Month: February 2016

We now conclude considering the propaganda written for and by the New York City atheist ad campaign, by Austin Dacey and Michael De Dora, Jr. (spokesperson for the New York City campaign) via the platform of Psychology Today.

The context—historical and grammatical—of the Ten Commandments is that of giving a constitution to a brand new nation that was being built up from the ground up (I detailed this point here). The commandments deal with issues of ethics: its premise and its practice. Thus, they are to be applied to ethically questionable situations in ethical ways. For example, lying to save someone’s life would be ethical as it is protecting a life. This is because in such a case one is not lying in order to deceived someone in order to get away with something is unethical; for self-serving, selfish, petty, purposes. Stealing to feed your family in a dire situation would be ethical while otherwise stealing would be unethical (or, some may state that in some cases, such as stealing to feed a starving family, one must do certain things even though they are unethical).

To the issue of the one-week old embryos; note that many people, such as Dacey, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Barker etc. always argue in favor of abortion by appealing to a mere clump of cells (which is what we all are in a God-free universe) whilst disregarding the fact of abortions which take place at every single stage of development.

Dan Barker (see Dan Barker’s Views On Human Dignity),

a fetus that’s the size of a thumb that has, what, what would you put it in a little locket and hang it around your neck?

Sam Harris,

A 3-day-old human embryo is a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst. There are, for the sake of comparison, more than 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly. The embryos that are destroyed in stem-cell research do not have brains, or even neurons. Consequently, there is no reason to believe they can suffer their destruction in any way at all.[1]

Richard Dawkins:

Does the embryo suffer? (Presumably not if it is aborted before it has a nervous system; and even if it is old enough to have a nervous system it surely suffers less than, say, an adult cow in a slaughterhouse.)…if late-aborted embryos with nervous systems suffer – though all suffering is deplorable – it is not because they are human that they suffer. There is no general reason to suppose that human embryos at any stage suffer more than cow or sheep embryos at the same developmental stage.[2]

Remember “A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy”?[3] Well, a cow is a sheep is a fly is a human baby. Incidentally, the feeling of pain as an arbiter of when abortion is or is not ethical is an arbitrary assertion; if we could anesthetize somebody’s body completely could we then proceed to murder them? In fact, abortion is none-but the brutal and yes, sometimes painful murder of beautiful, healthy, innocent and defenseless human babies—inhuman, subhuman brutality is committed in dismembering the bodies of babies.

At this point I should perhaps state that I am 100% pro-choice in that I believe that every woman has the right to choose whether or not to get pregnant. Once she is pregnant we deal with ethical issues. For example, in the case of the mother’s life being in jeopardy it is ethical to have an abortion because the alternative is standing by, doing nothing and watching two people die instead of doing something to at least save one life. But what is the point of abortion? Since life begins at conception (when the sperm fertilized the egg) the person getting the abortion does not want what they know to be a human being to exist any longer, they do not want them to live, they do not want to have to deal with them, and so they take action to rid themselves of this bothersome person.

They dehumanizing them as “zygote,” “embryo,” “conceptus,” “by-product of conception,” etc. Terms which no woman who is looking forward to the birth of her baby would use, “Oh, my by-product of conception just kicked!” This is why it is murder at any stage of development; it is keeping a human being from developing from a fertilized egg into a person who argues in favor of brutalizing babies as long as they are a few inches on the inside of a woman.

Austin Dacey continues,

It cannot tell us why we should follow it, rather than some other set. Of course, it would be no help to add an Eleventh Commandment: Thou Shalt Follow Commandments since the same question would arise about that commandment

Here he is admitting the ultimate metaphysical or transcendental foundation for all and any ethical system and he is missing the point that the regress is actually finite and ends at the foot of the Triune God. This is the case within the context of the Decalogue as well as logically (as I demonstrated with regards to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorns, et al.) and it is why it does indeed, tell us why we should follow it, rather than some other set.
Note, again, that since the Decalogue is the, as it were, founding document of the nation of Israel it provides the premise of, “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:2-3). God liberated the Israelites form the four centuries of slavery—Egyptian slavery, which atheists never condemn—and defeated the gods of Egypt; this is why He is qualified to guide them.

Dacey further states,

We are the ones who must discern whether it is a voice to be trusted…[and] decide which of these voices made the most sense. Moral thinking is like that. No one else can do it for you.

