Private Revelations of Marie-Julie Jahenny
#21
(07-29-2009, 08:26 PM)SaintRafael Wrote:
(07-29-2009, 07:30 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(07-29-2009, 07:29 PM)SaintRafael Wrote: Given the recent developments that the Third Secret of Fatima warns about the New Mass, it is time to review the revelations that  Marie-Julie Jahenny received about the New Mass. She is one of the greatest stigmatist and mystics in Church history.
I simply don't believe that.

Well that is simply your problem. She is regarded as one of the best among the many mystics and stigmatists. She may not be the best, but that she was a holy mystic whose messages are worthy of belief as the Church has proclaimed them authentic.

As others have said.  By whom is important.  I noticed you changed your story from "Catholics" to "me and people on the Internet." 

Just because it's on the Internet, doesn't mean it's true. 
Reply
#22
(07-29-2009, 09:01 PM)SaintRafael Wrote: Usually when people start quibbling over the seer, it is because they don't like the message of the seer.
A debate where she ranks among the seers and which mystics are better than others is besides the point, distracting, and not worth it.

Some Catholics just don't like the messages.

Never heard of, or read, these messages.  So I'm not attacking the message.  I'm attacking your proclamation of her being:
Quote:She is one of the greatest stigmatists and mystics in Church history.

To say so is ridiculous without any backing up.  Bonifacius (I think) explained exactly what I was thinking.  
Reply
#23
(07-29-2009, 09:22 PM)Bonifacius Wrote: Since nothing in that post mentioned the bishop approving the specific purported revelations and prophecies, I assume that the bishop did not approve them.  Simply saying that a bishop admired her is not enough.  He may have admired her, and these prophecies attributed to her may be fakes.  What I'm asking for is the bishop's authorization of these prophecies and revelations.  I can only assume that they were never approved. 

She seems credible, but as always, tred lightly in prophecies if not officially approved......
Reply
#24
(07-29-2009, 09:37 PM)SaintRafael Wrote: I have seen dozens of websites testify that she is Church approved, including Unity Publishing, which is a Catholic website that I know always gets apparitions right,  and I have no doubts about this claim.

The exact information on the bishop and the dates is hard to come by since Marie-Julie Jahenny  is very unknown in America and little is written about her. Many of the primary sources probably can be found in French and among the French people and authorities.

I have introduced the seer and the messages. If Catholics want to know the exact dates of Church approval, you will have to do your own research. There is not much out there in English on the internet.

I am sure her French diocese has all the information. You would have to write to her diocese or Rome.
1.  Mr. S. of Unity Publishing has no authority whatsoever to make pronouncements on whether an apparition is valid.  At most, like the rest of us, all he can do is express his private opinions on them.

2.  It is demonstrable that Mr. S. gets things wrong about apparitions, as you have admitted in the past.  Mr. S. believes that the Blessed Virgin never uses the word "pope" in an apparition and that, if an alleged seer makes that claim, that is proof that the apparition is from Satan.

If Mr. S. were correct, which he is not, Akita and La Salette would both fall under his "Satanic apparitions"category, as in both of those apparitions the claim is made that the Blessed Virgin used the word "pope."  Don't you remember that discussion?

3.  There is no evidence that the comments about the Mass that are found in the book "The Prophecies of La Fraudais" appear in the original sources.  That book was written in 1974, after the new Mass appeared on the scene, and the book is favored by sedevacantists.  However, there is no proof, from any source whatsoever, that Marie Julie Jahenny ever made those comments.

Thus, as with some parts of Yves Dupont's book, take it with a huge grain of salt.  See Jovan's post above.

4.  Catholic traditionalists have already known about this French seer for decades, so there was no need to "introduce" her, at least to those of us who have been around awhile.  Perhaps the post Vatican II babies are not familiar with her. 

Having lived through the changes and become aware of many groups, causes, people, writings, et cetera, that have sprung up as a result of the reaction to the latest council, I would urge some restraint in taking this particular claim at face value.  I certainly believe Marie Jahenny was an authentic mystic, but the things written in the book do not come from her but, like Sister Emmerich's case, they come from someone else. 

In addition, the original source does not contain the information on the new Mass.  That's found only in the 1974 book.  Caveat emptor.
Reply
#25
Unity Publishing was just one of many websites saying the same thing, which was that her messages has Church approval. I don't rely on one website, but on the whole, the other dozens of websites making the same claim.

