It has come up in the comments a number of times as the discussion of the alleged locutions of Maria Divine Mercy has unfolded here over the past few weeks: only the Archbishop of Dublin has the jurisdiction and authority to condemn her messages.
It now appears that Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin has done exactly that:
STATEMENT OF ARCHDIOCESE OF DUBLIN
ON THE ALLEGED VISIONARY “MARIA DIVINE MERCY”
Requests for clarification have been coming to the Archdiocese of Dublin concerning the authenticity of alleged visions and messages received by a person who calls herself “Maria Divine Mercy” and who may live in the Archdiocese of Dublin.
Archbishop Diarmuid Martin wishes to state that these messages and alleged visions have no ecclesiastical approval and many of the texts are in contradiction with Catholic theology.
These messages should not be promoted or made use of within Catholic Church associations.
I have already offered my own opinion that these were false, but now the competent authority has drawn a line in the sand. Some will no doubt point out that Saint Faustina’s Diary and the Divine Mercy devotion were once condemned by the CDF, and are now among the most popular approved private revelations in the Church. That something like this could happen does not mean that it will happen. For now, the spirit of obedience and docility to Church authority that is demanded of the faithful means that Catholics need to distance themselves from the messages of “Maria Divine Mercy”.
There are enough indications in the Church of some form of coming chastisement without resorting to false messages from heaven that tell us things we want to hear, even if we only want to hear them because they confirm our fears.
Truth is what matters. God’s truth, not the idea of truth we want to impose on Him.
Keep praying. Keep asking for discernment. The enemy is laying traps to ensnare those of us who are seeing his sabotage of the Church. Don’t get pulled in.
UPDATE 4/19/2014: Since the discussion was no longer fruitful, comments on this post are closed.
Steve Skojec is a husband, father, storyteller, writer, and podcaster who dabbles in photography, filmmaking, and graphic design. His commentary has has appeared at outlets such as The New York Times, Foreign Policy, USA Today, The Washington Post, Fox News, and The Washington Times. He lives in Arizona with his wife Jamie and their many children.
Steve, put on your helmet and raise your shield.
Meh. I have cosmic power here in the comments. Let the sparks fly.
Is this funny to you? More truth is said in jest than at any other time. Is this what you want? Sparks to fly? It would appear so. Having sparks fly is not helpful.
Not funny. Sad. I am sad that people like you are deciding to allow yourselves to continue to be mislead.
Happy Easter Steve,
As predicted in our previous back and forth when you asked me whether I would change my view on MDM if after much solicitation, the Archbishop of Dublin, having the jurisdiction to condemn the messages, did in fact condemn them, and my honest response was along the lines of, “given the Archbishop’s record of supporting views that do actually go against Catholic Theology, that I would have to seriously consider” (I used quotations to reflect generally what my response to you was, before someone actually pulls up my quote, assuming they care). Of course that day has arrived, and I challenge anyone here, including you Steve, to provide an example of an MDM message that contradicts Catholic Theology, and then with all due respect, contrast that with Archbishop Martin’s record with respect to homosexual marriage, his suggestion that the Catholic Church is “homophobic” and his abysmal defense of Life issues in Ireland resulting in the new liberal pro abortion laws there, and tell me who contradicts Catholic Theology more, The Archbishop or MDM? Do you expect me to be docile and obedient to this as well, and blindly submit to this man’s declaration, just because?
http://www.lifesitenews.com/home/print_article/news/44021/
This is not a victory or an opportunity for “I told ya so’s” Steve, Its a very sad day, made even sadder because this declaration/directive is made during Holy Week. (no tragic irony there is there?) As usual, in this article, the comments are as telling as the article itself. You asked before, and now my answer is, based on actually reading the messages, that I continue to believe they are divinely inspired, and further believe what this Archbishop has done, is what is in fact that which is diabolical. No need for a helmet or shield. A handkerchief will do. Jesus has been doubly nailed to the cross this week. Now, frankly, I am the one in need of a helmet and shield. Those who take exception to the messages shared by MDM, are much more vitriolic than I ever could be or would be. Steve, the church is doing a very fine job of sabotaging herself thank you.
“Truth is what matters. God’s truth, not the idea of truth we (or the Archbishop) want to impose on Him.”
Come Lord Jesus,
Steve Jacobson
Steve,
You’re the one who kept invoking the Archbishop of Dublin, saying he was the only one who had the authority to condemn this. Now he has, and you’re not stopping.
Listen, I know you have incredibly good intentions, but God gave His Church authority, and demands our obedience to the visible hierarchy. Even if the Archbishop is wrong, obedience will be rewarded, because you’re showing it to God Himself by showing it to His Church.
If He wanted everyone to know this stuff, He’d do it in a way that it would reach everyone and be fully credible. Don’t allow yourself to be deceived. Please.
Is that how Jesus did it? He Himself was condemned by the leaders of the Chosen People. The legitimate Church authorities condemned Him He was a scandal to all. Christ left plenty of room for people to disbelieve in Him. I sense you are looking for the perfect guide to lead you in this spiritual darkness in the Church right now..You won’t find it. You are being called to live in the dark in Faith and Trust. I am saddened that you think is is amusing that ‘sparks will fly’ because of what you have written. That in itself is scornful of those who are being helped by MDM.
Steve, Again if you will please recall, prior to the “good” bishop’s comment,(now theres an oxymoron) I made it pretty clear that even were he to finally muster up a comment, that I would likely not give it credence. I am quite certain that his comment was as tempered as it was, precisely because of the massive exposure to hypocrisy he placed himself, and now you, squarely in, ( you cover yourself by proclaiming blind obedience) and furthermore, that was likely the reason it has taken so long for him to make this weak proclamation I’m certain, reluctantly, for now all the world will see just how poorly he does represent the church, and how derelect the church has been in dealing with him. No Steve, I am not deceived, you have taken the bait and now run with it, and are seemingly proud about it. There is nothing to be proud of in having this heretical bishop represent your position as an arbiter of “truth”. No, I stand by my earlier comments and am saddened deeply by your knee jerk reaction(s). You arrived at your conclusion way too fast and now must justify your decision by demanding (albeit, somewhat politely) that we all must simply stand by and for all intents and purposes, be obediant JUST BECAUSE, which is basically your premise. I hope your “cosmic power” protects you here. You and the Archbishop. I don’t find humor in any of this.
