XES
CATHOLICISM’S
LYING WONDERS
Index – Click
to Navigate
INTRODUCTION
This book is
about miracles and apparitions in the Catholic Church and why they cannot be
accepted as having the right to tell us what to do and how we should
live. We will see how it is best to
pay no attention to them and despise their message. People find miracles fascinating but the
truth about them is just as interesting.
For it is enough to say that the Catholic Church boasts of having a
faith that has not been added to since the apostles and that these things do
not add to divine revelation for they simply remind us of it. But they do add on for a miracle is a
miracle and a revelation is a revelation.
Suppose you have a cathedral building that legally you cannot add to. You cannot build a miniature cathedral on
to it and use the excuse that the miniature is not an addition but something
that points to the cathedral. The
newer miracles are more convincing than the ones from the apostles’ day which
tells us how bad the evidence of the apostles for Christianity was.
ANGELS OF MONS
At the
battlefield of
In the 1840s, several Shakers - perhaps forty of them - reported visions
of angels and books and rolls and prophecies from Heaven geared towards the
production of the true word of God, The Holy, Sacred and Divine Roll and
Book. The book testified that Ann
Lee was the female incarnation of Christ and predicted that it would be known
all over the world. These errors show
that there was no supernatural origin.
The visions had remarkable consistency and there were testimonies
signed. Eight women signed one
testimony. But nevertheless they could
not have happened at least supernaturally.
For instance, the condemnation of marriage and the advocating of
celibacy are not things that any God or Devil would command. God put reproductive organs on us and all
previous revelations supported by angels and resurrected Saviours in the
world approve marriage. The Devil
would not like a celibate Church serving him.
The more babies the more disciples of error the Devil gets. The Shakers insisted on the importance of
visions and many would have developed the power to have them. But at least we are sure that when they
were wrong we should not trust the angels of
SERAPHIM
St Seraphim
of Sarov who became a monk in 1779 is a thorn in the side of the Roman Catholic Church for he was one person who
was able to do miracles as convincing as those of Catholic saints and he was
not a Roman Catholic! He was a
refutation of the Roman Church’s claim that no convincing miracles take place
except within the Roman Catholic fold.
Seraphim was
beaten up once by robbers who left him for dead. This was his own doing for though he was a
strong man he dropped his axe in readiness to take whatever they would do to
him. Mary, Peter and John appeared to
him in a vision and gave him a strange cure – one that left him hunchbacked
and old-looking. The vision obviously
sanctioned his refusal to defend himself when he was rewarded for his
stupidity with it and a cure. A nun
saw the virgin and John the Bapist and John the Divine appear to him and tell
him he would be a saint. Sergius a
fellow monk once saw Mary appear to him with Peter and John. Read about St Seraphim in Mother of
Nations.
Top of the Document
SUPERSTITION AND SAINTS
The Roman
Catholic Church believes that we should pray to the saints in Heaven. They say that this is just asking a saint
to pray to God for you so you are really praying to God. The idea is that the saint has a better
chance of influencing God than you have.
God will only do something if it is for the best but here we are told
he can do it not because it is best but because a saint asked him. This is blasphemy. The saints are really demons and stronger
than God if they can talk him into doing wrong. If you think you are not good enough to
approach God and have to go to a saint then your prayer must be good enough
when the saint listens to it so God should listen to it. The Virgin Mary is reputedly the greatest
of the saints and the most powerful.
When morality is what is best how can it be moral to pray to a lesser
saint?
Many of the
canonised saints were rabid anti-Semites and had visions that the Church
never accepted as real and even rejected.
Many engaged in savage self-abuse like St Mary Maddalena De Pazzi and
St Margaret Mary Alacoque who had visions about the Sacred Heart of
Jesus. The Church says that their
sanctity is provable regardless of their error. But the more sensible a saint is the more
likely they really are sainted. Their
sanctity cannot be proved when their crimes are interpreted as errors. Saints are an argument for the holiness of
the Catholic Church. But if deluded
people who mean to be sincere Catholics but who are really heretics can be
saints this is impossible so there should be Protestant saints.
The Bible
calls all Christians saints.
The Catholic
practice of canonisation seems ridiculous and sectarian.
The saint
has to do miracles before the Church will canonise. But the recipients pray principally to
Christ and invoke canonised saints and so one wonders how they can be so sure
the miracle commands the person be canonised.
The saints liked to hide their virtue and would have despised the idea
of doing miracles to get canonised.
