This is nonsensical garbage. This is most definitely NOT the moral teaching of the Catholic Church. Allowing sin to continue by sweeping it under the rug is one thing, but intentionally making public a person's sins, whether lay or religious or ordained, is entirely antithetical to the Gospel. The public do not have a right to know every sin of every priest. The scandal is bad enough as it is without adding to it in this way.

I agree we should be cautious of unapproved apparitions; in fact Scripture gives us the exact attitude we should have about it: 1 John 4:1, and 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21. We should test them. Those that prove true we should believe in, even if they are not approved by the Church. If they are formally condemned by the Church, that's another matter, altogether. But it's very clear the devil is setting up his counter-church right now, even inside the Catholic Church.

So yes, these are confusing times. That is precisely what we deserve, as a sinful people. We deserve a pontiff who spews heresy. We deserve prelates overseeing approval or condemnation of prophecies to be people who write forwards for homosexual books. We deserve priests who speak heresy in their homilies, and bishops who ban the TLM and Ad Orientem liturgy and who refuse to acknowledge the great evil they did in 2020 when they deprived the faithful of the sacraments. We deserve it all.

God save us! God give us the grace to turn from sin, to reject it, and to pray faithfully for ourselves, for our families, for our friends, and especially for the Magisterium!

"In other words, the bishop is wrong." Nothing wrong with saying that outright.

"Well, the DDF disagreed with Bannister, and confirmed the 'constat de non' verdict." Indeed, as it has the authority to do.

At this point, given that the DDF is headed by a pro-homosexual-agenda person, and given that these conclusions are not infallible (as they often change later), lay Catholics need not agree with the conclusion. It's important to obey the conclusion, but there is plenty of room for personal doubt as to its finality.

"CTTK member Peter Bannister has written a piece refuting the condemnation" That right is guaranteed by Canon Law to all lay faithful, so long as he does not claim that the Church doesn't have the right to make the condemnation, and so long as he is not advocating anyone turning against the bishop or the pope (which seems a fairly common practice here on GTV...).

"Also, watch this video of their support for another fake seer" - it appears that is your video, and not theirs, correct?

Thanks @Scapular. I'd prefer to stay off of YouTube, honestly.

I don't speak French, but even I can clearly make out a couple details from the Holy See document:

1. It was not intended to be public, nor is it an official statement of any kind. It is directly addressed to a single individual - a Monsignor (perhaps that means bishop in French?).

2. "Les difficultes [...] nature a la fois theologique" is saying something regarding theological difficulties, which still falls far short of "serious doctrinal error". Everything in my statement still stands.

To my knowledge, the Holy See has not reserved to itself the decision on this matter, so therefore it still resides with the bishop in France. The Colorado Springs bishop went outside his authority in his language regarding it. He has every right to ban it in his diocese (which he did not fully do). The Korean bishops have every right to ban it in their diocese.

"Based on the information received from the Holy See, and in the face of the difficulties noted above, it will be appropriate to enlighten the consciences of believers to avoid possible confusion." The "difficulties noted above" are poorly researched by people who don't truly believe much of what the Church teaches. Nevertheless, they still have authority, granted to them by means of the Magisterium that was founded by Jesus Christ.

These are indeed confusing times, brothers. Let's try to face these issues with as much charity and obedience as we can muster.

Fr. Mawdley's videos are biased and easily refuted. For example, the first of his 3 videos is all about a handful of cherry-picked quotes that seem sexual in nature to him, regarding Louisa breastfeeding Our Lord. He simply ignored the fact that multiple doctors of the Church, including St. Bernard of Clairvaux used the exact same language, and it is approved by the Church. St. Catherine of Sienna has much more shocking language in which she thinks lovingly about using Our Lord's circumcised foreskin as a kind of wedding ring. Had Fr. Mawdley addressed these parallels and attempted to explain how they are ok for some saints and not for others, his videos on the subject might have more merit.

Regarding the 3 books on the Index, people should be made aware that those were not in the original language. They were bad translations, and they were right to be condemned. The same books, in the original language, were given Imprimaturs.

Why are you posting from multiple accounts?

