@English Catholic Thank you for posting the archbishop's statement which I have now read. I have also visited the website of this MDM group and I am astounded that anybody would give these messages any credence at all, if the 4th message (the only one I've read so far) is representative of the rest. If so, the "messages" from this source (God/Father/Abba/Whoever) are every bit as rambling and banal as those from the lady of Medjugorje so those two are very likely related.

The challenge to the archbishop published on the MDM website is so typical of the sedevacantist mindset. Who needs a pope, especially a bad one, when you have a bunch of mini-popes in Texas to rule over us. Unbelievable.

Point one: @Maria delos Angeles has previously stated on GTV that she has had some kind of communion with the dead Rastafarian Bob Marley, and other deceased souls. I will leave readers to draw their own conclusions as to how far they can throw her, rather than trust her. She couldn't have even listened to the above video, because it's the wrong video, which I pointed out below, which doesn't even mention the Divine Mercy community situation. Which proves beyond doubt she just makes glib comments without even looking at the evidence.
Point two: @SonoftheChurch You're uncharitably mocking the fact that Cdl Dolan is overweight. Yes, he is, and I don't agree with a lot of what he says and does, but in Lent? Seriously? Can't you find something better to do? Like pray for him instead of mock him?
And both of these attacks were made because Archbishop Gustavo Garcia-Siller exercised his legitimate authority on alleged 'locutions' in his Archdiocese. Shame on both of you, and those that 'liked' your comments.

@Maria delos Angeles Your comment was posted (at the time of writing it) directly under the video. I think I am assuming correctly, and you know it. Why would you post that comment there otherwise, when the Archbishop was talking about a completely different subject, although the heading mistakenly stated it was about the Archbishop's response to the Divine Mercy community? And by the way, the phrase is 'Roma locuta est, causa finita est'.

@Maria delos Angeles I do not 'convict' - I accuse you of wrongdoing (a) lying about not watching that video and assuming it was about the Divine Mercy Community (it wasn't) before making a comment on the integrity of the Archbishop, and (b) making an ad hominem attack on me for exposing that. Arguments over, I'm blocking you. You clearly don't act in good faith. You need to deal with your own failings, including your demonic/mental health issues about communing with Rastafarian Bob Marley and other dead souls.

@SonoftheChurch I wholly agree with your comments regarding @English Catholic, viz. pride and calumny, even sinfully so., and am really glad someone has stepped in to rebuke him. He has also calumniated me elsewhere, because I do not agree with his position on private revelations and will not budge to accommodate him (least not the way he goes about it..) I had not bothered responding to some of the nonsense written about me, because it is a waste of time. He shows a profound lack of Christian charity by some of the things he writes, and actually knowledge of the workings of the Mercy of God which are evidenced in ALL of the great saints. Also, he switches off comments on some of his posts. I am highly suspicious of people who do that, as if they cannot handle the debate. That is another manifestation of his pride, needing to be right, or seen to be. making himself the arbiter and self-righteous judge of what views have a right to be seen or not - in matters above his pay grade. While I share many of English Catholic's views and concerns about many things, on this point I pray he will amend and find something more constructive to do with his time, instead of looking poised to go after me at the slightest hint of whatever he deems to be in some suspect. Take care of your own affairs. I forgive English Catholic for misjudging me; please do not obtusely, stubbornly refuse to amend your ways though. Do not be like the Pharisees. I do not profess to be perfect, but you need to be more charitable and merciful in your approach generally.

@SonoftheChurch Stop being so histrionic: "I rebuke you and reprove you for your sin of pride and calumny, and admonish you to humble yourself, repent, and stay within the limits of your competence as you strive to concern yourself with your own affairs." You sound like a ham actor playing a medieval Pope castigating one of his subordinates.

And, strictly speaking, if one did keep to what you term as one's 'business', there would be very few comments on GTV, if any. And in any event, the doctrine of the Communion of Saints shows that whatever any of us says or does affects the Church for good or ill, so like it or not, we're all in it together. I'm sure you have disagreed with others on GTV, but I wouldn't accuse you of being an "arbiter of what may or may not be said" or having "rulership over who says it". No, it just means you disagreed with them. Just as I or any other GTV user are entitled to disagree.

