Blog warning against a false 'visionary' Maria Divine Mercy and her cult

Tuesday, October 8, 2013

A Critical Review of Mr. Arthur Policaprio's 'The Book of Truth: A Critical Review'

By David Moorcroft

Mr. Arthur Policarpio graduated from Catholic University 
De La Salle,  and holds a degree of Bachelor of Science in 
Business Management. He heads the local Mobext mobile 
marketing company. He promotes Maria Divine Mercy 
on his website Totus Tuus, Maria
The self-proclaimed ‘Catholic writer’ Arthur Policarpio begins his ‘Critical Review’ of the ‘Book of Truth’ by asking ‘Will the Second Coming of Jesus happen in our lifetime?’, and refers to a ‘series of alleged messages given to an Irish seer who goes by the anonymous name of “Maria Divine Mercy”’ (MDM). 

So far, so good.  We are going to be treated to an impartial criticism of this ‘seer’s’ ‘alleged’ messages from heaven. 
He then asks ‘Can we trust private revelation?’, and answers his own question: 
     ‘God has always communicated to His people through “private revelations”. Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Noah, Daniel, Revelation’
adding that: 
‘The only difference between the private revelations of the past and those of the present is that those of the past are  documented in the Bible.’ 

We are into Mr Policarpio’s third short paragraph, and already we must wonder whether he understands what the Church teaches about Revelation. He places private revelation on the same level as Sacred Scripture. The Catechism of the Catholic Church comments:
          ‘#67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private revelations”, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. GUIDED BY HE MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations WHATEVER CONSTITUTES AN AUTHENTIC CALL OF CHRIST OR HIS SAINTS TO THE CHURCH.’ 
It is common for promoters of unapproved ‘private revelations’ to ‘quote’ Pope Urban VIII here, and Mr Policarpio doesn’t disappoint us:
Pope Urban VIII

     ‘In cases which concern private revelation, it is better to believe than not to believe, for, if you believe, and it is proven true, you will be happy that you have believed...If you believe, and it should be proven false, you will receive all blessings as if it had been true, because you believed it to be true.’ 

Our author says he found these ill-advised words in an untraceable ‘Graces and Mercy Prayer Book’. Whatever his source, there is no reliable evidence that Urban VIII said any such thing. We know what he wrote when he was speaking as Pope:

     ‘…no one can print anything on alleged private revelations without the consent of the Local Bishop.’
‘Sanctissimus Dominus Noster’, 1625.

A later Pope was quite clear on these matters:

     ‘I do not give much belief to prophecies, because most especially that have come to me recently do not deserve to be read.’ – Pope Pius IX, Allocution, 9th April 1872.

Perhaps our author could tell us whether he thinks the following alleged words of Jesus to MDM deserve to be read:

     ‘My Divine Guidance is now instilled in your souls whether you realise this or not. It is like as if you have an internal switch.’ (27th Aug 2011.)
     ‘ Souls will take one, two and more steps backwards for every step they take towards me. I ask you My daughter to tell all my followers to prepare for this stairway which is essential before the top step is reached.’ (3rd Sept 2011.)
     ‘My dearly beloved daughter the Book of Life foretold contains the names of all those who will be saved. However, because of my Great Mercy, more souls will be saved because of the Warning.’(29th Aug 2012.) 
‘He will embrace atheism by waivering the stigma he will say is attached in the pursuit of so-called rights.’ (6th Mar 2013.) 


Our author writes that the purpose of the ‘Book of Truth’ is ‘to prepare our current generation for His Second Coming’. What does MDM say about it?
     ‘Much confusion exists in the world regarding this event. Many people believe that My Second Coming indicates that the end of the world has come. That is not the case for, instead, it will mean the End Times when Satan and his followers who create untold misery in the  world will be banished from earth for 1,000 years.      "This New Paradise I have promised will come about when Heaven and Earth merge to become one.’

There is some confusion in the messages of MDM.
 ‘As the time comes, you and your families will be lifted with Me, in the blink of an eye, to the Heavens. Then you will receive the gift of Eternal Life when Heaven and Earth become one. This is what is meant as the New Paradise.’ (15th Nov 2010.)
‘This New Paradise on Earth is now being planned for all My children. It will last 1,000 years on earth.’ (25th June 2011.) 
  1. The Church has been given the task of preparing us for the Parousia, or Second Coming of Christ, since Her foundation. No private revelation can usurp this mission.
  2. The Church has ever taught that the Second Coming will be proximate with the Last Judgment at the end of time. This teaching is summarised by St Robert Bellarmine, an authority on eschatology and a Doctor of the Church:  ‘The sixth demonstration arises from the last sign that follows Antichrist, which shall be the consummation of the world. For Antichrist shall come a short time before the end of the world…after Antichrist comes the last judgment….the future reign of Antichrist shall be of one thousand two hundred and ninety days’ duration. 
  3. The Church has constantly understood the 1,000-year chaining of Satan as the ‘Age of the Church’, when, before the final testing under antichrist, the enemy is restrained by the church and the sacraments.
  4. The belief in a 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth after the Parousia (Millenarianism) has been condemned by the Church since the Fathers. The Catechism is unequivocal here:
     ‘#676 THE ANTICHRIST’S DECEPTION already begins to take shape in
Last Judgement, Michalangelo
the world every time the claim is made to realise within history that messianic hope which can only be realised beyond history
through the eschatological judgement. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this FALSIFICATION OF THE KINGDOM TO COME under the name millenarianism.’

Mr Policarpio has a simple choice: will he listen to the mind of the Church and approved prophecy, or to the alleged messages of an unknown ‘seer’ who claims to be ‘the Seventh Angel’ of the Apocalypse? (Message 12th July 2012.)


     ‘Jesus says,’ writes our author in his  impartial, ‘critical’ review, that there is an elite, one-world group of powerful men who, behind the scenes, orchestrate all the major global events: the financial crisis, the banking collapse…wars in the Middle East…It is led by the Antichrist.’

So Antichrist is in the world today! If this is true, about 1,500 years of prophecy from approved sources in the Church have been wrong. Many prophecies speak of a Great Monarch who will bring about a renewed Holy  Roman Empire in a great age of peace which must happen before the Great Tribulation of Antichrist. This is from the Prophecies of St Caesarius of Arles (6th century):

     ‘When the entire world…shall have been laid waste by the greatest miseries and trials…a most holy man shall receive the Papacy…(He) will have with him the Great Monarch, a most virtuousman, (who) shall assist the Pope in the reformation of the whole earth. Many nations…shall be converted, and an admirable peace shall reign among men during many years.      ‘All nations shall recognize the Holy See of Rome, and shall pay homage to the Pope. But after an extended period of time fervour will cool, iniquity abound…which shall bring upon mankind the last andworse persecution of Antichrist, and the end of the world.’ 

MDM says that the ‘Great Chastisement’ of Antichrist began in December 2012:
     ‘My Plan of Salvation for the world will begin in My Time, on the 22nd December 2012…This period of the Great Tribulation will last some time.’ 
The Scriptural duration of this Tribulation is 42 months of 30 days, which takes us to 4th June 2016. During this period according to MDM, Antichrist will abolish the sacraments, persecute Christians worldwide, found a one-world religion, impose a one-world currency, start a world war, plant microchips in everyone in the world and impose a deadly vaccine to kill millions of children. 

It is small wonder that her messages keep saying there is little time left. She has another problem:
     ‘The Great Persecution will follow the Warning.’ (3rd Mar 2011.)

We are, apparently, 10 months into the Great Chastisement, and the Warning has not happened.
Mr Policarpio bases his case on one of the most foolish of MDM’s messages:

     ‘His [Antichrist’s] cunning will be hidden behind a handsome, charming and articulate  exterior, but when My children look into his eyes they will see darkness for he has no soul. He was not created by the hand of God the Father.’ (6th Oct 2011.)

Must we remind our author of the first sentence of the Creed? St Paul names the Antichrist ‘the man of sin’, and ‘the son of perdition’. A man without a soul is impossible, incapable of sin and of deserving perdition.  

Later in the same message, we read: 
 ‘These souls come from my Father, God the Creator of all things.’
Mr Policarpio should tell us how he rates the intelligence of the author of this message. MDM says the author is Jesus.


Mr Policarpio writes: ‘The Pope will be driven from the Vatican [this has not happened], and the False Prophet will take his place and desecrate the seat of St Peter.’ He will ‘change the interpretation of the Holy Mass’ and 'abolish the  Eucharistic Sacrifice’. 

He has, it seems, failed to notice that MDM has already changed the interpretation  of
the Eucharist:
     ‘Many Christians ignore one of the most fundamental promises I made during My crucifixtion [bad spelling in text] where [bad writing in text] I would be present in bread and wine and leave a permanent mark to help nourish souls.’  (14th April 2011.)

     Nowhere did Jesus promise that He would be present IN bread and wine, the substance of which is changed wholly into His Body, Blood Soul and Divinity. MDM teaches the condemned proposition of Martin Luther, known as ‘consubstantiation’, that the Body and Blood of the Lord are mingled with the bread and wine. 