I bring up a legitimate concern, which is that you seem to interpret the bible for yourself, rather than on the teachings of the Church, and you respond by bringing up your own, self-published works? That's the answer I would expect from a protestant.

If you are Catholic, then you are in error by interpreting Scripture for yourself. I admonish you to study very carefully these things from the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and from the writings of popes (especially canonized popes).

There is NO teaching of the rapture until very, very recently in Church history, and it was never a Catholic teaching. It is found popular in American Protestantism. It directly contradicts Catholic doctrine on the effects of original sin. All are subject to death. Since St. Paul used the pronoun "we", if we interpret this as you are, then we would also need to include St. Paul, who very clearly died. In that case, St. Paul would be a false prophet.

You are interpreting Scripture as a protestant (from your own mind), and not as a Catholic (from the 2 millennia of established Tradition and tradition).

This is a great video. The thumbnail does seem a bit clickbaity, but he addresses that in the video. He also addresses a very serious fact, which is that Bishop Golka stepped outside of his authority in the letter to the diocese of Colorado Springs. He went beyond the document that has been oft-quoted from France (which is not an official document, but a leaked, "confidential" memo), and declared the works of Louisa Piccarreta to have "serious doctrinal error", which is another way of saying "heresy". The leaked document from France did NOT make that claim, but said very specifically "theological difficulties".

O'Connor makes it clear that Catholics in Colorado Springs should obey their bishop. He also makes it clear, correctly so, that the bishop of Colorado Springs does not have the authority to make pronouncements on the issue. The Church has made no official, public finding. That right is reserved to the bishop of her diocese, who DID declare that anyone claiming "doctrinal error" in this case is causing scandal. Nevertheless, O'Connor insists that Catholics should obey their bishops, anyway.

It remains clear that Louisa Piccarreta's works are some of the most approved in Church history, having Nihil Obstats and Imprimatur's from blesseds and saints. Contrary to popular narratives, the vast majority of her works were never on the condemned list. There were 3 of her lesser-known works on that list at the same time as St. Faustina's Divine Mercy diary, and it's been made clear that all 3 of those were not the original, but simply bad translations. The originals of all 3 of those works directly had either Imprimaturs or Nihil Obstats.

The "difficulties" brought up in the document that was quoted by Bishop Golka are clearly false, and O'Connor gives very clear examples of how and why that is the case, as is the right of any Catholic, lay or ordained.

Furthermore, Louisa Piccarreta has been granted the status of "Servant of God". Her spiritual director is a canonized saint. She lived for decades on nothing but the Eucharist. She had the stigmata (invisibly). Even the unofficial, internally-leaked "suspension" document from Rome makes it clear her life was virtuous and that it's likely she's a saint, anyway.

@Super Omnia Veritas From this I can clearly see you are not Catholic. Therefore there is no sense in arguing further. You interpret the bible as you see it, and not from any God-given authority. Catholics must interpret it the way the Church teaches, and not any other, because God gave that authority to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, and Christ directly founded the Catholic Church. He did not found protestantism.

Not all heresy requires persistency. However, there is a denial of a dogma of faith in the rapture - that the "raptured" will escape suffering and death, which is contrary to the dogmas of the General Resurrection, and of the effects of original sin that we all must partake in.

The Church teaches that everyone must die, due to original sin. The "rapture" theory avoids that, and certainly is not the same as the General Resurrection, which you seem to be implying.

You are in error. We are all "wicked", and we all deserve the wrath of God, save for His mercy shown to us through our decision to confess our sins.

The idea that the victory over the antichrist happens immediately before the Second Coming is not a new one, but it is also not dogma. Many saints and Church Fathers believed in the literal interpretation of Revelation, which pretty plainly states that there is a "thousand years" of peace after the antichrist, and before the Second Coming.

@Miles - Christi - English It is most assuredly NOT biblical. The idea of the rapture is based entirely on a terrible interpretation of Scripture.

To be clear, the Catholic Church has repeatedly condemned the idea of the rapture as a heresy. Catholics cannot believe in it without risking becoming non-Catholic (and risking eternal damnation).

Moreover, no protestants believed in the rapture until the 19th century. The entire idea is new and foreign throughout the entirety of Christianity.