One point, and on this point alone, I would like to apologise to you, and that is regarding Archbishop Gustavo Garcia-Siller. At that time, the video with the incorrect heading about the Mission of Divine Mercy was at the top, followed by delos Angeles comment, followed by your comment. I'm not going into the delos Angeles affair again - my responses to her are still above this one, and I stand by all of them. However, because of the proximity of the video heading, and the two comments, the whole thing appeared to be conflated, i.e. delos Angeles stated she didn't trust bishops as far as she could throw them, and then you made your comment. I accept your explanation that you were not alluding to the Mission of Divine Mercy issue.

@English Catholic I think your response and rightly limited apology to @SonoftheChurch is reasonable and charitable. I am unable to properly follow this thread right now as other demands are taking my time, but I look forward to returning and reading the rest of this discussion. I just wanted to agree with you about the over the top response from @SonoftheChurch and I hope that he accepts your apology and that is the end of that but I note that @petrus100452 is also apparently having a go at you - you whom I consider to be one of the very best informed and skilled of the commentators here, so I will return later with my considered commentary.

@Maria delos Angeles - your comment about not trusting the bishops of the Church as far as you could throw them, reveals the utterly confused mindset of those who truly can't see the wood for the trees. The inability to discern at this crucial point in the Church's history.

It has been my experience that people who initially didn't understand that the Church is going through a crisis period and often expressed shock at hearing a priest or bishop criticised, then went to the opposite extreme, once a certain amount of light had dawned, and they realised that not all was well within the Church; they then castigated every word and action of every bishop in Christendom. Mistake. Big mistake.

For 24 years I edited a publication called Catholic Truth in which - as part of our reporting on the state of the Church in our neck of the woods - we reported double-living priest scandals, and the negligence of their bishops. What we also did, however, was publish the decisions of those same bishops when they were acting in fidelity to their episcopal office. Thus, when a bishop used his legitimate authority to condemn alleged visions, we supported him and denounced those who - like your lovely self - couldn't discern legitimate episcopal actions from the negligence of those bishops who tolerated wrong-doing.

This MDM has failed to make that crucial distinction. When the archbishop met with the priest and later published his decision, the only tenable response from that priest and his group, was humbly to conform. That they have chosen the rebellious route, proves, beyond any doubt, that their master is Satan, not God.

@Patricia McKeever Thank you for your kind words. Just one point though - I claim no 'ability to discern' where apparitions are concerned. That is the problem with certain people on this website that I am railing against. My only desire is to get the legitimate ecclesiastical statements from the correct authorities, and get them out there so that souls will not be misled - and I've seen that happen often enough because of false seers.

@English Catholic When I referred to your "ability to discern" I meant simply that you are able to use the Church's teaching/discipline in the matter of alleged apparitions, in order to ascertain whether or not any particular alleged vision is possibly true or not. You actually make that point yourself when you say: My only desire is to get the legitimate ecclesiastical statements from the correct authorities, and get them out there so that souls will not be misled.

I didn't mean to imply that you had any supernatural powers yourself in the matter

Sorry if I gave that impression

@Patricia McKeever You need both discernment and to know the teachings of the Church, in an ideal world to discern re messages. God can lead people by very different paths though. He is the true God of diversity. Usually great gifts go hand in hand with great sufferings and are often misunderstood by others who have perhaps had a different experience of life or whose world view is not sufficiently expanded to accommodate the different experiences of another. Another statement came through earlier today from the MDM explaining that he was obeying the legimate authority of that Bp, in what was legimate about his orders, but not in that which was not. That Archbishop, who by the way has promoted Ramadan, gave Holy Communion to Joe Biden, an apostate, and is one of those I gather who helps in the illegal migrants according to Taylor Marshall, with all the human trafficking that goes along with that..; and is persecuting good priest and good apostolate which I discern to be true. I am not a scholar of canon law, but there is a point my sensus fidelium tells me where the salvation of souls trumps other considerations.
Initial Public Response to the Archbishopʼs Decrees of March 15, 2024 Initial Public Response to the Archbishopʼs Decrees of March 15, 2024