This is another false dichotomy which juxtaposes ethical imperatives such as the Decalogue, on the one hand, and discerning, deciding, thinking, on the other.
Whence did he get the idea that never the twain shall meet? They were meant to meet, they were supposed to meet and they have met. Considering life and logic as we know it, God could not make a statement that was not filtered through human reason since the manner in which we are designed makes it so that all information, from the conceptual to the sensual, is filtered through our minds and brains and are therefore subject to human reason. Moreover, God is the very one who urges us thusly, “let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18).

Austin Dacey notes:

Sometimes it is said that human life is valuable because we are made in the image of God. But we have no idea what the image of God looks like, except as reflected in the things we find valuable in human beings, like imagination or self-awareness. It is not that we find life to have worth because we believe we are made in the image of God, but rather that we believe we are made in the image of God because we find life to have worth.

Note the disconnect: Sometimes it is said that human life is valuable because we are made in the image of God but we have no idea what the image of God looks like except that we do as reflected in the things we find valuable in human beings, like imagination or self-awareness. This is a non sequitur as we do not need to know what the image of looks like in order to claim that human life is valuable because we are made in that image. By this reasoning we could not claim that life has worth, as Dacey claimed, since we do not know what “worth” looks like except ____________ (fill in the blank). The last sentence is merely a presuppositional atheist assertion.

Dacey does make one positive point even whilst offering a however, however:

No one can ignore the importance of Judeo-Christian values to the history of Western cultures, and no one can deny that faith is a source of virtue for many people. However, in the evolution of humanity, religion arose after the capacity for reason and empathy–the conscience. And in determining which values are best, we have no alternative but to rely on conscience.

As per above, we epistemically agree on the administering function of the conscience whilst disagreeing about the ontology premise upon which it functions; his being “evolution” and mine being theism.

Lastly, having done what he thinks is discrediting the Judeo-Christian ethic Austin Dacey declares “the secular message”,

This is the secular message: Ethics comes from below, not above. It is a message that reaches out to believers as well as atheists–and anyone else who might be riding the subway.

My conclusion is that ethics comes from above and is administered from below and that this God authored and given ethos is a message that reaches out to believers as well as atheists. God leaves no one unguided and un-provided for: He gives all of us His ethos in our very beings and our conscience whereby to administer it; “He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5:45).

[1] Sam Harris, “A Dissent: The Case Against Faith – Religion does untold damage to our politics. An atheist’s lament,” MSNBC / Newsweek, Nov. 13, 2006
[2] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston & New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2006), pp. 293, 297
[3] Ingrid Newkirk, (President, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals-PETA) Vogue, September, 1989

The New American Bible, Translated from the Original Languages with Critical Use of All Ancient Sources and The Revised New Testament Authorized by the Board of Trustees of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine and Approved by the Administrative Committee/Board of The National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the United States Catholic Conference, Nihil Obstat: Stephen J. Hartdegem, OFM, SSL. and Christian P. Ceroke, O. Carm., S.T.D. (Nashville: Catholic Bible Press a division of Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987)

The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Translated from the Latin Vulgate, A Revision of the Challoner-Rheims Version, Edited by Catholic Scholars Under the Patronage of The Episcopal Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Nihil Obstat: Rt. Rev. Msgr. Henry J. Grimmelsman, S.T.D., Rev. John F. McConnell, M.M., S.T.L., S.S.L., Rev. Joseph J. Tennant, S.T.D., S.S.L. Also approved by Eugune Cardinal Tisserant, President of the Pont. Biblical Commission and His Excellency Most Rev. Edwin V. O’Hara Bishop of Kansas City (Patreson, NJ: St. Anthony Guild Press, 1941)

The New Testament Rendered from the Original Greek with Explanatory Notes, Part One-The Four Gospels translated by James A. Kleist, S.J. Part Two Acts of the Apostles, Epistles and Apocalypse translated by Hoseph L. Lilly, C.M. Nihil Obstat: Robert G. Boucher, C.Ss.R., S.T.L., S.S.L. (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Co., 1954)

New Catholic Edition of the Holy Bible translated from the Latin Vulgate. The Old Testament Douay Version with newly edited annotations of Bishop Challoner and a new translation of the Book of Psalms for the New Latin Version approved by Pope Pius XII and the New Testament Confraternity Edition a revision of the Challoner-Rheims Version edited by Catholic scholars under the patronage of the Episcopal Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (New York: Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1949-1950) Imprimatur: +Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York, 9-14-48.

The Holy Bible with the Confraternity Text-Papal Edition—This Bible was commended by Pope Paul VI—Edited by Rev. Thomas B. McDonough S.T.L., J.D. The Catholic Press Chicago, Illinois 1969. A new edition of the Catholic Family Bible published previously with the approbation of His Eminence Samuel Cardinal Strich and with the Imprimatur of His Eminence Albert Cardinal Meyer Archbishop of Chicago—Imprimatur Rt. Rev. Francis W. Byrne J.C.L. Vicar General Archdiocese of Chicago 59-69.