When they hid it how can one be sure they had virtue? If a miracle verified a false saint the
miracle would be regarded as satanic so the process of saint-making is
riddled with inconsistency.
If by
praying to the saints you are really praying to God then it follows that if
you wrongly think there is a St Expedite and pray to her you will still get
help because it is God you are praying to.
Clearly favours and miracles cannot show that there really was such a
saint or that the person if he or she existed was a saint.
SISTER OF FAUST
The Catholic Church declared Sr Faustina Kowalska (1905-1938) to be a saint.
She bears the distinction of being the first saint canonised in the new
millenium. She died in Cracow. It was through her that Jesus
supposedly established the Devotion to Divine Mercy in a series of visions
and revelations.
These visions were delusions and there is an abundance of evidence
that this was so in her diary, Divine Mercy in My Soul. She did not bother correcting and rereading
her revelations not caring if she accidentally taught heresy or got the
devotion discredited (xix, xx). Her
book, which she intended for the world to see after she was dead, contains
immodest boasts like that she would die a thousand deaths to avoid committing
the slightest sin (page 152). To
choose that is as bad as choosing a thousand suicides. She contradicted Jesus’ promise that nobody
would know when he would return in the second coming so that Christians would
be always ready for she reported Jesus as saying that before the day of
judgment there would be the day of mercy in which he would make a cross
appear before the world in the sky so that all people would hear a call to
mercy (page 42). That means that
sinners have no last day to worry about until that cross appears. She must have seen and heard things that
she never wrote down when she admitted she was afraid of Jesus once and
thought he was the Devil (page 109).
Obviously, by Catholic standards, this woman cannot be a saint.
She supervised a painting of Jesus as he was in her visions. Interestingly he does not look enough like the Turin Shroud which is thought by many to be the burial cloth of Christ so that is a good thing. The Garabandal visionaries said Mary looked like the man on the Shroud but interestingly the Medjugorje virgin who was depicted in a famous lifelike statue that is in St James’ Church looks nothing like the Shroud though this statue resembles her according to the visionaries who guided the artists. It is one big failure in Roman Catholicism that it never does photofits to make sure that different visionaries are meeting the same Mary or Jesus. The Church does not feel the need holding that Jesus and Mary like to alter their appearances. Why would they? Would they be that vain and childish?
The Vatican condemned the Devotion to Divine Mercy as it was put forward by Faustina. The Church reexamined the issue and the apparitions and revelations were approved by Pope John Paul II who wished to promote the devotion probably because it had arisen in his native Poland.
Catholics who follow the devotion pray as Faustina's vision of Jesus directed, "O Blood and Water, which gushed forth from the Heart of Jesus as a fount of mercy for us, I trust in you." Jesus supposedly told the Church to pray this prayer at 3 pm daily. The Church might "explain" that it means, "O Jesus whose heart gushed forth mercy for us when it bled water and blood, I trust in you." But then why doesn't the prayer say that? The words are actually a block to meaning that. They make it difficult to mean that. Most people will find themselves praying to the actual blood and water. The Bible severely warns that people have a predisposition to idolatrous worship. Thus the prayer is dangerous.
The prayer of consecration to Divine Mercy runs, "Jesus, the Divine Mercy, I consecrate my entire life, from this day on, to You without reserve." This is hypocrisy. Even the greatest saints complained how they were unable to reach Jesus' uncompromising ideals. If the prayer really came from God as devotees of Divine Mercy allege, it would run, "Jesus, the Divine Mercy, I want the strength to consecrate my entire life, from this day on, to You without reserve."
Jesus promised that devotees of Divine Mercy who spread the prayers would never go to Hell and he would "particularly defend each one of them at the hour of death." Protestant theologians might see this as an attempt to lull devotees into a false sense of security so that they will be drawn down to Hell forever.
SAINT-MEDARD
From 1727 to
1732 there were reports of miracles happening in the graveyard of
Saint-Medard in
Deacon
Francois de Paris was buried there in 1727.
He believed that God did healings through him to defend his Jansenist
faith. Jansenism was a Catholic heresy
that was similar to Calvinism and it said nobody was good enough to receive
communion except occasionally. The
miracles of the graveyard were thought to be down to him.
