Medjugorje and the flow of Grace

“All grace flows from the Catholic Church’s sacramental life. Grace never flows from frauds and deceptions, nor from anything that is false. In places of false apparitions grace completely bypasses the ‘apparitions’ as they can never be a ‘causa instrumentalis’ of grace”. Frits Albers and Frank Calneggia Taken from: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7627 Medjugorje and the Flow of Grace by Frits Albers, PH.B., Frank Calneggia Description This article explains that exterior manifestations of grace do not prove the authenticity of apparitions, because the Church is really the source of all grace. Publisher & Date The Australian Marian Academy of the Immaculate Conception …. Part I One can readily admit to the flow of grace at Medjugorje. Adherents and promoters are quick to point to the usual signs of grace: confessions, conversions, and the practice of prayer and penance. If apparitions are authentic, that is, if they possess a supernatural origin they come from God. Therefore authentic apparitions, such as Lourdes and Fatima, may be called a ‘causa instrumentalis’ (instrumental cause) of grace. If apparitions are false, that is, if they do not possess a supernatural origin they do not come from God. False apparitions may appear to be associated with the flow of grace; but by rights this grace belongs to the Holy Catholic Church because this Church is the source of all grace going out through the whole world due to the presence of the Blessed Sacrament within her. All grace flows from the Catholic Church’s sacramental life. Grace never flows from frauds and deceptions, nor from anything that is false. In places of false apparitions grace completely bypasses the ‘apparitions’ as they can never be a ‘causa instrumentalis’ of grace. This means that God never uses false apparitions as instruments of grace. Consequently the first thing that must be stated, and which must be rigorously maintained, is that the exterior manifestations of grace do not prove the authenticity of apparitions! Grace can flow if the apparitions are either true or false because the sacramental life of the Church can be present anywhere on earth completely independent of apparitions. Vatican II states, in Lumen Gentium, that “the grains of truth and holiness found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church rightly belong to the Church of Christ and possess an inner dynamism to Catholic unity” (#8). If apparitions are false they are automatically outside the Church, then the “grains of truth and holiness” found in these places of fraud and deception do not belong to, or come from, the deception! These “grains of truth and holiness”, according to the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, belong directly to the Holy Catholic Church. As stated above, they belong to her sacramental life. It is because of this that these grains of truth and sanctification “possess an inner dynamism to Catholic unity”. That is, they possess an inner dynamism away from the deception and toward obedience to the teaching and authority of the Catholic bishop in charge of investigating the ‘apparitions’. If the inner urge of grace towards Catholic-unity-in-obedience (working, as we saw, whether the apparitions are true or false) is blocked in any way by private, personal and subjective convictions and attitudes (which is often the case when people attribute the flow of grace to false apparitions), then grace is thwarted and becomes ineffective. This, of course, is a very serious matter. It is highly presumptuous to attribute grace to false apparitions no matter how tempting this might be. It is a sobering thought to realise that presumption in the area of God’s grace and mercy is one of the sins against the Holy Spirit and for that reason is a serious obstacle to grace. Grace thus blocked and rendered ineffective will not produce the fruits of holiness and truth God meant it to produce when He bestowed it through the sacramental life of the Church. In other words, the conversions would then only be apparent and exterior. Such conversions lack that inner drive to unity-in-obedience, and would not have a lasting effect until the blockage is removed. The same goes for devotional practices. These, too, will become merely externalised if associated with the rash and presumptuous belief that the grace to do such devotions comes from spurious apparitions. Such presumption will also block grace obtained from authentic sources. Another sin of presumption that is often associated with the matter of private ‘revelations’ and ‘visions’ is the attitude that the Church will have to approve them because “we” think they are so good and holy and simply cannot come from the devil ... From the moment the obedience of the Lamb of God became the breakthrough for grace, rendering to nought the blockage caused by the disobedience of our first parents, all disobedience, whether individual or corporate, has remained the fundamental obstacle to grace and to its inner dynamism to Catholic unity. ‘The world’ and ‘the earth’ live in utter disobedience to God and His Commandments; in total defiance of the Gospel of His Son; and in complete rejection of the authentic teaching of His Catholic Church. Followers, and even more so promoters, of false apparitions would do well to consider their position in the Catholic Church in regard to this necessary virtue of obedience; lest it is the root of their disobedience which prevents grace and makes them part of ‘the world’. God has always built in, as the cornerstone of proper scrutiny into alleged apparitions, obedience to the findings and authority of the local bishop. It is not difficult to prove that disobedience to the Bishop of Mostar is blatant in Medjugorje, even to the extent that the anti-Catholic and anti-God world of communism started to promote the ‘apparitions’. Not only has this courageous and valiant Bishop been completely vilified by an international chorus of Medjugorje adherents for his rejection of the authenticity of the ‘apparitions’, this disobedience has been instigated and sustained by the ‘apparitions’ themselves. God has always built obedience to the local bishop into the proper attitude toward alleged apparitions. His Holiness Pope Pius XII has, on at least two occasions, taught the universal Church that the Papacy considers the local bishop to be the first and principal authority in apparition cases. (See his 1957 encyclical on the centenary of the apparitions of Our Blessed Lady at Lourdes, and his letter to the Bishop of Namur, Belgium, 7th Dec, 1942; in Don Sharkey, The Woman Shall Conquer, p 130). Medjugorje is no exception to this Papal attitude. If blatant vilification of the Bishop of Mostar and the widespread disobedience to his episcopal authority prove the happenings at Medjugorje to be false, then Medjugorje is outside the Church. Therefore the grace flowing at Medjugorje does not come from the ‘apparitions’ but comes from the sacramental life of the Church, bypassing the false phenomena. People who in this case adhere to the ‘apparitions’; and worse still, maintain that grace flows from them; and even worse still, in a most unholy presumption, declare that the flow of grace proves the ‘apparitions’ to be authentic, create a severe obstacle within themselves to the overwhelming fullness of the Church’s sacramental life which can be present anywhere on earth. The sad part is that this obstacle remains long after the ‘pilgrims’ have returned home ... Part II The foregoing study of how and why grace can flow in places where there are false apparitions is confirmed by two Catholic Bishops – both speaking in the context of Medjugorje – to be in line with Catholic Teaching. Mgr Henri Brincard, the Bishop of Puy-en-Velay, is the bishop responsible for the French Association of Marian Organisations. Here he is responding to a question put to him at an assembly of the Bishops of France. During the course of his response he draws on a declaration from Bishop Peric of Mostar, which can be found in Bishop Peric’s book Priestolje Mudrosti (Seat of Wisdom) p 62. [Emphases added]. “The examination of the events [of Medjugorje] must precede the examination of the fruits. When this order is not respected errors of judgement can arise. If we examine the events of Medjugorje in the light of the fruits, what do we observe? It is first of all undeniable that at Medjugorje there are returns to God and ‘spiritual’ healings. ... One could not deny these good fruits in situ. ... But can we say that they continue in our parishes? Difficult question, for we must note unfortunately that the susceptibility, even aggressiveness, of some partisans of Medjugorje towards those who do not share their enthusiasm is such that in some places it provokes serious tensions which attack the unity of the People of God. From where do the good fruits, observed in an indisputable manner at Medjugorje, come? A declaration of Bishop Peric, our confrere of Mostar, may on this point usefully enrich our mediations: ‘The fruits, so often mentioned, do not prove that they flow from apparitions or supernatural revelations of Our Lady. In the measure that they are authentically Christian, they may be interpreted as a product of the normal work of divine grace, by faith in God, by the intercession of the Virgin Mary, Mother of Christ, and by the Sacraments of the Catholic Church. And this is to say nothing of the negative fruits.’ Finally, it is opportune to ask ourselves if the events of Medjugorje have produced good fruits in the visionaries who, at least during the duration of the ‘apparitions’, must by their life be the first witnesses of the grace of which they say they benefit. From there it follows that we ask ourselves the following questions: ‘Have they obeyed the Bishop of Mostar? Have they respected him? ... ’ Such questions and still others yet, are habitually part of a serious investigation into an event of apparitions. In order for the investigation to arrive at a solid conclusion, it is necessary that these fundamental questions receive a clear and objective response. We would like to say nothing about the doubtful or even bad fruits. But truth obliges us to say that they exist. Let us quote, as examples, the calling into question, even to the point of defamation, of the Local Ordinary as well as the disobedience with regard to his legitimate authority; the exacerbation of the Herzegovina ‘question’ following the words attributed to the ‘Gospa’, words in favour of the Franciscans and against the Bishop (cf. Pavao Zanic, Bishop of Mostar, Official Statement: Medjugorje, March 1990).” The Second Vatican Council’s teaching on Collegiality is fully endorsed by Bishop Brincard in word and example. Catholics have the right to expect that his example of collegiality is matched by their own bishop. Bishop Brincard continues [Emphases added]: “I have no authority to pronounce any ecclesial judgement whatsoever on the events of Medjugorje. I am therefore the first to have to give an example of obedience, notably in respecting the pastoral decisions of my confrere of Mostar and in complying with joy to his wishes. I do not see how I can go to Medjugorje without giving my support, by the very fact of my arriving there, to the events whose discernment rest henceforth with the Episcopal Conference of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Such support would fly in the face of a traditional teaching of the Church, recalled in Lumen Gentium, and applicable to all the successors of the Apostles: ‘Individual bishops, insofar as they are set over particular Churches, exercise their pastoral office over the portion of the People of God assigned to them, not over other Churches nor the Church universal’. My wish, which I share with you, is to be able to further in my diocese a real renewal of Marian piety, in having frequent recourse to the habitual means which the Church puts at our disposal and which the Holy Father does not cease to recommend to us.” According to Medjugorje promoters hundreds of bishops have gone on ‘pilgrimage’ to Medjugorje over the last twenty years. From what Bishop Brincard has said, it is evident that bishops who go on ‘pilgrimage’ to Medjugorje sow confusion and division amongst the People of God by their bad example. Through their lack of collegiality they must be counted as being responsible for keeping Medjugorje ‘alive’ amongst Catholics. Collegiality is noticeably absent also in Bishops who may never have been to Medjugorje, but who allow its propaganda to invade their dioceses. This flow of evil out of a pipe that should produce grace for an entire diocese gives