ok
Mike wingers got the theology completely wrong in the first place, idk if he has studied catholic theology to critique it or if this was a response video to another catholic.
these are common answers to which answers have already been given, seeing the video, we have plenty to disagree with what he said , since i would like to keep it short, here is legendary man:
So i would like to start again, can we go like u give me the objection, i will give answers, i think that would be better since i want a first-hand rebuttal to this, because again clear answers are imp so shld we go like that, give me concrete objections.
@Samuel_23 - you told me we can’t understand Scripture unless we read it through the lens of the Early Church Fathers and Catholic dogma, that’s building on sand, not the Rock.
You’re starting with fallible men and treating them like divine gatekeepers, but no “legendary man” is the foundation, Christ is. And He speaks through the Scriptures, not councils and catechisms.
If you want truth, you don’t start with tradition, you start with the Word.
I’m not the one you’re up against. Take it up with the Author.
Not all Early Church Fathers supported the concept of purgatory, especially not in the form it later developed under medieval Roman Catholicism. In fact, when read carefully, several key patristic voices either omit, reject, or contradict the idea of a postmortem purging fire for the saved. Here are several strong examples:
Athenagoras of Athens (c. 133–190 AD)
In A Plea for the Christians, Athenagoras defends the Christian view of resurrection and judgment, but never mentions purgatory. He affirms that the soul, upon death, awaits judgment, and that the just inherit life while the wicked are punished.
“We are persuaded that when we are removed from this present life we shall live another life, better than the present… or more terrible, according as we have lived virtuously or viciously.”
(A Plea for the Christians, 31)
Notice: two destinies only, no purification zone. No purgatory. Just reward or punishment.
Tertullian (c. 155–240 AD) Tertullian is often misquoted by Catholics, since he speculated about an interim state. But Tertullian never taught a purgation of sins through suffering. He speaks of Hades as a waiting place, not a purging fire. He also makes clear that Christ’s blood is sufficient.
“The soul is not cleansed in the underworld but must be purified in this life.”
(On the Soul, 58)
Clarity: no postmortem purification. He sees moral cleansing as exclusive to this life, not afterward.
Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 313–386 AD)
Cyril, in his famous Catechetical Lectures, focuses heavily on repentance in this life and the sufficiency of baptism and the cross. He speaks of resurrection followed by judgment, not post-death purification.
“We shall rise again… and be judged by Him who sits on the judgment seat of Christ; and the righteous shall inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, but sinners shall go into everlasting punishment.”
(Catechetical Lectures, 4.33)
Again—two destinies only. No middle ground. No purgatorial phase.
Basil the Great (c. 330–379 AD)
Though Basil believed in prayers for the dead (which many early Christians practiced as a form of intercessory hope, not purgatorial cleansing), he never taught postmortem purification by suffering.
“He who has kept his soul undefiled from carnal pleasures… shall dwell with the Lord.”
(On Psalm 1, Homily)
For Basil, holiness in life prepares one for the Lord—not purification after death.
John Chrysostom (c. 349–407 AD)
Chrysostom emphasized judgment after death and did not teach purgatory as later defined. In fact, he taught that no aid can be given to the wicked after death, implying no intermediate state of cleansing.
“Let us weep for them as lost. For after departure hence, there is no longer opportunity for repentance, nor will the washing of tears avail.”
(Homily on Philippians 3)
Postmortem cleansing? No. He explicitly affirms that repentance is closed at death.
Gregory Nazianzen (c. 329–390 AD)
Known as “The Theologian” in the East, Gregory never taught purgatory. He focused on the transforming grace of Christ in this life and declared eternal destinies to be fixed at death.
“The punishment that awaits the sinner is final and eternal.”
(Oration 40.36)
Purgatory cannot exist if punishment is final after death.
Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD) Though often quoted by Catholics in favor of purgatory, even Augustine was unclear and hesitant, and never defined purgatory as a universal necessity. He also declared:
“It is not to be believed that there is any purgatorial fire, except perhaps for some small sins.”
(Enchiridion, 69)
Even here, Augustine admits doubt, limits it to “perhaps” and “small sins,” and ties all cleansing to Christ’s sacrifice.
