Search Results

THE IDENTITY OF THE WHORE OF BABYLON A formal challenge to Anti-Catholics’ claim that the ‘’Whore of Babylon” is the Catholic church Many non-Catholic sects such as the SDAs and JWs and some strains of Baptists, Pentecostals and others continue to persist in this wild-eyed and ridiculous claim that that whore/harlot of Babylon shown in John's Revelation (Chapters 17 & 18 in particular) refers to the Catholic church. The many assertions made to buttress this smear range from the slightly misguided to the downright loopy and absurd. They cover the gamut of every alleged belief Catholics are accused of holding and every transgression Catholics are accused of committing over history. I cannot possibly confront every peripheral assertion an opponent is likely to bring to this debate although I would relish the opportunity to confront as many as feasible in the future. This debate challenge is on the very particular claim that the whore or harlot seen in John's vision is, in fact, the Catholic church- as the accusation is so often made. To win this debate, I have to do nothing more (or less) than prove that it isn't the Catholic Church. To win this debate, my opponents must prove that it is. Assertion, innuendo, implication, and Juxtaposition won't do. Prove it is or prove it isn't. Those are the stakes. I will now, meet my burden of proof. I will prove who she isn't by proving who she is and leave all the other arguments for another day. I would suggest you follow along closely because my case will be made systematically from the start of Chapter 17 to the end of Chapter 18. When I am through, there will be no room for doubt as to the identity of either the harlot or the beast she rides on, and neither are the Catholic church. I expect you to confront my arguments. Let's get started. The logical start point is the context of the book of revelation itself. The protestant notion that the entire Book of Revelation points to the ‘’end times’’ as a sort of play-by-play is not supported in the text. This interpretation is basically an invention of the 1970s and crackpots like Hal Lindsay and Tim Lahaye who have been proven wrong more times than can be counted. No anti-catholic will even attempt to demonstrate that John’s Revelation all points to even his future, much less ours. The Book of Revelation is a mural of the story of God’s salvation and weaves elements that were way before John’s time- Revelation 12: 7 And there was a great battle in heaven, Michael and his angels fought with the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels: 8 And they prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9 And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. In John’s time- Revelation 1: 4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia. Grace be unto you and peace from him that is, and that was, and that is to come, and from the seven spirits which are before his throne, And those that were imminent. Imminence is the clear message. The urgency of John’s warnings cannot be missed. Nearly all of the things that he is warning of are to be seen soon and by the people still living at the time. 1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to make known to his servants the things which must shortly come to pass: and signified, sending by his angel to his servant John, 7 Behold, he cometh with the clouds, and every eye shall see him, and they also that pierced him. And all the tribes of the earth shall bewail themselves because of him. Even so. Amen. John is not talking about the return of Jesus at the end of time but about His coming in vengeance as foretold in the Gospels. Jesus makes a very clear distinction between those things which occur at the end times and those things that will be visited on the current generation living at that time. I will clearly show this as we go. Suffice it to say (and I will show) that John’s Gospel is the only Gospel that does not include these short-term prophecies. There are 2 reasons. 1. John’s is the only Gospel of the 4 written after these events occurred. 2. He deals with them in this Book written as they were on the very doorstep. Let’s start to progress through the passages about the Whore and I will bring all of this to light. Chapter 17 :1 And there came one of the seven angels, who had the seven vials, and spoke with me, saying: Come, I will shew thee the condemnation of the great harlot, who sitteth upon many waters, 2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication; and they who inhabit the earth, have been made drunk with the whine of her whoredom. The first thing to note is that John is not just told by the Angel that he is simply about to show him the great harlot but that he will show him the condemnation of the great harlot. The Greek word is Krima and indicates a sentence that has already been handed down. The harlot has already been found guilty and John is present, not for the crimes, not even for the trial, but for the sentence. The harlot is being sentenced in 68 AD (I will demonstrate that that is when this is written). This is the first proof that John's vision refers to an entity that existed in 68 AD when his vision occurred, and said entity had committed crimes before then. The first premise of anti-catholic interpretation of these chapters is that this vision refers to something in the distant future, long beyond John's years. As you will see, that is a man-made construct that runs directly counter to the text. Verse 1 says the harlot sits on the many waters (peoples, nations et v15) It is a combination of the Greek word Kathemi- meaning to sit and a modifier that specifically denotes present tense. Present tense, folks. 68 AD. Verse 2 says The Kings of the earth have had intercourse. Have had intercourse. This is from the Greek word porneue and a modifier indicating active tense. These things are occurring even as John sees the vision in 68 AD. To win this argument, my opponent literally must explain why John is using the wrong words here and this is actually a far-future event. The same is true with "they who inhabit the earth" Present tense. "Have been made drunk" Active tense. That the whore, the kings and the inhabitants of the earth all existed in the 1st century is unarguable from the standpoint of the etymology of the words. Since the whore represents the religious world having spiritual intercourse with the pagan world, the allusion of Jerusalem and Pagan Rome, respectively, is impossible to escape and there are just pages and pages of Scripture to support this. In Isaiah Chapter 1, the prophet heralds a warning that he specifies as pertaining to Jerusalem. In verse 21, He says: 21 How is the faithful city, that was full of judgment, become a harlot? justice dwelt in it, but now murderers. Jeremiah 3:6 6 And the Lord said to me in the days of king Josias: Hast thou seen what rebellious Israel hast done? she hath gone out of herself upon every high mountain, and under every green tree, and hath played the harlot there. There are many others I could cite but the point is clear. In God's Holy Word, Israel in general and Jerusalem were referred to as the harlot too many times to count. 3 And he took me away in spirit into the desert. And I saw a woman sitting upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 And the woman was clothed round about with purple and scarlet, and gilt with gold, and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand, full of the abomination and filthiness of her fornication. 5 And on her forehead a name was written: A mystery; Babylon the great, the mother of the fornications, and the abominations of the earth. First, we must address the beast because this is a typology that cannot be missed. In Revelation 12, we first see the Seven-headed, ten horned beast that wages war against the Child of God and His Mother. That beast is specifically identified as Satan. Here again, we see the seven-headed, ten horned beast but as we will see, it is associated with "Kings of the earth". In other words, this beast is a Kingdom that the Whore (Jerusalem) was currently riding upon in a spiritual sense. Again, the woman is sitting- present tense. This kingdom, by comparison, represents the very evil and malice of Satan himself as it is portrayed as the same dragon. This kingdom can be none other than pagan Rome. Detractors of the Catholic church like to seize on verse 4 and the golden cup- which they allude to the communion chalice, and the purple and scarlet- which they infer to be the official colors of the Catholic church. Let me deal with the last point first. The official colors of the Catholic church are Gold and White. True, Priestly vestments have been Red and Purple but they have also been Gold, White, Black, Green, Rose and multiple other colors. This allusion is very tenuous at best. They have a slightly stronger argument in the inference of the golden cup but it is still only an inference. Remember, this debate is based on proof. You will notice that they do not even mention the precious stones and pearls? Did they forget about those or just couldn't make the allusion fit? I'll tell you where you find all these things. In Exodus Chapter 25 in the materials for the Temple in Jerusalem. The Purple and Scarlet yarn is found in many verses- verse 4 for example. The precious stones appear in verse 7. Look it up folks! The golden cups are right there in verse 29 and gold is throughout the chapter. The only clue missing is the pearls which seem to refer to the woman's vanity and certainly cannot be ascribed to the Catholic church. So, my opponent ascribes Gold, Golden cups, precious stones and Purple and Scarlet to the Catholic church by inference. The Bible, however, assigns these things-specifically to Jerusalem and the Temple. What about her name? Babylon? The term is used derisively, of course. It is not referring to the actual historical nation of Babylon. Our opponents obviously concede this point because they try to juxtapose it to Rome and, by consequence, the Catholic church that they posit as an offshoot of that Roman empire. That's where the anticatholic paradigm hits a brick wall. Foundational to their refutation of Peter as the first Pope is the blanket denial that Peter was ever in Rome. This contention on their part is historically untenable but it also presents them the Biblical problem. In Chapter 5 of his first epistle, Peter says 13 The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark. This puts our anti-catholic friends in quite a pickle. They either have to admit that Babylon refers to Jerusalem (the elected church) or admit that Peter was in Rome. That's their only 2 options. However, since pagan Rome, having never been God's people, could thus not be guilty of spiritual adultery, the conclusion is inescapable. The Whore is Jerusalem, mother of all whores and abominations. 6 And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And I wondered, when I had seen her, with great admiration. This is another verse for anticatholics to latch on by inference. They will bring up the inquisitions and the crusades and all the killing done by crooked kings on all sides, multiply it by 10,000 and juxtapose it all on the woman as an indictment of the Catholic church. They are once again hoisted by their own petard and the plain entomology of the words, for they would clearly argue that the Catholic church did not even exist in 68 AD. That the greek term portrays the woman's drunken state as present tense- 68 AD is inescapable. They can infer that this points forward centuries but the greek verbiage doesn't support that. However, a similar verse that comes later, really slams the door on their arguments. For now, though they can argue that this verse can be applied to the Catholic church, there is no arguing that it can be applied to Jerusalem who had killed many Christians by this point, Stephen being just one. 7 And the angel said to me: Why dost thou wonder? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast which carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns. 8 The beast, which thou sawest, was, and is not, and shall come up out of the bottomless pit, and go into destruction: and the inhabitants on the earth (whose names are not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world) shall wonder, seeing the beast that was, and is not. 9 And here is the understanding that hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, upon which the woman sitteth, and they are seven kings: 10 Five are fallen, one is, and the other is not yet come: and when he is come, he must remain a short time. 11 And the beast which was, and is not: the same also is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into destruction. First, with respect to the Beast, John is again alluding it with the Devil. While He calls Jesus "He who was and is and is to come", the devil is he who was and is not. This is the demonic character of the beast in general, again reflecting back to chapter 12. Later, you will see him draw the lens in closer by looking at the heads of the beast. Verse 9 is very important and the anti-catholics always get it wrong. I'm using an accurate translation that gets it right. The woman sits on 7 mountains (the Greek word Oros) not on 7 hills (the Greek word Boonos). This is not Rome. It certainly isn't the Vatican which sits on it's own hill on the other side of the Tiber river. For people of John's day, it would have been automatic for them to recognize what was widely known as the city on 7 mountains- Jerusalem. They are the Mount of Olives, Mount Scopus, Mount of Corruption, Mount Ophel, the Original Mount Zion, the New Mount Zion and the Mount on which the Antonia Fortress was built. Once again, the harlot is proven to be Jerusalem. The Kings, on the other hand, belong to the beast, not the harlot. 5 have fallen, one is, one to come. The first 5 Roman emperors were Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero. All 5 were dead by 68 AD. Nero is the beast whose name adds up to 666, the number announced in chapter 13. The sixth king, who was emperor when this book was written was Galba. The 7th was Otho. This proves that John wrote this book in 68 AD during the reign of Galba and the "Fall of Babylon" he was warning so urgently about was the destruction of Jerusalem by Vespasian who John allegorically calls an 8th king and a reincarnation of the fallen beast- Nero. and, skipping ahead a few verses, here is the proof... 15 And he said to me: The waters which thou sawest, where the harlot sitteth, are peoples, and nations, and tongues. 16 And the ten horns which thou sawest in the beast: these shall hate the harlot, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and shall burn her with fire. 17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled. 18 And the woman which thou sawest, is the great city, which hath kingdom over the kings of the earth. In verse 16, we see that the Roman Beast turns on the whore and burns her with fire. This happens in 70 AD. I am often amused when zealous anti-catholics call the church both the beast and the whore as if the church could wage war on herself! The woman herself is identified as "The Great city" and that great city is identified in Revelation 11:8 as a spiritual Sodom and Egypt to go along with her derisive title of Babylon. The verse also clearly tells us that it is the city where Our lord was crucified, and we all know that that city was Jerusalem. By virtue of this one verse, I could declare victory in this debate but there is more. Chapter 18 1 And after these things, I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power: and the earth was enlightened with his glory. 2 And he cried out with a strong voice, saying: Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen; and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every unclean spirit, and the hold of every unclean and hateful bird: 3 Because all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication; and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her; and the merchants of the earth have been made rich by the power of her delicacies. Verses 1 and 2 hearken to Isaiah chapter 21 7 And he saw a chariot with two horsemen, a rider upon an ass, and a rider upon a camel: and he beheld them diligently with much heed. 8 And a lion cried out: I am upon the watchtower of the Lord, standing continually by day: and I am upon my ward, standing whole nights. 9 Behold this man cometh, the rider upon the chariot with two horsemen, and he answered, and said: Babylon is fallen, she is fallen, and all the graven gods thereof are broken unto the ground. Pretty tough not to see the imagery of the Lion crying out and the rider upon an ass as pointing towards Jesus. As you know, He rode an ass on His entry into Jerusalem. This is very important because it directly links the warning of the fall of Babylon with Jesus. Jesus' warnings about Jerusalem's demise were stark. In Matthew's Gospel, chapter 24, verses 1 and 2, Jesus predicts the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, exclaiming that not one stone (Lithos meaning little pebble) will be left upon another. In verse 34, He predicts correctly that it will happen within one generation (40 years). In verses 15-22, He gives His famous warning that those in Judea should flee to the mountains. This dire warning is echoed in Mark's and Luke's Gospels. Luke 21 20 And when you shall see Jerusalem compassed about with an army; then know that the desolation thereof is at hand. 21 Then let those who are in Judea, flee to the mountains; and those who are in the midst thereof, depart out: and those who are in the countries, not enter into it. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things may be fulfilled, that are written. 23 But woe to them that are with child, and give suck in those days; for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword; and shall be led away captives into all nations; and Jerusalem shall be trodden down by the Gentiles; till the times of the nations be fulfilled. 25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, by reason of the confusion of the roaring of the sea and of the waves; 26 Men withering away for fear, and expectation of what shall come upon the whole world. For the powers of heaven shall be moved; The imminence of these warnings and their urgency cannot be overstated and John repeats them even more urgently in verses 4-8 of Chapter 18 of Revelation. 4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying: Go out from her, my people; that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues. 5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and the Lord hath remembered her iniquities. 6 Render to her as she also hath rendered to you; and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup wherein she hath mingled, mingle ye double unto her. 7 As much as she hath glorified herself, and lived in delicacies, so much torment and sorrow give ye to her; because she saith in her heart: I sit a queen, and am no widow; and sorrow I shall not see. 8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine, and she shall be burnt with the fire; because God is strong, who shall judge her. These are yet more verses that anticatholics use falsely against us. Once again, every sentence proves the sins are past, the judgement is current and the wrath is imminent. John is literally conveying the angel's message to get out now! This is not a warning for centuries down the road. Finally, we close our case by skipping ahead to verse 24 which as the absolute checkmate of verses in this case. 24 And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth. I alluded to this earlier. Though anti-catholics can falsely claim that the Roman Catholic church has the blood of saints inside her, even they cannot argue that it can be said the Catholic church is guilty of the blood of the prophets nor of the blood of all who have been slain upon the earth, up to at least the time of John. Remember, anticatholics claim the Roman Catholic church did not even exist at that point. So, what city can be held to account for the blood of the prophets? What city can be held to account for all those slain on earth? I will let Jesus answer for you in His own words. Luke 13 33 Nevertheless I must walk to day and to morrow, and the day following, because it cannot be that a prophet perish, out of Jerusalem. 34 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent to thee, how often would I have gathered thy children as the bird doth her brood under her wings, and thou wouldest not? 35 Behold your house shall be left to you desolate. And I say to you, that you shall not see me till the time come, when you shall say: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. Matthew 23 31 Wherefore you are witnesses against yourselves, that you are the sons of them that killed the prophets. 32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 33 You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell? 34 Therefore behold I send to you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them you will put to death and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city: Verse 35 exactly parallels Revelation 18:24 and proves that all of this occurs to Jerusalem in 70 AD 35 That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar. 36 Amen I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation. Revelation 18: 24 And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth. The case I just made is impenetrable. You now know the truth. God will not hold you blameless if you continue to persist in this slander. The whore of Babylon is Jerusalem. Period. Full stop.

I salute the church leaders who bravely stand firm to defend their faith and the teachings of Christ by reminding their flocks about the sanctity of Life. San Francisco California Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordelione did a great and heroic act when he bans Speaker of the US House of Representative Nancy Pelosi from receiving Holy Communion because of her support in promoting abortion despite several attempts of Archbishop Cordelione to talk and remind her of the duty and the danger that she is causing her soul and to all her constituents. Other Bishops from US and other countries also expressed their support to Archbishop Cordelione. Cheyenne Wyoming Representative John Benedict Romero Martinez also a pro-life advocate stated, “The good Archbishop Cordileone, chief leader of a flock of which Pelosi is a member, is correct in his pastoral action, the good speaker has failed to be holy - after multiple attempts to teach and inform her with a proper ‘well-formed conscience,’ of which she has seemingly avoided multiple corrective actions and efforts. This precedence will serve as a moral compass for any repeated immoral or anti-doctrinal, anti-church heresy from within or even outside of the Holy Magisterium, where spiritual forces continue their warfare on Holy Mother church both spiritually and temporarily by far-left and far right or even centrist radicalism that does harm to the Mystical Body of Christ. This type of leadership is long overdue and is refreshing for the faithful as we embrace both justice and mercy this Easter Season!” JBRM Asa baptized Catholic Christians we all have the duty to be a prophet, a priest and a king in our little way as we participate in the threefold mission of Our Lord Jesus Christ. We may be strong enough enough to promote our faith, follow the commandments and protect the life of the living and the unborn. God bless us all. Cherry Maestro Mallorca - Spirituality Advocate

If you want to understand and practice Christianity, you'd better get used to absurdity. Absurdity, that is, from the world's eyes. Everything about our faith is paradox to the extreme but nowhere is that more pronounced than on this day- the day we call "Good Friday". It is hard to imagine that the term would have been appreciated by followers of Jesus, looking up at the gruesome sight of His mangled and bloody body. It is not really possible for us to conceive how grotesque His murder was and the agony He endured. Even further from our comprehension is the concept that this is what true love looks like, this is what God's will looks like, this is what victory looks like. Can we even argue against the sad truth that the sheer horror would have been too much to look at? Yet, we call it "Good Friday". Could anyone there, except His Mother have understood this as good in any way? Surely they could have been forgiven by asking "God, what good could possibly come from this?" Surely they could be forgiven for thinking the Romans had won or that the Jews who pledged the bloodguilt on themselves and their own children (Matthew 27:25) had won. Perhaps some went even further into despairing that the devil himself had won. Surely, they must of thought "Even God has abandoned Him. He said so Himself!" (Matthew 27:46) Among those followers, how many would have done anything in their power to stop this horror? "How could God allow this!?", they must have thought. Thank You Father for seeing what none of us could possibly have seen. Thank You, Jesus for doing what none of us could possibly have done. This horrible and awful day is the most blessed day. What You did for me, I can never repay.