Steve Jacobson
Sorry, Steve, but you’re being extraordinarily hypocritical.
You didn’t say that you wouldn’t give the bishop’s condemnation credence. What you said was far less certain:
“[T]he Archbishop in Dublin … has remained silent with respect to the abortion tragedy in Ireland of all places, creates a double edged sword of credibility that makes your question difficult to answer.”
As for your earlier comments about his authority:
“…the only authority with the jurisdiction to condemn them despite massive campaigns asking him to do so, the Archbishop of Dublin, has not.”
and
“Nobody here has the authority or jurisdiction to judge or make claims that the only authority (the Archbishop of Dublin) with jurisdiction to do so, hasn’t.”
and
“[T]he messages of MDM have in fact not been disapproved by the only church authority with the jurisdiction to do so, the Archbishop of Dublin.”
You have thrice said he has the authority or jurisdiction; once you said that if he did condemn the messages it would be “difficult” to say if you would follow his lead because of his stances on other issues.
What I am seeing, Steve, are the arguments of a man who will only follow the authority that confirms what he already believes. I GUARANTEE that if the Archbishop of Dublin had told the faithful in his diocese that they could in good conscience observe a devotion to MDM, you would have been publicizing it and telling everyone that the competent authority had spoken.
You can’t have it both ways.
I don’t disagree that the bishops of the Catholic Church have danced for so long with the devil that many may be in material heresy, if not formal. But I know for a fact that while I could point out, as a Catholic, that they’ve said something which appears to be heretical, I am not the competent authority to judge that either.
This is the same reason why I cannot accept the sedevacantist position. There is the hypothetical possibility that they may be correct, but only a successor of Peter has the right to declare one of his predecessors an anti-pope.
Authority goes with the office, not the man. If a bishop has latae sententiae excommunicated himself, then yes, there is a problem of authority. But we do not have any moral certitude that the Archbishop of Dublin has done any such thing. We have a right to be critical of his actions (or inactions) insofar as we believe they conflict with Church teaching, but not the right to cast anathemas on him.
It ‘s perfectly acceptable to note the levels of authority in the Church. Just because the pope washes the feet of a Muslim woman does not mean I need to believe this is something the whole Church should do. But if he declares something de fide, I either say “credo”, or I find another place to worship.
When you decide which parts of the Magisterium you’re going to follow and which you aren’t, there’s a word for that: “protestant”.
Steve, There is no contradiction or hypocrisy in anything that I say, or have said here or anywhere. I did state a fact with respect to the “authority with Jurisdiction” once, twice and yes “thrice” but when challenged by you I expressed genuine doubt given the circumstance of the infamous Archbishop of Dublin as to whether I would give him credence. As to your certainty (GUARANTEE) about what you know I would do or think if a good man had made the proclamation about MDM, yea or nay, you do not have the privilege of deciding what I would or would not do or say. Please note I do not use the word “condemnation” as freely as you do. The statement (a better description) made by the Bishop or his surrogate can hardly be described as a “condemnation” in any event. He has certainly painted himself into the proverbial corner now, because all of the world will note the double standard here manifested by both he and the church.
We will each have the opportunity to make our cases before God as to what we defended someday. I am at peace with mine. I guess this means we won’t be eating steak and enjoying a good bottle of wine on the deck at sunset anytime soon?
I don’t believe we will have to wait long before this unfolds in a manner that people with eyes to see, and ears to hear, will recognize.
Come Lord Jesus.
Steve, you continually invoked the Archbishop’s authority until it inconvenienced you. That is hypocrisy. And I stand by my supposition that had he endorsed MDM, you would have been the first to say, “See, even her bishop says it’s OK to listen to her!” Just like you kept saying he was the only one with the authority to condemn (or forbid, or proscribe, or pick the word you think fits best) her messages.
Whatever the case, I am not your enemy. I am fearful of those who will be deceived. I was tempted, but my instincts kept warning me that something wasn’t right, and I chose to listen to that. Being confirmed by her bishop only substantiates that.
Steve, OK. Pray for me as I will for you. Barbara, please tell me how I can stay in touch with you. I have enjoyed your thoughtful and prayerful insight, and have learned much from you in a short amount of time. Thank you for your showing me the Aquinas teachings on True Obedience. Only time will tell who is right here. Steve Skojec believes he knows and one of us will be exonerated. I do take exception to being accused of obfuscation. Theres more than plenty of that to go around.
Steve J
Steve, thank you for your sincerity. I believe you are mistaken, but not malicious in any way. Be assured of my prayers.
The Archbishop is the competent authority to judge, not you or I. We either accept Apostolic Succession or we don’t. If we don’t, we cease to be Catholic.
Terrye you need to do some research on what obedience is according to the Catholic Church. St. Thomas Aquinas would be a good start. Also the writing of Catholic theologian Dietrich von Hildebrand would be very helpful to you.
Here is a list of various heresies and contradictions of scripture and Catholic tradition that MDM has stated: http://mariadivinemercytrueorfalse.blogspot.com/p/maria-divine-mercy-heresies.html
For example: 31/8/2011: ‘All religions, all creeds…are all so precious to My Eternal Father.’ So much for extra ecclesiam nulla salus…
Thank you for this.
David, I would ask you to take one of those references–just one– and explain to me in a clear open statement on this cite why it is heretical. Can you do that? You are referencing soundbites. It is not helpful.
David, I just took a look at your examples of errors. Let us pick one and see if you are correct. Right off the top, the one about Jesus’ Wounds ‘festering’ is laughable. Christ is like us in all things human, except sin.This is the teaching of the Catholic Church. If our bodies can suffer, so can His–and did. This is what I mean about soundbites. You are calling this particular referencing of MDM ‘blasphemy’ and that tells me you do not know Catholic theology. I can do this with any SPECIFIC contextual statement of MDM if you explain it on this cite. Have at it.
Good man, Steve.
Steve, I wrote a response to this present article but sent it to you via e-mail where I receive now all your new articles. I am asking you to put it with this set of responses, I do not know if it will end up here or if it will be staying with you privately. I am asking that it go here. Thank you.
I also notice that Kelly Bowring has, in obedience to Archbishop Martin’s statement, stated that he will no longer sell MDM’s book. He then referenced an article about Archbishop Martin’s heretical stands. So he is obedient to authority, but knows well the heresy of the good bishop..