The Sacred Heart League Edition-The Word of God-The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior in Today’s English Version, contains a letter from Joseph B. Brunini Bishop of the Diocese of Jackson, Mississippi, Imprimatur: John Francis Wheaton, S.T.L, S.S.L. Archbishop of Hartford (Walls, MI.: The Apostolate of the Printed Word, Published for Sacred Heart League by the bible Society, 1971)

Bible dictionary consulted:
New American Bible Fireside Family Edition, Approved at the Vatican, by Pope Paul VI on 9-18-70. Authorized by the Board of Trustees of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine and approved by the Administrative Committee / Board of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the United States Catholic Conference. (Wichita, Kansas: Devore and Sons, inc. 1981 and 87). Nihil Obstat for the Old Testament Stephen J. Hartdegem, OFM, SSL. and Christian P. Ceroke, O. Carm., S.T.D. Nihil Obstat for the Revised New Testament Stephen J. Hartdegem, OFM, SSL. Censor Deputatus. Nihil Obstat for the Encyclopedic Dictionary Michael F. Gutgsell, JCD. and Valentine J. Peter STD., JCD. Censor Liborum.

Imprimatur: Latin word meaning “let it be printed.”
Before a book pertaining to Catholic teachings or morals can be printed for the use of the faithful, the contents must be examined by a censor, and approved by the bishop of the diocese. Such approbation is indicated by the stamp, Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, which usually appear on the back of the title page of a publication.1

Nihil Obstat: A Latin Phrase, which means nothing hinders. The phrase is printed in the front of a book which indicates it has been examined by an ecclesiastical censor who has found nothing in the publication which would be contrary to faith and morals.2

These approvals mean that the text has been reviewed and proclaimed as containing nothing that will hinder, or go against, the Roman Catholic faith. It does not mean that Roman Catholics are required to believe what the text states as it is not the declaration of official dogma. What it does mean is that a Roman Catholic can believe anything in the text because it is in keeping with Roman Catholic dogma.

At a glance:
Roman Catholic traditions do not merely come from the historically verifiable teachings of the Apostles. They come from the popular beliefs of lay people, from apparitions, from the writings of various saints and Popes.

Regarding Marian dogma and many other un-Biblical teachings, Roman Catholic apologists always claim that these are things that Catholics have believed from the earliest years of the church. There are some puzzling aspects to this claim. If the Holy Mother Church, the one true Church has not infallibly-officially taught a doctrine, why do individual Catholics have to believe in these things as gospel truth? And if these things are gospel truth, why does it take the Catholic Church centuries or even millennia to teach these ancient truths as infallible-official doctrines that Catholics must believe?

Catholic apologist Karl Keating explains,

…dogmas are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the Magisterium thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief…[Pope] Pius IX, who was highly devoted to the Virgin, hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her.1

While this explanation may be helpful in understanding how dogmas are officially defined, it neglects to mention that when the Church formally defines dogma it goes far beyond clearing controversy and helping the faithful by emphasizing. ^{What the Roman Catholic Church does in its official declarations is that it places anathema (condemnation) on those who do not accept the teaching as is. In the case of the inauguration of a Feast Day in relation to a new official dogma, the penalty for not attending Mass for that day places mortal sin upon the Catholic.}
According to the Catholic Catechism if one dies with unrepented mortal sin they will go to hell for all eternity unless they confess it to a priest. Even if they died with repented-forgiven mortal sin they still have to suffer for it in Purgatory (See our essay on Purgatory). This is a flagrant disregard of Paul’s teaching about the freedom we have in Christ:

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ (Colossians 2:16-17).

One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it (Romans 14:5-6).

Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you (Galatians 4:8-11).

Elucidating the Facts of the Matter:
“Among the less-well-known facts of his life is the cure from epilepsy that John Mary Mastai-Ferretti, the future Pius IX, attributed to the intercession of the Blessed Virgin. He avowed to do everything in his power to advance her cause and make her better known and loved by the people.”2
Note the subjective-emotional motivation for the propagating of Marian devotion.