David Hume
and the Catholic Church through a Benedictine monk investigated the cures and
were baffled (page 18, Cults and Fanatics). Hume, the great opponent of all miracles,
said it was the best miracle case ever as regards verification and the huge
number of cures that took place but he was still able to find reasons to put
it down to fraud (page 65, Miracles in Dispute). Many of the cures required stripping and
being beaten and bizarre and unnatural forms of twisting and bending and
stretching. Some women reportedly bent
back so far that their necks touched their heels. A magistrate went to jail and suffered for
revealing this and he never retracted it.
The miracles had some eating excrement and sucking septic sores. These revolting miracles did nobody any
harm that can be provably traced back to these acts. They are not really any worse than Jesus
miraculously arranging to be crucified or giving people the hideous
stigmata. The Roman Catholic Church
boasts that no miracles take place outside the Catholic Church in such a way
that they imply that another religion is true. They say that a Protestant could receive a
miracle that shows him that Jesus really is God. But that verifies a Catholic doctrine and
not the Catholic Church. But why not
say then that when Mary appeared at
THE
LIFE-OFFERING REVELATION
A Hungarian nun gave the world the life offering revelation from Jesus
and Mary. A booklet containing some of the messages can be obtained from Divine
Mercy Publications, Maryville, Skerries, Co
Page 3 of the booklet tells us that Mary promised that none of the
relations of the person who offers his or her life as dictated by the
apparitions will go to Hell even if it looks like they died hating God. This tells us that in families not covered
by the promise God must want the dying to pass away into Hell. The element of blackmail is unmistakeable. It is those who lived the best lives and
are sinning on their deathbed that God should be saving.
The First Epistle of John says that if you see anyone committing a sin
that kills forever you must not pray for that person any longer. The person’s damnation is assured. Now, this is assumed to be the sin of
refusing to repent and turn to God on your deathbed. It contradicts the life offering. It says that if you see somebody dying
unrepentant or in sin that person is lost forever. The Bible contradicts the offering so the
offering is heretical.
Since apparitions are based on human faith and the danger of Hell is
based on divine faith which is theologically more certain it follows that any
apparition that gives such assurance is demonic or fraudulent for you cannot
trust an unsure revelation more than a sure one for the danger is too great
if you are wrong.
The magic saving prayer of the Life-Offering was revealed in 1955.
Mary said that we can save as many souls as possible in some invisible
mystical way “through fervent prayer, through the practicing of love, through
meekness, humility and self-denial but above all through the patient
acceptance of sufferings” (page 7).
This is illogical for surely God would rather have a person who denied
themselves to help others than a sick person who lies in bed offering their
sickness to God. A person who is very
ill is more likely to feign submission to the will of God to console those
around her or him than a person practicing selflessness. And what is the use of a person suffering
to develop patience and compassion when he has already got them? When God cares only about our effort and
effort is love even if it does not succeed and the greatest love is that
which tries knowing that it will probably fail for it is the most altruistic
then God would not want us to suffer with patience but to fight to be patient
without success.
Another error appears on page 9.
Mary says that once you have paid for your sins by suffering you can
offer subsequent sufferings to God for the conversion of incorrigible
sinners. Surely it is more important
to do the latter first? Yet she says
these wrong priorities glorify God!
On page 16, the sinister practices of sacrificial love and total
commitment to God are commanded.
The revelation of St Bridget of Sweden that souls fell into Hell like
snowflakes fall in winter was rejected by Jesus according to our
Life-Offering visionary who said that if that were true God would not have
made man for the majority go to Hell (page 28). The visions reject the visions of Bridget
who was accepted as a true prophetess and visionary by the Church. And Jesus did not understand if that souls
were falling into Hell like snowflakes that does not mean that the majority
of people are going to Hell but only that a lot are. And if it does mean the majority then maybe
there has been a huge decline in the number of the damned since. Jesus said in the Bible that the road to
eternal loss is wide and the road to salvation is narrow and hard to
travel. He forgot that too it seems.
ST BRIDGET OF SWEDEN
The fifteen
prayers revealed by God to St Bridget of
SACRED HEART
Everybody has seen the image of Jesus exposing his sacred heart in
Catholic homes. Many Catholics do the
nine First Fridays in honour of the Sacred Heart of Jesus believing that it
secures salvation for them.
The person most responsible for all this sacred heart superstition is
St Margaret Mary Alacoque (1647-1690) who was a nun in the Order of the
Visitation of Holy Mary.
The sinister truth about this person to whom faking miracles was a
piece of cake can be read in her own autobiography. The original book in her handwriting is
venerated and kept at Paray-le-Monial in a reliquary. The version I am using is TAN books, The
Autobiography of St Margaret Mary.