     ‘Watch out for changes in the way My Body and Blood will be consecrated,’ MDM says in a message of 28th Oct 2011. It is in fact the bread and wine which are consecrated to become the Body and Blood of the Lord. We surmise what she meant in the next sentence, but this what she wrote: 
     ‘If the words change which deny the existence of My Body in the Holy Eucharist then you must defend my divine promise.’ 
Looking at MDM’s incompetent writing and ignorance of Catholic teaching, we have to wonder. If the Eucharistic liturgy were changed in this way, how would she or her followers know? 
     ‘Finally,’ our author says, ‘in her  messages to Fr Gobbi (which carry the Imprimatur from numerous cardinals and bishops), Our Lady explains this “horrible abomination”.’

Father Stefano Gobbi
The 1994  edition of Gobbi’s book shows two Imprimaturs from bishops ‘from out of town’: neither was the Bishop of Milan, the competent authority over Fr Gobbi. Neither was a cardinal. Only editions of Sacred Scripture require two Imprimaturs. Any Imprimatur is overruled by the advice of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which tells us: ‘They are not words of Our Blessed Mother’. Gobbi is an unfortunate choice of ally to MDM, as this message shows: 

     ‘On this day I am asking you to  consecrate to me all the time that separates you from the end of this century of yours.
     ‘It is a period of ten years…In this period of ten years there will come to completion the time of the great tribulation, which has been foretold to you in Holy Scripture, before the Second Coming of Jesus.’ 
     This message is dated 18th Sept 1988.

We must wonder whether Mr Policarpio bothers to read his sources.


Here is the alleged prophecy:
     ‘My poor Holy Vicar, Pope Benedict XVI, will be ousted from the Holy See in Rome.’ 

Pope Benedict, of course, resigned, and gave this reason:
     ‘After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry,’

Our author clearly believes these words are not true. He is accusing MDM’s ‘most Holy Vicar’ of being a liar and a coward. Such an allegation is beneath
comment. Pope Benedict has not, as MDM ‘prophesied’, been forced to leave the Vatican. He is still there in residence. Is our author unable to recognize an obvious false prophecy? He goes on to say:

     A few hours after the announcement…an extremely rare event occurred: lightning struck the Vatican’.
 Lightning did not strike the Vatican: it struck the lightning conductor on the dome of St Peter’s Basilica, the highest building in the vicinity. It is often struck by lightning. Mr Policarpio fails to mention other recent ‘prophecies’ from MDM about Pope Benedict.

     ‘So sorrowful will they [the ‘sacred servants] be in the next few weeks because of the demise of My Holy Vicar, that they will not know where to turn.’ (28th Feb 2013.)     ‘The reign in the House of Peter will be  short and soon My Beloved Pope Benedict will guide God’s children from his place of exile.’ (29th Mar 2013.)

Has our author any idea of how to reconcile these messages?


Our author says:
     ‘It is because of the machinations of the Antichrist and the False Prophet that the blessed Trinity will intervene in a powerful way. Simply put, if the Lord did not intervene, the one world group will succeed in destroying much of humanity and eradicating Christianity.’ 

The depth of ignorance in these words would be staggering to anyone unfamiliar with the bad literature of the Private Revelations Industry. The Chastisement of Antichrist is ‘prophecy of predestination’: it has been prepared for in the Divine plan of salvation before the beginning of time. The quoted ‘machinations’ can never succeed. 


This is a good question. Our author attempts an answer: 

     ‘These messages talk about orthodox Catholic teachings and devotions.’

This is  true. It is what the messages say about these matters that is problematic. A Catholic writer well-formed in the faith should be able to smell the stench of deception in these passages alone:

  •      ‘Respect this most Holy Scripture [the messages].’ 18th Mar 2011.
          The Church has spoken. No private revelation can claim Scriptural status.

  •      ‘It is vital that My children understand the way in which they can prepare their souls in order to redeem themselves in the eyes of My Father.’ (16th Jan 2011.)
          If we had the power to redeem ourselves, Christ died unnecessarily.

  •      ‘All paths lead to God, the creator of mankind.’ (21st Nov 2010.)

          No one can come to the Father except through Christ.

  • ‘Never allow yourselves to accept any truth other than that contained in the Holy Bible.’ (13th Sept 2011.)
         This is Luther’s heresy of ‘Scripture alone’.

  •      ‘Without your sacrifice I could not fulfil my promise to save mankind.’ (7th Nov 2011.)
          It follows, then, that 
(1) Christ is not God Omnipotent, and 
(2) MDM is a necessary co-redeemer. The spirit of Antichrist could hardly speak more clearly.
  • ‘It will take strong faith and acceptance of the Truth contained within these messages from Heaven to stay on the true path to eternal life.’(12th May 2012.)
It follows that MDM’s messages are necessary to our salvation. Any alleged private revelation which makes this claim should be rejected at once. 

Whatever the source of these messages may be, it is not Heaven. 


So says our author, letting his confidence run ahead of him. On 31st May 2011,
MDM alleged that Jesus told her: 
     ‘The prophecies given at Garabandal will now become a reality. Prepare now for this event [the Warning] for you have only a few months left to prepare your souls.’
     A flyer on the website dated 16th June 2011 made it clear that the Warning was to come in that year. It was removed from the site just before 2012, and no wonder.


     ‘The Lord Jesus implores’, says Mr Policarpio, ‘those who are doubtful to pray first for the grace of discernment from the Holy Spirit before passing judgment on the messages.’ The implication is that he has already done so, and the Holy Spirit has enlightened him as to their authenticity. Why, then, did he call his article ‘A Critical Review’? MDM leaves us in no doubt of what her ‘Jesus’ means by discernment:
     ‘Please pray hard for the discernment to accept My Holy Word when it is presented to you, children.’ (14th Aug 2011.)
Discernment is here equated with the gift of divine faith, which has as its object God’s self-revelation to the Church and can only be given by the Holy Spirit. The implication is clear: the messages must be believed, and those who reject them are opposing the Spirit. These words are enough in themselves to damn the messages as false.

(1) The Church teaches that divine faith may be given to Public Revelation alone. 
(2) We may give only human belief to any private revelation, if approved and found by the Church to be ‘worthy of belief’, i.e., free from error of faith and morals. We do not need divine help to recognize heretical teachings which the Church has condemned.


Mr Policarpio’s ‘promised ‘Critical Review’, like the messages of MDM, promises
something that wasn’t delivered – rather like the immortal words of the poet William MacGonagall:

                                  ‘On yonder
hill there stands a coo.
                                  ‘If it’s no’
there, it’s awa’ noo.’


David Moorcroft's free translation of the poem into contemporary English:

On that there hill there 
stands a cow.'
If it isn't there, 
it's gone just now.'


  1. Thank you for your work on the saying of Pope Urban VIII. That deserves more attention as this is the mindset of so many unfortunate souls who have been duped repeatedly by any charlatan trying to make his fame and fortune predicting the Second Coming of Jesus. This saying is the core of their defense and they recite it whenever questioned or challenged. It matters not what their pastors or bishops say. Pope Urban has spoken.

    I sincerely hope they are right about one thing and that is that these simple, honest Catholics who are fervently praying up a storm will have their prayers answered. After all, many are unaware that they are, objectively speaking, committing a mortal sin by repudiating the legitimacy of Pope Francis. They wave around that saying by Pope Urban like a kid playing a game of "Monopoly" waves his "get out jail for free" card.

    I pray God will honor their prayers for "they know not what they do." On the other hand, it will be a sad day for all the snake oil salesmen who will have to give an account to God for presuming to speak in His name and wounding the unity of the Body of Christ.

    1. You might want to check this thread on the forum http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=300396 Rick Salbato from Unity Publishing has this to say on the subject http://www.unitypublishing.com/Apparitions/BetterToBelieve.html
      The last line is alarming - I wish I could find a quote or source to give it to MDMers

  2. Thank you. This cabal of MDM followers will not listen. I trust in Divine Mercy who alone can search their hearts and understand the reasons why they are so disillusioned with the clergy that they can believe the industry of lies manufactured on the W2C website. Satan is playing on deep wounds which have never mended.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. The cabal is full of ignoramuses feeding on the BS of MDM. They are supposed to know better by learning their catechism, but because they persist in defending this BS despite being shown the error of their thinking, invincible ignorance can no longer excuse them. They are guilty of material and formal heresies and schisms and have incurred automatic excommunication latae sententiae. They have condemned themselves and are to be treated as "pagans and tax collectors." (Mathew 18:17)

  3. It doesn’t advance our case to go around stating the disciples of Mdm are automatically excommunicated, heretics and/or schismatics. It is the same hard line many pro-lifers took with women who had abortions. It is the same hard line Mdm has taken condemning anyone who thinks her prophecies are demonically inspired or fake.

    Our purpose is to open a dialogue and encourage the lost, the confused and the victims of this false prophet to start thinking about why they need to distance themselves from this enemy of the Church. Name calling and harsh words will only drive our brethren further into the receptive arms of Mdm who has taught them they will be “persecuted” so expect opposition. Mdm is a cult leader and she has used sophisticated mind control techniques to further her own agenda and to make a profit exploiting people’s fears, disappointments, vulnerabilities and so on.

    Leave it to the bishops, all of them, to formally and clearly inform the faithful reading and promoting Mdm that they are in schism. The bishops are obviously reluctant or are themselves completely uninformed of the crisis. They are the shepherds; the responsibility is theirs, not ours.

