Fr Mawdsley’s enormous claims “Scream from Hell” “Antichrist” this is subjective, no structured argument. This flys in the face of so many Priests and Bishops who have read with edification the writings of SoG Luisa. This is not the way to treat publications with 1926 Imprimatur’s. Father’s claims are scandalous. Huge claims remain purely subjective without specific written justification in proper argument form. Not scholarly and not Thomistic.

Oh so you're a Thomist? Interesting. Being as the vast majority of the four hours of Fr Mawdsley's videos are of him making direct quotes from Luisa's writings, I would say that is quite objective. Anyway, as I keep saying to you, Fr Mawdsley's videos - like him or not - are completely irrelevant - as are Daniel O'Connor's. Luisa's Cause was suspended by the DCS, and the Nihil Obstat not granted, for Theological, Christological, and Anthropological difficulties in her writings. You can go on about Fr Mawdsley until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't alter the facts as above - which were nothing to do with Fr Mawdsley's videos. Take the matter up with the DCS and the DDF. I have given you their contact details before.

@Scapular 'Servant of God' is an honorific title used in the Catholic Church to indicate that an individual is on the first step toward possible canonization as a saint. It is no guarantee of sanctity or that the process will definitely end in canonization. 'Servant of God' is not considered a canonical title in a strict sense by the Catholic Church (as for instance Venerable or Blessed are), but only a technical term used in the process of canonization. Hence, any of the faithful can be named a Servant of God in a larger frame of meaning. (Congregatio de Causis Sanctorum – Vincenzo Criscuolo, Daniel Ols, Robert J. Sarno (ed.), Le Cause dei Santi. Sussidio per lo Studium, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 3rd edition, Rome 2014, p. 342.)

I wouldn't call 4 hours of evidence over 3 videos as 'limited experience'. I'm sure very few could speak for 4 hours on something they knew little about. No. Father obviously did his homework, you just didn't like the outcome.

The 'itching ears' quote applies to people like you who lap up every apparition/mystic/seer going, whether they are approved/doubtful or condemned.

@Strong and Steadfast Reading your comment backwards, first of all we'll deal with the Gisella Cardia case. CTTK may have taken down her 'messages' but it hasn't stopped defending her, as this post demonstrates: Dubious apparition website 'Countdown to the Kingd… How would you feel if it were your sick parents who had been duped for €123,000 by Cardia? “We were both ill, we trusted her, it was a clamorous error,” Also O'Connor has a track record of contributing to the CTTK website which still defends false seers after their official ecclesiastical condemnation: Certain commenters have been promoting on Gloria T…

You also wrote "In these kinds of things, Daniel O'Connor is correct; we read into them what's in our hearts. We are living through a very disturbed and demonic age, in which very, very few people have escaped perversity. We are not in a position to judge the mystical experiences of St. Bernard, St. Gertrude, St. Catherine, or even Luisa Piccarreta based on that . . ." That argument, taken to its logical conclusion, obviates the need for any Cause of any alleged Saint whatsover, because those divinely charged with that role are not pure or worthy enough to understand or interpret alleged mystical experiences (like you and O'Connor are, apparently). You are correct in saying that WE are not in a position, it is not OUR position, as I have pointed out to you before: "An important document was issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in November 1996 and placed in L’Osservatore Romano. It stated:

“Regarding the circulation of texts of alleged private revelations, the Congregation states: The interpretation given by some individuals to a decision approved by Paul VI on 14 October 1966 and promulgated on 15 November of that year, in virtue of which writings and messages resulting from alleged revelations could be freely circulated in the Church is absolutely groundless. This decision actually referred to the “Abolition of the Index of Forbidden Books” and determined that after the relevant censures were lifted, the moral obligation still remained of not circulating or reading those writings which endanger faith and morals. It should be recalled however, that with regard to the circulation of texts of alleged private revelations, Canon 823#1 of the current code remains in force: “the Pastors of the Church have the … right to demand that writings to be published by the Christian faithful which touch upon faith or morals be submitted to their judgement”. Alleged supernatural revelations and writings concerning them are submitted in first instance to the judgement of the diocesan Bishop, and in particular cases, to the judgement of the Episcopal Conference and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.”

Obviously, Luisa's writings have been inspected by the CDF (now DDF) and found wanting. Accept that. If God wants otherwise in the future, I'm sure He will let us know. I've posted this 1000 times before, but it really applies to your position, so I don't mind doing it again - from the late, great Michael Davies RIP:

"Other Catholics have put their faith in one of the numerous apparitions which are allegedly taking place in many countries. Once again, if heavenly guidance can be communicated directly through the sect which is witnessing the alleged apparitions, then what need is there of a Magisterium? In the years following the Council a very clear pattern of behaviour has emerged among supporters of these apparitions.
It is a tendency to make belief in the authenticity of a particular apparition the criterion of orthodoxy. True Catholics believe in the apparitions, and the faith of those who do not is suspect in some way. Those drawn towards these apparitions tend to be conservative in outlook, the type of Catholic who might have been expected to defend the teaching of the Magisterium. Once such Catholics become “hooked” on an apparition all their efforts tend to be devoted to defending it and propagating it. They have thus been removed effectively from the battlefield for orthodoxy."