No unanimous voice among the Fathers for purgatory
Many explicitly affirm death → judgment (Heb. 9:27) with no middle state
Those who mention prayers for the dead do so with uncertain hope, not doctrinal clarity
None present purgatory as necessary or universal for believers And not one Church Father contradicts Hebrews 10:14:
“By one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.”
So the next time someone throws the Church Fathers at you like a weapon, remind them:
Not all the Fathers stood with Rome on this, and none stood above Scripture.
Soul, you’ve offered an eloquent defense of a doctrine that still has no passport into Scripture. Let’s walk through your response one claim at a time and let the Word weigh in.
You say purification through expiation with love is distinct from being made holy. But Hebrews 10:14 doesn’t split hairs between purification and sanctification. It fuses them. The point is that Christ’s offering perfected those being sanctified. Not prepped them for further burning. Not pushed them into divine timeout. Perfected. You can’t be “perfected for all time” and still in need of posthumous cleansing. That’s theological double-talk.
You say Galatians 2:21 only applies to the Mosaic Law, not “purgatorial process.” But Paul’s point wasn’t limited to Torah technicalities. He was demolishing the entire concept of any righteousness-by-effort system. Insert purgatory into that equation—where the soul earns its way to final glory through suffering—and Paul’s warning still hits like thunder: Christ died for nothing if you think anything, even loving expiation, needs to be added.
Now the Mary quote. I know you said quoting isn’t deifying, but calling The Poem of the Man-God “inspired” while treating it like divine commentary on “It is finished” dangerously flirts with extra-biblical authority. Mary did not interpret Calvary. Jesus did. And He didn’t need poetic footnotes. Hebrews 1:3 says He made purification for sins and sat down. Job done.
You say “love covers a multitude of sins.” Amen. But don’t confuse love’s fruit with love’s function. That verse (1 Pet. 4:8) speaks of relational forgiveness among believers, not eschatological purification. The blood of Jesus doesn’t just inspire love—it cleanses sin (1 John 1:7). Love moves the sinner to repent. Blood secures the forgiveness. Two sides, but only one satisfies the justice of God.
You said I twisted James. But James talks about faith that shows up in action, not faith that waits in Purgatory for a sanctified slow burn. He calls out dead faith, not half-saved souls. James doesn’t preach post-mortem progress—he preaches present obedience.
And yes, Paul said to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (2 Cor. 5:8). Your quote from the larger passage doesn’t soften that. If Paul wanted to insert a purgatorial pit stop, he missed his cue. There’s no intermediate state mentioned. No cleansing chamber. Just courage, faith, and the hope of immediate communion with Christ.
And finally, the idea that Purgatory “precedes” Heaven assumes what Scripture never affirms. Mary Magdalene was forgiven because she loved much? No—read it again. Jesus says she loved much because she was forgiven (Luke 7:47). Forgiveness birthed her love, not the other way around. That’s grace. That’s the Gospel.
You’ve built a theology where post-mortem repentance finishes what Jesus supposedly started. But the New Testament declares that justification, sanctification, and glorification are all secured in Christ—not in a chamber of corrective charity. If anything impure cannot enter Heaven (Rev. 21:27), then praise God that we are washed (1 Cor. 6:11), clothed (Isa. 61:10), and made righteous by faith (Rom. 5:1)—not flame.
The Gospel does not need a sequel. The cross was enough.
—Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.
Exactly as Dr. Michael Brown is explaining it to him.
No unanimous voice among the Fathers for purgatory
Polycarp’s writings contain no doctrine of purgatory, no elaborate eschatology beyond judgment and resurrection, and he emphasizes salvation by grace through Christ alone.
Polycarp quotes the New Testament extensively, never the Apocrypha.
He is often used by Protestant scholars as a witness to sola Scriptura-like theology and apostolic continuity that is not Roman Catholic in structure or doctrine.
thanks for the video @Johann Dr.Michael Brown is legendary, and i highly regard him, thanks again for the video which has the clash between two greatest minds…
Peace
Sam
I spend my time in debates, not for amusement, but because they sharpen my discernment and drive me deeper into the Scriptures, the only sword I need (Eph. 6:17). I don’t lean on councils, traditions, or extra-biblical authorities. I stand on what is written, because the Word of God alone tears down arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God (2 Cor. 10:4–5).
