Behold, a reader called Timothy asks why Eric is only a “private” prophet, as opposed to a “public” prophet if My message through him is intended for all of humanity in this world? It is a fair question coming from someone who is Catholic illiterate. A reader fully versed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church knows why neither Eric nor any other that I may choose to be My prophet in this age or in any age yet to come may be called a “public” prophet. And the answer is simply that My Age of Public Prophecy was centered around the Christ, who is the final Revelation. With the Word revealed at the First Coming of the Christ, no further nor additional revelations may be made to Mankind. For Christ is the ultimate and greatest of all that can be revealed. And all that He intended to reveal was revealed to His Apostles. And thus, when the last of the Apostles died, so also did that Age of Public Prophecy. And from that point onward, no new public prophecy can be given to the people. And the Word that was to become part of the Canon of the Catholic Church, the Holy Bible, was fully committed to paper and could not be modified or changed.
So then, what is a private prophet, you ask? A private prophet receives My Word to give to My people, but that Word given does not have the divine binding on it as a Word of public prophecy does. And so, Timothy can in fact doubt My Words spoken through Eric and still make it to heaven. For the Word spoken through a private prophet may be doubted and that act of doubting such Word from private sources does not cause damnation.
Let Me put it another Way. All of the Holy Scriptures are Words coming from public prophets and are a matter of public prophecy, binding on all who hear them. Though not all public prophecies that were uttered were included in the scriptures. For if they had been, there would not be enough room in the whole world to contain the books that would be written (John 21:25). And the scriptures are called God breathed, for the Holy Spirit guided the writer in the writing of it, and the speaker in the speaking of it. Scriptures are the highest form of divine revelation given to Man in the form of writing.
Private revelations, on the other hand, are, as a rule, always less and lower than the Holy Scriptures. All of them may be doubted without fear of being damned. And it will never be permitted take any set of private revelations and assemble them to form an appendage to the Holy Bible, called the “Third Testament”, or the “Final Testament”, or the “Next Testament”, or any name that makes them a part of the Holy Scriptures. Rather, the final book of the Holy Bible is the Book of Revelation. And the Canon of the Holy Bible is fixed at 73 or 72 books forever, that number depending on whether the book of Lamentations is presented as a separate work from Jeremiah or considered part of the book of Jeremiah. But all that is considered the written content of the Catholic Canon of books of the Holy Bible is forever fixed and can never change, except in the choice of words made by the translators in their faithful intent to translate the meaning of the scriptures from one language to another.
But notice how I specify “Catholic” in My definitions. For under the leaders of the Protestant Reformation, though these Protestant leaders all professed the teaching, “sola scriptura”, several books and parts of books were deliberately removed from the Catholic Canon to make the Protestant’s Holy Bible a book with just 66 books. It was Satan who deliberately chose for the Protestant Bible to have just 66 books, to mark it as his masterpiece, through which he was to successfully deceive and enslave the billions of Protestant Bible thumpers who were to come into the world, thumping on their Satanic Holy Bibles, as they proceeded on their fiery road to hell. For with the Printing Press at his disposal, and many interpreters willing to falsely interpret the Holy Scriptures, Satan began pumping out the Satanic Bibles that were to lead men to hell through the mere reading of the falsely interpreted scriptures and by the application of what they read to their lives, all of them containing his signature of 66 in the number of the books they contained. Amen.
However, should men of wickedness elect to append to the Holy Scriptures, Satan will gladly lead them in doing so, and the new works would then contain 666 books in their canon. But then people might get smart, and so Satan would accompany them and walk with them, and then lead them to append 111 more books, making their bible have 777 books. And they would then call themselves the Christians of the Final Testament, not realizing that the Dragon and the Beast both have 7 heads, and on top of the Dragon’s 7 heads are 7 crowns. That is three sets of 7 found in Satan’s realm. Hence, 7 is a sign of completion, not necessarily a sign of holiness.
Now, let us speak to Timothy concerning Eric. Timothy, it is not Eric who condemns you or your way of life. But should you feel condemned, that is your conscience condemning you, for you are not of My Catholic Communion. I, the Lord Jesus, do not reject the homosexual from entering into My Catholic Church. Rather, I welcome whoever wishes to enter in. But let that one who wishes to enter in be of the mind to enter in under the submission to all My laws, all My statutes, and all My decrees.
Even Eric had to give up something to become Mine. Eric had to give up his impurities and his pornographies and his sexually sinful fantasies to become Mine. Were My laws and statutes and decrees not binding, Eric would never have given up his dirty ways. Every man, before becoming Mine, comes from some sort of filth or wickedness that he must give up. No man is allowed to enter into communion with Me if he is unwilling to give up on his filthiness.
Therefore, let the homosexual realize this fact. All that is defined as sexual sin is harmful to the soul. And it is something that you just have to trust to God and to His Catholic Church that He founded that what the Church has condemned, the Church so condemns because God mandates the Church to condemn it. Many times Eric wondered whether there was a way to be pleasing to God and also to engage in a form of impurity. And the answer, through direct experience in the process toward complete purity, is a complete No. There is no way to please God and also to live in any form of impurity.
