Years ago I became convinced that the evil one is quite clever in deceiving good Catholics into error and sin. I think he knows better than to present us with gross sin such as wild orgies or inebriated debauchery. No, he'll cloak his temptations to us in holy trappings. Please note that I'm not putting those last two words in quotes because often enough, the trappings are very good in and of themselves and can lead to real benefit.
For instance, I mentioned a few days ago the Medjugorje apparitions (that I initially believed). Now at that site many good people are praying. They're going to Confession (some folks for the first time in many years), receiving Holy Communion at Mass, praying the Rosary, etc. For the most part, the proceedings from the apparition are sweet if somewhat trite. However, it's those zingers of indifferentism that are the problem. Because the devotees are predisposed to accept whatever the apparition says, they're less likely to subject it to needed scrutiny and thus they incorporate the indifferentism into their own thinking. Therein lies the danger.
Such seems to be the case with the book Rediscover Catholicism by Matthew Kelly. Last year it was sold at my church and was announced from the pulpit. It only cost $2.00. I bought one and started to read it. This book's main "zinger" (and it is a big one) occurs right in the prologue. I suppose Kelly was trying to illustrate the magnitude of the Crucifixion of Our Lord and what it cost both Son and Father. He wound up committing what I believe is blasphemy with his attempt.
He devised a hypothetical situation in which a father of a small boy hears that there is a fatal epidemic. A vaccine has been developed but will require blood from someone who hasn't been infected. All are called upon to volunteer blood samples. The father trots his family to be tested. Lo and behold, the small boy is not infected and his blood can be used. However, a lot of blood is required and to draw the required amount of blood from the boy will kill him. The doctors break the news to the father and let him know that if he doesn't give permission for this blood-letting, all mankind may well die. The parents give their "consent" for this procedure. Of course the little boy is bewildered - but it's such a great cause!
So here you have a man's murder of his own little boy being compared with the Crucifixion of Our Lord. Murder is the deliberate taking of innocent human life; nothing justifies that for as any decent Catholic knows, the end of a sinful act, be it ever so noble, never justifies the sin.
I could spend several posts unpacking the moral mess encompassed in these few paragraphs. There is the comparison of Jesus' voluntary act with the horror inflicted on a helpless child. There is the aspect of the boy being utterly betrayed by his parents whose first charge was to protect, not sacrifice him. And of course we have here a thinly-disguised apologetics for both abortion and embryonic stem cell research.
Some might argue that the rest of the book was okay and even very good. Be that as it very well may, it matters not one damned bit. If you knew that the most nutritious meal in the world contained just a little bit of arsenic, would you take one bit of that most nutritious meal? I didn't think so!
After I read this prologue, I immediately alerted the pastor. As I was talking, he completed my sentence for me. That indicated to me that mine was not the first complaint about this heresy. However, the boxes of books remained in the lobby for several more weeks; I don't know why.
I forgot about it until I went to Mass today at Blessed Sacrament in Chevy Chase - and saw three or four boxes of these books in that church's lobby, just as I saw in St John Neumann last year. I thought to myself, "well, maybe they've removed the offending prologue in these copies." It was still there. In googling the book, I learned that it was popping up in parishes all over the country. I don't know who is making book-buying decisions or what kind of marketing effort is underway here.
I am urging all to be on the lookout for this in your own parishes and to be prepared to sound the alarm at your church. Do NOT use Rediscover Catholicism by Matthew Kelly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I used to believe in Medjugorje. I read a book on it that was really beneficial to my spiritual warfare knowledge. Maybe that is why God allowed me to believe at first. Now, however, I do not believe. Over the years, I have read 6 books on Medjugorje. The very famous "The Visions of the Children" make it very obvious to the discerning eye that the visions are not of God. Several times, the Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is referred to as "physical." The Church does not teach this, and why it hasn't been spotted yet as an error being taught in the apparitions, I have no idea. (Just Google "Visions of the Children" for proof.) What more, the "sainted" Frs. Slavko and Jozo both got in big trouble with the Church for good reason. This is never talked about, but it is true. For more info, you can read "Understanding Medjugorje" by Donal Anthony Foley. Like you, I appreciate that people are praying, fasting, and confessing because of Medjugorje, but like Patrick Madrid, I think it will eventually be found to be the one of the biggest demonic deceptions ever. Well, I know this post was not really about Medj., but since you mentioned it, I wanted to use this opportunity to get the truth out there.
ReplyDelete-Dawn
I'm unclear as to the point behind Jesus' Presence in the Eucharist as being physical. The Church does make clear that at the Consecration, the bread and wine are transformed into the Real Body and Blood of Jesus and that only the appearances of bread and wine remain. What am I missing here?
DeleteAnother good book on the apparitions was written by the late Michael Davies. His wife - now widow - is Croatian so he had some insight as to language, culture, history of the place that most don't have.
http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/06/only-difference-between-christs-body-in.html
ReplyDeleteHere is an article on the matter that I hope will help a bit. Fr. Mitch Pacwa has talked about this also. He said that when the Church was deciding whether or not the term "physical" would be appropriate, the people who supported this started to say, "Well, then, this part of the Eucharist is His chin, this His eye...etc." Because of this false notion, the term "physical" was rejected. I looked for an article where Pacwa explains this, and did not find one. That's why I settled for this link. However, you can probably find him talking about this on EWTN, on Threshold of Hope, on YouTube. He has spoken of this several times. I would think, too, that if the Medj visionaries were being taught by Our Lady, they would know better than to say this, too!
No offense, but I do not except anything by Michael Davies. He has written a book which states that Vatican II was an evil council. We need to go back to much of how things were prior to Vatican II, yes (Communion in the hand is something I pray against, for example), but to say Vatican II is evil is an evil in itself. E. Michael Jones, I hear, has some good anti-Medjugorje books, but Davies, I stay away from. I don't need Davies to know the truth about Medjugorje. Apparently, I see here, too, that he was an SSPXer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Davies_%28Catholic_writer%29
God Bless,
-Dawn
I did not know that Davies bad-mouthed Vatican II. I too take a dim view of those who hold any Church council to be evil. Thanks for the heads-up.
DeleteI beg your pardon, but if you look at the classical definition of evil , which is privation of a due good, then by that standard VII was "an evil council".
DeleteAlso. +Michael Davies supported any group (Ecclesia Dei/SSPX/FSSP/ICK) that supported the TLM. If memory serves, he attended the TLM under the auspices of either Ecclesia Dei or the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales. (He was Welsh, BTW.).
You should pray for the repose of his soul. " Of the dead say nothing but good."
Absolutely we should pray for the departed; such is our duty. Your last sentence is by no stretch based on dogma. If we were to apply it in all cases, we'd never be able to condemn the atrocities committed by Hitler, Stalin and other fearsome tyrants.
DeleteTouché. Let me put it this way: "Of the dead say nothing but good unless it is for the good of souls and absolutely necessary.
DeleteAgreed?
Which is not the case with +Michael Davies, BTW. He was a Catholic gentleman.
DeleteAfter you mentioned Davies, I Googled him. I could have sworn I read this (about VII being evil) in a summary about one of his books, published by TAN. However, when I Googled on TAN'a website and also looked some of his books up about VII on Amazon, I did not find such a statement. If he was a traditionalist not in union with Rome, I don't know that I would seriously read any of his writings (and we the faithful may not be allowed to do so at all anyway--I'm not sure about that), and given what that Wikepedia page says about him, I am suspect. Still, EWTN did a positive piece on him following his passing. They would not do that with a traddie not in union with Rome. Therefore, I am not sure if my previous statement about his not being in union, and being an SSPXer, is true. I have a traddie priest friend, so perhaps I will ask him for clarification on this. Davies seems to be pretty popular, so I think that the info may help a lot of people. BTW, here is the link I mentioned from EWTN about Davies: http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=123115
ReplyDeleteI see that it is a story from Zenit, but they still would not spread it if he was a rad trad. At least, I don't think so!
God Bless,
-Dawn
I am absolutely flabbergasted at how you have twisted the prologue in Michael Kelly's book into blasphemy. While it is true that there are differences between the story in the prologue and Christ's willingly going to the cross to save us, you have been so blinded by looking for conspiratorial evil that you have missed the point of the message. Sure there are obvious similarities to the story of Christ, mixed with a plausible scenario from our times, like the fear and abandonment the son faced ("father, why have you forsaken me?"), the pain the father felt in allowing his son to die for the good of all mankind (darkness and earthquakes splitting the temple when Christ died)... but the real point of the prologue in this book is the reaction AFTER the boy died for all... they held a ceremony, and some folks didn't come because they had better things to do, other slept, etc... putting the reader in the shoes of God asking "don't you see what my son did so you could have the life you have?!"
ReplyDeleteThe point of this book is to energize Catholics to rediscover their faith. I have children in their teenage years... going to college soon. That is when they often find it hard to go to church after the parents have "made" them go for years... many never come back. I've often told my kids when they complain about going to church that if you can't give 1 small hour a week to thank the Lord for all he has given you it is pretty sad. This story in the prologue, by all accounts from everyone I know that has read it, sheds an entirely new perspective on why going to church is important. Our savior suffered and died for us... without the death, the resurrection never occurs... we need to remember that everyday, and sometimes it helps to take something that happened so long ago in history and put it into more modern terms to help people relate to it and understand the gravity of the situation.
Duffbert, it is inherently blasphemous to liken the heinous evil of murder of a child (which is what the father in Kelly's prologue did) with the VOLUNTARY act of Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity who willingly laid down His life - unlike that of the poor child who had not attained the age of consent. It it NOT "modern terms" to draw false and far-fetched analogies between a human father's misguided murder of his own little boy to the love of our heavenly Father.
DeleteThey had a ceremony in the book! So what??? Did you know that one of George Tiller's "services" was to conduct pseudo-religious ceremonies for the babies that were aborted in his abortion chambers? Can one say "crocodile tears"?? When Mr Kelly puts a morally acceptable prologue in that book in place of that trash, then I'll reconsider my review of it.
This post is exactly right. I was so horrified by the prologue (child murder, not an offered sacrifice) that I could not read further in the book. Very troubling.
DeleteDuffbert, it doesn't matter if the intent was good. The analogy was obviously about God the Father and Christ. God the Father, in reality, did not use his Son as an unwilling pawn. He did not murder His son, He did not go along with the kind of thing they do at Planned Parenthood, which is to convince the parent that the child can be killed without the child's consent and the body parts used for the betterment of mankind. Christ is not a confused, ignorant little boy. Christ lay down his life willingly, with full consent. We commemorate his "sacrifice" (offering), not his murder. Sacrifice is willful, murder is not.
Just because someone has a good point somewhere in a VERY bad (blasphemous) analogy doesn't excuse the bad. Really awful. I can't believe no one caught that before it was published and distributed so widely.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDmW2mDfrI0
ReplyDeleteWanted to include this also with regard to Medjugorje. A seer in a true ecstasy does not flinch! BTW, I found this in another language, but I have also seen it dubbed in English on YouTube. You can search if you want.
-Dawn
http://bloggerpriest.com/2012/04/05/a-conversation-about-medjugorje/
ReplyDeleteAbout the seal of confession possibly being violated in Medj.
-Dawn
I did some research on Davies, and did not find all the info I would like. Apparently, however, he was a good Catholic in union with Rome. He was sympathetic, to a degree, of SSPX, but he did not agree with the ordinations done by their founder that were not approved by Rome. His writings are totally acceptable to read, and a traddie priest friend even told me that he was a daily communicant. RIP, Michael Davies!
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I would like to find even more info on this, but it is hard to come by. I'm sure his book, "Medjugorje, a Warning" is excellent.
-Dawn
There is an organization called Caritas, which promotes Medj. The official Medj. website warns against them, because they promote things that the Church does not teach. You can learn more about this at a website called Medjugorje WS, which has a lot of info. However, the "seer" Marija Lunetti still is very active with Caritas, even though the official site tells folks to stay away. Her brother received a transplant from monies given by Caritas. Well, one may say they can understand why she may feel attached to them, but I see this as no excuse. One supposedly seeing Our Lady DAILY to this day would back away from an organization that has been accused of being a cult. There was chatter in the combox of the Ministry Values website that Marija would stop participating in Caritas events, but this has not been the case.
ReplyDeleteSecond, "Our Lady" supposedly said she does not distribute all graces: http://krestaintheafternoon.blogspot.com/2012/06/what-is-happening-at-medjugorje.html She also said a number of other things here that are disturbing. In that regard, take note of this message from 1982. It seems to imply that intercession to Mary is somehow temporary. Besides that, it hardly makes any sense: September 4, 1982
"Jesus prefers that you address yourselves directly to Him rather than through an intermediary. In the meantime, if you wish to give yourselves completely to God and if you wish that I be your protector, then confide to me all your intentions, your fasts, and your sacrifices so that I can dispose of them according to the will of God."
Third, the fact that "Mary" tells us to fast twice a week is even suspect. This is something I even wondered about when I was devotee of Medj. It sounds great on its face, but this is a bread and water only fast, and you need the permission of a spiritual director to even conduct a lesser kind of fast. Not the fast commissioned by the Church during Lent, of course, but any fast other than that. Why would Mary ask the majority of people to do something that requires the permission of a spiritual director? That's like asking all people to go to Mass daily. Everyone cannot fulfill that--pray the Rosary, sure, but not Mass. It's like trying to sow seeds of disobedience through fasts.
Fourth, the "seer" Mirjana Soldo was asked if she had a lot of devotion to Our Lady, and prayed to her a lot. She said she sees her so often, she feels awkward about asking her for things, and that she has more of a devotion to St. Anthony. Well, I like St. Anthony, but is that odd or what? If you saw Our Lady all the time, would you not feel so close to her that you would feel you could ask her anything? Is She not the great intercessor, greater than any other Saint?
Fifth, Mirjana was talking to a man in a question and answer forum. The man said he could not have a cross hanging up at his work, or something like that. Mirjana berated him and said that even though it was not allowed, he should do it anyway. She said he should be ready to die for his faith, rather than betray Christ. I totally concur, but she is missing something here. Mother Angelica sells pens that people can buy that have a cross on them, for those who cannot display a cross at work. This way, you can have your faith and devotion, but those who mind do not have to know about it. Look at Miguel Pro, the Blessed. He died when it was his time, but before then, he did what he could to both live and spread the faith and preserve his life. That could be the only job that man had at the time, to support his family, and it may have somehow been difficult for him to find another one. Who knows? It's almost like she was saying to him, put yourself out there and risk getting fired. You must, or you don't love Christ. Did Bl. Pro love Christ? Did the early Christians, who hid in the catacombs? Her reasoning is totally flawed and judgmental.
I hope this additional info helps!
-Dawn
I am aware of Caritas and some of its problems. When I was unaware, I bought from them a book called "Poem of the Man God". When I got halfway through it, I tossed it in the trash since it was rather weird. Sometime later I learned it was on the Church's Index of Banned Books. I wasn't surprised.
DeleteThen they tried to bring Fr Jozo Zovko to the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception to say Mass. I knew his faculties had been suspended in Croatia, and knew that the Shrine staff had no idea. I and some friends alerted them to it; after receiving confirmation from the Bishop of Mostar, the Shrine rector kibboshed that appearance. I personally berated Caritas for their attempt to deceive the Shrine staff regarding Fr Zovko's canonical status.
However, I'm a little puzzled about your objections to the fasting. I was never under the impression that lay people needed the permission of a spiritual director to undertake fasts outside of times prescribed by Church law. Moreover, many sainted folks have encouraged daily Mass when at all possible; the late Father John Hardon comes to mind. I do agree that Mirjana's behavior was over the top when she berated the man who couldn't hang a cross at work. Apparently she has no respect for the private property rights of the employer.
The bread and water fast recommended in Medjugorje is very severe. For something like this, you do need the permission of a spiritual director. I don't think so with lesser fasts (depending on their degree), but definitely for a bread and water fast. And how many Medjugorje followers undertake this without permission, most not even knowing they are doing anything wrong?
ReplyDeleteI don't have a problem with daily Mass. It should be encouraged. However, it would not be something Our Lady would likely request in an apparition, since some people, and probably many, cannot fulfill this.
And I think the employer was out of line with that guy, but what I was saying is that you never know why that guy stays at his job. Some people are called to resist things like this publicly, but not everyone. It just depends on how we are called, and Mirjana seemed to have no regard for this distinction at all. If it was a cross he wanted to hang up, I can see what you are saying about property rights. But if it was just a cross at his desk, I think the employer needs prayer.
I have a friend who was at that Basilica Mass. It turned his head with regard to Medjugorje, and he is the one that convinced me. What I don't understand, though, is this. How can so many people not know the status of Fr. Jozo? This is a really big farce in the Church. When a person goes to the apparition site of one that has been condemned, the bishop will often issue a decree that says that going there willfully will result in excommunication--that is, if you know about the decree. Well, for years, people went to Masses conducted by Fr. Jozo. I think they should have issued a decree like this, because it would have helped warn people of his status. I don't understand why one was never issued. The average Medjugorje devotee thinks Frs. Jozo and Slavko are saints. Fr. Slavko is passed on, and I used to pray to him! I can't believe something like this just continues to go on. In fact, that is part of the reason why I used to totally pay no attention to the Fr. Jozo accusations. I figured they were totally false, because the whole thing is just totally unbelievable. To get into trouble with the Church is one thing, but to just continue to practice like you still have your faculties? And then the average folk does not know about it, and is not forbidden under penalty to attend a Mass you celebrate? Ouch!
So, I am curious as to what changed your mind on Medjugorje? It definitely can be a trap for traddie/orthodox Catholics. A lot of traddies hate it, true, but can be a trap for some because of the push toward orthodox faith, fasting, and zero tolerance for the occult. Those were the traps for me, for sure. Big surprise, a charismatic friend is the one who got me interested. I'm not slamming the renewal in general, but it can require much discernment, and Medjugorje is heavily tied into the charismatic renewal. How that is, I don't know, but that's what I've read.
-Dawn
Dawn, where is it stated in any canon law that a lay person requires the permission of a spiritual director for a rigorous fast? Such oversight may well be prudent, but who or what requires it?
DeleteAs far as not knowing Fr Zovko's status, I'm not surprised that folks outside of Medjugorje and who don't follow it are unaware of the particulars of all the personages involved. The fact is that when the Shrine rector himself became aware of the facts, he cancelled Fr Zovko immediately.
What changed my mind was careful reading of the books written by its supporters. I remember reading an incident where one of the girls asked the apparition for a model of holiness. The apparition pointed out to her a Muslim woman as such a model. Right there I knew there was a problem. Even if the Muslim lady was a good sincere person, she could not be held as holy for lacking baptism, she lacks sanctifying grace. Moreover, Mother Teresa was very much alive at the time and one wonders why the apparition would not have pointed her out as someone worthy of emulation.
As for not knowing about the status of Fr. Jozo, I'm talking about Medjugorje supporters. I know of a priest in the Chigaco area who is very holy and obedient. He is a beacon of orthodoxy, but speaks highly of Frs. Jozo and Slavko. Same thing with high and low profile Medjugorje people. I think the bishop there really needs to issue some decree to end the farce. Fr. Jozo is retired now, but I know he is still doing Masses, and people need to know not to attend them. It is so crazy!
ReplyDeleteAs for the cross that that guy at work was not allowed to display, it could have been that he was not allowed to wear his own cross. I'm not sure, though. It has been a while since I read the interview.
One time, I asked the priest that I refer to about something that supposedly happened with Vicka during an appartion. He just totally dismissed it off-hand. Anyone, however, would be leery of Medjugorje after reading this: http://www.sanctepater.com/2009/10/medjugorje-seer-vicka-flinches-while-in.html Our Lady was going to drop the Baby Jesus? The sinless, flawless Virgin Mary?
As for what you said about Canon Law, you may be correct. However, Fr. Wade Menezes said you need the permission of a priest or spiritual director first in a homily on EWTN. So did a priest I confessed to once, and asked about this. However, they may have been saying it was recommended, but not necessarily required. That is a good question.
-Dawn