    There are mitigating factors why people sin and only God can search hearts and read minds to determine the actual culpability of the sinner.

    “Imputability (culpability) and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.” (CCC#1735)

    As Christians we give people the benefit of a doubt. Attack the sin; denounce the sin; point out the error but never give up hope that some day, by God’s grace, the sinner will be enlightened and repent. That being said, this teaching of the catechism gives us more reasons to share with Mdm’ers why they should proceed with all caution. While they may not have the same measure of culpability as MDM, they do have to take responsibility for cooperating, participating, praising and approving a false prophet. (There is also a word there for anyone who knows who this Mdm is and has not disclosed her identity. Silence protects evil-doers.)

    “Sin is a personal act. Moreover, WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY for the sins committed by others when we COOPERATE in them:
    - by PARTICIPATING directly and voluntarily in them;
    - by ordering, advising, PRAISING or APPROVING THEM;
    - by NOT DISCLOSING or NOT HINDERING them when we have an obligation to do so;
    - by PROTECTING EVIL-DOERS.” (CCC #1868)

    Thank you Alex Lim for your contributions to this debacle but please try to understand I'm not about to treat people I know and love as "pagans and tax collectors."

  4. I have already spoken against your report that Jesus would not say He is present in the bread and wine, but continue here on this post because I see you use it again in your attack against Mr Policarpio.

    I spoke how I have no problem with Jesus' words about being present in the bread and wine, but I went out and asked a priest and two Catholic friends I have known for several years, all who fully believe Jesus is present in the Eucharist. When I explained these words claimed to be Jesus' that He says He is present in the bread and wine, the Catholic priest at no point stopped or corrected me. He did not get hung up at all on these words. I would say his response reflected that it is perfectly normal to say Jesus is present in the bread and wine, as much as it is to say Jesus is present in the Eucharist, for it maintains the appearance of bread and wine. We all agree it becomes fully Jesus upon consecration but you seem to be the only one condemning this a heresy. My one friend did not disagree but did not want to voice an opinion of support either, but my other friend was so confused at your concern that she quickly looked up and gave me references from scripture supporting the terms bread and wine in reference to the Eucharist: John 6:51 Jesus saying "whoever eats this bread"... 1Cor 10:17 Paul writes: "the bread we break" note the bread is not broken until after consecration. There are so many examples, Jesus claims "I am the bread of life"

    After all this I almost feel silly that I would bother these people with such an obvious question, but which you feel is so outrageous you are filling web pages with propaganda against that which is said to be the word of God, a message to mankind in these dark days.

  5. It is no surprise that the priest you consulted didn't correct you. He may have done it for pastoral reasons. His reaction may have been entirely different however if you had told him and your friends for that matter that you are a disciple of Mdm and presented the full context of her messages. The fact remains it was an enormous blunder for her "Jesus" to state He made this promise from the Cross when He had already offered Himself up as the Paschal Lamb during the exercise of His high priesthood on the Holy Thursday not Good Friday. As for you scriptural defense Jesus said I Am the bread of life not I am present in the bread. What the authentic Jesus spoke in Sacred Scripture and what MDM's "Jesus" says are out of sync. Jesus amazed the Pharisees in the Temple when He was only twelve years of age so well did He know the Bible and during His public mission He flabbergasted them with His authority of Scripture to the point that they were left without a response. Yet we are expected to believe that today Jesus misquotes His own words and slips up on exactly when, where and how He instituted the Sacrament of the Sacred Mysteries, the Eucharist. If this prophet Mdm was speaking from God there would be no mistakes, no contradictions and certainly no heresies. You believe her because you want to. Unfortunately, you no longer believe in the one, true God who keeps His promises. Jesus is the one high priest of the new and everlasting covenant. Forget Mdm's "final covenant." There will be no other. His was perfect.

    1. baloney, for what reason would a priest not correct a misinterpretation of holy scripture when I'm asking him about it? I gave plain and true witness to presenting the question to him, and he had no pastoral reason to do anything but give me an honest response.

      My Catholic friends know I read and believe the messages. Here we go again onto open waters, your favorite means to achieve your goal: when somebody questions your weak arguments you write a lot, to divert, and move on. NO the point is Jesus can say He is present in the bread and wine of Communion, and He can say He made a promise to be there, even though he never said "I promise" He does not need to say "I promise" His word is guaranteed to be true so it is automatically a promise, to us. I made a valid counter point which I stand by.

      Anybody who has a neutral view can read both sides and decide for themselves. You can analyze the words and actions of Christ as if you know better than He Himself but it does not make you right. Similar pharisees openly judged Him a blasphemer and crucified him! Again, you dare to say His words slip up! I'm giving my opinion that the words are perfectly acceptable. You make a lie and add words before and after exactly like the pharisees in their mock trial of Jesus, bringing witnesses as if they were sincere and not already intent of putting him to death.

    2. Whats the difference between Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation?

  6. Robert said, " NO the point is Jesus can say He is present in the bread and wine of Communion."

    Sorry, the point is, Jesus never said that. He is made present but He is not "in" the bread and wine. There is no more bread and wine after the action of the Holy Spirit. The whole substance of the bread is entirely changed into the substance of the Body of Christ and the whole substance of the wine is entirely changed into the substance of the Blood of Christ. The miracle is you see, feel and taste the accidents of bread and wine which are no longer there. It is Our Lord. The glorified flesh and blood of our resurrected Saviour made present on the altar. "Broken and distributed is the Lamb of God - broken and not divided, always eaten and never consumed - sanctifying those who partake."

    “What material food produces in our bodily life, Holy Communion wonderfully achieves in our spiritual life. COMMUNION WITH THE FLESH of the risen Christ, a flesh "given life and giving life through the Holy Spirit,". . .” (CCC 1392)

    “What seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste; but the Body of Christ. What seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so; but the Blood of Christ.” St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Early Church Father

  7. Robert said Oct. 24, "Anybody who has a neutral view can read both sides and decide for themselves."

    “Many Christians ignore one of the most fundamental promises I made DURING MY CRUCIFIXION, where I WOULD BE PRESENT IN BREAD AND WINE and leave a permanent mark to help nourish souls.” Your Loving Savior, Jesus Christ to M-DM, Ap. 14, 2011.

    The aforementioned is one side of the debate and the following is the other. The choice should be clear. Choose truth of choose lies; choose good or choose evil; choose the Catholic Church or choose the false prophet.

    Catechism no. 1339 “Jesus chose the time of Passover to fulfill what He had announced at Capernaum: giving His disciples His Body and His Blood: Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, ‘Go and prepare the Passover meal for us, that we may eat it. . . .’ They went . . . and prepared the Passover. And when the hour came, he sat at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, ‘I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I tell you I shall not eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.’. . . . And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ And likewise the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood.’”(Lk 22:7-20; Cf. Mt 26:17-29; Mk 14:12-25; 1 Cor 11:23-26)

  8. Robert said, Jesus, "can say He made a promise to be there, even though he never said "I promise" He does not need to say "I promise" His word is guaranteed to be true so it is automatically a promise, to us."

    The point is #1. Jesus made one promise while He was on the Cross. It was to the good thief and He did say "I promise. . ."

    2. Contrary to promising the Eucharist on Good Friday, Jesus had already given His Body and Blood to the apostles the night before during the Passover meal when this sacrament was instituted. Once again, this is an egregious example of Mdm writing new scripture which completely contradicts the eye witness accounts given for the last two thousand years. It is complete balderdash and she makes fools of many of the faithful who should know better, particularly if they are daily reciting and meditating on the mysteries of the Rosary.

  9. pocketsketch, 1) I appreciate you staying on topic, thanks. 2) As I said I checked with a priest and two friends regarding the term "Jesus in the bread and wine" and found no objection. I plan to ask another priest or pastor from a different church tomorrow since I am out of town at the moment. We have a difference of opinion which is fine. However I can perhaps share one more idea on my mind. When Jesus cured on the Sabbath we know the authority of the day was offended. That act brought division. I assume we agree that there was no legitimate authority to question Jesus to cure on the Sabbath. I see it in the same light that He can speak to the world today and is free to not have to quote Himself from 2000 years ago. I see your point as a critical examination of His words to conclude they are not kosher. However I not using a critical examination of His words spoken 'today' hear these words, in regard to people who do NOT believe He is present in the Eucharist, (they see and believe it is only bread and wine) as kosher indeed. I already spoke of witnessing at least one fellow Catholic who shared his lack of faith in Jesus really being present. So in that light, in the light that He is speaking about people who believe it is merely bread and wine, I can accept Him saying He is present in the bread and wine. It simply remains looking and tasting like bread and wine, even though to those of us who are blessed to believe, it is the body and blood of Jesus.

    It is my opinion and the opinion of at least a few others that there is no heresy in these words.

  10. Robert said Oct. 26, "I see it in the same light that He can speak to the world today and is free to not have to quote Himself from 2000 years ago."

    Yes, Jesus is free to speak. The point remains we are called to "test the spirits" and to reject anyone who presumes to teach another faith, introduce a novel doctrine or invention of discourse to the subversion of those things which have been faithfully handed down through the Church from Christ.