In my first of 2 articles on this matter, I proved that John Carpenter is completely without any credibility on anything having to do with Marian apparitions including (but not limited to Medjugorje). So anyone trying to refute my arguments cannot use him as a source. You have to use someone credible and with standing. I have proven that he is not. That someone is also not Donald Hartley. He has proven that he absolutely cannot be objective on the subject of Medjugorje. He is too emotionally invested to be objective. In my second article I proved that the Ruini report is not recognized by the Catholic church as an approval of Medjugorje and even it declares more than 99% of the alleged Medjugorje apparitions (all of them from July 4th, 1981 to today) to be false. Nevertheless, the positive vibes of even those seven are obviously hard to justify within the context of the entire report. The report is schizophrenic and absurd and the CDF and the Pope will never approve it. Let's be clear. Medjugorje is a diabolical fraud motivated by money and Satan's pride. It has nothing to do with genuine Catholicism and that is not the real Mary who has appeared there. Not even once. In this article, I am going to make the leave-no-doubt case that all of the Medjugorje apparitions- every single one of them- are frauds and that Mama Mary has no more appeared in Medjugorje than Elvis, Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. The Bible says that they are Blessed who do not see, yet believe. This is the definition of faith and trust. A central part of our faith is to understand the infallible teaching authority of our church to bind and loose. Sadly, some persons reject the church's authority so they must see for themselves. For them, the fact that Medjugorje has been condemned 4 times means nothing. The fact that that the last of those condemnations has stood for better than 30 years also doesn't convince them. For me, the authority of the church alone is enough. Nevertheless, I will now prove: That the condemnations were all made after investigations by competent bodies acting in good faith. That the facts of the case made approval impossible. That the Ruini report is wildly flawed and cannot be taken seriously. That the so-called "visionaries" are widely described (even in the Ruini report) as being dishonest, evasive actors addicted to money. That the condemnations have been upheld and will always be. In short, I am about to prove that the evidence clearly shows that Mother Mary is not appearing in Medjugorje and never has. Not for 47,000 visits or 7 visits or even 7 seconds. I will also disprove Garabandal. I cannot continue without expressing my deep appreciation to Donal Foley and Patrick Coffin. The condemnations were all made after investigations by competent bodies acting in good faith. Obviously, people can interpret the same facts in different ways. One point of agreement is that Bishop Paolo Zanic was at first positive about the alleged events in Medjugorje before turning against. The two competing interpretations of this are that: A) he was unduly pressured in some way by the communists to change his position and gave in to that pressure. B) His investigation of the actual facts and messages and his interviews with the "visionaries" caused him to determine they were not genuine. From where I sit, option A) is the kind of insolent, spoiled-brat nonsense you get from the pro-Medjugorje side. Baseless. I will not even justify it with a response. The other side is more than welcome to try and make this case with evidence. If they can provide any evidence to support this absurdity, I will respond. Don't hold your breath. The B) scenario can be made on a time-tested rule often employed in the rule of law. An example where this comes into play is in self-defense scenarios where a person felt threatened. The rule of thumb I will employ is a question based on the same line of thinking. In this situation, we put ourselves in the shoes of the witness and ask "What would a reasonable person conclude, based on the evidence?" This process is very beneficial in determining both the veracity of the alleged events and the credibility and objectivity of the person doing the investigation. First, we applied this standard to John Carpenter and Donald Hartley. The results so far have been that their arguments have proven to be without credibility and they are anything but objective. I, myself, on the other hand, have been totally objective and determined to follow the facts where they lead. If the facts exonerate Medjugorje, I would be only too eager to follow it. However, if the facts condemn Medjugorje, I am willing to accept that as well. Donald Hartley is compromised because he went there twice and has an emotional need for it to be true. John Carpenter is compromised because he has spent 10 years writing and reporting false information and is trying to avoid the consequences of being exposed. It is pretty difficult to understand the argument that a person such as myself, who is deeply committed to Our Blessed Mother, would have something to gain by Medjugorje being either true or false, except in wanting to follow the truth. If that is true in my case, it is impossible to see why Bishop Zanic, a devoutly Marian Priest would have anything to gain by opposing Medjugorje unless led there by the objective facts. Carpenter and Hartley (and the whole pro-Medjugorje side, for that matter) have dedicated countless pages and hours to assertions but have provided very little real objective evidence to back them up. Let's be clear. Support of Medjugorje is based on emotion and nothing more. Opposition to Medjugorje is based on facts and nothing less. The more you know the facts, the more you simply cannot believe this nonsense and the more angry the other side will get at you. Bishop Zanic had to rule on facts. Fact: All 6 "visionaries" were adamant that the visions would end on July 3rd, 1981. They did not. This was proven to not be credible. Fact: The visionaries were caught in multiple, indisputable lies. Even Ruini admits this. Fact: The visions certainly did not follow the patterns of previous approved events. The greed and lack of entrance into religious life of the seers is just one example. Fact: Though the overwhelming majority of the messages (probably over 90%) fell into the category of banal but not offensive, there were some that were undeniable heretical and even blasphemous. The facts are very inconvenient for those truing to prop up the Medjugorje cult so they try to impugn the good people who made the decisions to reject this diabolical fraud. It isn't plausible. To many good people and too many condemnations. The site catholicapologetics.info gives a good summation. It is the duty of the local bishop of the diocese in which supposed supernatural events take place to study and confirm or deny the legitimacy of the claims being made. The bishop in the diocese to which Medjugorje belongs, Msgr. Zanic of Mostar, remitted this duty by forming a diocesan commission to do an impartial inquiry into the events that had been taking place since 1981. After a few years of thorough and intense investigative study, which the Church always exercises to determine an unmistakable decision in these matters, the Bishop issued a statement in 1986 giving the results of the study. In the statement, Msgr. Zanic condemned the apparitions as not made by the most Holy Virgin Mary and he forbade the pilgrimages set up from the beginning without ecclesiastical approval by the pastor of Mostar. 1) The second Diocesan Commission, which worked from 1984 to 1986, voted explicitly on 2 May 1986, by an overwhelming majority for the Non constate de supernaturalitate (11 negative votes, 2 positive, 1 in nucleo, 1 in abstention). 2) The declaration of the Episcopal Conference of 1991 stated: "On the basis of studies conducted so far, it cannot be affirmed that supernatural apparitions and revelations are occurring." ...My conviction and my position is not only Non constat de supernaturalitate, but also Constat de non supernaturalitate as regards the apparitions or revelations of Medjugorje. --Msgr. Ratko Peric, Bishop of Mostar, Letter of October 2, 1997, to M. Thierry Boutet, Editor of the journal Edifa. In a resulting interview given by Fr. Deleclos of the Libre Belgique, Msgr. Zanic was asked: "Are you, as a matter of principle, against apparitions?" The Bishop replied: "Quite the contrary! I myself have been eight times to Lourdes and I have organized pilgrimages. I have done much for the devotion to the Most Holy Virgin. I was even in Banneux, in Beauraign (Belgium), and Syracuse (Italy), three places where the apparitions of Mary had been stated as authentic." "However, you are not convinced of this in Medjugorje?" Reply: "I should really be glad to have a Lourdes in my diocese. It would be something grandiose. But I cannot before God, before my conscience and before the Church proclaim these apparitions are authentic and supernatural. I am certainly a sinner and unworthy to be a bishop, yet I believe it would be the worst of all the sins of my life to let this falseness pass for truth, knowing that it is a lie." Despite these words of the Bishop, which the faithful should accept as a decision from God, people continued to flock to Medjugorje and the priest did not desist from organizing pilgrimages as ordered. Another committee on the national level, composed of 20 bishops, was organized to decide on the "apparitions". This committee also spent several years in patiently studying the matter and finally in November 1990 issued a statement which concluded that there is no proof that Marian apparitions have occurred at Medjugorje. This statement was approved nearly unanimously, with 19 bishops in favor and one abstaining. A Vatican doctrinal official said the bishops' statement against defining the apparitions as supernatural should be accepted by the faithful around the world. Regardless of these testimonies by the most competent authorities in the Church, many refuse to heed the Church's decision and persist in going to Medjugorje. One wonders what authority would be sufficient to convince these travelers of the truth of the Church's clear and emphatic declaration. It is also disturbing to consider that, if the "apparitions" are not from God, from whence do they originate? Medjugorje: Condemned by Tradition In the last article, we addressed John Carpenter's silly claim that 10-20 years of social media is what has negatively impacted Medjugorje. let's revisit that claim to see if it holds up. 1986 Medugorje condemned by Bishop Zanic led commission 1986 Medjugorje condemned by second commission with 11 out of 15 votes 1991 Episcopal conference votes to condemn 1991 Yugoslav Bishop's conference votes to condemn with 19 out of 20 Bishops agreeing and one astaining 1997 Bishop Peric states past condemnations did not go far enough in saying that the Supernaturality has not been established. The Bishop says the Non-Supernaturality has been established. All of those decisions (unlike the Ruini Commission Report) were made by authorities with binding jurisdiction. All were well before the 2002- present explosion of Social Media. To believe Carpenter and Hartley, you would have to believe; Bishop Zanic was incompetent and/or compromised AND Bishop Peric was incompetent or compromised AND The majority of the Episcopal Conference was incompetent or compromised AND 19 of the 20 members of the Yugoslav Bishop's commission were incompetent or compromised. Not only would all of these things have to be true, the Vatican would have to be unwilling to censure any of those individuals or even acknowledge any incompetency or improper behavior. This kind of kooky conspiracy theorizing is on the level of flat earthers and 911 truther nuts. Oh, and how much evidence do the peanut brothers give to support this lunacy? That's right. Not one speck of evidence to support anything improper by any ecclesiastical leader or prominent figure in opposition to Medjugorje. All you get is calumny and conspiracy nonsense from the peanut brothers. I ask again.... "What would a reasonable person conclude, based on the evidence?" Ah, but what about the credibility of the other side? Father Vlasic, spiritual director to the "visionaries" was defrocked then excommunicated. Among the serious charges were violations of the 6th commandment. (Sexual sins). His sexual deviancy came to be known to (then) Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger who forced him to leave Medjugorje for this and for the conjuring up of evil spirits. He is now a full fledged promoter of the occult/new age and a promoter of UFO conspiracies. Vlasic's fellow Franciscans- Frs Vega and Prussina- led a mob to evict the clergy from a Mostar church. The Bishop (Zanic) suspended them. The "Gospa" told the seers that the Bishop was to blame and that the dissident Priests were to ignore the Bishop's directive. (This naked disobedience is something the REAL Mary absolutely could not be a part of). Over the nest few months, the Devil with a blue dress on said that the Priests should stay in the diocese and continue to hear confessions and give Communion even though they had no faculties! The so-called Gospa (demon) then said the Bishop (A DEVOUTLY MARIAN BISHOP) had "no love of God in his heart" . The demon continued that the defrocked priests had "no faults!" Vega's faultlessness took a bit of a hit when he was- like Vlasic- defrocked for sexual indiscretions (he impregnated a nun) Their Franciscan brother, (and central Medjugorje figure Father Jozo Zovko) was also defrocked for insubordination and allegedly molesting Medjugorje pilgrims. Later, the Franciscans were involved in the kidnap of Bishop Peric, who had to be rescued from his abduction! So, while Donald Hartley is fond of saying that those opposed to Medjugorje are a "peanut gallery", those on the pro-Med side look more like a chain gang. Here is an apparently