FWIW, I used to follow Medjugorje years ago, but stopped after parts of the story weren't adding up (the disobedience to the Bishop of Mostar being the big one). Charlie is the only one out of all these recent "seers" that I saw unfold in real time. I watched MDM and LttW casually up until they fell apart. I first started investigating (casually) apparitions 20 years ago, after my mom bought a book called "The Thunder of Justice" by Ted and Maureen Flynn. Most of you have heard of them - they also run sign.org. A good number of the apparitions in that book were, over time, found to be false (I believe Teresa Lopez of Denver was in there), deemed private meditations (Father Gobbi) or still under investigation. That made me pretty wary of these things. I believe Fr. Peter Joseph said that for every true apparition, there are 50 frauds. That's not an encouraging ratio. My biggest takeaway from all this is living ordinary spirituality. ETA: I doubt Archbishop Aquila, the same Archbishop who did a "March for Life" around a Planned Parenthood this past March, would appreciate being called a "Paper Shuffling Lavender Strap-Hanging Snowflake".
Oh dear, how many times people happily make statements like this about Medjugorje. I shall just say that the disobedience stories are just nonsense. How many difficulties arose in connection with the bishop (Bishop Zanic). Yet the great irony is that to begin with, Bishop Zanic believed strongly in the children's ezperiences! Fr Jozo Zovko who was the parish priest at the time was much more cautious. When Fr Jozo met the bishop in the first few days, he told him not to make his mind up until he had spoken to the children. After speaking to them, the bishop became even more convinced! Fr Jozo remained much more cautious until he was given a supernatural sign which finally convinced him. The two things that seemed to change the bishop's view were pressure from the Communist authorities and being told by the visionaries that Our Lady had said the bishop had made a mistake in his dealings with a couple of priests. Fr Jozo himself was soon imprisoned for his support of the children. As for Harper's latest post on 'flying monkeys', following his 'cult leaders' post, I can hardly believe that people would prefer to read all that kind of stuff instead of reading a wonderfully fascinating account of 35 years of apparitions from one of the seers!
David, David, David... Look at the secret code at the top right corner on the pretty blue picture above my name. It has a meaning. What is its meaning? What is that circle with a cross underneath mean? Can you guess? You've been told before! Maybe someone can tell you again. Or you can try Google. As for flying monkeys, I've seen them circling this thread. Can you guess what I'm talking about? Take your time; an answer will come to you.
Strange really. It seems firmly stuck in my mind that you are a 'he' to the extent that I have to correct almost every post that I make that refers to you. But, as you see, I sometimes miss a needed correction. What is also strange is that it seems to bother you a great deal. I can only say again, I'm not making the mistake deliberately but I apologize anyway.
Bishops evaluate evidence of an apparition according to these guidelines: The facts in the case are free of error. The person(s) receiving the messages is/are psychologically balanced, honest, moral, sincere and respectful of church authority. Doctrinal errors are not attributed to God, Our Lady or to a saint. Theological and spiritual doctrines presented are free of error. Moneymaking is not a motive involved in the events. Healthy religious devotion and spiritual fruits result, with no evidence of collective hysteria. Judgment can find that an apparition shows all signs of being an authentic or a truly miraculous intervention from heaven, that it is clearly not miraculous or there are not sufficient signs manifesting it to be be so, or that it's not evident whether or not the alleged apparition is authentic. If a Marian apparition is recognized by the bishop, it means that the message is not contrary to faith and morals and that Mary can be venerated in a special way at the site. But, because belief in a private revelation is not required by the church, Catholics are at liberty to decide how much personal spiritual emphasis to place on apparitions and the messages they deliver. Pope Benedict XVI commented on private revelation in his 2010 apostolic exhortation Verbum Domini (“The Word of the Lord”). “Ecclesiastical approval of a private revelation essentially means that its message contains nothing contrary to faith and morals. it is licit to make it public and the faithful are authorized to give to it their prudent adhesion” (No. 46). “A private revelation can introduce new emphases, give rise to new forms of piety, or deepen older ones,” Pope Benedict continued. “It can have a certain prophetic character and can be a valuable aid for better understanding and living the Gospel at a certain time; consequently it should not be treated lightly. It is a help which is proffered, but its use is not obligatory.”