    Many bishops, who are legitimate successors to the Apostles, have declared Mdm a heretic and corrosive to the faith. Therefore, the shepherds have found good reason to reject the claim that Jesus is indeed speaking to Mdm. You and some of your coterie of friends see no problem with any of Mdm's writing because you are putting your human faith in her and trust your judgement before the sacred servants of the Lord. If you are incapable of grasping how important it is to remember when, where and how Jesus instituted the Sacred Mystery of the Eucharistic sacrifice it may just be you need the guidance of the Church to keep you out of troubled waters. The history of salvation has continuity. The Jesus of Mdm breaks that continuity going so far as to contradict the revealed Word of God. It is no small detail. The Crucifixion of Christ is the pivotal moment of human history. Therefore, it is not a matter of opinion, rather it is a matter of historical fact and faith that the New Testament is Jesus still speaking to us today and revealing Himself to us today through Sacred Scripture. Are you honestly more convinced with the writings of an anonymous voice than with the eye witness accounts of the Apostles? Do you honestly think Mdm's contention that the Gospels inaccurately recorded the Passion of Christ and have misled the New People of God for two thousand years? Have you exchanged the Word of God for the word of a false prophet?

    Hang on to the faith you first received Robert.

  11. pocketsketch, I hate to have to respond again, but here you go again changing point, making a lot of claims, the fact that your claims seem exaggerated or false I must speak out again. First since you are so critical of the words of MDM messages I will turn critical of your words, for a moment: "eye witness accounts of the Apostles?" at the crucifixion I believe John the beloved apostle was the ONLY apostle who was present. He was with Mary and two other women. He is thus the only eye witness Apostle who wrote what he witnessed, and he wrote that much more could be written that was not recorded.

    Secondly in no way do I disregard any part of sacred scripture, ever! If MDM went against one iota of scripture I would become suspicious immediately. (I do not claim to have reviewed every word of every message) It is precisely that I find Jesus speaking through MDM to be in precise alignment with the church and gospels and entire scripture for that matter that I place faith into it. You imply so many things, it is ok to have your opinion but do not press it onto me. You find MDM false, I do not, leave it at that, but claiming that I claim these messages are more important than scripture is conjecture.

    Even your words that "many bishops ... declared MDM a heretic" are objectionable. For example in the letter of Bishop Malone, which is referred to in similar pages as this one, he does not at all say anything about heretical message, he only asks that MDM materials not be handed out! If your words were true and accurate he could easily have written words similar to yours, that "many bishops... " He did not!

    When you carry on like this it makes me sense you are a pure propagandist. Like the communists propagandists of the cold war. So what is the motivation of such propaganda? Maybe it is originating from the same group of enemies of the church that the messages warn against. The enemies of the church, and I believe they exist, are many and have been in existence for many years. This warning is not against a single person but against an army of evil. Your propaganda falls right into being on the side, the wrong side.

  12. Robert, Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comments. There is a lot of documentation that Mdm is a heretic and yes, I see your point, not every bishop who warned the faithful about Mdm declared her teachings heretical. I would bring to your attention however that it was the entire Slovakian Archbishops conference that declared her a heretic; therefore, it is more than one, more than a few, less than every Catholic bishop in the world. Would it make a difference to you if all the Catholic bishops of the world, in union with Pope Francis, declared this? Just how many would it take to convince you, Robert, that you have jumped into dangerous shark infested waters and are no longer in the barque of Peter? If you think I am creating propaganda, without facts, here are a few of the words from the letter of the Slovakian archbishops.

    "To anyone who will disseminate these heretical messages, remember the very severe words of the Holy Scripture, written by St. Apostle Paul to the Galatians:

    “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel, which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse! (Gal 1, 6-9).

    All believers, who perhaps out of ignorance began to believe the messages mentioned, please I urge you to leave these heretical teachings and not spread them."

  13. I must be right, you are so good at false propaganda! You are implying that all bishops might align with the pope to declare the warnings from God to be heretical! Well I guess I would have to answer that God forbid such a mistake to occur but if it did I would surely side with God my loving merciful and eternal Father. Trust me, I'm in no shark infested waters, as I have tried to tell you many times, I continue in faith to worship as the Catholic I was brought up and continue to be. I may not be the best Catholic, I do confess my sins, I believe Jesus is ever present in the Eucharist. I openly witness that the messages do not compromise the Catholic faith, that God sends this warning to all mankind to especially protect the faithful from the evil that has reached the doors of the Vatican and has even penetrated. Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail, and to keep this promise He steps in by sending us messages, the great warning.

    Slovakian archbishops conference?: is this part of former Communist Soviet Union? I'm not sure if I can take this as a serious matter or propaganda. I see it referenced in many anti-MDM sites. But that means nothing. Can you provide actual letters from them? For example the letter from Bishop Malone was presented but nowhere does it say heretical material.

    as far was warning me, remember my warning to you that you dare to condemn the messages sent by God to mankind which warn that such is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit! That is much more dangerous than shark infested waters!

    1. Sadly, Robert, I do believe you. You would side with the anonymous voice on the Internet rather than with the Vicar of Christ and all the living successors to the apostles. You have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit would allow Holy Mother Church to lead her children into the great apostasy with the AntiChrist using Pope Francis as his right-hand man. You have no problem believing Jesus has switched His authority from the Catholic Church and given it to this impostor, Mdm, who will reveal henceforth God's will from cyberspace. While you demand a hard copy of the Slovakian archbishops' letter, to see with your own eyes that you believe, you have no problem with Mdm remaining in the shadows. No, you don't need the Church or anyone else than your own gut instinct to confirm that she really is a woman, a seer, a Catholic, a prophet or an angel. No doubt in your mind, Robert, you imagine she is the persecuted, suffering, ignorant child that was St. Bernadette. Imagination is a powerful gift.

      By the way, just remember blasphemy extends to language against Christ's Church. (CCC #2148)

    2. please stop presenting your false claims as to what is in my mind. anybody can see my witness and read your words and see you are doing to me exactly what you are doing to the messages....

      Now you get another question to your words: you say above "believing that the Holy Spirit would allow Holy Mother Church to..." How exactly do you explain your choice of the Holy Spirit of the three persons of the Holy Trinity? Why did you not say Jesus, or God the Father? Do you imply to know the intimate, not public ways of God? See if the messages said something like that I'd be right on it, wondering, questioning. But I find it in your words! But what is funny is there is open witness that you say I "have no problem..." That is obviously an assumption! Thus you fail again and again to convince me to follow your advice which seems so twisted to me. In the mean time I read the messages each day or so as they are revealed and feel comfortable that they are the true words and a true warning. Especially proven when as days go by I see what the one claimed to be the false prophet is proclaiming, such that faithful Catholics are scratching their heads and non believers or liberal believers are rejoicing. Even Whoopie Goldberg on the view is praising and hoping that he is gonna make changes. Oh Whoopie, I'm quite sure he is gonna be making changes, but we are warned these are not God's will or way.

    3. furthermore, did not the "Holy Spirit(, or God the Father or Jesus)" allow the somewhat recent scandal that rocked the church? Did this not cover a period of years in which part of the shame was that some church leaders did not expose the offenders? Surely the Holy Spirit had time to intervene in the form of discernment? But God's will of free will allows for our bitter failure. And His mercy allows for our repentance. Is it not true that God's will is first and foremost that we have free will? When does God in the Holy Spirit stop evil or lies as you imply? God is intervening in the form of sending messengers! Messengers which you do not believe! I do read that God will intervene soon in the form of sending punishments down upon us. For the most part it remains our choice to fight or accept evil.

    4. Robert you wrote, “God sends this warning to all mankind to especially protect the faithful from the evil that has reached the doors of the Vatican . . .”

      The warning the faithful should heed is recorded in the Gospel of Mark where Jesus warned, “ if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it. False Christs and false prophets will arise and show signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect. But take heed; I have told you all things beforehand.” (Mark 13:21-23)

  14. Robert, you have declared, "in no way do I disregard any part of sacred scripture, ever! If MDM went against one iota of scripture I would become suspicious immediately."

    The fact that the institution of the Holy Eucharist happened on Holy Thursday and not on Good Friday makes not an iota of difference to you? That discrepancy, you have swept under the rug of John's conclusion to his gospel, "There are many other things that Jesus DID, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written."

    John gave an eye witness account, as you have already pointed out, he was present at the Crucifixion. He reported the last words of Jesus. How can you honestly think that the same apostle who wrote the "Bread of Life Discourse" in chapter 6 would neglect to mention the promise Mdm revealed to the world April 14, 2011? The entire sacred liturgy of the Church and it is no exaggeration to state the entire life of the Church is centered on the Paschal Mystery. For that matter, all salvation history pointed to Our Redeemer's sacrifice on the Cross. Yet you skip over it without blinking an eye or your heart skipping a beat going so far as to proclaim, "It is precisely that I find Jesus speaking through MDM to be in precise alignment with the church and gospels and entire scripture for that matter that I place faith into it."

    The contradiction is of such proportion, so diametrically opposed to what the Church has consistently taught, that it is irreconcilable to hold as truth both accounts.

