ANTONIO YAGüE ALERT: Warning Astro Visualized - CONFIRMED

In a charitable way, of course.

 

Yes, you are right! In calling you on your lack of charity I guess I have been uncharitable myself. Mea culpa.

 

I might dispute the lack of charity, given a history with CrewDog. But thank you.

 

I agree that mentioned prophets are false, because they claimed data in clear contradiction to Catholic teaching. Local bishops were indeed led by Holy Spirit.

But we can not judge nothing, because our curt will never be absolutely correct. To deny some true prophet is very serious sin against the Holy Spirit. But we cannot judge the person who denies such prophet, because this person can be convinced about correctness of his/her doing. We can only say, that the spirit speaking throught this person was already judged and condemned by God before the beginning of the World. Such curt is allowed only, I believe.

 

LittleVoice,

Not sure what "curt" is. But I disagree that "to deny some true prophet is a very serious sin against the Holy Spirit." There is no new public revelation; that ended long ago when the last apostle died and the New Testament was completed (EWTN). If a prophecy is not part of the Deposit of the Faith, the Catholic Church does not require us to believe in it. One can argue the wisdom of not accepting some recent revelations, but belief is not required. And, if it is not required one believe, then it cannot be "a very serious sin against the Holy Spirit." One cannot impose a standard higher than that of the Church.

 

Denying true prophecy is undoubtedly an example of the sin against the Holy Spirit because true prophecy comes from the Holy Spirit.

But there is a difference between 'not believing' and 'denying'. If a person does not believe a prophet, that is one thing. Denying prophecy is something else. To deny is to preach against that prophet. That is why actively preaching against a prophet is a very dangerous course of action even if you believe the prophet to be false. Man is able to persuade himself of many things. The Pharisees preached against Jesus despite all the evidence of His Holiness.

Don't go there!

 

So If I understand good, to deny e.g. Fatima is not (according to you) serious sin (?) OK you have partially truth. My english is poor and I don't know say it excatly: to sin against the holy spirit means to deny Holy Spirit. It means to deny also true Prophet. But on the other side, where is no knowledge there is no sin Therefore people without knowledge about the prophet should remain silent, although if they are conviced about their truth, they cannot sin. But although they cannot sin, they remain without the Grace, which God sent throught the true prophet. Do you think, that if God sends prophets, it is not for a serious reason? People, who don't listen such prophet are without (serious) sin. But if somebody knows that the prophet is true and he denies publicly the prophet, because the prophet witnesses about his wickedness, such person commits serious sin against the Holy Spirit.

 

I was taught "the sin against the Holy Spirit" is the refusal to accept God's mercy and salvation. That is a knowing and willed rejection of the definitive teachings of the Catholic Church. That is very different from belief in private revelation.

From EWTN:

...Another way of saying this is that private revelations may not be believed with divine and Catholic Faith. They rest on the credibility of the evidence in favor of a supernatural origin. In the case of private revelations approved by the highest authority in the Church we can say with Pope Benedict XIV,


Although an assent of Catholic faith may not be given to revelations thus approved, still, an assent of human faith, made according to the rules of prudence, is due them; for according to these rules such revelations are probable and worthy of pious credence. [De Serv. Dei Beatif.]


The Pope is saying that a Catholic, seeing that the Church (and here the Holy See is meant, as only its acts can be of universal effect) has investigated and approved certain revelations, is being prudent to give them human assent. That acceptance does not rest on the guarantee of Faith, or the charism of infallibility, but on the credibility of the evidence as it appeals to reason. The assent involved is not supernatural but the natural assent that the intellect gives to facts which it judges to be true. Approved private revelations are thus worthy of our acceptance and can be of great benefit to the faithful, for as the Catechism of the Catholic Church notes,


Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church. [CCC 67]


However, on the other hand, they do not demand acceptance by Catholics. As Pope Benedict states in the aforementioned text,


it is possible to refuse to accept such revelations and to turn from them, as long as one does so with proper modesty, for good reasons, and without the intention of setting himself up as a superior. [De Serv. Dei Beatif.]

https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/apparitions.htm

Thus, turning from such revelations or refusing to accept them may not be prudent; still, that is very far from a serious sin against the Holy Spirit.

 

Your post is merely repeating that the Church does not insist on belief, The critical issue is denial. Both my and LV's posts make this clear.

I will copy again here the Scriptural quote that LV used earlier that should cause all who preach against prophecy to seriously reflect on what they are doing:

So you are witnesses and you consent to the deeds of your fathers, for they killed them, and you build their tombs. Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,’ so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation. Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering.”