Commentary from St. Louis de Montfort This selection from St Louis de Montfort's True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin presents the proper position that should be taken towards unapproved Marian devotions and accordingly toward alleged apparitions. "It is all the more necessary to make the right choice of the true devotion to our Blessed Lady, for now more than ever there are false devotions to her which can easily be mistaken for true one. The devil, like a counterfeiter and crafty, experienced deceiver, has already misled and ruined many Christians by means of fraudulent devotions to Our Lady. Day by day he uses his diabolical experience to lead many more to their doom, fooling them, lulling them to sleep in sin and assuring them that a few prayers, even badly said, and a few exterior practices inspired by himself, are authentic devotions. A counterfeiter usually makes coins only of gold or silver, rarely of other metals, because the latter would not be worth the trouble. Similarly, the devil leaves other devotions alone and counterfeits mostly those directed to Jesus and Mary ... It is therefore very important, first to recognize false devotions to our Blessed Lady so as to avoid them, and to recognize true devotion in order to practice it." (True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin 90-91) We must pray for the Gift of discernment before making rash judgements. "For the Lord God doth nothing without making His secret to His servants the prophets." Amos 3:7
Only because it feels so deliberate and so passive-aggressive. Perhaps because of the not-subtle dig of "strange it bothers you" wrapped in the middle of the apology, which is by itself a classic hostile statement. Adding insult to apology negates it.
Just catching up on this thread. Apparently they do have the backing of the clergy in Ireland. Have a look at the video (Part 2 (2013) Marian Shrine, Knock, Co. Mayo) on the Rosary of the Unborn website http://www.rosaryoftheunborn.eu/contact.htm At about 13:50 a man says that what he learned from the Divine Love messages is that "we can only attain salvation, only go to Heaven through the Immaculate Heart of Mary". He said that this what St. Luis de Montford and Fr. Gobbi were saying but that the message is crystalised by the Holy Love messages. Do you think that the clergy in Ireland would authorise that message? I don't. My search for the Light of Mary that Jackie referred to only results in websites quoting messages. Can anyone provide a link giving some background to these messages, please.
English translation page, latest message on back.....seem to take quite a while to translate messages into English. There are always more in Spanish that await translation into English. http://www.revelacionesmarianas.com/english.htm
This is the fifth or sixth time David's made that same mistake, which does look like a pattern. But of course, a lady must always be kind and forgiving... View attachment 5380
Ah, it has finally dawned on me that Luz de Maria means Light of Mary. Thank you. The details about her are rather sketchy. For example: her professional life is mentioned but it doesn't say what is her profession, how she earns her living or how her foreign travel is funded; she has a "home" of about 15 people but it doesn't specify what is meant by "home"; presumably it isn't a convent because there is reference to her being accompanied by priests from different countries including her confessor; there is mention of three religious sisters (one of them a theologian) being consistently part of her prayer group but it doesn't name their religious order; there is no mention of endorsement from any Church authority such as a Diocesan Bishop from either Costa Rica or Argentina; her confessor Fr. Jose Maria Fernandez Rojas is the only person associated with her who has been identified by name. Is there a website that gives more information about her?
FYI, I went to Google today and looked for latest news of Charlie Johnston. I found that the Archdiocese of New Orleans included a copy of the Denver statement about Charlie in the August 31 issue of the Archdiocesan News-Oracle. This formal publication of the strong caution issued by Archbishop Aquila about Charlie, which includes the full letter and announcement that he was banned from speaking at Catholic venues in Denver, appeared before the first of Charlie's scheduled events in the New Orleans area. I just went to Charlie's website (Sept. 12) and found that his meeting last week in Covington included an announcement of confessions at 6 pm before a scheduled talk at an Episcopal School. Did anyone on the forum attend the talk? Did Catholic priests actually hear confessions in an Episcopal setting? (I hope it wasn't Episcopal "priests.") If Catholic priests went ahead and participated in hearing confessions at an event after their archdiocese had warned against the speaker, that strikes me as disobedient. Edited to Add: The News Oracle is the archdiocesan newspaper.
