message in itself is the same.
FALSE!!
-
?? "to organize a Rosary Crusade to pray for the Consecration of Russia to take place". What's wrong with praying Rosaries for this intention?
-
Yeah, cuz if you use huge, bold font it automatically makes your supposition correct every time.Never fails. :smirk:
-
?? "to organize a Rosary Crusade to pray for the Consecration of Russia to take place". What's wrong with praying Rosaries for this intention?
There is nothing wrong with that.
HOWEVER, to falsely claim Our Lady wants +Fellay to do this or +Williamson to do that is the absolute pinnacle of prideful arrogance. It is a foray toward evil to even dare assume such products of a fevered imagination could ever be held in comparison to the guidance of our Heavenly Mediatrix.
NB, bold font is for those who can not, or will not, see.
-
?? "to organize a Rosary Crusade to pray for the Consecration of Russia to take place". What's wrong with praying Rosaries for this intention?
There is nothing wrong with that.
HOWEVER, to falsely claim Our Lady wants +Fellay to do this or +Williamson to do that is the absolute pinnacle of prideful arrogance. It is a foray toward evil to even dare assume such products of a fevered imagination could ever be held in comparison to the guidance of our Heavenly Mediatrix.
NB, bold font is for those who can not, or will not, see.
So how do you know that these are false claims? Perhaps you yourself are having visions,otherwise how would you know?
-
What for? To read this (http://sspxkorea.org/board/board_view.html?board_data_id=408677&config_id=5147)?
I seriously doubt the Vienna Declaration priests were alluding to anything other than Fatima.
-
?? "to organize a Rosary Crusade to pray for the Consecration of Russia to take place". What's wrong with praying Rosaries for this intention?
There is nothing wrong with this, for example there was the Blue Army and Fr. Gruner's apostolate have pushed this for decades.
-
I don't think His Excellency is going to quote Fr. Grossin's opinion nor in which conditions Fathers Ortiz and Jely found the "seer".
Adolphus,
Can you elaborate? Which "seer" are you speaking about here?
Thank you.
-
?? "to organize a Rosary Crusade to pray for the Consecration of Russia to take place". What's wrong with praying Rosaries for this intention?
It also warned +Fellay not to get any closer to Rome and the consequences of doing that.
-
?? "to organize a Rosary Crusade to pray for the Consecration of Russia to take place". What's wrong with praying Rosaries for this intention?
It also warned +Fellay not to get any closer to Rome and the consequences of doing that.
And what is wrong with that?
-
Ordinarily that is a very good idea, for example when a group of people including the alleged seer and the alleged exorcist fabricated an untruth about Bishop Tissier's living situation and elder abuse.
Elizabeth,
I had forgotten! That was a classic DM rumor. :). But I don't remember any alleged exorcist. What exorcist are you referring to here?
-
I trimmed some of the fluff/detours from this thread to keep it under 33 pages.
Back to something on pages 15 - 18:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=34210&min=70&num=5
I just got an e-mail from someone who offered links to 2 of the "negative about +Fellay" quotes.
Here is my response:
"The rest of the items are unjust as well."
Yeah, because they speak unfavorably of Bishop Fellay, who you are fond of.
But there is nothing uncharitable or unjust about any of the remaining ones. A bishop -- especially one who has done things that +Fellay has -- is not above public criticism. That is not Catholic teaching.
You just disagree with it, so you don't like it. There's a difference.
That having been said, thank you for finding those 2 posts. You'll note that the first one was written by a hardcore Fr. Cekada (sedevacantist) supporter -- totally outside the SSPX and Resistance.
I should also point out that making a "collection" of everything negative (both within AND without the bounds of charity) in one place is rather like "quoting someone out of context". After all, each of those quotes were made in the context of a reasoned discussion, giving evidence, logic, rationale, quotes, etc.
Seeing one quote from a Fr. Cekada supporter made me think of this point. Though I already made a similar point -- when I pointed out that there are over 47,600 posts in the "SSPX Resistance" subforum, but only a few dozen "negative" comments about Bishop Fellay himself. Not bad. Sounds like many people owe CathInfo an apology.
Sincerely,
Matthew
-
"La Petite Plume"?
:facepalm:
I didn't need to read another word from this false seer.
If the good Bishop Williamson kept abreast of the trad forums, it's pretty safe to assume his opinion would change on these matters. But if I recall, he made it clear that he does not read forums, so it looks as if he's getting one side of a story. She already published some emails between the two of them in which he was agreeing that the outrage expressed was sort of from the devil, and to be expected. (that's the jist of it--anyone else who remembers can correct me if I'm mistaken).
Is this the letter? It was one one the letters released by H.E. +W for the article by D.D.:
Released by +RW, or by DM? Did David Drew receive permission from His Excellency to make his private correspondence with "Mrs A." public?
Thanks, Marie Aux. That's the one.
This was released by DM on Ignis Ardens, if I recall. It certainly was not Bp. Williamson. Anyone who knows how to retrieve old forum threads could read IA and draw an informed conclusion about some of the various personas involved in this web of confusion and manipulation. I will see if I have any luck.
I have received no response yet from +W. I was told he is traveling. In the meantime, I just re read "Bishop Fellay and the Peace Plan Proposed by the Mother of God" and the letter was in the article which H.E. highly approves of.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Revelations-about-Rosary-Crusades
-
Spoiler Alert!
(Don't read further if you wish to wait until this weekend's "Inside Story - Part 2" to hear what happens next.)
From Bishop Williamson's "Inside Story - Part 1":
"The story begins on Good Shepherd Sunday of 2004, when the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to the messenger and gave her a message to be passed on to the Bishop of the Society of St Pius X. In it she asked for the SSPX to lead the faithful in a Rosary Crusade for the Consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart, that same Consecration that Heaven has been asking for since the 1920’s. The understanding in the 2000’s was that if this were done as she asked, it would at last obtain, through her, the graces to bring about the much needed Consecration."
From http://sspxkorea.org/board/board_view.html?board_data_id=406470&config_id=5147 :
- "On April 24, 2004, Good Shepherd Sunday, the Blessed and Ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God, appeared to this layman and gave a message to be delivered to Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the SSPX. She asked Bishop Fellay to lead the faithful in a Rosary Crusade for the intention of obtaining the grace for Pope Benedict XVI to Consecrate Russia, in union with the bishops of the world, to Her Immaculate Heart. She promised that if Bishop Fellay will grant Her this request, She will obtain the Consecration of Russia."
- "The visionary was again directed to relay to Bishop Fellay the Virgin Mary’s specific request that he conduct a Rosary Crusade for the explicit purpose of obtaining the Consecration of Russia. This was relayed to him from September 2007 through April of 2008."
- "In early 2008 the Blessed Virgin said that Bishop Fellay was, “not to use the Crusade for the (intention) of the lifting of the excommunications” that she described as “false.” She also said that if he did, “It would be fatal for the Society” and that She would not bless such an effort but would instead use the rosaries prayed for other purposes. On March 20, 2008, Holy Saturday, the Blessed Virgin said, “Tell Bishop Fellay that he cannot move any closer to Rome than he already is, no matter how well intentioned the Holy Father may be.” She then repeated, “Remember, no matter how well intentioned the Holy Father may be.”
- "On October 5, 2008 ... Our Lord Jesus Christ communicated to the visionary His anger, with His hand coming down to destroy the SSPX referring to them as “Pharisees and hypocrites, I can no longer put up with them”. In the midst of Our Lord’s hand falling the Blessed Virgin Mary interceded and pleaded on their behalf for mercy saying, “Remember the weakness of men.”
-
"On October 5, 2008 ... Our Lord Jesus Christ communicated to the visionary His anger, with His hand coming down to destroy the SSPX referring to them as “Pharisees and hypocrites, I can no longer put up with them”. In the midst of Our Lord’s hand falling the Blessed Virgin Mary interceded and pleaded on their behalf for mercy saying, “Remember the weakness of men.”