@Maria delos Angeles - you make the classic mistake of assuming that because this archbishop is a typical modernist, supporting - shockingly - Ramadan etc. that that negates his authority, when it is legitimately exercised. It's like saying that since the chief of police in London has admitted that there are many more rogue police officers in the Force than he had previously thought, ergo we don't need to obey the cops any more even when they are warning us not to break the law of the Land. "I'll shoplift if I want, and you cops can't expect me to obey the law because YOU are unfaithful yourselves". It's ridiculous.

PS - you didn't say which Carmel you entered.

petrus100452 If it is a work of God. As the Archbishop stated, the 'apostolate' has not grown and members have not increased. A sure sign of God's displeasure. The whole thing smacks of being a cult to me, especially since the only members are: Fr John Foster; his biological sister Mary (an ex-religious); his cousin William; his nephew Joseph and only one non-family member A message from Archbishop Gustavo Garcia-Siller, M… As usual, you're exceeding your authority on alleged private revelations. I'll quote Michael Davies RIP once again in the (vain) hope you might read him: "Other Catholics have put their faith in one of the numerous apparitions which are allegedly taking place in many countries. Once again, if heavenly guidance can be communicated directly through the sect which is witnessing the alleged apparitions, then what need is there of a Magisterium? In the years following the Council a very clear pattern of behaviour has emerged among supporters of these apparitions.
It is a tendency to make belief in the authenticity of a particular apparition the criterion of orthodoxy. True Catholics believe in the apparitions, and the faith of those who do not is suspect in some way. Those drawn towards these apparitions tend to be conservative in outlook, the type of Catholic who might have been expected to defend the teaching of the Magisterium. Once such Catholics become “hooked” on an apparition all their efforts tend to be devoted to defending it and propagating it. They have thus been removed effectively from the battlefield for orthodoxy. There can be no doubt that spurious apparitions are one of Satan’s most effective weapons in his war against the Mystical Body."

@English Catholic Do you know Charles de Foucauld (canonized May 15, 2022)? He wrote a rule for a new Congregation (later the "Little Brothers of Jesus"). He believed that God inspired him to found this Congregation. He never had one follower in his life. Only many years after his death his rule was discovered and the Congregation was founded after all. So your argument that there were few vocations and that this is a sign that it does not please God is unsound. Vocations still can come, especially now the Congregation is a bit more known. Furthermore, you have a very distorted view of people who believe in certain private revelations. The ultimate hope and certainty of Fr. John Mary (and of me and countless people who believe in Medjugorje, for example) is Jesus and Mary, is God. The private revelations only help to understand the signs of the times and thus better see and understand the salvific action of God. That is what private revelations are for. Not to bring a different faith, but to live the faith more deeply. The community of Missionofdivinemercy gives a true witness of deeply lived faith. And as for the messages, the three messages published so far say nothing that is not true or that would contradict the faith. The offensive thing in one of those messages is that Pope Francis is called a usurper. But what should you call a pope - the Vicar of Christ - who instructs the church to bless gay relationships? I can hardly think of anything more morally corrupt. So to me it is not at all impossible that this message comes from God. On the contrary, I find it - given the whole context - credible. But we shall see because the messages predict a soon intervention of God. And that either happens or it doesn't; we have no control over that.