Alan Schreck, Associate Professor of theology at the Franciscan University writes, ^{“Where did these teachings [about Mary] come from? They are not explicitly taught in scripture, and it is not even historically clear that they were handed down from the preaching of the original apostles. Rather, these beliefs emerged over time as Christians reflected on what the Bible says about Jesus and his mother.”}3
Roman Catholicism claims what we may distinguish as three forms of revelation. One is the written Bible, which is a historical record of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and His apostles. Second is oral tradition, which claims to have been handed down from the original teachings of the Apostles. And third is infallible revelation, which can be revealed at any time through the Popes. Yet, is it really through the Popes who the Vatican calls “sweet Christ on earth”?4 Is it really a case of the Pope receiving revelation, making an infallible declaration and officially requiring Catholic acceptance? The reality of the matter appears to be that once people believe something long enough and enough people push for it to become an official doctrine, the Catholic Church folds under the pressure, regardless of whether it is un-Biblical, non-historic or contradictory to earlier revelation.

An example of this is the dogma of the assumption of Mary to heaven that “defined as a Catholic belief by an ‘infallible’ statement of Pope Pius XII in 1950 in response to the faith of millions of Catholics who desired that the Pope speak out officially about the truth of this belief. In the hundred years before Pope Pius’ declaration, the popes had received petitions from 113 cardinals, 250 bishops, 32,000 priests and religious brothers, 50,000 religious women, and 8 million lay people, all requesting that the Assumption be recognized officially as a Catholic teaching. Apparently, the pope discerned that the Holy Spirit was speaking through the people of God on this matter.”5

Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. wrote, “From Gaeta, in the following year [1849], the Pope issued an encyclical letter addressed to the bishops of the Catholic world. It was an act of papal collegiality in which he asked the prelates to help him decide on the question [of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception].”6

“This introduces the admission that Rome was asked to define the Immaculate Conception. The initiative came from the bishops and faithful, but the Pope had to speak to make the doctrine irreversible….Almost as soon as Pius IX defined the dogma of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, Rome was besieged with petitions for defining also her bodily Assumption. It is calculated that from 1870 to 1940, over four hundred bishops, eighty thousand priests and religious, and more than eight million of the laity formally signed requests asking for the definition…The Pope drew the inevitable conclusion from the consent of those whom ‘the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule the Church of God’…On November 1, 1950, Pius XII answered these requests of the Catholic Hierarchy with a solemn definition… ‘We pronounce, declare, and define as divinely revealed dogma: The Immaculate Mother of God, Mary ever Virgin, after her life on earth, was assumed, body and soul to the glory of heaven.’…[Pope Pius] told them [the bishops] the joy he felt over the proclamation and the assurance it gave him that Mary would obtain the graces of which mankind stood in such dire need. On the level of piety and devotion, therefore, Mary’s Assumption was only the climax in a series of definitions to honor the Blessed Virgin…

Of the two sources of revelation, theologians commonly say the Assumption was implicit in Tradition, in spite of the practical absence of documentary evidence before A.D. 300. Yet the Pope finally declared that the doctrine was in revelation.”7

^{“when Pius XII defined the Assumption, he did more than propose the doctrine for acceptance by the faithful or give them a new motive for devotion to the Blessed Mother. He indicated the Church’s right to authorize a legitimate development in doctrine and piety that scandalizes Protestants and may even surprise believing Catholics.”}8

The Fatima Crusader published the following add, “More Than 6,000,000 Signatures and Counting! The historic struggle to answer Our Lady’s Fatima request to consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart continues unabated! Now, more than ever, we need the help of all Our Lady’s friends in this great crusade…our goal is to collect more than 1,000,000 signatures over the next 12 months…Do petitions really work? According to Pope Pius XII it was through the petitions of the faithful that the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was solemnly and infallibly defined as a dogma of the Catholic Faith.”
It is incredible to think that if Russia is consecrated to Mary’s heart, when this consecration goes down in history it will be stated that God by His Holy Spirit has revealed His divine wIL When in fact mere humans are being asked to bully the Vatican in proclaiming as divine truth a concoction of the words of an ghostly apparition and human opinion. The add goes on to invite the reader to “Send or Call for Your Free Consecration Petition Kit Now!”9

Since when is divine revelation being decided on by popular consensus and peer pressure?

Roman Catholic Apologists:
Catholic apologist Karl Keating admits that certain Roman Catholic dogmas are “accepted, ultimately, on the authority of the Church rather than on the authority of clear scriptural references.”10

Catholic apologist Jerry Matatics made the following statement in his introduction to a debate with Christian apologist James White on four doctrines about Mary, namely the immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, bodily assumption and queenly coronation, “James White cannot, with all due respect to his prodigious gifts and his abilities, and his sincerity, cannot really win a debate on these four topics for one simple reason. What the Catholic Church, that Jesus founded, teaches about Mary is quite simply the truth about Mary, and the truth, ultimately, by the power of God, always triumphs.”11

Granted, this is not all that these gentlemen have to say on the subject. But why depend upon authority in order to substantiate dogma? Why does Jerry Matatics begin a four part debate by stating that James White cannot win? What we have is a very clear demonstrates that, for them, the beginning and the end of their view of doctrinal issues is the absolute and ultimate authority of the Church.