This struck me as very strange.
Why would Our Lord be "stuck in the first century" and call some 21st century priests "Pharisees"?
Newsflash: the Pharisees died out centuries ago.
Sounds more like words coming from the mind of a person whose knowledge of Our Lord comes exclusively from his words almost 2,000 years ago in Scripture.
That would make sense.
I don't think Our Lord would resort to cliches -- even a good human author doesn't do that!
It sounds like something from a (bad) Hollywood movie -- written by a writer without much of an imagination.
Moreover, think of the typical elderly man: change is usually difficult or impossible for him, he is often "set in his ways", and is almost infallibly a child of his age when it comes to memories, speech habits, behavior, tastes, etc. I believe Our Lord would be an exception to this trend. He is more timeless than some typical elderly man.
In conclusion, if Our Lord appeared on earth today, he wouldn't be some anachronistic dinosaur or a "fish out of water" like Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Socrates, or other historical figures would be if they visited 2014 (think: Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure).
No, He would be as intelligent, rational, relevant, and impressive today as he was in 33 AD.
-
By the way, that sspxkorea website is not an SSPX affiliated website. The person who runs it took Fr. Chazal's side when the Korean chapel split up due to the Resistance.
-
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 have received no response yet from +W. I was told he is traveling. In the meantime, I just re read "Bishop Fellay and the Peace Plan Proposed by the Mother of God" and the letter was in the article which H.E. highly approves of.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Revelations-about-Rosary-Crusades
In the Peace Plan Proposed by Someone Other Than the Mother of God (linked above) one finds the following quotes:
On April 24, 2004, Good Shepherd Sunday, the Blessed and Ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God, appeared to this layman and gave a message to be delivered to Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the SSPX. She asked Bishop Fellay to lead the faithful in a Rosary Crusade for the intention of obtaining the grace for Pope Benedict XVI to Consecrate Russia, in union with the bishops of the world, to Her Immaculate Heart. She promised that if Bishop Fellay will grant Her this request, She will obtain the Consecration of Russia.
On March 20, 2008, Holy Saturday, the Blessed Virgin said, "Tell Bishop Fellay that he cannot move any closer to Rome than he already is, no matter how well intentioned the Holy Father may be." She then repeated, "Remember, no matter how well intentioned the Holy Father may be."
Holy Saturday and Good Shepherd Sunday were not on those dates those years. Real visionaries like St Anthony Mary Claret remember not only the day but the exact hour of their celestial visits!
-
Why is His Excellency and not the visionary the one who reveals all this? Bernadette of Lourdes, Melanie of La Sellete, Lucy of Fatima, Margaret Mary for the Sacred Heart devotion, then the other French nun of the Miraculous Medal, Juan Diego of Our Lady of Guadalupe, they all went public with their messages, no intermediaries. This is unusual.
-
Holy Saturday and Good Shepherd Sunday were not on those dates those years. Real visionaries like St Anthony Mary Claret remember not only the day but the exact hour of their celestial visits!
There will be more inconsistencies in the forthcoming ECs. To quote Bishop Williamson, "Stay tuned"!
-
Why is His Excellency and not the visionary the one who reveals all this? Bernadette of Lourdes, Melanie of La Sellete, Lucy of Fatima, Margaret Mary for the Sacred Heart devotion, then the other French nun of the Miraculous Medal, Juan Diego of Our Lady of Guadalupe, they all went public with their messages, no intermediaries. This is unusual.
The supposed "visionary" was supposedly put under an obedience of silence by her spiritual director. If that is really the case, why would she then go around behind the scenes in the background, and divulge privately to many others, details about her so called "visits from Heaven"? Her priests are not the only ones she has spoken to about this.
-
I wish my wife had the same spiritual director. Wise man.
-
Why is His Excellency and not the visionary the one who reveals all this? Bernadette of Lourdes, Melanie of La Sellete, Lucy of Fatima, Margaret Mary for the Sacred Heart devotion, then the other French nun of the Miraculous Medal, Juan Diego of Our Lady of Guadalupe, they all went public with their messages, no intermediaries. This is unusual.
The supposed "visionary" was supposedly put under an obedience of silence by her spiritual director. If that is really the case, why would she then go around behind the scenes in the background, and divulge privately to many others, details about her so called "visits from Heaven"? Her priests are not the only ones she has spoken to about this.
She did suddenly close her account and vanish from "the other" forum, but this sort of pathology usually can't sit still. It would be expected for her to try managing the message from behind the scenes, while maintaining an appearance of pious silence for public view. I don't know with any certitude if she's doing this now, but the behavior of those sympathetic to her claims gives every impression that their recent forum activity is being coordinated.
-
Why is His Excellency and not the visionary the one who reveals all this? Bernadette of Lourdes, Melanie of La Sellete, Lucy of Fatima, Margaret Mary for the Sacred Heart devotion, then the other French nun of the Miraculous Medal, Juan Diego of Our Lady of Guadalupe, they all went public with their messages, no intermediaries. This is unusual.
The supposed "visionary" was supposedly put under an obedience of silence by her spiritual director. If that is really the case, why would she then go around behind the scenes in the background, and divulge privately to many others, details about her so called "visits from Heaven"? Her priests are not the only ones she has spoken to about this.
She did suddenly close her account and vanish from "the other" forum, but this sort of pathology usually can't sit still. It would be expected for her to try managing the message from behind the scenes, while maintaining an appearance of pious silence for public view. I don't know with any certitude if she's doing this now, but the behavior of those sympathetic to her claims gives every impression that their recent forum activity is being coordinated.
Yes, but I'm referring to her talking behind the scenes privately about this to others, for at least the past 4 years that I know of. She was (supposedly) placed under obedience to not speak about it at the time she first brought it to the priest, back in 2005. When asked why she would speak about it privately but not publicly, she replied that the priest only put her under obedience to not speak publicly. Not believable, doesn't make sense.
-
Holy Saturday and Good Shepherd Sunday were not on those dates those years. Real visionaries like St Anthony Mary Claret remember not only the day but the exact hour of their celestial visits!
There will be more inconsistencies in the forthcoming ECs. To quote Bishop Williamson, "Stay tuned"!
After reading and digesting all of this, I am anxious for Eleison 380. Hope it is a
separate thread.
-
Ordinarily that is a very good idea, for example when a group of people including the alleged seer and the alleged exorcist fabricated an untruth about Bishop Tissier's living situation and elder abuse.
Elizabeth,
I had forgotten! That was a classic DM rumor. :). But I don't remember any alleged exorcist. What exorcist are you referring to here?
The alleged exorcist was known as pablo the Amateur Exorcist, who covertly video-taped Bp. Tissier's private chapel during a visit with two priests in Chicago. Then, a group of people attempted to fabricate issues about his living conditions, but they failed.
-
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" ?
-
I have received no response yet from +W. I was told he is traveling. In the meantime, I just re read "Bishop Fellay and the Peace Plan Proposed by the Mother of God" and the letter was in the article which H.E. highly approves of.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Revelations-about-Rosary-Crusades
In the Peace Plan Proposed by Someone Other Than the Mother of God (linked above) one finds the following quotes:
On April 24, 2004, Good Shepherd Sunday, the Blessed and Ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God, appeared to this layman and gave a message to be delivered to Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the SSPX. She asked Bishop Fellay to lead the faithful in a Rosary Crusade for the intention of obtaining the grace for Pope Benedict XVI to Consecrate Russia, in union with the bishops of the world, to Her Immaculate Heart. She promised that if Bishop Fellay will grant Her this request, She will obtain the Consecration of Russia.
On March 20, 2008, Holy Saturday, the Blessed Virgin said, "Tell Bishop Fellay that he cannot move any closer to Rome than he already is, no matter how well intentioned the Holy Father may be." She then repeated, "Remember, no matter how well intentioned the Holy Father may be."
Holy Saturday and Good Shepherd Sunday were not on those dates those years. Real visionaries like St Anthony Mary Claret remember not only the day but the exact hour of their celestial visits!