@petrus100452 Yes I do know St Charles de Foucauld, but you can't use an exception as the general rule. And in any event, you are wrong. De Foucauld inspired and helped to organize a confraternity within France in support of his ideas. This organization, the Association of the Brothers and Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, consisted of 48 lay and ordained members at the time of his death. Members of this group, notably Louis Massignon, a scholar of Islam, and Rene Bazin, author of a biography, La Vie de Charles de Foucauld Explorateur en Maroc, Ermite du Sahara (1923), kept his memory alive and inspired the family of lay and religious fraternities. Though French in origin, these groups have expanded to include many cultures and their languages on every populated continent. The Charles de Foucauld Spiritual Family Association brings together the Little Brothers of Jesus, the Little Sisters of Jesus and 18 other religious orders and associations for priests, religious and laypeople which were inspired by him. So God did bless his work, during and after his life. I myself have spent many hours at the Little Sisters of Jesus in Egmere Road, Walsingham, Norfolk. (Walsingham is the National Shrine of Our Lady in England).
You also appear to contradict yourself. On 27 May 2020, Pope Francis, issued a decree which approved a second miracle clearing the way for de Foucauld to be canonized. On 4 March 2022, a papal consistory opened the way for the canonization and set the date for the canonization ceremony to 15 May 2022. If, as you seem to believe, these new Divine Mercy community 'locutions' cast Francis as 'a usurper', then it somewhat puts the legitimacy of Charles de Foucauld's canonization in doubt, as Francis would have no right to issue decrees or hold papal consistories clearing the way for canonizations. You can't have it both ways.
Also think of the 'larger' Orders with canonised saints as founders. They thrived when they maintained their original charisms, but after Vatican II went into free-fall as they jettisoned their original charisms. This is another sign of God's displeasure.
I don't have a 'very distorted view' of people who believe in certain private revelations. I believe in many approved ones myself, and have been on pilgrimage to many approved Marian shrines, and shrines of other Saints. What concerns me are people like yourself who appear to believe in and defend any and every alleged apparition/revelation, regardless of whether it is approved, unapproved or even condemned.

@English Catholic You are again completely wrong with your assumptions. I am not using the exception as the general rule. I am simply saying that God can work in many ways (as, e.g., with Charles de Foucauld) and why shouldn't He also go an "exceptional" way with missionofdivinemercy? We don't decide how God may work, do we?
Next, you indeed have a very distorted idea of people who believe in certain private revelations, at least mine. What do you know of my experience with private revelation and of my belief in it? Without any pretense, I think I have personally known more false seers than what you have heard about. You want to take the "safe way" and rely completely on the judgment of the hierarchy. But you conveniently forget how often the hierarchy has erred in these matters(see a previous email). And you conveniently fail to consider how currently the hierarchy is unreliable. Not only concerning private revelations, but even in matters of faith itself. And just because Pope Francis is a lost shepherd does not mean he cannot do valid things. Even the devil can do "good things" for the purpose of working a greater destruction of the good.
You have a lot to learn, English Catholic, which is why you should tone down your tone. There are people in the world - and in the Church - who show more understanding of mysticism than your superficial judgments.

@petrus100452 You tell me I have a lot to learn and yet conveniently gloss over the fact that you said St Charles de Foucauld 'never had one follower in his life' but actually there was his confraternity of 48 lay and ordained members before he died. You also conveniently forgot to answer that if Francis is a 'usurper' - the locution didn't say 'lost shepherd', as you did - it said 'usurper' - which has a completely different meaning - then St Charles de Foucauld's canonisation (as well as other canonisations) must be in doubt?

It's easier to harp on about my alleged shortcomings than answer questions I put to you, I understand that, but do you believe these Divine Mercy locutions, and that Francis is a 'usurper' or not? Yes or no? You ask "What do you know of my experience with private revelation and of my belief in it?" Well, I know this much - every time a new alleged seer or revelation comes on the scene, you're on GTV defending them against legitimate ecclesiastical authority or anyone who supports that authority.

If you're into apparitions, think about this from another Divine Mercy website (not the San Antonio community), which quotes from St Faustina's Diary, which incidentally, I don't personally care for very much, but the devotion does has Church approval: (start of quote) "I will follow Your will," St. Faustina promised the Lord, "insofar as You will permit me to do so through Your representative. O my Jesus, it cannot be helped, but I give priority to the voice of the Church over the voice with which You speak to me" (Diary of St. Faustina, 497). I read that passage in St. Faustina's Diary twice, just to make sure I had understood her correctly. How could she possibly say that she would listen to the voice of the Church over the voice of Jesus Himself, who was appearing before her and speaking plainly with His own lips? After all, isn't the Church made up of mortals, of sinners? Don't its members - from the laity all the way up to the pope himself - make mistakes? "I have come to do My Father's will. I obeyed My parents, I obeyed My tormentors and now I obey the priests" (Diary, 535). Those are the words of Jesus, and if it is difficult for us to understand why St. Faustina would obey her confessor over the Lord, it is probably much more difficult to fathom the concept of the Lord Himself obeying priests." (end of quote)