recent picture of the pro-Medjugorje contingent in Bosnia :) So, again I ask... "What would a reasonable person conclude, based on the evidence?" The facts of the case made approval impossible. I will concede up front that a few Rosaries have turned gold but that's really about it. Rosaries turned gold in the condemned apparitions of Necedah, Wisconsin too but it was still condemned. Bishop John Treacy of Necedah investigated the alleged apparitions and ordered all activities stopped in 1950 by saying, “All claims regarding supernatural revelations and visions made by the aforementioned Mrs. Van Hoof are false. Furthermore, all public and private religious worship connected with these false claims is prohibited…” In 1969 Bishop Treacy was succeeded by Bishop Frederick Freking, who ordered another investigation. The new bishop ordered the shrine closed, but Mary Ann told her followers that they must obey “Our Lady of Necedah” rather than the bishop. In 1972 the bishop informed Mary Ann that he would take sanctions if his directives were not followed. Bishop John Treacy of Necedah investigated the alleged apparitions and ordered all activities stopped in 1950 by saying, “All claims regarding supernatural revelations and visions made by the aforementioned Mrs. Van Hoof are false. Furthermore, all public and private religious worship connected with these false claims is prohibited…” In 1969 Bishop Treacy was succeeded by Bishop Frederick Freking, who ordered another investigation. The new bishop ordered the shrine closed, but Mary Ann told her followers that they must obey “Our Lady of Necedah” rather than the bishop. In 1972 the bishop informed Mary Ann that he would take sanctions if his directives were not followed. SOURCE Of course, as if to never miss an opportunity to promote a condemned apparition, Carpenter still promotes Necedah. "What would a reasonable person conclude, based on the evidence?" In fact, a striking thing has happened with John Carpenter's promotion of Medjugorje. Almost without exception, Carpenter relies on the alleged events and testimonies of other condemned events to support Medjugorje. Garabandal, Spain is one example. South Korea is another. Conceding the golden rosaries (and a few subjective pictures), what other supernatural events can be tied to Medjugorje? Pretty much, nothing. Pretty incredible after 40 years. Not one documented miraculous cure verified by the Lourdes medical bureau. Not one publicly released, peer-reviewed scientific study. Not one verifiable prediction that has ever come to pass. Not one sanctioned Bishop or body of the Bosnian Catholic church that has issued an approval. Not one visionary that has entered the religious life. On the contrary, the visionaries are contexed, even by the Ruini report as untrustworthy, spiritually immature and going through the motions. All 6 of them are filthy rich, living off money from lectures, pilgrimages, books and on-demand appearances of the Gospa producing endless, banal Hallmark Card-ish messages that show no progression, no depth and do not even touch the great moral issues of the day such as abortion, sex trafficking, pornography, drugs, violence etc... Sunday, February 21, 1982 "Be together, and do not argue, do not be disorderly. My angels, I will make you attentive. I will guide you on a sure way." Jakov lives in a mansion in the Boston suburbs estimated to be worth $1 Million. Ivan lives lavishly exclusively of funds made from the apparitions. Vicka has been proven to be dishonest, manipulative and without credibility. Just look at this video. This video was featured on Church Pop which is a very reputable catholic site and offshoot of EWTN. The catholic standing of EWTN does not even need to be stated. When confronted by this video evidence, the reactions of both John Carpenter and Donald Hartley were startling to say the least. Neither one of them claimed the video was a fake or that it was altered or even that the quotes and descriptions of the events were inaccurate in any way. They simply said something to the effect of it being 'one little mistake that doesn't undo 40 years of apparitions' or some such nonsense. I will leave it to them to explain and context their position. I will also leave it to your own eyes and ears to witness what you see here. Nothing Carpenter and Hartley can say can make you unsee this and unhear it. You cannot walk away from this seeing Vicka as anything but a fraud. Her story about the possibility of the Blessed Mother actually dropping Jesus is a damning indictment against this diabolical monstrosity. The very suggestion is absurd and blasphemous. Watch the video. Watch it again. Then try to reconcile it with Donald Hartley's rhetoric that all who disbelieve Medjugorje are unduly influenced by the peanut gallery. See if Donald Hartley and John Carpenter can convince you that your own eyes and ears are lying to you. Watch them personally insult your intelligence by claiming this video proves nothing. My guess is that their gaslighting will not persuade you. It is often speculated that Bishop Zanic turned from Medjugorje supporter to detractor as a result of communist pressure. Donal Foley has a much better explanation in his book "Medjugorje Complete" (page 113). The passage has to be seen to be believed. Mr. Foley is spot on. This message alone (which is not disputed) either shows Ivan the "visionary" as a complete pinhead or this message came straight from the Devil. Straight-up, those are your only two options. The "Gospa" of Medjugorje is producing quite a record of accomplishments. About to drop baby Jesus Defending sexual predators Encouraged defrocked Priest to hear confessions and celebrate Communion Encouraged disobedience to the Bishop Threatening the that he better get onboard the Pro-Med train and ignore the "negative" sides. If this sounds like the Mother of Jesus to you, I'd suggest you get professional help. Oh, but there is so much more. The Medjugorje "Gospa" (devil): endorses the ''poem of the Man God" which is condemned by the Vatican. nearly brought about the end of the world over a handkerchief. claims all religions are equal before God. (October 1, 1981) Overturns the history of the church for some 1600 years and the testimony of at least 5 canonized saints in claiming the birthday of the Mother of Jesus is in August, not September. Is indecisive in visions. Makes predictions, none of which have come true. becomes filthy from the sins of reprobates putting their hands on her (pure blasphemy to suggest this could happen to the Mother of God. Appears on-demand to "visionaries" who make thousands of these "visions", drive luxury cars and live in mansions. Tells the visionaries not to pray for themselves (16 Sep 1984) That all people in heaven have a soul and a body (May 6, 1982) Praised Father Vlasic for his work (Feb 8, 1982) Souls receive a new body. The old body rots in the earth never to rise again.(July 24th, 1982) Apparently, Mary has even become a protestant! Saturday, September 4, 1982 "Jesus prefers that you address yourselves directly to Him rather than through an intermediary. In the meantime, if you wish to give yourselves completely to God and if you wish that I be your protector, then confide to me all your intentions, your fasts, and your sacrifices so that I can dispose of them according to the will of God." I could go on and on all day. Unlike John Carpenter and Donald Hartley, I don't give you second hand quotes. These messages are from the actual Medjugorje transcripts not the "peanut gallery" sources they use. Should I keep going? How about: Mirjana being associated with the formation of the Caritas of Birmingham group that was condemned as a heretical cult? She is still associated with it! Undeniable ties to the protestant charismatic movement with Monatist undertones? Gnosticish secrets that they would not reveal evento the Vatican or the Commission! Vicka saying that all inhabitants of hell have horns and tails? (Foley, p 200) The "Gospa" saying that all skeptics of Medjugorje were "Disbelieving Judases"! (Even Mary of Fatima wouldn't say that) Medjugorje apologist Father Laurentein changing the above to "doubting Thomases" to soften it? Vicka saying people wear only 3 colors in heaven? These messages are sheer lunacy and not in keeping with any approved apparition or anything remotely credible. I ask you.... "What would a reasonable person conclude, based on the evidence?" The Ruini report is wildly flawed and cannot be taken seriously. I have linked the report and stated that the CDF was incredulous about it. It is a mass of contradictions that simply isn't workable. The commission obviously did very sloppy work. Among the priceless duplicities: Ivan has no credibility but we need to believe his testimony re; the first 7 visions. The first 7 visions are credible but the only prediction made during that time turned out wrong. The visionaries are spiritually immature and need direction but the Mother of God has been appearing to them for 30+ (now 40+ years) The visions after day 10 are a real problem and the visionaries are clearly going through the motions but we must believe they are sincere about the first 10 days. It's no wonder the CDF was incredulous and asked for the entire report to be thrown out. The so-called "visionaries" are widely described (even in the Ruini report) as being dishonest, evasive actors addicted to money. Vicka's favorite game was to claim the "Gospa" 'paused' the visions to her whenever the scientific teams showed up. The "visions" would conveniently restart after they left. Not one visionary entered the religious life. All of them are rich, living in mansions and driving luxury cars. Please compare to: Saint Bernadette Saint Juan Diego Saints Lucia, Jacinta and Francisco. The condemnations have been upheld and will always be. Folks. Let's face it. The Vatican has had 31 years to overturn the Yugoslav Bishops. 12 years since the Ruini Commission opened. 5 years since it closed. There is literally nothing that suggests the Ruini Commission results or any manner of a full or partial approval of Medjugorje will ever happen. Medjugorje is done. There is no Medjugorje. "What would a reasonable person conclude, based on the evidence?" He would conclude the truth...that Medjugorje is false! So is Garabandal. The same crazy messages, the same unfulfilled predictions. From EWTN... The Alleged Apparitions at Garabandal Author: Bishop Jose Vilaplaua The Alleged Apparitions at Garabandal, Spain Msgr. Jose Vilaplana, Bishop of Santander, Spain In answer to questions about the alleged Marian apparitions at Garabandal, Spain, Bishop Jose Vilaplana sends the following response to inquirers. Diocese of Santander Santander, Some people have been coming directly to the Diocese of Santander (Spain) asking about the "alleged apparitions" of Garabandal, and above all for the position of the hierarchy of the Church concerning these apparitions. I must communicate that: 1. All the bishops of the diocese from 1961 through 1970 asserted that the supernatural character of the said apparitions, that took place around that time, could not be confirmed. [no constaba].* 2. In the month of December of 1977 Msgr. del Val, Bishop of Santander, in union with his predecessors, affirmed that in the six years of being Bishop of Santander there were no new phenomena. 3. Not withstanding, the same Msgr. del Val, the first years having passed in which there was confusion to enthusiasm, initiated an interdisciplinary study in order to examine with greater profundity these phenomenon. The conclusion of this study coincided with the previous findings by the bishops, which is to say, that it does not prove [no consta] the supernaturality of said apparitions. 4. This study concluded during the days in which I took possession of the diocese in 1991. Taking advantage, in that same year, of a trip to Rome for the motive of making the ad limina visit, I presented said study to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and asked for guidance for pastoral activity concerning the case. 5. On Nov. 28, 1992, the Congregation sent me its response, consisting in, that after having examined attentively the mentioned documentation, it did not consider it opportune to intervene directly, removing the ordinary jurisdiction of the Bishop of Santander, this subject that belongs to him by right. Previous declarations of the Holy See agree in this finding. In the same letter it was suggested, if I find it opportune, to publish a declaration in which it is re-affirmed that the supernaturality of the referenced apparitions was not proven, making my own the unanimous position of my predecessors. 6. Given that the declarations of my predecessors, who studied the case, have been clear and unanimous, I do not find it necessary to have a new public declaration that would give notoriety to something which happened so long ago. However, I find it opportune to redact this information as a direct response to the persons who ask for direction concerning this question, which I give finally, accepting the decisions of my predecessors and the direction of the Holy See. 7. In reference to the celebration of the Eucharist in Garabandal, following the dispositions of my predecessors, I only allow that it be celebrated in the parish church without reference to the alleged apparitions and with the permission of the current pastor, who has my confidence. With the wish that this information is helpful to you, receive my cordial greeting in Christ, Jose Vilaplana Bishop of Santander It is time to reject the heresy of these false apparitions and the false pied pipers who peddle them. Garabandal also promised signs and miracles that never have (and never will) take place. Nonsense such as "The Warning" and "The Illumination of Conscience" are not Catholic. Jesus warned us to be ready and not caught sleeping, not to listen to false teachers with heretical theology and Psuedo-apocalyptic nonsense.

