Sister Faustina Kowalska on the souls in Purgatory

“Then St. Faustina saw Our Lady visiting the souls in Purgatory and bringing them refreshment”. St. Faustina’s Visions of the Souls in Purgatory Maura Roan McKeegan On the evening of All Souls Day, November 2, 1936, St. Faustina went to the cemetery. After praying there for a while, she went to the chapel and prayed to “gain the indulgences,” as she writes in her Diary (748). The indulgences for which she prayed are a special gift the Church offers every year in the beginning of November, when the faithful can gain plenary indulgences for the souls in Purgatory. The day after St. Faustina prayed in the cemetery, during Mass she saw “three white doves soaring from the altar toward heaven.” She understood that those three souls, along with many other souls, had gone to heaven. Three years earlier, in 1933, St. Faustina was visited by the soul of a religious sister from her order who had died two months previously. The sister “was in a terrible condition, all in flames with her face painfully distorted,” and St. Faustina increased her prayers for her. The next night, St. Faustina was astonished to see the sister come again, in an even worse state, surrounded by even more intense flames, with despair “written all over her face.” “Haven’t my prayers helped you?” St. Faustina asked. The sister answered that her prayers had not helped, and that nothing would help her. “And the prayers which the whole community has offered for you, have they not been any help to you?” The sister said no, these prayers had instead helped other souls. “If my prayers are not helping you, sister, please stop coming to me,” St. Faustina responded. The soul disappeared at once. Still, St. Faustina kept praying. Some time later, the sister returned during the night. This time, though, her appearance had been completely altered. The flames were gone, and “her face was radiant, her eyes beaming with joy,” St. Faustina writes in her Diary (58). The sister told St. Faustina that she had a true love for her neighbor and that many other souls had benefited from her prayers. “She urged me not to cease praying for the souls in Purgatory, and she added that she herself would not remain there much longer,” St. Faustina writes. “How astounding are the ways of God!” Even though this sister was still in Purgatory the third time she visited St. Faustina, her level of suffering was entirely changed. Through St. Faustina’s unfailing hope and prayers, she had gone from agony and despair to radiance and joy. She wasn’t in heaven yet, but she was on her way. “Only We Can Come to their Aid” In 1926, about a decade before St. Faustina saw the three souls fly up to heaven during Mass, she asked the Lord one night for whom she should pray. Jesus told her that on the following night, He would let her know. The next night, she saw her Guardian Angel. He took her to “a misty place full of fire in which there was a great crowd of suffering souls.” “They were praying fervently,” writes St. Faustina in her Diary (20), “but to no avail, for themselves; only we can come to their aid.” She asked what their greatest suffering was, and in one voice they answered her that their greatest torment was longing for God. Then St. Faustina saw Our Lady visiting the souls in Purgatory and bringing them refreshment. After that, her Guardian Angel led her out again. “Since that time, I am in closer communion with the suffering souls,” she writes. As St. Faustina saw in her vision, the souls in Purgatory cannot pray for themselves. So even if the deceased sister who visited her in 1933 had prayed as hard as she could to be delivered from the flames and despair, her prayers would not have been effective. In God’s mysterious plan, the sister needed the prayers of the faithful on earth in order to be freed from her suffering. In the same way, all of the souls in Purgatory at this moment desperately need our prayers, for no matter how hard they pray for themselves, their own prayers won’t help them. Ours will. Even though the souls in Purgatory cannot pray for themselves, they can pray for others. And in a beautiful reciprocal act of mercy, if we pray for them, they can pray for us. The Catechism (958) says that “Our prayer for them is capable not only of helping them, but also of making their intercession for us effective.” Our prayers for them are the key that unlocks their prayers for us! An army of prayer warriors is waiting for us in Purgatory. When we pray for them, we can then ask them to intercede for us, so that we may receive the great blessing of their prayers in return. Every single prayer, big or small, for the souls in Purgatory helps them. Even if a prayer is offered for someone who has already reached heaven, then that prayer will be applied to another soul. No prayer is ever wasted. No act of love for the holy souls goes unanswered. No offering will fail to bring comfort, consolation, and the radiance of heaven to these dear suffering souls. Plenary Indulgences in Early November In early November, the faithful can obtain plenary indulgences for the souls in Purgatory, as St. Faustina did, by visiting the cemetery from November 1-8 and praying there for the dead, or by visiting a church or oratory on November 2 and reciting an Our Father and Creed. On other days, the indulgence is partial. In order to obtain the indulgence, a Catholic in the state of grace must have the intention to obtain it and fulfill the following conditions:  From Nov. 1-8, visit a cemetery and pray there for the dead, even if only mentally; or, on Nov. 2, visit a church or oratory and recite an Our Father and Creed  Make a sacramental confession (a single confession, within about 20 days before or after, will suffice for all the indulgences a person obtains within that time period)  Receive Holy Communion (once for each indulgence obtained)  Recite at least one Our Father and one Hail Mary for the Holy Father  Be free from attachment to all sin, including venial* One plenary indulgence can be obtained each day. The indulgence is partial if the conditions are partially fulfilled. *A note about the last condition: Sometimes people wonder whether it is possible for them to be completely detached from venial sin. I believe the answer to this is found in Mark 10, when Jesus tells his disciples how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God, and they wonder who then can be saved. “For human beings it is impossible, but not for God,” Jesus tells them. “All things are possible for God.” Even if it would be impossible for us to be completely detached from sin, it is not impossible for God. As Matthew 7 reminds us, “Ask, and it will be given you;” for our Father in heaven gives “good things to those who ask him.” Let’s ask Him, then, for the grace to be detached from all sin. My friend Suzie suggests adding this little prayer to the prayers for the indulgence: Dear Holy Spirit, if I am not detached from all sin, please make me detached now, so that I may gain this plenary indulgence that my Mother, the Church, offers to me, Her child. God is on our side. He wants us to be able to obtain this indulgence as an act of charity for the souls in Purgatory, and He will help us fulfill the conditions if we only ask. Eternal rest grant unto them, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon them. May the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. https://catholicexchange.com/st-faustinas-visions-of-the-souls-in-purgatory/

Pope John Paul II may have been the “spark” from Poland spoken of by Jesus to Sister Faustina

“Write this for the many souls who are often worried to carry out an act of mercy. Yet spiritual mercy, which requires neither permission or storehouses, is much more meritorious and is within the grasp of every soul. If a soul does not exercise mercy somehow or other, it will not obtain My mercy on the day of judgment”. Jesus to Sister Faustina Kowalska Today (22nd October 2024) is the feast day of John Paul II ‘the Great’ The following is taken from: https://feastofmercy.net/blogs/prayers-devotions/saint-faustina-you-will-prepare-the-world-for-my-final-coming Saint Faustina, "you will prepare the world for My final coming" by Tim McAndrew Who is this Saint Faustina that Our Lord asks to prepare the world for His final coming? Sister Faustina Kowalska is known today as the Apostle of the Divine Mercy. She was the third of ten children born into a poor pious family in Glogowiec, Poland. When she was only seven, she already sensed in her soul the call to embrace the religious life. Sister Faustina tried hard to ignore this Divine call; however, by a vision of the suffering Christ and by the words of His approach, “How long shall I put up with you and how long will you keep putting me off?” Sister Faustina was born August 25, 1905 and passed on to the Lord on October 5, 1938 in Krakow, Poland. At the age of 20 years she joined a convent in Warsaw, Poland, was later transferred to Płock, and then to Vilnius where she met her confessor Father Michał Sopoćko, who supported her devotion to the Divine Mercy. Faustina and Sopoćko directed an artist to paint the first Divine Mercy image, based on Faustina's vision of Jesus. Sopoćko used the image in celebrating the first Mass on the first Sunday after Easter. Subsequently, Pope John Paul II established the Feast of Divine Mercy on that Sunday of each liturgical year. Her entire life was spent striving for an even fuller union with God and on self sacrificing in cooperation with Jesus in the work of saving souls. This simple uneducated but courageous woman, was consigned the great mission by Our Lord Jesus to proclaim His message of mercy, to the whole world and to prepare the world for His final coming. His message was recorded in a diary kept by Saint Faustina. Our Lord Speaks: “I am sending you with My mercy to the people of the whole world. I do not want to punish aching mankind, but I desire to heal it, pressing it to My merciful heart.” (Diary 1588) “You are secretary of My mercy; I have chosen you for office in this and the next life.” (Diary 1605)... “To make known to souls the great mercy that I have for them, and to exhort them to trust in the bottomless depth of My mercy.” (Diary 1567) Our Lord words to Saint Faustina about Divine Mercy Sunday: “I desire that the Feast of Mercy be a refuge and shelter for all souls; especially for poor sinners.” (Diary 699) “I am giving them the last hope of salvation. That is, recourse to My mercy. If they will not adore My mercy, they will perish for all eternity.” (Diary 