Apologies to all those on the forum for the way I handled this which was , I know , very,very badly. I console myself that it hands me a big dollop of humiliation which if swallowed can lead to at least a little more humility. I hold my hands up, I was wrong in this. A lesson, I hope well learnt.
By the way if any of you want to criticise me for all this feel perfectly free to do so. I have it coming.
Can we all bate ya with fresh bunches of nettles? Welcome Linda It's a tricky old thing, this discerning business. I thank God for our Catholic Church. When things get complicated we have always the Church to help with discernment. Even saints and theologians can be deceived and oh boy, I'm neither. Like Padraig, I got a little caught up with this but I hung back too, mostly because of my recent experience of seeing a very dear sister hopelessly caught in MDM's net. . I am very, very careful now, and very grateful for the guidance of the Church. Look back to when Jesus walked the Earth. He needed to establish His Church. He needed everyone to know where, as Padraig puts it, the 'firm ground' was. In fact, He called it the Rock. He needed it to be obvious to the well educated and to those who would never learn to read and write. He could see ahead to the Reformation and to these times when there would be confusion. So He established His Church, gave it all Authority, and His promise it would be the Rock against which the gates of Hell would never prevail. Do I think there are only false prophets? Of course not. But I'm very, very wary. Linda, please be careful. Submit to Church scrutiny, as Padraig tells you, you are on safe ground only then. Has your Spiritual Adviser told you whether to publish before he reviews messages? Prayers for you - this can't be easy.
I believe these words DO need to be read and understood strictly in the specific context in which they are spoken here, i.e. in relation to the "horror of the skies" of the previous lines. To suggest that the faithful will not suffer would, as has been noted by others here, contradicts just about everything we know to be true about our faith and what it means to be a follower of Jesus! But IN CONTEXT I think it means that in this specific situation (i.e. the horror from the skies scenario) those who love God and are faithful will not suffer (in the same way that those who do not love God and are not faithful will). That is what I understand this to mean anyway.
I'm sorry but I disagree ! You did not handle this "very very badly ". Padraig, you & I are similar in the respect that we trust to easily and look for the good in people first ( as well as many members of this wonderful board ). I take part of the blame too for being so enthusiastic about the initial messages.We handled Linda, like we handled Pope Francis in the beginning (when MDM came out against him ), its better to error on the side of generosity. ANYONE who makes you feel that you handled this so poorly ,should be ashamed, where was their outcry that this was false ? Some members rightfully took issue with some sentences and it took only a few days to discern. IF ANYTHING JUST THE OPPOSITE ! It only took a few days to read all the messages, and compile enough opinions to discern , that's pretty darn fast ! (considering the amount of reading there was too ! ) MDM was on this forum longer than that ! Stop beating yourself up over this. No one can run this board any better than you !
The misunderstanding I was referring to was your opinion that the messages had been "canonized by acclamation". If you re-read this thread, I think you'll see it differently.
No you are doing a great job on the forum Padraig, in my opinion anyways. Its always an area where people make mistakes, trying to figure out private revelations. My tuppence worth is that its isn't a good idea to pick holes in the revelations as regards obscure areas of theology. I think honest mistakes could be made by the visionary and anyway it seems that authentic messages sometimes depart, surprisingly enough, from established doctrine in the Church. (I am just editing this to point out again that I am talking about obscure debatable theological points, not obvious clear depatures from established doctrine, which obviously don't occur in authentic visions.) Yes I know that seems a surprising thing to say but isn't it true that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception became established as such some decades after the events at Lourdes, which means that the message given at the time departed from the then doctrine? And in the case of Our Lady of All Nations in Amsterdam, which many people feel is authentic, the messages talk there about the dogma of Mediatrix, Co-Redemtrix and Advocate although that isn't currently the doctrine of the Catholic Church as far as I know. I know thats only a few exceptions and the rule quite properly is the opposite, that said messages should always be in keeping with doctrine, but I am just saying that throwing overboard any set of messages on the basis of one or two obscure theological points isn't ever a good idea? I was just thinking that in the case of Maria Valtorta who was discussed earlier. You had a link to a critical account by a highly respected Jesuit theologian and he was arguing about a few similar points but it left me unconvinced. This is because he was again only debating a few very obscure and debatable issues when the thrust of the messages, over such a huge account, I think its 10 or 15 volumes or something, is so obviously in keeping with the doctrine of the Church. Anyway for what its worth I think its better to try to take a big picture look at messages like that. What you are looking for is a possible 'agenda' which is something other than trying to lead people to Our Lord's message. In otherwords when you are reading some false stuff you might find it taking sides in some conflict like Syria, for example, in a way that you could picture some political group wanting you to, in otherwords it has a human worldly 'agenda', and that is the red flag to watch out for I'd say. But in truth I get it wrong trying to figure such stuff out the same as the next guy...