That's right and I pointed that out over on IA before it went belly up the second or third time since - you got it - DM was everywhere there too.
-
Holy Saturday and Good Shepherd Sunday were not on those dates those years. Real visionaries like St Anthony Mary Claret remember not only the day but the exact hour of their celestial visits!
There will be more inconsistencies in the forthcoming ECs. To quote Bishop Williamson, "Stay tuned"!
After reading and digesting all of this, I am anxious for Eleison 380. Hope it is a
separate thread.
Injecting a little humor here - the story is told of a priest who was scrupulous in purifying a ciborium at Mass that it took him 20 minutes to purify it (in addition to the Mass). One day someone called on Father, and the housekeeper told the man he was upstairs lying down: "He had 2 ciboria to do today !" she sighed. I think I might be in a similar position if these ECs keep coming !
-
Why is His Excellency and not the visionary the one who reveals all this? Bernadette of Lourdes, Melanie of La Sellete, Lucy of Fatima, Margaret Mary for the Sacred Heart devotion, then the other French nun of the Miraculous Medal, Juan Diego of Our Lady of Guadalupe, they all went public with their messages, no intermediaries. This is unusual.
The supposed "visionary" was supposedly put under an obedience of silence by her spiritual director. If that is really the case, why would she then go around behind the scenes in the background, and divulge privately to many others, details about her so called "visits from Heaven"? Her priests are not the only ones she has spoken to about this.
She did suddenly close her account and vanish from "the other" forum, but this sort of pathology usually can't sit still. It would be expected for her to try managing the message from behind the scenes, while maintaining an appearance of pious silence for public view. I don't know with any certitude if she's doing this now, but the behavior of those sympathetic to her claims gives every impression that their recent forum activity is being coordinated.
I have suspicion that the period of calm was a preparation for the storm that these ECs will produce. She's vanished officially but one might almost be accused of thinking she is omnipresent and omniscient - a part of the message we haven't found out about yet: she was subsumed into the mystical life of the Trinity.
All this tosh comes from too much focussing on Mary of Agreda and other pious types whose lives bear no resemblance to mine.
I think the real focus ought to be prayer for the Bishop and outrage at the SSPX silence over Montini - not a real word about that !
-
Sooo... if she posts online, she's self-aggrandizing.
And if she stays silent, it's because she's hiding away in shame.
Wow, you guys like to have it both ways.
-
Holy Saturday and Good Shepherd Sunday were not on those dates those years. Real visionaries like St Anthony Mary Claret remember not only the day but the exact hour of their celestial visits!
There will be more inconsistencies in the forthcoming ECs. To quote Bishop Williamson, "Stay tuned"!
After reading and digesting all of this, I am anxious for Eleison 380. Hope it is a
separate thread.
Injecting a little humor here - the story is told of a priest who was scrupulous in purifying a ciborium at Mass that it took him 20 minutes to purify it (in addition to the Mass). One day someone called on Father, and the housekeeper told the man he was upstairs lying down: "He had 2 ciboria to do today !" she sighed. I think I might be in a similar position if these ECs keep coming !
HA! Either that, or a good drink. Thanks, we need a little humor :alcohol:
-
Sooo... if she posts online, she's self-aggrandizing.
And if she stays silent, it's because she's hiding away in shame.
Wow, you guys like to have it both ways.
Seems like that but no. Here in Florida we are well aware of the "calm before the storm" when the eye of the hurricane passes over you it eerily seems as though there were no storm. Well when these ECs finish watch Hurricane DM go into full blown action again this time with a +Williamson says so attached !
-
This open letter of Michael Hoffman's was posted on another Resistance forum:
An Open Letter to Bishop Richard Williamson concerning an alleged recent "Directive from the Mother of God"
Dear Bishop Williamson
With regard to the latest Eleison Comments, ("Inside Story - I;" October 18, 2014), surely you are aware that to advertise a private revelation by a contemporary woman as being, in your estimation ("readers are entitled" to "distrust" your "judgment"), a "directive from the Mother of God," violates everything the mystical doctor par excellence, St. John of the Cross, wrote on this subject (please re-read The Dark Night of the Soul, Book II, from chapter XVI forward).
Personally, I pray first and foremost for the conversion of the degraded United States of America, which is the usury, pornography and sodomite capital of the world -- and for the conversion of Jerusalem -- where the evil of evils has its lair. These are the top two black holes on earth today (the rise of Islamic terrorism being a creature chiefly of Israeli, US and British intelligence). In comparison with these, Putin's Russia, which defends Our Lord and Lady from blasphemy, and is the nation-state most energetically advocating for the defense of Christians in war-torn Middle Eastern nations like Syria, is far down the list of countries needing "conversion" in the 21st century.
To see Catholic prelates led around by a living woman's "visions" is not edifying and may seriously harm your credibility. Moreover, if this is Our Lady speaking in actuality, why didn't she first request that Bishop Fellay repent of his deceit and Judaizing? Furthermore, Bishop Fellay has had the SSPX faithful recite umpteenth thousands (or millions) of rosaries of late. Is Our Lady ignorant of this fact? Are these rosaries only efficacious if specifically aimed at Russia?
Unlike the woman of your acquaintance, I do not presume to speak for the Blessed Virgin Mary, but I will venture to opine that if Mary were speaking today, she would tell all Catholic men to get off their duffs and out into the streets, and work for Christ the King in the media and political, legal, academic and cultural arenas -- actively resisting and organizing to expose sodomy, usury, pornography, blasphemy and тαℓмυdism in high places; pounding the pavement to elect local candidates of moral fibre, and organizing seminars and speeches on topics of historical and political import, as well as encouraging university degrees for Catholic youth headed into the judiciary, journalism, law enforcement, etc. Most "traditional" Catholics are nearly completely passive in almost all of these areas of activism.
How do you know that the woman seer you are promoting is not of the devil? Is she not persuading Catholic men who should be standing up and getting into the arena of combat, that they mainly need to emphasize the rosary to fulfill what Heaven has called them to do?
The rosary prayers alone could never have won at Lepanto. It took thousands of troops and sailors in armor, and with blood and fire, to accomplish that victory. We can say a trillion rosaries, and if the softies in the pews imagine that their main pursuits (which seem to be reading, saying rosaries and talking), will win them a victory over God's hellish enemies, they are seriously deluded.
Jesus Christ said, "Occupy until I come." Are we contesting for the seats of power in the West until He returns again? Where are the heavenly directives from female visionaries to do as Christ taught us?
I pray that we are not being spiritually enervated and paralyzed by an eschatological mentality that forever prophesies imminent doom or "chastisement" (as has been predicted for some thirty-five years), and mocks the notion that we could re-conquer the seats of power in America (as Spain did in taking the Iberian peninsula back from Islam and their Judaic allies). Yes, Jesus may return to earth tomorrow, or He may return 200 years hence. Our duty is to the battle underway, which requires soldiers in the trenches -- very real, physical "trenches." And dear God, may we please cease our egotistical disparagement of Russia as a nation so much more blighted and in need of conversion than America and "Israel." If ever there was a misdirecting cue from hell -- plain to all who have eyes to see -- this is it.
As I write these words, Hollywood, New York, Jerusalem and the City of London are responsible for far more demonic mayhem on this planet than Russia under Vladimir Putin.
In Christ,
Michael Hoffman
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
_________________
-
I have received no response yet from +W. I was told he is traveling. In the meantime, I just re read "Bishop Fellay and the Peace Plan Proposed by the Mother of God" and the letter was in the article which H.E. highly approves of.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Revelations-about-Rosary-Crusades
In the Peace Plan Proposed by Someone Other Than the Mother of God (linked above) one finds the following quotes:
On April 24, 2004, Good Shepherd Sunday, the Blessed and Ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God, appeared to this layman and gave a message to be delivered to Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the SSPX. She asked Bishop Fellay to lead the faithful in a Rosary Crusade for the intention of obtaining the grace for Pope Benedict XVI to Consecrate Russia, in union with the bishops of the world, to Her Immaculate Heart. She promised that if Bishop Fellay will grant Her this request, She will obtain the Consecration of Russia.