Also I am concerned at your hypocrisy and double standards: "In the case of the Korean bishops who disallowed the content in their diocese, (O'Connor) encouraged those people to obey that. He makes it clear he believes the judgement of the DDF and DCS is incorrect, and there's nothing wrong with that." So what you and O'Connor are saying is obey your bishops, but not really. Follow O'Connor's advice. Otherwise, he wouldn't be putting these criticisms out there.

@Strong and Steadfast Your opinion is noted. But it is only your opinion. And you have no authority in this matter at all, as neither do I, but I am not encouraging disobedience, while you are. You wrote: That "The Church has suspended the Cause of Luisa Piccaretta and a Nihil Obstat has not been granted, due to 'Theological, Christological, and Anthropological Difficulties'." really means nothing, whatsoever - yet." Well it does mean something. The original decision came from the Holy See. To be casual and dismissive of it is just plain wrong.

@Ave Crux put a post underneath which you might like to read. Maybe you are in the grip of some sort of diabolical addiction without realising it. I seem to recall from a while back that you were trying to defend Fr Michele Rodrigues - well, that has been blown out of the water: Certain commenters have been promoting on Gloria T… and also you were berating another GTV commenter who had said that the (then) bishop of Medjugorje (Bishop Ratko Peric) had declared the apparitions as 'constat de non supernaturalitate' (the non-supernaturality has been proven) and you vehemently disputed this, until I gave you evidence. Your objection was then deleted (why not leave it for all to see - pride?)

Although I can't find the exact quote, (then) Cardinal Ratzinger complained of an unhealthy over-emphasis of alleged mystical phenomena in the Church. I think you have an unhealthy penchant for this type of thing and would do better to stick to Public Revelation, Catholic Doctrine, Apologetics, and fully approved private revelation.

Also, in a speech reported in the 18th September 1996 edition of L’Osservatore Romano, Pope John Paul II stated: “Some members of the People of God are not rooted firmly enough in the Faith, so that the sects, with their deceptive proselytism, mislead them to separate themselves from true communion in Christ. Within the Church community, the multiplication of supposed “apparitions” or “visions” is sowing confusion and reveals a certain lack of solid basis to the faith and Christian life among her members.”

@Strong and Steadfast I've answered all your questions in my original comment. Read it again. But you won't, because you prefer to err on the side of 'mystics' or even 'alleged mystics' or even 'condemned mystics' than the Church. And it doesn't matter if I write something 30 times or 3,000 times. If it's right, and you're sneakily trying to circumvent it by quoting the likes of O'Connor, then perhaps I ought to write it 3 million times, until it sinks into your head. I note you didn't answer the very relevant O'Connor/CTTK/Cardia/Rodrigues/Medjugorje points that I made. You made exactly the same argument way back when about Fr Michele Rodrigue and were eventually proved wrong.

@Strong and Steadfast The Holy See has suspended the Cause of Luisa Piccaretta and a Nihil Obstat has not been granted, due to 'Theological, Christological, and Anthropological Difficulties'. That concerns all of us, not just those whose Bishops' Conferences have specifically commented on it. See the letter from the French President of the Doctrinal Committee I posted on this thread.
People can also see this video. This is the modus operandi of people like O'Connor and yourself: Certain commenters have been promoting on Gloria T… I remember now that you were nitpicking on a previous post that Fr Michele Rodrigue's status was not in doubt because the bishop only said he was 'disallowed' and didn't use the specific term 'constat de non supernaturalitate'. Well, this video shows that his previous and current bishop have condemned him, but you will probably disregard it, because they haven't used the correct words, in your opinion.

@CatMuse I agree with your statement 'no Catholic is obligated to believe private revelation' but the Church still has a duty to protect the flock - especially the more vulnerable members - from false seers. Look at the awful case recently where false seer Gisella Cardia took €123,000 from a man and his wife. The man said: “We were both ill, we trusted her, it was a clamorous error.” It could have been avoided if the man and his wife had waited for the official declaration from the Church, which found that the 'non-supernaturality (of Cardia's case) had been proven'. This now protects future victims from fraud.

I recall a Priest presenting an argument to Rome in 2000, that mistranslating promultis as “for all” would run the risk of invalidating the Mass.

Was this the Catholic approach?