Private Revelations of Marie-Julie Jahenny
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.
I hope that you are not side-stepping the question of Church approval.  That's important. 
(07-29-2009, 09:00 PM)Bonifacius Wrote: For instance, which bishop, of which see, on which date approved her private revelations?  That's necessary information.  If you claim she has full Church approval, this information shouldn't be difficult to provide.  

I posted the link about her life in the original post above:

She was from Brittany, France and lived from 1850 to 1941.

From the article:
"Marie-Julie was the wonder of the many scientists who examined her continually, the scorn of unbelievers and the proud, the admiration of her lifelong friend, Monsignor Fourier, Bishop of Nantes, and of the devoted circle of those who made the diffusion of her messages to an ungrateful and unheeding world their life's work. She went to her Heavenly reward on March 4, 1941. "

(07-29-2009, 08:52 PM)SaintRafael Wrote:
(07-29-2009, 08:29 PM)Rosarium Wrote: How do we know that these words are about what we know? Perhaps it still has yet to come.

We are living through the greatest apostasy and crisis the Catholic Church has ever known. It is pretty obvious that it fits our times, new liturgy, and ecclesiology like a glove.

Fits a little bit too well if you ask me, and I know you did.  I'd like to see a primary source for these "prophecies," preferably one that doesn't reference a book written in the 70s.
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. 
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.
(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.

Can you link me to one of these? I have heard of Marie-Julie Jahenny and I think her visions are true, but I have always heard that they were not (yet) approved. It'd be nice to see that.
(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.

Thank you for your courteous explanation.  I just caution you place not your trust in men.  Getting the diocesan approval down is very important and should be one of the first things that anyone promoting an apparition or revelation should communicate to his audience.  For all you know, the diocese has condemned the revelations or has never heard of them because they've been falsely ascribed to her.  For all you know, and for all I know. 
(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).
Comments on the blog Ecclesia Miltans, [/color]]

re: her 'prophecy' about the new Mass. My emphasis, very revealing.

DJR said...
The problem with the alleged quote from Marie Julie Jahenny regarding the new Mass is that it cannot be verified that she ever stated that. The book that contains that quote was written post Vatican II.

There is no evidence that the purported quote is contained in the pre Vatican writings of Jahenny's sayings, most of which come from a French doctor.

That issue was covered on Angelqueen by several of us who can read French and researched the issue. Much like Yves Dupont's book Catholic Prophecy, it suggests a fabrication.

And, of course, some of Sister Catherine Emmerich's alleged quotes about the new Mass which are contained in Dupont's book are verifiably false. Dupont's book was also written post Vatican II.

May 26, 2007 11:42 PM 
Br. Anthony said...
These are serious allegations you bring against these people. However, if I do come across strong evidence that demonstrates their falsehood, then I will retract the post.

In the end, we don't need private revelation to show us that the New Mass is a Masonic/Protestant rite.

May 27, 2007 2:43 PM 
DJR said...
Don't you have it backwards? You have posted something for which there is no evidence. The first time anyone can verifiably find the alleged quotes from Marie Julie Jahenny are in a book written in 1974.
What evidence is there that she actually stated those things, when they cannot be found in the underlying writings that were made pre Vatican II? If you have no evidence for it, you should not post it.

Regarding Yves Dupont's book, the fabrications are verifiable. His book contains manufactured quotes from the primary sources.

See a private email I wrote to someone years ago that was subsequently picked up by someone else and posted on the Internet:

These issues have already been hashed out decades ago among Catholic Traditionalists.

If private revelation is not needed to demonstrate one's point, why use it, particularly when it cannot be verified?

May 28, 2007 5:21 PM 
triciad said...
I was wondering, if she was deaf and dumb (usually being dumb means you could never hear or therefore speak) how did she communicate these visions?
Thanks and God Bless,

August 09, 2008 12:51 AM 
Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

I am not sure.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)