The Spirit of God speaks through the written Word, not beside it, not beyond it, not beneath it. All Scripture is God-breathed, profitable, sufficient (2 Tim. 3:16–17). It is living and active, able to pierce soul and spirit, judge thoughts and intentions (Heb. 4:12).
If it’s not rooted in the Word, it’s not rooted in truth. That’s why I don’t bring the Early Church Fathers into the battlefield, I bring the Word of the Father, wielded in the power of the Holy Spirit.
“Some dream that by the power of the keys guilt is not remitted, but that eternal punishments are changed into temporal. Thus the most salutary power would be the ministry, not of life and the Spirit, but only of wrath and punishments. Others, namely, the more cautious, imagine that by the power of the keys sins are remitted before the Church and not before God. This also is a pernicious error. For if the power of the keys does not console us before God, what, then, will pacify the conscience?” - Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article XIIa (Of Repentance), 7
In short: If Christ has given His Church the Ministry of the Keys to proclaim forgiveness of sins, but if sins are not actually forgiven (Coram Deo, before God) then what consolation is the Ministry of the Keys? If we are not forgiven, truly and utterly, then there remains not consolation, grace, mercy, and the peace of the Spirit–but what remains is dread, fear, and despair.
We can admit that temporal punishments for sins remain–here and in this life. If I murder, then yes the Gospel declares me forgiven–I am forgiven in Christ, justified in Christ by grace–but in this life I must still face the magistrate and the court. I am not absolved from facing the court, though I am absolved by God. But if I am not absolved by God–before God–then the Gospel is no longer Gospel.
So, indeed, there remain temporal affects, and we face those consequences here in this life. There is neither need, nor good, by introducing a purgatory; which is without biblical and apostolic support, unknown to the ancient fathers, and is contrary to the faithful preaching of the Gospel.
I showed the commands, purposes and effects of love.
Love is what spurred God to become human and shed His Blood as reparation for the sins of humankind: “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends,” hence “love covers a multitude of sins”.
“Faith [in God] apart from works is dead” (Jas. 2:20). Obedience to God is a demonstration of faith. What are the first and second commandments, the two most important ones, the ones regarding which Jesus said that there were no others greater and that in them was the key to reaching eternal life? It is the commandment of love: “Love God with all your strength; love your neighbor as yourself”.
"Beloved, let’s love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves has been born of God, and knows God. He who doesn’t love doesn’t know God, for God is love. (1 Jn. 4:7-8)
“If we love one another, God remains in us, and his love has been perfected in us.” (1 Jn. 4:12)
God is love, and he who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him. In this love has been made perfect among us, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment, because as he is, even so we are in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear has punishment. He who fears is not made perfect in love. (1 Jn. 4:16-18)
Again, not all souls who are judged to live eternally in Heaven with God will have physically died having reached perfection in love. You can’t know in advance if you will have reached perfection in love by the time you physically die. Therefore, if you physically die having not yet reached perfection in love on earth, but judgement is still passed that you are to live eternally in Heaven with God, what place will you go to finish reaching perfection in love, since impurity/imperfection can’t dwell in Heaven? That is your conundrum when you deny the existence and purpose of Purgatory.
Your argument collapses under the weight of Scripture. There is no “middle place” where the imperfect go to perfect themselves, there is the blood of Christ or there is wrath, nothing in between (John 3:36). You speak as if our sanctification must be completed after death, but the gospel declares otherwise: “He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified” (Hebrews 10:14).
The verb τετελείωκεν (teteleiōken, “has perfected”) is perfect tense, a completed action with lasting results—because Christ’s atonement was not partial, nor pending, but finished (John 19:30).
You invent a place Scripture never names. Paul didn’t tell the Philippians he hoped to finish his perfection in a postmortem fire, he said, “to depart and be with Christ is far better” (Phil. 1:23). Absent from the body, present with the Lord (2 Cor. 5:8). No purgatory, no probation, presence. Christ is not sending His blood-bought bride through purging fire, He gave Himself up for her to present her holy and blameless (Eph. 5:25–27).
The cleansing was His, not hers. The verb in Ephesians 5:26, ἁγιάσῃ (hagiasei, “to sanctify”), is aorist, past act, not future purification.