I believe that MDM is clearly a fraud and potentially a dangerous fraud. But if she were for real, then you would expect the Apostate Bishop Conspiracy (or whatever you might want to call it if she and/or people like her are right) to try to silence her. Or is “docility” demanded in the face of even that? Perhaps it is. I don’t know. But it would seem that for Fatima traditionalists who believe there has been a conspiracy involving every Pope since John 23rd to cover up the true Third Secret, docility is already a dead-letter.
I cannot begin to tell you how convoluted and nonsensical what you have written is. Maybe you need to write a rough draft before you press ‘post comment’.
May Jesus Christ Be Praised!
Dear Steve,
I decided to print out the e-mail that I sent to you and put it here as a reply to your article. It is now Holy Thursday, a most holy day when God’s LOVE is shown in the fullest Self-giving.. Here is my response to your article regarding the ‘condemnation’ of MDM by Archbishop Martin of Dublin:
A condemnation by the Catholic Church is different from what Archbishop Martin has declared. The word ‘condemnation’ is not used in his statement because it is not an official condemnation. If it were, he would need to be specific in his charges. Instead, Archbishop Martin has indicated that the visionary MDM has no approval of the Catholic Church, ( Nothing new there.) He also states that ‘some of her texts are in contradiction with Catholic theology’. There are no specific contradictions stated, so we are left to wonder what they are, or to take his word for it that there are specific contradictions. A brief surf of the net brings up much information about Archbishop Martin of Dublin.
Let us begin with the fact that both St. Thomas Aquinas and the very credible Deitrich von Hildebrand state that, when any Catholic Church prelate teaches or supports heresy, he loses his ecclesiastical authority. Our obedience is to the true Faith, not to any individual Church prelate who distorts or denies any aspect of the true Faith.. This will be an important base of understanding for what is happening in the Church right now, and the present Archbishop of Dublin is a very good case in point. In the diocese in which he is the leader, the militant and heretical priests’ organization (ACP), protested the Vatican intervention and subsequent silencing of Father Tony Flannery for his heretical views on the Holy Eucharist, in addition to his support for women priests, his opposition to the ban on married priests, and the ban on contraception. In solidarity with the ACP, Archbishop Martin called the Vatican intervention of Father Tony Flannery ‘heresy hunting’.
An Irish pop star, named Boy Gately, who was in a homosexual ‘marriage’ died and received a full Catholic funeral Mass in a Dublin inner city Catholic church. His ‘husband’ was recognized and treated traditionally during the Mass. Orthodox Catholics challenged the Archbishop’s tolerance of and sympathy for the homosexual agenda. They were ignored.
Archbishop Martin invited known homosexual advocate, Father Timothy Radcliff, to address a Divine Mercy Conference in Dublin. A number of concerned Catholics wrote to the Archbishop, including the solidly orthodox Catholic newspaper of Dublin, ‘Catholic Truth’, and were also ignored ‘notably by the person with responsibility for squashing dissent and refusing dissenters a platform: Archbishop Martin.’ (from Catholic Truth Dublin newspaper)
Archbishop Martin has stated that Catholic Church teaching on marriage and the family is ‘disconnected from real life.’ He does not believe, however, that homosexuals should get married. He thinks that ‘There are ways that gay people can celebrate their togetherness without getting married.’ Note there is no mention that homosexuals, if sexually active, are committing sin. This is the Church authority who says ‘some of MDM’s texts are in contradiction with Catholic theology.
Archbishop Martin has expressed concern about candidates for the Catholic priesthood. Here is what he said: ‘It is not just that the numbers are low. It is also that those who present (themselves for candidacy to the priesthood) are fragile and some are much more traditional that those who went before them. (There was) a danger that superficial attachment to the externals of tradition may well be a sign of fearfulness and flight from changed realities.’ To which ‘changed realities’ is the good Archbishop referring?
In response to Archbishop Martin’s statement about candidates for the priesthood, the blog ‘Irish Papist’ had this to say: ‘There seems to be a grim irony in an archbishop of Dublin, standing on top of the ruins of an Irish Church that has been brought down by decades of insidious liberalism, warning against the dangers of excessive traditionalism. It seems like a man crawling in the desert, on the point of dying of thirst, worrying about drowning.’
Mater Misericordiae Hospital, which Archbishop Martin praised publicly and effusively for its charity and mercy was found to be performing abortions. About this ugly truth the good Archbishop has said nothing. He has remained silent although his silence has been challenged by orthodox Catholics.
This is the Church prelate who states that MDM’s texts are in contradiction with Catholic theology. The facts indicate that Archbishop Martin of Dublin is in contradiction with Catholic theology. Meanwhile Dr. Kelly Bowring, a very solidly orthodox Catholic theologian, finds no contradictions in her messages with Catholic theology. I notice on Dr. Bowring;s website he states that since Archbishop’s ‘condemnation’.of MDM (your term), he has decided not to sell her book. Where he states this compliance with Archbishop Martin, he includes a link declaring the good Archbishop’s pro homosexual stance. His point? ‘I’ll comply out of obedience, but know, folks, the Archbishop is no judge of what is orthodox. You are dealing with a corrupt and liberal bishop.’
Corrupt bishops condemned St. Joan of Arc and burnt her at the stake saying she was a witch. Jesus Christ Himself was rejected by the rulers of the Jewish religion, God’s chosen people. He was nailed to the Cross as a criminal. When one follows Jesus, one can expect to be treated as He was treated. It is salient that this happened to MDM during Holy Week..
One of the first responders to your article about Archbishop Martin’s ‘condemnation’ of MDM challenged you to cite one theological error in her writings. I reiterate that. Her writings are numbered, so be specific as to where exactly the error is.
Your reference to the statement by Archbishop Martin has cleared up nothing and only fomented endless debate. Meanwhile the Vatican Holy Thursday Mass is being prepared to be offered in a home for the elderly. Let us watch to see if there is any mention of the Holy Eucharist, of the Priesthood, or of the Divine LOVE of Jesus Christ that is manifest to the extreme on this holy night.,
Did you not read the compendium of heresies by MDM posted yesterday?
And everything you allege about Archbishop Martin may be true. He is still the competent authority to judge MDM, not you. And a saint would be obedient and allow the Holy Spirit to sort things out.
