A question about offering up our

[HisChild]

[Desert Walker]

rkwright:

The section you quoted was an addition made by adherents to the Bayside events. Bayside is an unapproved apparition, and its claim to supernatural Marian origin is questionable given the type of language attributed to the Mother of God in the messages.

That part which you quoted is not part of the orginal book, but was added digitally by fans of Bayside as can be seen in the final paragraph:

"The following work confirms many of the Bayside revelations. The book essentially exposes the remarks and gestures made by a possessed woman in Switzerland during 1975-1978."

The demons do not say that the Novus Ordo rite is completely invalid. You have to read the whole transcript to see that. What they talk about are all of the abuses and the negative effect that the abuses have on people.

Edited March 16, 2006 by Desert Walker

[Desert Walker]

Get a load of this quote!

[quote]TRADITIONALISTS
E: In the name...!

B: There are numbers of “traditionalists”, as many lay people as priests, who are full of self-righteousness, who are steeped in a kind of new phariseeism. They say, and sometimes they preach: “We are the good ones, we are the just, the rest are not worth much any more. We will go to Heaven.” That is pretty close to the sects: they say the same thing. Those up there (he points upward) do not like this behavior at all.. They do not love men very much who are righteous in their own eyes.

If, in this book, it has been necessary to speak about the Mass and about the Church, and amongst other things, the Mass of Saint Pius V, that does not mean to say that certain “traditionalists” should exalt themselves above the modernists, as if they were the only ones who know how to make a sound judgment, in a suitable way, and with all the necessary competence. That is not what this book is all about. It is simply intended to expose all the abuses in the Church, such as they exist today.

But, to complete the picture, we must still say this: The priests who say: “It is better for you to stay at home rather than go to such Masses”, are making a mistake. If the Mass is degraded to that point where the priest himself no longer believes in the words of the Consecration, and no longer pronounces the words as they should be pronounced, if he no longer has the intention of consecrating, then the host is not consecrated, it is true... but, for all that, people can still pray in the church.

I have to say this also: they are defrauded of Christ and of the fullness of the graces, it is true, but certain graces are still attached to it. Especially when good Christians, of deep faith, go to Mass and Communion full of devotion, with the intention of receiving Christ, then Heaven is fair enough not to say simply: “Because the priest is not doing things properly, there will be no graces here!” Those people nevertheless do receive certain graces.[54]

E: Do these people fulfill their duty to the Lord?

B: If the people have the opportunity of going to a Mass of Saint Pius V, then Heaven prefers that, very much so. But if there is no other possibility, they may go to another Mass. After the Mass of Saint Pius V in Latin,[55] the Tridentine Mass[56] in the vernacular comes in second place, provided that it comprises the totality of the words of the Tridentine Mass as far as this is possible. Only after these, in third place, comes the New Mass. But those people, if they do not know these things and are of good faith, nevertheless fulfill their duty to the Lord, in so far as that is their intention.

On the other hand, if they know very well that a kilometer further away, they would find a Mass of Saint Pius V, and if they say to themselves: “Bah! That, is too far away for me, I am not going to run over there!”; and if they know very well that that would be better, then we have a different situation. Then, they have lost out enormously through negligence. They should have gone that kilometer. Do you know (in a tearful voice) how far we would go, if we were still able to share in such great graces? Ah! We would travel to the ends of the earth, if we still had a chance! We do not wish to imply by this, that the other Masses are as good. We have already said enough about which Mass Those up there prefer (he points upward).

We have to reveal the error which many priests are making. It is a fundamental error to instill into men that they must not go to any New Mass, that it comes from the devil, etc... That also is throwing the baby away with the bath-water, it is going to the opposite extreme. Never does such a condemnation have any place under the mantle of love of neighbor. In these circumstances there are modernists who have love of neighbor, who are sometimes better than such “traditionalists” who exalt themselves above others. We are obliged to say that as part of this... and everything we have just said about the Sacraments and other subjects...

And it should also be said that there are many “traditionalists” who are Pharisees. Otherwise, the modernists will think that all the “traditionalists” should be lumped together, that (all) the “traditionalists” are fanatics, rebellious fanatics, and will fight them with every means... Now we do not wish to speak any more (he grumbles).

E: In the name of the Blessed Virgin Mary...!

B: This is the way it is: Those up there (he points upward) love all their children, even if they have fallen into error. If, under the cloak of obedience, because they no longer know what they ought to do, they follow the opinions of. the bishops and the priests, then it is hardly their fault. If they act in all good faith, it will not be held to their account so strictly, although these circumstances are so frightful, frightful, frightful. [/quote]

I'm going to mull over that for while...

[rkwright]

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Mar 16 2006, 08:33 AM']rkwright:

The section you quoted was an addition made by adherents to the Bayside events.  Bayside is an unapproved apparition, and its claim to supernatural Marian origin is questionable given the type of language attributed to the Mother of God in the messages.

That part which you quoted is not part of the orginal book, but was added digitally by fans of Bayside as can be seen in the final paragraph:

"The following work confirms many of the Bayside revelations. The book essentially exposes the remarks and gestures made by a possessed woman in Switzerland during 1975-1978."