Your conundrum is imaginary. The only ones who enter Heaven are those already cleansed by the blood of the Lamb (Rev. 7:14). And Scripture declares boldly: “There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1). Not later, now. Not after purification, now. The finality of judgment is not a starting point for sanctification, it is the revelation of its completion.
“It is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment” (Heb. 9:27)-no room for postmortem process, no holding cell, no refining pit.
Perfection in love does not come from suffering in a fictional fire, it comes from union with Christ who loved us and gave Himself for us (Gal. 2:20). He doesn’t wait to love us perfectly until after death. “We love because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19), and “as He is, so also are we in this world” (1 John 4:17).
That is not purgatory, that is regeneration and justification in the now.
You want to add a fire. God already sent One. It fell on Calvary. And “by one offering He has perfected forever those who are sanctified” (Heb. 10:14). That’s not a conundrum. That’s the gospel.
But you can’t know in advance if you will have reached perfection in love in this world by the time you physically die. If you physically die having not yet reached perfection in love, but judgement is still passed that you are to live eternally in Heaven with God, what place will you go to finish reaching perfection in love, since impurity/imperfection can’t dwell in Heaven? That isn’t an “imaginary conundrum” but a very real one.
Let’s answer this claim point by point using only the Pauline epistles, with attention to Greek verbs, morphology, and theological syntax, to show clearly and decisively that the so-called “purgatorial necessity” is not only unnecessary, but anti-gospel.
@Soul you say-
“You can’t know in advance if you will have reached perfection in love in this world by the time you die.”
Paul did not speak this way. He did not ground confidence in subjective levels of “perfected love,” but in the objective work of Christ. In Romans 5:5, he writes:
“The love of God has been poured out (ἐκκέχυται, ekkechytai, perfect passive indicative) into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.”
Perfect tense: the outpouring is complete and its effect abides.
Passive voice: the believer is not the actor, but the recipient.
Thus, Paul does not tell us to wait for love-perfection after death, he says we’ve already received divine love now, by the Spirit.
Also, Galatians 5:22–23 says love is the fruit (καρπὸς, singular collective) of the Spirit, not the product of postmortem suffering.
You say-
“If you die not having reached perfect love, but judgment is passed in your favor…”
This premise is flawed, for Paul teaches that justification precedes death, not follows it. Consider Romans 5:1:
“Having been justified (δικαιωθέντες, dikaiōthentes, aorist passive participle) by faith, we have peace with God.”
Aorist passive: Justification is a completed, once-for-all act, not an ongoing process.
The participle is antecedent to the main verb “we have peace” (ἔχομεν).
Paul never leaves room for a second-phase purification after judgment; the verdict is declared before death by faith in the cross.
To suggest judgment confirms Heaven but sanctification continues is un-Pauline; Paul binds justification, reconciliation, and glorification in one unbreakable chain (cf. Rom. 8:30).
You say-
“What place will you go to finish reaching perfection in love, since impurity can’t dwell in Heaven?”
You’re arguing as if sanctification is an eschatological requirement after death, but Paul says Christ Himself is our sanctification:
1 Corinthians 1:30: “Christ Jesus… became to us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification (ἁγιασμὸς, hagiasmos), and redemption.”
Not future, not conditional, not delayed. If Christ is our sanctification, then there is no need for another sanctifying flame.
Moreover, Colossians 2:10 declares:
“In Him you have been made complete” (ἐστὲ πεπληρωμένοι, este peplērōmenoi, perfect passive participle from πληρόω).
Again, perfect passive: believers are already completed in Christ.
No “purgation gap” exists, because union with Christ supplies the full measure of sanctifying grace.
You say-
“That isn’t an imaginary conundrum, but a very real one.”
Actually, Paul demolishes your conundrum. He does not teach gradual cleansing after death, but definitive transfer:
Colossians 1:13: “He delivered us (ἐρρύσατο, aorist middle) from the domain of darkness and transferred us (μετέστησεν, aorist active) to the kingdom of His beloved Son.”
No transition zone is mentioned, only a decisive rescue and transfer.
Purgatory is absent in Paul’s gospel because Christ’s cross is sufficient.
Let’s wrap this up.
Your scenario is built on soteriological uncertainty, but Paul’s gospel is rooted in divine finality. The verbs of Paul’s gospel are overwhelmingly aorist and perfect, not future, not progressive, because the cross finished the work.