Medjugorje the illusion of coming from the Church; and by that illusion, the further illusion of coming from Our Lady the Mother and Model of the Church. Catholics the world over have experienced, to one degree or another, what happens when the Medjugorje illusion flows from an episcopate into a diocese, or across a country. Here to be noted are the various tours to Australia of ‘Ivan the Variable’, one of the so-called Medjugorje ‘seers’. As recently as 1999 he was given permission (by Cardinal Edward Clancy and by his successor, Archbishop George Pell) to speak from the sanctuary in each of the cathedral churches of the Archdioceses of Sydney and Melbourne. This was at the very time the Vatican issued its decree ordering the Franciscans out of the Diocese of Mostar under pain of excommunication! Two years earlier, in 1997, ‘Ivan the Variable’ was the featured speaker in the cathedral church of the Archdiocese of Perth. We quote from a report of that event printed in the Perth Archdiocesan newspaper, The Record, 27th Feb 1997. [Emphases added]: “Over 2000 people turned out on a sweltering, humid evening earlier this week at St Mary’s Cathedral to hear Medjugorje visionary Ivan Dragicevic speak following a sung Latin Mass concelebrated by Archbishop Barry Hickey and several priests of the Archdiocese. ‘Whatever the final decision by the Church about the authenticity of the apparitions’, Archbishop Hickey said in his homily, ‘it is undeniable that Medjugorje has given rise to a worldwide revival of Catholic life. ... One sees a powerful return to the central truths of the Faith, and a re-discovering of prayer and sacramental life’, he said. ‘The fruits of Medjugorje are good and they are plentiful. In this year of Jesus, we have no doubt that Mary, whose name is honoured at Medjugorje, will lead the world back to our Saviour’.” “Whatever the final decision by the Church ... it is undeniable that Medjugorje has given rise to a worldwide revival of Catholic life.” Here Medjugorje is being held up by an Archbishop as a ‘causa instrumentalis’ of grace “whatever the final decision by the Church”. The graces that the Archbishop claims to come from Medjugorje, come instead, as we saw, from the Church and belong to the Church. According to Lumen Gentium these graces “possess an inner dynamism to Catholic unity”. That is, they possess an inner dynamism away from the deception of the ‘apparition’ and toward obedience to the authority and findings of the Local Ordinary: towards collegiality. Does Archbishop Hickey’s statement manifest this dynamism of grace that works toward Catholic unity and collegiality; or does it move in the opposite direction away from Catholic unity by holding up Medjugorje instead of the Church as a cause of grace, and ‘Ivan the Variable’ (whom Bishop Zanic proved to be a liar) as one who receives messages from Our Lady? Archbishop Hickey’s statement says, “it is undeniable that Medjugorje has given rise” to a flow of grace “whatever the final decision by the Church”. This is understood to mean that Medjugorje is authentic even if the Church says it is not authentic. Not only is the ‘voice’ of the ‘apparition’ apparently superior to the voice of the Church, but is also apparently separate from the Church. Vatican II with its rich teaching on Our Lady tells us that Our Lady is inseparable from the Church. Archbishop Hickey’s statement conveys the impression that there is a dichotomy or separation between Our Lady and the Church; but is given the appearance of still coming from the Church because it was made by a Catholic Archbishop during a Catholic Mass to honour “Medjugorje visionary Ivan Dragicevic”. It is certainly possible to separate Catholics from the Church by having them follow an impostor while mistakenly thinking that they are following Our Lady. It is not possible to separate Our Lady from the Church, as the following quotes from the Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) will show. These quotes are taken from the concluding chapter of Lumen Gentium, Chapter VIII “Our Lady”. “Redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son and united to him by a close and indissoluble tie, she is endowed with the high office and dignity of the Mother of the Son of God. ... But, being of the race of Adam, she is at the same time also united to all those who are to be saved; indeed ‘she is clearly the mother of all the members of Christ ... since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head’. Wherefore she is hailed as pre-eminent and as a wholly unique member of the Church, and as its type and outstanding model in faith and charity. (#53)” “By reason of the gift and role of her divine motherhood, by which she is united with her Son, the Redeemer, and with her unique graces and functions, the Blessed Virgin is also intimately united to the Church. As St. Ambrose taught, the Mother of God is a type of the Church in the order of faith, charity, and perfect union with Christ. For in the mystery of the Church, which is itself rightly called mother and virgin, the Blessed Virgin stands out in eminent and singular fashion. (#63)” “But while in the most Blessed Virgin the Church has already reached that perfection, whereby she exists without spot or wrinkle (cf. Eph. 5:27), the faithful still strive to conquer sin and increase in holiness. And so they turn their eyes to Mary who shines forth to the whole community of the elect as the model of virtues. Devoutly meditating on her and contemplating her in the light of the Word made man, the Church reverently penetrates more deeply into the great mystery of the Incarnation and becomes more and more like her spouse. ... Seeking after the glory of Christ, the Church becomes more like her lofty type, and continually progresses in faith, hope and charity, seeking and doing the will of God in all things. (#65)” “The mother of Jesus in the glory which she possesses in body and soul in heaven is the image and beginning of the Church as it is to be perfected in the world to come. (#68)” It was not Vatican II that downgraded devotion to the Mother of God .... In the year 2001 Archbishop Hickey’s newspaper, The Record, continues to portray Medjugorje as a site of authentic apparitions and as a source of grace. It still reproduces ‘messages’ from ‘Our Lady’, and advertises pilgrimages to Medjugorje which it portrays as a Marian Shrine. Propaganda has been sustained over many years so that it has been given the appearance of an official ‘marian’ policy in the Perth Archdiocese. A typical outpouring of this quasi-official policy is “Medjugorje: a miracle of return to the faith”: an article that was given the front-page lead in of “Twenty Years of Medjugorje” when it was printed in The Record on 21st June 2001. Here is the first example from that article: “... the Vatican continues to consider whether or not to confirm the alleged apparitions.” The dictionary gives a number of accurate definitions of the word “confirm” as it is used in this extract from The Record. (i) ‘Provide support for the truth or correctness of’; (ii) ‘make definitely valid’; (iii) ‘prove to be true or valid’. When each of these definitions is successively substituted for the word ‘confirm’ in the above quoted sentence, that sentence reads as follows: (i) “The Vatican continues to consider whether or not to ‘provide support for the truth or correctness of’ the alleged apparitions”. (ii) “The Vatican continues to consider whether or not to ‘make definitely valid’ the alleged apparitions”. (iii) “The Vatican continues to consider whether or not to ‘prove to be true or valid’ the alleged apparitions”. From this it is evident that the statement that “the Vatican continues to consider whether or not to confirm the alleged apparitions” diverges from the truth on three counts. Firstly it premises that the apparitions are known to be true when in fact they are known to be false. Secondly it premises to confirm true that which is impossible to confirm true because it has already been shown to be false. Thirdly it implicates the Vatican in a role that it does not normally take in the investigation of apparitions. For enlightenment on this third count we return to Bishop Brincard’s response to the question: “Is there an authorised and official position of the Church concerning the events which motivate pilgrimages to Medjugorje”? “The norms relative to the discernment of private revelations, published on 24th February 1978 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, signed by its Prefect Cardinal Francis Seper, specify that ‘It belongs in the first and foremost to the Local Ordinary to investigate and to intervene’. The norms of 1978 further specify that ‘the intervention of the Sacred Congregation may be sought either by the Ordinary after he has fulfilled the obligations incumbent upon him, or by a qualified group of faithful. In the latter case vigilance will be exercised that recourse to the Sacred Congregation not be motivated by suspect reasons (for example, wanting to lead, by one fashion or another, the Ordinary to modify his legitimate decisions, or to have the sectarian position of a group ratified, etc)’. Up to this day, only the Bishops of Mostar – Bishop Zanic, then Bishop Peric – and the Yugoslav Episcopal Conference have expressed a judgement on the events of Medjugorje. ... These episcopal interventions occurred after long and laborious investigations, several elements of which are not known to us. It is to be noted that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith never expressed the least reservation regarding these judgements when they were published. Bearing in mind the authority which this Congregation recognises pertaining ‘first and foremost’ to the Local Ordinary, in matters of discernment and intervention, it would not be wise to take lightly that which successive Bishops of the diocese of Mostar-Duvno have said. ... The history of the Church teaches us that Rome always remits in fine to the authority and competence of the Local Ordinary.” It is common knowledge that two successive Bishops of Mostar and the Yugoslav Episcopal Conference have declared that Our Lady never appeared in Medjugorje. The claim that “... the Vatican continues to consider whether or not to confirm the alleged apparitions” bears no relationship to the truth because it implies that the apparitions of Medjugorje have been shown to be authentic (when in fact they have been shown to be false), and all that remains is for the Church to decide whether or not to officially approve them. Here is the second example from the “Twenty Years of Medjugorje” article in The Record. “Is there a connection between Fatima and Medjugorje? One reported message of Mary, dated 25 August 1991 might present a clue: ‘I invite you to self-renunciation for nine days, so that, with your help, everything that I wanted to realise at Fatima may be fulfilled’. So, nine years before the Third Secret was revealed, Fatima and Medjugorje were linked.” The official judgement of the Church is that Our Lady gave no messages in Medjugorje. The message just quoted is spurious – it does not proceed from its pretended source; and can therefore never be a continuation of Our Lady’s Fatima message. This is portraying ‘Our Lady’ as speaking the lies that the ‘visionaries’ spoke: a sin that Bishop Zanic long ago denounced as “deserving the depths of hell”. The assertion that with nine days of self-renunciation the Medjugorje ‘visionaries’ will “fulfill everything”, but which in reality has not yet been fulfilled by the blood of countless twentieth century martyrs, further shows the spurious origin of this message and is an insult to the memory of those martyrs. The third example from the article celebrating “Twenty Years of Medjugorje” should be read from the perspective of the portrait that was put forward in the above quoted second example: that Our Lady is the same at Medjugorje as she is at Fatima. It is a report of the very first ‘conversation’ between ‘Our Lady’ and the ‘visionaries’, which took place on the day of the second ‘apparition’. “But they returned the next day with four companions and found the apparition waiting for them on the hillside. They sprinkled holy water at the vision to see if it would disappear, but the lady again only smiled. So one of them got up the courage to ask, ‘Who are you?’ the response came, ‘I am the Blessed Virgin Mary, Queen of Peace’.” In her first apparition at Fatima Our Lady said to Lucia: “I came to ask you to come here on the thirteenth day for six months at this same time, and then I will tell you who I am and what I want”. Our Lady reserved the revelation of her identity to