965) Saint Faustina’s Vision of Hell Sister Faustina recorded in the diary a vision of Hell: “I, Sister Faustina Kowalska, by the order of God, have visited the abysses of Hell so that I might tell souls about it and testify to its existence. The devils were full of hatred for me, but they had to obey me at the command of God. What I have written is but a pale shadow of the things I saw. But, I noticed one thing, that most of the souls there are those who disbelieved that there is a Hell. Today I was led by an angel to the chasms of Hell. It is a place of great tortures; how awesomely large and extensive it is! The kind of tortures I saw: “The first torture that constitutes Hell is the loss of God. The second is perpetual remorse of conscience. The third is that one’s condition will never change. The fourth is the fire that will penetrate the soul without destroying it. A terrible suffering since it is a purely spiritual fire, lit by God's anger. The fifth torture is a continual darkness and a terrible suffocation smell, and despite the darkness, the devils and the souls of the damned see each other and all the evil, both of others and their own. The sixth torture is horrible despair, hatred of God, vile words, curses and blasphemies; indescribable sufferings. There are the torments of the senses. Each soul undergoes terrible and indescribable suffering related to the manner which it has sinned. "No one can say there is no Hell. Let the sinner know that he will be tortured throughout all eternity on those senses which he made use of to sin". (Diary 741) "You will prepare the world for My Final Coming" However much we’re wary of overly apocalyptical prophecy … there’s no doubting that one such prediction came from a recently canonized saint. That was St. Maria Faustina Kowalska of the Divine Mercy revelations, who was canonized in 2000. …. “Speak to the world about My mercy… it is a sign for the end times. After it will come the day of justice (Diary 848)…Souls perish in spite of My bitter passion…I am giving them the last hope of salvation; that is, the Feast of Mercy. If they will not adore My Mercy, they will perish for all eternity. Secretary of My mercy, write, tell souls about this great mercy of Mine, because the awful day, the day of My justice, is near” (Diary #965). Keep in mind that we’re not obligated to accept them these messages; while Faustina was canonized, her prophecies have not been officially sanctioned (such messages, even from a saint, rarely are). But they are certainly worth close scrutiny, and they indicate that God is serious about purification despite those who have tended to focus only on His mercy. Our Lord Speaks: “Write this for the many souls who are often worried to carry out an act of mercy. Yet spiritual mercy, which requires neither permission or storehouses, is much more meritorious and is within the grasp of every soul. If a soul does not exercise mercy somehow or other, it will not obtain My mercy on the day of judgment. Oh, if only souls knew how to gather eternal treasure for themselves, they would not be judged, for they would forestall My judgment with their mercy.” (#1317) Our Blessed Mothers words to Saint Faustina regarding her Son’s second coming: “Oh, how pleasing to God is the soul that follows faithfully, the inspirations of His grace! I gave the savior to the world; as for you, you have to speak to the world about His great mercy and prepare the world for His Second Coming of Him who will come, not as a merciful savior, but as a just Judge. Oh, how terrible is that day! Determined is the day of justice, the day of divine wrath. The angels tremble before it. Speak to souls about this great mercy while there is still time for granting mercy, if you keep silent now, you will be answering for a great number of souls on that terrible day. Fear nothing, be nothing, be faithful to the end. I sympathize with you.” (Diary # 635) In one entry Saint Faustina said, “‘As I was praying, I heart Jesus’ words: ‘I bear a special love for Poland, and if she will be obedient to My Will, I will exalt her in might and holiness. From her will come forth the spark that will prepare the world for My final coming.(Diary 1732)’ ”The land of death from the World War's" would become the birthplace of the modern Divine Mercy devotion. Was this a reference to John Paul II? We all know the Pope is from Poland, and he ended up having a pivotal role in the recognition of Divine Mercy — culminating with his canonization of Faustina. Even if the “spark” refers to the fall of Communism, which started in Poland, this too is inextricably linked to John Paul, who was a secret force behind Solidarity (the union that overthrew Communist rule).

Josephus on martyrdom of Apostle James

“The current scholarly consensus is that this text is authentic”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ananus_ben_Ananus Josephus's account of the death of James as follows: Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a Sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.[3] The current scholarly consensus is that this text is authentic.[4][5][6][7] Moreover, in comparison with Hegesippus's account of James's death in his Hypomnemata, scholars consider Josephus's to be the more historically reliable.[8] …. Josephus. "20.9.1". The Antiquities of the Jews. Van Voorst 2000, p. 83. Richard Bauckham states that although a few scholars have questioned this passage, "the vast majority have considered it to be authentic" (Bauckham 1999, pp. 199–203). Feldman & Hata 1987, pp. 54–57. Flavius Josephus & Maier 1995, pp. 284–285. Painter 2004, p. 126.

Paradigm shift in way Church views women

[Pope Francis] repeated his frequent refrain about women being the “fertile” nurturers who complement men, and that regardless “the church is woman.” …. Francis heard a similar call from the French-speaking campus, where students staged a reading of an articulated critique of his landmark environmental encyclical “Praised Be” in which they called for a “paradigm shift” in the way the church views women. They noted that the encyclical virtually ignores women, cites no female theologians and contributes to women’s “invisibility” in the church and society. Women have long complained they have a second-class status in the church, barred from the priesthood and positions of power despite doing the lion’s share of the work educating the young, caring for the sick and passing on the faith. Francis, an 87-year-old Argentine Jesuit, said he liked what they said. But he repeated his frequent refrain about women being the “fertile” nurturers who complement men, and that regardless “the church is woman.” We read at: https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2024-03/pope-francis-highlights-womens-role-in-church-and-society.html#:~:text=%22The%20Church%20needs%20to%20keep,collaboration%20to%20achieve%20this%20goal. Pope Francis highlights women's role in Church and society Pope Francis addresses an international conference on women in the Church, and emphasises the importance of recognising women's contributions while calling for unity and education to promote women's rights and dignity. By Francesca Merlo In his address to the participants of the International Conference titled "Women in the Church: Builders of Humanity," Pope Francis extended a warm greeting to all attendees, expressing gratitude for their presence and the organisation of the event. "The Church needs to keep this in mind, because the Church is herself a woman: a daughter, a bride, and a mother," said the Pope. He highlighted the significance of recognising and valuing women's contributions within the people of God, and he called for unity, discernment, and collaboration to achieve this goal. The conference, which gathers individuals from all over the world, focuses on highlighting the exemplary holiness of ten women: Josephine Bakhita, Magdeleine de Jesus, Elizabeth Ann Seton, Mary MacKillop, Laura Montoya, Kateri Tekakwitha, Teresa of Calcutta, Rafqa Pietra Choboq Ar-Rayès, Maria Beltrame Quattrocchi, and Daphrose Mukasanga. Pope Francis underscored the significance of their charitable, educational, and prayerful initiatives, which exemplify the unique reflection of God's holiness through the feminine genius. "The contribution of women is more necessary than ever," emphasised Pope Francis, acknowledging the challenges of hatred, violence, and ideological conflicts in today's world. He spoke about the urgent need for women's contributions, which he said are characterised by tenderness and compassion, in order to foster unity and restore humanity's true identity. On the topic of education, Pope Francis commended the collaboration between the conference and various Catholic academic institutions. "Every effort to present students with testimonies of holiness, especially of feminine sanctity, can encourage them to aim higher," he said, stressing the importance of presenting role models to inspire future generations. Pope Francis concluded his address by highlighting the ongoing struggles faced by women worldwide, including violence, inequality, and injustice. He called for concerted efforts to address these issues, emphasizing the transformative power of education for girls and young women in promoting overall human development. Bringing his address to a close, Pope Francis entrusted the outcomes of the conference to the Lord and imparted his blessing upon the participants before urging continued commitment to the advancement of women's rights and dignity. …. “In this sense the Marian dimension of the Church is antecedent to that of the Petrine, without being in any way divided from it or being less complementary. The Immaculate Mary precedes all others, including obviously Peter himself and the Apostles”. Pope John Paul II The Marian and Petrine Principles Annual Address to Roman Curia H. H. John Paul II December 22, 1987 On Monday, 22 December, in the Clementine Hall of the Apostolic Palace, the Dean of the College of Cardinals, Cardinal Angelo Rossi, conveyed the Christmas greetings of the assembled cardinals and officials of the Roman Curia to the Holy Father, who delivered the following address in reply. Your Eminences, Revered Brothers in the Episcopate and Priesthood, My dearest Laity, I sincerely thank the Cardinal Dean for his greeting; he has interpreted your personal desires in this traditional and always pleasant gathering before Christmas. His message has focused our common attention on the particular significance which current circumstances contribute to our annual meeting. We meet near the Eve of Christmas in the Marian Year. Every year on this occasion we are moved by the expectation of him who is born in Bethlehem of the Immaculate Virgin Mary, and it is our mutual desire to experience as deeply as possible this central event of history by extending a welcome to the Incarnate Word. In this Marian Year our meeting has a special significance and brings a new emphasis to our Christmas reflection. The Marian Year, in fact, prepares us to approach Christ in this Advent of the third millennium in order to relieve the mystery of his Incarnation, following Mary who precedes us in this journey of faith. She was the first “minister” of the Word. As members of the Roman Curia we are conscious of serving the Mystery of the Incarnation from which the Church as a “Body” originated. In Mary, as St. Augustine noted: “the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to unite to himself human nature, so that to the immaculate head he associated the immaculate Church, (Serm 191.3; PL 38, 1010). From Mary is born Christ the Head who is indissolubly united to the Church, his Body. The “whole Christ” is born. As servants and ministers of this Mystical Body, daily nourished with the Eucharistic Body of Christ, we manifest this year the particular presence of the Mother of God in the Mystery of Christ and of the Church in which we are aware of participating in a particular manner. 