Sometimes the only way to say something is direct when you are dealing with someone who simply isn't willing to do the right thing. As I embark on this new venture, I have no alternative but to tell the truth about what has happened to "Deeper Truth", the Apostolate I founded 13 years ago. It brings me no joy to relay this to you. Donald Hartley had once suggested that I debate John Carpenter but there is no debate. You can look at the two unaltered photos above and see this for yourself. The first is an article from the Catholic News Agency informing us that the Vatican is prohibiting Catholics from promoting the condemned apparitions of Our Lady of all Nations. The second picture is John Carpenter doing exactly what has been forbidden. You can click on the pictures. They take you to exactly what they represent. Are there any questions? So, the debate would be over, with me winning, in about 10 seconds.. This Catholic Apostolate that I founded is being used to openly promote formal heresy, lies, calumny and open disobedience against the Catholic faith. Those charges are serious, I know, but they are true and I'm about to prove it. So, this isn't about a debate. This is about John Carpenter's immoral and dishonest behavior, enabled by Don Hartley, forcing me to leave my own apostolate. This case is going to be made in 3 parts. Part 1 will go right after the Deeper Truth's "Journey with Mary" and I will prove that John Carpenter has a total disregard for the truth and Catholic Teaching. His entire show has turned into a veritable volcano of misinformation. In Part 2, we will tackle the Ruini report. This was a commission report of recommendations about the alleged events in Medjugorje. We will go into what this report actually is and what it actually says and how John Carpenter is openly lying about the report to support his selfish agenda. In Part 3, we will specifically take on the false and condemned alleged visions that are Medjugorje and Garabandal and prove that practicing Catholics are absolutely forbidden from promoting these diabolical frauds. We will prove that both are false based on the plain factual record. PART 1- A "Journey with Mary" The idea of a "Journey with Mary" sounds good enough. The problem is that the mission is subverted by the man running it. John Carpenter lies repeatedly, boldly and constantly even when there doesn't seem to be a logical reason to. He also promotes multiple events publicly and officially condemned by the Church We need to start there. When I say John Carpenter is a habitual liar, I am speaking fact, not opinion. A liar is someone who speaks falsely and does so deliberately. Sadly, John Carpenter is just such a person. On May 2nd, 2021, the 12th anniversary of my founding of Deeper Truth, Donald Hartley explains to John Carpenter, in no uncertain terms, that I am the one who founded this Apostolate and then asked Donald to join me. Listen for yourself. Up to that point, John Carpenter (who joined in 2014) had repeatedly called Donald Hartley "the founder" of Deeper Truth. He did so in his books and countless times on his shows. All of this despite the fact that...well...it just isn't so. Donald Hartley did not appear on Deeper Truth until the 9th episode. I founded the blog as well. Carpenter could have determined this quite easily before he published wrong information in his books and said it on his shows but, fine. We'll say he was sloppy and mistaken and we will let it go. Right? Here is the problem. He is still making the claim! Repeatedly...too often to ignore....too often to be accidental. Here is one example from several weeks ago. Does this claim hurt my ego in some way? Far from it. It is, in the scheme of things, a small matter. That's what makes it so creepy. Why is this man so insecure that he feels the need to create opportunities to repeat this lie with such enthusiasm? You heard the set-up Listen, again... "Mr. Donald Hartley...Deeper Truth Founder!" Why does it bother me, so much? It's in the name, folks. "Deeper Truth". The Bible says that one who can't be trusted in small things, cannot be trusted in large things. Likewise, one who habitually tells little lies, habitually tells big ones too. Carpenter just can't help himself. He lies constantly. That is what is sullying "Deeper Truth" and forced me to leave. Each Sunday- with few exceptions- John Carpenter opens his show on Deeper Truth radio with an objectively false claim that any listener can refute with a one minute google search. The claim made by Carpenter , and repeated literally hundreds of times over the last 8 or so years, is that there are "over 2600 documented appearances of Mary in over 2,000 years of the Catholic church" No serious Catholic of any repute has ever made such a ludicrous claim. Donald Hartley, a rock solid Catholic in all other respects, simply checks his objectivity at the door and blindly accepts anything Carpenter says, regardless of how inaccurate.... and wow, does it get inaccurate. Let's start with the 2600+ claim. It is utter rubbish and it opens up the entire Catholic church to ridicule and scorn as if the Vatican blindly endorses every person who claims they spoke to Mary in their backyard. Either Carpenter cannot understand the difference between a documented appearance of Mary (his precise words) and an alleged appearance of Mary or he is deliberately trying to obfuscate the two. Let's start with the what the dictionary says about something being documented. In other words, Documented means proven not merely claimed. In case he latches on the definition "supported by documents", let's be clear. In the overwhelming majority of cases the available documentation only supports that fact that a claim has been made not that the alleged event actually occurred. No, he says 2600 documented appearances. That means it happened 2600 times. We all know that that dog just don't hunt. Am I being too critical? Hardly! This is not some occasional slip-of-the-tongue, poor-choice-of-words kind of a thing. It is a constant and emphatically repeated assertion. Carpenter asserts that it is established that Our Blessed Mother has appeared over 2600 times. It is not. Listen for yourself. This clip from a January show from this year is a vintage example of this preposterous nonsense. Here is another from about 5 months ago, just for good measure. So, what does the actual record show? Let's start with those officially approved by the Vatican. There are 16. Then, let's add 9 more that are approved and recognized by Bishops. That's it. 25 that are documented, not 2600. He is literally wrong more than 100 fold! Carpenter considers himself an expert who provides the best information available. If that was true, we wouldn't have a problem here. It is essential for a Catholic Apostolate to be accurate. The sad thing is that he almost never provides the accurate information that is readily available in this age of unlimited access. Here is the second of many examples. Please listen to this clip from about the 6 or 7 minute mark of the show he did on 2/20/2022. The problem with this clip is that it is riddled with clear factual errors. It is not that we "disagree:, it's that we know his statements are objectively false! When he says "some people don't agree with the information", he is blaming us for his inability to get the facts right! Betania, Venezuela was never officially approved by the Vatican, as he clearly states. It is on the list of Bishop approved apparitions (6th from the top). Lest anyone accuse me of splitting hairs, I am not. It is this kind of thing that repeats itself over and over and gets worse and worse. First, Betania clearly shows that the Bishop has the authority to approve or condemn. Carpenter doesn't occasionally get the facts wrong, he constantly gets them wrong and often, very very wrong. This brings great harm to this once great apostolate and opens our faith up to scorn from detractors. His response is always the same. He is absolutely impervious to fraternal correction and Donald Hartley, for reasons I cannot comprehend, has simply become an apologist for him. Let's go back to the show of January 30th. After making the claim that Mary is documented to have appeared 2600+ times, he continues that he has researched 101 of the best-of-the-best. He claims that most Catholics only know 5 or 6. (He gives no source for this assertion). He then proceeds to go into a description of Mary's "appearance" in Damascus, Syria. The Vatican has not recognized Mary as having appeared in Damascus, Syria and neither has any Roman Rite Bishop. In fact, even this list of 19 that are considered to be "traditionally approved" makes no mention of it. However, it is approved by the Syrian Catholic church which is- by extension- faithful to Rome. That's close enough for Carpenter, I guess but doesn't get it on any of the official lists of Catholic approved apparitions. So the Catholic church has not officially stated that Mary's appearance in Syria is worthy of belief. That doesn't stop Carpenter. On his website, Carpenter says this: Notice there is no equivocation, no hesitation, no doubt. Carpenter simply does not have the standing in the church to assert this as being fact. For him to assert plainly that Mary spoke, Mary raised Her right hand is to assert a level of authority he doesn't have. Period. It is reckless, presumptuous and absolutely irresponsible. Use the terms alleged or claimed or reported to unless the Vatican or the Roman Rite Bishops tell you otherwise. This isn't hard stuff, folks. The only official declaration in the above case was made by the Archbishop of the Greek Orthodox church, which is not in full communion with Rome and so, lacks the standing to make an official approval. The Syrian Catholic church recognized it but it does not make the list of Roman Catholic Bishop's approvals. There are Syrian Catholics who are in communion with Rome and those who are not. The approval here is unclear, at best. Full disclosure, I have not been able to find the name and jurisdiction of the member/members of the Syrian Catholic church who signed off on the Orthodox Bishop's declaration. This I do know- This apparition makes no list of officially approved apparitions in the Roman Catholic church. Full stop. It is unapproved. The end. Why am I making such a big deal about Syria? I'm making a very important larger point about John Carpenter's absolute duplicity. Here, he goes to great lengths to claim this apparition valid due to a second-hand approval by an unknown Bishop whose ties to the church are tenuous at best. On the other hand, as I will show, he is not at all consistent in his deference to the Bishops. He is for them when he agrees with them and drums up all manner of calumny and accusations against them when they don't. Like in the case of 2 Bishops in the Diocese of Mostar that he viciously slanders for simply doing their jobs. What is most sad is that Don Hartley is four-square behind him in his insolence and disobedience to the church, repeating every one of Carpenter's lies and slanders as if they were his own. Take this gem from Hartley: John, your "truth" is not the TRUTH. Just taking a look at what we have done in the Journey with Mary series, in over 8 years, well over 90% of all the shows were based on Church approved events. We did zero of any event that has been formally condemned by the Catholic Church. This one is a whopper here. This is like the fish that swallowed Jonah. Let's tackle the first assertion, then the second. Obviously, I cannot survey the last 8 years. Let's look at a nice round number shall we? Let's look at the last 50 Journey with Mary shows up to the writing of this article. In these 50 shows, there are many condemned apparitions and not many approved ones. Proof is provided for each condemned apparition. (underlined bold red are links). Betania, Venezuela- Approved by the Bishop. 1 Approved- 0 unapproved- 0 Condemned San Nicolas, Argentina. Approved by the Bishop. 