Author Topic: The Seer Responds to Bishop Fellay (Read 19164 times)

holyfamily · « **Reply #70 on:** November 05, 2015, 06:32:07 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: curioustrad
Quote from: holyfamily
Quote from: curioustrad
Quote from: JPM
Quote from: richard
Quote from: JPM
Quote from: richard
JPM wrote: You are asking me to believe that Drew (with oversight from Anderson and her priest), screwed up the details no fewer than seven times? That three incompetent persons (Drew, Anderson, and Father) were simply incapable of getting the facts straight. And then, Anderson published Drew's screwed up article on her own website?

Who is Father?

Anderson's priest at the time.

Who would that be?

It's been posted previously that it was Fr. Libietis.

Of the "Total Consecration" to Our Lady book fame. That does explain why he might find these "messages" compelling.... It also explains why it took him so long to make his mind up about the verity or otherwise of the content (again - a very significant point).

If he was her spiritual director and believed her story, as she claims, why hasn't he ever defended her, come to her rescue publicly? He has never made any kind of formal statement or declaration, nor was any formal submission by the spiritual director been made to any Church hierarchy authority, as is normally done in these cases. We only have her word that Fr. Libietis believed her stories. Bishop Fellay has publicly disputed her story and denies having ever believed her. There are many priests whom she is personally and spiritually known to, who also do not believe her story is authentic. When the seer tried to win over Fr. Faure he did not believe her and tried (in vain) to warn Bishop Williamson. People should figure out from years of watching this drama there is much behind the scenes that most are unaware of.

A message of utmost importance considering + Faure will be visiting Florida in a matter of days.

Funny, the person who told me about the visionary was Fr. Faure before anyone knew when he would be consecrated. He never said he didn't believe here story. In fact, he talked about it and answered some questions at the chapel, but he never said that he thought it was false. He said he didn't know. He also said that priests had visited her and said that her story was credible. This was about a year ago or so. Why would he have told me about it if he didn't believe it could be possibly true. I also call misinformation on this about him trying to warn Bishop Williamson. This is just more false information being said about Bishop Faure. I went on a 2 day bus trip with Bishop Williamson and Fr. Faure last year. There were no "warnings" about this visionary.

Call misinformation all you want, how little you know then.

covet truth · « **Reply #71 on:** November 05, 2015, 06:39:58 PM »

Quote from: holyfamily

Quote from: curioustrad
Quote from: richard
Quote from: covet truth
I am reminded in reading these attacks upon Mrs. Anderson of why Our Lady picks innocent children to reveal her messages to. Most adults could never withstand the scrutiny, the accusations and the doubts that accompany such things. I do not know Mrs. Anderson at all but her life has been turned upside down because she worked at discerning the authenticity of the message and then obeyed its directives. Would any one of us have been brave enough to withstand the storm that followed and from what I read is still raging? I ask because it is the men, I believe, who are the most critical and who I doubt would hold up nearly so well as Mrs. Anderson has under this microscope. Who in their right mind would want such a cross? Our Lady knows full well those few who are capable of handling it and those who are not.

To me, Mrs. Anderson has proven herself worthy of the message she received and passed on. She has accepted to bear this heavy cross. I'm glad it isn't mine but I would like to think we would help her to carry it rather than make it heavier for her to bear.

Bravo covet truth,but most of the people don't want to hear that,they will never admit that they could be wrong.It doesn't fit in with their narrow mindset.

For information on carrying crosses I would read the 53rd Chapter of the Book of the Prophet Isaiah (the suffering servant - i.e. Jesus Christ) especially this:

Quote
Verse 7 He was offered because it was his own will, and he opened not his mouth: he shall be led as a sheep to the slaughter, and shall be dumb as a lamb before his shearer, and he shall not open his mouth.

Those who bear the cross and are true imitators of the life of virtue don't go writing letters and blasting people up hill and down dale.

Very true which is why I posted the following many pages ago.

"How many times did the saints or blesseds have to endure scorn, ridicule, and the like? They remained silent in its face, not constantly seeking attention or trying to prove themselves before men. That is human respect. Rather they were marked by docility, humility, meekness".

Add to that, they would not take to writing letters, always needing to have the last say, or on telephone or emails gossiping and bad-mouthing those who did not believe in the visions, or disagree with the seer. They would suffer in silence, with God as their consolation.

I wouldn't disagree with this but I wouldn't be so quick to pass judgement on other people either. We'll know the truth at the Final Judgement where our own sins will also be revealed.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #72 on:** November 05, 2015, 07:05:02 PM »

Quote from: holyfamily

Quote from: Centroamerica
Quote from: curioustrad
Quote from: holyfamily
Quote from: curioustrad
Quote from: JPM
Quote from: richard
Quote from: JPM
Quote from: richard
JPM wrote: You are asking me to believe that Drew (with oversight from Anderson and her priest), screwed up the details no fewer than seven times? That three incompetent persons (Drew, Anderson, and Father) were simply incapable of getting the facts straight. And then, Anderson published Drew's screwed up article on her own website?