He is not the competent judge of MDM. He has corrupted his position and his authority though his own denial and distortion of Catholic theology. Were the corrupt bishops who condemned Joan of Arc to death ‘competent judges’? Later,the authority of the Catholic Church made her a saint.. All that the Archbishop’s statement can do is offer caution about her. Notice Dr.Bowring did not even deal with any theological errors in her work when he took off her book from being sold on his cite. He would have needed to do so if there were any. Our obedience is to the Truth. I am willing to bet Acchbishop Martin has not even read her writings.
Whatever his abuses, he is the only one with the authority to make this decision.
You err there. He has lost his own authority through his distortion and disobedience to the Truth as the Church teaches us. Read Aquinas and von Hildebrand to understand the Church’s teaching on obedience and authority. His statement really doesn’t say anything. its purpose is to do what it has done. Discredit MDM.
He has only lost his authority if he has been excommunicated. As far as any faithful Catholic knows, this is not the case.
No, this is not Catholic teaching. You need to read Aquinas and von Hildebrand on ecclesiatical authority and obedience.
The difference is that when St. Joan was asked if she wasn’t troubled that the Church misjudged her, she replied that “The Church *is* Christ” and accepted even martyrdom rather than disobey.
Stupidity, even material heresy, do not remove the grace of office. You seem to have a deficient understanding of how authority functions in the Church.
I think that, so long as you arrogate to yourself the right to judge your superiors, there’s little point in prolonging discussion. Pax.
Joan of Arc was asked by her judges to deny her ‘voices’. She told her judges (read corrupt bishops) that she believed in the holy Roman Catholic Church , but could not deny her voices. For this they martyred her. Corruption of Church doctrine, as we see in Archbishop Martin, causes loss of ecclesiastical authority. Read Aquinas and Dietrich von Hildebrand on Church authority and obedience.If you insist on bringing up these unsound arguments on this cite I will answer them here. Have blessed Holy Thursday.
The compendium of errors cited yesterday are soundbites with sentences of MDM taken out of context. I am asking the just one error– just one–and where it appears in her writing– be posted at length, with the analysis of how and why it is erroneous. Then we will see what we have really before us.
You don’t need any additional context. There’s enough in those “soundbites” to indicate that these messages are contrary to Church teaching.
You could certainly dispute two or three of those points, but not all. And I already pointed out one very specific error in my last post: the insinuation that those who condemn the messages of MDM are “blaspheming the Holy Spirit” and that it would require a special miracle from God the Father to be forgiven for this. There is no sin which cannot be forgiven save that of final impenitence — which is what the Church has always understood blasphemy against the Holy Spirit to be.
There is also very strong indication within these messages that they are necessary for the faithful to adequately prepare for what is to come. But the Church has never mandated belief in private revelation, and it is certainly not at the level of “scripture.”
It only takes one theologically erroneous message to spoil the batch; MDM has a number. The errors cited yesterday would be more than sufficient even if I hadn’t pointed out the additional one above.
MDM states that it is not necessary to believe in her messages but rather to believe in Christ and follow Him. Trading in generalities is not the way of Truth. I am sorry you are unable to be specific.
For me the biggest turn-off to MDM is her defenders. Not for nothing, you do more harm for your cause than good.
Terry is right. A truly holy person would obey. Obedience and humility. As someone on here wrote a few weeks ago, humility is the greatest “weapon” a Catholic can employ during these trying times being a member of Holy Mother Church when all hell has broken lose against Her.
Lorra,
This is not about turning you or anyone else here, on or off to MDM. Its only about truth. As Barbara Jensen suggests, please do acquaint yourself with Thomas Aquinas teachings on True Obedience, and False Obedience. Aquinas says that “True Obedience is a balance between the twin errors of defect and excess, which are disobedience and false obedience” Today, and especially in the comments here, this second error is common among those of you who, when they follow orders given by a man who has clearly departed from Tradition (consistently and often), think they are being obedient. Blindly submitting to this Bishop is an example of this. Its not true obedience or humility. Its False Obedience based on Error by Excess. Steve and you and others here would suggest that with respect to the Bishop’s (or his surrogate’s) proclamation, that it should be viewed this way: “The church hierarchy is the absolute authority. Obedience has no limits”. An example of error by excess. True Obedience would go like this: God through his Catholic Church has absolute authority over my conscience…BUT “in the last resort, God meant me to judge, if his Hierarchy is departing from His teaching”. In other words, obedience to men has limits”.
Another example of Error by Excess/False Obedience manifested here is this: “I will obey the bishops and priests even when they disobey God by foresaking Tradition.” which seems to be the common theme here…it doesn’t matter that the Bishop is actually the one who contradicts Catholic theology and Tradition, as opposed to MDM, for he is the Bishop. True Obedience according to Aquinas would suggest: “I will gladly obey the appointed servants of God, legitimate bishops or priests BUT “not when I know they are leading men away from God” as this Bishop certainly has a record of openly doing, unless of course you agree with his positions. We have every right and in fact, responsibility to reject this man’s luke warm rejection of MDM.
I offer this comment in the spirit of love and charity this Holy Week. MDM is not the culprit here, and never has been, and snap judgments made out of false obedience borne out of error by excess, has served no purpose beyond confusion. Steve, you asked me to abandon these divinely inspired messages (for my wife and I) after a week of exchanges on your blog, because you, after a mere week of discernment, have decided that my more than a year of prayerful discernment on my knees at Adoration, consultation with my priest, and countless hours of prayer, and devotion have let me down. It has not, and I am not deceived. God Bless you.
This is an excellent post and it does my heart good to read right before I leave for Holy Thursday services. Thank you,atsa4you,for all the work you did to create this substantial and salient reply. I ask God to bless you and give you His peace.
MDM is not ‘my cause’. I merely defending something that has not been in error. Let untruth be your biggest ‘turn off’. Our obedience is to the Truth of our Faith as it has been handed down. What is it you think I should obey? A corrupt bishop’s ambiguous statement? I would be very careful about judging who is humble and who is not. Humility is not stupidity.
You need an extensive education in church history.
Can you be SPECIFIC as to what you are talking about as to why I need a course in Church history? Generalities border on name calling which would not further the conversation. Thanks.
