@English Catholic well, I hope the church is not going to approve these messages because everything that the church approves these days (blessing of gay couples, communion for adulterers, worship of pagan idols like pachamama, change of the teachings of the church on capital punishment and many other things) is definitely not from God. So better that the bishop and "Rome" say nothing. The sheep do recognize the voice of the Shepherd themselves (and they don't recognize His voice in the statement of the local ordinary, who has more enormities on his conscience in persecuting simple believers...).

@petrus100452 I agree with you about all the bad things going on - please don't think I don't - but remember this: "Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior. (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chapter 29).

Also, it is not licit for you to personally decide and publicly declare, as you have done, (see CDF 1996 Notification) that alleged private revelation is of God or not. You have not been given that authority. As for the alleged 'enormities on (the) conscience' of the local Ordinary in this case, I cannot comment, not having any ability to read his soul. If he has sinned in some ways, he may have sincerely repented of them - I simply don't know. Unless you claim some special power to see the state of his soul. It has simply not been granted to me. And before you rush to the keyboard to give me a list of the local Ordinaries (alleged) sins, faults and failings, please remember perennial Church teaching on the grave sin of detraction. See below from the Catechism of the Council of Trent:-

- THE CATECHISM OF TRENT: The Eighth Commandment

This Commandment Forbids Detraction

This Commandment forbids not only false testimony, but also the detestable vice and practice of detraction, a pestilence, which is the source of innumerable and calamitous evils. This vicious habit of secretly reviling and calumniating character is frequently reprobated in the Sacred Scriptures. With him, says David, I would not eat; and St. James: Detract not one another, my brethren. Holy Writ abounds not only with precepts on the subject, but also with examples which reveal the enormity of the crime. Aman, by a crime of his own invention, had so incensed Assuerus against the Jews that he ordered the destruction of the entire race. Sacred history contains many other examples of the same kind, which priests should recall in order to deter the people from such iniquity.

@English Catholic I am too simple to argue with you. I only know that God has given me the authority of my conscience. And while that conscience is not infallible, I still have a duty to follow it. Ultimately, God judges consciences. And my conscience says that the messages of the missionofdivinemercy are credible. You have the right to a different opinion, but you do not have the right to deny others their conscience.

@petrus100452 This is exactly the same argument the 'LGBT' lobby uses - 'my conscience tells me I can have a sexual relationship with a person of the same sex'. It doesn't wash. They don't have a 'duty' to follow their 'conscience' to commit same-sex sins, even if they believe they have. Likewise, you do not have a 'duty' to follow alleged locutions, because you think your 'conscience' tells you to, when the local Ordinary has condemned them (see the CDF 1996 Notification). If you're that "simple", as you said in your above comment, that you can't debate basic Catholic teaching, don't come on blogs. But I thought you had what you called a 'licence in theology' (Licentiate in Sacred Theology) from some reputable Catholic university, which you wrote on 17 March on this thread, Archbishop statement on The Mission of Divine Merc… But lo and behold, I went back to check on this and found out that you had edited out/deleted that claim, which is highly indicative that you were lying. I have put screenshots of your post where you refer to your university experience. You said: "when you ask what university I studied at, one immediately feels that you think you are capable of assessing the credibility of this university". Also my comment to you about your 'licence in theology'. Why would I have written this stuff back on the 17th March had you not made this claim? And why did you delete your claim to a 'licence in theology'? I will let readers make up their own minds about that issue, and why you deleted that claim.
That asides, none of what I say is my 'opinion'. It is the teaching of the Church. But you should know that, having a 'licence in theology' - allegedly.

@English Catholic I think you yourself are not very knowledgeable about the teachings of the Church. I am giving as an example a little quote from John Henry Newman (canonized) about the role of conscience. Conscience always remains authoritative even if it is not perfect.
"Conscience is subject to man's existence. The divine nature of the conscience does not mean that moral action according to conscience is always right. Conscience goes"through man" and is thus "broken" Conscience binds itself to the concrete living conditions of the human being. These circumstances include the relationships that man enters into. For this reason, moral action is not a direct consequence of conscience. Man must come to a judgment of conscience in his created-ness. Conscience is and remains authoritative, despite man's limitations. In his
definition, Newman strongly emphasizes that conscience is authoritative. After all, the conscience is nothing more or less than God himself. The connection of the conscience with man's concrete circumstances does not detract from this. The conscience remains the supreme authority. Human relationality should not be given primacy be given over conscience."
(J.H. Newman, “Letter to the Duke of Norfolk).

And I have never retracted my "claim" that I have a license in theology. I do indeed have a license in theology, though I'm not going to tell you which university I got it from. I want to avoid a pointless discussion about your "judgment" of this university, nor do I believe I am accountable to you. My responses to your comments are pure benevolence on my part but (like previous times) it does end now because it is becoming more and more pointless.

@petrus100452 Oh yes, I agree with St John Henry: "The divine nature of the conscience does not mean that moral action according to conscience is always right". And you DID remove that comment about your 'licence in theology'. I checked all of your comments on that thread very carefully, and it was not there last night and still probably isn't, unless you've quickly replaced it. See, one lie begets another. You lied to SonoftheChurch about these locutions having Church approval (they don't - only your approval) and then there is the mysterious disappearance of your claim to have a 'licence in theology' from that thread . . . I think you're right about the discussion being pointless. If you can't trust who you're debating with, then it does become rather futile.