I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But if even we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other

gospel to you that what you have received, let him be accursed

—Galatians 1:6-9 also see 2nd Corinthians 11:2-15

Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings:

for they will increase unto more ungodliness

—2nd Timothy 2:15-16

It is due to these texts that this essay was written; let us search the scripture to see if the things we are being told are truth or falsehood. The main commentary made by this essay will revolve around the article “The Calm Before the Storm Part III” written by Fr. Nicholas Gruner, B. Comm., S.T.L., S.T.D. (Cand.). It was published in “The Fatima Crusader.”1

The Woman in Gen. 3:15 Who will crush the serpent’s head is the Blessed Virgin Mary Who from the first moment of Her Immaculate Conception triumphed over the devil. Our Lord referred to the Blessed Virgin as “Woman”, from the cross. (John 19:26)
We also have the “Woman” spoken of in chapter 12 of the Apocalypse. In Genesis chapter 3 we read: God speaking to the serpent says, “I will put enmity between thee and the Woman, between thy seed and Her seed, and you shall lie in wait and she shall crush thy head with Her heel.” “She Shall Crush Thy Head” St. Jerome, who died about 430 A.D., is still the greatest Biblical scholar. He translated the Bible from the original, inspired Greek and Hebrew text into Latin—into the version which today is called the Vulgate. It is the Council of Trent that teaches there is no doctrinal error in the Vulgate. St. Jerome, unlike any biblical scholar today, had original texts in Hebrew. One of the early fathers of the Holy Ghost Fathers was a Jewish convert and his father was a rabbi. He points out that the rabbis had changed the scriptures of the Old Testament…about a hundred or two hundred years after the death of Christ, [the Jewish scribes] changed the scripture texts because it became more and more evident that the prophecies could only mean that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. Jesus is the Christ. And therefore, to maintain their hold on their people, the Jewish scribes changed the text themselves. This is a convert from Judaism whose father was a rabbi, saying this. St. Jerome didn’t have the poisoned texts, and he had access besides that to texts that are no longer available, they are just wiped out with time. And St. Jerome translated that passage, by saying, “She shall crush thy head,” meaning the Woman will crush. And so when Our Lady of Fatima says, “Only I can help you,” in a certain sense, not even God can help us, “but only I.”

Does that sound almost blasphemous, and certainly to Protestants it will sound like it, but I will explain it to you.

Let us further present some quotes from the article to see just how Fr. Nicholas Gruner defends his “almost” blaspheme.

First, I should note that I have dealt with some of the issues mentioned above already and so I will simply direct the interested readers to the following:
For the issue of “The Woman in Gen. 3:15 Who will crush the serpent’s head is the Blessed Virgin Mary”—see: Will She “Crush Your Head”?

For the issue of “Her Immaculate Conception”—see: Immaculately Conceived?

For the issue of “the ‘Woman’ spoken of in chapter 12 of the Apocalypse [aka Revelation ch. 12]”—see: Assumed into Heaven? which also includes the issues of Coronation in Heaven? and Queen of Heaven?

For the issue of “‘Woman’, from the cross. (John 19:26)”—see: Intercessor? Mediator? Advocate?

There are certain favors, there are certain graces, that God will only give through the merits and intercession of the saints. No other way. So that we do not easily fall into this sin of pride when we get such great graces.

This is a slightly watered down version of the “not even God can help us” assertion. This one demands that if you do not pray for the intercession of the saints through the Roman Catholic system then you will miss out on certain favors and certain graces.

World Peace Absolutely Will Only Come Through the Immaculate Heart of Mary. At Fatima we are told that the peace of the world has been entrusted to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. So peace in the world would not come about any other way except through the merits and the graces of Our Lady, and the acknowledgment of the same by mankind.

That is why Our Lady can say in truth and literally, “Only I can help you.” She actually spoke of Herself in this case, in the third person, “Only She can help you.” But She was speaking of Our Lady of the Rosary. “Only She can help you.” Why can she say that? Because we cannot get this grace except through Her intercession, except through Her merits, except through Her getting the credit.