    “Then too, the word of God is that word preached by the Apostles in obedience to the command of the Risen Jesus: “Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to the whole creation ” (Mk.16:15). The word of God is thus handed on in the Church’s living Tradition. Finally, the word of God, attested and divinely inspired, is sacred Scripture, the Old and New Testaments. All this helps us to see that, while in the Church we greatly venerate the sacred Scriptures, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book ”: Christianity is the “ religion of the word of God ”, not of “a written and mute word, but of the incarnate and living Word ”. Consequently the SCRIPTURE IS TO BE proclaimed, heard, read, RECEIVED and experienced AS THE WORD OF GOD, IN THE STREAM OF APOSTOLIC TRADITION FROM WHICH IT IS INSEPARABLE. (Benedict XVI, Verbum Domini, pg.20)

  15. if you and I read the same message and you say it says the sky is green but I say it says the sky is blue then what do we have? a difference of opinion. the problem I have is that you exaggerate your conclusion to say: the sky is not green so this is a false message. But I say it says the sky is blue and is not a false message but an important warning to mankind, not to be ignored. How many times you try to put words in my mouth and say I'm this or that, implying that my faith is in peril. And many times I assure you that I'm receiving Jesus week after week in the Eucharist.

    Most of this argument is over the message from April 14 2011. If anybody is reading our disagreement, which I seriously doubt, I suggest they simply read the message for themselves and maybe they can share their opinion.

    First there was argument about Jesus saying he is present in bread and wine that such words are not valid because it is no longer bread and wine but the body and blood of Jesus. However upon rereading the message it says more than once "present in the Eucharist" And I also made an argument of how I can accept the one place it says bread and wine. (even on other page)

    Similarly you are making a big deal saying that in the message Jesus falsely institutes the Lord's supper on Good Friday. He says during His crucifixion, which I can take to include at the last supper, and the betrayal, and before the authorities, and during the scourging. Note, at the last supper he says take and eat this is my body which WILL be given up. It was the next day, Good Friday which His body was crucified and given up. I have no problem with these most important events being joined together. I simply do not get hung up on the technical details you point out. They fully agree with scripture. The whole point of the message is that Jesus is present in the Eucharist, and unfortunately many do not believe this. If you look too closely at something you miss seeing the whole picture. You looking for the smallest detail see green and fail to see the entire picture is a beautiful blue.

    One more time: Can you really think that the words speaking about such matters could be so ignorant to imply the last supper institution of the Eucharist was only entirely promised on Good Friday? How can you possibly believe in the Gospels? Most people who are Atheists find similar reasons to not believe at all. Faith always requires one to believe in that which is not proven or seen.

    I could go on and question all of your points but don't have the time. I just wanted to say something about the one point I had not spoken out which was the Good Friday point. The crucifixion occurred on Good Friday, the Feast of the Lord's Supper and the institution of the Church occurred on Holy Thursday. These messages do not say otherwise to these basic fundamental facts. You sure make it sound like they do...

    1. You made some good points Robert and you seem to be getting closer to the point of our disagreement. Even so, you seem to be peddling backwards on your bold proclamation that you would be suspicious of Mdm if we could demonstrate to you a single iota from Mdm which contradicted scripture. Now you say, "Similarly you are making a big deal saying that in the message Jesus falsely institutes the Lord's supper on Good Friday. He says during His crucifixion, which I can take to include at the last supper, and the betrayal, and before the authorities, and during the scourging. . . I have no problem with these most important events being joined together. I simply do not get hung up on the technical details you point out. They fully agree with scripture."

      ”I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” Matthew 12:36 - 37

    2. Robert asked Oct. 27 @5:27am, “Can you really think that the words speaking about such matters could be so ignorant to imply the last supper institution of the Eucharist was only entirely promised on Good Friday?”

      Response to Robert: If I understand the question correctly, it is not scriptural to state that Jesus made any such promise on Good Friday. He made only one and that was to the good thief. Many Catholics know the seven last words of Christ by heart and Mdm’s words will never be added to the Gospel accounts of the Passion. They are not Gospel truth.

      Unfortunately, your comments are a clear illustration why the archbishop of Brisbane, Australia, Rev. Mark Coleridge, called Mdm's messages “corrosive of true Christian faith.” A corrosive substance is like a strong acid which is capable of destroying or eating away. I sincerely am worried that you, with so many lifelong Catholics, are allowing this anonymous person(s) to jeopardize the faith you received as a child. You have exchanged the truth for a lie.

      The longer you ignore the many scriptural warnings about false prophets from Jesus, Peter and Paul, the warnings issued by numerous concerned bishops, priests and brethren the more damage will be done to your faith. If you are seeing “blue skies” when you read Mdm, maybe, it is time to look down and determine whether your feet are firmly standing on the rock or sinking in quicksand. “Where Peter is there is the Church.”

    3. you are right, I did not adequately explain my take on the words about the 'crucifixion' and the 'promise': "Many Christians ignore one of the most fundamental promises I made during My Crucifixion, where I would be Present in Bread and Wine and leave a permanent mark to help nourish souls." Well I have to ask what defines the crucifixion? Is this the point where Jesus is nailed to the cross and it is raised? Am I allowed to believe Jesus may be implying the time from the last supper till his death might be the crucifixion? It was said that Satan entered Judas during the last supper, so was that not like the beginning? And for Jesus was there sleep or was it like one continuous ordeal? I doubt that convinces you and it looks like I'm making excuses for the words of the message, but let me go further into this... From scripture Jesus during the supper said: take this and eat, this is my body which will be given up for you. I already explained that although the word promise is not recorded I believe this is an 'implied' promise to us: that He is in the bread, the Eucharist. Furthermore by saying "which will be given up" this gift, or promise, is to be fulfilled the next day during the literal crucifixion. His body was given up beginning in the garden during the arrest and ultimately when He dies on the cross. To look back at this gift to mankind which occurred over an evening, a night, and the following day I can accept his words in the message exactly as quoted.

    4. Robert said, "I doubt that convinces you and it looks like I'm making excuses for the words of the message . . ."

      Answer: You are reading my mind, Robert. You really are bending yourself into a pretzel on this one. Please, enough now, your exercise in false reasoning is painful to watch.

      How far back do want to extend the crucifixion of Jesus? If it is purely an arbitrary decision, why stop at the Last Supper? How about the time before He entered Jerusalem and wept as He overlooked her? He was suffering then too.

    5. Robert, glad you are reading the catechism now and even quoting it. Even so, you are searching to redefine crucifixion. This is fruitless. It is word games and an attempt to create a fluid theology.
      Do you pray the Rosary and meditate on the Sorrowful Mysteries?
      #1. The Agony in the Garden
      #2, The Scourging at the Pillar
      #3. The Crowning with Thorns
      #4. The Carrying of the Cross
      #5. The Crucifixion
      Are you aware that Blessed John Paul II gave us the Luminous Mysteries and the fifth decade is dedicated to the Institution of the Holy Eucharist? Who is trying to redefine doctrines now? Why are you attempting to do what you know well from your seer is forbidden?

    6. why do you continue to insult me pocketsketch? Yes I do pray the rosary and believe it or not I know the mysteries! Yes too about knowing who added the Luminous mysteries!

      But did you notice the Gospel proclaimed yesterday about the proud Pharisee thanking God for how good he is and for not being like the sinful tax collector seated behind him?

  16. Robert asked, "Well I have to ask what defines the crucifixion? Is this the point where Jesus is nailed to the cross and it is raised?
    Answer: Yes.

    1. you may not believe me but last night after posting my comment I called a friend and did speak about this very thing, among others, and she told me she recalls a priest who told her that the crucifixion can be taken to be beginning with the last supper.

      I plan to pursue this but does anybody else out there have an unbiased opinion?

    2. I begin already by turning to the Catechism which I quote:

      609 ... At the Last Supper Jesus anticipated the free offering of his life

      610 Jesus gave the supreme expression of his free offering of himself at the meal shared with the twelve Apostles "on the night he was betrayed".429 On the eve of his Passion, while still free, Jesus transformed this Last Supper with the apostles into the memorial of his voluntary offering to the Father for the salvation of men: "This is my body which is given for you." "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."430

      611 The Eucharist that Christ institutes at that moment will be the memorial of his sacrifice.431 Jesus includes the apostles in his own offering and bids them perpetuate it.432 By doing so, the Lord institutes his apostles as priests of the New Covenant: "For their sakes I sanctify myself, so that they also may be sanctified in truth."433

      The agony at Gethsemani

      612 The cup of the New Covenant, which Jesus anticipated when he offered himself at the Last Supper, is afterwards accepted by him from his Father's hands in his agony in the garden at Gethsemani,434 making himself "obedient unto death"

      I have to correct my own quote from yesterday for I wrote "which will be given up" but here in the catechism it is written "which is given" in anticipation of the crucifixion. Thus from the catechism: the last supper is the anticipation of the crucifixion. So where was the actual promise made, or fulfilled? Was it not in the actual dying upon the cross? Was it not the promise the Father made to save mankind which was accomplished at that moment?

    3. Robert, Do you understand the difference between Jesus saying, “I am the bread of life come down from heaven.” and I am present “in the bread“? Do you understand that Jesus didn’t promise the Apostles His immaculate Body and most precious Blood on Holy Thursday: they received the Eucharist? Do you remember that Jesus is the Word of God made flesh and His words do not go forth from Him without power, without taking effect. Genesis, “Then God said, ‘Let there be light’ and there was light.” Even the Roman centurion understood the power of the word of the Son of God and he was a Gentile. ‘Lord, speak but the word and my servant shall be healed.‘ Therefore, when Jesus said, “This is My Body. . .” that is exactly what He gave His disciples to eat and drink, His most precious Body and Blood. They didn’t receive a piece of bread and a promise. In so doing, He acted both as the High Priest and the sacrificial victim, the perfect sacrifice that was found acceptable to God the Father as a ransom for our sins.