I was led to read some prophecies which I had hitherto ignored, by the appearance of images of the Most Holy Trinity all over the place after I asked God for insight after my feelings of revulsion and horror at the wrongful statements of Pope Francis. Several things happened after that. A big grape-cluster-shaped ceiling light fell down heavily that had been hanging on the ceiling for fifty+ years. I would say it resembles the spikenard shape as shown on the papal insignia or whatever the papal coat-of-arms object is called. At one point when I asked one stranger about the symbol of the Trinity she wore as a necklace (on the two days of seeing it too many times for coincidence) she said her boyfriend from Dublin, Ireland gave it to her.
I don’t know what to think, but graces and insights for me are intuitive rather than by logical reasoning as I don’t have the intelligence of the readers of this site to reason to the truth of this matter. I believe I will keep abreast of Pedro Regis’ prophecies and leave the other, MDM to God, in terms of believing, as the demons have intervened at times in my life to disturb and invade the spirit. One thing I know is that we are in turbulent times when those of faith no longer can rely on portions of the clergy or laity of the Church to stand with them for Christ against evil. Let’s pray a lot and support each other for the battle that is upon us.
You use the same argument that Fr. Feeney used, and the SSPX and the sedevacantist use now, about obedience. I am well acquainted with it.
I’ve been around a long time. A very long time. It may interest you to know that MDM says nothing new.
“…snap judgments made out of false obedience borne out of error by excess, has served no purpose beyond confusion. ”
Very true.
Nothing you said negates the truth contained in my comment(s). I’ve been around the block a few times myself. Married 42 years, 6 grown children and 13 (soon to be 14) grandchildren. I suffer no ill will towards anyone here Lorra.
I would say to all the MDM devotees that instead of following something that has controversy around it you need only look to Fatima, Faustina, Akita, Esperanza (all approved) to know the state of the world and the dangers the human race faces. Great saints like St Pio submitted to authority and if it is good enough for him. To Barbara and others who continue MDM crusade I will pray for you in my next rosary. God’s peace be with you!!!!
If you know your Faith you will know when it is contradicted. You bet MDM says nothing new. It is the Faith as we know it.
Barbara, you appear to be very defensive and touchy. I am not your enemy. If you truly have the truth on your side, you shouldn’t have to be defensive.
For starters, read current history. Read about Padre Pio’s bishop, the priests in his diocese, and how the Church treated him. More importantly, how he reacted and what he did. Bernard Ruffin, although a Lutheran (who, in my opinion, had no business writing the bio, nevertheless, he did include many good facts), wrote a good biography.
Lorra: your comment is apples and oranges. Padre Pio was under a vow of obedience. I do not see Barbara as “defensive” but accurately discussing facts. As for current history, maybe that’s your problem. Why not read 1st-millenium history? The excommunication of St. Athanasius might be a good start for you. As Barbara mentioned, do you keep missing the contradictions to the faith made by the hierarchy? And how do you think the Church got into the scandal mess it is in, with the “good” bishop of Dublin having to turn down candidates for the priesthood because they are too “Traditional.” You mention Padre Pio. Are you aware of what he thought of the council and the new Mass?
Lorra, I am confused by your post here. SPECIFICALLY, how am I defensive and touchy? You stated I needed an education in Church history. I asked you to be specific about that. How is that defensive? Regarding the comparison to Padre Pio, MDM has not written here, has she? It is she with whom you need to compare Padre Pio.
barbarajensen: thank you so much for your comments and especially your detailed piece showing the apostasy that the “good” Dublin bishop is already engaged in. Another “modernist.” I have said to many priests and believers, we do not need MDM to prove to us the Church is already in the Apostasy our Queen warned us of during Fatima — a prophecy which has come to pass and which anyone with spiritual eyes can see. Of course, like La Salette, it was subsequently shoved under the bus by so many “good” bishops, staring with the so-called “good” pope John XXIII (how is anyone a Saint who disobeys the Queen of Heaven?). I will continue to read and be informed by MDM while praying for our King to clean up His Church, starting with the apostates at the very top; especially the one whose “humility” is displayed before every camera he can find. BTW, people who condemn MDM because they think they know everything about words when it comes to the Words of Jesus are in for a big shock. Example, her critics claim that the statement all 12 Apostles were “fishermen” shows she is a heretic and she does not know the Scriptures. In reality, it shows the critics do not know Christ. While Matthew was a tax collector, did he not become a “fisher of men”? As all the Apostles were fishers of men. If you do not believe this explanation, than please explain what Christ meant when He said His Immortal Words: “Who is My Mother?” Yes, Jesus full well knows who His Mother is. Just as He full well knows that He made ALL His Apostles “fishermen.” Also, while anyone wants to answer this question, please also explain how Monsignor Ricca, a known sodomite caught with a boy toy in an elevator shaft (so to speak) is Francis’ doorkeeper to his new home that he has made for himself while continuing to dethrone the Throne of Peter. Wake up, people. On this Good Friday, ask your Queen for the grace to see beyond the smoke of satan that is now exhibiting flames in the Vatican and throughout our Church.
Thanks, Simeon, for your affirmation. I do appreciate it. It is difficult for persons to grasp the critical state of the Catholic Church at our present time. Like you, if MDM were proved false, it would not affect me in the least. I know my Faith. What I appreciate about her is that she–or rather God through her–is saying bluntly what in my heart I know is true. The irony of the criticism about her so called ‘theological errors’, is that her theology is pure and totally orthodox. That no one will be SPECIFIC about the theological errors they claim she is spouting is very telling. Are we to believe that Archbishop Martin is concerned about orthodox theology, when he himself is so heretical? Persons will not look at the reality of the generalized apostasy that is unfolding quickly under Bergoglio, and it makes them feel better if the blunt words of MDM are discredited. What calms them is that they think all they have to do at this present time is ‘obey the bishop’. They do not understand that it is TO THE TRUE FAITH we must adhere. Atsa4you above did a fine job of explaining obedience according to Thomas Aquinas. Thank you again for your clear and cogent words. Have a blessed Easter!
I really find it remarkable how intent you are on missing the point.
I have been nothing if not critical of the errors being propagated in the Church. I’ve been specifically critical of Pope Francis. This is why we’re having this discussion on my website at all.
But MDM is not orthodox. I already pointed to the fact that so basic an understanding as what “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” is has been described incorrectly in one of her messages. Further, the list of her errors that was provided by another commentator is sufficiently specific to warrant discussion, but you dismissively and on your own authority rebuffed one point from the list and left the others untouched.
