Author Topic: Eleison comments 380 October 25, 2014 (Read 42143 times)

holmoak · « **Reply #30 on:** October 26, 2014, 04:31:53 PM »

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

These is all my own speculation. I’m trying to understand why now. I spoke with +W by phone a few days before E.C. 379 and didn't mention anything. I was as surprised as everyone else. Just my opinion, shoot it if you will.

Not everyone is surprised, some of us have known ahead of time this was coming.

curioustrad · « **Reply #31 on:** October 26, 2014, 04:35:24 PM »

Quote from: 1st Mansion Tenant

Quote from: curioustrad
Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora
Quote from: curioustrad
Quote from: bernadette
Bishop Williamson must be short of things to do...

And that is the curious thing (because he shouldn't be): These "revelations" speak of an English prelate who is unknown and without power who will bring these messages to fulfillment. Yet, if +W is this "prelate" why does he always refuse the mantle of leading the resistance ?

Where did you get this information? As far as I know there is nothing of the sort in the messages. Can you provide your source? Or are you making it up for some reason? Please explain.

Don't you know by now I don't make things up ? I quote sources and prove them - the way of the church herself in her dogma manuals etc. It was in the other thread on part 1 of these messages - I'm too exhausted to carry on tonight so you can read it for yourself at a source it was read and approved by Bishop Williamson himself.

I can't find that ("English prelate who is unknown and without power who will bring these messages to fulfillment.") anywhere in the link curioustrad provided.

There is a reference to it, but you have to look closely:

Quote

On April 14, 2012, Bishop Williamson, in a communication with the visionary said:

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 the English bishop, your counselor’s advice (i.e. Our Lady - curioustrad's addition to make clear the reference) 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?

In the postings on the yet again defunct Ignis Ardens forum it was explained that this was an English prelate who was as yet unknown who would come forward and rescue this Rosary crusade from the doldrums. One would think that the English prelate would be Bishop Williamson himself especially as he is now choosing to side publicly with this "message". Now since that forum is closed I cannot access the posting which explicitly stated an English unknown prelate would rescue the crusade, however, Bishop Williamson references this message in his reply.

cathman7 · « **Reply #32 on:** October 26, 2014, 04:46:40 PM »

I want to get back to basics.

How does this "messenger" go about proving that she is indeed receiving messages from Our Lady? What criteria does she use? Couldn't I make the same claim using all sorts of sophisticated arguments that Our Lady is speaking to me or giving me messages to tell the world?

Precisely because we have a lack of proper leadership should we be HIGHLY skeptical of any "apparitions" as such. Am I wrong?

1st Mansion Tenant · « **Reply #33 on:** October 26, 2014, 04:57:27 PM »

It seems hard to tell which statements are actually part of the message in question, and which have added commentary and remarks by others, which may have been wrongly attributed to the original message. Like the childhood game of 'telephones'. Did the person in question ever actually post a detailed account of the apparition in her own words anywhere? I have never seen one. I will wait till this series of EC's is complete.

curioustrad · « **Reply #34 on:** October 26, 2014, 06:09:18 PM »

Quote from: 1st Mansion Tenant

It seems hard to tell which statements are actually part of the message in question, and which have added commentary and remarks by others, which may have been wrongly attributed to the original message. Like the childhood game of 'telephones'. Did the person in question ever actually post a detailed account of the apparition in her own words anywhere? I have never seen one. I will wait till this series of EC's is complete.

Years ago I compiled just exactly what you are asking in regards to Fatima for my own interest. I had been thinking about doing the same for this business a couple of days ago as well but who could possibly have retained all the ramblings of DM on Ignis Ardens ? However, I did follow DM and can recall with reasonable accuracy what she claims she heard, said, wrote etc. and what the Bishop references in the previously cited passage is exactly what DM was touting at the time. As for waiting for Bishop Williamson's "imprimatur" it must be recalled that he has changed his mind on this matter several times and, after all is said and done, it is just his opinion as to the veracity or otherwise. All of which brings us back to the questions we must now ask yet again: why now ? For what purpose ? And in Latin: cui bono ? (To whose benefit ?) It is these questions and not DM that really has me wondering.