2-0-0 Damascus, Syria- Approved by Syrian Catholic Church- We will count it to be fair. 3-0-0 Luzon, Philippines Condemned by the Vatican on December 11, 2015 3-0-1 Rwanda- Approved 4-0-1 Rwanda- Approved 5-0-1 Medjugorje- Condemned 4 times, last on April 10th, 1991 by Yugoslav Bishop's Conference 5-0-2 Medjugorje- Condemned 4 times, last on April 10th, 1991 by Yugoslav Bishop's Conference 5-0-3 Medjugorje- Condemned 4 times, last on April 10th, 1991 by Yugoslav Bishop's Conference 5-0--4 Medjugorje- Condemned 4 times, last on April 10th, 1991 by Yugoslav Bishop's Conference 5-0-5 Medjugorje- Condemned 4 times, last on April 10th, 1991 by Yugoslav Bishop's Conference 5-0-6 Medjugorje- Condemned 4 times, last on April 10th, 1991 by Yugoslav Bishop's Conference 5-0-7 Medjugorje- Condemned 4 times, last on April 10th, 1991 by Yugoslav Bishop's Conference 5-0-8 Medjugorje- Condemned 4 times, last on April 10th, 1991 by Yugoslav Bishop's Conference 5-0-9 El Escorial, Spain. Condemned in 1985 by Archbishop of Madrid, Angel Suquía 5-0-10 El Escorial, Spain. Condemned in 1985 by Archbishop of Madrid, Angel Suquía 5-0-11 Cuapa, Nicaragua Approved 6-0-11 Australia 4-2-11 Unapproved 6-1-11 Australia 4-3-11 Unapproved 6-2-11 Australia 4-4-11 Unapproved 6-3-11 Akita, Japan Approved 7-3-11 Zeitoun, Egypt Approved by Coptic church. We'll count it. 9-3-11 Zeitoun, Egypt Approved by Coptic church. We'll count it. 10-3-11 Zeitoun, Egypt Approved by Coptic church. We'll count it. 11-3-11 Janonis, Lithuania Devotion encouraged by Juozas Preiksas, bishop of Panevezys We'll count it even though unofficial. 12-3-11 Garabandal, Spain. Condemned by 5 Bishops and the Vatican. 12-3-12 Garabandal, Spain. Condemned by 5 Bishops and the Vatican. 12-3-13 Garabandal, Spain. Condemned by 5 Bishops and the Vatican. 12-3-14 Garabandal, Spain. Condemned by 5 Bishops and the Vatican. 12-3-15 Rome City, Indiana Approved by Bishop for "faith expression" We'll count it 13-3-15 Rome City, Indiana Approved by Bishop for "faith expression" We'll count it 13-3-15 Ngome, South Africa. Approved for "faith expression". Again, out of an abundance of fairness, we will count it. 14-4-15 Seredne, Ukraine Unapproved 14-5-15 Seredne, Ukraine Unapproved 14-6-15 Lipa, Phillipines Condemned by the Vatican in 2010 14-6-16 Lipa, Phillipines Condemned by the Vatican in 2010 14-6-17 L'lle Bouchard, France Approved for "faith expression". Giving it to you. 15-6-17 L'lle Bouchard, France Approved for "faith expression". Giving it to you. 16-6-17 Tre Fontaine, Rome. Title of Mary as Mother of revelation accepted, Apparitions unapproved. 16-7-17 Germany Unapproved. Carpenter actually says "allegedly!" 16-8-17 Our Lady of All Nations. Condemned in 1956, 1972, and 1974 by Bishops. Condemnation forcefully upheld by Vatican in 2020. 16-8-18 Our Lady of All Nations. Condemned in 1956, 1972, and 1974 by Bishops. Condemnation forcefully upheld by Vatican in 2020. 16-8-19 Our Lady of All Nations. Condemned in 1956, 1972, and 1974 by Bishops. Condemnation forcefully upheld by Vatican in 2020. 16-8-20 La Codesera, Spain. Bishop allowed a chapel to be built. Pretty tepid approval but let's allow it. 17-8-20 Ghiaie di Bonate, Italy Not established as supernatural / worship prohibited - April 30, 1948 Bishop Bernareggi of Bergamo. Condemned 17-8-21 Ghiaie di Bonate, Italy Not established as supernatural / worship prohibited - April 30, 1948 Bishop Bernareggi of Bergamo. Condemned 17-8-22 Ghiaie di Bonate, Italy Not established as supernatural / worship prohibited - April 30, 1948 Bishop Bernareggi of Bergamo. Condemned 17-8-23 Heede, Germany Unapproved" 17-9-23 Banneux, Belgium- Approved 18-9-23 Beauraing, Belgium- Approved 19-9-23 I scored this incredibly generous in Carpenter's favor. Whenever there was any question, he got the benefit of the doubt. So how did he do? Were 90% Church approved events? No. Even with my ridiculously generous scoring, the percentage of Church approved events over roughly the last year was a paltry 38%. However, what is really shocking is that almost half of the shows- 46% were of events that have been condemned and Catholics are actually forbidden from promoting. An additional 18% were unapproved . How can anyone seriously argue the point when I so often provided you the links to the actual condemnations? Sadly, this is just a partial list of officially condemned apparitions openly promoted by John Carpenter. There are many more. Where does this leave brother Donald Hartley after he tried so forcefully to claim Carpenter has never promoted a condemned apparition? After he claimed John Carpenter was an expert who would mop the floor with the likes of Patrick Coffin or Donal Foley? You can figure it out. Suffice it to say, either one of those men would make Carpenter look ridiculous in about 4 minutes. The one I'm really disappointed in is Don Hartley. We collaborated on some pretty good stuff over the years but the way he acted in this situation was- frankly- pretty childish. After 12 years, you would think he would have given me the courtesy of at least acknowledging that my concerns deserved to be heard. In the end, he trusted the man with no credibility at all, no apparent concern at even trying to get his facts right. The reason for this is because for Donald, it was only ever about Medjugorje, the false fraud he clings to with cult-like devotion. It's not all about Medjugorje, it never was. It's about Carpenter. I want to close this article where it started by talking about the city of Amsterdam and an alleged appearance of Mary under the title "Mother of all nations". Here are the facts, and they are indisputable. On the 7th of May,1956 the Diocesan Bishop rendered a negative judgement (condemnation) of these apparitions. On March 2nd of the following year, the condemnation was renewed. On March 13th, the Holy See sent a letter of approval of these actions. On March 29th of 1972, the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith denied an appeal and upheld the previous condemnations. They did so again May of 1972 and yet again, in May of 1974. Article. Astoundingly, in 2020, the Vatican again condemned these apparitions. The language was stunning in it's force. In 1956, the diocesan bishop of Haarlem, after careful study of the case, concluded that he “found no evidence of the supernatural nature of the apparitions” and, therefore, he “prohibited public veneration of the picture of ‘Our Lady of All Nations’ and the spreading of writings which attributed a supernatural origin to these apparitions and revelations.” This decision was confirmed in 1957, when it was endorsed by the Vatican. This endorsement was repeated in 1972 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In case there were any doubts, in 1974, having studied the subject in depth in repeated investigations, the dicastery in charge of the integrity of the Catholic faith published the definitive communiqué, stating that it “confirms by the present notification the judgment already expressed by the competent ecclesiastical authority,” referring to the decisions made by the Dutch bishop. And, consequently, it invited “priests and laity to discontinue all forms of propaganda with regard to the alleged apparitions and revelations of ‘Our Lady of All Nations.’” So the church, repeatedly condemned these apparitions stating that there is to be no stating that Mary appeared there and specifically to not promote the title Our Lady of All Nations. In 2002, the Bishop of Amsterdam Holland, Josef Punt attempted to declare the Amsterdam Apparitions Supernatural. The Vatican stepped in and overruled him and the CDF officially reiterated the multiple previous condemnations. It took this action in 2020. Just incredibly, John Carpenter- just 5 months later kicks off a 3 episode series doing exactly what Catholics were specifically forbidden to do. Just look at the two images again. He commits an act of either brazen disobedience or shocking ignorance for an "expert". So........ #Deepertruth

Let us be clear about my disagreements with John Carpenter and Donald Hartley. They have be lying about 3 aspects of the Ruini report, falsely claiming: That it constitutes an approval, accepted by the Vatican. You can see from the CNA article above that that is false. That it is positive on the first year. Nope. 10 days. That's it. That it is silent on the remaining time, allowing for it to be approved later. Wrong again, the Ruini report specifically condemns everything after July 3rd, 1981 If the Pope approved the Ruini report today, He would be officially declaring that the Virgin Mary is not appearing in Medjugorje today and hasn't appeared there for more than 40 years. All that I had asked for was for them to report the facts accurately even if our opinions disagree. We must be faithful to the facts and to the process and to the authority of the church. It was not an unreasonable request. What I got in return was a slap in the face. Just listen to this nonsense I have no choice but to dissect and refute pretty much this entire audio segment because it is false and slanderous and demonstrates that Carpenter and Hartley are imprisoned in the Medjugorje cult in a way that is just unhealthy and injurious to the apostolate I founded and the faith I hold dear. Patrick Coffin and Donal Foley put it best in saying the Medjugorje devotees act often like modern day Gnostics, convinced they possess "secret knowledge" not available to regular Catholics. Coffin and Foley further suggest that these people are driven purely by emotion and are willing to disregard all truth to preserve this false notion that Mother Mary is appearing in Bosnia. Sadly, Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Hartley have proven they fit this profile and act totally in the manner of this description of the Zealous Medjugorje devotee. They are lying about the Ruini report both about what it is and what it says. It brings me great pain to make this accusation but I have no choice but to set the record straight. It is just so ironic that Carpenter decries the Medjugorje misinformation obscuring the truth and then, himself proceeds to enter into a torrent of misinformation. The only way I know how to do this is to segment the above audio and respond to each segment with the facts. Of course, they will deny this and claim that their version of the facts is true. All I can do is ask you to pay careful attention to the difference in our approach here. They inform you what they claim the Ruini report is, says and does and expect you take their word for it. I'm going to quote you chapter and verse, proving I am giving you the accurate account, then I will actually link the report and beg you not to take my word for it. Please, Read it yourself. 00:00 - 00:37 CLAIM: IT'S ALL SOCIAL MEDIA'S FAULT Carpenter posits that opposition to Medjugorje has resulted from the proliferation of social media disinformation over the last 10-20 years. He does not substantiate this claim with any facts. 10 years takes us back to 2012. 20 years takes us back to the year 2002. Perhaps Carpenter can explain why: All 4 of the condemnations of Medjugorje occurred between 11-15 years before 2002. Before the 2002 explosion of negative social media, the apparitions had already gone on more than 20 years, unapproved. He cannot quantify how the proliferation of anti-Medjugorje information has surpassed and negatively impacted the pro-Medjugorje side. In fact, The number of pilgrims rose dramatically in the time frame referenced. This suggests the explosion of Social media had a net-positive effect on promotion of the alleged events. In his meticulously researched book Medjugorje Complete, author Donal Foley makes a compelling case that the truth is actually the exact opposite of what Carpenter claims. The avalanche of inaccurate positive Medjugorje social media has actually kept afloat a movement that should have fizzled out after the Bishop's declaration of 1991. The dramatic increases in tourism and the waves of cash rolling in seem to much more strongly favor Mr. Foley's view. You may be skeptical but at least Mr. Foley offers an argument based on empirical evidence while Carpenter offers nothing more than unsupported conjecture. VERDICT: CLAIM IS BASELESS AND UNFOUNDED. 