Obedience to ecclesiastical authority, flawed or otherwise - has always been a hallmark of genuine apparitions, and a healthy response from those who would follow them. "The norms regarding the manner of proceeding in the discernment of presumed apparitions or revelations", issued to bishops in 1978: Norms regarding the manner of proceedings in the discernment of presumed apparitions or revelations stated that for the alleged seer(s) "sincerity and habitual docility towards Ecclesiastical Authority" is one of the positive criteria. That is seldom, if ever, found these days. Even if the alleged 'seers' don't come out disagreeing and fighting their own corner (and I've seen plenty of that), there's never a shortage of useful idiots to do their work for them, and so the apparition industry goes on, and I wish I could remember the name of the priest who said it on a YouTube video, but he maintained that the vast majority of alleged seers these days were false. I remember the apparition industry peaked around the millenium, with dire threats emanating from many of the 'seers' du jour. None of these threats have come to pass. Most of those seers have now gone strangely quiet or have died, and a new generation has sprung up.

I can't find the quote now but Cardinal Ratzinger (before coming Pope) publicly voiced his concerns about an unhealthy over-emphasis in the Church on apparitions and related mystical phenomena (I couldn't agree more!) and in the 18th September 1996 edition of L’Osservatore Romano, Pope John Paul II stated: “Some members of the People of God are not rooted firmly enough in the Faith, so that the sects, with their deceptive proselytism, mislead them to separate themselves from true communion in Christ. Within the Church community, the multiplication of supposed “apparitions” or “visions” is sowing confusion and reveals a certain lack of solid basis to the faith and Christian life among her members.” so it would seem I'm in good company. Again, I quote the late, great Michael Davies: Once such Catholics become “hooked” on an apparition all their efforts tend to be devoted to defending it and propagating it. They have thus been removed effectively from the battlefield for orthodoxy. There can be no doubt that spurious apparitions are one of Satan’s most effective weapons in his war against the Mystical Body." Of Michael, Cardinal Ratzinger, on hearing he had died, wrote: “I have been profoundly touched by the news of the death of Michael Davies. I had the good fortune to meet him several times and I found him as a man of deep faith and ready to embrace suffering. Ever since the Council he put all his energy into the service of the Faith and left us important publications especially about the Sacred Liturgy. Even though he suffered from the Church in many ways in his time, he always truly remained a man of the Church. He knew that the Lord founded His Church on the rock of St Peter and that the Faith can find its fullness and maturity only in union with the successor of St Peter. Therefore we can be confident that the Lord opened wide for him the gates of heaven. We commend his soul to the Lord’s mercy.” Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, 9 November 2004.

At the end of the day, private revelations - even approved ones - are not necessary for salvation, so to err on the side of caution and to obey legitimate ecclesiastical authority puts me in a win/win situation, i.e. if the alleged apparition turns out to be false, I've managed by the grace of God to avoid spiritual danger myself, and infecting others with it. If a person introduces another to a false private revelation, they share in the responsibility if that other person is spiritually shipwrecked by it. If, on the other hand, the private revelation turns out to be true, then it hasn't jeopardised my salvation by disregarding it, and once approved, I can follow it if I wish, and/or share it with others.