2. We well understand that Vatican II effected a great synthesis between Mariology and ecclesiology. The Marian Year adheres to such a synthesis and conciliar inspiration so that the Church may be everywhere renewed through the presence of the Mother of God who, as the Fathers taught, is a model of the Church. The Council offers an enlightening interpretation of the presence of the Virgin in the divine plan of salvation. Because she is the instrument and privileged channel of the Incarnation of the Word in human nature and of his presence among us, Mary is “intimately united with the Church: the Mother of God is a figure of the Church, as Saint Ambrose had earlier taught, in the order of faith, of charity and of the perfect union with Christ” (Lumen Gentium, 63). Developing this teaching, I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Mater: “ the reality of the Incarnation finds a sort of extension in the mystery of the Church – The Body of Christ. And one cannot think of the reality of the Incarnation without referring to Mary, the Mother of the Incarnate Word” (no. 5). Mary united to Christ, Mary united to the Church. And the Church united to Mary finds in her the most refined and perfect image of its own specific mission which is simultaneously virginal and maternal. The Fathers and the Teachers of the early Church have underlined this double aspect: for example, St. Augustine brilliantly comments, Hic est speciosus forma prae filiis hominum, sanctae filius Mariae, sanctiae sponsus Ecclesiae, quam suae genitriit similem redditit: nam et nobis eam matrem fecit, et virginem sibi custodit” (Serm 195.2; PL 38:1018). The Virgin Mary is the archetype of the Church because of the divine maternity; just like Mary, the Church must be, and wishes to be, mother and virgin. The Church lives in this authentic “Marian profile”, this “Marian dimension”; thus the Council, gathering together the patristic and theological voices, both eastern and western has noted this phenomenom: “The Church, moreover, contemplating Mary’s mysterious sanctity, imitating her charity, and faithfully fulfilling the Father’s will, becomes herself a mother by accepting God’s word in faith. For by her preaching and by baptism she brings forth to a new and immortal life, children who are conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of God. The Church herself is a virgin, who keeps whole and pure the fidelity she has pledged to her Spouse. Imitating the Mother of her Lord, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, she preserves with virginal purity and integral faith , a firm hope and sincere charity” (Lumen Gentium, 64). Sphere of divine grace 3. This Marian profile is also- even perhaps more so- fundamental and characteristic for the Church as is the apostolic and Petrine profile to which it is profoundly united. In this vision of the Church Mary precedes the People of God who are still pilgrims. Mary is she who, predestined to be the Mother of the Word, lived continuously and totally in the sphere of divine grace subject to its vivifying influence; she is the mirror and transparency of the life of God himself. Immaculate, “full of grace”, she was prepared by God for the Incarnation of the Word and was always under the Continuous action of the Holy Spirit: hers was the “yes” and the fiat par excellence to him who had chosen her “before the beginning of the world” (Eph 1:4). Such response was evident in the docility, the humility, the conformity to the least movement of grace which rendered her, we can say, mother in a twofold sense through conformity to God’s will: “who does the will of God is my mother” (cf. Mk 3:35). The divine maternity, that unique and sublime privilege of the ever-Virgin, must be seen in this perspective as the supreme glory of the fidelity of Mary in corresponding with grace. The Marian dimension of the Church is evident from the similarity of tasks in relation to the whole Christ. To this dimension, in fact, can be applied the word of Jesus: “whoever does the will of my Father is my brother, sister, and mother”, (Mk, ibid.). The Church, like Mary, lives by grace in submission to the Holy Spirit; according to his light the signs and necessities of the times are interpreted, and progress is accomplished in complete docility to the voice of the Spirit. In this sense the Marian dimension of the Church is antecedent to that of the Petrine, without being in any way divided from it or being less complementary. The Immaculate Mary precedes all others, including obviously Peter himself and the Apostles. This is so, not only because Peter and the Apostles, being born of the human race under the burden of sin, form part of the Church which is “holy with sinners:, but also because their triple function has no other purpose except to from the Church in line with the ideal of sanctity already programmed and prefigured in Mary. A contemporary theologian has well commented: “Mary is ‘Queen of the Apostles’ without any pretensions to apostolic powers: she has other and greater powers” (von Balthasar, Nette Klarstellungen, Ital. transl., Milan 1980, p. 181). In this context it is especially significant to note the presence of Mary in the Upper Room, where she assists Peter and the other Apostles, praying for and with them as all await the coming of the Spirit. This link between the two profiles of the Church, the Marian and the Petrine, is profound and complementary. This is so even though the Marian profile is anterior not only in design of God but also in time, as well being supreme and pre-eminent, richer in personal and communitarian implications for individual ecclesial vocations. In this light the Roman Curia lives and ought to live – all of us ought so to live. It is certain that the Curia is directly united to the Petrine office to whose service it is dedicated by office, constitution and mission. The Curia serves the Church as a Body; situated, one may say, at the apex, it offers its collaboration to the Successor of Peter in his service to the local Churches. In this activity, it is more necessary and indispensable to preserve and strengthen the Marian dimension in the service to Peter. Mary precedes those of us who are in the Curia where we serve the Mystery of the Word Incarnate, just as she precedes the whole Church for which we live. May she assist us to discover ever more fully and to live more authentically this richness, which for us, I would say, is vital and decisive. May Mary help us to participate more consciously in the symbiosis of the Marian and Petrine apostolic dimensions from which the Church daily draws orientation and sustenance. May attention to Mary and to her example bring us to a greater love, tenderness and docility to the voice of the Spirit, so that each one is more enriched interiorly with that dedication to the ministry of Peter. 4. In the light of the Marian Year as the central theme of our meeting, which continues the teaching Vatican II in presenting Mary as the guide of the People of God in their pilgrimage of faith, I would now like to underline some of the salient events of the year that is about to conclude: the Synod of bishops, the numerous beatifications and canonizations, and the visit of the Ecumenical Patriarch, Dimitrios I of Constantinople. In the first place the sessions of the Synod: two months have passed since the conclusion of its discussions and it is more and more evident that the interventions and labours of the Synodal Fathers have resulted in a global image of the Church – how she lives, works, prays, suffers, struggles, and adheres to Christ. The Synod has effectively offered the image of this People on pilgrimage on earth, and especially of that portion of the People of God, the laity, according to their specific characteristics. In their pilgrimage it is still the Mother who precedes her children as they seek “the kingdom of God in dealing with temporal affairs as they organize them according to God’s will in the ‘spirit of the Beatitudes’” (Lumen Gentium, 31). This Marian presence in the mission of the laity, in their journey of faith, is the line which clearly defines that great event. As time passes since the Synod of last October, the positive results become more evident, not alone in the reaffirmation of the teaching of the magnificent documents of Vatican Ii but more so because of the emphasis on the ecclesiology of communion as a necessary contest for situating the role of the laity in the Church for the salvation of the world. The laity themselves have co-operated in formulating this conclusion, in so far as the Synod Fathers represented the voice of the laity; furthermore, the laity themselves of both sexes entered actively by their conspicuous and qualified presence at the Synod where they spoke in the plenary sessions and collaborated effectively in the circuli minores. The result has been a truly universal overall view of the diverse realities that constitute the true image of the Church today. As with the preceding Synods, it shall be my duty to follow those unforgettable days. Meanwhile I am happy to underline in our present meeting how this richness and plurality of results is the