While the Bible predicts that world peace will come about by the return of Jesus to rule the Earth the Fatima Crusader contradicts this and asserts that “World Peace Absolutely Will Only Come Through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.” That is, “the Immaculate Heart of Mary” as spoken of by “Our Lady of Fatima” who was referencing “Our Lady of the Rosary” who is she herself; or rather, another apparition.

Also, here is more grace that we will miss out on receiving unless we act through the Roman Catholic system to the point where we will not get it “except through Her getting the credit.” Sidestep God, sidestep Jesus and glorify Mary in her various apparitions.

Fr. Nicholas Gruner, of The Fatima Crusader, states that it is important to research his work for ourselves in order to determine whether he has anywhere falsified, in substance, the Fatima message. Moreover, he says that he is supposed to continue explaining these things until enough people realize that what he has been saying publicly is exactly true, that no one has found fault yet. He states that they will attack his person, his reputation, his intention, but they cannot attack what he says; neither theologically nor factually.
There can be no such attack because what he says is true. It is true that we humans cannot judge the intentions of a person’s heart. However, we are commanded by Jesus Himself to judge with a righteous judgment thus, we are we are to judge doctrine and behavior (see Acts 17:11 and below).

The problem is that Fr. Nicholas Gruner places the emphasis in the wrong place. It really does not matter if he has anywhere falsified the Fatima message, if the message is false in the first place. It is irrelevant whether what he says is true, if the original is not. For example, the fact that the New Testament is the best preserved book of antiquity, that it has been preserved in more manuscripts than any book of antiquity, and that the time between the events occurring and the earliest manuscript is closer than any book of antiquity, does not mean that it is true; it could be a well-preserved fraud (hypothetically speaking, of course—find evidence here and here). We know it to be the very Word of God not simply because God has preserved the document but because of evidence such as history, archeology, prophecy, etc. Regardless of Fr. Nicholas Gruner’s faithful proclamation and preservation of the Fatima message, it is the message itself that must be scrutinized in light of the Scripture.

It is clearly evident that when we obey the Word of God and compare the Fatima message, the Fatima message falls far short of deserving our allegiance regardless of scare tactics such as the following:

If we do not accept this message and its mercy, we will be all the more guilty….

The Message of Fatima also predicted that if the requests of the Virgin Mary at Fatima are not honored, many souls will be lost….

[The message of Fatima] warns that if the requests of Our Lady of Fatima for the Consecration of Russia and the First Saturday devotion are not honored, the Church will be persecuted, there will be other major wars, the Holy Father will have much to suffer and various nations will be annihilated. Many nations will be enslaved by Russian militant atheists. Most important, many souls will be lost….

one would be very foolish to disregard such an obviously authentic message from Heaven….

Jesus taught, “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgement you judge, you will be judged; with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you” (Matthew 7:1-2).
Therefore, if we judge righteously we will be judged righteously. Moreover, we know that we are called to righteous judgment because Jesus also said, “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24).

We are clearly called to discern, test, and judge, prophets, spirits and all things:

Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge (1st Corinthians 14:29).

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world (1st John 4:1).

Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies. Test all things; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil (1st Thessalonians 5:19-22).

One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is “discerning of spirits” (1st Corinthians 12:10).

We cannot judge the motivation of a person’s heart only God knows the heart, “for the Lord searches all hearts and understands all the intent of the thoughts” (1st Chronicles 28:9).

Ultimately God is the judge, “…He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained.” (Acts 17:31).

Moreover, we are called to judge doctrine and hold false teachers accountable by making them known by name:

Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them (Romans 16:17).

And their messages will spread like cancer. Hymenaus and Philetus are of this sort (2nd Timothy 2:17).

Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm. May the Lord repay him according to his works (2nd Timothy 4:14).

I wrote to you in my epistle no to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.
But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; not even to eat with such a person. For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore put away from yourselves the evil person (1st Corinthians 5:9-13).

Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded (or noble) than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so (Acts 17:10-11).

While Fr. Nicholas Gruner is a false teacher, The Fatima Crusader promulgates false teachings and the Fatima message is false doctrine what we see is well in keeping with The Fatima Crusader’s radical views:

Heaven wants the Message of Our Lady of Fatima to be central to our world view.
Anything that happens in the Church or in the world, we will judge as good or bad, adequate or inadequate, on the basis of whether it is in conformity with Our Lady’s words at Fatima or not.1

Just finished posting a series responding to Harry McCall’s claim that not only did Moses not write the Torah (or, Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible) but that the offered Biblical “proofs of the LATE creation of the ‘Mosaic Law.’”

This claim seems to have been quite popular on John Loftus’ website—not surprise as Loftus is, sadly, quite taken with faulty argumentation of all sorts. My brother Marcus has been taking him apart on a regular basis—see What had happen’ was…..