On March 20, 2008, Holy Saturday, the Blessed Virgin said, "Tell Bishop Fellay that he cannot move any closer to Rome than he already is, no matter how well intentioned the Holy Father may be." She then repeated, "Remember, no matter how well intentioned the Holy Father may be."
Holy Saturday and Good Shepherd Sunday were not on those dates those years. Real visionaries like St Anthony Mary Claret remember not only the day but the exact hour of their celestial visits!
There was a simple explanation for the date on the Mission's webpage where it was initially posted. I believe it was posted on CI or perhaps Ignis Ardens.
-
?? "to organize a Rosary Crusade to pray for the Consecration of Russia to take place". What's wrong with praying Rosaries for this intention?
It also warned +Fellay not to get any closer to Rome and the consequences of doing that.
If that statement is accurate, how come she was a consistent and enthusiastic supporter of Bishop family in 2012???
How come short after that she was still not quite sure on who to support and would in one week attack the pro-Williamson group and in the next the pro-Fellay, as one could witness at Ignis Ardens and some other numerous and different Internet channels??? And for your information the back and forth between the two camps lasted for a while until she finally "came along" with the Williamson camp.
Also, right around this time when I had my personal talk with Bishop Williamson and mentioned to him some of her punches bellow the belt (e.g Collecting all the information of Fr. Pfeiffer's trip to Florida, just in order to pass it along to the local SSPX Prior in Florida to consequently crush the resistance there), H.E was not fully trusting her either (though he only used mild terminology). But once I published H.E was not impressed with her in one of the threads she pushed her "visions", hell broke loose and she went crazy and pressed Bishop Williamson to call Fr. Pfeiffer and myself in regards to this "calumny".... She even manage to contact my wife by private message through her C.I account--calling her not by the screen name, but the real name-- in hope to intimidate her (me) in regards to her hoax.... What an embaressing joke that was!
Anyhow, be prepared for more division within tradition/resistance because of this megalomaniac "seer"; apparently having to deal with the issues of new consecrated bishops, sedevacantism, non-Unacuм, Fellayites, etc., aren't enough for His Excelency....
Kyrie Eleison indeed!
-
This open letter of Michael Hoffman's was posted on another Resistance forum:
An Open Letter to Bishop Richard Williamson concerning an alleged recent "Directive from the Mother of God"
Dear Bishop Williamson
With regard to the latest Eleison Comments, ("Inside Story - I;" October 18, 2014), surely you are aware that to advertise a private revelation by a contemporary woman as being, in your estimation ("readers are entitled" to "distrust" your "judgment"), a "directive from the Mother of God," violates everything the mystical doctor par excellence, St. John of the Cross, wrote on this subject (please re-read The Dark Night of the Soul, Book II, from chapter XVI forward).
Personally, I pray first and foremost for the conversion of the degraded United States of America, which is the usury, pornography and sodomite capital of the world -- and for the conversion of Jerusalem -- where the evil of evils has its lair. These are the top two black holes on earth today (the rise of Islamic terrorism being a creature chiefly of Israeli, US and British intelligence). In comparison with these, Putin's Russia, which defends Our Lord and Lady from blasphemy, and is the nation-state most energetically advocating for the defense of Christians in war-torn Middle Eastern nations like Syria, is far down the list of countries needing "conversion" in the 21st century.
To see Catholic prelates led around by a living woman's "visions" is not edifying and may seriously harm your credibility. Moreover, if this is Our Lady speaking in actuality, why didn't she first request that Bishop Fellay repent of his deceit and Judaizing? Furthermore, Bishop Fellay has had the SSPX faithful recite umpteenth thousands (or millions) of rosaries of late. Is Our Lady ignorant of this fact? Are these rosaries only efficacious if specifically aimed at Russia?
Unlike the woman of your acquaintance, I do not presume to speak for the Blessed Virgin Mary, but I will venture to opine that if Mary were speaking today, she would tell all Catholic men to get off their duffs and out into the streets, and work for Christ the King in the media and political, legal, academic and cultural arenas -- actively resisting and organizing to expose sodomy, usury, pornography, blasphemy and тαℓмυdism in high places; pounding the pavement to elect local candidates of moral fibre, and organizing seminars and speeches on topics of historical and political import, as well as encouraging university degrees for Catholic youth headed into the judiciary, journalism, law enforcement, etc. Most "traditional" Catholics are nearly completely passive in almost all of these areas of activism.
How do you know that the woman seer you are promoting is not of the devil? Is she not persuading Catholic men who should be standing up and getting into the arena of combat, that they mainly need to emphasize the rosary to fulfill what Heaven has called them to do?
The rosary prayers alone could never have won at Lepanto. It took thousands of troops and sailors in armor, and with blood and fire, to accomplish that victory. We can say a trillion rosaries, and if the softies in the pews imagine that their main pursuits (which seem to be reading, saying rosaries and talking), will win them a victory over God's hellish enemies, they are seriously deluded.
Jesus Christ said, "Occupy until I come." Are we contesting for the seats of power in the West until He returns again? Where are the heavenly directives from female visionaries to do as Christ taught us?
I pray that we are not being spiritually enervated and paralyzed by an eschatological mentality that forever prophesies imminent doom or "chastisement" (as has been predicted for some thirty-five years), and mocks the notion that we could re-conquer the seats of power in America (as Spain did in taking the Iberian peninsula back from Islam and their Judaic allies). Yes, Jesus may return to earth tomorrow, or He may return 200 years hence. Our duty is to the battle underway, which requires soldiers in the trenches -- very real, physical "trenches." And dear God, may we please cease our egotistical disparagement of Russia as a nation so much more blighted and in need of conversion than America and "Israel." If ever there was a misdirecting cue from hell -- plain to all who have eyes to see -- this is it.
As I write these words, Hollywood, New York, Jerusalem and the City of London are responsible for far more demonic mayhem on this planet than Russia under Vladimir Putin.
In Christ,
Michael Hoffman
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
_________________
Francisco, wherever did you get this? I do not see it posted on Mr. Hoffman's site.
Very excellent piece.
On the other hand, I don't necessarily see it as a good that we should be in the business of editing future editions of EC for the bishop. I would really like to see just how far off the reservation he has managed to roam. And we will only see that if he continues to write without impedance from respected historians like Mr. Hoffman.
Funny how the Jews are never considered to be a problem according to all of these seers, isn't it? Nor has a a request been given to convert them to Our Lady's Immaculate Heart. It's either Russia, or the Church through stubborn popes, or now the SSPX.
-
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...
-
There was a simple explanation for the date on the Mission's webpage where it was initially posted. I believe it was posted on CI or perhaps Ignis Ardens.
I never saw the explanation, but the imperative part of Drew's article is:
On April 24, 2004, Good Shepherd Sunday,
the Blessed and Ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God, appeared to this layman and gave a message to be delivered to Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the SSPX.
She asked Bishop Fellay to lead the faithful in a Rosary Crusade for the intention of obtaining the grace for Pope Benedict XVI to Consecrate Russia, in union with the bishops of the world, to Her Immaculate Heart. She promised that if Bishop Fellay will grant Her this request, She will obtain the Consecration of Russia.
From April 2004 to January 2006 an inquiry was conducted regarding the claims of the visionary by the priest of their local SSPX chapel. His investigation found the claims credible and he gave his permission for the visionary to contact Bishop Fellay in January 2006.
1. Good Shepherd Sunday in 2004 was April 25. But the date doesn't matter because Pope Benedict the XVI hadn't even been elected;
2. Maybe it's not the date but the year that was mistaken and it should have been 2005. Good Shepherd Sunday was April 10, 2005. Pope Benedict wasn't elected until April 19, 2005;
3. Maybe the seer was visited in 2005 according to the new liturgical calendar, where Good Shepherd Sunday is celebrated on the Fourth Sunday of Easter or April 24, 2005. That would be a match; we've got a Pope and a date.
