Maria Divine Mercy

mdebets

newmug wrote: »

I dont know if I believe it. I am shocked by it though. As a Catholic, I believe other visionaries, who were denounced in their time also. But to me it seems like there's too many coincidences. And yes, I do believe there are secret evil groups infiltrating Catholicism, just look at all the paedophile rings that have been discovered - They're not acting very Catholically! But the Pope resigning, on the feast day of Our Lady of Lourdes no less (which is associated with papal predictions!), the bolt of lightning, its all very non-scammable.

You cant deny though that the stuff MDM is coming out with is either the real deal, or she's the flukiest scam artist in history!

Or MDM is just using probabilities, to create her predictions.

Even so the pope's resignation was unexpectedly, it was a high probability that it would happen one way or another.

If you look at what the pope said in the past about that a pope should resign if he is no longer capable, or that he was very reluctant to take on the office in the first place, it was not unlikely that he would resign at some stage. There is also the point that he witnessed Pope John Paul II last years and saw firsthand, how the church was paralyzed internally due to the him not being able to take full charge of his duties. A situation, I can't imagine him wanting to see repeated with him.

There was also always the possibility that he would get so sick that only medical technology would keep him alive (which couldn't be switched off under any circumstances), at which point (as I understand it), he would have resigned by a letter which he has written for such a case.

As to the lightning strike, I didn't see any statistics, but I could imagine it being a frequent occurrence during thunderstorms in Rome, with St. Peter's basilica being so high and probably having a good lightning rod.

newmug

Gumbi wrote: »

Since when did lightning become magical?

Its not. But its impossible to scam.

Gumbi

newmug wrote: »

Its not. But its impossible to scam.

A lightning strike on the basilica was predicted on the day of Benedict's resignation?

Porkchop McGee

Were the previous lightning strikes, those which justified the erection of a lightning rod many, many years ago, also attacks of an angry god or simply random byproducts of atmospheric electrical activity?

Run_to_da_hills

Gumbi wrote: »

A lightning strike on the basilica was predicted on the day of Benedict's resignation?

Well there was something of lightening strikes mentioned in Luke 10:18

Perhaps some could possibly see this as a forewarning of whats to come in the world.

Gumbi

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Well there was something of lightening strikes mentioned in Luke 10:18

Perhaps some could possibly see this as a forewarning of whats to come in the world.

That has nothing to do with the events at hand. It's much too vague to make any kind of connection out of it.

In any case, as Porkchop has said, what makes this strike any different from all the others?

Run_to_da_hills

Gumbi wrote: »

That has nothing to do with the events at hand. It's much too vague to make any kind of connection out of it.

In any case, as Porkchop has said, what makes this strike any different from all the others?

The timing.

Gumbi

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The timing.

Confirmation bias.

Benny_Cake

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The timing.

It's the tallest building in that part of Rome, and the dome is the world's tallest. It's also been struck by lighting on several occasions, which is what the lightning conductor is for. It isn't all that unusual.

Run_to_da_hills

Benny_Cake wrote: »

It's the tallest building in that part of Rome, and the dome is the world's tallest. It's also been struck by lighting on several occasions, which is what the lightning conductor is for. It isn't all that unusual.

We will wait and see if this act of God is repeated on election of the next pope.

PopePalpatine

Benny_Cake wrote: »

It's the tallest building in that part of Rome, and the dome is the world's tallest. It's also been struck by lighting on several occasions, which is what the lightning conductor is for. It isn't all that unusual.

Would I be right in assuming that rainstorms are common in Rome during February?

newmug

Meteorites making landfall in Russia? An asteroid just missing us? One of the predictions was that an asteroid would indeed skim by us, but that it would miss and travel on naturally and collide with the sun. When this happens, the resultant explosion will form a crucifix in the sky.


http://www.thewarningsecondcoming.com/two-comets-will-collide-my-cross-will-appear-in-a-red-sky/



Now if THAT happens, will you naysayers try to explain it away again, or will you admit that something freaky is going on?