“By one offering He has perfected for all time (τετελείωκεν εἰς τὸ διηνεκές) those who are being sanctified” (Heb. 10:14).
The perfected ones are the same as the sanctified ones, not in purgatory, but in Christ.
You ask, “Where will you go to finish being perfected in love?”
Answer: nowhere, because Christ finished that work on the cross.
There is no fire left to burn, because He bore it all already (Gal. 3:13; Rom. 8:3).
That’s not imaginary.
That’s Pauline, gracious, and gloriously final.
Do you have a problem with the syntax and morphology of Scripture? I’ll gladly assist since this debate is over before it even started.
It ended sadly for William, resorting to circular reasoning.
There’s your interpretation of Scripture and of what I’m saying. You err in both. Therefore, for the sake of clarity and due to the character limit, I’ll refer you to Jesus directly:
In His dictation on October 17th, 1943, He explains what Purgatory is and what it consists of. (The Notebooks: 1943)
In His dictation on October 21, 1943, He gives the reasons for the following system of expiation in Purgatory: suffering only because of love and expiating with love. (The Notebooks: 1943)
No, I won’t trade the voice of the risen Christ in the Scriptures for the alleged whispers of a 20th-century mystic. Hebrews 1:2 declares with authority that “God has spoken to us in His Son,” not through 1943 dictations in an Italian bedroom. You appeal to Maria Valtorta’s Notebooks, I appeal to the Word of God, which is God-breathed (θεόπνευστος, theopneustos, 2 Tim. 3:16) and once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3). Christ doesn’t stammer. He finished speaking redemptively when He said, “It is finished” (John 19:30), and He sealed that truth in blood, not notebooks.
You say “Jesus explains Purgatory.” No, Jesus never taught Purgatory, not in the Gospels, not in Revelation, not even symbolically. He declared in John 5:24, “Whoever hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.”
No middle ground. No spiritual waiting room. Passed (μεταβέβηκεν, metabebēken – perfect active indicative) means it’s done, final, settled.
You referenced alleged visions from 1943. But Peter said we have something more sure than visions, the prophetic Word (2 Peter 1:19). Paul warned against “going on in detail about visions… puffed up without reason” (Col. 2:18). That’s not spirituality, it’s deception. God is not supplementing His gospel with Marian-era add-ons.
The early church was not built on private revelations, but “on the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Eph. 2:20). None of them preached Purgatory. None of them mentioned a second-chance purification. Paul declared, “To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8), not present in a cosmic purification pit.
And no, referencing Scripture inside a vision doesn’t sanctify the vision. Satan quoted Scripture in the wilderness (Matt. 4), and Jesus rebuked him with Scripture rightly divided. So shall I.
In sum, I will not bend knee to extra-biblical voices. I will not dilute the cross with a furnace of human penance. I will not trade the Word of the cross (1 Cor. 1:18) for the notebooks of Valtorta.
Christ purifies us now by His blood (1 John 1:7), His Spirit (Rom. 8:13), and His Word (Eph. 5:26), not through postmortem torment.
I don’t need The Notebooks: 1943. I have The Scriptures: eternal.
It’s not about trading one for the other. And, If you want to try and properly understand my position on Purgatory and test my arguments, then you’ll read the words of my source, regardless of whether you believe that source to be Jesus or not.
And, I’m already quite aware of where you err in your interpretation of Scripture, of my words and beliefs.
It’s not about proving Scripture wrong. Scripture says what it says. One’s interpretation of a scriptural chapter or verse will either be true or false. Now, this can go somewhere, but only if you want to try and properly understand my position on Purgatory and test my arguments, by reading the words of my source (Who references Scripture), regardless of whether you believe that source to be Jesus or not.
Firstly, according to your source, the words “unbreakable Jewish frame of mind” are found in The Poem of the Man-God: Vol. I, p. 432, but they aren’t. Rather Vol. V, p. 479.