As he provided five points, I considered one per segment:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Forget, “It’s turtles all the way down”;
now it’s multiverses all the way down

Keeping in mind that his previous theories relied on “imaginary time”; hot off of the press is the latest from Stephen Hawking along with Leonard Mlodinow.
Apparently, many atheists are happy because a book tells then that God need not exist.

Forget, “It’s turtles all the way down”;
now it’s multiverses all the way down

Keeping in mind that his previous theories relied on “imaginary time”; hot off of the press is the latest from Stephen Hawking along with Leonard Mlodinow.
Apparently, many atheists are happy because a book tells then that God need not exist.

There appears to be a deceiving spirit, a fallen angel disguised as an angel of light, who is passing itself off as Jesus’ mother, Mary. This creature has been spreading false doctrine wrapped in a veneer of Christian obeisance as well as false prophecies.

It was a study into some of these false prophecies that lead me to write to Fr. Nicholas Gruner of The Fatima Crusader in order to pose some questions regarding these prophecies and those making them. The chronology of what follows is that Fr. Nicholas Gruner wrote an article in the year 1998 AD that made certain claims about prophecies that were to be fulfilled in 1999 AD and or 2000 AD. Once the year 2001 had come around, I wrote the following e-mail dated June 30th, 2001 AD (the usual pleasantries have been edited out).

Our Lady of Quito
The 1956 AD Canonical Coronation of the false prophet Our Lady of Quito

In The Fatima Crusader article titled The Calm Before the Storm Part III [Autumn 1998, Issue 58] you stated, in the section titled Victory Before 2000 A.D.,

“All of these things are converging in the next few years. We have the prophecy of Our Lady of Quito, Our Lady of Fortune, who tells us in Her own way that the battle will be over by the year 2000. She speaks about the Church giving way to heresy for the latter part of the 19th Century and for the most part of the 20th Century. But it will not dominate for all of the 20th Century. Saint John Bosco’s prophecies tell us it is before the year 2000 that the triumph is won…According to some this will be March 1999.”

This article was published in 1998 and so the sayings of Our Lady of Quito, Our Lady of Fortune and Saint John Bosco were yet future events. Now being the year 2001 and considering the hard hitting nature of some of your articles I wondered if you have, or if you will, write an article which discusses how Our Lady of Quito, Our Lady of Fortune and Saint John Bosco were false prophets. If the battle has been won, we should shudder to think which side has won.

Saint John Bosco

The response, dated July 24th, 2001 AD, was written by Sr. Jane Frances Theresa, S.R., Apostolic Response, Fatima Center (again, the usual pleasantries have been edited out):

Father Gruner has asked that we thank you for your e-mail via the Internet of June 30, 2001. In answer to your question about the “Victory before 2000,” in Crusader 58, we can reflect that God’s ways are not always easy to recognize or discern. In “To the Priests Our Lady’s Beloved Sons,” of Fr. Gobbi,

Ch. 532, Dec. 5, 1994, Our Lady says, “I confirm to you that by the Great Jubilee of the year 2000, there will take place the triumph of My Immaculate Heart which I foretold to you at Fatima, etc.”

Ch. 586, Dec. 31, 1996 says, “…Enter into the time of immediate preparation for the Great Jubilee of the year 2000. This date should be particularly significant for you, because I have previously announced to you, for that date the triumph of My Immaculate Heart in the world.”

It is true that we don’t seem to see this triumph, and things don’t appear to be rectified, but we believe that the prophesies you mention are still genuine. We humans have our opinions about their interpretation, but the final word rests with God, Who knows all things. Perhaps in the future the explanation will become clearer.

We hope this may help you. Let us continue to pray, especially the daily Rosary, do penance and live good lives as Our Lady of Fatima requested. Please remember us in your prayers. God bless you and may our heavenly Mother Mary draw you ever closer to Her Divine Son Jesus. [emphasis added]

Certainly, an astonishing aspect of this response is that it made me privy to even more false prophecies, those contained in Fr. Don Stefano Gobbi’s To the Priests Our Lady’s Beloved Sons subtitled, The Marian Movement of Priests. Fr. Don Stefano Gobbi claims to get private revelations from Mary.