But....Why conduct an inquiry into the claims of the visionary beginning in April 2004 (or any time in 2004, for that matter) for a vision whose facts don't square up until 2005 and that is only if you accept the conditions in #3 above?
Or, maybe I've missed something.
-
This has to be one of the strangest topics I have ever read.
So, let me get this straight, Our Lady has apparently given "messages" to a lady who has had an active presence on internet forums and who has been pro-Bishop Fellay, then pro-Bishop Williamson? How in the world can we take this seriously? Since when does Our Lady appear to someone so that this person can cause all sorts of confusion on the internet of all places?
Also, how can one be sure that she is even really receiving messages from Our Lady? Where is His Excellency's discernment? This is absolutely absurd!
St. John of the Cross says the following in his "The Ascent to Mount Carmel," Book 2, Chapter 16:
4. It is to these senses of imagination and fancy that the devil habitually betakes himself with his wiles -- now natural, now supernatural;[325] for they are the door and entrance to the soul, and here, as we have said, the understanding comes to take up or set down its goods, as it were in a harbour or in a store-house where it keeps its provisions. And for this reason it is hither that both God and the devil always come with their jewels of supernatural forms and images, to offer them to the understanding; although God does not make use of this means alone to instruct the soul, but dwells within it in substance, and is able to do this by Himself and by other methods.
5. There is no need for me to stop here in order to give instruction concerning the signs by which it may be known which visions are of God and which not, and which are of one kind and which of another; for this is not my intention, which is only to instruct the understanding herein, that it may not be hindered or impeded as to union with Divine Wisdom by the good visions, neither may be deceived by those which are false.
6. I say, then, that with regard to all these imaginary visions and apprehensions and to all other forms and species whatsoever, which present themselves beneath some particular kind of knowledge or image or form, whether they be false and come from the devil or are recognized as true and coming from God, the understanding must not be embarrassed by them or feed upon them, neither must the soul desire to receive them or to have them, lest it should no longer be detached, free, pure and simple, without any mode or manner, as is required for union.
7. The reason of this is that all these forms which we have already mentioned are always represented, in the apprehension of the soul, as we have said, beneath certain modes and manners which have limitations; and that the Wisdom of God, wherewith the understanding is to be united, has no mode or manner, neither is it contained within any particular or distinct kind of intelligence or limit, because it is wholly pure and simple.
Where is the simplicity in this alleged "seer"? What would motivate an alleged seer to be SO ACTIVE on internet forums to cause such discord?
From my limited understanding, haven't all true seers either been religious or very simple souls? I really don't know what else to say other than I am disappointed that His Excellency, who is so intelligent on all sorts of issues, would give credence to this alleged seer. Shouldn't approved apparitions (e.g. Fatima) and DOCTRINE be enough for His Excellency?
My head is spinning....this is not of God.
-
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...
+W has not began hto speak yet and you seem afraid. Are you "manipulating" peoples mind?
-
This has to be one of the strangest topics I have ever read.
So, let me get this straight, Our Lady has apparently given "messages" to a lady who has had an active presence on internet forums and who has been pro-Bishop Fellay, then pro-Bishop Williamson? How in the world can we take this seriously? Since when does Our Lady appear to someone so that this person can cause all sorts of confusion on the internet of all places?
Also, how can one be sure that she is even really receiving messages from Our Lady? Where is His Excellency's discernment? This is absolutely absurd!
St. John of the Cross says the following in his "The Ascent to Mount Carmel," Book 2, Chapter 16:
4. It is to these senses of imagination and fancy that the devil habitually betakes himself with his wiles -- now natural, now supernatural;[325] for they are the door and entrance to the soul, and here, as we have said, the understanding comes to take up or set down its goods, as it were in a harbour or in a store-house where it keeps its provisions. And for this reason it is hither that both God and the devil always come with their jewels of supernatural forms and images, to offer them to the understanding; although God does not make use of this means alone to instruct the soul, but dwells within it in substance, and is able to do this by Himself and by other methods.
5. There is no need for me to stop here in order to give instruction concerning the signs by which it may be known which visions are of God and which not, and which are of one kind and which of another; for this is not my intention, which is only to instruct the understanding herein, that it may not be hindered or impeded as to union with Divine Wisdom by the good visions, neither may be deceived by those which are false.
6. I say, then, that with regard to all these imaginary visions and apprehensions and to all other forms and species whatsoever, which present themselves beneath some particular kind of knowledge or image or form, whether they be false and come from the devil or are recognized as true and coming from God, the understanding must not be embarrassed by them or feed upon them, neither must the soul desire to receive them or to have them, lest it should no longer be detached, free, pure and simple, without any mode or manner, as is required for union.
7. The reason of this is that all these forms which we have already mentioned are always represented, in the apprehension of the soul, as we have said, beneath certain modes and manners which have limitations; and that the Wisdom of God, wherewith the understanding is to be united, has no mode or manner, neither is it contained within any particular or distinct kind of intelligence or limit, because it is wholly pure and simple.
Where is the simplicity in this alleged "seer"? What would motivate an alleged seer to be SO ACTIVE on internet forums to cause such discord?
From my limited understanding, haven't all true seers either been religious or very simple souls? I really don't know what else to say other than I am disappointed that His Excellency, who is so intelligent on all sorts of issues, would give credence to this alleged seer. Shouldn't approved apparitions (e.g. Fatima) and DOCTRINE be enough for His Excellency?
My head is spinning....this is not of God.
Very well put.
-
......Also, right around this time when I had my personal talk with Bishop Williamson and mentioned to him some of her punches bellow the belt (e.g Collecting all the information of Fr. Pfeiffer's trip to Florida, just in order to pass it along to the local SSPX Prior in Florida to consequently crush the resistance there), H.E was not fully trusting her either (though he only used mild terminology). But once I published H.E was not impressed with her in one of the threads she pushed her "visions", hell broke loose and she went crazy and pressed Bishop Williamson to call Fr. Pfeiffer and myself in regards to this "calumny".... She even manage to contact my wife by private message through her C.I account--calling her not by the screen name, but the real name-- in hope to intimidate her (me) in regards to her hoax.... What an embaressing joke that was!
Anyhow, be prepared for more division within tradition/resistance because of this megalomaniac "seer"; apparently having to deal with the issues of new consecrated bishops, sedevacantism, non-Unacuм, Fellayites, etc., aren't enough for His Excelency....
Kyrie Eleison indeed!
There have been a few of these "prophets" through the years. The Internet has been a goldmine for their self-promotion, and useful for a myriad of deceitful purposes--especially character assassination and spying.
They twist the words of unwary clergy to con people into supporting them, and having unwary laypeople do their dirty work...so I believe your story.
-
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?
-
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?
Many of the resistance members flip-flopped back and forth as new information was revealed regarding +F's treachery, followed by denials or temporarily soothing explanations. They wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt until it became patently impossible. Flip-flopping can also denote "course-correction". I can't find fault with that unless it is habitual and flippant.
-
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.
-
If only it was closed! But now we face weeks more of this tragicomedy doled out in installments.
-
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".
-
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".
Marie,
What relationship do you have with the "seer"?
-
Many of the resistance members flip-flopped back and forth as new information was revealed regarding +F's treachery, followed by denials or temporarily soothing explanations. They wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt until it became patently impossible. Flip-flopping can also denote "course-correction". I can't find fault with that unless it is habitual and flippant.
Does part of Bp. Fellay's treachery involve changing his mind about the authenticity of DM's messages by any chance?
-
Many of the resistance members flip-flopped back and forth as new information was revealed regarding +F's treachery, followed by denials or temporarily soothing explanations. They wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt until it became patently impossible. Flip-flopping can also denote "course-correction". I can't find fault with that unless it is habitual and flippant.