evidence that the Church is truly open to the voice of the Spirit in her pilgrimage of faith and love, and is always conscious of her responsibility to God and before the world. Mary is present in this journey of the laity, to guide them a she guides us all towards the coming of Christ. Final destiny 5. Vatican II has demonstrated that in her who is the Mother of God the Church has reached her final destiny: “In the bodily and spiritual glory which she possesses in heaven, the Mother of Jesus continues in this present world as the image and first flowering of the Church as she is to be perfected in the life to come” (Lumen Gentium, 68). This affirmation reiterates what the dogmatic Constitution the Church had already expounded in chapter7: “the eschatological character of the pilgrim Church and its union with the heavenly church”, and chapter 5: “the universal vocation to holiness in the Church”. In the fullness of time Mary, in virtue of her immaculate conception, reunited in herself the salvific design of God that had been destroyed by sin. Assumed into heaven with her most holy body, which is the Ark of the new Covenant, she already reigns with Christ in the psycho-physical unity of her person. She is, therefore, after Christ, “the first-begotten of the dead (Rev. 1:5; Col 1:18). She is the one who precedes the Church in the journey towards the fulfillment of sanctity and awaits the completion that shall be total. However, with her there are also those who, awaiting the final resurrection, are already in heaven according to the judgement of the church. They have verified in themselves the plan of God and have reached that desired success of every human existence: “the complete, intimate union with Christ” (cf. Lumen Gentium, 49). Recalling the Queen of all Saints in this Marian Year I now wish to mention the two canonizations and eleven beatifications of this year. These numerous liturgical events of 1987 have demonstrated, perhaps more forcibly than usual, how real, true and actual is the Church’s universal call to holiness, and have given testimony to the ethnic-vocational plurality of such a call. The new saints and beati, in fact, belong to diverse vocations among the people of God. Among such we discover: Cardinals, as Marcello Spinola y Maestre (29 March) and Andrea Carlo Ferrari (10 May): bishops, as Michal Kozal (14 June) and Jurgis Matulaitis (28 June); priests and brothers, as Manuel Domingo y Sol (29 March), Rupert Mayer (3 May) and Jules Arnould Reche (1 Nov.); women religious, as Teresa de los Andes (3April), Benedetta Cambiagio Frassinelli (10 May), Ulrika Nisch and BlandinaMerten (1 Nov.); laity of both sexes, as Lorenzo Ruiz (18 Oct.), Giuseppe Moscati (25 Oct. ), and many others all professions and occupations, even the most humble. It is a witness given in the most diverse circumstances, i.e. as pastors and ministers of the Church, as medical doctors, as educators and evangelizers. Often such witness was rendered in the most arduous circumstances, such as by martyrdom antonomastically so called as in the case of three Carmelite Sisters of Guadalajara (29 March), Edith Stein (1 May) and Karolina Kozka (10 June), Marcel Callo, Pierina Morosini and Antonia Mesina (4 Oct.), the 16 martyrs of Japan (18 Oct.), and the eighty-five English martyrs (22 Nov.). Again, many of the new saints and beati lived in our century: they are contemporaries. In reality, the saints are in our midst and they demonstrate that even today the Church is called to sanctity and responds generously under the inspiration and guidance of Mary. Furthermore, the saints and beati belong to diverse nations of different continents: thus the canonizations and beatifications attest to the universal significance even when viewed geographically. From this point of view I regard it as a special grace of the Lord to have been able to propose for the veneration of the church, as desired by repeated requests of the local bishops, come champions of the faith in the locality where they lived. I did this during some of the apostolic journeys of this year: Sister Teresa de los Andes at Santiago, Chile (3 April); Sister Benedicta of the Cross, at Cologne (1 May); Father Mayer at Munich (3 May); Karolina Kozka, at Tarnow (10 June); and Mons. Kozal at Warsaw (14 June). The ever-increasing possibility of publicly proclaiming the heroic sanctity of the sons and daughters of the Church in the course of my visits to various countries of the world confirms me in the belief that such journeys constitute a particular service to the People of God on its pilgrimage, precisely that pilgrimage towards the definitive Kingdom of God, in which Mary “precedes” the Church in various places on earth. Since the journeys are, with God’s help, the contemporary application of the mandate of Christ – “go therefore into the whole world” (Mk 16:15) – and also and explicit consequence of the Petrine ministry, “confirm your brothers” (Lk 22:32), they afford a greater spiritual and intellectual irradiation of the office that is so sublime and solemn, by proposing for the imitation of the Church the authentic exemplars of sanctity proper to it. Such saintly individuals are proof before the world that holiness is possible for all people, in every civilization and in all climates. 6. Following the path of the Council, the encyclical Redemptoris Mater underlined the “pilgrimage” aspect of the Church, in which the Mother of God “precedes”, and as such has ecumenical overtones. ….

Medjugorje and the flow of Grace

“All grace flows from the Catholic Church’s sacramental life. Grace never flows from frauds and deceptions, nor from anything that is false. In places of false apparitions grace completely bypasses the ‘apparitions’ as they can never be a ‘causa instrumentalis’ of grace”. Frits Albers and Frank Calneggia Taken from: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7627 Medjugorje and the Flow of Grace by Frits Albers, PH.B., Frank Calneggia Description This article explains that exterior manifestations of grace do not prove the authenticity of apparitions, because the Church is really the source of all grace. Publisher & Date The Australian Marian Academy of the Immaculate Conception …. Part I One can readily admit to the flow of grace at Medjugorje. Adherents and promoters are quick to point to the usual signs of grace: confessions, conversions, and the practice of prayer and penance. If apparitions are authentic, that is, if they possess a supernatural origin they come from God. Therefore authentic apparitions, such as Lourdes and Fatima, may be called a ‘causa instrumentalis’ (instrumental cause) of grace. If apparitions are false, that is, if they do not possess a supernatural origin they do not come from God. False apparitions may appear to be associated with the flow of grace; but by rights this grace belongs to the Holy Catholic Church because this Church is the source of all grace going out through the whole world due to the presence of the Blessed Sacrament within her. All grace flows from the Catholic Church’s sacramental life. Grace never flows from frauds and deceptions, nor from anything that is false. In places of false apparitions grace completely bypasses the ‘apparitions’ as they can never be a ‘causa instrumentalis’ of grace. This means that God never uses false apparitions as instruments of grace. Consequently the first thing that must be stated, and which must be rigorously maintained, is that the exterior manifestations of grace do not prove the authenticity of apparitions! Grace can flow if the apparitions are either true or false because the sacramental life of the Church can be present anywhere on earth completely independent of apparitions. Vatican II states, in Lumen Gentium, that “the grains of truth and holiness found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church rightly belong to the Church of Christ and possess an inner dynamism to Catholic unity” (#8). If apparitions are false they are automatically outside the Church, then the “grains of truth and holiness” found in these places of fraud and deception do not belong to, or come from, the deception! These “grains of truth and holiness”, according to the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, belong directly to the Holy Catholic Church. As stated above, they belong to her sacramental life. It is because of this that these grains of truth and sanctification “possess an inner dynamism to Catholic unity”. That is, they possess an inner dynamism away from the deception and toward obedience to the teaching and authority of the Catholic bishop in charge of investigating the ‘apparitions’. If the inner urge of grace towards Catholic-unity-in-obedience (working, as we saw, whether the apparitions are true or false) is blocked in any way by private, personal and subjective convictions and attitudes (which is often the case when people attribute the flow of grace to false apparitions), then grace is thwarted and becomes ineffective. This, of course, is a very serious matter. It is highly presumptuous to attribute grace to false apparitions no matter how tempting this might be. It is a sobering thought to realise that presumption in the area of God’s grace and mercy is one of the sins against the Holy Spirit and for that reason is a serious obstacle to grace. Grace thus blocked and rendered ineffective will not produce the fruits of holiness and truth God meant it to produce when He bestowed it through the sacramental life of the Church. In other words, the conversions would then only be apparent and exterior. Such conversions lack that inner drive to unity-in-obedience, and would not have a lasting effect until the blockage is removed. The same goes for devotional practices. These, too, will become merely externalised if associated with the rash and presumptuous belief that the grace to do such devotions comes from spurious apparitions. Such presumption will also block grace obtained from authentic sources. Another sin of presumption that is often associated with the matter of private ‘revelations’ and ‘visions’ is the attitude that the Church will have to approve them because “we” think they are so good and holy and simply cannot come from the devil ... From the moment the obedience of the Lamb of God became the breakthrough for grace, rendering to nought the blockage caused by the disobedience of our first parents, all disobedience, whether individual or corporate, has remained the fundamental obstacle to grace and to its inner dynamism to Catholic unity. ‘The world’ and ‘the earth’ live in utter