It did not occur to her that the mind and not the heart is the seat of
love even though her pathological devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus says
the opposite. And it is idolatry to
pray to the sacred heart even if it is only a symbol of Jesus under the
aspect of love. Praying to it makes
you find yourself adoring an organ and not Jesus.
On page 19 we learn that she asked God to ensure she would write only
what is for God’s glory and her own disgrace.
Then she writes that God is her only love (page 20). The unproven God comes before herself even
though she can prove her own existence to herself. That is sheer evil. All her book is about is Jesus trying to
get her to love him alone. This shows that
if the apparitions and messages she reported are authentic then they are from
some malign agency.
Jesus promised to dictate to her what to write (page 26) so the book is
divinely inspired.
Margaret Mary claims that her mother’s sufferings are worse than her
own crosses (page 27). One of hers was
going voluntarily for days without food and drink. She was slandering herself because she
couldn’t be sure of this.
Her credulity and belief in the wickedness of God is shown when she
would not go to communion at Christmas because a priest said it was a sin to
receive if one did not sleep the day before and she had not slept (page
30). Credulous wasn’t she?
She tied knotted cords around herself so tightly that they cut into the
flesh which grew over them (page 34).
She was conscious of serious sin and was supposed that Hell did not
open up to take her (page 35).
At least she was aware that if you sin and do not repent your good
deeds are just mockeries to God (page 36).
Any good you do is done because it suits you not because it is good
for you are still attached to your sins.
But this is completely contradicted by page 124 where she says she
never loses the divine presence even though she sins at times. If one sins then one can do no good and
cannot be united with God at all. She
even says that her right standing with God who is present torments her if she
displeases him and she enjoys that torment.
God does not indwell sinners who reject him.
She denies what the people who lived around her were saying which was
that she gave all she could get her hands on to the poor for that would have
been stealing for she had nothing (page 37).
But it is the words of people who had no reason to lie about her
against her own. She is probably
lying. You can’t pin everything on
jealousy.
Jesus warned her that if she did she did not become a nun he would
abandon her forever (page 40).
Obviously, it must be a mortal or hell-deserving sin to turn away from
one’s vocation. But it is fanaticism
to listen to an unproven apparition.
The Church says that the Devil is at work when a vision commands or
says something harmful for she is never very sure of visions.
Margaret Mary became a nun though she believed that by leaving her
mother with nobody to care for her she would be the cause of her death if not
by neglect then by breaking her heart (page 41).
She offered her blood to Jesus as if he would want it (page 44). How silly she was!
Jesus commanded her all the time to hurt and mortify herself (page
54). Today’s Catholics pay no
attention to the duty of self-abuse.
Jesus would not accept the penances she did without his request or that
of the Mother Superior (page 66). Once
she even said a longer prayer than she had been asked to by Jesus to say and
he told her that once she crossed the border she was pleasing to the
Devil. This is ludicrous. It is the same as a person doing genuine
good to another person and being condemned for doing another good deed. The holy souls in Purgatory once told her
that she was hurting them by going beyond what God commanded. Now, we have the new doctrine that our sins
hurt the souls.
It is strange if everything the Superiors command is right and a sure
sign that the Devil is not tricking you according to Jesus (page 71). There is no free will if that is true.
Jesus actually asked her to destroy her free will and let his will rule
her in its place (page 78). If free
will is for destroying then God is evil for giving it to us and causing
suffering and sin through it.
The saint once licked a sick person’s vomit (page 82) and ate the
diahorrea of a patient with dysentery.
Jesus told her she was foolish for eating excrement and she replied
that she did it to please him and reminded him that he did degrading and
voluntary things which were worse. He
agreed with her but said that he wanted her to make up for human
ingratitude. This all means that he
was not against her for what she ate but for not doing it in reparation. He told her that her objection was right
but that she did not understand why he was complaining. Catholicism says that we are not sure
enough of apparitions to do anything bad they ask. This Jesus did not know that a saint’s
repulsive act could have given her a killer bug so he was not the Catholic
Jesus who is divine.
She prayed that the manuscript would make people forget her and despise
her (page 92). She said that Fr Claude
de la Colombiere (now Saint Claude de la Columbiere) was holier than her and
told Jesus that and he did not correct her (page 96). She would not judge the priest in case she
slandered him but it was all right to slander herself for him! Devotion to the Sacred Heart forbids real
love.
Jesus forbade her to judge or accuse anybody but herself (page
105). If we don’t judge then the legal
system has to be abolished and all badness has to be treated as
goodness. The saint did not protest
against the Church and the state judging so she was not a true saint.
Jesus promised to save a dying nun from going to Hell if the saint
refused to disobey her superiors in anything, if she would not refuse to
enter the parlour and if she would not write (page 114). So, a promise she broke lots of times on
her own admission mattered more to him than saving the girl. What an evil God this would be!
It is suspicious that the saint was miraculously cured of the wounds
caused by writing Jesus on her chest in order that the nurse would not see it
(page 115). Jesus would not work an unprovable
miracle that only one person who needed no sign could be sure of. And why hide the wounds when she writes
about her sufferings and about the wounds?
There was no wound at all.
The
The saint boasts that she wrote her book with repugnance and did not want
anybody to think that she was holy.
That is a lie because she does go into detail about how much she loves
God. On page 121, she says she
conformed to God’s will in many things.
The saint loved
suffering which shows that her embracing it was not sacrifice but self-will
which was the very thing that she pretended to loathe above all else.
MAKING
MIRACLES
One thing the
Catholic Church does is hijack miracles.
I mean it takes the miracles as belonging to it and therefore
verifying its claims to be the Church that embodies the fullness of the
gospel of Jesus Christ. It is easy to
prove that that is nothing more than theft.
The priest who
debunked many Catholic miracles, Herbert Thurston, observed that in cases of
saints floating in mid-air without support, the miracle of levitation, that
reliable first-hand reports were very rare (page 166, The Book of Miracles). St Teresa of
The Book of
Miracles argues that the
Buddhist and Hindu holy men who can levitate while holding on to a cane are
not using contraptions to make it seem like they are floating for the
contraptions would be bulky and heavy and would need to be put together but
the holy men just hold the stick and rise into the air without any evidence
of anything suspicious (page 173). But
if they can rise into the air they should not need a stick.
Good magicians always make it look like they have no props and find
ways to hide them and use them discreetly.
The famed miracle-worker Mirabelli the Great (1889-1951) would have
been hailed as a new Jesus had he not kept up his pretences too long. He was caught out in 1934. How do you know that the other Jesuses and
miracle workers just did not work long enough or hard enough so that they missed
the chance of being caught out by sheer good fortune?
Many saints and fakirs were and are allegedly immune to burning by
fire. Some decades ago fire-walking
was hailed as a proven miracle. Nobody
could explain how people seemingly just by using their minds were able to
walk barefoot across hot coals. They
can now and it is all perfectly explicable.
But it follows that in the days when it had to be considered to be a
miracle that the whole Christian world should have stopped arguing that
miracles were divine acts and that only God could have raised Jesus from the
dead and not psychic power. The
Christian world should have stopped seeing any miracle as the work of
God. If Jesus demands faith and faith
has to be reasonable to be faith, then it follows that we have to follow the
evidence as we see it even if it leads us astray for what else are we to do?
BOOKS CONSULTED
Ballinspittle,
Moving Statues and Faith, Tim Ryan and Jurek Kirakowski, Mercier Press,
Beauraing and
Other Apparitions, Fr Herbert Thurston, Burns, Oates & Washbourne,
Believing in
God, PJ McGrath,
Bernadette of
Biblical Exegesis
and Church Doctrine, Raymond E Brown, Paulist Press,
Catholic
Prophecy, The Coming Chastisement Yves Dupont, TAN,
Comparative Miracles, Fr Robert D Smith, B. Herder Book Co,
Counterfeit Miracles, BB Warfield, The Banner of Truth Trust,
Cults and
Fanatics, Colin & Damon Wilson,
Divine Mercy in
My Soul, Sr M Faustina Kowalska, Marian Press,
Eleven
Evidence of
Satan in the Modern
From Fasting
Saints to Anorexic Girls, Walter Vandereycken and Ron van Deth, Athlone
