Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Eleison comments 380 October 25, 2014  (Read 42152 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Eleison comments 380 October 25, 2014
« Reply #45 on: October 27, 2014, 06:35:14 PM »
Quote from: JPM

Fact: The account claims that in 2004 an inquiry was launched to determine the veracity of the visions

Fact: The inquiry whose purpose was to determine the veracity of the vision which asked for a Rosary Crusade for graces for Pope Benedict XVI began a full year before Pope Benedict XVI was even elected.

Fact: The vision (and subsequent inquiry) couldn't have possibly happened on either the date or even the year that has been claimed.




  It is kindness, rather than hatred to point this out.

Eleison comments 380 October 25, 2014
« Reply #46 on: October 27, 2014, 07:15:50 PM »
Quote from: Clemens Maria
1. Fatima is an approved apparition.
2. At Fatima, Our Lady requested the Pope to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart
3. This newer vision which Bishop Williamson is referring to has exactly the same purpose as the Fatima message, namely to ask the Pope to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

I am a sedevacantist so I don't believe Francis is the pope but at least I can see that attributing this whole thing to the devil is ridiculous.  Even if Francis is not the pope, it would be harmless to ask him to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  But if he is the pope as so many of you believe, then how can you complain about this?  How can you hate the seer?  It is that hatred which is from the devil more than anything else.  Devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary is good regardless of whether you are SSPX, Resistance, sedevacantist, or something else.  As far as I can tell the only people who should be disturbed by this new vision would be those who would like to prevent any kind of consecration from taking place.

I don't think a consecration done by Francis would have any effect at all but at least if he did it, it would prove whether or not he was actually the pope.  So I would welcome it.


Hummm, let me see:


Fatima: Exactly, this is an approved apparition where three holy, humble and innocent children --who would rather die boiled in oil than telling the secret to an old mean Mayor of the City-- who supposedly killed one by one and yet they did not disclose the secret to him-- where Our Lady wouldn't even appear equally to all three (one would see, the other only hear, etc.) due to the level of holiness among them; where the dates and messages have all been openly disclosed and its miracles converted even the most pernicious freemasons of the region, where even the laws of nature were shaken (dance of the sun, the dryness of soil and clothes after it had poured), etc..

Zephryhills, Florida: Yes, this is not an approved apparition and we have no means at this time to even have it checked by the Church due to its condition (take it up to God if you are nonconformist and are trying to find some other way other than His to approve a message); we have Our Lady supposedly 'appearing' to an immodest, worldly, internet addict with many different internet accounts where she used to push her envelop visions at many different channels; a lady who couldn't make up her own mind which bishop she should support (the first to fall for the hoax of course!), a megalomaniac, vicious and spoiled lady who would attack those who either suspect or expose her many shameful behavior, who would even dare to bother +W asking him to call those who would expose her delusional messages. And Our Lady supposedly want to transmit a message to Bishop Fellay(!) --which by this time now we know he was already working with GREC and Krah for the edification of the ѕуηαgσgυє (no wonder why she did not condemn any of that), and add to that, as the icing of the cake the secrecy (SSPXvsROME seems to have been the model) and the confusion, disagreement and even animosity towards those who were not in such a state short before this whole nonsense came with the "episcopal approval", etc....


But yes, the comparison between the two makes perfect sense!  :shocked: :shocked: :shocked:


Eleison comments 380 October 25, 2014
« Reply #47 on: October 27, 2014, 07:20:43 PM »
Quote from: Elizabeth
Quote from: wallflower


....Maybe one of these days I will be able to read through the many threads on the topic and form an intelligent opinion....





I am pretty sure your opinion would be extremely intelligent, if you had access to the years of online behavior which is no longer available to the average person.  

Nobody is gratuitously hateful, but many of us who have watched this unfold over the years online are certain that this is a huge mistake.



I understand. That's why I wrote "seemingly". I am giving the benefit of the doubt that there may be good reason for it. It seems gratuitous but may not be, I really don't know so I am trying to carefully select my words. That's what I'd have to see in the deeper look.


Eleison comments 380 October 25, 2014
« Reply #48 on: October 27, 2014, 07:22:06 PM »
Quote from: Elizabeth
Quote from: wallflower


....Maybe one of these days I will be able to read through the many threads on the topic and form an intelligent opinion....





I am pretty sure your opinion would be extremely intelligent, if you had access to the years of online behavior which is no longer available to the average person.  

Nobody is gratuitously hateful, but many of us who have watched this unfold over the years online are certain that this is a huge mistake.



Even without the material from I.A one should be able to have a moral certitude that this is nothing but a hoax....but I agree that Ignes Ardens had plenty of crazy flip-flop stuff from her, no question about it.

BTW that very first time I.A was suppose to close (for a few days) was because they had found out the supposedly visionary they were trying to push was Dawn Marie. Needless to say that was a scandal.

Eleison comments 380 October 25, 2014
« Reply #49 on: October 27, 2014, 07:38:47 PM »
It was very stressful for the website owner.