the Fatima children until her final apparition. In her apparitions at Lourdes it was not until the sixteenth of eighteen apparitions that Our Lady revealed her identity to St. Bernadette: “I am the Immaculate Conception”. In his encyclical Redemptoris Mater Pope John Paul II taught the entire Church that St. Louis de Montfort is a “witness and teacher” of both “authentic Marian spirituality” and its “corresponding devotion”, and that he is a “sure point of reference” to “look to and follow” in “the present phase of history”. In his treatise True Devotion to Mary St. Louis teaches us about Our Lady’s profound humility (TD #2): “Her humility was so profound that she had no inclination on earth more powerful or more constant than that of hiding herself, from herself as well as from every other creature, so as to be known to God only.” The reservation with which Our Lady revealed her identity in Fatima and Lourdes fits perfectly with St. Louis’ teaching concerning Our Lady’s humility. Medjugorje does not fit with St Louis’ teaching. Having failed the first examination set for them by St. Louis, the fabricators of Medjugorje, in this unholy caricature where pride and self promotion come to the fore, confirm that they do not qualify as witnesses of authentic Marian spirituality, and that the words that were allegedly spoken to them were not spoken by Our Lady. Where can we find a voice strong enough and final enough to warn Catholics where the allurement of spurious messages/apparitions is leading them? For this we again turn to St. Louis de Montfort’s True Devotion to Mary (#90), to hear what this great Marian Saint has to say about false devotions: Today, more than ever, we must take pains in choosing true devotion to Our Blessed Lady, because more than ever before, there are false devotions to Our Blessed Lady which are easily mistaken for true ones. The devil, like a false coiner and a subtle and experienced sharper, has already deceived and destroyed so many souls by a false devotion to the Blessed Virgin, that he makes a daily use of his diabolical experience to plunge many others by this same way into everlasting perdition; amusing them, lulling them to sleep in sin, under the pretext of some prayers badly said or of some outward practices which he inspires. As a false coiner does not ordinarily counterfeit anything but gold or silver, and very rarely other metals, because they are not worth the trouble, so the evil spirit does not for the most part counterfeit other devotions, but only those to Jesus and Mary – devotion to Holy Communion and to our Blessed Lady – because they are among other devotions what gold and silver are among metals.” “... into everlasting perdition! Strong words! We had better believe them! Everlasting perdition does not mean ‘a long time in Purgatory’. It means what it says: everlasting perdition: hell for eternity! Remember it is none other than Pope John Paul II who has designated St. Louis de Montfort’s writings as “authentic Marian spirituality”, and St. Louis as a “sure guide” to “look to and follow” in the “present phase of history”. Thus if so safe a guide as St. Louis de Montfort holds up to us that by a false devotion to Our Blessed Lady, the devil has already destroyed so many souls, and “daily succeeds” in destroying so many more “into everlasting perdition”, then it is high time that Cardinals, bishops, priests and layfolk sit up and take notice. False devotions to Our Blessed Lady are rampant in many dioceses side by side with otherwise orthodox looking devotions and practices. In this instance Catholics may try to weaken the force of St. Louis’ teaching against these false devotions by reassuring themselves that these false devotions cannot really plunge them “into everlasting perdition” because the bishop who allows these false devotions to be present also encourages them to accept that which is good and orthodox. After Our Lord’s teaching on ‘fruits’ and ‘trees’, and His insistence of judging the latter by the first, it was St. James who in his letter took up this question and made it crystal clear for all ages when he wrote: “My brothers, this must be wrong. Does any water supply produce a flow of fresh water and salt water out of the same pipe?” (Ja. 3: 10-11). “Brothers, this must be wrong ...”. These words have the Holy Spirit as their Author and they stand for all times and for all places and circumstances. If Medjugorje is a perversion of true devotion to Our Lady and an instigator of disobedience to Holy Mother Church, and the flow of these evils of false devotion and disobedience into a diocese intolerable, then what is sometimes trotted out: “But the Bishop appears to be so orthodox regarding the Blessed Sacrament, Our Lady, or in his opposition to abortion and aberrations in the liturgy, etc.” cannot be taken, according to St. James, as being a separate flow of fresh water coming out of the same pipe that produces Medjugorje. History shows that all those who during the Reformation accepted the aberrations of Cranmer, Luther, et al in the illusion of ‘drinking from their good points’, got themselves so poisoned that they all walked away from the Catholic Church and became Protestants right up to this day! There are still no exceptions: there never will be! By now it is an easy matter to show beyond reasonable doubt to any fair minded and honest person that Medjugorje is not Catholic, and that it was invented precisely to be anti-Catholic. Medjugorje is far from being ‘neutral’; it is tailor-made to produce one thing to perfection: a pre-determined and pre-meditated effect and result. If a bishop insists that we must see his good points and accept them as his guarantee that Medjugorje is authentic (i.e. two opposites coming out of the same pipe), then his good points are being used to mask evil in order that it will enjoy wide acceptance, which of course is the height of hypocrisy! With the result, according to St. James, that the whole supply becomes polluted: “Brothers, this must be wrong”. 7th October 2001 Feast of the Holy Rosary © The Australian Marian Academy of the Immaculate Conception

The inconvenient death of which King Herod vitiated his apotheosis?

by Damien F. Mackey “A severe pain also arose in [King Agrippa’s] belly, and began in a most violent manner… And when he had been quite worn out by the pain in his belly for five days, he departed this life”. Josephus (Antiquities) Poor King Herod. Just as he was turning into a god right before his adoring people, he suffered severe intestinal pain and began to be eaten away by worms (Acts 12:21-23). Thereby was fulfilled, once again - as it had been with king Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ - the pronouncement made by Judith the Simeonite more than half a millennium earlier (conventional reckoning) (Judith 16:17): ‘Woe to [those] that rise up against my people. The Lord Almighty will punish them on the day of judgment. He will send fire and worms into their flesh; they shall weep with pain forever’. But about which King Herod are we talking here? The Jewish historian, Josephus, who gave an account of the king’s spectacular demise somewhat akin to that which we find recorded in Acts 12, called the ill-fated king, “Agrippa”, not “Herod”. Luke Wayne has written of it: https://carm.org/evidence-and-answers/the-historicity-of-acts-12-and-the-death-of-herod-agrippa-i/ The Historicity of Acts 12 and the Death of Herod Agrippa I by Luke Wayne | Feb 26, 2021 | Evidence and Answers, Apologetics The Ancient Jewish historian Josephus, also writing in the first century AD, reported a strikingly similar account of Herod Agrippa’s demise: “Now when Agrippa had reigned three years over all Judea, he came to the city Cesarea, which was formerly called Strato’s Tower; and there he exhibited shows in honor of Caesar, upon his being informed that there was a certain festival celebrated to make vows for his safety. At which festival a great multitude was gotten together of the principal persons, and such as were of dignity through his province. On the second day of which shows he put on a garment made wholly of silver, and of a contexture truly wonderful, and came into the theater early in the morning; at which time the silver of his garment being illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun’s rays upon it, shone out after a surprising manner, and was so resplendent as to spread a horror over those that looked intently upon him; and presently his flatterers cried out, one from one place, and another from another, (though not for his good,) that he was a god; and they added, “Be thou merciful to us; for although we have hitherto reverenced thee only as a man, yet shall we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal nature.” Upon this the king did neither rebuke them, nor reject their impious flattery. But as he presently afterward looked up, he saw an owl sitting on a certain rope over his head, and immediately understood that this bird was the messenger of ill tidings, as it had once been the messenger of good tidings to him; and fell into the deepest sorrow. A severe pain also arose in his belly, and began in a most violent manner…And when he had been quite worn out by the pain in his belly for five days, he departed this life,” (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Chapter 19, Chapter 8, Section 2).3 The overall outline between these two accounts is precisely the same. During his reign as king in Judea, Herod Agrippa came to Caesarea. While there, he made a planned public appearance during which the crowd praised him as a god. He accepted this worshipful praise and, as a result, the true God struck him down by inflicting him with an internal condition that was immediately obvious to the lauding crowd and that ultimately killed him. Josephus and Acts both agree on this order of events. [End of quotes] Josephus, I suspect, may have confused the one called “King Agrippa” (but not Herod), who turned up later at Caesarea, at the trial of Paul (Acts 25:13-26:32), with the “Herod” who, in Acts 12:21-23, met his humiliating public demise. For, according to Luke Wayne again: The Jewish leaders had a favorable view of Herod Agrippa I and that he was apt to show favor to them is attested in Rabbinic sources as well. Indeed, the Mishna even records that Herod Agrippa not only participated in the Jewish feasts at Jerusalem1 but even publically [sic] read from the Torah and delivered a blessing during them. And Josephus, of course, shared this Mishnaïc view: As with the Rabbinic writings, Josephus consistently presents a positive view of Herod Agrippa I.4 Even while reluctantly reporting the above account, Josephus also claims that Herod was repentant before his death and waxes eloquently on how all the people wept and mourned for him. Josephus includes the story not because he had an interest in discrediting and shaming Herod Agrippa but rather because this really is how Herod actually died. That such an end is contrary to Josephus’ overall view of the man gives us all the more reason to conclude that Josephus reported this event only because it was a known fact of history and he thus could not do otherwise. These descriptions, however, read to me more like what one might have expected from the King Agrippa of later Acts, to whom Paul had said (Acts 26:2-3): “King Agrippa, I consider myself fortunate to stand before you today as I make my defense against all the accusations of the Jews, and especially so because you are well acquainted with all the Jewish customs and controversies”. Following through Luke, also the author of Acts, from late Luke 3 into Acts 12, we first encounter “Herod the Tetrarch” at the time of the Baptism of Jesus (Luke 3:1) and, soon afterwards, the imprisonment of John the Baptist. There we learn that Herod was already an inveterate evil-doer (Luke 3:19-20): “But when John rebuked Herod the tetrarch because of his marriage to Herodias, his brother’s wife, and all the other evil things he had done, Herod added this to them all: He locked John up in prison”. By Luke 9, the befuddled Herod is hearing about Jesus (vv. 7-9): Now Herod the tetrarch heard about all that was going on. And he was perplexed because some were saying that John had been raised from the dead, others that Elijah had appeared, and still others that one of the prophets of long ago had come back to life. But Herod said, ‘I beheaded John. Who, then, is this I hear such things about?’ And he tried to see him. By Luke 13, Herod, who had previously “tried to see” Jesus, is now wanting to kill him (vv. 31-33): At that time some Pharisees came to Jesus and said to him, ‘Leave this place and go somewhere else. Herod wants to kill you’. He replied, ‘Go tell that fox, ‘I will keep on driving out demons and healing people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.’ In any case, I must press on today and tomorrow and the next day—for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem!’ Luke 23 becomes Herod’s chance to meet Jesus face to face. It happened like this (vv. 4-12): Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, ‘I find no basis for a charge against this man’. But they insisted, ‘He stirs up the people all over Judea by his teaching. He started in Galilee and has come all the way here’. On hearing this, Pilate asked if the man was a Galilean. When he learned that Jesus was under Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem at that time. When Herod saw Jesus, he was greatly pleased, because for a long time he had been wanting to see him. From what he had heard about him, he hoped to see him perform a sign of some sort. He plied him with many questions, but Jesus gave him no answer. The chief priests and the teachers of the law were standing there, vehemently accusing him. Then Herod and his soldiers ridiculed and mocked him. Dressing him in an elegant robe, they sent him back to Pilate. That day Herod and Pilate became friends—before this they had been enemies. That is all that we read about King Herod in Luke. The author now passes seamlessly into Acts, with mention of Herod and Pilate in Acts 4:27-28: ‘Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen’. Following hard upon the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 7:60), we read (8:1): “On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria”. King Herod will soon join in on this, Acts 12, and this chapter will be the very last that we shall read of him. Firstly vv. 1-4: It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword. When he saw that this met with approval among the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This happened during the Festival of Unleavened Bread. After arresting him, he put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Passover. Peter is miraculously freed by an angel. Herod will search for him (vv. 6-18): The night before Herod was to bring him to trial, Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains, and sentries stood guard at the entrance. Suddenly an angel of the Lord appeared and a light shone in the cell. He struck Peter on the side and woke him up. ‘Quick, get up!’ he said, and the chains fell off Peter’s wrists. Then the angel said to him, ‘Put on your clothes and sandals’. And Peter did so. ‘Wrap your cloak around you and follow me’, the angel told him. Peter followed him out of the prison, but he had no idea that what the angel was doing was really happening; he thought he was seeing a vision. They passed the first and second guards and came to the iron gate leading to the city. It opened for them by itself, and they went through it. When they had walked the length of one street, suddenly the angel left him. Then Peter came to himself and said, ‘Now I know without a doubt that the Lord has sent his angel and rescued me from Herod’s clutches and from everything the Jewish people were hoping would happen’. When this had dawned on him, he went to the house of Mary the mother of John, also called Mark, where many people had gathered and were praying. Peter knocked at the outer entrance, and a servant named Rhoda came to answer the door. When she recognized Peter’s voice, she was so overjoyed she ran back without opening it and exclaimed, ‘Peter is at the door!’ ‘You’re out of your mind’, they told her. When she kept insisting that it was so, they said, ‘It must be his angel’. But Peter kept on knocking, and when they opened the door and saw him, they were astonished. Peter motioned with his hand for them to be quiet and described how the Lord had brought him out of prison. ‘Tell James and the other brothers and sisters about this’, he said, and then he left for another place. In the morning, there was no small commotion among the soldiers as to what had become of Peter. After Herod had a thorough search made for him and did not find him, he cross-examined the guards and ordered that they be executed. This wondrous narrative is immediately followed by the account of the death of Herod, the same King Herod, I believe, who slew John the Baptist, who mocked Jesus Christ, and who had Peter imprisoned. A man in whom wickedness was now full (vv. 19-24): Then Herod went from Judea to Caesarea and stayed there. He had been quarreling with the people of Tyre and Sidon; they now joined together and sought an audience with him. After securing the support of Blastus, a trusted personal servant of the king, they asked for peace, because they depended on the king’s country for their food supply. On the appointed day Herod, wearing his royal robes, sat on his throne and delivered a public address to the people. They shouted, ‘This is the voice of a god, not of a man’. Immediately, because Herod did not give praise to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died. But the word of God continued to spread and flourish. ‘He will send fire and worms into their flesh; they shall weep with pain forever’. It is fitting that the death of the great persecutor of the Jews-Christians should be mentioned in the Scriptures just as were those of other evil persecutors and blasphemers such as kings Antiochus Epiphanes and Sennacherib of Assyria.

Race to save colt, babies left to die

“The colt gets the world’s best medical care; the baby gasps for breath without so much as panadol”. Vikki Campion Australia has been called “The Lucky Country”, and we often hear it said that it is the best place in the world to live. I (Damien Mackey) think, however, that it might resemble somewhat the old Cretan and Canaanite cultures, that were technologically advanced, highly productive and prosperous, on the one hand, and yet philosophically bankrupt and incredibly barbaric, on the other hand. Two female journalists, Vikki Campion and Peta Credlin, have called out the appalling – even philosophically sanctioned – infanticide: Vikki Campion has written in The Daily Telegraph: https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/campion-inhumane-deaths-aborted-babies-born-alive-are-being-left-to-die/news-story/0e7cdbbdf245a8020674b669e9505174 Campion: ’Inhumane deaths’: Aborted babies born alive are being left to die A parliamentary inquiry has heard hearing gut-wrenching testimonies and facts like at least one aborted baby is born alive every seven days and left to die, writes Vikki Campion. Vikki Campion follow 4 min read August 24, 2024 - 9:53AM The Saturday Telegraph When Black Caviar’s foal – a colt sired by Snitzel – passed away this week, there was a virtual day of mourning. He received “around-the-clock, world-class veterinary care, but unfortunately could not be saved”, and headlines lamented devastation, with even ABC reporting that “late Black Caviar champion racehorse’s final foal has died”. As the world mourned the loss of a baby horse, a parliamentary inquiry in Queensland, sparked by Katter Australia Party MP Robbie Katter, was hearing gut-wrenching testimonies from frontline midwives like Louise Adsett. They revealed the tragic story of a baby boy, fighting for his life for five agonising hours devoid of any care, let alone that given to a colt. A motion in the Senate, which sought to “recognise that at least one baby is born alive every seven days following a failed abortion and left to die and that Australia’s health care system is enabling these inhumane deaths, and for the Senate to condemn this practice, noting that babies born alive as a result of a failed abortion deserve care,” went strategically unrecognised in most media, save for Weekend Telegraph columnist Peta Credlin on Sky. …. This was not a debate about women’s right to abortion but only pertained to what to do when an aborted baby is born alive. The colt gets the world’s best medical care; the baby gasps for breath without so much as panadol. As UAP Senator Ralph Babet spoke to his urgency motion, the Greens’ Sarah Hanson-Young made vomiting-gestures behind him for the cameras. Care for babies in the Greens stops at Gaza. Climate 200-funded independent David Pocock, who fights to the marrow in his bones to save koalas, voted against painkillers for a baby dying on a table. NSW Liberal Senator Maria Kovacic, who has never won an election in her own right and who took the spot of a giant in the history of the Senate, Jim Molan, (whose life was not just about protecting the innocent, but in protecting all Australians in the Australian Defence Force), accused her colleagues of manipulating the process of the Senate and then went on to Meta and claimed it was “trying to take away women’s rights to their own health care”. Her page has since been inundated with threats. Senator Kovacic voted with the Greens, Teals, Labor, and three other moderate Liberals, arguing, “the complex issues that arise from the contents of this motion are challenging for most people but particularly for women, and they are deeply personal”. Once the baby is outside the woman, that infant is its own person and has its own rights. If this were a koala struggling to breathe and dying with no pain relief, these same politicians would vote for the koala. However, their compassion evaporates when it comes to a baby. Worse again was the media, failing to stand up for the powerless against the powerful. You can’t get any more powerless than a 21-week-old aborted baby being denied the care that, if these senators were denied it, someone would end up in court on charges. Regardless of the circumstances, every child born alive deserves care and comfort. The motion was never a preclusion to a woman’s right to abortion; once a person is alive and dying on the table, we are talking about a completely different set of rights. As one senator pointed out, an aborted baby would likely experience “shocking injuries that will not make them viable in the sense of a long-term life”. When ambulances go to car accidents, do they drag the poor souls onto the side of the road and leave them there because they would die anyhow, or do they do their best to help them? All the motion asked for was palliative care and essential pain relief, just as we would with anybody else towards the end of their life. Is the reason people look the other way because it’s too confronting to admit innocent lives are being left to perish in a metal tray for hours with no pain relief? Spare us the faux compassion on refugees, on the horrors in Gaza, when you pretend to gag for the cameras behind a person talking about the horrors of Australian babies dying in our hospitals. Spare us the faux compassion for the koalas, when you deny a dying baby painkillers. And as for the Labor and moderate Liberal members who voted against it, how will this help their vote amongst swinging voters with no faith but find it abhorrent on a purely human level? Some question the worth of the life of an abortion survivor, due to potential disability in their life. How can you say that a physically imperfect person does not deserve to live? …. Queensland MP Robbie Katter has introduced a bill to ensure the rights of babies born alive in his state. It’s a crucial step, which means the duty of a registered health practitioner to provide medical care and treatment to a person born as a result of termination would be no different from their duty to anybody else. I’ll help with some transparency, a link to how they voted. You’ll find every so-called “caring”, “ethical” party, including Teal, Labor, the Greens and the four soft-moderate Liberal faction Senators, voted against pain relief for a baby dying in a dish. Peta Credlin has declared on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut_MXgxv1og ‘Elsewhere we would call this infanticide’: Late term abortion survivors denied medical care August 21, 2024 - 8:13PM Sky News host Peta Credlin discusses the fact that babies who survive late term abortions are refused life-saving medical care and left to die in some Australian states. “I still couldn't get over that decision in the Senate last night that refused to even allow debate on a resolution that all new-born babies, born alive after late term abortions, be allowed to receive medical treatment rather than being left to die,” Ms Credlin said. “Why should the treatment of one human person depend upon a veto from someone else? “She might have intended the child dead, but if the baby is born alive, surely its right to live trumps everything else? “Elsewhere at law, we would call this infanticide.”

Nero’s missing architecture

by Damien F. Mackey “Early in his reign, [Nero] began building a gymnasium and a bath-house, which was used to stage the Neronia. Although one can find reconstructions, these are highly speculative and there is nothing left”. Some great names in history, belonging to rulers considered to have been significant builders, appear to be lacking crucial evidence for their building works. This phenomenon I usually explain by a need for one or more alter egos, as I did in the case of pharaoh Psibkhenno (Psusennes), when I wrote: But Psibkhenno needs an alter ego, because much of his building work is thought no longer to exist. This is typical of the Twenty-First Dynasty, which is quite archaeologically deficient, as argued above. N. Grimal has written, re “The historical interpretation of Tanis”, for instance (p. 317): “Nothing remains of the actual buildings of Psusennes I …”. And again (p. 315): “At Tanis, Psusennes I built a new enclosure around the temple dedicated to the triad of Amun, Mut and Khonsu. If the few traces of reuse of earlier monuments are to be believed, he made many other contributions to the temple, but because of the current conditions of the site little is known concerning this work”. …. Far more surprising is the much more modern case of: Henry VIII’s palaces missing (3) Henry VIII's palaces missing | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Another surprise: Nero’s buildings are missing. Taken from (emphasis added): https://ancientromanhistory31-14.com/nero/the-politics-of-culture/architecture/ ROMAN HISTORY 31 BC – AD 117 ROMAN IMPERIAL HISTORY TEACHING RESOURCE …. HOME » NERO » THE POLITICS OF CULTURE » ARCHITECTURE Architecture Nero appears to have been a grandiose builder, though few of the buildings he constructed survive. Early in his reign, he began building a gymnasium and a bath-house, which was used to stage the Neronia. Although one can find reconstructions, these are highly speculative and there is nothing left. There is even disagreement as to whether [the] baths and gymnasium formed a single complex or were separate buildings, partly because the limited sources are unclear. Nevertheless, a gymnasium was a Hellenistic ideal imported from the East and there is an association of gymnasia and bath houses. The building was in itself innovative, but not wildly so. Agrippa built the Laconicum Gymnasium in 25 BC, which seems to have associated a large public bath house with a gymnasium. The building was adorned with Greek statuary and may have been built as a public amenity to echo the grand private villas of the rich and powerful. It is possible to understand Nero’s building both as … a civic improvement echoing the work of Augustus and Agrippa and as making available the benefits of Greek culture to the wider Roman public. More obviously regal was … his building of the Domus Transitoria. This building is also lost, destroyed in the great fire of Rome and buried under the Domus Aurea. It appears to have been a major construction designed to encompass some of the grand gardens in Rome (horti maecenatis) into the imperial palace. The topography of the region is extremely complex, partly because of the repeated building over of the area in this period. Augustus, Tiberius, and Gaius had all built palatial structures or extended existing buildings. …. In 64, a fire swept through much of Rome. Only four of the fourteen districts survived more or less intact, while seven were badly damaged and three destroyed. Nero had been away from the city when the fire broke out, and returned when it threatened his palace. He was not able to save the palace. It was at this point that he was moved to sing of the calamities that befell cities (Tacitus, Annales 15.38-39). After five days, the flames were put out by creating a large fire break. Almost immediately, a further fire broke out, and it is this second fire for which Nero was blamed. In part, it was because it was associated with the estate of Tigellinus, the praetorian prefect. In response to the fire, Nero spent money housing the displaced and rebuilding the city. There were people who might benefit from a conflagration. Property would be left unguarded. There were opportunities for the organised to loot. Chaos allowed mischief (Dio, 62 16-17). But Rome was a city built chaotically, using a mix of materials, especially wood in upper stories. It was and is a hot city and without pressurised water or anything like a fire-brigade, it was a fire risk. There had been major fires: this was just one of the biggest. Nero made the most of this opportunity. Rubble was cleared and used to fill the marshes at Ostia. The city was replanned with wider streets. Building regulations imposed an upper height limit on tenements. Wooden beams were restricted and each building was required to have its own wall to create the smallest of firebreaks. Water supplies were better regulated so that each district would have a substantial supply. Much of the vast sums required appear to have come from the emperor, though he may have required aristocratic contributions (Suetonius, Nero 16.1; Tacitus, Annales 15. 40–43). The fire gave Nero room for the most extravagant of buildings, the Domus Aurea, the Golden House of Nero …The site was rapidly remodeeled after AD 69 and formed the basis of buildings of Vespasian and Trajan. The remains are fragmentary and subject to on-going archaeological investigation and restoration. This was a huge construction that bridged the Palatine and Esquiline Hills. The vestibule was of sufficient size to accommodate a 120-foot-high statue of Nero. The palace was fronted by a triple colonnade stretching for a mile. Extensive gardens were attached to the house, including vineyards, woods and pastures, all stocked with appropriate animals and, around a pool, there were models of buildings. There were rooms of immense luxury: a dining room with an ivory ceiling, another that revolved somehow. His baths were filled with sea water and sulphur water. It was a dominating monument of conspicuous luxury. The building monumentalised Nero’s domination of the city of Rome. Here was a representation of the world within a city, all overseen by the towering presence of Nero (Suetonius, Nero 31; Tacitus, Annales 15. 42). Nero’s house was a public expression of his power, a palace of unbelievable opulence that marked imperial civilization. The palace was later dismantled: its meanings too tyrannical for imperial Rome. The massive statue of the emperor which gave the name to the Colosseum was reworked into a statue of Sol. The Colosseum itself, built under Vespasian, became the grand democratic location of games and public celebrations, turning the palatial into the public, turning away from the ideologies of Neronian Rome. But the Flavian remaking of the area draws attention to the ideologies embedded within the architecture. We may dismiss the palace is grandiosity and luxury, symbolic of how out of touch Nero was with the mood and needs of his people, but that is to put the story before the evidence: we supposedly know Nero was out of touch and so we see his buildings as reflecting his moral failings. But what if turn the question round? A great palace was not a private house. A gymnasium was a public amenity not just a gesture of cultural allegiance to the Greek world. Is it possible that Nero’s ideological construction of Rome’s greatness needed the great palaces and Greek-style buildings? Augustus is praised for his extensive monumental building programme. Why is Nero critiqued? [End of quote]

Let us not over multiply the Herods and Agrippas

Part One: The many parts of Augustus and Herod by Damien F. Mackey King Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, of the Seleucid and Infancy era, is the same as the emperor Augustus. He is also the emperor Hadrian, again ruling during a Jewish revolt. His signet, second man, is Philip (and the combination Herod Philip is attested), and is Marcus Agrippa, and is Herodes “Atticus” (surname of the wife of Marcus Agrippa). King Herod ‘the Great’ Starting with King Herod traditionally known as ‘the Great’, the infanticide monster of Matthew 2:16-18, he - and the whole Nativity/Infancy era - needs to be re-set in a revised Seleucid period, when King Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ was persecuting the Yahwistic (and Maccabean) Jews. That this was the era to which King Herod rightly belonged is apparent from the following statement by Ray Vander Laan, about King Herod seeking to Hellenise his subjects: ““Herod brought the "games" into the Jewish culture as part of his attempt to Hellenize his kingdom”. I commented on this most extraordinary situation in my article: Herod and Games at Caesarea - Agrippa and Games at Caesarea (4) Herod and Games at Caesarea - Agrippa and Games at Caesarea | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Doesn’t this statement read a little bit strangely, to say the least? King Herod ‘the Great’, supposedly a half-Idumean and (perhaps) half-Jew, a presumed client of Imperial Rome, introducing into Jewish culture a pagan Hellenistic phenomenon in order to make Greek (“to hellenize”) a Jewish kingdom subject to the Romans. …. With the Matthew 2 and Luke 2 narratives now re-set to the Maccabean era, and with: Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus (5) Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu then the emperor Augustus must be newly identified with Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’. Rome is never actually mentioned in the Lucan narrative: Rome surprisingly minimal in [the] Bible (2) Rome surprisingly minimal in Bible | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Philip, second to King Antiochus, whom the latter appoints to rule over Jerusalem, must then be King Herod himself: Herod, the emperor’s signet right-hand man https://www.academia.edu/113954468/Herod_the_emperors_signet_right_hand_man This is where we need to start connecting up names. A Herod Philip, thought to have been the son of ‘the Great’, will later rule over Iturea and Trachonitis (Luke 3:1). But I have also included an Agrippa connection in the above article, by identifying King Herod (= the “Philip” serving King Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’) with the favourite, and second, of the emperor Augustus, Marcus Agrippa. Another famous Herod (Herodes), “Atticus”, will serve the emperor Hadrian in Judah. “Atticus” just happens to be a name of the wife of Marcus Agrippa, and Hadrian – who, in Jewish legend can sometimes substitute for Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ – has been called “a