@andrew24157 The thing is, just hearing what LP wrote is enough to show it's diabolical. Her unspeakably immodest accounts of her relationship with Our Lord were absolutely shocking and horrifying.
Then the unduly familiar and virtually impudent manner in which she addresses Our Lord and the Blessed Virgin as though she were Their equal -- all of this shows the source.
I was so aghast at the utterly self-centered manner in which LP dealt with Our Lord and Blessed Mother that I couldn't bear to listen to another word of her writings.
It wasn't even Father Mawdsley's critique that convinced me something was wrong. It was the passages he was quoting from LP's writings that absolutely horrified me and gave me a sense of great darkness, spiritual and theological disorder. I couldn't listen to any more quotes from her works, so I stopped listening.
There isn't a single other Saint about whose writings that can be said. The writings of the Saints are luminous and filled with perfect spiritual, theological and moral rectitude. They inspire virtue, not "elitism"; nor do they leave in souls a feeling of unrest, unease and darkness, and LP's writings do for so many.
Saint John of the Cross taught that the hallmark of all divine operations in a soul is to humble and annihilate it in the Presence of God and before others.
Saint John of the Cross said this humility would be the outstanding mark of truly divine communications and it will be the primary effect in the soul.
We see just the opposite in LP's writings, which is what this Exorcist Priest said. He said it is a diabolical deception that takes hold of the soul and so blinds them that they can no longer see the truth of the matter.
Every argument has two sides, just hear Daniel out. This deals only with Father Mawdsley’s subjective video presentations.
Fr Mawdsley’s enormous claims “Scream from Hell” “Antichrist” this is subjective, no structured argument. This flys in the face of so many Priests and Bishops who have read with edification the writings of SoG Luisa. This is not the way to treat publications with 1926 Imprimatur’s. Father’s claims are scandalous. Huge claims remain purely subjective without specific written justification in proper argument form. Not scholarly and not Thomistic.
Dear English Catholic the subject is Fr. Mawdsley’s subjective videos. And. For another day is what you like a broken record keep reminding us of is contemporary Rome’s ruling, many a good Saint has been censored by Rome.
People listen to this guy? Why?
@Scapular I never listened to the video. I am an old timer (1960s) and remember our bishop talking about this subject back then. I don’t understand why the laity listen to laymen on Catholic matters.
Father Mawdsley presented a classic subjective hit job on the writings of Servant of God Luisa. Absolutely subjective, and anyone listening wouldn’t know what is in context, what is in mystical conformity with the Church, what is Cabal texts as opposed to Luisa’s writing. 100% of Fr Mawdsley approvals have never read even volume 1 Imprimatur 1926, so how can you judge? How do you know what is Cabal and what is the Book of Heaven? A convoluted subjective attack according to Father’s interpretation. These perfidious attacks appeal to itching ears of those with a bias agenda.
Fr Mawdsley understandably has absolutely no interest in contemporary Vatican ruling’s. His attack on a Servant of God was no way in defence of any Vatican statement, this was of his own compunction and limited experience on the related subject, of which I am certain he will with further study live to regret. However itching ears lapped up what they wanted to hear.
@Scapular It would be helpful if you addressed some of Father Mawdsley's specific points. Ad hominum attacks are only issued by those not wanting to discuss the substance of a disagreement.
@Strong and Steadfast Your first sentence is meaningless. Even if it were true (re: Ad hominum attacks), two wrongs don 't make a right. At least you've provided specifics. At first glance, they don't seem very persuasive, but at least you've given me something to since my teeth into.
All I know is that when I listened to Father Mawdsley's theological analysis of LP's writings I was absolutely horrified. Some of the things she wrote were
1) so vile,
2) so vainglorious, and
3) so completely at odds with the Church's revelation and bi-millennial deposit of Faith...
that I could not even finish listening to Father's talks, because just hearing what LP wrote in her manuscripts filled me with such a deeply disturbing sense of a diabolical darkness near at hand that was trying to penetrate the fortress of my Catholic Faith with grave error. As soon as I stopped listening, my peace and inner light returned.
Nothing in genuinely divine private revelation should ever be capable of causing such darkness in souls...as many have attested they find the writings deeply troubling, dark and filled with pride. The devil's tail can always be seen.
NOTE: I know a wonderful, devout, Exorcist Priest. He said the revelations are diabolical in nature and that when he tries to help souls who are in their grip, they have become impenetrable, and he finds all means useless in trying to rescue them from the control which these revelations have over them in a false and dangerous spirituality.
Ok Ave Crux true private revelation including Fatima are not required for salvation. And if we think not as Christ Thinks. My ways are not your ways…
1. What is more vile than eating Flesh?
2. Vain glorious, name one act of Luisa’s contradiction to obedience.
3. Name one at odds with, from the beginning of Genesis? Remember God never changes and there is nothing new under the sun.
Our Lord condemned Pharisees and Sadducees as modernists of their time, in power over the people. They were not faithful to Moses or Abraham. They were emphatically NOT traditional, "If you believed Moses you would believe Me." No Catholic is obligated to believe private revelation. Mr O'Conner falls into the ditch on the other side of the road.