00:38- 00:48 CLAIM: THE FIRST YEAR OF MEDJUGORJE HAS BEEN APPROVED WITH A LARGE MAJORITY VOTE The statement is absolutely false, as is easily demonstrated. Medjugorje has never been approved and likely never will be. The Ruini report is not an approval and no reputable Catholic site anywhere in the world describes it as such. Once again, I ask you not to take my word for it but search for yourself among the literally countless fine sources of official church documentation on approved apparitions. You will not find any talk about Medjugorje being approved, in whole or part, on any Catholic site of repute. Go ahead and try. It's not on the Vatican site, not on EWTN, not on Catholic Answers or Catholic.org, it's not on Church Pop or the Catholic channel or Ascension or Ave Maria Press or Ignatius Press or the Catholic News Agency. In fact, nowhere on this earth can you find a list of approved Marian Apparitions that has Medjugorje included. Try to. I dare you. I'll eat my truck if you can find one. Only a few fringe extremists like John Carpenter are making this ludicrous and easily-refuted claim. The Ruini Commission report was a non-binding report of opinions that was submitted to the Pope and the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for their consideration. It is of no more weight than any other opinion that has been rendered to date. Don't take it from me, read for yourself from the Catholic News Agency. I hope you are noticing a pattern. Carpenter tells you what is the truth but I show you. He can't do this because he isn't telling the truth, plain and simple. Bluntly stated, the Ruini report has no more weight than the paper it is printed on until and only until it is formally adopted and approved by the Pope and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Period. Those are just the facts. From Wikipedia, you can see currently that the Official position of the Church today is to uphold the 1991 condemnation of this false apparition. The official position of the church is the same as it has been since 1991. The apparitions of Medjugorje are condemned. Period. FACT. Any attempt by John Carpenter to claim the events in Medjugorje are, at this time, anything but condemned is a bald-faced lie and he knows it. Look for yourself (Paragraph 6) The ban against promoting them or officially recognizing them is still in effect. The Ruini report changed nothing unless Pope Francis and the CDF accepts it. John Carpenter is just lying about this, straight up. Right now, in promoting Medjugorje as true, Carpenter and Hartley are promoting an officially condemned private revelation. Here is how we could have had a fair meeting of the minds. Carpenter and Hartley could still believe the Vatican will eventually overturn the ban and cease their unqualified promotion of the alleged events until such approval actually happens. That is what is known as acting in obedience and exercising prudential judgement. Frankly, I believe Pope Francis and the CDF will approve the Ruini report right about the time they hold the Ice Capades in hell. However, if Carpenter and Hartley want to believe it will happen, I will smirk at their delusion and respectfully disagree. There can be no respectful disagreement on a lie, however. What's objectively false is objectively false. Instead of proceeding under the correct process, Carpenter and Hartley have gone rogue and are openly promoting a deliberate falsehood. Any claim that the Vatican has already approved even a fraction of this phenomenon is a straight-up lie. Amazingly, Carpenter cannot even get the lies straight! He not only lies about what the Ruini report is, he lies about what it says! The truth is that even the Ruini recommendation, itself, firmly rejects the notion that Mother Mary appeared after the first 7 alleged apparitions. That's a grand total of 10 days of events. Carpenter claims the Ruini report accepts the first year which is something he simply made up out of thin air! You heard the lie, yourself in the above recording. Please re-listen and then bear in mind that the commission specifically rejects all apparitions from day 8 and forward. That's right. The commission did not defer on the last 39 years as Carpenter states. They voted on those apparitions and not one commission member voted in favor. Look at the report yourself. The vote I refer to is shown in section 2.5 on page 14. Once again, the truth is the exact opposite of what Carpenter and Hartley say it is. Thus, even the Ruini commission admits that Mary is not appearing in Medjugorje today. VERDICT: CLAIM PROVEN FALSE Ah, but the lies just roll on, getting more vile. 00:49- 00:57 CLAIM: FOR THE ONLY TIME, THE VATICAN STEPPED IN TO TAKE THE INVESTIGATION AWAY FROM THE LOCAL BISHOP This lie is a whopper, folks. It is like he is trying to out do himself with each successive lie. First as usual, Carpenter provides no evidence that the Vatican took the investigation away from The Bishop (Either Zanic or Peric). He won't provide this evidence because it didn't happen. Second, taking a ruling away from a Bishop, which Carpenter says happened only in the Medjugorje case is, exactly what happened in a case mentioned in my last article. The most relevant facts are so important they bear repeating. In 2002, the Bishop of Amsterdam Holland, Josef Punt attempted to declare the Amsterdam Apparitions Supernatural. The Vatican stepped in and overruled him and the CDF officially reiterated the multiple previous condemnations. It took this action in 2020. So when Carpenter pretends to take the defense of the Vatican over the supposedly dissident Bishop, you must be aware of his duplicity. Though Hartley claims their show has never promoted a formally condemned event, you can see plainly that I have proven this claim to be false. As to the specific charge of a case of the Vatican commandeering a Bishop's investigation into the events at Medjugorje, it is just another red-faced lie by Carpenter, no other way to say it. He cannot support this nonsense, he won't even try to. The truth is that the progression of the examination of Medjugorje has pretty much gone by the book. According to the norms established in 1978 by the Vatican: The regional or national Conference of Bishops can intervene: a) If the Ordinary of the place, having done his part, turns to it to judge the matter with greater certainty; b) If the matter pertains to the national or regional level; always, however, with the prior consent of the Ordinary of the place. The investigation was elevated to the Level of the Yugoslav Bishop's Conference, with the Vatican's assistance and the Bishop's consent and cooperation. That was Bishop Zanic. Of course, the Bishop's conference arrived at the same verdict as the Bishop: Non constat de supernaturalitate Bishop Zanic's successor, Bishop Peric went further, declaring Constat de non supernaturalitate which is an unequivocal condemnation. The Vatican's intervention followed the norms as well and had nothing to do with displeasure with the Bishop but with how the events in Medjugorje were growing to international impact. In fact, it was Bishop Peric who asked for the assistance, in keeping with the standard and he was involved throughout, also in keeping with the standard. From Wikipedia.... On 17 March 2010, the Holy See announced that, at the request of the bishops of Bosnia Herzegovina, it had established a commission, headed by Cardinal Camillo Ruini, to examine the Medjugorje phenomenon.[10][11] John Carpenter lied about the Vatican taking the investigation from the Bishop. It is just that simple. Source (Section 5, paragraph 4) V. ON THE INTERVENTION OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH 1. a) The intervention of the Sacred Congregation can be requested either by the Ordinary, after he has done his part, or by a qualified group of the faithful. In this second case, care must be taken that recourse to the Sacred Congregation not be motivated by suspect reasons (for example, in order to compel the Ordinary to modify his own legitimate decisions, to support some sectarian group, etc.). b) It is up to the Sacred Congregation to intervene motu proprio in graver cases, especially if the matter affects the larger part of the Church, always after having consulted the Ordinary and even, if the situation requires, the Conference of Bishops. 2. It is up to the Sacred Congregation to judge and approve the Ordinary’s way of proceeding or, in so far as it be possible and fitting, to initiate a new examination of the matter, distinct from that undertaken by the Ordinary and carried out either by the Sacred Congregation itself or by a special Commission. You might think that Carpenter would at least make his lies plausible. First, he provides absolutely no credible source for this ludicrous claim. Second, he fails to explain why Bishop Peric, supposedly stripped of his authority in this matter, would be allowed to remain the Bishop of this diocese- in good standing- until his voluntary retirement in September of 2020. VERDICT: CLAIM PROVEN FALSE 00:58- 01:20 CLAIM: BISHOP PERIC DID NOT BELIEVE IN ANY APPARITION INCLUDING LOURDES OR FATIMA OR GUADALUPE AND THIS IS THE REASON THE INVESTIGATION WAS "TAKEN FROM HIM" Hogwash. Utter garbage. In fact, this is pure calumny against a Bishop in good standing! From an interview with Bishop Peric in the Diocese's own paper: Bp. Peric: Perhaps misinformation is another of Medjugorje's phenomena. But let us go back to Bishop Zanic. The whole thing had so caught his interest that he became involved in questioning the visionaries himself and closely followed the happenings in Medjugorje. What bishop wouldn't be delighted that the Blessed Virgin Mary would be appearing in his diocese? Especially Msgr. Zanic, a very Marian bishop, who as a priest and later as a bishop made eleven pilgrimages to various Marian shrines all over Europe: Lourdes, Fatima, Syracuse, etc. And then for the Gospa to have mercy on him and begin to "appear" in his own backyard as if to bring an end to all his wanderings all over Portugal! But after a few months, when he heard the small fibs and large lies, insincerities, inexactitudes, and all sorts of fabricated stories from those who claimed that the Gospa was appearing to them, he became totally convinced that it was not a matter of supernatural apparitions of the Gospa. Then he started to bring out the truth and to expose the falsehoods. The greatest satisfaction of his ten years of hard work was when the bishops of Yugoslavia at their spring meeting at Zadar on April 10, 1991, dutifully declared: "On the basis of studies it cannot be affirmed that supernatural apparitions and revelations are occurring." This is an exceptionally clear ecclesiastical ruling, and is a rebuttal of the claims of all those who claim to have seen the Gospa everywhere and at any time since the year of 1981. The Vatican stepped in because of the worldwide impact this was having and the pastoral needs of the faithful. Never, at any point, has any competent authority suggested that the Bishop had any improper bias or approach in any way. This is nothing but crackpot babble from the TRUE peanut gallery. Carpenter should be ashamed of himself for shamelessly calumniating a Bishop in order to sell books. Of course, Donald Hartley, not to be outdone in calumny, goes after the first Bishop, painting him as a dupe of the communists. Of course, neither one of these guys can explain how the anti- Medjugorje forces managed to corrupt the Diocesan commission, the Yugoslav Bishops, the CDF and the Pope but I guess they are all in on the conspiracy too. The truth is that it is the flood of propaganda that has kept this farce alive, just like this farce VERDICT: CLAIM PROVEN FALSE 01:21- 03:04 CLAIM: 1st YEAR APPROVED. NOTHING NEGATIVE AFTER THAT BUT IT WAS JUST TOO MUCH WORK. THEY BASICALLY LEFT THE REMAINING 39 YEARS ALONE TO GET TO LATER..... I can only hope Mr. Peanut did not actually read the Ruini report and is just speaking from absolute abject ignorance. Either way, any speck of credibility he may have had was just destroyed right here. Donald Hartley unwisely boasted..... The only thing you are siding with, Donnie, is the cliff you are pushing yourself over. Nothing you have said even resembles a coherent fact. That makes this a good step off point to go right into what the Ruini report says and how it was received by the Pope and the CDF. At the end of the day, you will see that the report has basically no chance of being adopted. You will also see that Donald has no idea what the report says so his statement that he sides with it is ludicrous. Hartley believes Mary is appearing in Medjugorje now and the report eliminates that as a possibility. If the Ruini report gets approved, the first 7 apparitions are approved and all the rest are condemned. The reality is that even the 7 are now not approved and will never be. The Ruini commission report was made public in May of 2017. 