Well, I actually see where you are coming from in criticizing yourself. You kind of promoted, then invited, then turned on a dime. You said yourself that you wish you hadn't deleted MDM's account in hope that she would have stuck around and had been open to continued, true discernment. I certainly hope Linda stays on the forum to do just that in regards to her published locutions. Your recommendations were probably the correct path to suggest to her. But I also sense some shock and grief in her response, though also a genuine desire to remain open and not to lead anyone astray if there is a chance of falsehood or poor interpretation.
The dogma on the Immaculate Conception was officially defined 4 years prior to Lourdes in 1854, not decades later. Also, the Mediatrix, Co-Redemtrix and Advocate "dogma" has not been formally defined by the Church at this point, even though we hope it will one day soon
You're right indeed. I always understood it was the first universally recognised pronouncement under Papal Infallibility, which was defined - but not entirely originated - by the First Vatican Council later in the century, but no you're right the dogma was defined earlier. Then retrospectively it was given the new Papal Infallibility seal of approval, as I understand it.
I too hope that Linda continues to post on the forum. she struck me as humble and one truly searching, as we all are here. It will be interesting to hear what her spiritual adviser says about the questionable messages. Please hang around Linda...I think you'd add a lot to the forum.
At first, I read 4 or 5 writings from Linda and found no theological error in them and was looking forward to reading them all. When I printed and read to my family the message that I first made question of, I had to stutter and re-read it to them. I paused again in reading it and said something like "I am not sure about this statement" and my college age daughter immediately said, "their probably false". Upon carefully reading a few more messages, I was convinced that although most messages were very beautifully written, there were certain sentences throughout some messages that were not theologically sound in my mind. As I have stated before, I am no theologian, but 30 years of reading and listening to spiritual giants in the Church, like Servant of God Father John Hardon SJ, (the great theologian he was) I know what Church doctrine, Church dogma and Church disciplines are. I don't have visions, locutions, messages, or dreams as some on this forum have alleged,.....but my antenna's go up immediately with language that is foreign to Church writings and teachings. This is a very good discussion for this reason. We are about to enter into (and to some degree we already have) the most confusing period in history, when everything we believe will be challenged. Linda's beautiful messages (for the most part) should be a wake up call to warn us of what is to come when the Church is diabolically attacked and persecution comes from your neighbors, not through a persons messages we don't even know on the internet. The devil is very cunning and will mix 98% truth and beauty with 2% smoke and screen, which Many will fall for. We have to pray hard that we can discern between the two. Pray to the Holy Spirit many times every day for light for the mind.
I just say I'm worried about non-appearance of pope Francis in these new messages. Why is he not called Holy Father and why we don't have to pray for him every day? I recall when I was reading MDM and there was always this talk about pope Benedictus, as such a good thing but somewhat confusing if pope Francis is "left outside".
I received an email from her today ,she is in fact meeting her spiritual advisor today and asking him to discern the specific messages we had taken objection to. I will meet her tomorrow and talk further.
Dear Everybody, This is a difficult note to write, as yes, I did feel a bit hurt yesterday. But I trust in God fully and happily and besides, He had indicated that eventually I would endure some unpleasantries (and those are always fun!). I am thankful for this site because it has allowed others to read God's messages and His messages are very loving and consistent. I have no regrets. I do want to respond to the multiple comments I have read, so let's get on with the subject at hand. Regarding Church dogma and theology and rhetoric and all of these things that you have mentioned and that I am ignorant about.... Well, I cannot and actually will not argue with anyone about the messages. I'm not supposed to. My very ignorance is why I have a very holy and very knowledgeable spiritual adviser who I work with very closely. In fact I met with him again today regarding the passages in question. But before I continue on that vein and share what he said, I have a couple of things I'd like to clear up because they have been troubling me. First, I want to say that God's messages are a blessing and I do not take them lightly. The Gods-Messages-For-Us website was not posted until March of this year because I was reticent to share anything for fear of misinterpretations, including my own. I do not have a doctorate in theology and I did not want this gift at first. This forum has shown me that it is indeed very easy to have difficulties about the messages and their meanings. That is one reason I say, I will not argue anything regarding the messages; I will, however, answer your questions to the best of my ability. Second, and this is specifically for Padraig because I know he is well-respected here.... I want to be very clear on something you implied yesterday in reference to clearing "all the messages" with my spiritual adviser and insisting I shut down the site until that was the case. Eight journals - the equivalent of approximately 1500 typed pages have been reviewed by Monsignor Patrick from Our Lady of Lourdes here in Massapequa and reviewed to a lesser extent (because they are not true theologians) by Fr. Frank - our Pastor at Maria Regina and Fr. Lawrence, of the same Parish. In addition, I have a very humble and spiritual priest in