      Again, He didn’t make a simple promise, He did so much more than that on Holy Thursday. He instituted a new and eternal covenant. The old one was passing away. The old one had been made at the foot of Mount Sinai with the Chosen People where Moses took the blood of the sacrificial offering of the animals and sprinkled it on the people and on the altar. As the covenant of the O.T. was ratified with blood, so was the new and everlasting covenant but this one is the last, the final one because it was the blood of the Lamb of God. As the Lamb of God poured forth His last drops of blood on the earth He cried out, “It is finished.” The Messiah's mission of redemption was accomplished.

      Just like the Chosen People celebrated their memorial every Passover when God liberated them from their bondage in Egypt, Catholics continue to celebrate the memorial of Christ's perpetual sacrifice when mankind was liberated from the bondage of sin.

    4. Robert, all this to explain to you why it is impossible for Jesus to have said what Mdm claims He said from the Cross. Words matter and when Jesus spoke every word counted. When we speak about the most Sacred Mysteries we need to be careful and respectful. We are not allowed to add or subtract a word from Divine Revelation and we certainly do not have the freedom to interpret S.S. outside the teachings and tradition of the Church.
      There was no such promise as alleged by Mdm made from the Cross. Nor would Jesus ever substitute the preposition “in” rather than the dynamic verb “is” with regard to His presence in this sacrament of sacraments. If a priest made such a substitution of words, during the consecration, he would be in a lot of trouble. As a matter of fact, if he used Mdm’s words, ‘Behold, I am present in this bread and wine.’ the consecration would not be valid. Finally, Jesus did not come to your seer and promise a new and final covenant. Why would He? His was perfect.

    5. the quote I gave above does not, NOT say "from the cross" but says "during My crucifixion". I have openly shared my analysis of your accusations and am comfortable with my faith that the messages are of divine origin. They do not substitute for any part of my lifelong Catholic faith. You simply do not know or understand me and continually fall to the ways of propaganda.

  17. This should be as clear to you, Robert, as if Mdm had presented to the world a canvas with the portrait of Jesus which she claimed had been miraculously painted by God the Father as a gift to the world. Only this portrait has two left feet. Most Christians, if they had their wits about them, would say no. She is a fraud. That is not Him. Jesus has a right foot and a left foot. But you and your friends would probably argue, ‘Look at the rest of him. Look at the whole picture. Isn’t he so beautiful! Only God could paint such a portrait.”

    1. 1) you don't think I'd notice two left feet? 2) again with the conjectures, me and my friends...

  18. As a believer in the messages of God, not MDM, how do you explain my return to the Catholic Church after years of being absent? I myself spent night after night trying to disprove the notion that any of the messages held any truth, but at no point could I find any weak basis. These messages hold nothing but what has been taught already. I read the rebuttles and find nothing but unfounded arguments. Recently my mother and sister had taken there copies of printed MDM messages to the local priest, who scoffed at first. After reading

    demeanor changed and he stated himself he could not find


    the scriptures.





    phrasing portions of messages in your own context so that you can attack the wording, lets focus on where the world stands and the importance of our faith. So much effort is being put forth to disprove and dismantle MDM, that it is wasted time which we could of spent praying for things that truely need prayer. Whether you believe the messages or you don't, the common good of the faith is hopefully in our hearts and the willingness to help save souls is in our best interest.

    1. As a believer in the messages of God, not MDM, how do you explain my return to the Catholic Church after years of being absent? I myself spent night after night trying to disprove the notion that any of the messages held any truth, but at no point could I find any weak basis. These messages hold nothing but what has been taught already. I read the rebuttles and find nothing but unfounded arguments. Recently my mother and sister had taken there copies of printed MDM messages to the local priest, who scoffed at first. After reading a few, his demeanor changed and he stated himself he could not find anything in contradiction to the scriptures. So instead of phrasing portions of messages in your own context so that you can attack the wording, lets focus on where the world stands and the importance of our faith. So much effort is being put forth to disprove and dismantle MDM, that it is wasted time which we could of spent praying for things that truely need prayer. Whether you believe the messages or you don't, the common good of the faith is hopefully in our hearts and the willingness to help save souls is in our best interest.

    2. So let me get this right, you have been away from the Church for years and you find no basis that the messages are not true? I mean isn't it logical really? If you were a staunch Catholic well-catechised and versed in Scripture, then I would find it a bit surprising.
      And yes our faith is important to us, our Church is important to us and Pope Francis.
      In one of the recent messages we read:
      "My dearly beloved daughter, the most unholy trinity, consisting of My three enemies, the false prophet, the antichrist and the dragon, that is Satan, will rise now in defiance against the Most Holy Trinity." October 16, 2013
      According to MDM our Holy Father is the false prophet, what hateful rubbish! As long as this organisation spouts this nonsense we will continue warning Catholics this heretical cult.

    3. MDMTOF: your arguments are so ridiculous how can anybody believe you? Here you criticize MATT for being away from the faith, that you are not surprised he accepts the messages, but I who claim to have remained close in the faith am also criticized. pocketsketch continually insults me, as if I do not know the rosary. You all are clearly, CLEARLY false propaganda artists who have no real substance. MATT made a beautiful clear witness and you brush it aside and generate a distraction, his being away from the church. How often are those who turn to the faith filled with greater zeal, if you were a true Christian you would at least be joyful that he turned back to the faith and never criticize him for being away. To all who read these comments: see the false propaganda against the truth! MATT, the great witness is where you share that a priest reviewed the words and did not point out errors! The false propagandists will always brush aside such valid points. When I witnessed above that a priest did not have a problem with one of their arguments of wording they said oh maybe if he knew it was from MDM he would have disagreed! Pure propaganda, they might as well be communists from the cold war.

    4. MATT, if I understand you say you were examining the messages to disprove them, and were away from the faith but could find no error and have come back to the faith. This indicates the will of God being fulfilled! It is almost too awesome a witness that I must contain myself and wait for your confirmation.

      I know I have said much, but dare to say a little more (to all): follow the prayer plan outlined from MDM: the rosary, the divine mercy chaplet, and the prayers from thewarningsecondcoming website. Nobody can argue against prayer! Secondly the messages are a warning, a preparation, do not misinterpret them to be more than that. Thirdly witness the world around us which speaks volumes. God forgive me for having so much to say! ps/ a recent message says that priests should carry a rosary at all times and say it at least once a day! (in case any priests are reading)

    5. If Matt came back to the Church I would be joyful. Now however he is a member of a cult. Where is joy in that? Though I have heard strange stories, Catholics who have fallen away and then became Jehova's Witneses and after this detour becoming real Catholics again. So there's always hope.

    6. Welcome back home Matt. I have heard numerous such reports of Catholics who experienced a conversion after going to the site of Bayside New York where Veronica Leuken claimed messages from Our Lady. They believed all the garbage about Pope Paul VI being replaced by an impostor, an Italian actor who had a plastic surgeon cooperate in the charade. The Church declared her to be non-credible, unauthentic. The seer died relatively young. (Take heed false prophets of the wrath of God) Even so, her followers never renounced her and still talk about their rosaries changing into gold and all their wonderful, eventful and astonishing experiences. Many are sincere, beautiful people I love and respect. Do I trust their judgement? Not for a moment. This is what Fr. Trigillio of EWTN has to say:

      "Despite increasing conversions, frequent Confessions, renewal of devotion and a resurgence of Marian piety, any apparition is ultimately a matter of "private revelation." This is de fide. Public Revelation ended with the death of Saint John the Evangelist. Marian apparitions, even those sanctioned and approved by the Church, still constitute private revelation. Pope Benedict XIV "insisted on the fact that the assent to apparitions was of human faith (as opposed to Divine Faith) following the rules of prudence." Whenever there is even the slightest hint of an apparent contradiction or confrontation between the B.V.M. and the Vicar of Christ, you know that it is a diabolical trick of the Devil. It is totally illogical and heretical to propose that the Infallibility and/or Primacy of the Roman Pontiff can ever be at odds with the Intercession of the Mother of God. The Papacy, the Magisterium and the Hierarchy were created, instituted and installed by the same Lord Jesus Christ Who was born of the Virgin Mary. Why and how could Our Divine Lord ever send His Mother to contradict the Church He Himself founded and gave the Keys of the kingdom?"

    7. you are implying God takes vengeance on false prophet and imply Veronica Leuken died young was a sign. How many great saints have died even younger! St Therese of Lisieux, a doctor of the church! btw on VL: she is 'claimed' to be declared "non credible" based on the bishop of Brooklyn who never interviewed her but merely read some of her writing. We will only know the full truth when we stand before God.