Does part of Bp. Fellay's treachery involve changing his mind about the authenticity of DM's messages by any chance?
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?
-
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".
Marie,
What relationship do you have with the "seer"?
We never met. We exchanged communication for a while and discovered we had good friends in common in PA when I requested prayers for the repose of the soul of a friend. We became friends but I had no contact for many months. I have eight (grown) children, 30 grandchildren and keep very busy helping with the homeschooling…I don’t have a lot of time for the internet. But do not hesitate to take time to defend a sincere soul.
-
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"
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?
-
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.'
-
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
-
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"
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Unless you are her priest, and she admitted it was all a lie in the confessional, I don't see how you could have absolute proof one way or the other. Is that it? Are you her priest? Otherwise, produce this irrefutable proof for us all. As the saying goes "put-up-or shut-up"
* but please do not take this as an invitation to detraction or calumny, slander, or petty mean-ness.
-
All in good time...
-
This is going to be called the Tread to Eternity. Especially when part 2 comes in.
There is going to be no end to it.
To me all the objections have been answered. It is the mind boggling
repetitions.
-
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.
Unless you are her priest, and she admitted it was all a lie in the confessional, I don't see how you could have absolute proof one way or the other. Is that it? Are you her priest? Otherwise, produce this irrefutable proof for us all. As the saying goes "put-up-or shut-up"
* but please do not take this as an invitation to detraction or calumny, slander, or petty mean-ness.
Oh, please! Using your ridiculous argument, unless a judge or jury hears someone confess to a crime, that criminal cannot be convicted. Surely you realize that the majority of those in prison always maintain their innocence, and have not confessed. The criteria to convict a criminal is simply "beyond a reasonable doubt", not ABSOLUTE proof through a confession. (Which by the way, still would not be ABSOLUTE proof, as false confessions happen.)
There's such a thing as moral certitude, and that's all we needed to arrive at to make a good judgment on this false visionary.
-
The proponents of DM should re-read the excellent post by curioustrad on page 7 of this thread. Jumping without reservation on a bandwagon of someone's "visitations from heaven" is not only unwise, but unhealthy as well.
-
Oh, please! Using your ridiculous argument, unless a judge or jury hears someone confess to a crime, that criminal cannot be convicted. Surely you realize that the majority of those in prison always maintain their innocence, and have not confessed. The criteria to convict a criminal is simply "beyond a reasonable doubt", not ABSOLUTE proof through a confession. (Which by the way, still would not be ABSOLUTE proof, as false confessions happen.)
There's such a thing as moral certitude, and that's all we needed to arrive at to make a good judgment on this false visionary.
And I guess *you* are that moral authority? No doubt you are more than righteously qualified for the purpose, or so you believe. Judge, Jury- Executioner too? I see you already have a torch and a pyre ready...
-
Only men should have visions and messages. Short, clear, and without drama.
-
The message itself is short, clear and without drama.
-
It's the Holy Catholic Faith that needs defending, not a so-called "seer" and her messages.
-
If it was short and clear, it wouldn't take a series of Eleison Comments to get it all out. :reading:
-
With framework included. Have you read the EC, first page?
-
It's the Holy Catholic Faith that needs defending, not a so-called "seer" and her messages.
Requesting the prayer of the Rosary, is not defending the Holy Catholic Faith?
-
I assume that two members of this forum either didn't read the EC or they didn´t like it.
-
It's the Holy Catholic Faith that needs defending, not a so-called "seer" and her messages.
Requesting the prayer of the Rosary, is not defending the Holy Catholic Faith?
Praying the Holy Rosary is a must for every Catholic. It doesn't take a seer for us to know that. Though absolutely necessary, defending the Faith involves more than prayer. It involves speaking out against the errors of Vatican II and all the horrors in its aftermath by those who should be our shepherds, and the willingness to shed our blood if necessary so that it not be degraded.
-
It's the Holy Catholic Faith that needs defending, not a so-called "seer" and her messages.
Requesting the prayer of the Rosary, is not defending the Holy Catholic Faith?
Praying the Holy Rosary is a must for every Catholic. It doesn't take a seer for us to know that. Though absolutely necessary, defending the Faith involves more than prayer. It involves speaking out against the errors of Vatican II and all the horrors in its aftermath by those who should be our shepherds, and the willingness to shed our blood if necessary so that it not be degraded.
Exactly and one further point theologically speaking the Rosary is not the sum totality of the Faith, if it were, what did our forebears in the Faith do until the time of St. Dominic i.e. before there was a Rosary ? (I pray mine everyday for the fulfilment of the requests at Fatima !)
-
It's the Holy Catholic Faith that needs defending, not a so-called "seer" and her messages.
Requesting the prayer of the Rosary, is not defending the Holy Catholic Faith?
Praying the Holy Rosary is a must for every Catholic. It doesn't take a seer for us to know that. Though absolutely necessary, defending the Faith involves more than prayer. It involves speaking out against the errors of Vatican II and all the horrors in its aftermath by those who should be our shepherds, and the willingness to shed our blood if necessary so that it not be degraded.
Exactly and one further point theologically speaking the Rosary is not the sum totality of the Faith, if it were, what did our forebears in the Faith do until the time of St. Dominic i.e. before there was a Rosary ? (I pray mine everyday for the fulfilment of the requests at Fatima !)
That and its twin reparation to the Sacred Heart through the First Fridays. The Revolution in the Church began there.
-
Exactly and one further point theologically speaking the Rosary is not the sum totality of the Faith, if it were, what did our forebears in the Faith do until the time of St. Dominic i.e. before there was a Rosary ? (I pray mine everyday for the fulfilment of the requests at Fatima !)
You're not exactly correct. The Rosary does sum up most of our Faith, at least in its essentials.
Apostles Creed - Cover the important dogmas right there -- at least the ones the Apostles thought important!
Our Father - The one prayer Our Lord taught us personally
Hail Mary - Angelic Salutation, half of it is in Scripture itself
Glory Be - Doxology of praise to God as Trinity
O My Jesus - Prayer the angel taught the shepherd children to say, for the salvation of souls
Hail Holy Queen - Beautiful prayer to Our Lady, which is another hallmark of Catholicism (devotion to the Blessed Mother and seeking her intercession)
The 15 mysteries of the Rosary cover most of the main dogmas of our Faith. "Who by his life, death, and resurrection has purchased for us..."
You need not ask, "What did they use before the time of St. Dominic" because we're not in the time of St. Dominic. To paraphrase Gandalf, the Rosary "is never late. It arrived exactly when it meant to."
Seriously, God's Providence gave us the Rosary exactly when it was needed. It would be needed on a "from now on" basis, which is why it's so important to this day.
The whole world gives witness to the fact that the Rosary is the quintessential Catholic prayer. When people see a Rosary, they know they're dealing with a Catholic (or at least a Catholic wannabe/cultural Catholic).
No one mistakes the religion of someone carrying a Rosary.
-
Exactly and one further point theologically speaking the Rosary is not the sum totality of the Faith, if it were, what did our forebears in the Faith do until the time of St. Dominic i.e. before there was a Rosary ? (I pray mine everyday for the fulfilment of the requests at Fatima !)
You're not exactly correct. The Rosary does sum up most of our Faith, at least in its essentials.
Apostles Creed - Cover the important dogmas right there -- at least the ones the Apostles thought important!
Our Father - The one prayer Our Lord taught us personally
Hail Mary - Angelic Salutation, half of it is in Scripture itself
Glory Be - Doxology of praise to God as Trinity
O My Jesus - Prayer the angel taught the shepherd children to say, for the salvation of souls
Hail Holy Queen - Beautiful prayer to Our Lady, which is another hallmark of Catholicism (devotion to the Blessed Mother and seeking her intercession)
The 15 mysteries of the Rosary cover most of the main dogmas of our Faith. "Who by his life, death, and resurrection has purchased for us..."