It is largely an American-protestant idea. It has never been very popular in Europe, and not really at all in Asia.

Update: revised details on 20th century to 19th.

It is not these lay faithful who adhere so strongly to false legality. They showed up to support the TLM. It is the priests and bishops who are unwilling to put their necks on the line who are slaves to this false obedience. These people will follow the Truth wherever it leads, including to SSPX if necessary, or to clandestine Masses, or to travel for hundreds of miles each week.

The line is being drawn.

Thank you for the link. I am myself able to verify, with Google translate, the contents of the "Monitum" cited there, through the Acta Apostolicae Sedis for 1954.

It's interesting, then, that there's another papal decision on the matter in 1966. However, I am unable to find that one - probably because I do not understand yet how the AAS is organized. If anyone else wants to give it a try, it should prove interesting.

Nevertheless, in the link, the author of the critique is simply not credible on the matter for several reasons. Namely (and certainly not a complete list):

1. He says, "some of them definitely are not [consistent with Church teaching]", and then what follows doesn't show any inconsistency.

2. He says, "here is a sampling of 6 of those that are not" - and only gives 5. That itself is an inconsistency on his part.

3. He says, "How is it possible for anyone to be 'confirmed in grace'?" He seems to be implying that he simply doesn't understand what the promise even is - that's not showing how it's not consistent with Church teaching, but rather simply that the author doesn't understand the language used (which is not surprising if indeed the promises are from the early 14th century).

4. He says, "What is the first degree of perfection? This is nebulous and ill-defined." So, by his own admission, this promise is not inconsistent with Church teaching, but is simply not defined well. It's pretty clear that throughout Church history private revelation from Our Lord, His Blessed Mother, and many saints has been very intentionally left nebulous, especially regarding prophecy. So this is neither evidence of inconsistency, nor is it unexpected.

5. He says, "Reciting these prayers daily for an entire year would imply some degree of perfection, but not necessarily the highest." When I read the promises, I read the "First degree of perfection" as meaning the very first possible to obtain - meaning the lowest degree of perfection. I see no reason we should assume otherwise.

6. He says, "It is true that when we receive the Sacred Host, we are at the same time receiving the Precious Blood of Jesus. Why is a distinction necessary here?" He may not be aware that in the 14th century, it was still the norm to receive under both species. While it is not possible to separate the substance of the Eucharist into separate body and blood of Christ, it is possible (and necessary) to separate the accidents of bread and wine. Scripture also refers to the Body of Christ separately from the Blood of Christ. I see no inconsistency here.

7. He says, "What is so significant about 30 in this context? If one were to be tragically living in mortal sin for, say, 29 or 31 years, would the promise suddenly be ineffective?" This seems to me to be reading far too much into the specific number. 30 years in this context might simply mean, "a long time".

8. He says, "Also, how does the mere intent of saying the prayers for a year constitute an act of perfect contrition?" Why does he assume that it does constitute an act of perfect contrition? There are plenty of examples throughout approved private revelation in which the Church has understood this same kind of claim without making the logical leap that the author does here. There is no indication that the promise is meant to mean that any sins will be forgiven outside of confession. And since this involves a teaching of the Church on faith or morals, any Catholic can and should assume that it means precisely that Our Lord would have mercy on the sinner and provide him the grace to go to confession (which is not always guaranteed).

9. He says, "This sounds nice, but one would have to have the fervor and sanctity of a saint such as St. Francis to receive the reward of the Seraphim or Cherubim." This statement completely misses the point. All of these kinds of promises, whether they be for the 9 First Fridays, or the 5 First Saturdays, or the Total Consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, entail special graces for those who fulfill the obligations of the promise. This statement seems to imply that God is unable to grant special graces outside of strict merit, which to me implies unbelief, rather than belief, in the power of God.

Nevertheless, I agree that Catholics should not pay too much attention to the promises associated with this devotion, if for the only reason that the pope did ban the promises in 1954. But also for other reasons, too. It seems there is no evidence that these promises were given to St. Bridget, so there can be no certainty that they were. The little knowledge of the prayers themselves that we have is from a booklet printed in the 1700's. Also there could easily be translation issues (as appears in the misunderstanding of language above), when the original was from the early 1300's.