disobedience to God and His Commandments; in total defiance of the Gospel of His Son; and in complete rejection of the authentic teaching of His Catholic Church. Followers, and even more so promoters, of false apparitions would do well to consider their position in the Catholic Church in regard to this necessary virtue of obedience; lest it is the root of their disobedience which prevents grace and makes them part of ‘the world’. God has always built in, as the cornerstone of proper scrutiny into alleged apparitions, obedience to the findings and authority of the local bishop. It is not difficult to prove that disobedience to the Bishop of Mostar is blatant in Medjugorje, even to the extent that the anti-Catholic and anti-God world of communism started to promote the ‘apparitions’. Not only has this courageous and valiant Bishop been completely vilified by an international chorus of Medjugorje adherents for his rejection of the authenticity of the ‘apparitions’, this disobedience has been instigated and sustained by the ‘apparitions’ themselves. God has always built obedience to the local bishop into the proper attitude toward alleged apparitions. His Holiness Pope Pius XII has, on at least two occasions, taught the universal Church that the Papacy considers the local bishop to be the first and principal authority in apparition cases. (See his 1957 encyclical on the centenary of the apparitions of Our Blessed Lady at Lourdes, and his letter to the Bishop of Namur, Belgium, 7th Dec, 1942; in Don Sharkey, The Woman Shall Conquer, p 130). Medjugorje is no exception to this Papal attitude. If blatant vilification of the Bishop of Mostar and the widespread disobedience to his episcopal authority prove the happenings at Medjugorje to be false, then Medjugorje is outside the Church. Therefore the grace flowing at Medjugorje does not come from the ‘apparitions’ but comes from the sacramental life of the Church, bypassing the false phenomena. People who in this case adhere to the ‘apparitions’; and worse still, maintain that grace flows from them; and even worse still, in a most unholy presumption, declare that the flow of grace proves the ‘apparitions’ to be authentic, create a severe obstacle within themselves to the overwhelming fullness of the Church’s sacramental life which can be present anywhere on earth. The sad part is that this obstacle remains long after the ‘pilgrims’ have returned home ... Part II The foregoing study of how and why grace can flow in places where there are false apparitions is confirmed by two Catholic Bishops – both speaking in the context of Medjugorje – to be in line with Catholic Teaching. Mgr Henri Brincard, the Bishop of Puy-en-Velay, is the bishop responsible for the French Association of Marian Organisations. Here he is responding to a question put to him at an assembly of the Bishops of France. During the course of his response he draws on a declaration from Bishop Peric of Mostar, which can be found in Bishop Peric’s book Priestolje Mudrosti (Seat of Wisdom) p 62. [Emphases added]. “The examination of the events [of Medjugorje] must precede the examination of the fruits. When this order is not respected errors of judgement can arise. If we examine the events of Medjugorje in the light of the fruits, what do we observe? It is first of all undeniable that at Medjugorje there are returns to God and ‘spiritual’ healings. ... One could not deny these good fruits in situ. ... But can we say that they continue in our parishes? Difficult question, for we must note unfortunately that the susceptibility, even aggressiveness, of some partisans of Medjugorje towards those who do not share their enthusiasm is such that in some places it provokes serious tensions which attack the unity of the People of God. From where do the good fruits, observed in an indisputable manner at Medjugorje, come? A declaration of Bishop Peric, our confrere of Mostar, may on this point usefully enrich our mediations: ‘The fruits, so often mentioned, do not prove that they flow from apparitions or supernatural revelations of Our Lady. In the measure that they are authentically Christian, they may be interpreted as a product of the normal work of divine grace, by faith in God, by the intercession of the Virgin Mary, Mother of Christ, and by the Sacraments of the Catholic Church. And this is to say nothing of the negative fruits.’ Finally, it is opportune to ask ourselves if the events of Medjugorje have produced good fruits in the visionaries who, at least during the duration of the ‘apparitions’, must by their life be the first witnesses of the grace of which they say they benefit. From there it follows that we ask ourselves the following questions: ‘Have they obeyed the Bishop of Mostar? Have they respected him? ... ’ Such questions and still others yet, are habitually part of a serious investigation into an event of apparitions. In order for the investigation to arrive at a solid conclusion, it is necessary that these fundamental questions receive a clear and objective response. We would like to say nothing about the doubtful or even bad fruits. But truth obliges us to say that they exist. Let us quote, as examples, the calling into question, even to the point of defamation, of the Local Ordinary as well as the disobedience with regard to his legitimate authority; the exacerbation of the Herzegovina ‘question’ following the words attributed to the ‘Gospa’, words in favour of the Franciscans and against the Bishop (cf. Pavao Zanic, Bishop of Mostar, Official Statement: Medjugorje, March 1990).” The Second Vatican Council’s teaching on Collegiality is fully endorsed by Bishop Brincard in word and example. Catholics have the right to expect that his example of collegiality is matched by their own bishop. Bishop Brincard continues [Emphases added]: “I have no authority to pronounce any ecclesial judgement whatsoever on the events of Medjugorje. I am therefore the first to have to give an example of obedience, notably in respecting the pastoral decisions of my confrere of Mostar and in complying with joy to his wishes. I do not see how I can go to Medjugorje without giving my support, by the very fact of my arriving there, to the events whose discernment rest henceforth with the Episcopal Conference of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Such support would fly in the face of a traditional teaching of the Church, recalled in Lumen Gentium, and applicable to all the successors of the Apostles: ‘Individual bishops, insofar as they are set over particular Churches, exercise their pastoral office over the portion of the People of God assigned to them, not over other Churches nor the Church universal’. My wish, which I share with you, is to be able to further in my diocese a real renewal of Marian piety, in having frequent recourse to the habitual means which the Church puts at our disposal and which the Holy Father does not cease to recommend to us.” According to Medjugorje promoters hundreds of bishops have gone on ‘pilgrimage’ to Medjugorje over the last twenty years. From what Bishop Brincard has said, it is evident that bishops who go on ‘pilgrimage’ to Medjugorje sow confusion and division amongst the People of God by their bad example. Through their lack of collegiality they must be counted as being responsible for keeping Medjugorje ‘alive’ amongst Catholics. Collegiality is noticeably absent also in Bishops who may never have been to Medjugorje, but who allow its propaganda to invade their dioceses. This flow of evil out of a pipe that should produce grace for an entire diocese gives Medjugorje the illusion of coming from the Church; and by that illusion, the further illusion of coming from Our Lady the Mother and Model of the Church. Catholics the world over have experienced, to one degree or another, what happens when the Medjugorje illusion flows from an episcopate into a diocese, or across a country. Here to be noted are the various tours to Australia of ‘Ivan the Variable’, one of the so-called Medjugorje ‘seers’. As recently as 1999 he was given permission (by Cardinal Edward Clancy and by his successor, Archbishop George Pell) to speak from the sanctuary in each of the cathedral churches of the Archdioceses of Sydney and Melbourne. This was at the very time the Vatican issued its decree ordering the Franciscans out of the Diocese of Mostar under pain of excommunication! Two years earlier, in 1997, ‘Ivan the Variable’ was the featured speaker in the cathedral church of the Archdiocese of Perth. We quote from a report of that event printed in the Perth Archdiocesan newspaper, The Record, 27th Feb 1997. [Emphases added]: “Over 2000 people turned out on a sweltering, humid evening earlier this week at St Mary’s Cathedral to hear Medjugorje visionary Ivan Dragicevic speak following a sung Latin Mass concelebrated by Archbishop Barry Hickey and several priests of the Archdiocese. ‘Whatever the final decision by the Church about the authenticity of the apparitions’, Archbishop Hickey said in his homily, ‘it is undeniable that Medjugorje has given rise to a worldwide revival of Catholic life. ... One sees a powerful return to the central truths of the Faith, and a re-discovering of prayer and sacramental life’, he said. ‘The fruits of Medjugorje are good and they are plentiful. In this year of Jesus, we have no doubt that Mary, whose name is honoured at Medjugorje, will lead the world back to our Saviour’.” “Whatever the final decision by the Church ... it is undeniable that Medjugorje has given rise to a worldwide revival of Catholic life.” Here Medjugorje is being held up by an Archbishop as a ‘causa instrumentalis’ of grace “whatever the final decision by the Church”. The graces that the Archbishop claims to come from Medjugorje, come instead, as we saw, from the Church and belong to the Church. According to Lumen Gentium these graces “possess an inner dynamism to Catholic unity”. That is, they possess an inner dynamism away from the deception of the ‘apparition’ and toward obedience to the authority and findings of the Local Ordinary: towards collegiality. Does Archbishop Hickey’s statement manifest this dynamism of grace that works toward Catholic unity and collegiality; or does it move in the opposite direction away from Catholic unity by holding up Medjugorje instead of the Church as a cause of grace, and ‘Ivan the Variable’ (whom Bishop Zanic proved to be a liar) as one who receives messages from Our Lady? Archbishop Hickey’s statement says, “it is undeniable that Medjugorje has given rise” to a flow of grace “whatever the final decision