Gumbi

newmug wrote: »

Meteorites making landfall in Russia? An asteroid just missing us? One of the predictions was that an asteroid would indeed skim by us, but that it would miss and travel on naturally and collide with the sun. When this happens, the resultant explosion will form a crucifix in the sky.


http://www.thewarningsecondcoming.com/two-comets-will-collide-my-cross-will-appear-in-a-red-sky/



Now if THAT happens, will you naysayers try to explain it away again, or will you admit that something freaky is going on?

How was that a prediction? We have been aware of this happening for some time now.

I read the post. She doesn't have a clue what she's talking about. She implies that stars are comets.

totus tuus

I really don't believe that MDM is a true prophet, seriously!!

Emmet O'Regan:

Just a few notes on Maria Divine Mercy - this alleged seer teaches the doctrine of millenarianism (i.e. a future period of a thousand years of peace), and that sins can be forgiven through prayer rather than the sacrament of confession. She also claims to be able to dispense plenary indulgences. She probably believes herself to be genuine, but fails to "test the spirits", as instructed by St. John:

http://unveilingtheapocalypse.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/is-worthy-shepherd-prophecy-about-to-be.html

tommy2bad

Gumbi wrote: »

How was that a prediction? We have been aware of this happening for some time now.

I think he's referring to "the resultant explosion will form a crucifix in the sky" not the asteroid passing.

newmug

Gumbi wrote: »

How was that a prediction? We have been aware of this happening for some time now.

I read the post. She doesn't have a clue what she's talking about. She implies that stars are comets.

So just tell me bluntly, yes or no - If an asteroid / comet / meteor / star collides with another asteroid / comet / meteor / star and a cross forms in the sky, will you consider the posibility that there might indeed be something supernatural going on with MDM's messages, or not.

Gumbi

newmug wrote: »

So just tell me bluntly, yes or no - If an asteroid / comet / meteor / star collides with another asteroid / comet / meteor / star and a cross forms in the sky, will you consider the posibility that there might indeed be something supernatural going on with MDM's messages, or not.

Firstly, the "prediction" mentions stars and comets, seemingly treating them synonymously. This indicates a lack of basic knowledge on the part of MDM; hardly divine, it it?

As it stands, the description is somewhat vague, due to the aforementioned reasons. Now, if two objects were to collide in the sky, forming a bright red light, very clearly in the for of a cross, in a manner that might be considered unnatural, I would take a closer look at MDM's predictions. No more, no less. As it stands, this won't happen. She's made enough of a fool of herself already. Comets aren't stars. Stars aren't comets.

newmug

Gumbi wrote: »

Firstly, the "prediction" mentions stars and comets, seemingly treating them synonymously. This indicates a lack of basic knowledge on the part of MDM; hardly divine, it it?

As it stands, the description is somewhat vague, due to the aforementioned reasons. Now, if two objects were to collide in the sky, forming a bright red light, very clearly in the for of a cross, in a manner that might be considered unnatural, I would take a closer look at MDM's predictions. No more, no less. As it stands, this won't happen. She's made enough of a fool of herself already. Comets aren't stars. Stars aren't comets.

The Sun is a star. That asteroid that clipped us this evening could well be classed as a comet if it left a tail. There are far more out there than that one.

So you would "take a closer look" if these things actually came to pass? Well good, I'm glad to hear it. I am at that stage now, earlier than you, based on the Pope resigning. Maybe its all bull, maybe its not. But its no harm, whatsoever, to keep an eye on these things.

Gumbi

newmug wrote: »

The Sun is a star. That asteroid that clipped us this evening could well be classed as a comet if it left a tail. There are far more out there than that one.

So you would "take a closer look" if these things actually came to pass? Well good, I'm glad to hear it. I am at that stage now, earlier than you, based on the Pope resigning. Maybe its all bull, maybe its not. But its no harm, whatsoever, to keep an eye on these things.

