---

From: V @ USA
To: Various



Our comment:

It seems to us to be pure philosophers' entertainment, of no real value in bringing us closer to know God.

How can anyone encapsulate God in the language of Mathematics or Philosophy and then say that "it has been proven"? It is impossible! He cannot be "encapsulated"!

The only thing that these thinkers (3) succeed in proving is that "their" concept of God has a certain logical consistency. But it does not cease to be, in each case, a concept so limited that it supposedly contains God —the uncreated Creator in whose mind the Universe is contained— in a few logical statements.

With some humor we might summarize it thus:


Nevertheless, even if they are wrong in their approach to God, perhaps we can learn something about why so many people, throughout history, have been obstinate in "proving" the existence of God philosophically, "scientifically" or even "mathematically".

..... Keep reading



Back to This Month's Index

---

Did you know that...?

The Archangels Michael, Gabriel and Raphael are the ambassadors of the Holy Trinity. As such, they were received by the patriarch Abraham, to whom they appeared in human form (Genesis 18:1-16). They represent, respectively, an image of the Father (St. Michael), the Word (St. Gabriel) and the Holy Spirit (St. Raphael). They are the three principal of the "seven Spirits who are before the throne of God" (Tobit 11:15; Rev. 1:5).

..... Keep reading


Back to This Month's Index

---

From DL:


Thank you for asking!

Those are very valid questions! We will try to elaborate about Francis's context and logic that explain much of how he thinks and acts.

It is a common mistake to see this anti-Pope (5) as a "World Master" in the sense of a wise and all-powerful planner. He is not so. Bergoglio is, in relative terms (compared to the sharks and wolves who are really in control), a fool —a very simple person with no depth of mind— who, like many other world leaders, is being manipulated for the accomplishment of the overall plan. But, at the same time, he is not exempt from accountability.

..... Keep reading



Back to This Month's Index

---

FROM OUR FILES:  February 5th, 2015

From miguel de Portugal

We have received, from a regular visitor to our pages, a link to a site called: What is so Bad about Christianity? (1)

It is an extensive "bashing Christianity" site. We just briefly looked at the index and we saw one section which fully illustrates what we keep warning all about. It follows:


That is exactly the way outsiders see Christianity and which causes its rejection by those who would otherwise embrace the Faith. The problem with their perception is that what they are addressing is applied Christianity, which has very little to do with true Christianity.

Unfortunately these people - and many others - reject true Christianity (2) based on what they see - an adulteration of the true Christian Faith; an adulteration which we denounce day in and day out!  (3)

We must live our faith and, in so doing, be living witnesses of what Jesus Christ clearly taught us. When we do that, those who are counted among the Elect, but are still away from the Faith because of what they see, will rush to embrace Christianity with great fervor.



Back to This Month's Index

---

Immediately after posting the September 12 issue in this FYI&R page (see below), we received an alert from a close collaborator, which follows:



A.  Thank you for you attentiveness! We take this as an opportunity to clarify the question for all.

Actually, it was not a typo. "Maledict" is what we intended to say – not as an insult, but as an appropriate description.

However, since in that particular text we see now that it is causing confusion, we have edited that text and replaced "Maledict" (used only two times) with the more well-known and official name of "Benedict".

A clarification

"Benedict", from Latin, means "blessed" (1). "Maledict", also from Latin, means the opposite, "cursed" (2). "Benedict XVI" is the religious name chosen by Joseph A. Ratzinger for his office as Bishop of Rome, commonly called "Pope" – now "Pope Emeritus".

We have no problem in addressing him as "Benedict XVI" – IF you consider that name as a person's name devoid of meaning, which is usually the case in almost any context.

BUT, since some speakers are able to understand the original meaning of the word "benedict" (1)(2) and may consider that meaning as properly applied to him, we feel obliged to alert our readers, lest anyone think that we share that opinion. Would you be at easy, for example, calling a ruthless dictator "Clement", or a prideful and arrogant millionaire "Simplicius"?

Therefore, we proceed as follows. In the general case, we refer to him as "Benedict XVI", in order not to create confusion about who we are referring to. But, in some cases, and in order to alert or remind our readers about what we consider to be a reality, we refer to him as "Maledict" – not as an insult, nor as a desire to curse him, but as an appropriate description of the position which he occupies in the End of These Times (now in tandem with Francis).

That name, "Maledict", was proposed by miguel de Portugal (3) in 2010 and we at The M+G+R Foundation still think that it fits. Perfectly. Should the reader have some doubts about the details, we invite him/her to read, for example, miguel de Portugal's commentary of December 23, 2010 in For Your Information & Reference (4).