by the Church”. This is understood to mean that Medjugorje is authentic even if the Church says it is not authentic. Not only is the ‘voice’ of the ‘apparition’ apparently superior to the voice of the Church, but is also apparently separate from the Church. Vatican II with its rich teaching on Our Lady tells us that Our Lady is inseparable from the Church. Archbishop Hickey’s statement conveys the impression that there is a dichotomy or separation between Our Lady and the Church; but is given the appearance of still coming from the Church because it was made by a Catholic Archbishop during a Catholic Mass to honour “Medjugorje visionary Ivan Dragicevic”. It is certainly possible to separate Catholics from the Church by having them follow an impostor while mistakenly thinking that they are following Our Lady. It is not possible to separate Our Lady from the Church, as the following quotes from the Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) will show. These quotes are taken from the concluding chapter of Lumen Gentium, Chapter VIII “Our Lady”. “Redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son and united to him by a close and indissoluble tie, she is endowed with the high office and dignity of the Mother of the Son of God. ... But, being of the race of Adam, she is at the same time also united to all those who are to be saved; indeed ‘she is clearly the mother of all the members of Christ ... since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head’. Wherefore she is hailed as pre-eminent and as a wholly unique member of the Church, and as its type and outstanding model in faith and charity. (#53)” “By reason of the gift and role of her divine motherhood, by which she is united with her Son, the Redeemer, and with her unique graces and functions, the Blessed Virgin is also intimately united to the Church. As St. Ambrose taught, the Mother of God is a type of the Church in the order of faith, charity, and perfect union with Christ. For in the mystery of the Church, which is itself rightly called mother and virgin, the Blessed Virgin stands out in eminent and singular fashion. (#63)” “But while in the most Blessed Virgin the Church has already reached that perfection, whereby she exists without spot or wrinkle (cf. Eph. 5:27), the faithful still strive to conquer sin and increase in holiness. And so they turn their eyes to Mary who shines forth to the whole community of the elect as the model of virtues. Devoutly meditating on her and contemplating her in the light of the Word made man, the Church reverently penetrates more deeply into the great mystery of the Incarnation and becomes more and more like her spouse. ... Seeking after the glory of Christ, the Church becomes more like her lofty type, and continually progresses in faith, hope and charity, seeking and doing the will of God in all things. (#65)” “The mother of Jesus in the glory which she possesses in body and soul in heaven is the image and beginning of the Church as it is to be perfected in the world to come. (#68)” It was not Vatican II that downgraded devotion to the Mother of God .... In the year 2001 Archbishop Hickey’s newspaper, The Record, continues to portray Medjugorje as a site of authentic apparitions and as a source of grace. It still reproduces ‘messages’ from ‘Our Lady’, and advertises pilgrimages to Medjugorje which it portrays as a Marian Shrine. Propaganda has been sustained over many years so that it has been given the appearance of an official ‘marian’ policy in the Perth Archdiocese. A typical outpouring of this quasi-official policy is “Medjugorje: a miracle of return to the faith”: an article that was given the front-page lead in of “Twenty Years of Medjugorje” when it was printed in The Record on 21st June 2001. Here is the first example from that article: “... the Vatican continues to consider whether or not to confirm the alleged apparitions.” The dictionary gives a number of accurate definitions of the word “confirm” as it is used in this extract from The Record. (i) ‘Provide support for the truth or correctness of’; (ii) ‘make definitely valid’; (iii) ‘prove to be true or valid’. When each of these definitions is successively substituted for the word ‘confirm’ in the above quoted sentence, that sentence reads as follows: (i) “The Vatican continues to consider whether or not to ‘provide support for the truth or correctness of’ the alleged apparitions”. (ii) “The Vatican continues to consider whether or not to ‘make definitely valid’ the alleged apparitions”. (iii) “The Vatican continues to consider whether or not to ‘prove to be true or valid’ the alleged apparitions”. From this it is evident that the statement that “the Vatican continues to consider whether or not to confirm the alleged apparitions” diverges from the truth on three counts. Firstly it premises that the apparitions are known to be true when in fact they are known to be false. Secondly it premises to confirm true that which is impossible to confirm true because it has already been shown to be false. Thirdly it implicates the Vatican in a role that it does not normally take in the investigation of apparitions. For enlightenment on this third count we return to Bishop Brincard’s response to the question: “Is there an authorised and official position of the Church concerning the events which motivate pilgrimages to Medjugorje”? “The norms relative to the discernment of private revelations, published on 24th February 1978 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, signed by its Prefect Cardinal Francis Seper, specify that ‘It belongs in the first and foremost to the Local Ordinary to investigate and to intervene’. The norms of 1978 further specify that ‘the intervention of the Sacred Congregation may be sought either by the Ordinary after he has fulfilled the obligations incumbent upon him, or by a qualified group of faithful. In the latter case vigilance will be exercised that recourse to the Sacred Congregation not be motivated by suspect reasons (for example, wanting to lead, by one fashion or another, the Ordinary to modify his legitimate decisions, or to have the sectarian position of a group ratified, etc)’. Up to this day, only the Bishops of Mostar – Bishop Zanic, then Bishop Peric – and the Yugoslav Episcopal Conference have expressed a judgement on the events of Medjugorje. ... These episcopal interventions occurred after long and laborious investigations, several elements of which are not known to us. It is to be noted that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith never expressed the least reservation regarding these judgements when they were published. Bearing in mind the authority which this Congregation recognises pertaining ‘first and foremost’ to the Local Ordinary, in matters of discernment and intervention, it would not be wise to take lightly that which successive Bishops of the diocese of Mostar-Duvno have said. ... The history of the Church teaches us that Rome always remits in fine to the authority and competence of the Local Ordinary.” It is common knowledge that two successive Bishops of Mostar and the Yugoslav Episcopal Conference have declared that Our Lady never appeared in Medjugorje. The claim that “... the Vatican continues to consider whether or not to confirm the alleged apparitions” bears no relationship to the truth because it implies that the apparitions of Medjugorje have been shown to be authentic (when in fact they have been shown to be false), and all that remains is for the Church to decide whether or not to officially approve them. Here is the second example from the “Twenty Years of Medjugorje” article in The Record. “Is there a connection between Fatima and Medjugorje? One reported message of Mary, dated 25 August 1991 might present a clue: ‘I invite you to self-renunciation for nine days, so that, with your help, everything that I wanted to realise at Fatima may be fulfilled’. So, nine years before the Third Secret was revealed, Fatima and Medjugorje were linked.” The official judgement of the Church is that Our Lady gave no messages in Medjugorje. The message just quoted is spurious – it does not proceed from its pretended source; and can therefore never be a continuation of Our Lady’s Fatima message. This is portraying ‘Our Lady’ as speaking the lies that the ‘visionaries’ spoke: a sin that Bishop Zanic long ago denounced as “deserving the depths of hell”. The assertion that with nine days of self-renunciation the Medjugorje ‘visionaries’ will “fulfill everything”, but which in reality has not yet been fulfilled by the blood of countless twentieth century martyrs, further shows the spurious origin of this message and is an insult to the memory of those martyrs. The third example from the article celebrating “Twenty Years of Medjugorje” should be read from the perspective of the portrait that was put forward in the above quoted second example: that Our Lady is the same at Medjugorje as she is at Fatima. It is a report of the very first ‘conversation’ between ‘Our Lady’ and the ‘visionaries’, which took place on the day of the second ‘apparition’. “But they returned the next day with four companions and found the apparition waiting for them on the hillside. They sprinkled holy water at the vision to see if it would disappear, but the lady again only smiled. So one of them got up the courage to ask, ‘Who are you?’ the response came, ‘I am the Blessed Virgin Mary, Queen of Peace’.” In her first apparition at Fatima Our Lady said to Lucia: “I came to ask you to come here on the thirteenth day for six months at this same time, and then I will tell you who I am and what I want”. Our Lady reserved the revelation of her identity to the Fatima children until her final apparition. In her apparitions at Lourdes it was not until the sixteenth of eighteen apparitions that Our Lady revealed her identity to St. Bernadette: “I am the Immaculate Conception”. In his encyclical Redemptoris Mater Pope John Paul II taught the entire Church that St. Louis de Montfort is a “witness and teacher” of both “authentic Marian spirituality” and its “corresponding devotion”, and that he is a “sure point of reference” to “look to and follow” in “the present phase of history”. In his treatise True Devotion to Mary St. Louis teaches us about Our Lady’s profound humility (TD #2): “Her humility was so profound that she had no inclination on earth more powerful or more constant than that of hiding herself, from herself as well as from every other creature, so as to be known to God only.” The reservation with which Our Lady revealed her identity