You need not ask, "What did they use before the time of St. Dominic" because we're not in the time of St. Dominic. To paraphrase Gandalf, the Rosary "is never late. It arrived exactly when it meant to."
Seriously, God's Providence gave us the Rosary exactly when it was needed. It would be needed on a "from now on" basis, which is why it's so important to this day.
The whole world gives witness to the fact that the Rosary is the quintessential Catholic prayer. When people see a Rosary, they know they're dealing with a Catholic (or at least a Catholic wannabe/cultural Catholic).
No one mistakes the religion of someone carrying a Rosary.
Very true; however, the Holy Mass is at the top of what sums up our Faith. It is the first thing attacked by those who wish to destroy it.
-
Very true; however, the Holy Mass is at the top of what sums up our Faith. It is the first thing attacked by those who wish to destroy it.
Yet in saying that, the Holy Rosary is the great gift of Our Lady in these tumultuous times.
-
Very true; however, the Holy Mass is at the top of what sums up our Faith. It is the first thing attacked by those who wish to destroy it.
Yet in saying that, the Holy Rosary is the great gift of Our Lady in these tumultuous times.
Let's just say I'm very trigger happy when I hear people downplaying devotion to Our Lady, the Rosary, Fatima (about the greatest of all "modern day" apparitions)...
I know CuriousTrad wasn't going that far, but I wanted to make my point nevertheless.
Just because the Church didn't need something 1000 years ago doesn't mean we don't need it today. To think otherwise is to have a "time traveler's" mentality. We human beings are subject to time -- who cares how necessary (or unnecessary) the Rosary was 1000 years ago!
When you go traveling through space & time in the TARDIS, or slingshot back in time using a sun (like the Enterprise in Star Trek IV), then go ahead and leave your Rosary behind as you leave the machine as long as you've landed before, say, 1200.
But for the rest of us stuck in good old 2014, let's not be academic about how "technically superfluous" the Rosary is. To emphasize or even say such things is extremely offensive to pious ears -- at best.
It's part of the will of God for us 21st Century Catholics.
Piety is not a bad thing, I might point out. Excessive piety (say, at the expense of doctrine) is bad, but so is defective piety!
-
Let's just say I'm very trigger happy when I hear people downplaying devotion to Our Lady, the Rosary, Fatima (about the greatest of all "modern day" apparitions)...
I know CuriousTrad wasn't going that far, but I wanted to make my point nevertheless.
Just because the Church didn't need something 1000 years ago doesn't mean we don't need it today. To think otherwise is to have a "time traveler's" mentality. We human beings are subject to time -- who cares how necessary (or unnecessary) the Rosary was 1000 years ago!
Matthew that was not my point at all. I was replying:
(...) theologically speaking the Rosary is not the sum totality of the Faith, if it were, what did our forebears in the Faith do until the time of St. Dominic i.e. before there was a Rosary ? (I pray mine everyday for the fulfilment of the requests at Fatima !)
to this statement:
Requesting the prayer of the Rosary, is not defending the Holy Catholic Faith?
My argument using "sum totality" might have been clearer if I had said that the Rosary is not "co-extensive" with the Faith. The "Faith" as Faith preceded the institution of the Rosary but that it is a vital tool for the propagation of the Faith is certain:
Leo XIII makes very clear the role of the Rosary in Magnae Dei Matris from 1892
14. To this commendation of the Rosary which follows from the very nature of the prayer, We may add that the Rosary offers an easy way to present the chief mysteries of the Christian religion and to impress them upon the mind; and this commendation is one of the most beautiful of all. For it is mainly by faith that a man sets out on the straight and sure path to God and learns to revere in mind and heart His supreme majesty, His sovereignty over the whole of creation, His unsounded power, wisdom, and providence. For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder to those who seek Him. Moreover, because God's eternal Son assumed our humanity and shone before us as the Way, the Truth, and the Life, our faith must include the lofty mysteries of the august Trinity of divine Persons and of the Father's only-begotten Son made Man: "This is eternal life: that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou bast sent."
Not all of the mysteries of Faith are contained in the Rosary - but the chief mysteries are - as you pointed out following Leo XIII.
The precise efficacy of the Rosary is, according to Pope Benedict XV:
Being a prayer of supplication and of intercession, it is undeniably perfect: whether by the praises it addresses and the invocations it expresses, the aid it procures and the teachings it contains, or by the graces and the victories it leads up to.
Letter to reverend C. Becchi O.P. September 18, 1915 (Cited The Rosary - Papal Teachings Series, Solesmes p 161)
Following Benedict XV the efficacy of the Rosary comes from the fact that it is prayer, and prayer puts us in touch with God, who is the source and author of all grace.
I do not recall speaking of Fatima in a negative way in my comment but that is the pre-eminent intervention of Our Lady in the modern age to recall prime principles of the spiritual life and to achieve world peace through the triumph of the devotion to her Immaculate Heart. I said I pray the Rosary every day to this end.
I am, however, wary of those who would invert the hierarchy of public Revelation over private revelations and have us believe that private revelations are greater than Public Revelation. For me - that is what this whole thread has been about. I am not for one moment that you or I agree in any way over any of this - but thank you for a lively and frank debate.
-
"I am, however, wary of those who would invert the hierarchy of public Revelation over private revelations..."
Such as curioustrad? You are referring to this thread, right?
-
:confused1:
-
CuriousTrad,
Thank you for clarifying.
-
"I am, however, wary of those who would invert the hierarchy of public Revelation over private revelations..."
Such as curioustrad? You are referring to this thread, right?
Yes indeed. Throughout this thread we have had people referring to and attempting to justify an alleged set of private "revelations".
My point has been (from the first) many people in the wake of the catastrophe of Vatican II and the loss of mystery and awe because of the banality of the new liturgies, the prevailing atmosphere of theological confusion because of some of the teachings of Vatican II (ecuмenism, collegiality and religious liberty) have sought refuge in private revelation as a way of replacing banality with mystery and as far as doctrine is concerned for explaining and perhaps resolving the crisis that has come upon the Catholic Church. Apparitions are sometimes used as a parallel Magisterium, sometimes opposed to the Magisterium (here I am thinking of Medjugorje with which even the Novus Ordo authorities have had serious difficulties).
Simply because of the presence of chaos in the Church today does not excuse us from obedience to the teachings of the Church with regard to the treatment of seers and claimed apparitions - a healthy skepticism is the ticket.
Someone (in this thread) was kind enough to quote St. John of the Cross who also excoriates those attracted to private revelations and warns of the dangers of placing too much and a rash confidence in them.
Someone else referenced the use of private revelations that some people make to avoid dealing with questions such as has the Pope defected in matters of Faith and morals ? Has the universal body of bishops erred ? I do not answer "yes" to these questions - because I do not believe the answer can be "yes" to those questions (but I entertain theological speculation on the point since it might just be the truth - and Francis almost daily pushes the envelope on this as I'm sure most of us would agree) - but as one rightly pointed out an "apparition" is sometime a way of avoiding the theological inconveniences these questions will raise.
Recourse to apparitions and "Our Lady said this..." on the matter, may be true and therefore helpful if true, but they may also be false and potentially damaging to souls.
In the end the only issue for me is that in the question of claimed "apparitions" caution is advised - the exercise of the cardinal virtue of prudence !
-
They deleted my post!!!!!
Ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You're right.
1. There's no "they" -- just me. It's a monarchy, not an oligarchy or a committee.
2. As a corollary, if you ever see red ink in a post, you can automatically assume it's me.
I won't have hatred spewed at any consecrated man of God on my forum. This is a Traditional Catholic forum. Hating bishops isn't Catholic. To allow it, I'd be approving of it, and I'd have to answer at MY judgment and it might cost me my salvation as well.
I don't care what the Novus Ordo has done to Charity's good name, but the fact remains that we are under an obligation to be charitable to our fellow men, but especially those who bear the sacred character of the Priesthood.
Bravo!