mirror-image” of the same Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, and he is, too: [Hadrian] a reincarnation of Augustus (5) Hadrian a reincarnation of Augustus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu So, we just keeping going around in ever-decreasing circles. Let us pause here to take a much-needed breath and to recapitulate. King Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, of the Seleucid and Infancy era, is the same as the emperor Augustus. He is also the emperor Hadrian, again ruling during a Jewish revolt. His signet, second man, is Philip (and the combination Herod Philip is attested), and is Marcus Agrippa, and is Herodes “Atticus” (surname of the wife of Marcus Agrippa). Further, compare the face of Marcus Agrippa with that of Herod Agrippa: Oh, but, so far I have not included this Herod Agrippa in the mix. But I shall need to. In my article on the Games in Caesarea, above, I had hinted that King Herod and Agrippa so-called I were one and the same king, celebrating a Games for the emperor in Caesarea. Also in that article there was found an uncanny connection between Herod and Marcus Agrippa: Apropos of this connection, Herod as Marcus Agrippa, there is an intriguing article by Robert L. Hohlfelder, “Beyond Coincidence? Marcus Agrippa and King Herod's Harbor” (JNES, 59(4), 2000): The Roman harbour at Caesarea “commissioned by Herod the Great in 22 BCE and sponsored by Augustus' military commander Marcus Agrippa …”. Now I am presuming that Agrippa I and II must also have been one and the same, particularly given that II had the other name of - wait for it - Marcus Julius Agrippa. And, so, the merry-go-round continues. I think that the Herod and (Marcus) Agrippa combination pertains just to King Herod. Then there is one “King Herod” in Acts 12, generally thought to have been Herod Agrippa I, but never actually called Agrippa. (See Part Two) Then there is one “King Agrippa” in Acts 25-26, generally thought to have been Herod Agrippa II, but never actually called Herod. (See Part Three) Part Two: Herod Antipas, the king who would be a god With Agrippa I and II taken out of a late context, and connected with Herod ‘the Great’ (Part One), then the “King Herod” of Acts 12 can only be (so I think) Herod Antipas, also known as “Herod the Tetrarch” (cf. Matthew 14:1). The Great Persecutor He was the confused king who gave permission for the beheading of John the Baptist. By so doing, Herod Antipas was symbolically (though unwittingly) removing the head of the Old Testament, and thereby enabling for the manifestation of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. Herod, whom Jesus had earlier called ‘that fox’ (some insist, ‘vixen’) (Luke 13:32), and who had warned his disciples to ‘Beware of … the leaven of Herod’ (Mark 8:15), would, with his soldiers, mock the captive Jesus (Luke 23:11). Not much later, after the martyrdom of Stephen, he had the Apostle James beheaded. Acts 12:1-2: “It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword”. Uncannily like Henry VIII, Herod Antipas first beheaded a John (Fisher) and then, afterwards, a ‘James the Greater’ (Thomas More). Am I missing something? Henry VIII certainly is: Henry VIII’s palaces missing (3) Henry VIII's palaces missing | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Goaded on by a rising popularity, Herod Antipas then had the Apostle Peter arrested (Acts 12:3-11): When he saw that this met with approval among the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This happened during the Festival of Unleavened Bread. After arresting him, he put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Passover. So Peter was kept in prison, but the church was earnestly praying to God for him. The night before Herod was to bring him to trial, Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains, and sentries stood guard at the entrance. Suddenly an angel of the Lord appeared and a light shone in the cell. He struck Peter on the side and woke him up. ‘Quick, get up!’ he said, and the chains fell off Peter’s wrists. Then the angel said to him, ‘Put on your clothes and sandals’. And Peter did so. ‘Wrap your cloak around you and follow me’, the angel told him. Peter followed him out of the prison, but he had no idea that what the angel was doing was really happening; he thought he was seeing a vision. They passed the first and second guards and came to the iron gate leading to the city. It opened for them by itself, and they went through it. When they had walked the length of one street, suddenly the angel left him. Then Peter came to himself and said, ‘Now I know without a doubt that the Lord has sent his angel and rescued me from Herod’s clutches and from everything the Jewish people were hoping would happen’. It does not pay for kings to aspire to divinity and to persecute the children of God. Judith (the prophetess Huldah) told of what the fate of such would be (Judith 16:17): ‘Woe to the nations that rise up against my people! The Lord Almighty will take vengeance on them in the day of judgment; he will send fire and worms into their flesh; they shall weep in pain forever’. ‘The Lord Almighty … will send fire and worms into their flesh …’. This is what happened to King Antiochus known as ‘Epiphanes’, or ‘God Manifest’. Though some preferred for him the epithet, ‘Epimenes’, ‘The Madman’. We read the account of the terrible death of The Madman in e.g. 2 Maccabees 9:4-12: Overcome with anger, he planned to make the Jews suffer for the injury done by those who had put him to flight. Therefore he ordered his charioteer to drive without stopping until he finished the journey. Yet the condemnation of Heaven rode with him, because he said in his arrogance, ‘I will make Jerusalem the common graveyard of Jews as soon as I arrive there’. So the all-seeing Lord, the God of Israel, struck him down with an incurable and invisible blow; for scarcely had he uttered those words when he was seized with excruciating pains in his bowels and sharp internal torment, a fit punishment for him who had tortured the bowels of others with many barbarous torments. Far from giving up his insolence, he was all the more filled with arrogance. Breathing fire in his rage against the Jews, he gave orders to drive even faster. As a result he hurtled from the speeding chariot, and every part of his body was racked by the violent fall. Thus he who previously, in his superhuman presumption, thought he could command the waves of the sea, and imagined he could weigh the mountaintops in his scales, was now thrown to the ground and had to be carried on a litter, clearly manifesting to all the power of God. The body of this impious man swarmed with worms, and while he was still alive in hideous torments, his flesh rotted off, so that the entire army was sickened by the stench of his corruption. Shortly before, he had thought that he could reach the stars of heaven, and now, no one could endure to transport the man because of this intolerable stench. At last, broken in spirit, he began to give up his excessive arrogance, and to gain some understanding, under the scourge of God, for he was racked with pain unceasingly. When he could no longer bear his own stench, he said, ‘It is right to be subject to God, and not to think one’s mortal self equal to God’. And Todd Bolen (July 2010) tells of the extraordinary death of King Herod, whom he identifies (wrongly, I believe) as Herod Agrippa I: https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/opeds/agrippa357926 The death of Herod Agrippa I is one of the few events that is reported by both the book of Acts and Josephus. Bible readers recall that Agrippa was struck down by an angel of the Lord while delivering a public address in Caesarea (Acts 12:19-23). The account is brief, but the immediate cause of his illness is clearly given in the text: the crowd hailed Herod as a god and the king passively accepted their praise. Despite the miraculous elements, most scholars believe that the account in Acts is generally accurate because of a parallel record in Josephus (Ant. 19.8.2 §§343-50). Most scholars believe that the two reports had independent sources, and though they agree in several respects, Josephus’s longer account contains more details, including the incident’s occasion, location, and aftermath. …. Acts records that Herod gave the address in Caesarea, and Josephus places it in the theater of Caesarea. Acts does not say anything about the time of day, but Josephus writes that it occurred early in the morning. Acts connects the episode with the resolution of a quarrel with the people of Tyre and Sidon, but says of the public address itself only that it occurred “on the appointed day.” Josephus relates that Agrippa appeared to the crowd on the second day of a festival intended to honor Caesar. Both sources speak of Herod’s clothing, but whereas Acts says simply that he was “wearing his royal robes,” Josephus describes the garments as made “wholly of silver” and when “illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun’s rays . . . was so resplendent as to spread a horror over those that looked intently upon him.” Josephus indicates that the crowd hailed Agrippa as a god because of his radiant clothing, but Luke’s brief account may imply that they did so in response to the sound of Agrippa’s voice. Both agree that Agrippa accepted the crowd’s enthusiastic praise and consequently died shortly thereafter. Excavations at Caesarea are helpful in reconstructing this event. It is likely that as successor to most of the vast holdings of his grandfather King Herod, Agrippa I took up residence in the promontory palace on the south side of the city. …. About a decade later, Agrippa’s successor, the Roman governor Felix, occupied the same palace (Acts 24:35). Presumably, then, on the morning in which he was struck down, Agrippa left this palace and proceeded to his appointed place in order to address the crowd. According to Josephus, Agrippa came to the theater (θέατρον) where he so inspired the gathered populace that he was hailed as a god. On this basis, tourists today usually visit the Herodian theater and envision the event occurring in this semi-circular entertainment venue. I believe, however, that Josephus’s designation of the location was inaccurate. Analysis of his account indicates that the amphitheater, rather than the theater, was the setting for Herod’s public address. …. The first clue that Josephus gives is the time of day. He says that it occurred at “the beginning of the day” (ἀρχομένης ἡμέρας). Dressed in a garment made “wholly of silver,” Agrippa dazzled the crowd when his robes were “illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun’s rays upon it.” The theater, however, faces west. If the king was positioned on the stage, the sun would not have reached over the multi-storied seating area before mid-morning. And if he was speaking from the seating area, the sun would not have reflected off his clothes until even later. The amphitheater, by contrast, is wide, and the twelve rows of seating would not have blocked the sun. Agrippa could have been addressing the crowd from the western side of the amphitheater where the sun would be able to reflect off his clothes early in the morning. The second indication that Agrippa was struck down in the amphitheater is the occasion of his death. Acts says only that it occurred “on the appointed day” (τακτῇ δὲ ἡμέρᾳ), but Josephus describes the event occurring on the second day of a festival in honor of Caesar in which a great multitude was assembled. …. These games included combats and horse races (Josephus, Ant. 16.5.1 §§136-141), and were conducted in the amphitheater, not in the theater which was designed for dramatic performances. The emperor’s birthday was also celebrated with sports, and thus a setting in the amphitheater is most likely for this event as well.’ A third piece of supporting evidence can be adduced from Josephus’s report of an encounter between Pilate and a large crowd about a decade earlier (War 2.9.3 §§172). When the Roman governor sent standards with Caesar’s image into Jerusalem, a large delegation traveled to Caesarea to entreat Pilate to remove these offensive placards. Josephus writes that “on the next day Pilate sat upon his tribunal [βήμα] in the great stadium [μεγάλῳ σταδίῳ].” …. The word for stadium more naturally refers to the amphitheater, particularly with the modifier “great.” …. It is reasonable that the bema was located in the same place in Agrippa’s day, and that he addressed the crowd from the customary place. Finally, it should be noted that Josephus’s use of terms designating buildings of entertainment is known to be imprecise. In Jerusalem he states at one point that Herod built a theater and an amphitheater (Ant. 15.8.1 §268), and elsewhere he mentions a hippodrome (War 2.3.1 §44; Ant 17.10.2§255). None of these buildings have been located in Jerusalem today, and most scholars conclude that only one, or at most two, existed, and that Josephus referred to a single building by multiple terms. The model at the Israel Museum (formerly located at the Holyland Hotel), for instance, reconstructs only a theater and a hippodrome in the city. …. In other words, if Josephus could refer to an amphitheater as a hippodrome in Jerusalem, he certainly could have identified an amphitheater as a theater in Caesarea. He appears to have made precisely this mistake in describing sporting events and horse races as occurring in the theater of Jerusalem (Ant. 15.8.1-4 §§269-85). …. The lines of evidence thus converge to locate the amphitheater of Caesarea as the place where Agrippa addressed the people and contracted his fatal illness. It was here that the Roman governor’s bema was located, and it was here where the crowds gathered to hear Agrippa’s address in advance of the day’s games. Unlike the theater, the design of the amphitheater best suits illumination of Agrippa’s garments by the rays of the early morning sun. One other aspect is elucidated by an understanding of the event’s location. Immediately adjacent to the northern end of the amphitheater was the imperial temple, the center of worship of the emperor and the goddess Roma. …. The crowds that hailed Agrippa that day were very familiar with the practice of honoring the emperor as a god. Only a few years earlier, Agrippa’s close friend, Emperor Caligula, demanded that he be revered as a god. One way that Caligula signaled his desire for worship was by the clothing he wore, oftentimes dressing himself in the attire of one of the deities. …. Unfortunately for Agrippa, the God of Israel was less willing to overlook such blasphemy in a king with Jewish heritage ruling in the Promised Land. The king who called himself “the great” recognized that his punishment was just—the intense pain apparently brought moral clarity—for he declared with irony that “I, who was called immortal by you, am now under sentence of death” (Josephus, Ant. 19.8.2 §347). …. [End of quotes] ‘The Lord Almighty … will send fire and worms into their flesh …’. One wonders what sort of death greeted King Herod ‘the Great’’, who, if he was Philip as I am saying, was even “more barbarous” - according to 2 Maccabees - than his master, ‘Epiphanes’ (5:22): “In Jerusalem there was Philip of the Phrygians, who had a manner more barbarous than that of the man who appointed him”. Part Three: King Agrippa, Queen Bernice, and Paul This King Agrippa, who is later than the two Herods, was apparently a far more benign character than they, with a good understanding of Judaïsm. We read in Acts 25-26 of his arrival, with his Queen, during the trial of Paul in Caesarea: Acts 25:13-27: Festus Consults King Agrippa A few days later King Agrippa and Bernice arrived at Caesarea to pay their respects to Festus. Since they were spending many days there, Festus discussed Paul’s case with the king. He said: ‘There is a man here whom Felix left as a prisoner. When I went to Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews brought charges against him and asked that he be condemned. ‘I told them that it is not the Roman custom to hand over anyone before they have faced their accusers and have had an opportunity to defend themselves against the charges. When they came here with me, I did not delay the case, but convened the court the next day and ordered the man to be brought in. When his accusers got up to speak, they did not charge him with any of the crimes I had expected. Instead, they had some points of dispute with him about their own religion and about a dead man named Jesus who Paul claimed was alive. I was at a loss how to investigate such matters; so I asked if he would be willing to go to Jerusalem and stand trial there on these charges. But when Paul made his appeal to be held over for the Emperor’s decision, I ordered him held until I could send him to Caesar’. Then Agrippa said to Festus, ‘I would like to hear this man myself’. He replied, ‘Tomorrow you will hear him’. Paul Before Agrippa Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?” The next day Agrippa and Bernice came with great pomp and entered the audience room with the high-ranking military officers and the prominent men of the city. At the command of Festus, Paul was brought in. Festus said: ‘King Agrippa, and all who are present with us, you see this man! The whole Jewish community has petitioned me about him in Jerusalem and here in Caesarea, shouting that he ought not to live any longer. I found he had done nothing deserving of death, but because he made his appeal to the Emperor I decided to send him to Rome. But I have nothing definite to write to His Majesty about him. Therefore I have brought him before all of you, and especially before you, King Agrippa, so that as a result of this investigation I may have something to write. For I think it is unreasonable to send a prisoner on to Rome without specifying the charges against him’. Acts 26:1-32: Then Agrippa said to Paul, ‘You have permission to speak for yourself’. So Paul motioned with his hand and began his defense: ‘King Agrippa, I consider myself fortunate to stand before you today as I make my defense against all the accusations of the Jews, and especially so because you are well acquainted with all the Jewish customs and controversies. Therefore, I beg you to listen to me patiently. The Jewish people all know the way I have lived ever since I was a child, from the beginning of my life in my own country, and also in Jerusalem. They have known me for a long time and can testify, if they are willing, that I conformed to the strictest sect of our religion, living as a Pharisee. And now it is because of my hope in what God has promised our ancestors that I am on trial today. This is the promise our twelve tribes are hoping to see fulfilled as they earnestly serve God day and night. King Agrippa, it is because of this hope that these Jews are accusing me. Why should any of you consider it incredible that God raises the dead? I too was convinced that I ought to do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth. And that is just what I did in Jerusalem. On the authority of the chief priests I put many of the Lord’s people in prison, and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them. Many a time I went from one synagogue to another to have them punished, and I tried to force them to blaspheme. I was so obsessed with persecuting them that I even hunted them down in foreign cities. On one of these journeys I was going to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. About noon, King Agrippa, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Hebrew, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ ‘Then I asked, ‘Who are you, Lord?’’ ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied. Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen and will see of me. I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’ ‘So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven. First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and then to the Gentiles, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and demonstrate their repentance by their deeds. That is why some Jews seized me in the Temple courts and tried to kill me. But God has helped me to this very day; so I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen— that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles’. At this point Festus interrupted Paul’s defense. ‘You are out of your mind, Paul!’ he shouted. ‘Your great learning is driving you insane’. ‘I am not insane, most excellent Festus’, Paul replied. ‘What I am saying is true and reasonable. The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner. King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do’. Then Agrippa said to Paul, ‘Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?’ Paul replied, ‘Short time or long—I pray to God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains’. The king rose, and with him the governor and Bernice and those sitting with them. After they left the room, they began saying to one another, ‘This man is not doing anything that deserves death or imprisonment’. Agrippa said to Festus, ‘This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar’. This King Agrippa is nowhere, as already stated, called Herod.