in Fatima and Lourdes fits perfectly with St. Louis’ teaching concerning Our Lady’s humility. Medjugorje does not fit with St Louis’ teaching. Having failed the first examination set for them by St. Louis, the fabricators of Medjugorje, in this unholy caricature where pride and self promotion come to the fore, confirm that they do not qualify as witnesses of authentic Marian spirituality, and that the words that were allegedly spoken to them were not spoken by Our Lady. Where can we find a voice strong enough and final enough to warn Catholics where the allurement of spurious messages/apparitions is leading them? For this we again turn to St. Louis de Montfort’s True Devotion to Mary (#90), to hear what this great Marian Saint has to say about false devotions: Today, more than ever, we must take pains in choosing true devotion to Our Blessed Lady, because more than ever before, there are false devotions to Our Blessed Lady which are easily mistaken for true ones. The devil, like a false coiner and a subtle and experienced sharper, has already deceived and destroyed so many souls by a false devotion to the Blessed Virgin, that he makes a daily use of his diabolical experience to plunge many others by this same way into everlasting perdition; amusing them, lulling them to sleep in sin, under the pretext of some prayers badly said or of some outward practices which he inspires. As a false coiner does not ordinarily counterfeit anything but gold or silver, and very rarely other metals, because they are not worth the trouble, so the evil spirit does not for the most part counterfeit other devotions, but only those to Jesus and Mary – devotion to Holy Communion and to our Blessed Lady – because they are among other devotions what gold and silver are among metals.” “... into everlasting perdition! Strong words! We had better believe them! Everlasting perdition does not mean ‘a long time in Purgatory’. It means what it says: everlasting perdition: hell for eternity! Remember it is none other than Pope John Paul II who has designated St. Louis de Montfort’s writings as “authentic Marian spirituality”, and St. Louis as a “sure guide” to “look to and follow” in the “present phase of history”. Thus if so safe a guide as St. Louis de Montfort holds up to us that by a false devotion to Our Blessed Lady, the devil has already destroyed so many souls, and “daily succeeds” in destroying so many more “into everlasting perdition”, then it is high time that Cardinals, bishops, priests and layfolk sit up and take notice. False devotions to Our Blessed Lady are rampant in many dioceses side by side with otherwise orthodox looking devotions and practices. In this instance Catholics may try to weaken the force of St. Louis’ teaching against these false devotions by reassuring themselves that these false devotions cannot really plunge them “into everlasting perdition” because the bishop who allows these false devotions to be present also encourages them to accept that which is good and orthodox. After Our Lord’s teaching on ‘fruits’ and ‘trees’, and His insistence of judging the latter by the first, it was St. James who in his letter took up this question and made it crystal clear for all ages when he wrote: “My brothers, this must be wrong. Does any water supply produce a flow of fresh water and salt water out of the same pipe?” (Ja. 3: 10-11). “Brothers, this must be wrong ...”. These words have the Holy Spirit as their Author and they stand for all times and for all places and circumstances. If Medjugorje is a perversion of true devotion to Our Lady and an instigator of disobedience to Holy Mother Church, and the flow of these evils of false devotion and disobedience into a diocese intolerable, then what is sometimes trotted out: “But the Bishop appears to be so orthodox regarding the Blessed Sacrament, Our Lady, or in his opposition to abortion and aberrations in the liturgy, etc.” cannot be taken, according to St. James, as being a separate flow of fresh water coming out of the same pipe that produces Medjugorje. History shows that all those who during the Reformation accepted the aberrations of Cranmer, Luther, et al in the illusion of ‘drinking from their good points’, got themselves so poisoned that they all walked away from the Catholic Church and became Protestants right up to this day! There are still no exceptions: there never will be! By now it is an easy matter to show beyond reasonable doubt to any fair minded and honest person that Medjugorje is not Catholic, and that it was invented precisely to be anti-Catholic. Medjugorje is far from being ‘neutral’; it is tailor-made to produce one thing to perfection: a pre-determined and pre-meditated effect and result. If a bishop insists that we must see his good points and accept them as his guarantee that Medjugorje is authentic (i.e. two opposites coming out of the same pipe), then his good points are being used to mask evil in order that it will enjoy wide acceptance, which of course is the height of hypocrisy! With the result, according to St. James, that the whole supply becomes polluted: “Brothers, this must be wrong”. 7th October 2001 Feast of the Holy Rosary © The Australian Marian Academy of the Immaculate Conception

Matthew the Evangelist presents Jesus Christ as the new Moses

‘If you had believed Moses, you would believe Me, because he wrote about Me’. John 5:46 Bart D. Ehrman writes: https://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/0195161238/studentresources/chapter6/#:~:text=Matthew%20further%20emphasizes%20Jesus'%20importance,give%20the%20(new)%20law Jesus, The Jewish Messiah: The Gospel According to Matthew Chapter Summary: The author of the Gospel of Matthew used Mark, Q, and his own sources (designated by scholars as "M"). The Gospel was written between 80-85 C.E., probably somewhere outside of Palestine. This chapter applies the redactional method to uncover Matthew's narrative emphases. The redactional method relies on the principle that an author only changes his/her sources for particular reasons. These changes, therefore, give the reader hints about the author's emphases. Damien Mackey’s comment: But see my article: Carsten Peter Thiede’s early dating of Matthew’s Gospel (2) Carsten Peter Thiede's early dating of Matthew's Gospel | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Bart D. Ehrman continues: The Importance of Beginnings: Jesus the Jewish Messiah in Fulfillment of Jewish Scriptures In Matthew, Jesus is unmistakably Jewish: Matthew emphasizes Jesus' connection to two of the most important figures in Jewish history, David and Abraham. Jesus' relationship to Jewish history is further underscored by the genealogy presented in chapter 1. According to this genealogy, there were fourteen generations between Abraham and David, fourteen between David and the deportation to Babylon, and fourteen between the Babylonian exile and Jesus. At the end of each period, something important happened in Jewish history: first came the greatest king, then the worst catastrophe, and finally the arrival of the messiah. The emphasis on Jesus' Jewish roots and the insistence that his life was a fulfillment of prophecy can be traced from the genealogy to the birth narrative and through the rest of the Gospel. Matthew uses "fulfillment citations" to prove that Jesus was the Jewish messiah. Matthew further emphasizes Jesus' importance to Judaism by modeling his birth and ministry on Moses' birth and mission: Jesus is the new Moses who has been appointed by God to free his people from bondage and to give the (new) law. According to Matthew, people do not need to choose between Jesus and Moses, nor must they choose between Jesus' law and Moses' law. Jesus is, for this author, the final interpreter of Mosaic Law. The Portrayal of Jesus in Matthew: the Sermon on the Mount as a Springboard The Sermon on the Mount is one of five blocks of teaching in Matthew. The five-fold structure may mimic the five books of Moses. This sermon is a clear example of Matthew's propensity to equate Moses' and Jesus' roles: Jesus delivers the law of God while standing on a mountain. The sermon deals largely with life in the kingdom of heaven, an earthly kingdom that God will establish on earth. The Beatitudes serve as assurances to those who are currently weak and oppressed-they will have a place in the kingdom of heaven. The Beatitudes are not, therefore, commands but statements of fact. Matthew's Jesus does not advocate abandoning the Mosaic Law. Instead, Jesus insists he has not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Jesus urges his followers to keep the law even more rigorously than the scribes and Pharisees. Jesus explains what he means in the next passage, known as the antitheses. In these statements, it is clear that the spirit of the law, not the letter, is ultimately what God's people are called to keep. The law is summarized in two commandments: "love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" and "love your neighbor as yourself." Thus, love is at the core of the entire law. Jesus Rejected by the Jewish Leaders Although Jesus is presented as thoroughly Jewish in the Gospel of Matthew, he strongly opposes Judaism as it is practiced by the leaders of his day. Jesus requires Jews to keep the law, but urges them to reject the Jewish leaders. For this author, the Jewish authorities are hypocrites who are blind to Jesus' messianic identity. In a story unique to Matthew, Pilate washes his hands of Jesus' blood, and the crowd of Jews cries out, "His blood be on us and on our children" (27:25). Rather than implicating the Jews as a whole for Jesus' death, however, Matthew indicts the Jewish leaders who stir up the crowds; it is the leaders who are responsible for Jesus' death. Matthew and His Readers Because of Matthew's insistence on keeping the law, scholars have surmised that his audience consisted of a number of Jewish converts. There were probably Gentile converts in the community as well, however, because Matthew writes that outsiders will enter the kingdom of God. At the end of the Gospel, moreover, Jesus commands the disciples to baptize the nations - a commandment that does not distinguish Jews from Gentiles. Scholars suggest that the Gospel of Matthew originated somewhere near Palestine. The author's criticism of Jewish leaders may indicate his community's opposition to a local Jews. Matthew may have written his Gospel to show that Jesus was in fact the Jewish messiah who, like Moses, gave his people God's law.

The inconvenient death of which King Herod vitiated his apotheosis?