5 years later, no action has been taken on the report by the Pope or the CDF. That's right, Donald Hartley. You have been hoisted by your own petard. By your claim that you side with the Ruini Commission, you are admitting that Mama Mary was not in Medjugorje when you went there in 1988 and 1989. Despite what Carpenter says, the report does not indicate acceptance of the first year but only the first 10 days. Despite what he says, it does not defer on the remaining 39 years, it condemns them without a single positive vote. You wont hear that truth from Mr. Peanut, but you can read it right from the words of the report itself! The International Commission notes, in any case, that the events subsequent to the first seven apparitions constitute a real problem, which makes very difficult an evaluation in conformity to that which can be recognized in the original sign From the original documents made available to the International Commission, it appears that the then adolescents had declared that the phenomenon would end. But as we know, this has not happened. [ NOTE BY ME- This admission invalidates the first 7 events ] Where does the impulse towards this very long successive continuity really come from? The question is reasonable, all the more if we consider that the places, conditions, times and relative predictability of the alleged appearances in progress have substantially changed: they now occur with predictable and often even organized rhythms. In the course of the various hearings, moreover, the International Commission perceived in many ways the great difference of narrative that exists between the original events and the current events. The alleged visionaries, in fact, appeared without emotions and took on an almost professional air in mentioning the phenomenon in progress; [NOTE BY ME- ADMISSION BY THE COMMISSION THAT THEY ARE ACTING.] when, on the other hand, in the transcripts of the 1981 interviews, the freshness and ingenuity of the children who try to report the lived experience during the first apparitions emerge–with indisputable evidence. These connotations, by contrast, give great credibility to the accounts of that time; but, at the same time, they show a noticeably changed attitude, not only on an emotional level, and in relation to a certain “addiction” to repetition, but, according to what appears, even in the public and spectacular forms of the present alleged visions or apparitions, among other things for the “ease” of their management. Considering that such difference in narrative (and credibility) cannot be ascribed to reasons of psychological disorder or even outright immorality—if not perhaps in the case of Ivan Dragicevic—the problem of the witnesses’ present credibility remains Wow. The commission states the apparitions from the 8th one forward present a real problem. That's putting it mildly. Then, the commission admits that the "visionaries" all claimed that the "Gospa" said that the apparitions would end after 10 days and this prediction obviously didn't manifest itself. Thus, the Ruini commission actually refutes it's own claim that the 1st 10 days were credible. Then the commission admits that the visionaries seem to be emotionless and carrying an almost professional air and are addicted to repetition (acting?). Finally, the commission admits that at least one of the visionaries (Ivan) has no credibility. This same visionary is but one that the commission cites as addicted to money and their own well being. Are you following? It seems our visionaries are enamored with money. The report also cites the spiritual immaturity of the visionaries. In fact, this might be the most incredible statement of all... This is the worst bunch of convoluted nonsense I may have ever read. Bear in mind that you are about to read directly from the report, not from a commentary of it. 2.4 Present credibility of the alleged visionaries. As for the present credibility of the alleged visionaries, it is first necessary to consider two arguments, widespread and repeated, which the International Commission, on the basis of its investigations, deemed it necessary to evaluate critically. The first concerns the immorality of the alleged witnesses, and in particular, their search for profit, openly considered by the CDF Norms as an assessment factor contrary to the truth of the certified private revelations. The second concerns the existence in the alleged visionaries of significant and altering psychological pathologies. But nothing of all this appeared from the specific expert reports conducted on them. (a) What the International Commission has been able to ascertain, in regard to the accusation of a possible seeking of profit, is that the witnesses of the supernatural sign originally addressed to them now effectively have a relation, ambiguous in certain aspects, with money (and with what in general can be called a preoccupation with their own “wellbeing”). Yet this ambiguity, rather than being located on the side of immorality, is found on the side of the structure of the person, often lacking a solid discernment and a coherent orientation, and also because an available and steady spiritual guide has been lacking to them in the course of these thirty years. If anything, there have been many signs exhibited of spiritual self-promotion and of a lack of pastoral relationships. In other words, it is fitting to recognize that, for long years, neither the bishops of Mostar-Duvno, nor the community of Franciscan friars of Medjugorje established relations with these persons of sufficient regularity and in-depth discernment of the meaning of the events which they claim and even now claim to experience. This circumstance has probably accented the current relative ‘impenetrability’ of the witnesses: innocent at times and calculated in others, through the protecting effect of repetitive formulas and stereotypes defending their Mariophanic “experience.” This lack of spiritual and human accompaniment is surely one among the causes of certain ambivalences and ambiguities that have been manifested among the protagonists of the phenomenon underway. This negative dynamic reaches its apex in the case of Ivan Dragičević, whose continuing meetings and conferences on the Medjugorje phenomenon seem to constitute his only work and support. He has also lied multiple times and is also less credible in the way he speaks of experiences with the Gospa. So the commission doesn't deny that the visionaries are money grubbing, lying hucksters but claims that they just can't help it because of a lack of spiritual direction! Hello? No Spiritual direction??????? The Mother of God has supposedly appeared to you 50,000 times?? How would you get better spiritual direction than that? Finally, when charged with voting on the supernaturality of apparitions #8 and beyond, not one of the 20 persons voted in favor. Think about that, folks. The very Ruini report that Donald Hartley sides with, not only doesn't defer on the last 40 years of apparitions, it rejects them- all of them! Thus, Donald Hartley admits- by his own words- that Mary is NOT appearing in Medjugorje now and hasn't for 40 years! Let's look seriously as to what is being posited by the Ruini Commission because it would be plausible if the reverse was true. Let me break down the scenario... 6 Lying, manipulative greedy hucksters encounter the Mother of God who transforms their life so much- in just 10 days- that they become humble, devoutly religious obedient Catholics for the rest of their lives. That scenario is plausible. That is not the Ruini scenario. The Ruini scenario is that 6 kids were minding their own business when *POOF*, the Virgin Mother appears and, in just 10 days, turns them into lying, manipulative, greedy hucksters. You can't make this up! That is really the consequences of what the Ruini report puts forth. Mary turns sinners into saints, not saints into sinners! The "Lady of Medjugorje" is this lady! Feel free to read the whole report here Sidebar- The "minding our own business, tending sheep" defense unraveled and the kids later admitted (on the record) that they actually went up the proverbial hill to smoke and listen to rock music. It is credibly conjectured that they weren't smoking tobacco either. Obviously, you wont hear this from Mr. Peanut. Now, let's deal with Donald Hartley's other assertions: Despite Mr. Hartley's vicious claim that I have bad feelings toward Pope Fransis [sic], nothing could be further from the truth. I have been one of his most vocal defenders for his entire papacy. VERDICT: FALSE The Pope allows pilgrimages to Medjugorje. Yes, but the ban on public promotion of the apparitions as true remains in place. VERDICT: FALSE Bishop Hoser is dead. He (and his successor) were specifically sent to access only the pastoral needs of the parish. VERDICT: FALSE Gabrielle Amoroth was an exorcist, not an expert on apparitions. Exorcist Bishop Gemma (who I believe actually succeeded Amorth as Vatican exorcist) called it "a diabolical fraud motivated by the devil's dung" (money). VERDICT: FALSE Everything here is by inference but Donald doesn't want to deal with the elephants in the room. I've brought them up a hundred times but he runs and runs and runs from them. The reason he runs from them is because they are the checkmate questions. Why, after 58 months, has the Vatican not accepted the results of the Ruini Commission? Why, after 58 months, has the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith not accepted the results of the Ruini Commission? Why doesn't the Vatican, which has been examining Medjugorje for 12 years now, simply declare it approved? More importantly, why is John Carpenter lying and sullying the name of Deeper Truth rather than defer to the church and it's providence? You know very well why. The truth is that the CDF slammed the Ruini report as biased in favor of the pro-Medjugorje side. It criticized the obvious inconsistency of decrying immaturity and credibility issues of the visionaries but then flip-flopping to declare they were credible for a week and a half. This is especially incongruous when examining that the one and only prediction of those first 10 days (about when they appearances would end) proved untrue. The CDF actually advised the Pope Francis to reject the report entirely and immediately render a negative judgement on Medjugorje. The Pope decided to study the matter further for now, while focusing on the "pastoral needs" of the diocese and the pilgrims. Nevertheless, he made his personal feeling known.' He pledged to further study the first seven apparitions while making it clear he fully rejects all those after. So, as a statistical fact, Pope Francis has already rejected 99.9% of the alleged apparitions at Medjugorje and the CDF has already rejected 100%. It is only a question of time before 100% rejection is the Vatican's official position. It's coming. The facts are too strong. One sloppily assembled report cannot prop up this collapsing castle built on sand.