The demons do not say that the Novus Ordo rite is completely invalid.  You have to read the whole transcript to see that.  What they talk about are all of the abuses and the negative effect that the abuses have on people.
[right][snapback]913144[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

If that part was added by the Bayside followers, how you can be sure of any of the work's authenticity? How do you know it was added, and not part of the orginal work? Bayside is before the events in these and could have easily been a part of the works.

Secondly would you put more faith into what alleged Demons are saying, or the Church herself?? These are people\angels that rejected God and Jesus! I would not listen to them for a second regarding the salvation of my soul.

Here are more questionable passages, that lead me to really question the veracity of the work
[quote]A: ...they must receive the Sacraments; receive them in the proper way. True confession, not just participation in penitential ceremonies, and Communion. At this time (Communion) the priest should say "Lord, I am not worthy" three times, and not just once. Communion must he received in the mouth and not in the hand.

E: Speak only the truth, in the name of the Precious Blood, the Holy Cross, the Immaculate Conception of Lourdes. Our Lady of the Rosary of Fatima!

A: We racked our brains for a very long time down there (he points downward), until we succeeded in getting Communion in the hand under way. Communion in the hand... Communion in the hand is very good for us in Hell, believe me!

E: We order you, in the name... to say only what Heaven orders you! Speak only the truth, you have no right to lie, so leave off, stop it!

A: She (he points upward) wishes me to say...

E: Tell the truth, in the name...!

A: She wishes me to say... that if She, the Great Lady, were still living on earth. She would receive Communion in the mouth, but on her knees, and She would bow deeply, like this (he makes the gesture).

E: In the name of the Blessed Virgin... and of the Thrones, by order of the Thrones, tell the truth!

A: I have to say the Communion must not be received in the hand. The Pope himself gives Communion in the mouth. He does not want Communion to be given in the hand at all. That comes from the Cardinals.

E: In the name..., by order of the Thrones, tell the truth!

A: Then it went to the bishops and they imagined that it was a question of obedience, that they must obey the cardinals. Finally, it came to the priests, and they, in turn, imagined that they had to conform, because obedience is written in very large letters.

E: Tell the truth, you have no right to lie, in the name...!

A: Evil people should not he obeyed. The Pope, Jesus Christ and the Blessed Virgin are the ones who must he obeyed. Communion in the hand is not at all the will of God.

E: Continue telling the truth, in the name...![/quote]

And on the new mass being invalid..

[quote]A: There were a few small things, which needed to be changed, but most of it - no. Believe me! In the liturgy, there was practically nothing to be changed. Even the Gospel reading should not be in the vernacular; it would be better if the Holy Mass were said in Latin. The reason can be seen if you just look at the Consecration, only the Consecration, but that is typical. At the Consecration, one uses the words: "This is My Body which will be given up for you", followed by: "This is My Blood, which will be shed for you and for a great number". That is what Jesus said.

E: It is not correct to say "for all"? Tell the truth, in the name... you have no right to lie.

A: It certainly isn't. The translations have not been completely accurate, and this is particularly the case with "for all". It should not, and cannot, be "for all" - it should be "for a great number".

When the text is not correct, so the abundance of graces diminishes; the channel of graces still flows, but only sparsely. And the Consecration is accompanied by so many graces when the priest does things correctly, according to the old Tradition, and according to the Will of God. For you and for a great number" must be said, just as Christ Himself said it.

E: But, didn't Christ shed His Blood for all? Tell the truth in the name...!

A: No, He would have liked to shed it for all, but, in fact, it did not flow for all.

E: Because many have rejected it? Tell the truth in the name...!

A: Exactly; in this way it did not flow for all, for it did not flow for us in Hell.

E: Tell the truth, in the name...!

A: The new order of the Mass - the bishops have changed the Tridentine Mass - the new Mass is absolutely not as They up there want it (he points upward). The point will soon be reached when the whole Mass will no longer be valid.

E: How is the Tridentine Mass, the old Mass, which was prescribed by Pope St. Pius V? Tell the truth, in the name... and you have no right to lie!

A: It is the best in existence; it is in the standard, the true, the good Mass (he groans).

E: Akabor, tell the truth, in the name of and by the order of, the Blessed Virgin! We order you to say everything she charges you to say!

A: I said all that against my will, but I was made to! She up there (He points upward) forced me (he mutters).

E: Is there anything more that you must say, in the name..! But speak only the truth![/quote]

[quote]E: Continue, in the name..., say what you must say!

J: Archbishop Mgr. Lefebvre will still have a great deal to suffer, but he is good.

E: Continue, in the name... say what you must say.

E: Is the liturgy he follows good? Tell the truth, in the name of Jesus!

J: The liturgy he follows is the only good one.

E: Is this the truth, in the name of Jesus?

J: It is the complete truth.

E: In the name of the Most Holy Trinity, have you lied?

J: No! It is the complete truth.[/quote]

An excommunicated man holding the complete truth??

I dunno, judge for yourself... but I put my faith in the Church.

[Desert Walker]

Believe me, I take these statements with a grain of salt. Elsewhere in the exorcism a demon is asked whether he has told the ENTIRE truth or not, or whether he has lied at all. The response is like "We have said everything we're supposed to say, but not every detail, and some of it was incomplete."

I will say this though on communion in the hand:

For my whole life I had received communion on my tongue. Then recently I decided I was going to act like it wasn't important how I received the Eucharist. But every time I received the Eucharist in my hands I felt a feeling of guilt. I felt like I was being inauthentic to God, others, and myself. I don't chalk this up to mere psychology. I think its stupid to assume its just a matter of the "content of my superego" causing these feelings. No. The Mother of God would NOT receive communion in her hands. And it has nothing to do with judging the reverence (or lack of it) in those who DO receive in the hands. Its a personal matter of piety, it all is. And, at least in my case, receiving communion on my hands detracts from the mysterium, tramendum et fascinans of the pinnacle moment in the Eucharistic Mystery. And seeing others do it that way does the same thing to me. I know I shouldnt give a carp, but I do. And I would never actually say that to someone's face unless they asked me about it, and even then... charity is a delicate thing.

[Desert Walker]

And as far as Lefabvre is concerned I don't agree with his blatant disregard for Apostolic authority. However, his only redeeming quality was that he disobeyed in a matter that had little to do with faith or morals.

Others have taken the Church's Great Pastoral Council to mean its okay to commit mortal sins and not worry too much about it.

Lefabvre was concerned with preserving the interior life of the Church, but instead of joining in solidarity with those who shared his sense of loyalty, he irresponsibly, and even childishly, chose to be "revolutionary" just like his opposites among the liberal extremists. But his sin is far more understandable than the scandalous madness of those who have attempted to reshape the Church according to elements of the philosophy of liberalism (ala Voltaire).

[Era Might]

[quote]However, his only redeeming quality was that he disobeyed in a matter that had little to do with faith or morals.[/quote]

Not to turn this into a thread about Marcel Lefebvre, but his schismatic act was very much connected to faith and morals. As Pope John Paul II wrote in "Ecclesia Dei", the unlawful consecration of Bishops "implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy."

Edited March 16, 2006 by Era Might

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 16 2006, 10:46 AM']Not to turn this into a thread about Marcel Lefebvre, but his schismatic act was very much connected to faith and morals. As Pope John Paul II wrote in "Ecclesia Dei", the unlawful consecration of Bishops "implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy."
[right][snapback]913240[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You're right. Allow me to clarify myself.

When I used the phrase "had little to do with faith and morals," I'm referring to the moral transgressions of popular western society which are held by liberal philosophers to be inalienable rights of the human being, even when such transgressions obviously disrupt the peace, order and justice of a society. Because the excuses for such transgressions are founded on denials of certain articles of the Catholic faith (and some Christian denominations) I say "FAITH and morals."

Lefabvre was interested in preserving the Church's indomitable stand AGAINST such transgressions. Sadly, he himself chose to reject, or dishonestly ignore, an article of faith which upholds the Church's stance on such matters: papal primacy.

I hope that clarifies...

[Era Might]

Ah ok. I agree to an extent. But when you look at, for example, the parable of the two brothers, one who disobeyed, but later repented, and one who said he would obey, but didn't, who was the more condemnable?

Although people like Marcel Lefebvre may not attack the faith outright, they perhaps do more damage by couching themselves in obedience. The wild proposals of heresy have their danger, but at least heretics acknowledge that they reject the Church's authority. Lefebvre held his disobedience up as obedience. As St. Jerome said, "It is even worse to be ignorant of your own ignorance".

[Desert Walker]

Or even worse than that: to be willfully ignorant of your own ignorance. I think that describes Marcel Lafabvre. I think your quote from Jerome more accurately describes some libertines. But have such people actually obeyed yet either? In their case they don't seem to care at all what the teaching says about their preferences. I really think Lefabvre, in the end, will more accurately remind us of the prodigal son than libertines.

But did he submit and recant before he died?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Mar 15 2006, 10:07 AM']The quote comes from the transcript of an exorcism.  A demon allegedly said this through the mouth of a woman.  He claimed to do so under obedience to Our Lady.

The exorcisms of the woman were apparently conducted by six abbots and four priests over a period of time in 1975.  There were several demons involved.

The transcript of the exorcism was apparently put in book form by a guy named Jean Marty (a Frenchman).  It was translated into English by Nancy Knowles-Smith.

I wish I could find a way to authenticate the facts of this because there are SO MANY more statements made by the demons that are simply astonishing.
[right][snapback]912353[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I hadn't read this thread before, but I'd just say, on general principles, it's not good to waste time worrying about something supposedly said by a demon (even if he did claim to be forced to speak by the Blessed Mother).
The devil is a liar and the father of lies, as are his fallen angels. Even when they speak truth, it is often mixed with error and intended to mislead.

If God wants something to be known, He will deliver the message through His Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of His Church.

Looking to demons and exorcisms to find hidden spiritual truths is a very dangerous practice, to say the least.