Who is Father?

Anderson's priest at the time.

Who would that be?

It's been posted previously that it was Fr. Libietis.

Of the "Total Consecration" to Our Lady book fame. That does explain why he might find these "messages" compelling.... It also explains why it took him so long to make his mind up about the verity or otherwise of the content (again - a very significant point).

If he was her spiritual director and believed her story, as she claims, why hasn't he ever defended her, come to her rescue publicly? He has never made any kind of formal statement or declaration, nor was any formal submission by the spiritual director been made to any Church hierarchy authority, as is normally done in these cases. We only have her word that Fr. Libietis believed her stories. Bishop Fellay has publicly disputed her story and denies having ever believed her. There are many priests whom she is personally and spiritually known to, who also do not believe her story is authentic. When the seer tried to win over Fr. Faure he did not believe her and tried (in vain) to warn Bishop Williamson. People should figure out from years of watching this drama there is much behind the scenes that most are unaware of.

A message of utmost importance considering + Faure will be visiting Florida in a matter of days.

Funny, the person who told me about the visionary was Fr. Faure before anyone knew when he would be consecrated. He never said he didn't believe here story. In fact, he talked about it and answered some questions at the chapel, but he never said that he thought it was false. He said he didn't know. He also said that priests had visited her and said that her story was credible. This was about a year ago or so. Why would he have told me about it if he didn't believe it could be possibly true. I also call misinformation on this about him trying to warn Bishop Williamson. This is just more false information being said about Bishop Faure. I went on a 2 day bus trip with Bishop Williamson and Fr. Faure last year. There were no "warnings" about this visionary.

Call misinformation all you want, how little you know then.

I knew enough to attend the consecration of Bishop Faure. Where were you?

Meg · « **Reply #73 on:** November 05, 2015, 07:06:36 PM »

I don't know much about this situation with the supposed seer, and I don't really have a right to an opinion on it, but just looking at what's been posted, I have to wonder if the seer has always assumed that the apparition is/was the BVM. After all, the seers at Fatima, as well as St. Bernadette at Lourdes, did not, as far as I know, insist that it was the BVM from the beginning (that they saw). Rather, the BVM was referred to, in both cases, I think, as "The Lady." The seers did not insist at all that what they saw was the BVM. In this they were very humble.

I think that the Medj folks also insist that the apparition that they claim to see is the BVM.

The seer in this case, however, could be entirely credible, except for this one thing, IMO. Should she really assume (if this is what she's always believed) that the apparition is the BVM? Is it really her decision to make?

curioustrad · « **Reply #74 on:** November 05, 2015, 08:12:19 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: curioustrad
Quote from: holyfamily
Quote from: curioustrad
Quote from: JPM
Quote from: richard
Quote from: JPM
Quote from: richard
JPM wrote: You are asking me to believe that Drew (with oversight from Anderson and her priest), screwed up the details no fewer than seven times? That three incompetent persons (Drew, Anderson, and Father) were simply incapable of getting the facts straight. And then, Anderson published Drew's screwed up article on her own website?

Who is Father?

Anderson's priest at the time.

Who would that be?

It's been posted previously that it was Fr. Libietis.

Of the "Total Consecration" to Our Lady book fame. That does explain why he might find these "messages" compelling.... It also explains why it took him so long to make his mind up about the verity or otherwise of the content (again - a very significant point).

If he was her spiritual director and believed her story, as she claims, why hasn't he ever defended her, come to her rescue publicly? He has never made any kind of formal statement or declaration, nor was any formal submission by the spiritual director been made to any Church hierarchy authority, as is normally done in these cases. We only have her word that Fr. Libietis believed her stories. Bishop Fellay has publicly disputed her story and denies having ever believed her. There are many priests whom she is personally and spiritually known to, who also do not believe her story is authentic. When the seer tried to win over Fr. Faure he did not believe her and tried (in vain) to warn Bishop Williamson. People should figure out from years of watching this drama there is much behind the scenes that most are unaware of.

A message of utmost importance considering + Faure will be visiting Florida in a matter of days.

Funny, the person who told me about the visionary was Fr. Faure before anyone knew when he would be consecrated. He never said he didn't believe here story. In fact, he talked about it and answered some questions at the chapel, but he never said that he thought it was false. He said he didn't know. He also said that priests had visited her and said that her story was credible. This was about a year ago or so. Why would he have told me about it if he didn't believe it could be possibly true. I also call misinformation on this about him trying to warn Bishop Williamson. This is just more false information being said about Bishop Faure. I went on a 2 day bus trip with Bishop Williamson and Fr. Faure last year. There were no "warnings" about this visionary.

I went on a bus 5 day trip with + Williamson 23 years ago and again the following year - what does that prove ?