Fr. Don Stefano Gobbi with Pope John Paul II

But what is this triumph of which the prophecies speak? “She told us that world peace will come only by obeying Her request of the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary…the Rosary is the specific prayer given by Our Lady as a condition for peace.”1
The Fatima Crusader printed an add which advertised, “On October 16, 2002 the Holy Father declared next year (the 25th year of his pontificate) as the Year of the Most Holy Rosary. Please follow his directive and help us collect: 25 Million Rosaries to Attain World Peace and Stop Terrorism.”
This really is the ultimate goal of Our Lady of Fatima; world peace, which the very Word of God states will only occur by the actions of Jesus Christ Himself at His Second Coming. Need we even say a single word about whether terrorism has or has not ceased in the world?

Sr. Jane Frances Theresa stated that we don’t seem to see this triumph…but we believe that the prophesies you mention are still genuine. It seems pretty clear; there is no world peace and there is terrorism. I do agree with her statement that the final word rests with God, Who knows all things. Is there anything that God, in His infinite wisdom, told us regarding the subject of prophecy?
Here are two texts that apply to our discussion:

If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, “Let us go after other gods”—which you have not known—“and let us serve them,” you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the LORD your God is testing you to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after the LORD your God and fear Him, and keep His commandments and obey His voice; you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him.
But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken in order to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of bondage, to entice you from the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall put away the evil from your midst (Deuteronomy 13:1-5).

The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear, according to all you desired of the LORD your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, “Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die.” And the LORD said to me: “What they have spoken is good. I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him. But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.”
And if you say in your heart, “How shall we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?”—when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him (Deuteronomy 18:15-22).

Clearly, if a prophecy does come to pass but the prophet leads us in the wrong direction then we can know to forsake that prophet. And if the prophecy does not come to pass then we can know that the prophet was not of God. In the case we have been considering we have both; a false prophecy and a prophet who leads us away from the Lord and towards a radically redefined, unbiblical Mary.

See for yourself who this false Mary is pointing us to as expressed in the book by Fr. Don Stefano Gobbi that Sr. Theresa quoted:

this plan of mine…I have led you…my plan…my Marian Movement of Priests, I have called all my children…this consecration, willed and requested by me…I have been able to form for myself the cohort of my little children, with which I will bring to completion my greatest victory…prayer, made with me and through me…I accept today from your hands, my little son, the homage which you are offering to me…these prophecies of mine…As of now, this plan of mine is being fulfilled with the triumph of my Immaculate Heart…I bless you.2

This is an infinitesimal example taken from one single chapter in a book that contains 604; this sort of example could be multiplied by the hundreds.
Of course, the typical qualification to all of this attention on Mary is that she points us to Jesus. And what does Fr. Nicholas Gruner state is Jesus’ message? “Jesus, our absolute teacher, tells us in the Fatima Message, ‘And you, have you revealed to the world what the Heavenly Mother asked you?’”3
Apparently, Mary is pointing to Jesus so that Jesus can point us back to Mary. The one true Jesus is not concerned about us doing what our Heavenly Mother asked since He has told us what to do, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel” (Mark 16:15). Yet, if we are to hear Mary, the one true Mary as described in the Bible we should do as she said, “Whatever He says to you, do it” (John 2:5).

And so we have no need to wonder if perhaps in the future the explanation will become clearer because the situation is all too clear, “false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect” (Matthew 24:24). There are Marian mystics all over the world, each offering hundreds of personal revelations, visions, messages, prophecies and sad to say, most go unchecked or, such as in this case, checked, verified as falsehood and yet, still heeded.

Note that in her greeting, Sr. Theresa stated, “may our heavenly Mother Mary draw you ever closer to Her Divine Son Jesus.” I must however follow what the Bible teaches in this regard, namely, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44).

Fr. Stefano Gobbi’s version of Mary stated, “second Pentecost, which is now close at hand, because my Immaculate Heart has become the new spiritual cenacle [upper room], where this divine prodigy for the Church and all humanity will be accomplished.”4

Get the picture? The Pentecost at which the Holy Spirit Himself was present was inefficient since a “second Pentecost” is required and one that will be presided over by a false Mary’s “Immaculate Heart” which is the new upper room.

These are, sadly, mere examples of the hyper-Marian devotions movement which has taken Mary such a distance from what we know of her from God’s holy word and she is no longer Mary but a concept into which to pour any and every wild and false revelation de jour.

In this regard; do not miss the essay: Roman Catholic Church: Our Lady of Guadalupe – Officially or Unofficially the Goddess of the Americas?

‹ “The Fatima Crusader” : The Rosary and the Scapular up

This essay is copyrighted by Ken Ammi of the website “True Free Thinker” at www.truefreethinker.com.

It may be republished in part or in its entirety on websites, blogs, or any print media for whatever purpose (in agreement or in order to criticize it) only as long as the following conditions are met: