Speak Out Bravely Here
— Posted by Elizabeth (June 27, 2010 at 12:05 pm)
While doing some reading over the past few days, I came across this passage that inspired me enough to share it. It is taken from a series of private revelations from Christ to “Anne”, a lay apostle, in 2005.
While the messages have not yet received the imprimatur (official approval of the Catholic Church), the bishop of Kilmore – Anne’s diocese – has given permission for their publication on the basis that there is nothing in them that is contrary to faith or morals, and much that is positive and nourishing for the faith.
I am encouraging you to ask Mary, your Blessed Mother, for assistance in the area of purity. You are called upon to follow the rules of your Church in this regard. Sexual intimacy is intended for a man and woman who are in a holy union, in a blessed marriage. I am Jesus and I am telling you today that the rules have not changed. Do not listen to those who follow the world because you will be led astray. Listen to Me. There is grave damage done to souls because of sins of impurity. This sin leads to many other, even more grave sins. This is the sin responsible for the slaughter of so many unborn souls. Dear young apostles, work hard for Me in this area. Do not let it be said that you sanctioned the murder of one of God’s children.
Speak out bravely here. If you have been led to this yourself, come to Me, immediately. Ask My forgiveness. It is yours. I forgive you. I will make it right. I need to cleanse you of this so that you are not led to further sin because of your pain. Many, many souls have made this mistake and aborted children. This is the greatest indicator of the level of darkness in your world. But I have healing, even for this.
Understand that I must have your help. I need you. You are not replaceable in this kingdom of God. Some of My closest friends working in the world today have committed this sin. Do I love them less? I am smiling, My beloved, because the truth is so far from that. Indeed, I do not love them less for their pain and their repentance. I love them more because they do not judge others. And they work for Me in the greatest of love. Work against sexual sin and work against abortion. This is always My will so you do not have to ask Me.
It is possible that you will make mistakes in this area, even after you have committed yourself to be My apostle. I expect you to make mistakes at times and commit sin. Come to Me immediately and ask My forgiveness. Have your Confession heard as soon as possible after this. Together, you and I will minimize the damage of each mistake on your soul. We will together make the improvements in your soul which will help you avoid these sins in the future.
Understand that I am with you everywhere. I do not leave when you commit sins because I must witness each act committed on earth. You have total love and understanding from heaven. You have total compassion. You have total forgiveness if you repent.
And you will have complete healing for any past mistakes. I love you and you are Mine.
I, Jesus Christ, cry out to all who read these words. Come back to Me. Come back to the side of goodness and kindness. I will send every grace necessary for your complete healing and conversion. I will care for your every need. Trust Me, Jesus, and you will be saved. All is well. God’s kingdom comes.
Anne, a wife and mother of six, reveals her journey to the heart of Jesus. The
messages she hears in her soul, which she believes are from God the Father,
Jesus, Mary, and many saints, reveal the tender, solicitous love that our Savior
has for each one of us.
More information can be found at directionforourtimes.com. , including the text quoted.
This entry is filed under Abortion, Chastity, Culture Wars, Sexuality. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Rebecca says:
How convenient! Jesus gave her that message and because it suits you you deem it true and correct.
What if I started claiming that jesus had spoken to me and advised me that the bible currently in common usage is not correctly translated or interpreted (and there is evidence for this). Also, that the current selection of books in the bible is not exactly accurate (also evidenced).
So some things that believers claim is supported by scripture in fact aren’t.
And I know it sounds snarky, but if she claimed anyone but jesus had spoken to her she’d be in an institution or at least on medication by now. Can she prove it was Jesus anymore than she can prove it was Napoleon?
Comment posted June 27th, 2010 at 10:48 pm
Elizabeth says:
Rebecca, I’m very sorry you feel that way. You have a right to express your opinion, but you flippancy is not appreciated.
I am not the one who who used my judgment to determine if the message is true. If you had read the introduction, you would have seen that.
Also, contrary to what you seem to imply, the content of the message is not contrary to Bible, nor the teachings the Church has believed for the last 2000 years.
Comment posted June 28th, 2010 at 7:56 am
Rebecca says:
Flippancy was not my intent Elizabeth. I interwove two points and that was probably remiss of me. I did not mean that her ‘message’ did not align with the bible. I meant that if I made claims that jesus had told me some parts of the bible were not accurate, would I be taken seriously.
1. The church is looking at approving what the woman claims jesus said to her. Why? If she had claimed it was napoleon she would be given funny looks.
2. The bible as espoused by modern people of faith, predominantly the King James version, is demonstrably different to the original texts. Such as the claimed basis for homophobia.
Comment posted June 28th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
RSD says:
Rebecca,
You’re talking about something you have no knowledge about…
From what I understand, the Church does NOT take “personal” messages lightly. Even miracles (more so on “possession”) takes time (sometimes years of investigation) before something is taken seriously/ approved.
The “messages” were released (but not approved) because they do not contradict the teachings of the Church.
Read up on Church history and the different Councils and understand how the Church teachings came to be and how long it got there….and while you’re there, check out the Catechism about Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Traditions in the Catholic Church since Catholics do not follow “sola scriptura”.
If something was “given” to you by who knows what and it contradicts the teachings of the Church (debated, discussed, argued, prayed upon over hundreds of years)…you would most likely not be taken seriously.
And oh, if you’re here to bash religion..I suggest you take your liberal attitude elsewhere.
Comment posted June 29th, 2010 at 8:21 am
Rebecca says:
Not true RSD. It is clearly demonstrable that the scriptures which are cited today are somewhat distorted by multiple translations and interpretations.
Not to mention the selection and deselection of ‘books’ which form it.
Then there is the choice people make about which parts they will adhere to. There are stronger and clearer calls to kill people for minor matters than there are that abortion or homosexuality are wrong.
What if what I hear really does come from jesus but it doesn’t suit the church? Remember what he is supposed to have said about churches and the people who run them. So who’s to say?
I’m not here to bash religion. Please feel free to hold and practice your faith. What I will bash is the hypocrisy, the contradictions, the charlatans and the attempted infiltration into the secular state and institutions; not to mention trying to dictate how other people lead their lives.
So there we have it do we? My ‘liberal’ attitude. Which really means that you are right and I am wrong and how dare I suggest otherwise. Well guess what – your dark, gloomy, restrictive little alley of self-opinionated sanctimoniousness is not the law and does not rule society.
Comment posted June 29th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Elizabeth says:
I completely back what RSD said, including the fact that you seem to be lacking obvious knowledge about the subject being discussed.
For example, you say >>> “It is clearly demonstrable that the scriptures which are cited today are somewhat distorted by multiple translations and interpretations.”
That’s why the Church (meaning Catholic Church), guided by the Magesterium, has the guidance of the Holy Spirit to explain Christ’s meaning and present it to the faithful. That teaching has been safeguarded since the time of the Apostles. Not to mention the Church believes in both Sacred Tradition AND Sacred Scripture as making up the Deposit of faith.
>>> “Then there is the choice people make about which parts they will adhere to.”
I’m sorry for those people who ignore the parts of Scripture which they find too hard to follow. But that does not affect Scripture’s validity.
>>> “What if what I hear really does come from jesus but it doesn’t suit the church?”
That’s a contracidiction. The Church was instituted by Christ, and continues to preach and safeguard his teachings. The truths (which again, were instituted by Jesus) are not arbitrary or subject to change based on “new revelation”.
Comment posted June 30th, 2010 at 10:07 am
Jayson says:
Well said RSD and Elizabeth!!!
Comment posted June 30th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Rebecca says:
I beg to differ Elizabeth. What about the pre-Greek or even pre-Hebrew texts? What about which books have been selected to formulate the bible as you know it? For example, examinations of supposedly original texts have shown that the church’s current position on homosexuality is wrong.
What I’m trying to propose is that I may hear something direct from jesus which is his original word or meaning. Due to changes which have occurred that may no longer be recognizable or recognized by the current church. Dilemma.
‘New revelations’ have been taking place since before the supposed existence of jesus.
Comment posted June 30th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
RSD says:
“What about the pre-Greek or even pre-Hebrew texts? What about which books have been selected to formulate the bible as you know it?”
————————–
That is why we Catholics have Sacred Tradition to fall back on.
Comment posted July 1st, 2010 at 9:01 am
Rebecca says:
Whose sacred tradition would that be RSD? From which period?
Comment posted July 1st, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Jayson says:
The sacred tradition dates back to the time of the apostles at the start of the Catholic Church. Jesus has been guiding the Church from the beginning.
…Please Rebecca, you really don’t understand what you are talking about.
Comment posted July 1st, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Rebecca says:
Jayson, that’s one aspect. Just one.
Comment posted July 1st, 2010 at 9:23 pm
RSD says:
We only need one, Rebecca.
Comment posted July 2nd, 2010 at 11:37 am
Rebecca says:
You have just said so much RSD. You really have.
Comment posted July 2nd, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Jayson says:
Rebecca, Jesus has been guiding the Catholic Church and will continue to. He said himself that he “will be with us always until the end of the age”. It might be hard for you to understand our trust in him, but he won’t foresake us. He has shown us the truth for 2000+ years
a side note—–if you think that early documents and texts supported homosexuality, just read the works of the early church fathers who condemned abortion, contraception, and homosexuality from the beginning of the church.
Comment posted July 2nd, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Rebecca says:
Jesus may have tried to show you the truth for 2000 years but unfortunately a rather extensive game of chinese whispers has taken place. Do you realise how much change in doctrine and behavior has occurred in the church in that time?? Popes were married at one stage.
Maybe the early church fathers didn’t read the original texts correctly either. And you are talking about a group of men who did much of what they did for certain reasons other than pure evangelical religious guidance.
Comment posted July 2nd, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Jayson says:
Rebecca: maybe the truth of Jesus Christ has been under your nose for the past 2000 years but you just keep trying to change it to suit your own interests and beliefs. Maybe you aren’t reading the texts correctly.
You want the truth to conform to what you believe instead of seeking out the truth, understanding it, and conforming to it’s beliefs.
Comment posted July 3rd, 2010 at 11:04 am
Elizabeth says:
Rebecca, you’re wrong when you say that Doctrine has changed. DISCIPLINE (practices such as what language Mass is celebrated in, regulations for fasting and abstaining from meat, etc.) can change, but Doctrine does not, and has not changed.
And Jayson, I believe you’ve hit the nail on the head when you say Rebecca wants the truth to conform to her beliefs, instead of visa versa.
Comment posted July 3rd, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Rebecca says:
Folks, as far as the bible is concerned, I see no truth i whatever guise it may be presented.
It is factual that selections, translations, interpretations and misrepreresenations have ‘clouded’ aspects of scripture since before the supposed time of jesus.
I don’t hold any ‘beliefs’ Elizabeth, that’s the point. I simply question yours because it is non-evidential, variable and mainly fictional.
Comment posted July 3rd, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Jayson says:
Thanks Elizabeth!
Comment posted July 6th, 2010 at 11:35 am
Rebecca says:
Atheists only argue aspects of scripture to demonstrate the selectiveness, misrepresentations and hypocrisy displayed when people of faith use it to support their argument.
From topics as diverse as raising children, through homosexuality and to political interference; the common element is that you cling to the sections or versions of scripture which best suit your personal prejudices.
Comment posted July 6th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Jayson says:
So you’re saying that there are verses in the Bible that encourage behavior such as homosexuality, even though it clearly has verses against it….right
Comment posted July 6th, 2010 at 6:53 pm
Rebecca says:
No Jayson, I’m not, don’t extrapolate to suit yourself. Here is an example of what I have come across, there are vast numbers of such references on a range of topics –
‘The passage you’re talking about is found in Leviticus 18:22, 20:13. This particular text was changed during the translation of the King James scribes. The original text stated that the act of a ‘man lying with a man’ is ‘toevah’. Toevah does not mean ‘abomination’. It does not even mean ‘sin’ or ‘unlawful’. It means ‘non-traditional/against tradition’ that is, it was against tradition for Jewish men to have homosexual sex.
Christians do not abide by the vast majority of the Levitical Laws, and Jesus himself takes a stand against them in Mark 7:1-23. He says the laws are ‘traditions of men’ not of God. Thus, God never said gay men were an abomination–let alone gay women’
So what about the following Jayson, are you an adherent? –
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 – “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”
Comment posted July 6th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
John says:
Rebecca—
Regarding same-sex acts and Leviticus, etc., one of my favorite bloggers (he goes by the pseudonym CourageMan) offers a brilliant treatment of this in a post entitled “The ‘God Hates Shrimp’ Fallacy”.
Comment posted July 7th, 2010 at 8:22 am
Rebecca says:
Hi John. So you – a scriptural adherent – cite someone professing to be able to deliver the ‘correct’ interpretation of this topic. His piece wanders around the topic, glances at it, talks around it with the occasional dive right in, and selects aspects which support his version.
‘I don’t particularly have any desire to specifically rebut Miss Yockey’ – why not? If you are so correct?
“some parts of the Mosaic law are still parts of the New Convenant, others are not.” – why not? Selective application to suit peoples’ prejudices?
‘Our Lord said He didn’t come to erase the law, but to fulfill it, which, whatever it means in the details, obviously means that some of the specifics will remain and some will not.’ – how contradictory!
‘…only even arguably mentioned about four times in the New Testament, and a condemnation of them is never actually the point being made.’ – wander, meander.
‘that’s exactly the way to discern Tradition — the That Which Does Not Have To Be Argued For, the Premise So Obvious That It Can Remain Unstated.’ – how convenient!
‘ The very fact that St. Paul and St. Jude don’t argue for the immorality of homosexual acts because they don’t have to — the “dropped in” quality of the references, without elaboration or argument or detail, proves they could assume automatic assent to the statement “homosexual acts are condemned” and “those who commit them are damned.” – more convenience.
‘And keep in mind, the Apostles weren’t shy about changing the details of ritual and practice, if they thought the New Covenant reversed anything in the Old.’ – some things never change do they.
‘After all, they even moved the day of Sabbath’s observance (one of the Ten Commandments).’ – this says so much about so many things being somewhat less than confirmed.
‘Natural-law philosophy has always been invoked against homosexual acts…’ – this is just not true.
The variances of adherence to the Old testement created by the New is really a dilemma don’t you think?
Overall it’s not a very convincing argument is it?
Comment posted July 7th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
Jayson says:
“cite someone professing to be able to deliver the ‘correct’ interpretation of this topic”
You see Rebecca, this is why so many Protestant churches can’t agree on some of these topics, because all the different pastors interperet the Bible in different ways. Us Catholics have the authority of the Holy Spirit who speaks through the Church and the Pope and his bishops.
“When the spirit of truth comes, he will guide you in all truth” John 16:13
Comment posted July 8th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Rebecca says:
What you are using is still too recent Jayson. It still stems from material which has questionable accuracy and origins.
“Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Comment posted July 8th, 2010 at 5:35 pm
Elizabeth says:
Too recent? The truths of the Church have not changed in recent years.
As for the 1 Corinthians verse, St. Paul speaks about the fundamental equality of men and women in Gal 3:28. So, the 1 Cor. verse does not put down women, but concerns the official function of teaching in the Christian assembly: the role of ministerial priesthood is limited to men, and each member of the Body of Christ has a different role.
Also, good for you for quoting Scripture and in some sense, trying to find its real meaning.
Comment posted July 8th, 2010 at 7:07 pm
Rebecca says:
I didn’t mean last week Elizabeth. Or last year. Or last century. But it’s not what it was about the BC/AD turnover or preceding that.
So you don’t find language such as ‘remain silent ‘, ‘not allowed to speak’, ‘must be in submission’ or ‘ it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church’ a put down of women? Is there such language and tone in regard to men?
I quote scripture because I try to find out why there is such blatant selectiveness, misrepresentation and hypocrisy stemming from it’s use.
Comment posted July 8th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
RSD says:
“I try to find out why there is such blatant selectiveness, misrepresentation and hypocrisy stemming from it’s use.”
———————————————————————-
Is this confusion based on your own understanding of the scriptures or someone else’s interpretation?
As mentioned earlier, we, in the Catholic Church, have the
Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church) and the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) to guide us in understanding the true meaning of the scripture passages.
Comment posted July 9th, 2010 at 10:10 am
Rebecca says:
First you make false extrapolations, now disingenuousness RSD.
If you cared to make even a limited observation of the disparate scriptural claims across various various elements of faiths, you would understand what I said.
The catholic church is not significantly better in this regard.
Comment posted July 9th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Jayson says:
Rebecca, if you dispute where the Bible came from, and which books are legit, then read this book:
“Where we got the Bible”by TAN books
https://www.tanbooks.com/index.php/Where-We-Got-The-Bible
Comment posted July 10th, 2010 at 9:08 am
Rebecca says:
You need to read a little wider Jayson.
Comment posted July 10th, 2010 at 11:34 pm