Ricardo de Valencia



Back to This Month's Index

---

FROM OUR FILES:  June 21st, 2007

From Initials Withheld @ Somewhere in the World

Last Sunday I attended a service at [name withheld] in [location withheld]. It is an Anglican church that we have attended 3 or 4 times. Each time, it has been a different type of service.

In between we have become well acquainted with the Arch Deacon, [name withheld]. We have met him informally on a number of occasions over a coffee.

I am troubled by a few things:


A Taiha (which was used during the services by children) is an ancient Maori hand held spear. I suspect there is some politically correct idea that it represents some 'spirituality' in Maoridom and one of the women ministers that day was Maori - she was the one who called the child up.

I wrote to the Arch Deacon with my concerns and I suspect I am at risk of upsetting this man, who seems quite 'comfortable' with his little (and shrinking) Parish.

However, something is amiss here.

Initials and country withheld


A.  Indeed something "is amiss here" and it is not you!

We have addressed the issue of women in the Priesthood already thus:


You are also right about the Transubstantiation (4) as well as the use of the Taiha during the service. Any symbol of the death culture, a "culture" which started millennia ago (5), certainly has no place in a House of Worship. That is precisely why Jesus lived, died and resurrected for us - so that we would rescind such "culture" and embrace the "culture of love". A culture which those entrusted to diffuse the Good News rapidly forgot returning to the death culture (6) which still today, reigns supreme... and will until God repeats what He did during the time of Noah. This time, true to His Word, He will not use water... He will use fire! (7)

Whether what we have written above is believed or not because "...we do not know the face of miguel de Portugal...", mankind will have to answer to the face of God why our final warnings (8) - delivered in His Name - have not bee heeded.

We remind one and all what we have said before and related by Matthew 3:7 - And seeing many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them: Ye brood of vipers, who hath shewed you to flee from the wrath to come?








The following items are from the news. We thank PD for providing us the first item (and a link related to the last). The rest (and more, if we had the time) are easy to find in a five-minutes search with the appropiate key words.
[Our underscoring]

Opus Dei in Argentina responds to accusations of exploiting women (1)

Opus Dei paid $977,000 to settle sexual misconduct claim against prominent Catholic priest (2)


ODAN denounces: "Basic Human Rights were violated" (3)


"To guard the charism": In new decree, Pope Francis makes changes to Opus Dei (4)


The M+G+R Foundation comments:

As you can see in the last item, Francis confirms the Vatican's endorsement for Opus Dei – a privilege that was granted in full by John Paul II (5) and exalted by Benedict XVI (6). Francis makes a distinction between "charism" and "hierarchical authority" but, actually, he is not forcing a real change, since Opus Dei can continue to work internally on their own "Way" (7) while presenting whatever "hierarchical" facade is imposed upon them from the Vatican (8).

For many, many years, they got along very well with just "every five years, a report on the state of the Prelature, and on the development of its apostolic work" (9) as the only requisite the Vatican imposed, by law, upon them for watching them (this is something they achieved through the late John Paul II). Based on this single fact, do you think that the Vatican was (or is) really concerned in monitoring them? Even though Opus Dei is a world wide organization with tentacles all over the political and social fabric? Does anyone really think that the new requirement by Francis for that report to be on a yearly basis (and now addressed to another Vatican entity) is going to make a difference?

Think about the message from Francis that they are receiving: At the same time that he is addressing to apparently improve the "hierarchical authority" of Opus Dei, he is officially confirming and protecting Opus Dei's "charism" or "spirit" at the most high level. Therefore, he is encouraging them to go on their usual way - the way of duplicity, which is one of the most defining features of their "charism" (8).

And, then, in the above news items related to their treatment of women, you can see by yourself whether the problem is the "charism" or the "hierarchical authority". If the problem is the "charism", then you know which "spirit" is Francis protecting. Coherent with the "spirit" of Francis and Benedict (10).

Expanding on the question - A problem of "charism" or of "authority"?

Actually, it is both. Authority and "charism" are inseparable in Opus Dei. Their members are under an authoritarian system (11) that sustains a sick and deceptive "charism" which is corrupt at its root (7). And, at the same time, the key of their "charism" —indeed, the definition of it, more than the alleged "sanctification through work"— is their worship of Josemaría Escrivá, a cult (12) inseparable from a specific form of authority taught by him, which is:


Therefore, the terms in which Francis speaks (14) are totally wrong, it is not a problem that could be solved by somehow healing the "hierarchical authority" of Opus Dei while keeping their "charism" intact, because their "hierarchical authority" —properly called, religious authoritarian system— is an inseparable part of their "charism". They, at all costs, will keep their real authorities intact, their hierarchical system of obedience up to the top (which, for them and in practical terms, is not the Pope), while wrapping themselves, at all times, on a external form suitable for public consumption or for the consumption of the naive Bergoglio.