  19. I grew up in a very Catholic household and had strayed from the church amongst the abuse cover ups and constant talk of money. I had been on the verge of coming back to the church and was given guidance to take the last step through the messages. It started with my mother, who has been a devout catholic her whole life, told me of the messages. I warned to watch closely and be careful of someone who could say such things about the pope. My goal was to research MDM so that I could find an opening to put a wedge in, thinking it would help my mother to see that the messages were false. I found nothing, not to mention my mother, sister and local priest could not find anything wrong with the messages. In being able to find anything to dispute, i decided to research pope francis, news events, free masons, etc. The things I have discovered in my research are unbelievable and hard to believe. There has been more contraversy with Pope Francis than i could have ever imagined, and all though it is not my place nor do i want to say it myself, the evidence keeps building day by day. If we are to live by the scripture given to us, the one that is our guidance should be the most black and white on the subject. I have had experiences i cannot even start to explain since coming back to the church. For those who question my absence, it was not a question of faith or what i have been taught. I still to this day keep open an ever watchful eye, but cannot come up with a valid excuse not to believe the messages are divine. Again, this is not a cult following, nor does my belief stem from MDM. What these messages have taught me is that my catholic beliefs and faith is more important than the excuses i was making to not go to mass. My goal is not to force people to believe what they dont want to, it is to make people aware of what is accessable and do what they will with that information. So just food for thought, when you say these messages push people further from the catholic religion, it has brought me closer than ever before. This time is wasted on arguing if the basic fundamentals are agreed upon, pray and keep close to your faith and when Jesus finally comes back to bring peace, we will all bathe in his glory.

  20. "Several authors, including theologians, have indicated the barbarities and doctrinal errors in allegedly received hundreds of messages from heaven by MDM." That is Google Translation but somehow 'barbarity' is indeed an appropriate word here. This is from today's article: http://www.aleteia.org/es/religion/q&a/que-tenemos-que-pensar-del-gran-aviso-de-dios-de-la-vidente-maria-divine-mercy-9764002
    This is the third one in Spanish that appeared recently. Praise God for every warning of this kind.

    Just keep in mind the words of Sister Lucia:
    Where Peter is, there is the church... he who is not with the Pope is not with God

    1. In the Third Secret of Fatima we read among other things that the great apostasy in the Church begins at the top. I hate to even think the thought, but the pope is a man like everyone else on earth. If the messages are truely divine, who are we to question God himself. My comments are not meant for argument or for acceptance, i dont need someones ok to believe that these messages are divine. The key is we know Jesus will come a 2nd time, we just dont know when. Pray for discernment, pray for protection, pray for the on earth and in pergatory, and pray the rosary. Ask for forgiveness and see yourself as an equal to each and every person on earth. You have the free will not to believe the.messages, but there is no need for such animosity. If these messages ignite more prayer and faith, then let it go until theres actually something to dispute. God comes first, everything else is secondary.

    2. You said it Matt, "If the messages are truely divine, who are we to question God himself."

      "If" means on condition the messages are authentic. You are prepared to associate yourself with a stranger who claims God is speaking to her without any confirmation either from heaven or the institution Jesus established on earth to represent and speak for Him. The Word of God has already spoken. You aren't listening. What did the Blessed Mother teach? What are her last recorded words in Sacred Scripture? "Do whatever He tells you." When you heed Mary, you heed her Son and her Son said to Peter and the Apostles, "He who hears you, hears me. He who rejects you, rejects me."

      The Third Secret of Fatima never said the Pope would lead the Church into the great apostasy. Who wrote that extraordinary claim?

  21. Matt said, "If these messages ignite more prayer and faith, then let it go until theres actually something to dispute."

    There is plenty to dispute, precisely because these messages are destructive to the faith. Mdm has hijacked a lot of false prophets and rolled all this anti-Catholic propaganda into mudballs which you, a professed Catholic, are only too willing to throw on the spotless gown of the Bride of Christ, the Church. As a soldier of Christ, provided you were confirmed, your duty is to defend the faith, never to betray it.

    “All, moreover, are bound to love the Church as their common mother, to obey her laws, promote her honor, defend her rights, and to endeavor to make her respected and loved . . .”
    encyclical ‘Immortale Dei’ -Pope Leo XIII

  22. May I suggest you read a few chapters from a book called "Catholicism and Reason." It is provided on the EWTN website in their document library. It may help to clear up the many false ideas which you have picked up.

  23. I am in no position to say what i think or feel is the right and only way, but what im taking away from this is that your "defintion" of scripture is it. You cant keep using scripture in a context to backup your side of the argument. Every quote i've seen has been paraphrased in a manner to make everyone who believes in the messages to look like a heretic and not of sound mind. Lets go back to your quote when Jesus spoke to Peter, did he say those who dont follow you dont follow me or did he say those who do not follow you and your predecessors do not follow me? If you put it any context you want you can make an argument. God is truth, and even the things we dont want to hear and see does not make them false. You also spoke of defending the Church, and besides giving my free will over to God and hopefully helping God save souls, that would be top of the list for me. The messages have been questioned so much we fail to see the subtle changes that are oddly out of place around us...such as the changes made in baptism, not to mention the Pope is suppose to be our guide in faith yet he reads from other religions holy scripture, and plays a very accepting and nonchalant attitude to sin such as homo sexuality and atheism. Obviously you dont condemn the sinner, but condemn the sin and make it known that as the leader of the Catholic faith you first support people in saving their soul. We are all sinners and we are all on an even playing field, but you should never condone or let go of a situation involving a sin commited no matter how big or small. If you read the messages without going in with the mindset of your going to prove it wrong before reading it, you will notice they are very repetitive and are in conjunction with scripture that has been passed down for generations. If it makes you feel better to belittle me instead of accepting me back into the Catholic church with open arms, so be it. I will only grow stonger in my faith and i pray for every last one of us. Your intentions are good and i understand where you are coming from, but if something helps someone fully open their heart to God then dont strike them down for it.

    1. Matt said, "You cant keep using scripture in a context to backup your side of the argument."

      I am using scripture in proper context, according to the tradition and constant teaching of the Church. Sure, I cited that off the top of my head but if you want it word for word here it is from the Gospel of Luke: "Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me." (10:16)

      Now how does the Church use this passage?

      "Is it legitimate to use these words of Jesus to support the teaching
      commission of the Church? Vatican II said yes strongly, in "Lumen gentium"
      P20: "This sacred Council teaches that the Bishops, from divine
      institution, have taken the place of the Apostles, as the pastors of the
      Church: he who hears them, hears Christ; he who spurns them, spurns Christ,
      and Him who sent Christ". And in LG P 25 the Council even taught that the
      Bishops in unison with the successor of Peter and with each other can even
      teach infallibly. Pius XII in "Humani generis" (DS 3855) said the same
      thing about Lk 10:16: "Nor should we think that the things taught in
      Encyclical letters do not of themselves call for assent, on the plea that
      in them the Pontiffs do not exercise the Supreme power of their
      Magisterium. For these things are taught with the ordinary Magisterium, of
      which it is also correct to say: 'He who hears you,hears me.'"

      I hope you do grow stronger in your faith Matt. We are all on a journey. You however have taken a detour. I understand where you are coming from because I have a good many friends and relatives who have the same mindset you do. They have been pumping themselves up with for years with prophecies, seers and apparitions. Like a kid eating too much candy eventually you get sick and throw it all up. It is unbalanced. Hopefully, you can purge your mind of all that junk food and will put on the mind of Christ. Immerse yourself in the real, approved, canonical Word of God which is Sacred Scripture and understand it better by studying the catechism, the papal encyclicals and you too will some day realize Mdm for what she is. A bad imitation.

  24. I feel confident that anybody reading this page can quickly see the light. MATT on Oct 30 at 11:09 AM gave a well written sound statement that should have shut the door on the false propaganda, but not so. I know the fruit of pocketsketch and other MDM bashers. Any point, regardless of true witness, or sound faith, is never recognized and is quickly run over with more propaganda. If I can recognize this so can you. This is not about a search for truth it is a predetermined goal to bash MDM. They will insult followers, exaggerate and twist the truth. There is almost no point trying, except for the hope that people can see through their will.

    Matt was insulted for being away from the church and yet we know these are the very souls God seeks out. I was accused of not knowing the rosary. They never say "oh I'm sorry for misunderstanding and bearing false witness"! As I say the prior arguments were crushed when Matt explained about his mother and his research and the good that came out of it! How can anybody with faith not applaud that? And yet to come back with more bogus points, which time and time again I have tried to point our are nothing but one man's opinion over another, and are never proven outright. In every instance I can conclude that the quality, the truth of the messages is far superior to that of the opponents.

    1. Robert you have a lot to say. " I was accused of not knowing the rosary. They never say "oh I'm sorry for misunderstanding and bearing false witness"!"

      Go back to P.S. post Oct.28,@8:48am which asked, "Do you pray the Rosary and meditate on the Sorrowful Mysteries?"

    2. Robert thinks, "Any point, regardless of true witness, or sound faith, is never recognized and is quickly run over with more propaganda." Oct.31

      I sincerely hope the following is not an example of the "true witness" and "sound faith" you are speaking about.

      "Well I [Robert] have to ask what defines the crucifixion? Is this the point where Jesus is nailed to the cross and it is raised? Am I allowed to believe Jesus may be implying the time from the last supper till his death might be the crucifixion? It was said that Satan entered Judas during the last supper, so was that not like the beginning?" Oct.27 @3:33 pm.

