Please, we need to be united. We are brothers in Christ Jesus. God is our father. We are brothers. Good brothers love each other. Let's forget the discussions that divide us.
Penance, Penance, Penance. Incredible how we are actually witnessing Revelations, and Fatima. I do believe Pope Francis is trying to put the Jeannie back in the bottle. Chastisements may be mitigated because of the Consecration. And in the end, Her Immaculate Heart will Triumph, but we are not quite there, yet. Oh I do wish the assassination of a Pope, and the existence of an anti Pope is meant spiritually. As I pray the 3 days of Darkness is too. All we can do is pray, confess, and do what Our Lady says to do with the 5 first Saturday’s. May God protect us all. And how I cherish being a member of this forum. Thank you all for your prayers. It’s a gift to be part of such a holy group. We are all trying to preserve the truth.
Blessed Sister Elena Aiello prophesied that Russia with secret weapons would fight America and invade Europe; which indicates that somehow Russia would define the scope of destruction operated by these weapons, I believe that perhaps this has to do with directed energy weapons based on this new form of energy that Malachi Martin warned about (...)"Another terrible war will come from east to west, and Russia with her secret weapons, she will fight America, she will overwhelm Europe and you will see especially the Rhine river of Germany full of corpses and blood, Italy too will be troubled by a great revolution and the Pope will have to suffer a lot."(...) 22 August 1960 https://gloria.tv/post/nyXqfnG9CjV32iRsgEiZV6DN3
Luan is it possible these predictions were mitigated after JP II consecrated the world? And if not, hopefully, Pope Francis’s consecration will.
Donna, Recall when we zoomed together: my memory is a little faulty, but I remember Sanctus and PotatoSack were with us. Such a good visit. And everyone held you in prayer during your trip in the ambulance and following. You are cared for and loved. And yes, Padraig is one of the most outspoken members in regard to Pope Francis. I too sometimes cringe at what either he or the Holy Father's say, but I love them both. There are also times when I am an outlier, especially in regard to standing with Lynnfiat and her position on Living in the Divine Will. Members who often give me likes certainly bypassed me on that thread. Every member of MOG that I know rejoices in the Consecration to the Immaculate Heart which the Holy Father accomplished, but there are skeptics across the internet who question whether it completely fulfilled Mary's guidelines. But I don't think anyone here, stated in regard to the Consecration that the devil was in the works, and therefore dissed it. I have attempted at times, prior to standing up to, and confronting a member publicly, to communicate first privately. That way peaceful clarifications can be had. Anyway, I care for you and desire the Lord's blessings on you and your loved ones. O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who recourse to thee!
I think that the consecration of John Paul II allowed the Soviet Union to fall without bloody civil wars and without starting a world war; as to the effects of Francis' consecration to prevent a world war today; I am not sure; although I believe that the prophetic exile of the pope (whether by wars or revolutions) will come anyway as a purification of Rome and the apostate West.
The video I posted goes into detail on the difference between global effects of human weapons versus the possible effects of a micro nova from the sun. While Russia’s secret weapons will cause global catastrophe, only a micro nova from the sun seemingly could cause the effects which the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima actually prophesied.
this would cause the unknown glow in the night sky; what sister Lucy cited as a sign of the punishment of the world? would affect some specific regions more than others? The sign in heaven would be an announcement of the persecution of the Church; from famine and war; this was accomplished before the beginning of the second war; but I think an event analogous to this is possible in the future
Thank you for being so honest Donna. I wish everyone would be so honest. I am sorry you are leaving the Forum and ask you to remember us all in your prayers. I know I need them so much. As far as Pope Francis is concerned, personally I have never claimed him to be an anti Pope and in fact, as far as I recall I have kicked at least one member of the Forum for doing so. I don't think we as ordinary lay Catholics can do so as it is far above our pay scale to do so. However whatever doubts we may harbour in the secret places of our hearts...well. ..that is quite another thing. Why the doubts about Our Holy Father? ....well let me give a current instance. Cardinal Marx of Germany has recently said that : https://www.ncregister.com/cna/card...one-one-is-also-allowed-to-doubt-what-it-says In fairness to the Cardinal he is not behind the door about all this. But what really , really troubles me is why the Pope is allowing him and many others to get away with stuff? Why does he not act? The Catechism is Not Set in Stone. One is Also Allowed to Doubt What it Says’
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/b...gn/?utm_source=featured&utm_campaign=catholic Bishop Strickland calls for pro-homosexual Cardinal Marx to ‘officially resign’ 'Cardinal Marx has left the Catholic faith,' said Strickland. TYLER, Texas (LifeSiteNews) — Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas, publicly called for the resignation of Cardinal Marx after he denied that homosexual activity is sinful. “Cardinal Marx has left the Catholic faith. He needs to be honest & officially resign,” Strickland posted on Twitter Thursday night, in response to the cardinal’s pro-homosexual statements.