:applause:
-
In our times there is a great danger, my dear brethren, that threatens all of us traditionalists a little, we who call ourselves traditionalists, who rightly wish to keep the Tradition. There is a danger that threatens us, because the authorities in Rome, failing to do their duty, as it were, are no longer doing anything, in a mysterious, incomprehensible way, but they are no longer doing anything to truly condemn the errors, to condemn the doctrinal deviations of our faith. The Church no longer acts. Everyone is labouring in search of truth. The theologians, the priests, the bishops, are all in search of truth. And yet Rome says nothing. People can say anything; they can write anything, and there is nothing said except against the traditionalists.
But this failure of the Authority of Rome is very serious. Because this puts us in a troubled situation, in a confused situation. No wonder that even amongst the traditionalists, we are like orphans without a father. The bishops no longer do anything, the bishops no longer lead us. They no longer tell us what we must do, where is the truth and where is the error, where is the good, and where is the evil. We no longer know, the people no longer know.
So there is the tendency to be led towards this or that devotion, to be led towards this or that group who, they say, have relations with heaven, this or that person who has, they say, messages, another who would have particular inspirations. It is very dangerous. Why? Because when the bishops are there, when the bishops act as pastors of the flock, they watch. And if there is something in the flock, if a person comes to tell a bishop: I had special relations with the Blessed Virgin, the Blessed Virgin appeared to me, the Blessed Virgin told me this, Our Lord told me that, then the bishop says: well, we will examine this. I will name for you this or that canon lawyer, this or that theologian who will go to see you, who will question you, who will see if everything is correct. After six months, one year, or two years, after a very meticulous study, the bishop says yes or no. He gives a judgement. The faithful are led, they are protected.
If the apparition is real, then there is no danger for the faith, if everything in it is conformed to our faith. But if it is not conformed to the faith, the bishop must protect the flock against these things that may be diabolical, because the demon knows very well how to imitate heaven and he fools us. Nowadays there is no longer anyone to guide us, no longer anyone to judge us, so people run here and there, now they hear a rumour, then again another rumour. When that happens, we must remember the words of Our Lord: “A day will come when they will tell you: Our Lord is in the desert, Our Lord is in the city, Our Lord is here, Our Lord is there. Do not go there”, Our Lord said this. And why should you not go there? Because you do not know, you could find yourself amongst the demons. Stay, therefore, in the faith. In our times, we must keep the faith.
But where is the faith? In your catechism – it’s not difficult. Open your catechism, you have everything. The catechism is the way to heaven. It is your book that leads you to heaven. Take your Credo. You have the commandments of God and of the Church, you have the sacraments, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Christian virtues, the Our Father, the devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. With that you have everything. There is no need of anything else. That is the résumé of Tradition, it is the résumé of revelation, it is the résumé of Tradition and of the Scriptures. It is that which the apostles have put into our hands and which the bishops from generation to generation have given us. We must cling to this and beware of all the rest.
We live in a time when the demon is more powerful than ever. So we must watch out. We must watch out for all those things which are a little extraordinary that could lead us this way and that way and that could make us forget what is essential, because the devil can distract us from the faith. He wants to deceive us, so he distracts us with one thing or another, and during that time, we do not do the work that we are supposed to do. We must therefore maintain our faith. That is what I would like the priory to be also: a house where the faith is maintained.
Well then, do not be astonished if our priests are not always very enthusiastic over this or that so-called apparition, this or that place of pilgrimage. I am not speaking about the ancient shrines that have been confirmed by Tradition, such as St. Joseph in Montreal or the three great traditional shrines of Quebec. I am speaking of the new places of pilgrimage that all of a sudden spring out in one place, that are suddenly in another place, etc.
Sermon of Archbishop Lefebvre on the occasion of the blessing of St. Pius X Priory in Shawinigan, November 8, 1977
-
In our times there is a great danger, my dear brethren, that threatens all of us traditionalists a little, we who call ourselves traditionalists, who rightly wish to keep the Tradition. There is a danger that threatens us, because the authorities in Rome, failing to do their duty, as it were, are no longer doing anything, in a mysterious, incomprehensible way, but they are no longer doing anything to truly condemn the errors, to condemn the doctrinal deviations of our faith. The Church no longer acts. Everyone is labouring in search of truth. The theologians, the priests, the bishops, are all in search of truth. And yet Rome says nothing. People can say anything; they can write anything, and there is nothing said except against the traditionalists.
But this failure of the Authority of Rome is very serious. Because this puts us in a troubled situation, in a confused situation. No wonder that even amongst the traditionalists, we are like orphans without a father. The bishops no longer do anything, the bishops no longer lead us. They no longer tell us what we must do, where is the truth and where is the error, where is the good, and where is the evil. We no longer know, the people no longer know.
So there is the tendency to be led towards this or that devotion, to be led towards this or that group who, they say, have relations with heaven, this or that person who has, they say, messages, another who would have particular inspirations. It is very dangerous. Why? Because when the bishops are there, when the bishops act as pastors of the flock, they watch. And if there is something in the flock, if a person comes to tell a bishop: I had special relations with the Blessed Virgin, the Blessed Virgin appeared to me, the Blessed Virgin told me this, Our Lord told me that, then the bishop says: well, we will examine this. I will name for you this or that canon lawyer, this or that theologian who will go to see you, who will question you, who will see if everything is correct. After six months, one year, or two years, after a very meticulous study, the bishop says yes or no. He gives a judgement. The faithful are led, they are protected.
If the apparition is real, then there is no danger for the faith, if everything in it is conformed to our faith. But if it is not conformed to the faith, the bishop must protect the flock against these things that may be diabolical, because the demon knows very well how to imitate heaven and he fools us. Nowadays there is no longer anyone to guide us, no longer anyone to judge us, so people run here and there, now they hear a rumour, then again another rumour. When that happens, we must remember the words of Our Lord: “A day will come when they will tell you: Our Lord is in the desert, Our Lord is in the city, Our Lord is here, Our Lord is there. Do not go there”, Our Lord said this. And why should you not go there? Because you do not know, you could find yourself amongst the demons. Stay, therefore, in the faith. In our times, we must keep the faith.
But where is the faith? In your catechism – it’s not difficult. Open your catechism, you have everything. The catechism is the way to heaven. It is your book that leads you to heaven. Take your Credo. You have the commandments of God and of the Church, you have the sacraments, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Christian virtues, the Our Father, the devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. With that you have everything. There is no need of anything else. That is the résumé of Tradition, it is the résumé of revelation, it is the résumé of Tradition and of the Scriptures. It is that which the apostles have put into our hands and which the bishops from generation to generation have given us. We must cling to this and beware of all the rest.
We live in a time when the demon is more powerful than ever. So we must watch out. We must watch out for all those things which are a little extraordinary that could lead us this way and that way and that could make us forget what is essential, because the devil can distract us from the faith. He wants to deceive us, so he distracts us with one thing or another, and during that time, we do not do the work that we are supposed to do. We must therefore maintain our faith. That is what I would like the priory to be also: a house where the faith is maintained.
Well then, do not be astonished if our priests are not always very enthusiastic over this or that so-called apparition, this or that place of pilgrimage. I am not speaking about the ancient shrines that have been confirmed by Tradition, such as St. Joseph in Montreal or the three great traditional shrines of Quebec. I am speaking of the new places of pilgrimage that all of a sudden spring out in one place, that are suddenly in another place, etc.
Sermon of Archbishop Lefebvre on the occasion of the blessing of St. Pius X Priory in Shawinigan, November 8, 1977
True. No argument. But who in the SSPX would have imagined in 2008, after the 2006 General Chapter, that +Fellay would betray the GC declarations and go for a practical agreement? And what happened to the SSPX since?
-
«True. No argument. But who in the SSPX would have imagined in 2008, after the 2006 General Chapter, that +Fellay would betray the GC declarations and go for a practical agreement? And what happened to the SSPX since?»
In 2008? By that time, more than one priest had had problems for resisting Bp. Fellay.
Remember the great lie at Flavigny...