Secondly, your source claims that Jesus told Maria Valtorta that "the New Testament needs to be supplemented because of the evangelists’ “unbreakable Jewish frame of mind.” Jesus actually said, “Some people, when reading this Work, will object: “It does not appear from the Gospel that Jesus was in touch with Romans and Greeks, and consequently we reject these pages.” How many things do not appear from the Gospel, or can just be detected behind thick curtains of silence, drawn by the Evangelists on episodes, of which they did not approve, because of their unbreakable Jewish frame of mind! Do you think that you know everything I did? I solemnly tell you that not even after reading and accepting this illustration of My public life will you know everything about Me. I would have killed My little John, in the fatigue of reporting all the days of My ministry and all the actions performed on each day, if I had made him acquainted with everything so that he might transmit everything to you! “Then there were other things done by Jesus, which if written one by one, I think that the world would not be able to contain the books that should be written” says John. Apart from the hyperbole, I solemnly tell you that if all My single actions had to be written, all My particular lessons, My penances and prayers to save a soul, it would have taken the halls of one of your libraries, and one of the largest, to contain the books speaking of Me. And I also solemnly tell you that it would be much more advantageous for you to burn so much useless dusty poisonous science, to make room for My books, than to know so little of Me and worship so much that press that is almost always soiled with lust and heresy.”
Their “flowery and pompous” Hebrew style kept them from writing everything that God wished. (V: p. 947). So nineteen centuries later, he finds a worthy secretary in Valtorta, his “Little John,” to expand what the Apostle St. John and the others wrote.
Firstly, according to your source, the words “flowery and pompous” are found in The Poem of the Man-God: Vol. V, p. 947, but they aren’t. Rather Vol. V, p. 479.
Secondly, by “their” your source is referring to the apostles and is claiming that Jesus said the apostle’s flowery and pompous Hebrew style kept them from writing everything that God wished for, which is a LIE. Jesus was actually referring to Maria Valtorta and what she heard Mary say to Jesus in the visions she received and described when He said, "To those who consider Mary’s love for Jesus too affectionate, I say that they should consider who Mary was: the Woman without sin and therefore without fault in Her love towards God, towards Her relatives, towards Her spouse, towards Her Son, towards Her neighbor; they should consider what the Mother saw in Me beside seeing the Son of Her womb, and finally that they should consider the nationality of Mary. Hebrew race, eastern race, and times very remote from the present ones. So the explanation of certain verbal amplifications, that may seem exaggerated to you, ensues from these elements. The eastern and Hebrew styles are flowery and pompous also when commonly spoken. All the writings of that time and of that race prove it, and in the course of ages the eastern style has not changed very much.
As twenty centuries later you have to examine these pages, when the wickedness of life has killed so much love, would you expect Me to give you a Mary of Nazareth similar to the arid superficial woman of your days? Mary is what She is, and the sweet, pure, loving Girl of Israel, the Spouse of God. The Virgin Mother of God cannot be changed into an excessively morbidly exalted woman, or into a glacially selfish one of your days."
And, Jesus gave Maria Valtorta the nickname “little John” for the following reason: “John, to place her close to the Evangelist who was the favorite disciple. Little, because of the dependence of her Work, although quite extensive, on those of the Evangelists who, in short manuscripts, enclosed what is essential.” And, Jesus’s seven reasons for The Poem of the Man-God can be read here.
“There is nothing of my own in this work,” she insists. (I: p. 57) She presents herself as a mere transmitter of Divine content."
Firstly, according to your source, the words “There is nothing of my own in this work” are found in The Poem of the Man-God: Vol. I, p. 432, but they aren’t. Rather Vol. I, p. 34.
Secondly, after a vision Maria Valtorta received and described on September 2nd, 1944, Maria Valtorta added the following: “A note of mine. All day yesterday I thought I was going to see the news of the death of Her parents being given to Mary by Zacharias, I do not know why. I also thought, in my way, that Jesus would have dealt with the point « remembrance of God by the saints ». This morning, when the vision started, I said to myself: « Here we are, they will now tell Her that She is an orphan » and my heart was already trembling because I would have experienced my own sadness of these past days. Instead there has been absolutely nothing of what I thought I was going to see or hear. Not even one word by mistake. I am very happy about this because it confirms that there is nothing of my own in this work, not even an honest suggestion with regard to one situation. It all comes from a different source. My continuous fear ceases… until the next time because I shall always be afraid of being deceived and deceiving.”
Want me to continue doing your work for you? Or, do you want to take over and put in the time and work to become properly knowledgeable about the subject in question, and verify your sources?