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2021/06/27/james-martin-lgbt-ministry-pope-francis-240938 Pope Francis encourages Jesuit Father James Martin in his L.G.B.T. ministry Pope Francis has again encouraged the ministry of James Martin, S.J., to L.G.B.T. persons, and with words that could also encourage others in this work. He did so on the eve of the Outreach 2021 L.G.B.T. Catholic ministry conference that took place by webinar this Saturday, June 26, of which the Jesuit priest was the main organizer.
Cardinal Marx: a true schismatic. Pope Francis, in refusing to suppress these numerous heretics, and actually promoting many of the worst offenders? And allowing desecration of the Holy Eucharist by inviting divorced and remarried to partake? And in publicly praising abortionists and permitting the worst population controllers to speak at the Vatican? And for saying it’s ok to contracept (Zika) in contravention to Humanae Vitae? And in suppressing contemplative religious sisters and the TLM worldwide? And in claiming souls are annihilated? I don’t know if these are simple material heresy, formal manifest heresy, schism or apostasy. That’s for the Church to eventually decided. But it’s definitely one of the above.
Cardinal Marx is very,very far indeed in being the only one. I half respect him for nailing his colours to the Mast as Fr Martin Luther, also form Germany, did in the past. It is the sneaky ones who hide their homosexuality and homosexualist views I am most concenred about. Most of all why the Holy Father not only does nothing , but actually appears to lend his support. This is a source of the very, very deepest concern. It also may explain why poor old Pope Benedict got such a bad reception from the German Bishops when he visited that benighted country.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/scottericalt/are-catholics-forbidden-to-criticize-priests/ Is Criticizing Priests Forbidden to Catholics? In Fact, We Have a Right To. This is not another post about Fr. Pavone. Saints forbid. But it was during a discussion of that topic on Facebook that someone made the claim that Catholics are “not allowed” to criticize priests. I am going to limit myself, therefore, to that specific claim. I do not, here, address the topic of whether criticism of priests is imprudent. Nor do I discuss the extent to which we must do so in charity, or privately, with respect for the office, and so on. I address only the claim that it is “not allowed.” As near as I can tell, this belief has its origins in a section of the Pieta Prayer Book that quotes from a private revelation. Here is the key text. One should NEVER attack a priest, even when he’s in error, rather one should pray and do penance that I’ll grant him My grace again. He alone fully represents Me, even when he doesn’t live after my example! PPB attributes these words to “Our Lord’s revelations to Mutter Vogel.” And the first thing one should know on this point is that Catholics are not bound by private revelation. They are not bound even to those the Church has approved. The conscience of Catholics is bound only to public revelation, and public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. When the Church approves a private revelation, that only means she has found nothing contrary to faith or morals there. Catholics may choose to believe it, but the Church does not compel them to. A Catholic who chooses to believe “Our Lord’s revelations to Mutter Vogel,” can decide for himself, “I will not ever criticize a priest.” But he cannot bind another Catholic to that under penalty of sin. If Our Lord had thought that such a prohibition should bind all Catholics, would he not have included it as public revelation? Second, one should also note that the Church has nowhere approved “Our Lord’s revelations to Mutter Vogel.” In fact, Vogel is such an obscure personage that I find no reference to her in either the Old or New Catholic Encyclopedias. One may think of these words as, at best, a pious suggestion, but they are certainly far from an official stricture upon criticism of priests. “But Alt!” you will say. “What about John 17:18? What about John 20:21? Or Luke 10:16?” Okay. What about them? In the first two, Christ says, “As the Father has sent me, so I am sending you.” The most this tells me is that Christ ordained priests to preach the gospel. He ordained priests to administer the sacraments. But none of that is in dispute. To suggest that criticism of priests is the same as criticism of Christ is to read into the text what is not there. It is eisegesis. Christ is sinless; Christ does not make mistakes. This we know. He sends apostles to preach the Gospel, but he does not make them impeccable. Not even the pope is without error in all things. In Luke 10:16, Christ says the apostles, “Whoever hears you, hears me, but whoever rejects you rejects me.” The problem is that Christ is speaking about the apostles only as teachers of the faith. He means that anyone who rejects the apostles’ teaching has rejected Christ. But priests are not official teachers of the faith. They are, but only insofar as they remain consistent with the Magisterium of the Church—the pope and the bishops in union with him. And not even bishops get such a privilege when it comes to their actions—their teaching yes, their actions no. Christ says nothing about whether we may criticize a bishop for living in a big, roomy mansion. (I do not say that is or is not a fair criticism, only that Luke 10:16 has no application. To reject the bishop’s mansion is not the same as to reject Christ.) “But Alt!” you will say. “What about St. Francis? Remember?” The saint was close to the end of his life, unable to walk and suffering from an eye disease and the stigmata. As he was brought through a region, some people from a nearby town