Mexico (Chihuahua) and another in Texas who read them daily, including the one message that has put everyone's back up. I have the utmost respect for all of them and especially Monsignor Patrick. He has calmed my heart many a time because I have had moments of fear based on what I have heard. His ability to discern and understand the "signs" or "parabolic language" in some of these messages is the reason why I go to him and trust him. He is specifically trained and very well-studied through the Catholic Church for this exact thing. I also have put my faith in him because God put him in my life specifically and through (of course) the most inexplicable circumstances. So, in short, I assure you, the messages have been cleared/approved for distribution. Everything I've just said may sound a bit serious or stern, particularly because I am very much an easygoing individual. But I take this very seriously. I am not a rapple-rouser nor do I want any of this to be about me. I do not want publicity for myself; I do not want money from anyone; I do not want notoriety; I do not want celebrity; and I don't want the power to lead anyone anywhere. I only want people to read God's messages - then they can do or go where they want on their own volition. If it makes a positive difference in their lives in their relationship with God, then I'll do a jig with God and He and I will celebrate and continue working. I too am aware of false prophets and the damage they can do. I have no agenda and do not wish to anger anyone here. Therefore, I will remove myself from the forum at the end of this week (Sunday). So, now that the question of theological/spiritual director review is clear, let me attempt to explain Monsignor's insights (I asked him for some others as well, so perhaps if there are other messages that trouble you, you can let me know - they may be one in the same). Also, please remember I am not the theologian - he is far more articulate. (See next post - apparently this one is too long)
Here is the part of the message in question: Please Children. Listen as My Most Holy and Belovéd Mother, the Queen of Peace, begs and pleads with each of you to come and know the Love and forgiveness of her Blesséd Son, Jesus the Christ, whose greatest Sacrifice has saved you. Do not lay waste to His Immense and inexplicable or generous or great Loving Sacrifice. Oh Children, His death was an evil and discourteous lie. Evil is meant to be the actual evil of those who insisted on crucifying Jesus. They were evil incarnate. They were rabid in their desire to destroy Him - the devil was at work. The words "discourteous lie" indicate that naysayers will never rid the world of Christ. It is a lie to think that this can be successful - His death is impossible/a lie. His name cannot be eradicated. Christ can never die even though right now as we live, this world is attempting to stifle Him; taking prayer out of schools; ridiculing people who believe; murdering Christians...the enemy cannot beat Christ. He was laid bare and crucified and humiliated amongst men. This line and the next acknowledges that Jesus was indeed crucified and bore pain and agony as a man. See His absolute pain and Glory. He too went to hell and fought the evil one with no sword but His great holiness. Monsignor Patrick and I talked about this at length. He explained (as many of you mentioned) that Christ's descent was into Hades to gather those who had been waiting for Him. He said that hell is meant for punishment; Hades is not - they are two different places. He also added though that during those three days at and after Christ's death, the skies grew dark and thunder clapped - a sort of hell and darkness came about when He died. Satan was set loose while Jesus gathered the souls in Hades. He said that we, including the wisdom of the theologians of the Church, merely do not know what happened during the entire time of those three days. At any rate, he was not uncomfortable with the passage because it followed the timeline what occurred. And because Jesus had in the past fought Satan and won. You know of His mortal pains and Sacrifice. The mortal or physical pain He endured because of the crucifixion - we are well aware of this. You cannot know or understand the further greatness or power or Love or generosity of His second and immortal sacrifice of enduring darkness for an eternity of three days. Again, a reference to the three days of darkness on earth.The darkness was not of the human or mortal world; it was of the spiritual or immortal world (hence in addition to the physical, he was also dealing with a spiritual situation - not literally a second sacrifice. I believe I have explained it right. I will continue to check in daily until Sunday. I hope people will continue to go to the Gods-messages-for-us website. That is up to you. And like I said, I will always be happy to answer questions to the extent I can and I will always, always welcome requests for prayer. You can contact me directly through the site's contact page. God blesses! Linda PS: I almost forgot, I asked Monsignor about the emphasis on Benedict and not Francis and he laughed before adding seriously - Pope Benedict dealt with a lot of inside fighting, scandals and back-stabbing, apparently. There were multiple clicks(?) that were working against him that apparently were tearing his attempts to work effectively apart and it was also effecting his health. He believed that he needed to step down in order to allow someone new to fix what he could not fix. So he was carrying a very heavy burden for a very, very long time and with that burden, his heart is still weighed down. He needs a lot of prayer to help heal him. Pope Francis, on the other hand, is fresh and new and energetic. It is good to pray for him too, but he doesn't need it as much as Benedict. It made sense to me. For myself, I will pray for both.
Thanks Linda. Please stick around, the world is a cold and lonely place and I appreciate your generosity. ps. Where I grew up (Chicago), theologian has always meant "dissenter against the faith" and "spreader of errors".