@petrus100452 I don't defend or justify myself, I have just been defending legitimate ecclesiastical authority in the matter of alleged revelations. I note once again you fail to answer my question about Francis - is he a 'usurper' or not? Time to get off the fence, my friend.
Michael Davies was not in the SSPX. He did write Lefebvre's biography, but if you had ever read those books, instead of fretting about silly alleged 'secrets' from dubious apparitions, then you would have known that Michael didn't always agree with the course of action Lefebvre took, such as the consecration of the four bishops in 1988. If Michael was SSPX, why did I see him for years every Sunday at a diocesan parish church for the Indult Traditional Latin Mass (St James, Spanish Place, London) which is definitely not SSPX. By the way, I have never attended an SSPX Mass in my life, for your info. And if Cardinal Ratzinger, who said that Michael "always truly remained a man of the Church", and countless other bishops, priests and laity admired Michael's writings - particularly on the liturgy - then how does it 'explain a lot' that I admire them as well? You make it sound as though it were a sin to read Michael Davies' books. You could do with getting your head out of apparition rubbish and reading some of them yourself. I may be in a win/win situation, but because of people like you, spreading falsehoods, others may not be, so I am obliged by my baptism and confirmation to defend truth, as we all are.

@English Catholic Wasn't it Michael Davies who fought the apparitions of Medjugorje? Well, now he knows better. I hope that you too can gain better insight. Answering your question: I believe Pope Francis is a lost shepherd, possibly an usurper. That doesn't make much difference to me: to me he has lost all authority, in any case. Again, that doesn't change the fact that he can do valid things that come with his position. Only God can - and will - restore the chaos Francis created.

@petrus100452 Again you sit on the fence and equivocate. You state Francis can do valid things 'that come with his position' - what position is that? As a 'usurper'? But aren't you stating he is an antipope? That he took the position (i.e. 'usurped') with no eligibility for the position? Clarification please - and either yes he is a Pope or no he is an Antipope, no equivocation (again).
Michael Davies didn't 'fight' Medjugorje. He wrote books about it using information from the Bishops of Mostar (Zanic and Peric). Fighting is not the same thing as exposing error. Michael's widow is Croatian and so he had greater insight into the earlier happenings at Medjugorje, as his wife was available to translate source documents from the Mostar Diocesan Chancery, which few were able to in those days. Several versions of his book were published. The most recent (posthumous) one only goes up to 2002, but is a mine of information on early events at Medjugorje:
Medjugorje: The First Twenty-One Years (1981-2002): A Source-Based Contribution to the Definitive History
Amazon.co.uk I recommend it.

petrus100452 If they are Our Lady's words, that's the whole point. And it's also the point that you've evaded getting off the fence about Francis again - Pope or Antipope? Why don't you have the courage of your convictions? I've been meaning to ask you, which 'recognized catholic university' did you obtain your stated 'licence in theology' (Licentiate in Sacred Theology?) from? Don't worry, it won't identify you in any way . . . Just askin'

@English Catholic My final response to your comments. I'll tell you honestly how your way of arguing comes across to me. I feel as if I am being questioned by a strict judge. As if I have to answer to a high authority who can judge everything flawlessly. Everything I try to say is beaten to death with authority arguments, with documents from the DDF or with statements from popes or with supposedly authoritative books that I have to read. I increasingly get the feeling that I am talking to someone who suffers from a tremendous authority complex. To cite one small example: Michael Davies is married with a Croatian, you write, and that should then give him a certain authority in the matter of Medjugorje. After all, she can translate the documents from the original language. What a nonsensical authority argument that is. I know dozens of people from Medjugorje itself, who were already living there when the apparitions began, who know the seers and their families and the whole history of the apparitions. Who know the Franciscan Fathers (like myself) and the bishops of Mostar. And who still believe in the apparitions and go to Mass every day, confess and pray the Rosary. But is that an argument? For me personally, it does confirm the credibility of the apparitions, but I can't use that as an authority argument, can I....?
And so it is with all your arguments. When you ask what university I studied at, one immediately feels that you think you are capable of assessing the credibility of this university. Or when you ask what my conviction is about the status of Pope Francis, one immediately feels behind it that you are able to judge (and probably knock down because you know better anyway) my conviction.
Can you understand that I am no longer interested in our discussion? As far as I am concerned, you may believe what you want, but I don't feel that space towards me. I have to believe what you authoritatively want to impose on me. Therefore, this is my last response. And I repeat what I have already said in previous reactions: everything will come to light and let's wait for that. Peace to you.