It is precisely *because* I see the errors spreading through the Church that I think we must be especially wary of false prophets that tell us what we want to hear (namely, that we’re right about what we’re seeing) and in the mean time turn the faithful against the Church. Recognizing the errors that exist does not mean we have the right to willfully usurp magisterial authority. Only in matters that are specifically and clearly contrary to Catholic teaching can we say, “The bishop (or the pope) is wrong.” And even then, we owe obedience on other matters over which those individuals have jurisdiction and authority until such time as their office is declared null by a competent higher authority.
The Church is built on obedience. We don’t all get to go our own way. This is what makes the errors coming from the chanceries and yes, even the Vatican, so pernicious. Because they appear under the guise of an authority that is not truly being exercised, but gives the impression that novelty is replacing tradition.
I don’t have a problem with an honest debate, but I see MDM supporters repeatedly obfuscating here in the comments, not addressing legitimate concerns, and assuming that anyone who opposes MDM’s messages because they’re well-formed enough to see the problems as somehow in league with the enemy.
If this is how the discussion is going to continue, I’ll either close the comments or ban the offenders. This is not something I want to continue to have to referee. If you disagree with my assessments, you’ve made your case. If you turn out to be right (which I can’t imagine is possible) then you will be exonerated.
Until then, go crusade for your cause elsewhere.
It’s time, Steve.
May Jesus Christ Be Praised!
Dear Steve,
This is indeed an interesting post from someone who started the discussion and who was told that you were stirring up trouble in doing so. You countered that you felt the debate was good and it would help all to become more educated about the crisis in the Church. In one or two week’s time you went from referring to MDM in order to substantiate your points to condemning her. That people are challenging you now is not to your liking.
You keep stating that one of the primary examples of MDM being heterodox is that she has said that her critics are ‘blaspheming the Holy Spirit’. It is easy to take things out of context and assume and spread what they actually do not mean. I am asking you to give me the exact place and context in her writings of that charge. For some reason you are compelled not to provide specifics regarding it. For me this is very telling, and I am willing to bet you do not know where it is in her writings, but are taking someone else’s word for it that it is there.
I mentioned the one example from David’s ‘compendium of errors’ because it is so egregious and laughable a mistake. If he thinks this, it tells me he is indeed not competent to compile a ‘compendium of errors’ concerning orthodox theology. You pick any one of his other compendium examples and let us discuss it from the context in her writings from where it originated. Make sure you have that. I am willing to bet you do not known where it is,nor will you take the time to look.
You make the point that bishops have to speak clearly and specifically contrary to Catholic orthodoxy before being disobeyed. Those who have been given apparitions need the same fairness and justice shown them. Show me the SPECIFICS of where MDM is in error FROM HER WRITINGS. Be clear and specific.
The Church is not built on ‘obedience’. The Church is built on Faith and when prelates do not support and teach the true Faith they are not to be followed. That includes a pope who changes what he has no right to change. Obedience is subservient to Faith . Look it up..
You accuse those who challenge you of making ‘obfuscating comments’. Like what? Be specific, in stating which comments exactly do you find obfuscating. How about delineating the ‘legitimate concerns’ you do not think we are addressing. Be specific, please. I disagree with you that opposing MDM’s messages indicates that a person is well-formed. This is an arrogant and superior assumption not based on any facts. Are you referring to David (of the ‘Compendium of Errors fame) who thinks that MDM is guilty of blasphemy because she stated that Jesus’ Wounds festered? Persons have every right to believe in MDM’s graces and writings. Of course they will challenge you when you undermine and negate that which is helpful to them.
And now we conclude this pot- stirring exercise that you initiated with the threat to close the comments or ban those who offend you. That figures.
Barbara,
You consistently get the facts wrong, which is starting to help me to understand where you’re coming from.
I did not start the discussion of MDM. It was mentioned to me in the comments with a link to a much longer article by Dr. Bowring which tied together a number of prophecies — some Church approved, some not — among which were the messages of MDM. I then cited that post, but nothing specifically from MDM, as an indication that others were reaching similar conclusions to my own.
In the comments, I had cautioned people that just as we don’t have the authority to judge whether, in fact, the pope is an anti-pope (despite whatever signs we may think we see) we neither have the authority to legitimize or condemn private revelations. Both of those are only the realm of the competent Church authorities. When I reached the conclusion that these were false messages, I said it was MY conclusion. When the Archbishop of Dublin said they were false, I said that we should treat them as such, since he is the competent authority.
My position IS AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN SUBMISSION TO THE MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH. (Caps lock for emphasis on a point that keeps being missed.)
I don’t have a problem with debate. I do have a problem with people being intellectually dishonest and inconsistent in pursuit of the advancement of a cause towards which they are manifestly biased. Those of you who throw the submission you owe to legitimate expressions of Church authority out the window the minute they conflict with the prophecies you’ve come to believe in are telling me in no uncertain terms that these prophecies are not having positive effects, are not supporting holy obedience, and thus are not from God.
I understand the way ecclesiastical authority works, and the means by which it can be nullified. But nobody, not one person, has demonstrated that the Archbishop of Dublin does not have competence or jurisdiction to say that these messages may not be shared by Catholics. You claim that he is a heretic. You claim that he is silent on issues where he should show courage. All of that MAY be true, but YOU do not possess the authority to anathematize him. Why not just become sedevacantists? Wouldn’t that be easier? Just dispense with Church authority according to your own whims. Why be inconvenienced by it, or by having to suffer through bad bishops because the pope isn’t doing anything about them?
FOR THE LAST TIME, I GAVE YOU A VERY SPECIFIC EXAMPLE OF HETERODOXY. The Church teaching on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the sin of final impenitence. That comes from Aquinas too, by the way. My entire post here is about the problems with the message in which this is stated: http://blog.steveskojec-staging.mrdsdzb3-liquidwebsites.com/2014/04/10/word-maria-divine-mercy/
Your assertion that the wounds of Christ could still continue to fester in his perfected, glorified state, bears no basis in Catholic teaching. You say that the assertion that this couldn’t happen is “laughable”. Please show me where — anywhere in Church teaching — there is the belief that Christ’s wounds could, in heaven, become infected because of sins which have already been expiated by His Passion. His suffering for us is done. There is no further inflicting of wounds. He suffered all of it on the cross, what sins were in the past and what sins would come, and from His perspective, outside of time, that’s it. Until the Eschaton.