Hell, the definitive Fiery Furnace

by Damien F. Mackey ““Eternal damnation”, therefore, is not attributed to God's initiative because in his merciful love he can only desire the salvation of the beings he created. In reality, it is the creature who closes himself to his love. Damnation consists precisely in definitive separation from God, freely chosen by the human person and confirmed with death that seals his choice for ever. God’s judgement ratifies this state”. John Paul II John Paul II ‘the Great’ gave the following reasonable explanation of this most terrifying of subjects: HELL: https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_28071999.html JOHN PAUL II GENERAL AUDIENCE Wednesday 28 July 1999 Dear Brothers and Sisters, 1. God is the infinitely good and merciful Father. But man, called to respond to him freely, can unfortunately choose to reject his love and forgiveness once and for all, thus separating himself for ever from joyful communion with him. It is precisely this tragic situation that Christian doctrine explains when it speaks of eternal damnation or hell. It is not a punishment imposed externally by God but a development of premises already set by people in this life. The very dimension of unhappiness which this obscure condition brings can in a certain way be sensed in the light of some of the terrible experiences we have suffered which, as is commonly said, make life “hell”. In a theological sense however, hell is something else: it is the ultimate consequence of sin itself, which turns against the person who committed it. It is the state of those who definitively reject the Father’s mercy, even at the last moment of their life. 2. To describe this reality Sacred Scripture uses a symbolical language which will gradually be explained. In the Old Testament the condition of the dead had not yet been fully disclosed by Revelation. Moreover it was thought that the dead were amassed in Sheol, a land of darkness (cf. Ez 28:8; 31:14; Jb 10:21f.; 38:17; Ps 30:10; 88:7, 13), a pit from which one cannot reascend (cf. Jb 7:9), a place in which it is impossible to praise God (cf. Is 38:18; Ps 6:6). The New Testament sheds new light on the condition of the dead, proclaiming above all that Christ by his Resurrection conquered death and extended his liberating power to the kingdom of the dead. Redemption nevertheless remains an offer of salvation which it is up to people to accept freely. This is why they will all be judged “by what they [have done]” (Rv 20:13). By using images, the New Testament presents the place destined for evildoers as a fiery furnace, where people will “weep and gnash their teeth” (Mt 13:42; cf. 25:30, 41), or like Gehenna with its “unquenchable fire” (Mk 9:43). All this is narrated in the parable of the rich man, which explains that hell is a place of eternal suffering, with no possibility of return, nor of the alleviation of pain (cf. Lk 16:19-31). The Book of Revelation also figuratively portrays in a “pool of fire” those who exclude themselves from the book of life, thus meeting with a “second death” (Rv 20:13f.). Whoever continues to be closed to the Gospel is therefore preparing for “eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might” (2 Thes 1:9). 3. The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy. This is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the truths of faith on this subject: “To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called ‘hell’” (n. 1033). “Eternal damnation”, therefore, is not attributed to God's initiative because in his merciful love he can only desire the salvation of the beings he created. In reality, it is the creature who closes himself to his love. Damnation consists precisely in definitive separation from God, freely chosen by the human person and confirmed with death that seals his choice for ever. God’s judgement ratifies this state. 4. Christian faith teaches that in taking the risk of saying “yes” or “no”, which marks the human creature’s freedom, some have already said no. They are the spiritual creatures that rebelled against God’s love and are called demons (cf. Fourth Lateran Council, DS 800-801). What happened to them is a warning to us: it is a continuous call to avoid the tragedy which leads to sin and to conform our life to that of Jesus who lived his life with a “yes” to God. Damnation remains a real possibility, but it is not granted to us, without special divine revelation, to know which human beings are effectively involved in it. The thought of hell — and even less the improper use of biblical images — must not create anxiety or despair, but is a necessary and healthy reminder of freedom within the proclamation that the risen Jesus has conquered Satan, giving us the Spirit of God who makes us cry “Abba, Father!” (Rm 8:15; Gal 4:6). This prospect, rich in hope, prevails in Christian proclamation. It is effectively reflected in the liturgical tradition of the Church, as the words of the Roman Canon attest: “Father, accept this offering from your whole family ... save us from final damnation, and count us among those you have chosen”. ________________________________________ Symbolism in Burning Fiery Furnace We burn either within the Sacred Heart of Jesus, which is salvific, all-encompassing, pure ecstasy, or we burn without (outside of) the Sacred Heart of Jesus, which is hopeless, agonising and destructive. The three young colleagues of the prophet Daniel were thus not harmed when dwelling within the heart of a fire, which same fire, however, annihilated those outside it, the henchmen of the base King Nebuchednezzar, symbolising the damned, and the Devil. The three young seers at Fatima, Portugal (1917), Lucia, Jacinta and Francisco, who were spared being tossed into boiling oil: Three Fatima children, like Daniel’s three young friends, faced with being burned alive (3) Three Fatima children, like Daniel's three young friends, faced with being burned alive | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu were promised by Our Lady of the Rosary that they would go to Heaven. They were to escape the definitive Fiery Furnace, which they were shown a month earlier (July 13), which is Hell. https://www.ncregister.com/blog/on-july-13-1917-our-lady-of-fatima-showed-a-vision-of-hell-and-taught-us-how-to-avoid-it On July 13, 1917, Our Lady of Fatima Showed a Vision of Hell and Taught Us How to Avoid It On July 13, 1917, Our Lady gave several specific directives that, if we heeded, the world would not be in the situation it finds itself today. “You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart.” (photo: John Martin, “Fallen Angels in Hell”, ca. 1841) Joseph Pronechen Blogs July 13, 2017 A hundred years ago, during the Fatima apparition on July 13, 1917, there was mention of the Rosary, a vision of hell, direction to help sinners, talk of consecration to the Immaculate Heart and consecration of Russia. Our Lady began by reminding the children: “I want you to come back here on the thirteenth of next month. Continue to say the Rosary every day in honor of Our Lady of the Rosary, to obtain the peace of the world and the end of the war, because only she can obtain it.” That is a directive, an instruction, a motherly order that we should heed and practice now more than ever. In the last 100 years, how many did so? Next, she told them when she would reveal her identity and what way she would provide for people to accept the apparitions as true. “You must come here every month, and in October I will tell you who I am and what I want. I will then perform a miracle so that all may believe.” Then, Our Lady set the scene and gave the children — and us — a way to help others so they would not end up as part of the vision she was going to show them next. She said: Make sacrifices for sinners, and say often, especially while making a sacrifice: O Jesus, this is for love of Thee, for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation for offences committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Frightening Vision When Our Lady told this to the children, she opened her hands as she had during the two previous apparitions. Lucia described what happened. “The rays of light seemed to penetrate the earth, and we saw as it were a sea of fire.” In The True Story of Fatima, Father John de Marchi recounted how Jacinta’s father Ti Marto witnessed the children’s actions in the Cova da Iria that day. He remembered “that Lucia gasped in sudden horror, that her face was white as death, and that all who were there heard her cry in terror to the Virgin Mother, whom she called by name,” wrote Father de Marchi. “The children were looking at their Lady in terror, speechless, and unable to plead for relief from the scene they had witnessed.” Later at the request of the Bishop of Leiria, Lucia described the vision this way: As Our Lady spoke these last words, she opened her hands once more, as she had done during the two previous months. The rays of light seemed to penetrate the earth, and we saw as it were a sea of fire. Plunged in this fire were demons and souls in human form, like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze, floating about in the conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames that issued from within themselves together with great clouds of smoke now falling back on every side like sparks in huge fires, without weight or equilibrium, amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fear. (It must have been this sight which caused me to cry out, as people say they heard me). The demons could be distinguished by their terrifying and repellent likeness to frightful and unknown animals, black and transparent like burning coals. Terrified and as if to plead for succour, we looked up at Our Lady, who said to us, so kindly and so sadly: You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. Solution for Salvation It’s essential to remember that before this vision given to young children, Our Lady presented them that very short, very powerful prayer to help sinners. Then in July, after the vision, she gave them — and us — another essential prayer to help sinners: When you pray the Rosary, say after each mystery: O my Jesus, forgive us, save us from the fire of hell. Lead all souls to heaven, especially those who are most in need. She had already taught this vital prayer to the children as a prelude to this further vision a month earlier, on June 13, this way: I want you to continue saying the Rosary every day. And after each one of the mysteries, my children, I want you to pray in this way: O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fire of hell. Take all souls to heaven, especially those who are most in need. There’s no time like this 100th anniversary year to begin this addition to the Rosary immediately if you haven’t already done so. The Children Respond The children took Our Lady’s revelations and requests to heart. Lucia recounted that soon after Jacinta didn’t want to play one day. She told Lucia, “That Lady told us to say the Rosary and to make sacrifices for the conversion of sinners. So from now on, when we say the Rosary we must say the whole Hail Mary and the whole Our Father! And the sacrifices, how are we going to make them?” Francisco said a good sacrifice would be going without lunch. Next, Jacinta asked about how long hell lasts, and heaven. Lucia said the idea of eternity made the biggest impression on Jacinta. Thinking about sinners and hell, Jacinta said, “Poor sinners! We have to pray and make many sacrifices for them!” Then she went on: “How good that Lady is! She has already promised to take us to Heaven!” Lucia described how Jacinta took this matter of making sacrifices for the conversion of sinners so seriously “she never let a single opportunity escape her.” For example, in the area were two very poor families with small children. Jacinta told her brother Francisco and Lucia, “Let’s give our lunch to those poor children, for the conversion of sinners.” The children agreed. This was just the tip of the prayers and sacrifices for sinners that they carried on. Father de Marchi described how “Jacinta's boundless zeal permitted her no rest. Looking tactfully at her cousin and her brother, she seemed to feel that with their fierce and heart-wrenching supplications, they could pierce the veil-of heaven and, all by themselves, depopulate the pits of hell.” Jacinta would tell her brother and cousin, “‘We mustn't stop our prayers to save poor souls! So many go to hell!’ Her heart beat in endless pity for the damned, but her intelligence demanded reasonably to understand why people went to such a frightful and hideous place as they had seen.” Jacinta asked, “Lucia — do you remember how our Lady's heart, when she showed it to us, was being pierced by thorns?" "Surely, I do” Lucia replied. “It simply means that her heart is wounded by the sins of people, and she is asking them to be sorry, and to make up for their sins, so that God will not have to punish them too much. She can't make people be good. They must themselves want to be good." Later, very ill, Jacinta would share many insights, among them, “The sins which cause most souls to go to hell are the sins of the flesh.” Father di Marchi noted the children realized why Our Lady asked to pray and make sacrifices for sinners. "Do this," the Lady was saying. "It is a great and good and loving thing to do. It will please God who is Love." “They became, of their free will, co-redeemers with Christ. The vision of hell that they had seen in July was not erased from their minds. They prayed incessantly. They sought new sacrifice. Praying the Rosary, they never forgot to include the prayer after each decade Our Lady taught them to say.”