@petrus100452 Well, that's one of the most novel ways to get out of a debate that I've ever seen. Just one example - the typical 'red herring' you like to throw in - "Michael Davies is married with a Croatian, you write, and that should then give him a certain authority in the matter of Medjugorje. After all, she can translate the documents from the original language. What a nonsensical authority argument that is." Being married to a Croatian gave Michael and his wife absolutely no authority in the matter at all, which at that time rested with the local Ordinary, and at no stage did I state it gave them authority. The reason I mentioned it was because it gave him a greater insight, simply because she could translate the source documents from the Mostar Diocesan Chancery, and speak with the bishop by phone. So nothing to do with authority at all. But your whole attitude does suggest you have a problem with authority (certainly ecclesiastical authority).
None of this has been judging you - it's called debating. And if you feel judged, that's your problem. We've disagreed, but I haven't felt judged by you? Maybe it's you who has the complex - an inferiority complex. Or perhaps you feel ill at ease because you have a guilty conscience. Perhaps there is a nagging doubt that you suspect many of these things are false and wrong, but because of your addiction to them, it's easier for you to carry on with them, than stand back and take a dispassionate, objective look. Trust me, I've had to do it a couple of times in my life, and it's never pleasant, but it is sometimes necessary. Anyway, calling me a 'strict judge' is very dramatic and snowflakey. But that's the way society is heading, sadly. One day we will all have to meet a Judge, who although merciful, is also just. I don't know what you're asking me to wait for. If it's pseudo-'secrets' from Medjugorje, I'll not bother, but thanks anyway.

@petrus100452 P.S. One last interesting thought to take away - Mark Waterinckx was a huge proponent of Medjugorje in the early days. He went there about 24 times and took many people there. But then he got too close to the alleged seers and the Franciscans and realised what was going on. Instead of carrying on regardless, or even just quietly exiting, he bravely went public on the scandals he had witnessed, and went from being the darling of Medjugorjists to public enemy number one overnight. Brave man.

@English Catholic This extract from one of your comments above, sums up the situation perfectly. It is this humble attitude which must be adopted by every Catholic faced with alleged visions:

Obedience to ecclesiastical authority, flawed or otherwise - has always been a hallmark of genuine apparitions, and a healthy response from those who would follow them. "The norms regarding the manner of proceeding in the discernment of presumed apparitions or revelations", issued to bishops in 1978: Norms regarding the manner of proceedings in the discernment of presumed apparitions or revelations stated that for the alleged seer(s) "sincerity and habitual docility towards Ecclesiastical Authority" is one of the positive criteria.

This makes it much easier to separate the goats from the sheep. Those who treat, with contempt, the authoritative pronouncements of the bishops in such matters are lacking, the essential Catholic sense - preferring their own wishes, desires, flawed judgment to the divinely bequeathed authority of Christ's bishops.

@petrus100452 With reference to your apparent belief in the Medjugorje phenomenon, only yesterday I watched a video of Mirjana with a devoted audience listening to her putting words into the mouth of Our Lady which are clearly in contradiction of the Church's teaching and discipline.

She has this lady urging everyone to fast on Wednesdays and Fridays - which is not a requirement of the Church. Why would Our Lady do that? The Church authorities decides the stipulated fast days - not Our Lady.

Mirjana has this lady urging monthly confession - which is, of course, a good thing; we are all encouraged by priests and teachers to frequent the Sacrament of Penance often. But that is different; Our Lady is never going to go beyond the requirements of the Church, which in this case requires us to attend Confession only once a year, at Easter or thereabouts (between Easter and Trinity Sunday). Yet, nobody in that audience appeared even remotely disturbed that Our Lady was urging everyone to go up and beyond what Holy Mother Church requires, ignoring the laws of the Church.

Of course the disobedience of the Medjugorje "seers" is now well known. The Devil - not God and Our Lady - operates through disobedience, though, so those who insist on following this nonsense are insulting God and His Mother.