You’ve gone on to use ad hominem (“if he thinks this…he is indeed not competent to compile a ‘compendium of errors’ concerning orthodox theology”). His compendium cites message dates in every example. You keep asking for specifics then ignoring the specifics that have been offered.
The fact is, while as an American citizen, you have a right to read whatever you want, as a Catholic, you don’t. People don’t have the right to believe in MDM’s messages, at least from the perspective of the Church. The local bishop has spoken (in conjunction with several other bishops and even a bishops’ conference) and all have told their faithful to stop disseminating these messages.
Yes, I will close comments or ban people who continue to attack and refuse to treat seriously the objections that are raised, and there’s no hypocrisy in that. This is my site, and you’re basically in my living room. If you can’t show the civility and decency to the other guests that I would expect of anyone in my home, you’re not welcome here. Make your arguments respectfully instead of being dismissive and scornful of those who disagree with you. Acknowledge the specific examples that have been cited rather than pretending they don’t exist. If you can’t handle that, take your false prophet business somewhere else. I don’t have time to police it.
Dear Steve,
You state that you, nor any of us, have the right to render authentic or inauthentic private revelations. No we don’t. But that has not prevented many on this cite from maligning MDM. Many on this cite, including you, think now that a corrupt bishop has spoken that settles it. It does not. Rome is still discerning Medjugorie after the Bishop there condemned this well-known apparition site and its heavenly messages. This is a realm which is better left alone. Nonetheless, you opened this discussion about MDM in your first post on this issue. You played out your ambivalence regarding her through the discussion you yourself fostered. It has caused much upset, as I knew it would, and done nothing but cause pain.
A corrupt bishop, such as Archbishop Martin of Dublin, does not have the authority to judge what is authentic Catholic theology. He himself does not practice orthodoxy. I gave you plenty of examples of this. He is an apostate. Are you considering him to be the representative of the Magisterium in Dublin? What motive would an apostate bishop have for condemning–without specifics–MDM? Whose service is he in? It is certainly not Christ’s.
Regarding blasphemy of the Holy Spirit , I am asking you to quote in full what MDM said exactly. Don’t tell me what she said. Quote it. And quote the whole context in which the statement is made. You won’t because you do not know where it is in her writings. I suspect strongly she is being quoted out of context and therefore being interpreted wrongly. How many times do I have to say that? How is it that an orthodox theologian such as Dr.Bowring (unlike the apostate Archbishop) found no error in her theology?
Also,I would need to see the exact quote wherein MDM talks about the festering wounds, as well as the context in which it was said. Again, I think she is being misquoted and misinterpreted. I am not doing the work on this. You do it. You stated it. Now you defend it by laying it all out. If you cannot do that, then stop with the charges. I’m not getting any facts wrong,, because the facts aren’t out there.
You chose to raise a topic that is sensitive to many. You gave the skeptics a forum to mock what they do not believe, but what others consider precious. Persons do have a right to believe in MDM, just as persons had the right to continue to believe in Medjugorie after the bishop there maligned it. They also have a right to defend what they believe.. The scornfulness on this cite is not from those who follow MDM but from those who consider the issue closed. You don’t like what is going on in your living room? Why, then, did you initiate it?
May Jesus Christ Be Praised!
Dear Steve,
With the assurance that you will not look up the specific references cited in David’s ‘Compendium of Errors’ I did so for many of them. As I suspected he has taken things out of context and distorted their meanings–in ALL the messages I looked up. Let’s begin:
8-11-10: When MDM speaks of the ‘Holy Family uniting’, she is speaking of the family of God–all of us. It is said in the context of drawing all sinners to God.
13-11-10 It is common for God to speak of His suffering because of the sins of man. The pictures of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary pierced through indicates that. St Margaret Mary and many mystics testify to God’s sufferings. Mystical theologian Father Jospeh Iannuzzi who has written extensively about the inner passion of Jesus in souls speaks of God’s pain when we rebuff Him. It is this context in which this statement can be understood. Nothing heretical here.
21-11-10 That God speaks of ‘all paths leading to God’ it is in the context of the Ten Commandments and paths that lead to the Eternal Father. Both Pope John Paul 11 and Pope Benedict made ecumenism their strong emphasis. MDM is fostering that approach in order that all may be one. There is nothing heretical stated
18-12-11 The role of Christ indeed was to teach us how to die with Him and how to serve as He did. His mission was to teach us the Way, the Truth and lead us to Life through His Death on the Cross.
1-1-11 To call Mary ‘an angel of Light’ is a term of affection in the context of the message. Angel is a messenger and Mary is indeed united with the Eternal Light of God. She is a messenger of His Light.
16-1-11 St. Paul tells us that he WORKED OUT his salvation in fear and trembling. Mystical theologian, Father Jospeh Iannuzzi (exorcist under Father Amorth in Rome) tells us that Christ made Redemption possible, but we each–like St. Paul–WORK OUT our salvation. Without Christ nothing would be possible, but with Christ our efforts become fruitful. In this sensed we do redeem ourselves. Otherwise, we would be like the protestants who are ‘saved’ and can rest on that without WORKING OUT–their salvation.
24-1-11 In this message where it speaks of ‘achieving ‘ special graces’ the context is a discussion of the difficulties of COOPERATING with grace so that the grace will be fruitful. Grace is not just received. It must be acted upon according to God’s Will or it can be lost. The grace of a religioius vocation, for example, is a special grace that cannot be merited; it is freely given by God. However, it can be lost through neglect. We do achieve securing the grace through cooperation with it.
7-2-11 When God speaks of MDM’s messages as Scripture it indicates that THERE IS NOTHING NEW in them.. Indeed there is not. They are the truths of our Faith reiterated. His Word reiterated. There is nothing new in what she is saying.
14-4-11 This false charge by David is especially egregious in its misinterpretation. Christ is talking about the PERMANENT SIGN (OR MARK) OF HIS EUCHARISTIC PRESENCE IN THE TABERNACLE.This is clear if you read the whole message. He is present in the Bread and Wine in a permanent way. How could he misunderstand this?
21-5-11 The Redemptive act that Christ is speaking of in this message is the Redemptive act of His forgiveness in confession. The Redemption was not done once. It is an Eternal Act, and we experience this Eternal Redemption each time Christ forgives our sins. This is the context of the message.