Press,
Fatima in
Lucia’s own Words, Sr Lucia, Postulation Centre,
Fatima
Revealed…And Discarded, Brother Michael of the Holy Trinity, Augustine,
From the
Visions of the Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich, Topic Newspapers,
Mullingar, undated
Garabandal, a
Message for the World, Ave Maria Publications, Middleton, Co
Introduction to
the Devout Life, St Francis de Sales, Burns Oates and Washbourne Limited,
Looking for a
Miracle, Joe Nickell, Prometheus Books,
Miracles in
Dispute, Ernst and Marie-Luise Keller, SCM,
Miracles,
Ronald A Knox, Catholic Truth Society,
Mother of
Nations, Joan Ashton, Veritas,
New Catholic
Encyclopedia, The Catholic University of America and the McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc., Washington, District of Columbia, 1967
Objections to
Roman Catholicism, Edited by Michael de la Bedoyere, Constable,
Our Lady of
Beauraing, Rev J.A. Shields, M.A., D.C.L., M.H. Gill and Son, Ltd.,
Padre Pio,
Patrick O Donovan, Catholic Truth Society,
Please Come
Back to Me and My Son R Vincnet,
Powers of
Darkness, Powers of Light, John Cornwell,
Rosa Mystica,
Franz Speckbacher, Divine Mercy Publications,
San Damiano, S
di Maria, The Marian Centre, Hungerford, 1983
Spiritual
Healing, Martin Daulby and Caroline Mathison, Geddes & Grosset, New
St Catherine
Laboure of the Miraculous Medal, Fr Joseph I Dirvin C.M., Tan,
The Apparition
at Knock, A Survey of Facts and Evidence, Fr Michael Walsh, St Jarlath’s
College, Tuam, Co Galway, 1959
The Apparitions
of the Blessed Virgin Mary Today, Rene Laurentin, Veritas,
The Appearances
of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the Grotto of Lourdes, JB Estrade, Art &
Book Company Ltd, Westminster, 1912
The
Autobiography of St Margaret Mary, TAN,
The Book of
Miracles, Stuart Gordon, Headline,
The Cult of the
Virgin Mary, Michael P Carroll,
The Evidence
for Visions of the Virgin Mary, Kevin McClure Aquarian Press, Wellingborough,
Northamptonshire, 1985
The Exaltation
of the Virgin Mary, by Rev S.G. Poyntz, M.A., B.D., Association for Promoting
Christian Knowledge, Dublin, 1955
The Holy Shroud
and Four Visions, Rev Patrick O Connell and Rev Charles Carty, TAN,
The Holy Shroud
and the Visions of Maria Valtorta, Msgr Vincenzo Celli, Kolbe Publications
Inc.,
The
Incorruptibles, Joan Carroll Cruz, Tan,
The Jesus Relics, From the Holy Grail to the Turin Shroud, Joe Nickell, The History Press, Gloucestershire, 2008
The Medjugorje
Deception, E Michael Jones, Fidelity Press,
The Physical
Phenomena of Mysticism, Fr Herbert Thurston, Burns, Oates & Washbourne,
The Sceptical
Occultist, Terry White, Century,
The
Supernatural A-Z, James Randi, Headline Books,
The Thunder of
Justice, Ted and Maureen Flynn, MAXCOL,
The Turin
Shroud is Genuine, Rodney Hoare, Souvenir Press,
The Two Divine
Promises, Fr Roman Hoppe, TAN,
The Virgin of
the Poor, Damian Walne and Joan Flory, CTS,
The Way of
Divine Love, Sr Josefa Mendenez, TAN,
The Wonder of
Guadalupe, Francis Johnson, Augustine,
To the Priests,
Our Lady’s Beloved Sons, Fr Gobbi, The Marian Movement of Priests, St Paul’s
Press, Athlone, 1991
THE WEB
The Most Dangerous False Apparition in the World
www.unitypublishing.com/Apparitions/Garabandal2.html
False Visions Which Followed Knock
Critique: “Poem
of the Man-God” Medugorje’s Gospel by Brother James,
http://members.lycos.co.uk/jloughnan/critique.htm
Saints Preserve Us!
www.forteantimes.com/articles/159_saintspreserved.shtml
PRIVATE REVELATION: UNRAVELLING MEDJUGORJE by Carey Winters
www.geocities.com/militantis/medjugorje.html
This excellent
site outlines the errors of famous Catholic visionaries such as Anne
Catherine Emmerich and Marie de Agreda which they said their visions told
them. But it puts these errors down to
the visionaries misunderstanding. This
excuse itself accuses God of being slack!
It points out that when Satan speaks, in the experience of the Church,
he states 99% of the truth that God has revealed and 1 % untruth because
every little error helps his cause. In
the Church’s experience, that is the way it seems to be which means Carey and
the Church should not be accepting the visions of Emmerich and Agreda. The former stated that there was a
terrestrial paradise near
BIBLE QUOTATIONS FROM:
The Amplified
Bible
Sunday, 09 September 2007