    3. here is what you said:
      "Do you pray the Rosary and meditate on the Sorrowful Mysteries?
      #1. The Agony in the Garden
      #2, The Scourging at the Pillar
      #3. The Crowning with Thorns
      #4. The Carrying of the Cross
      #5. The Crucifixion
      Are you aware that Blessed John Paul II gave us the Luminous Mysteries..."

      I think that it is pretty clear you are IMPLYING I'm not familiar with the rosary if you are listing out the sorrowful mysteries and asking if I knew who added the Luminous Mysteries.

    4. right PS I said ANY point, but I'm not implying that EVERY point is a great one. that one I still want to ask a priest about.

    5. As you said Robert, "I feel confident that anybody reading this page can quickly see the light."

  25. I know this is off topic, but there is a place called Bohemian Grove in California where the power elite go to "relax." There are things that go on there that are unfathimable. The reason i bring this up is the messages from God state things like this are going on and we are very unaware. Whether you believe in the messages or you dont, watch this video of a ceremony at Bohemian Grove called the "cremation of care." It is absolutely unbelievable, all i can say is triple your prayers.


    1. It was hard to make out but obviously humans behaving badly! But I agree we must look around and see what is going on. If we can ignore the decline of morality in society, and not notice how evil has spread and taken over the world we will ignore too should it come right to our local church. This is a time to put down the gadget and think. Look at how sports, once a somewhat wholesome pastime have been corrupted with scandals of performance enhancing drugs, greed of teams, and gambling. How about the price of greed which causes one financial disgrace after another? Matt, one amazing area I researched is the masons, or freemasons (you already mentioned being aware of them), there are some really good youtube videos which show how they have been the enemy of the church for years and how the pope's have warned against them. Michael Voris makes some enlightening videos, I do not know if he is against the messages or not, but he has in more than one place reported the serious problems going on within the vatican. also the web site Rorate Caeli a popular traditional based Catholic site, it does not talk at all about the messages or second coming but does report on views about pf. I saw an article (on RC under October) there about how many (Italian) papers or magazines are highly concerned about him, but not so the English speaking media.

    2. Back to our topic: Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical ‘Immortale Dei’ wrote,

      “The Catholic Church, that imperishable handiwork of our all-merciful God, has for her immediate and natural purpose the saving of souls and securing our happiness in heaven.”

      Imperishable: enduring, unfailing, eternal, everlasting, perpetual, unceasing, unending.

      In other words, Mdm's unremitting calumny against Pope Francis that accuses him on being in a triumvirate with the Antichrist and Satan is the antithesis of sound Catholic faith.

  26. Pope Leo XIII wrote in his encyclical ‘Immortale Dei’ that, “it is unlawful to follow one line of conduct in private life and another in public, respecting privately the authority of the Church, but publicly rejecting it; for this would amount to joining together good and evil, and to putting man in conflict with himself; whereas he ought always to be consistent.”
    The converse would also hold true, "It is unlawful to follow one line of conduct in private life and another in public, for lacking respect privately for the authority of the Church, in this case, rejecting Pope Francis; meanwhile, publicly proclaiming oneself a practicing Catholic; for this would amount to joining together good and evil, and to putting man in conflict with himself.

    Synonyms for unlawful: improper, not conforming to moral law, prohibited, illegal, defiant of law, contrary to or forbidden by law; not morally right or permissible.

    Therefore, the faithful who remain obstinate in following Mdm are not acting in accordance with the will of God. Many have disconnected from reality and are caught up in a paranoid world of wild conspiracy theories. Their actions are pulling apart the Body of Christ. Willfully spreading the Mdm virus within the Church, despite numerous hierarchal warnings, is tantamount to spiritual terrorism.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. In the words of your own prophet Robert,
      "“Those who take it upon themselves to declare their superior knowledge of spiritual matters laid down by the Teachings of God, through the prophets, need to be very careful. When such souls declare their so-called knowledge, by boasting of their intellectual assessment of Holy Doctrine, instead of focusing on the importance of humility, THEY OFFEND ME. When they use their knowledge to TWIST THE TRUTH to suit their agenda, in order to draw souls into a MANMADE VERSION of MY TEACHINGS, I AM DEEPLY OFFENDED and I WILL PUNISH SOULS GUILTY OF THIS CRIME AGAINST GOD.” {caps added by P.S.} Ap.12/13}

      Thank you for having the decency to remove your scandalous comment about Pope Francis and your snide remark about Pope Leo.

    3. that quote is for your own good, read it again. you are the one who implies deeper wisdom that that contained in the messages of MDM, which are said to be coming from God! I only try to provide a counter point to your opinions.

      yes I did remove the comment because I read the survey and it is too complex to talk about. but maybe you can give me a simple answer, when does the church ask surveys of its people on church teachings? I do not know of such behavior. However I also took it away because it has not reached my level, that of a parishioner. Did Pope Leo XIII send out questionnaires?

  27. pocketsketch I have a question for you. You often remark about how the church can never be defeated or in your recent words quoting pope Leo XII "The Catholic Church, that imperishable handiwork of our all-merciful God..." ok, but is it not true that pope francis has already said that if the church does not stop focusing on sinful acts it is at risk of falling like a tower of cards? It sounds to me like the pope is himself breaking the truths you are proclaiming. I heard this same reference on a dedicated traditional Catholic web site Rorate Caeli. How come in these recent days the pope and others are considering such a concept, which you quote and say are impossible? Now my point has been that the church will never be defeated because God watches over and sends prophets, and will preserve at least in part, but the trouble at this point is from WITHIN, the trouble from within is breaking the words you assure so vigorously and is warning that we are at risk of falling to pieces unless such and such happens. Now where is the bogus doctrine?

  28. I spoke with another Catholic priest about the three original points attacked from the message on April 14 2011. The last time I told about asking another priest I was told he probably would have disagreed if he knew it came from MDM. So this time I will say, this priest knows I believe the second coming is near and he knows I read 'prophecy' however he has no interest and does not agree with such. He assured me that we can refer to Jesus being in the bread and wine after consecration because it remains under the appearance of bread and wine, even though we know and believe it is Jesus. Next he agreed that the words at the last supper can be accepted to be a promise even though the word promise was not used, or recorded. And finally when I asked about the crucifixion, he did not clearly say that it can be considered to begin with the last supper but he did explain along the line that the completion of the salvation plan was the crucifixion. So even though he does not agree with any part of revelations not approved by the church he did not disagree with these points which come from them. I post this just to try to present reason. We must hold on to reason!

    1. The original quote from Mdm, which you are so desperately trying to cling to, stated that Jesus made this promise during His Crucifixion. In order to justify her blunder you have tried, without success, to say the crucifixion began at the Last Supper. So who is twisting traditional teaching and Sacred Scripture backward then forward, back to front, inside and out, upside down and all around? First Mdm gets it wrong, then you interpret what she actually said to mean the Last Supper. So we end up with a misrepresentation on top of a misrepresentation.

      It is intellectual dishonesty to muddy the waters so that the original point of our difference is lost in the confusion. You are not trying to present reason Robert but to defend madness. Why would a cradle Catholic defend the false doctrines of someone who presumes to tell the world that the Gospels got it wrong in the first place? Mdm is so deluded, so confused that she believes it when voices tell her she is the Seventh Angel who will open the seals and herald to the world the arrival of Jesus, after the blast of trumpets and his appearance on the clouds. When are you going to wake up from this nightmare Robert?

      “Many Christians ignore one of the most fundamental promises I made DURING MY CRUCIFIXION, where I WOULD BE PRESENT IN BREAD AND WINE and leave a permanent mark to help nourish souls.” Your Loving Savior, Jesus Christ to M-DM, Ap. 14, 2011.

      “Even My Passion, the Cross, and the atrocities committed by man at My Crucifixion have not been revealed to the world in the way in which they were meant to be.” [Jesus] May 7, 2011.

      “I [Jesus] have no time for the niceties expected by man, who is conditioned to hear My Word [meaning Sacred Scripture] in a certain way – in a dumbed down version.” [Jesus] May 7, 2011

      Fr. Owen Gorman’s response has already addressed this in the strongest terms: “The revelation of Jesus’ passion is found in the four Gospels, which are inspired by God. To claim that the events around Jesus’ crucifixion have not been revealed as they were meant to be belittles Biblical revelation. It implies that the Gospel accounts are defective. But this cannot be, for God Himself is the author of Scripture which manifests his mind and will. Maria Divine Mercy has not got this point right. Is anyone sniffing heresy?”

    2. Once more unto the breach, Robert. I am quite used to the institutional obstinacy of followers of false prophets.
      The priest who told you that we could talk of Christ being present IN bread and wine needs a bit of instruction himself. One of the sad facts about the Church over the past 40 years has been poor religious education in schools, and bad formation of priests in seminaries.
      It is HERESY to speak of Jesus being present IN bread and wine after the consecration. Only the APPEARANCE of bread and wine remain; the SUBSTANCE, the bread and wine themselves, is NO LONGER PRESENT. Jesus cannot not be present in something which is no longer there. Can't you grasp the difference?
      From the Canons of the Council of Trent:
      "If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of bread and wine remains together with the body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and unique change of the whole substance of the bread into His body and of the whole substance of the wine into His blood while only the appearance of bread and wine remain, a change which the Catholic Church very fittingly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema."
      MDM teaches the condemned proposition of Martin Luther known as 'consubstantiation'.