Another question on Charlie's tour. As I said, I sat down to Google this afternoon. I found another news story on Charlie, this from the Billings MT newspaper. (There is a really bad headline on this, it makes it sound like the newspaper endorses him!) My comment: I think it very misleading to say he has vetted his visitations through a trio of Catholic priests over the past 20 years. Michael Brown of Spirit Daily contacted one of Charlie's spiritual directors, who said that he couldn't say if Charlie's messages were real or not, and that some of the things Charlie had predicted had come true, but others had not. What is especially troubling here is that the press release neglects to mention the strong caution issued by the archbishop in Charlie's home archdiocese, and the ban on Charlie speaking at Catholic venues in Denver. That is the only formal ruling by the Church to date, and the only authoritative statement made. This seems written to give people the wrong impression. I think whoever wrote it should contact the paper and ask for a correction. Speaker to share visions given to him by God Gazette Staff Aug 31, 2016 Charlie Johnston, a Denver man who says he has received prophetic visitations all his life, will speak Friday in Billings. Johnston's free talk will begin at 6 p.m. at the Elks Club, 934 Lewis Ave. Johnston is a former newspaper editor, radio talk show host and political consultant. The converted Catholic says he has received prophetic visitations, which he has vetted through a trio of Catholic priests over the past 20 years. Over 18 months in 2011 and 2012, he walked 3,200 miles across the United States, sleeping in the woods, meeting people and praying as he went. He will speak about his ministry during his talk in Billings.
Hello Harper, I was at the Billings meeting and if there would be a correction for the announcement it would have been good to include the excellent work done by the Archdiocese of Denver. The Denver commission appointed by Archbishop Aquila had access to the archives kept by one of Charlie's three spiritual directors. Each of these three priest spiritual directors was available for questioning by the members of the Archdiocesan commission. Charlie's website has been monitored by the Archdiocese for more than a year. His speaking engagements around the country were also taken into account during this initial study. To be sure, if there was even one iota of an issue with anything in those volumes of recorded mystical experiences to which the three person commission was privy, Charlie would have been denounced by his local ordinary. The caution urged by the official statement is not a caution to avoid Charlie. Not at all. It is a caution to refrain from over-emphasizing the mystical, prophetic aspects in spiritual life. In other words, to focus primarily on living the usual means of growing in sanctitiy such as receivign the sacraments, attending a parish and serving both within the parish and in the world, engaging in spiritual studies such as those offered in parishes as well as other places, etc. Great cautionary wisdom is that! The work of the Denver commission was a beginning study to see if what God is doing in Charlie was even worthy of considering more deeply. Charlie is not allowed to speak on Church property, I think, because that would give tacit approval of what has not yet been more deeply studied. Hence, the Gamaliel Option: if it’s of God it will flourish; if it’s not of God, it will fall apart. That there are no other restrictions than not being endorsed to speak on Church property is a BIG DEAL. HUGE. Charlie's Archbishop did declare that Charlie is free to speak anywhere, including in the Denver Archdiocese, in a public fashion and to continue with his blog as he has. If anyone has concerns about these realities, by all means, please call the Archdiocese of Denver as have some US Bishops who have then discovered the veracity of what I have reported here. That number 303-722-4687. God bless Charlie Johnston and thanks be to God for Charlie's fiat and faithfulness! PS I should clarify the word "ban" was never used by the Archdiocese of Denver. NEVER. It was used initially in a headline in the National Catholic Register and do you know what? Charlie's own Archdiocese called the newspaper and asked for the word "ban" to be removed and it was. There is a grave responsibility in a public venue to state correct information. Of course, we are free as Catholics to discern in such cases as Charlie. It is imperative that the discernment would include a careful reading of Charlie's material and correct reporting concerning his status with his Archdiocese. Firsthand, I have seen, again and again, that Charlie is misquoted and misinformation has been broadly spread. Please do call the ARchdiocese of Denver for verification and any needed further clarification. God's Blessings to All.
Horrors .. The Scandal .. The Humanity!!! Priests hearing Confessions at a Charlie J. event and at the Parish of Evil Episcopalians ..... GOD HELP US!!! ,.... I'm going, Right Away!, to Re-Load some more ammo ... whilst reciting The 23rd Psalm!! .... The End is Neigh!!! Really Gang!!! .... Give Me a $%#@&*^ Break! I'm guessing that priests, These Days" would be happy ... delighted!!! ... to hear Confessions ... anywhere ... even outside the Exit of Madam Horrs' House. Just another "fine " example of Ms. Harper's Jihad Jane Hit-Job on Charlie!! I'm sure she "made haste" to report this travesty to the Lavender SnowFlakes in Denver GOD SAVE THE REPUBLIC!!
Hi Wee One, You are new here! This has been discussed earlier in this thread and the Charlie Johnston thread. Read back a few pages. Enjoy Crew Dog's insightful comments From the National Catholic Register here: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...ton-continues-ministry-despite-denver-archdi/ "The Archdiocese of Denver released a statement on March 7 concerning the alleged visionary. It contained a warning from Archbishop Aquila for Catholics “to exercise prudence and caution in regards to Mr. Charlie Johnston’s alleged divine visions and messages.” The statement also announced that Johnston would not be approved as a speaker in the Archdiocese of Denver. “Mr. Johnston claims to have received both visions and messages from the Blessed Mother, the archangel Gabriel and other saints since he was young,” the report explained. “According to Mr. Johnston, the purpose of these visits was to train him to serve as a messenger for God and strengthen the faithful, particularly during a time of economic and moral upheaval, which he refers to as ‘The Storm.’ “Johnston insists in writing and during his talks that the ‘prophetic’ parts of his message are not essential and should not be the focus of those who follow him. However, it appears that those same predictions are what attract new followers to his message and give them a sense of urgency and zeal.” On the day the report was released, Johnston interpreted it on his blog as “permission” to continue, claiming the archbishop simply was exercising prudence. To those who took the statement as an instruction to “turn off the lights,” Johnston responded, “I am enjoying letting the sourpusses expose themselves for lacking the most basic knowledge of ‘Churchspeak.’” He pointed to Bishop René Gracida of Corpus Christi, Texas, as publicly congratulating him for a positive outcome. When contacted by the Register, the 92-year-old bishop, who retired in 1997, said that his support is for Johnston’s “zealous witness to the Catholic faith” but “not with regard to his private revelations.” David Uebbing, chancellor for the Archdiocese of Denver, told the Register, “The official statement of the archbishop stands on its own, apart from Mr. Johnston’s interpretation, and should be considered in its entirety.” He explained, “The archdiocese does not allow the propagation of messages or visions without certitude that they are from God, which requires a much longer process involving analysis by experts from outside the archdiocese.” The report has also influenced bishops across the country. Bishop David Kagan of the Diocese of Bismarck, N.D., commented that bishops pay attention to one another. “I would not allow this person to speak on any religious subject in the Diocese of Bismarck, since it is clear that his activities in Denver and elsewhere have caused confusion among the Catholic faithful,” he told the Register. In the Diocese of Springfield, Ill., Bishop Thomas Paprocki told the Register, “Since Mr. Johnston will not be approved as a speaker in the Archdiocese of Denver, neither will he be approved as a speaker in the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois. The faithful should seek their security in Jesus Christ, the sacraments and the Scriptures.” Actually, the practical effect of the Denver ruling was to get Charlie off any mainstream Catholic media, with Relevant Radio saying they would not interview him in the future, and others (Patrick Madrid, Fr. Pacwa) acknowledging the wisdom of the warning. Blessings. Edited to add: As it happens, I do have some material to send the archdiocese of Denver.