Luke 11:48
​

 

There is not diferences between ancient priests and current priests, ancient Pharisees and current Conservatives, ancient Sadducees and current Liberals, ancient Jews and current believers, ancient Samaritans and current Protestants, ancient pagans and current unbelievers.
The words of Jesus were not approved by Church of Israel faunded by God Father. They were condemned. The people who believed Jesus were led only by Spirit and didn't obey Church. The same people if they lived today, were follow today's true prophets. But you living today, who preach against today's prophets, you would not believe in Jesus, if you lived before 2000 years. Your only salvage is the God's Grace, that you are living in Christian society and that you obey Church. But Church is a body, living body, and therefore there are some prophets, some with understanding, some are hard, some calm... If in human body all cells were calm erythrocytes, would be it good? But the body needs hard erythrocytes, hard towards heresies, hard toward sins...

 

View attachment 5749

 

Of course, compare the reflection of light from Astero behind the sun from 27th and 28th november. Astero is still close to the sun:



The smaller circles are, the closer Astero is. In the second picture, the circles are smaller (few pixels)

 

That's funny, I was just thinking that very same thing!

 

Harper,
Last time there was a tedious discussion about which messenger was legit and which one wasn't , I tried to distract you by suggesting you join a different thread and have a natter about something else.

So here you are on the brown dwarf discussion.
Any thoughts?

 

MMM and djmoforegon: You're right. We should give the thread back to the coming whatever! Big brown dwarf...

David, you are wrong. So are you, LittleVoice. You are setting up a standard different from that of the Church. I can reject/deny a private revelation without rejecting public revelation. Doing that is not the sin against the Holy Spirit. In Luke, Jesus was discussing those who had disbelieved in the prophets of old and in Him, and his statement falls into public revelation.

Yes, JAK, you do like to jump into threads and label things tedious. Do you do that often, and to others?

ETA: Isn't there an expired due date on the brown dwarf? Isn't it another failed prophecy? Perhaps you can explain how that happened.

 

I believe the sin against the Holy Spirit is to attribute the power of good or of God as coming from the evil one.....or, that good has as its source anti-good. Sort of like when the miracles of Christ were attributed to beelzebub. It will be such a sin when the AC arrives and declares himself to be the true god and all of his powers (coming from the Luciferian intelligence) as having its source acknowledged as god. It's attributing, willingly, powers rightfully owned by God to the evil one, raising such above the throne of the true God. Today, that "smoke of Satan" which has entered the Church, or body of Christ, is already demanding such false worship of evil as if it can legitimately replace what came from and instituted by Christ. This falsehood can also grant "mercy" but with caveats that must succumb to evil or anti-Christ which then denies as well the other Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit.

Christ gave permission for not believing in certain things about Him or things pertaining to His followers and their pronouncements so we're getting into more limited areas when humans are dependent upon a lot of imperfect qualities that can be contained within prophecies. There are even some "prophets" discerned to be good or faithful in the beginning but then having an infiltration occur later. One doesn't have to ditch the entire thing but it certainly goes off center. Even some warnings within prophecies or messages given in the past can be today somewhat "tweaked" due perhaps to more or less human cooperation since the time they were originally given, so that such compliance or not could possibly have mitigated dates or degrees of what was predicted in the first place. And some persons just have more expertise in the area of discernment due to the varying of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Always remember free will and that God always respects such. So no one should attempt to be holier than God, esp. when judging others. One may deny him/herself some promised graces through doubting.....we see Thomas here perhaps......or not help God's messengers to accomplish fully what they have been charged with, but we're all tied together and so we, including the doubters, will then suffer together to some extent that less than desired grace that could have been experienced. Just look at what has been missed for the world since Fatima and lack of simple acceptance even by holy persons in places of authority.

 

CCC - 1864 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

Me - I think sin against the Holy Spirit is refusing conversion and thereby forgiveness, and that's why it's unforgivable.

 

Ultimately then, a person freely chooses hell and thus raises that choice for evil above the good of God as the better thing for himself since one always chooses what he decides is the better. Thus, he turns evil into a good, for himself.....that ultimate sin against the Holy Spirit since, in truth, it cannot stand.

 

You are correct here Harper.
The Unforgivable Sin against the Holy Spirit is impenitence at the time of death.
It has nothing at all to do with private revelation and believing in a particular "seer" or not.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/UNFORGIV.HTM

No Catholic is required to believe any particular private revelation after the Deposit of the Faith.
For example the Cure D'Ars would not believe in LaSalette until the Church finally approved it then he changed his opinion and followed what the Church had spoken on the matter.
We do however need to believe that the Holy Spirit conveys some prophecy. That is part of Catholic belief.

 

Yes, prophecy is among the charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit. That is part of the Deposit of Faith.