by Damien F. Mackey “A severe pain also arose in [King Agrippa’s] belly, and began in a most violent manner… And when he had been quite worn out by the pain in his belly for five days, he departed this life”. Josephus (Antiquities) Poor King Herod. Just as he was turning into a god right before his adoring people, he suffered severe intestinal pain and began to be eaten away by worms (Acts 12:21-23). Thereby was fulfilled, once again - as it had been with king Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ - the pronouncement made by Judith the Simeonite more than half a millennium earlier (conventional reckoning) (Judith 16:17): ‘Woe to [those] that rise up against my people. The Lord Almighty will punish them on the day of judgment. He will send fire and worms into their flesh; they shall weep with pain forever’. But about which King Herod are we talking here? The Jewish historian, Josephus, who gave an account of the king’s spectacular demise somewhat akin to that which we find recorded in Acts 12, called the ill-fated king, “Agrippa”, not “Herod”. Luke Wayne has written of it: https://carm.org/evidence-and-answers/the-historicity-of-acts-12-and-the-death-of-herod-agrippa-i/ The Historicity of Acts 12 and the Death of Herod Agrippa I by Luke Wayne | Feb 26, 2021 | Evidence and Answers, Apologetics The Ancient Jewish historian Josephus, also writing in the first century AD, reported a strikingly similar account of Herod Agrippa’s demise: “Now when Agrippa had reigned three years over all Judea, he came to the city Cesarea, which was formerly called Strato’s Tower; and there he exhibited shows in honor of Caesar, upon his being informed that there was a certain festival celebrated to make vows for his safety. At which festival a great multitude was gotten together of the principal persons, and such as were of dignity through his province. On the second day of which shows he put on a garment made wholly of silver, and of a contexture truly wonderful, and came into the theater early in the morning; at which time the silver of his garment being illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun’s rays upon it, shone out after a surprising manner, and was so resplendent as to spread a horror over those that looked intently upon him; and presently his flatterers cried out, one from one place, and another from another, (though not for his good,) that he was a god; and they added, “Be thou merciful to us; for although we have hitherto reverenced thee only as a man, yet shall we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal nature.” Upon this the king did neither rebuke them, nor reject their impious flattery. But as he presently afterward looked up, he saw an owl sitting on a certain rope over his head, and immediately understood that this bird was the messenger of ill tidings, as it had once been the messenger of good tidings to him; and fell into the deepest sorrow. A severe pain also arose in his belly, and began in a most violent manner…And when he had been quite worn out by the pain in his belly for five days, he departed this life,” (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Chapter 19, Chapter 8, Section 2).3 The overall outline between these two accounts is precisely the same. During his reign as king in Judea, Herod Agrippa came to Caesarea. While there, he made a planned public appearance during which the crowd praised him as a god. He accepted this worshipful praise and, as a result, the true God struck him down by inflicting him with an internal condition that was immediately obvious to the lauding crowd and that ultimately killed him. Josephus and Acts both agree on this order of events. [End of quotes] Josephus, I suspect, may have confused the one called “King Agrippa” (but not Herod), who turned up later at Caesarea, at the trial of Paul (Acts 25:13-26:32), with the “Herod” who, in Acts 12:21-23, met his humiliating public demise. For, according to Luke Wayne again: The Jewish leaders had a favorable view of Herod Agrippa I and that he was apt to show favor to them is attested in Rabbinic sources as well. Indeed, the Mishna even records that Herod Agrippa not only participated in the Jewish feasts at Jerusalem1 but even publically [sic] read from the Torah and delivered a blessing during them. And Josephus, of course, shared this Mishnaïc view: As with the Rabbinic writings, Josephus consistently presents a positive view of Herod Agrippa I.4 Even while reluctantly reporting the above account, Josephus also claims that Herod was repentant before his death and waxes eloquently on how all the people wept and mourned for him. Josephus includes the story not because he had an interest in discrediting and shaming Herod Agrippa but rather because this really is how Herod actually died. That such an end is contrary to Josephus’ overall view of the man gives us all the more reason to conclude that Josephus reported this event only because it was a known fact of history and he thus could not do otherwise. These descriptions, however, read to me more like what one might have expected from the King Agrippa of later Acts, to whom Paul had said (Acts 26:2-3): “King Agrippa, I consider myself fortunate to stand before you today as I make my defense against all the accusations of the Jews, and especially so because you are well acquainted with all the Jewish customs and controversies”. Following through Luke, also the author of Acts, from late Luke 3 into Acts 12, we first encounter “Herod the Tetrarch” at the time of the Baptism of Jesus (Luke 3:1) and, soon afterwards, the imprisonment of John the Baptist. There we learn that Herod was already an inveterate evil-doer (Luke 3:19-20): “But when John rebuked Herod the tetrarch because of his marriage to Herodias, his brother’s wife, and all the other evil things he had done, Herod added this to them all: He locked John up in prison”. By Luke 9, the befuddled Herod is hearing about Jesus (vv. 7-9): Now Herod the tetrarch heard about all that was going on. And he was perplexed because some were saying that John had been raised from the dead, others that Elijah had appeared, and still others that one of the prophets of long ago had come back to life. But Herod said, ‘I beheaded John. Who, then, is this I hear such things about?’ And he tried to see him. By Luke 13, Herod, who had previously “tried to see” Jesus, is now wanting to kill him (vv. 31-33): At that time some Pharisees came to Jesus and said to him, ‘Leave this place and go somewhere else. Herod wants to kill you’. He replied, ‘Go tell that fox, ‘I will keep on driving out demons and healing people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.’ In any case, I must press on today and tomorrow and the next day—for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem!’ Luke 23 becomes Herod’s chance to meet Jesus face to face. It happened like this (vv. 4-12): Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, ‘I find no basis for a charge against this man’. But they insisted, ‘He stirs up the people all over Judea by his teaching. He started in Galilee and has come all the way here’. On hearing this, Pilate asked if the man was a Galilean. When he learned that Jesus was under Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem at that time. When Herod saw Jesus, he was greatly pleased, because for a long time he had been wanting to see him. From what he had heard about him, he hoped to see him perform a sign of some sort. He plied him with many questions, but Jesus gave him no answer. The chief priests and the teachers of the law were standing there, vehemently accusing him. Then Herod and his soldiers ridiculed and mocked him. Dressing him in an elegant robe, they sent him back to Pilate. That day Herod and Pilate became friends—before this they had been enemies. That is all that we read about King Herod in Luke. The author now passes seamlessly into Acts, with mention of Herod and Pilate in Acts 4:27-28: ‘Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen’. Following hard upon the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 7:60), we read (8:1): “On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria”. King Herod will soon join in on this, Acts 12, and this chapter will be the very last that we shall read of him. Firstly vv. 1-4: It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword. When he saw that this met with approval among the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This happened during the Festival of Unleavened Bread. After arresting him, he put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Passover. Peter is miraculously freed by an angel. Herod will search for him (vv. 6-18): The night before Herod was to bring him to trial, Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains, and sentries stood guard at the entrance. Suddenly an angel of the Lord appeared and a light shone in the cell. He struck Peter on the side and woke him up. ‘Quick, get up!’ he said, and the chains fell off Peter’s wrists. Then the angel said to him, ‘Put on your clothes and sandals’. And Peter did so. ‘Wrap your cloak around you and follow me’, the angel told him. Peter followed him out of the prison, but he had no idea that what the angel was doing was really happening; he thought he was seeing a vision. They passed the first and second guards and came to the iron gate leading to the city. It opened for them by itself, and they went through it. When they had walked the length of one street, suddenly the angel left him. Then Peter came to himself and said, ‘Now I know without a doubt that the Lord has sent his angel and rescued me from Herod’s clutches and from everything the Jewish people were hoping would happen’. When this had dawned on him, he went to the house of Mary the mother of John, also called Mark, where many people had gathered and were praying. Peter knocked at the outer entrance, and a servant named Rhoda came to answer the door. When she recognized Peter’s voice, she was so overjoyed she ran back without opening it and exclaimed, ‘Peter is at the door!’ ‘You’re out of your mind’, they told her. When she kept insisting that it was so, they said, ‘It must be his angel’. But Peter kept on knocking, and when they opened the door and saw him, they were astonished. Peter motioned with his hand for them to be quiet and described how the Lord had brought him out of prison. ‘Tell James and the other brothers and sisters about this’, he said, and then he left for another place. In the morning, there was no small commotion among the soldiers as to what had become of Peter. After Herod had a thorough search made for him and did not find him, he cross-examined the guards and ordered that they be executed. This wondrous narrative is immediately followed by the account of the death of Herod, the same King Herod, I believe, who slew John the Baptist, who mocked Jesus Christ, and who had Peter imprisoned. A man in whom wickedness was now full (vv. 19-24): Then Herod went from Judea to Caesarea and stayed there. He had been quarreling with the people of Tyre and Sidon; they now joined together and sought an audience with him. After securing the support of Blastus, a trusted personal servant of the king, they asked for peace, because they depended on the king’s country for their food supply. On the appointed day Herod, wearing his royal robes, sat on his throne and delivered a public address to the people. They shouted, ‘This is the voice of a god, not of a man’. Immediately, because Herod did not give praise to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died. But the word of God continued to spread and flourish. ‘He will send fire and worms into their flesh; they shall weep with pain forever’. It is fitting that the death of the great persecutor of the Jews-Christians should be mentioned in the Scriptures just as were those of other evil persecutors and blasphemers such as kings Antiochus Epiphanes and Sennacherib of Assyria.