came to ask for his help with their parish priest. They had discovered that their priest was involved in a scandalous relationship with a woman of that town. The saint was brought to the town and placed before the priest in front of everyone. They thought that the saint would upbraid the fallen priest. St. Francis instead fell to his knees, took the priest’s hands into his own stigmatized hands, kissed them and said, “All I know and all I want to know is that these hands give me Jesus.” It was said that the priest was converted. This story dates to the thirteenth century, according to the Register article which quotes it, and it is certainly a very pious tale. I would not wish to dispute the truth of it. But the most it tells us is that St. Francis was not in the habit of criticizing priests. We may certainly choose to emulate his example, but there is no reason to think we are bound by it. “But Alt!” you will say. “St. Catherine of Siena is a Doctor of the Church! In her Dialogues she tells us that Christ warned against criticism of priests! What say you?” Yes. She did. And again, this is a private revelation to which Catholics are not bound. You can say that we ought to take St. Catherine’s suggestion seriously. You can say that the fact that she is a saint, and a Doctor, gives her words a particular weight. But what you cannot say is that the conscience of Catholics is bound by St. Catherine’s Dialogues. What you cannot say is that the Dialogues are magisterial teaching. In fact, go to the Code of Canon Law 208-223, and you will find it says much about the obligations, but also the rights, of the faithful. Canon 212 tells us that Catholics must “show Christian obedience” to their pastors. But you will also find these words. They have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ’s faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals. When it “concern the good of the Church,” Catholics may certainly criticize priests. They even have the right to do so publicly. Now, the canon does say that the criticism must be in keeping with Church teaching, and that Catholics must “show due reverence.” In other words, they must obey the law of charity. But not only are Catholics not forbidden to criticize priests, they actually have a right to—when it involves the good of the Church. ***
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_PT.HTM TITLE I : THE OBLIGATIONS AND RIGHTS OF ALL CHRIST'S FAITHFUL (Cann. 208 - 223) Canon 212. 1 Christ's faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound to show christian obedience to what the sacred Pastors, who represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith and prescribe as rulers of the Church. §2 Christ's faithful are at liberty to make known their needs, especially their spiritual needs, and their wishes to the Pastors of the Church. §3 They have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ's faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals.
Donna, do you even know what schismatic means? How about you take a breather. We are all frustrated by current events. Not good to take it out in such a way. We are living in diabolical disorientation, to quote Sr. Lucia. Many don't even know who the Holy Father is, there are two candidates. One of them has fled for fear of the wolves (to quote him himself). The other one is tackling one sacrament after another. We had a stunning consecration a few days ago but we don't know if it is valid. Time will tell, as SteveD (as I recall) has put it: I think if this was yet another invalid attempt (due to being carried out by a potential imposter), then we are in for a rough ride. I think Our Lord will not accept his Holy Mother being continuously mocked. But we will soon find out, the events around Moscow and Kiev are the key to understanding, according to Fr. Malachi Martin who knew the Third Secret. We will very soon find out. According to the video quoted by Padraig above, a stigmatist has made interesting prophecies already in 2012, one year before Pope Benedict resigned: That there will be a false pope, and that the true successor of Pope Benedict will carry out the consecration validly. Fr. Nix has stated that he considers all the consecrations so far amount essentially to acts of passive resistance towards Our Holy Mother. That no consecration has simply been reduced to what she actually asked for: To consecrate Russia to her immaculate heart. Instead, all consecrations have added much fluff, or missed some specific but simple requirement. It is not difficult that the Holy Father consecrates Russia to the Immaculate Heart alongside all bishops of the world. After all, we are having Zoom and Teams meetings all the time these days. On the other hand, at the risk of sounding silly, the weather here has been incredibly beautiful since the consecration. Perhaps the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart has begun? We will soon see. I have more questions than answers these days, and I think many are confused and shaken by the current events. It is interesting times, unsettling times. Diabolical disorientation. No need to get wound up or call the leaders of this forum names; instead, the issue is with the hierarchy of the Holy Catholic Church. The fish smells from the head, as we say in German. Pope Benedict was a very gentle leader. A great intellectual, soft spoken, kind, patient. A deep mystic, close to his confessor Pr. Frumentius Renner who was deep into prophecy, including the "Feldpostbriefe" by Andreas Rill. Pope Benedict himself was much involved with the prophecies of Fatima and Akita, and he has publicly commented on both. A gentle and kind and patient leader, perhaps too soft. Someone from Bavaria should have told him: Holy Father, our Holy Catholic Church has become a pig-stall and it needs to be cleaned up!