Back to This Month's Index

---

FROM OUR FILES:  April 16th, 2007

Do you ever wonder... why will man attempt to build a "new and improved" society, a modern day Tower of Babel, when we know from the beginning that it was not acceptable to God? Thus:


For the same reason man wants to play God (genetic manipulation, reproductive manipulation, etc.) considering that from the very, very beginning God showed immense displeasure at such tendency. Thus:


Because man, without God, is basically very stupid and when man wants to upstage God, God is certainly not with him.







FROM OUR FILES:  April 17th, 2010

Did you know that... the words of Gamaliel directed to the other religious leaders and elders of Israel regarding Jesus:


...actually confirm the historical and Divine reality of Jesus?

Only the Jesus we know through the Scriptures - God incarnate - could have started - against all odds - a religious movement which even Constantine saw as the only means of saving his Empire. Let us not forget that Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Empire to shore up his collapsing Empire and not because "he believed". Therefore the Church founded by Jesus Christ had become a real moral socio-political force in the area.

No poor carpenter with the "gift of gab" could have possibly done that, and, let us not give the credit to Paul's incessant travels and preaching since he was only acting on behalf of Jesus Who chose him.


Back to This Month's Index

---

From LM@USA



Our commentary:

For those who do not know the news, we will provide a summary:  (1)



Re: Would that include all churches as entities, also?

No. The edict or "rescriptum" of Francis (2) is formulated within the juridical framework of the apostolic constitution "Praedicate Evangelium" (3), which is aimed —according to its preamble— to "the reform of the Roman Curia". It is something similar to say "the reform of the structures of the Vatican". Therefore, this edict does not apply to the particular churches spread throughout the world. (4)

Both the edict and the related article of "Praedicate Evangelium" (article 219) are aimed to those entities whose assets are directly under the control of the Roman Curia (5) – notably including what was traditionally under the financial control of the APSA ("Administration of the Patrimony of the Holy See") and the Vatican Secretariat of State (which are, both, powerful institutions in the Roman Curia).

As an illustration, the Vatican's situation in 2013 was that:  (6)


The edict of Francis does not affect, for example, institutions such as Communion and Liberation or Opus Dei, no matter that some commentator (7) has suggested that possibility. Those institutions have a practically absolute autonomy, being only symbolically supervised by the Vatican. It is completely absurd to think that an organization like Opus Dei (8) would allow its finances to be governed by the Vatican. It is precisely the opposite: Opus Dei would like to control (9) the Vatican's finances, and possibly that is what we are seeing.


Re: I guess that digital currency is on the way.

We have not found a thread that reliably connects Francis' recent edict with plans for a digital currency. It is true that some isolated sites speak of such a connection, but we have not found any noteworthy argument in them.

In other words, we do not know the mechanism by which the pooling of all its assets in the "Vatican bank" (IOR) could protect or benefit the Vatican in order to face an impending financial crisis or monetary reform, although that does excludes a connection. Therefore, at present, we can neither affirm nor deny this alleged connection.

Now, generally speaking, the signs that the globalizers plan to plunge the world into a purely digital transaction economy are everywhere. It is a logical objective of those who, having planned a New World Order for decades (10), have found that, more and more, technological advances are helping them in their purpose of absolute control of the world's population, including absolute financial control.


A possible motivation

Continuing on the subject of Francis' recent edict, there is one thing that does catch our attention:


So, why are they now interested in pooling all their assets in "the Vatican bank" (IOR)?

The most immediate explanation that comes to mind is that this is the result of a power struggle in which the group that controls the IOR's movements has won.

The Vatican and its court of speculators that are interested in laundering capital through the Vatican's international diplomatic privilege, taken as a collective, lose out. They lose in concealment capacity. But if we look at it from the perspective of a possible power group controlling the IOR, that particular group wins because they will have gained, no more and no less, the ability to financially monitor (and, to some extent, control) all Vatican institutions.

As an added benefit, they get (for the Vatican) an appearance of greater transparency because the IOR "has undergone serious reform in the past several years, and now earns high grades from European banking overseers for transparency" (12). Of course, if one examines the recent history of the IOR (6), one will know that IOR "reforms" have a tradition of promising and not delivering, no matter what medals they receive.



Back to This Month's Index






En Español:  Para vuestra Información y Referencia - Septiembre 2022