As you pointed out–and as I think someone else pointed out to you–we are not competent to either validate or invalidate private apparitions. That is the work of the Magisteriuim of the Catholic Church. A corrupt bishop is not the Magisterium. His words are meaningless for two reasons. He is an apostate and has no regard for orthodoxy as proven by his his failure to teach it and act out of it. Secondly, he gives no specifics regarding his charge. I am not asking you to believe in MDM. Do not try to convince me that she is false. Leave it alone. Thank you.
Barbara, remember that: ‘They will never deviate from the truth no more than you. My beloved followers, can sway the truth to suit your interpretation.” MDM 28/12/2010:
Whatever that means.
Your refutations are hilarious! Now get to the section ‘How Stupid Private Revelations Can Be’ meaning of course MDM’s messages http://mariadivinemercytrueorfalse.blogspot.com/p/how-stupid-can-private-revelations-be.html
As Steve finally admitted, we, as lay people, are not qualified to validate or invalidate private revelations. What he has done through this conversation is give a forum to skeptics and mockers. From reading David’s ‘compendium of errors’ I see that it is as I suspected. I am not starting again with one more frightened person’s distorted observations. A quality orthodox theologian has already sifted through each message and found no errors. The one you cite I know is misinterpreted, just as all of David’s were.. You look it up, you give the context, and you explain why it is false. Refrain from your glib, easy , breezy ridicule. There are apparitins, among the many out there today, of which I am wary. I remain silent though. These conversations do just what this thread has done.
Barbara,
I’m done with your distortions of what I and others have said. Your only goal here appears to be to defend the indefensible and to twist things to support your arguments.
Similarly, I don’t need those who disagree with the MDM messages to come in here slinging accusations at those who do believe in them. Not everyone has done this, but I sense that this is only going to escalate without resolution. The MDM supporters don’t accept legitimate authority, and a number of the MDM opponents don’t recognize that many of the criticisms leveled by MDM supporters against the Church are valid. The whole problem with false apparitions is the division they cause and the error they lead people (on both sides of the issue, it seems) into.
So, since this isn’t fruitful anymore and I have a life outside this blog, I’m going to put the fork in this thread. Thanks to those who attempted to participate sanely and with civility.
1. The Holy Family (caps) indicates the Holy Family. That is Mary, Joseph and Jesus. If MDM didn;’t mean the Holy Family but all God’s children, why she didn’t say that? ‘Joseph Gabriel’ claimed that while she gets her messages via automatic writing (which his occult) she gets all the dots and letters and commas correct. Oh really…
2. Why did you not address ‘festering’ which David had problem with.. as David pointed out – the body of Jesus could never suffer corruption. Thanks for avoiding to address this point.
3. All paths are all paths.Commandments? Are you the author of these messages? ONe has to Wonder why you leave the quotes when ‘refuting’
I have waited so long for the good Archbishop D. Martin to make a statement about MDM, especially now that she has been exposed as Mary Carberry living under his nose at Malahide. But frankly, I never had any expectation that such a condemnation would make any difference to MDM minions already mired in the mortal sins of heresy and schism, active scandal, blasphemy and slander of the Pope. Never mind occultism.
Some 6 bishops and archbishops (Bishop Richard. J. Malone, apostolic administrator for the Diocese of Portland, Archbishop Mark Coleridge of Brisbane, Archbishop Denis J. Hart of Melbourne, Bishop Andreas Laun, Auxiliary Bishop of Salzburg, Austria, Bishop Ronald P. Fabbro of London Diocese of Canada, and Bishop Greg O’Kelly SJ ) have all sounded warnings and rejections of this infernal fraudster MDM. That is more than enough for any responsible Catholic to bring MDM where she belongs – in the dumpsite.
The preponderance of bishops and archbishops (including the Slovakian Bishop’s Conference) is so explicit in condemning MDM, that anyone still clinging to MDM as a prophet from God already borders on demonic lunacy.
In the first place, right from the first time I got introduced to her messages in feb 2013, her anonymity is already a red flag. There is no such thing as a prophet from god who hides behind a false name. Then comes a hilarious seal of the living god that you can print on paper from an online download – a document composed in Photoshop using clipart and stock photo images that have clearly masonic symbols. I almost fell off my PC chair reading about it. The seal of the living god can only be seen by angles on one’s forehead if he had been true to the Church and will go straight to Heaven when he/shes dies. It is not something you can frame on the wall that even your dog can see.
You don’t really need a condemnation by the church at least for this scammer MDM. Discernment can be easy when you know your catechism.. And it only takes one, just one heresy to condemn MDM as nothing more than a doomsayer taking advantage of the gullible and the ignoramuses.
25 May 2013: “And now you, My daughter, have been sent to prepare the way for My Second Coming so that I can bring salvation to the world and so that My New Paradise can be realized. This has been foretold, but will they listen?
15 June 2013: “As My Second Coming is to take place soon and as My Final Mission to come back in order to bring humanity the final salvation I promised is unveiled, history will be repeated.”
Even a 12-year old schooled in the bible and catechism knows that the Second Coming of Christ is JUDGEMENT DAY not some final plan of salvation. The church tells us that Christ died for our sins ONCE for all humanity for all time. This MDM wants a reboot. Like what Hollywood does to comic superheros. MDM loves to reduce our lord Christ to a mere comicbook superhero
.
MDM’s 25 May message above contains two heresies, One already mentioned, the other is this “New Paradise” I can understand the ignorance of many catholics on this. This new paradise on earth is Millenarianism which has been rejected by the Church as heretical. There are other MDM passages too numerous to quote that promises this paradise on earth for 1000 years. Sheer heresy.
DEO GRATIAS!!!
Laudetur Jesus Christus, semper!
It is interesting to note that the condemnation of the Bishop of Dublin, occurred the same day as the birthday of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.
To all the followers of MDM:
ERESY:
http://www.thewarningsecondcoming.com/mother-of-salvation-we-first-went-to-judea-and-then-my-son-was-taken-to-india-persia-egypt-greece-and-england/
He said what is written in the New-Age Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ
“Only a handful of people” will be privy to the warning of the Second Coming? This is Gnosticism, not Christianity. It’s designed by the Evil One to appeal to our pride, the desire to be in exclusive company.
Scripture is clear in saying that all the elect will not be deceived, but will readily discern the signs of the times with no need for private revelations.