I have found everyone saying she has Church approval, but found no one disputing this. There is no evidence and no one out there saying she does not have Church approval. There is no opposition.  If she didn't have Church approval, there would be Catholics on the internet making this case.

Where is there anyone denying or disputing that she does not have Church approval? I see all the websites stating the opposite as a fact that she is Church approved without conflict.
Reply
#26
(07-30-2009, 03:48 PM)SaintRafael Wrote: Unity Publishing was just one of many websites saying the same thing, which was that her messages has Church approval. I don't rely on one website, but on the whole, the other dozens of websites making the same claim.

I have found everyone saying she has Church approval, but found no one disputing this. There is no evidence and no one out there saying she does not have Church approval. There is no opposition.  If she didn't have Church approval, there would be Catholics on the internet making this case.

Where is there anyone denying or disputing that she does not have Church approval? I see all the websites stating the opposite as a fact that she is Church approved without conflict.

Oh, SaintRafael, didn't you read my post above, where I explicitly disputed her having Church approval?  And didn't Jovan just post an earlier internet discussion in which the legitimacy of the quotations is questioned?  We're right here, waving our hands at you  :hello!: and you actually have to ask, "Where is there anyone denying or disputing that she does not have Church approval?"  Plus, the burden of proof does not lie on us.  It lies on those who claim that she has approval.  "Everyone"  says that she does, but no one can seem to quote the date on which the bishop specifically approved of the revelations that are published in her name?  Then there's the point that your "everyone saying" is a very small number of people.  She is probably so little known that not many people have read about her except the type of rather, well, credulous sort who don't bother to investigate whether revelations that happen to suit their preconceptions actually are approved or not. 
Reply
#27
There is a dispute and issued raised over whether the New Mass quotes are authentic. This is a separate issue and not related to Church approval. The  Ecclesia Miltans blog disputed the quotes about the New Mass and not Church approval.

The New Mass message was one among many. Her other messages over Three Days Darkness has not been attacked because they are authentic like the rest of her prophesies.

This is just like Anne Catherine Emmerich who has had issues and disputes among Catholics for years. Some of her messages have been attacked because they did not come from her, nevertheless, she has Church approval on most of her other messages, and even with Anne Catherine Emmerich, it is still not known if the attacked messages are authentic or not.

Wether she has Church approval for her messages is a different issue than deciding if part of her messages were authentic or not.
Reply
#28
(07-30-2009, 05:34 PM)Bonifacius Wrote: Oh, SaintRafael, didn't you read my post above, where I explicitly disputed her having Church approval? 
I am talking about in an official way. You just asked a question on a discussion forum. I am talking about serious opposition, like a website, with information, links, and written work, documentation, and other data.

There is no website out there, no written papers, no documentation, no information against Marie-Julie Jahenny not being approved by the Church. This opposition exists for false apparitions like Medjugorje, where there is so much opposition and documentation showing Medjugorje has no Church approval.
Reply
#29
(07-30-2009, 08:04 AM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: As others have said.  By whom is important.  I noticed you changed your story from "Catholics" to "me and people on the Internet." 

No I didn't. The other people on the internet and I are all Catholics. This message and seer and being promoted by other Catholics on the internet. It is the opinion of many other Catholics.
Reply
#30
(07-30-2009, 02:38 AM)ggreg Wrote:
(07-29-2009, 07:29 PM)SaintRafael Wrote: Many of My holy priests will refuse this book, sealed with the words of the abyss. Unfortunately, amongst them are those who will accept it."

This isn't the situation.

The VAST MAJORITY of priests have accepted it.  A tiny number have refused it.  No way could that number be described as "many"

So it was either a guess, or Our Lord did not reveal the full extent of the Crisis (seems unlikely), or she got it wrong, or she never said it.  But if we judge a prophecy by being accurate then this fails the smell test as badly as the "Three More Popes before the end of the Times" statement from Garabandal because by any normal reckoning there have been four more by now and nothing to mark the end of the times (which must surely be noticeable by people like us who are looking for the times to end and new times to begin.

Pointless worrying about it now anyway.  We are either thorugh the worst of it or we get put to death by the AntiChrist (which frankly would be a blessing).

I thought about that too, but it says my holy priests....the ones who just accepted the Novus Ordo with a blind eye weren't always the most holy of priests, considering the many liturgical abuses that were occurring before and especially after Vatican Council II. Note that I do not particularly believe these prophecies yet because I've only just recently been introduced to them per this thread.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)