Why? Nothing she has said thus far has been remotely "divine". Nothing more than vague claims have been mentioned, add a dab of confirmation bias, and we have divinity. No thanks.

newmug

Gumbi wrote: »

Why? Nothing she has said thus far has been remotely "divine". Nothing more than vague claims have been mentioned, add a dab of confirmation bias, and we have divinity. No thanks.

What do you mean "why"? Are you an athiest or something? Because if you're not, you should be taking all these things very seriously. As a Catholic, it is part of my core belief that Jesus, a supernatural God, will come back to Earth one day, and judge everybody according to their behaviour in life. I dont particularly feel like ending up like that Tibetan monk in the "photos that shook the world" thread any time soon.

totus tuus

newmug wrote: »

So just tell me bluntly, yes or no - If an asteroid / comet / meteor / star collides with another asteroid / comet / meteor / star and a cross forms in the sky, will you consider the posibility that there might indeed be something supernatural going on with MDM's messages, or not.

The prophecy of two comets colliding and forming a cross in the sky comes form St. Faustina's Diary.

Baggio1

:Dperhaps

hames

As a Catholic I have to say that I am not particularly interested in the various apparitions down the years and I feel they are best left aside without forming any significant part of our faith, or at least the lessons that have emerged from them are best left aside. However, that is a personal matter for each of us.

But more importantly, we should be aware of any sinfulness attached to promoting apparitions which are not approved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, such as this. We should not be encouraging it.

Run_to_da_hills

newmug wrote: »

Meteorites making landfall in Russia? An asteroid just missing us? One of the predictions was that an asteroid would indeed skim by us, but that it would miss and travel on naturally and collide with the sun. When this happens, the resultant explosion will form a crucifix in the sky.

http://www.thewarningsecondcoming.com/two-comets-will-collide-my-cross-will-appear-in-a-red-sky/

Now if THAT happens, will you naysayers try to explain it away again, or will you admit that something freaky is going on?

Meteorites are also mentioned numerous times in Revelation and Matthew 24 (A chapter which Christ spoke of the signs of the end of age.)

"And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent, and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail for the plague thereof was exceeding great". Revelation 16:21

"and something like a huge mountain, all ablaze, was thrown into the sea". Revelation 8:8

."the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken". Matthew 24:29

totus tuus

Mark Mallet has just released an article in regards to MDM. Her 'prophesies' about to the Pope/Papacy are pretty much heretical, I couldn't agree with him more. If even one of her prophecies are heretical, then how can the rest of them be trusted?


http://www.markmallett.com/blog/2013/02/entering-perilous-times/

Baggio1

thats a very interesting read for sure my mr.mallet... am still on the fence on this but do tend to take MDVM seriously,,, if its wrong and not true well we've nothing to worry about and a lot to look forward to,,,, if not!:? then we need to be prepared and watch the signs of the times.

totus tuus

MDM, messages definately false, just as I suspected!

http://warningsecondcoming.blogspot.ie/

Levito

I'm very skeptical about her too. All she's doing is conjuring up panic among the faithful, not like the work of the holy spirit to me. Not to mention the heresy. But damn, it's convincing, because there's so much truth in there.

In regards to this article: http://www.markmallett.com/blog/2013/02/entering-perilous-times/

When I talked with him on the phone, he suddenly began to speak from deep within the heart: “The next pope is chosen by Mary, hidden beneath her mantle. He has been prepared by her since his childhood to be the one who will bring to fulfillment the message of Fatima and the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart. He will then give the sacrifice of his life. I don’t know why I’m saying this, I just know it in my heart….” I stopped him and asked if he was familiar at all with the above prophecy, since it is a mirror-image of what he said. He had never heard of it.

Assassination?

Gumbi

If I tell you it will rain at 2 o clock a month from now, and it does, does that mean I was telling the truth? Or does it mean I was lucky and that it was coincidence?

newmug

totus tuus wrote: »

Mark Mallet has just released an article in regards to MDM. Her 'prophesies' about to the Pope/Papacy are pretty much heretical, I couldn't agree with him more. If even one of her prophecies are heretical, then how can the rest of them be trusted?


http://www.markmallett.com/blog/2013/02/entering-perilous-times]

I have a theory. Bear with me on this:


In Mark Mallet's piece there, he says there's another prophesy, but this one says the opposite of what MDM is saying - it says that this Pope will be great, and that he will have Mary at his heart. So since these prophesies are seemingly at odds with each other, one or both of them must be false. They both cant be right.

Or can they?

Some versions of protestantism see the veneration of Mary as idolatry. I have to admit, it has crossed my fully Catholic mind at times that maybe they have a point! Mary is not God, and no Catholic says that she is, but she sure gets a lot of the limelight. What if the horned fella is using this to his advantage? Who does anybody trust and love more than their mother? What would the perfect disguise be for an imposter to gain access to the hearts of billions of Catholics worldwide? I love Mary and I hope I'm not blaspheming here, but what if the next Pope is indeed the AC, and he fools people with his outer facade of devotion to Mary?

Baggio1 wrote: »

thats a very interesting read for sure my mr.mallet... am still on the fence on this but do tend to take MDVM seriously,,, if its wrong and not true well we've nothing to worry about and a lot to look forward to,,,, if not!:? then we need to be prepared and watch the signs of the times.

We'll know soon enough! Then again, it could all be pie in the sky. As someone pointed out, if you predict it will rain at a certain time and it does, does that mean your prediction was correct? Then again, it rains waaaaaaaaaaayyy more often than every 600 years!

Keylem

In St. Don Bosco's Prophetic dream of the Two Pillars, God revealed that he would save the Church through the Eurcharist and Mary.



http://www.mgr.org/BoscoDream.html

Keylem

There is an excellent article by Jimmy Akin, 9 reasons to steer clear of MDM.

9th Reason:

Should Catholics give credence to Maria Divine Mercy?

No. She is an anonymous, unapproved seer whose prophecies contain material that is both demonstrably false and contrary to Catholic teaching regarding the future.

Furthermore, to adhere to her prophecies can result in the grave sin and canonical crime of schism.

If, as soon as a new pope is elected, one were to regard him--as Maria Divine Mercy would have us regard him--as a false pope and the False Prophet, one would be in a state of schism.

According to the Code of Canon Law:

chism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him [CIC 751].

This would have grave consequences for an individual, both spiritually and canonically, including possible automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication, since:

[A] schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication [CIC 1364 §1].

Which includes, among other things the inability to receive the sacraments until one repents of the schism and is restored to communion with the Church.

Under no circumstances should a Catholic become involved with or give any credence to the "messages" of Maria Divine Mercy.

May she herself find the grace to repudiate them, take them down, and alert her followers of their falseness.

newmug

Right, here's the situation:

1. She predicted the current Pope would be ousted - now he's gone
2. She predicted there would be an assassination attempt
3. She predicted there would be some sort of big event before Good Friday
4. She predicted there would be some "insult to the Church" on Easter week, hinting at some change to the Church, as in allowing gay marriages or merging some other religions with Catholicism.

One of these fairly major accusations has taken place, and nobody really knows the circumstances behind it. Two more are due to occur by the end of the month. We shall see. But in all seriousness, any genuine Catholic who puts store in Knock, Fatima, Lourdes etc. shouldn't be so quick to write these predictions off. If they are false, what about it? If they are true, then Christianity will become illegal, cash will disappear, and Jesus's second coming will occur all within 3 years. Scary stuff.

Gumbi

newmug wrote: »

Right, here's the situation:

1. She predicted the current Pope would be ousted - now he's gone
2. She predicted there would be an assassination attempt
3. She predicted there would be some sort of big event before Good Friday
4. She predicted there would be some "insult to the Church" on Easter week, hinting at some change to the Church, as in allowing gay marriages or merging some other religions with Catholicism.

One of these fairly major accusations has taken place, and nobody really knows the circumstances behind it. Two more are due to occur by the end of the month. We shall see. But in all seriousness, any genuine Catholic who puts store in Knock, Fatima, Lourdes etc. shouldn't be so quick to write these predictions off. If they are false, what about it? If they are true, then Christianity will become illegal, cash will disappear, and Jesus's second coming will occur all within 3 years. Scary stuff.

Which one has taken place?

newmug

Gumbi wrote: »

Which one has taken place?

Benny 16 is gone isn't he?

Gumbi

newmug wrote: »

Benny 16 is gone isn't he?

He wasn't ousted...

newmug

Gumbi wrote: »

He wasn't ousted...

That's your opinion, and you're quite entitled to it. But neither you nor I know for sure what happened. The FACT is he's gone. Lets just leave it at that and not start going round in circles.

Gumbi

newmug wrote: »

That's your opinion, and you're quite entitled to it. But neither you nor I know for sure what happened. The FACT is he's gone. Lets just leave it at that and not start going round in circles.

Yes, but what we do know about it, indicates that he wasn't ousted, and as such we cannot say that he was. There are no circles. To positively assert that the Pope was ousted is a conspiracy theory at best.

newmug

Gumbi wrote: »

Yes, but what we do know about it, indicates that he wasn't ousted, and as such we cannot say that he was. There are no circles. To positively assert that the Pope was ousted is a conspiracy theory at best.

I'm not saying he was, I'm saying MDM predicted he would be, now he's gone, and neither you nor I know the circumstances. This much is not mere indication, it is fact. I'm also saying she made two fairly bold predictions that are supposed to happen within weeks. Maybe they will, maybe they wont.

hames

newmug wrote: »

I'm not saying he was, I'm saying MDM predicted he would be, now he's gone

No, you said that MDM predicted that he would be ousted; there is absolutely no reason in the world to believe that a man so forthright in his opinions and teachings could seriously be ousted; the burden of proof clearly and logically has to lie with the person asserting that a positive action of ousting has taken place, and there is absolutely nothing to indicate that.

Using the resignation of the Pope, whilst ignoring the fact that there is no evidence or even any slight indication of an ousting is nothing more than confirmation bias - you are choosing to interpret an event a certain way so that it will be vaguely in accordance with a MDM "prediction", rather than looking at it in a rational or objective way. If you were to do the latter, you would see that, objectively speaking, MDM has not been proven right here.

I will further add that this woman issues so many statements that it was only a matter of time before one of them very vaguely came true. If she keeps producing "predictions" at this rate, it is only a matter of time before confirmation bias again allows some people to grasp another such prediction when it seems to accord with a real event.

I think it is a great pity that otherwise rational human beings cannot see what is happening here.

newmug

newmug wrote: »

She predicted the current Pope would be ousted - now he's gone.

newmug wrote: »

I'm not saying he was, I'm saying MDM predicted he would be, now he's gone, and neither you nor I know the circumstances.

hames wrote: »

No, you said that MDM predicted that he would be ousted;

By trying to prove your own point, you are proving mine. Anyway, this is exactly the pointless circle I didn't want to get into. You think one thing, I think something else. Both opinions are valid, so we'll have to agree to differ. Now go away troll.

hames wrote: »

I think it is a great pity that otherwise rational human beings cannot see what is happening here.

EXACTLY! If you call yourself a Catholic, and you believe that the supernatural exists, that people can rise from the dead, that you have a soul, that God can appear in visions and apparitions such as at Knock, Lourdes etc., then why write off a prediction with such major significance as a Pope's job being interfered with? It at least warrants consideration, whether its bull or not.

hames

newmug wrote: »

By trying to prove your own point, you are proving mine.

Listen, you stated that one of MDMs four stated predictions were that the Pope would be "ousted". That was the word that you used. There is no evidence or indication which gives anybody any reason to believe that such a thing has happened... except a confirmation bias.

I am presenting you with a very reasonable fact which you refuse to face, and you think I'm the troll?

You are deliberately engaging in a serious logical error, and on which seems to border on the heretical, on a Christian website. Don't do that and then expect to contentedly dismiss any obvious opposition to that with "oh well, you have your opinion and I have mine", because that's not how logic works.

EXACTLY! If you call yourself a Catholic, and you believe that the supernatural exists, that people can rise from the dead, that you have a soul, that God can appear in visions and apparitions such as at Knock, Lourdes etc., then why write off a prediction with such major significance as a Pope's job being interfered with? It at least warrants consideration, whether its bull or not.

This is nonsense. It's no different than saying, well if you believe in the resurrection, then why not believe in flying pigs and turtles who sing the blues? You could use that argument for just about any nonsense scenario that one could possibly dream up.

Is that what you are suggesting? That Christian belief gives one a license to undertake any sort of surreal fantasy one can possibly conceive, yes?

Gumbi

Newmug, how dishonest can you get? You said that it was true that the Pope was ousted. Justify this statement. No circles. No games. No dodging.

scidive

i'm with newmug in this one the fact is there are two popes now this situation didn't occur in 600 years and mdm prediction on the ousting of the pope still fits yet to be proven true or false.

Gumbi

scidive wrote: »

i'm with newmug in this one the fact is there are two popes now this situation didn't occur in 600 years and mdm prediction on the ousting of the pope still fits yet to be proven true or false.

What are you talking about? If I make a claim that unicorns exist, the fact that they have neither been proven/disproven is grounds for my claim being legitimate?

Honestly, what you're saying is ridiculous. The claim has been put forward that the Pope was ousted. Justify this claim or stop posting altogether.

hames

scidive wrote: »

mdm prediction on the ousting of the pope still fits yet to be proven true or false.

The term "yet to be proven true or false" is an error.

First things first, the 'prediction' is yet to be proven true.

In any normal exchange, the burden of proof is important. The evidence does not need to resemble legal evidence, but should adequately corroborate a proposition.

This burden first falls with the individual making a primary assertion.

Only when that burden of proof has been overcome can any requirement to "prove false" arise.

Likewise, the initial burden of proof in relation to Benedict's stated reason for retirement seems to have been corroborated in full:

Benedict XVI initially stated that his advancing age was a burden to the efficacy of his Papacy.

The corroboration which satisfies the burden of proof:

Benedict, Pope Emeritus, retired at the age of 85; true enough, this is considered an old age.
Benedict XVI, as Pope, had appeared increasingly frail and infirm over his Papacy.
Benedict XVI, as Pope, had apparently lost the vision in one of his eyes, and his hearing has deteriorated.
As Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ratzinger repeatedly indicated his desire to retire from the Vatican; he submitted his resignation to Pope John Paul II on three occasions.
In 2010, before MDM's 'prediction', the then Pope Benedict XVI was publicly quoted by Peter Seewald as saying that retirement from the Papacy was a right, and sometimes an obligation, of a Pontiff.
According to the New York times, there was ongoing public speculation about Benedict's resignation based on numerous reports the Italian media, especially after Seewald's book was published in 2010.

Since the Pope's reasons for retirement seems to be satisfiably corroborated, the burden of proof now shifts to those who maintain belief in MDM on two separate counts

(i) that a reason the Pope has offered for his resignation is false
(ii) that MDM's allegation can be substantiated for merit.

scidive

hames wrote: »

The term "yet to be proven true or false" is an error.

First things first, the 'prediction' is yet to be proven true.

In any normal exchange, the burden of proof is important. The evidence does not need to resemble legal evidence, but should adequately corroborate a proposition.

This burden first falls with the individual making a primary assertion.

Only when that burden of proof has been overcome can any requirement to "prove false" arise.

Likewise, the initial burden of proof in relation to Benedict's stated reason for retirement seems to have been corroborated in full:

Benedict XVI initially stated that his advancing age was a burden to the efficacy of his Papacy.

The corroboration which satisfies the burden of proof:

Benedict, Pope Emeritus, retired at the age of 85; true enough, this is considered an old age.
Benedict XVI, as Pope, had appeared increasingly frail and infirm over his Papacy.
Benedict XVI, as Pope, had apparently lost the vision in one of his eyes, and his hearing has deteriorated.
As Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ratzinger repeatedly indicated his desire to retire from the Vatican; he submitted his resignation to Pope John Paul II on three occasions.
In 2010, before MDM's 'prediction', the then Pope Benedict XVI was publicly quoted by Peter Seewald as saying that retirement from the Papacy was a right, and sometimes an obligation, of a Pontiff.
According to the New York times, there was ongoing public speculation about Benedict's resignation based on numerous reports the Italian media, especially after Seewald's book was published in 2010.

Since the Pope's reasons for retirement seems to be satisfiably corroborated, the burden of proof now shifts to those who maintain belief in MDM on two separate counts

(i) that a reason the Pope has offered for his resignation is false
(ii) that MDM's allegation can be substantiated for merit.

Official reasons for the Pope to step down is one thing circumstantial evidence is another.

There is circumstantial evidence that Benedict was being persecuted outside of the vatican as pointed out by MDM.

It has long being known before he ever became Pope that Benedict wanted to retire to Regensburg, Germany back to his brother and family yet he remains within the Vatican.

According to the below article on Reutors an arrest warrant exists hence the reason why he can't go back to Germany. If that is not persecution of Pope Benedict then I don't Know what is. It looks to me so far MDM predictions are still on track.

"The Pope will have immunity from prosecution regarding the mishandling of child sex crimes by staying within the walls of the Vatican, according to an anonymous Vatican source. Reuters reported Friday, Feb. 15, that church sources have explained that the retiring Pope Benedict would be “defenseless” if he leaves the Vatican. This official news story comes on the heels of a statement issued by the International Tribunal into Crimes Against Church and State (ITCCS) that detailed the legal situation that surrounds the Pope and the Vatican. An unnamed European country and the ITCCS have issued a campaign to hold the Pope accountable for the Vatican’s cover-up of child sex crimes. There was an international arrest warrant secured for the Pope’s arrest:

On Friday, February 1, 2013, on the basis of evidence supplied by our affiliated Common Law Court of Justice (itccs.org), our Office concluded an agreement with representatives of a European nation and its courts to secure an arrest warrant against Joseph Ratzinger, aka Pope Benedict, for crimes against humanity and ordering a criminal conspiracy.

lmaopml

Actually, I think this self proclaimed 'End Times Prophet' - to me anyway is really quite disgusting - in her 'methods' - and not a little wimpy too, and cloak and dagger - not exactly Christ like! Actually nothing like Christ at all..so big thumbs down and no apology or doubts at all.

Or indeed like any other person who was recognised as being 'Christ like', or a Saint, or a Prophet - they didn't merely go digital, but actual as far as their faith...

End time prophet?

I don't think so.....

Prophet of division and hatred and confusion - well, I'd have to think whether this particular website owner could be given this crown - it comes close.

Prophet of 'selling' the truth and taking advantage 'Visa' style getting saved - well, that would have to be a big resounding yes.

This is a false prophet I would lay my soul on the line for it - she spreads hatred and division, that's not what Christ is all about - No.

Keylem

Well said Lmaopml. The Devil is cunning he will tell some truth mixed with lies to make it seem authentic so that he can deceive even the elect!

This MDM is a smart business woman. Rope them in first by sending out a few 'teasers', then home in for the kill and make plenty of dosh.

Baggio1

lmaopml

um thats a bit of a dodgy bet - your soul?.. as a sometimes betting man i would never bet my soul on ANYTHNG... you dont KNOW that MDVM is false i dont KNOW if she's for real,, but again sitting squarely on my fence i wont condem her... after all people say division does not come from christ? hmm remember his words? - " do not think i have come to bring peace to the world, i bring a sword, a man's own brother shall be his enemy"
ie - division is DEFFINATELY going to happen to sifft the chaff from the wheat... the tricky part is knowing what is real from false,, on THAT score i have sympathy for you for sure... its not easy.... but i wouldnt condem without absolute proof that a person was a fraud.

my 3 cents