The priest is expected to accompany sinners and to walk with them in their discernments on what the Catholic Church teaches, but he may not water down the requirements and laws of My Catholic Church. Just as it would not be charitable to say to the masturbator that he may masturbate and also receive communion in his state of mortal sin, neither may the Catholic Church admit to its table of communion those who are living in violation of God’s sacrament of marriage, nor those who are living in any form of perpetual mortal sin. What is sin is sin. Now when the Church changes its discipline, what was once a mortal sin can become not a sin at all, but such changes are restricted to matters of discipline, such as the requirement of fasting before communion, and the requirement of wearing a veil for women.
Matters of faith and morals are different. What is an article of faith and morals can never change. It can only be refined and further defined, but never be changed. Hence, the exclusion of women from the priesthood will never be changed. It is a matter of faith that Christ instituted the priesthood as a male only order. He chose only men to be numbered among his Apostles. Only men may be made fit to hear confessions or to be in the presiding place of Father to officiate at weddings. No woman can ever be made fit to fulfill such roles. So also, only a man may be validly ordained to consecrate bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus, which is the primary role of the priest.
And so, what of the ongoing study as to whether a woman can be validly ordained to the diaconate? A woman deacon, should there ever be one, would be much more limited in her role than would be the man. However, there is in fact a path that a woman can find into a possible female form of the diaconate. And this path will be part of a future definition of Holy Orders. And so, would a woman deacon be permitted to preach in the Catholic Church and deliver a homily at the Catholic Mass, O’ Lord and Savior? Provided that the homily was guided by and within the parameters defined by the readings of the scriptures of that day, or within the permitted subjects allowed by the presiding priest, a woman deacon would be permitted to preach a homily. But she would not be allowed to speak on other matters not permitted by the presiding priest, nor to present as a teaching of the Church her own personal opinion. Hence, a woman preacher would be more restricted than a man. A male deacon, in contrast, is permitted, as is a priest, to have a greater freedom in his homilies to speak on whatever subject that he wishes to speak on. But in the case of the woman, she must be kept under the obedience of a man. And if a woman cannot submit to this requirement, she may be removed from the diaconate, for the female diaconate does not have the sacramental permanency as does the male diaconate. For realize that the ordination of women as deacons does not make them clerics. The status of cleric may only be bestowed on a man, for only a man has the potential of becoming a priest, and the clerical class is really a term for the priestly class. Hence, this distinction must be maintained between male and female deacons. Male deacons are true clerics and have the rights given to them as clerics in the male diaconate through the sacrament of Holy Orders. But women do not have this status, no matter what form of female diaconate is made for women in the Catholic Church. A woman may simply not be called a cleric, and her ordination is not defined as a sacrament. It is a matter of Holy Orders but lower than the status of being an actual sacrament.
Hence, since a woman deacon is not a true cleric, neither is she under the marital restrictions that a male cleric is. Rather, a woman deacon should be viewed as an anointed form of an elevated laywoman. Hence, she has the same freedoms to marry as do laywomen. But a married woman deacon must be under obedience to her husband. Hence, a married woman may only become a deacon if her husband permits it, and a married woman deacon may only perform her duties as deacon as permitted by her husband. For her calling to the female diaconate is subservient to her duties to her husband, if she is married. But unlike a male unmarried deacon, a female unmarried deacon may choose to marry at any time, even after her ordination into the female form of Holy Orders, for the female form of Holy Orders is neither clerical nor sacramental.
Also, the only privileges that are bestowed upon a woman deacon that a laywoman cannot already possess is the potential to have the permission to preach a homily at the Mass, to administer the sacrament of baptism in the Church and elsewhere on behalf of the Church, and to give certain types of blessings in the name of the Church, which are strictly limited to only the invocative forms of blessings, both publicly in the Catholic Church, such as at a Mass or at a service, and in private settings. But only the invocative forms of blessings, and those permitted to the laity, whether in public or in private, may a woman deacon ever be permitted to do. No form of constitutive blessing may she ever perform. Hence, a woman deacon may never be granted to make water into holy water, whereas a male deacon is fully permitted to do this. Invocative blessings are blessings that invoke God to bestow a spiritual or temporal good upon someone or something as a request to the heavens. But a constitutive blessing is one that directly dedicates a permanent constitutive change in the condition of a thing or person being blessed, such as dedicating a rosary as sacred. Constitutive blessings are reserved only for clerics, who can only be male. And someone objects, why is this distinction made between men and women as deacons? And I, the Lord God, answer this: A woman by nature is a receiver, whereas a man by nature is a giver. Their roles are defined as such by nature and cannot be altered by any sacramental change or bestowed blessing. Hence, anyone may invoke Me to bless someone or something or petition Me in any prayer request. But only one whose nature is a giver, a male, may be granted the power through Holy Orders to invoke a constitutive blessing on something or someone. I Who Am have spoken.
But Lord, all of this you have thus defined is, nevertheless, still classified as private revelation. It does not have the force of authority as does a public revelation. And so, My Lord, where does the pope and the Magisterium get their authority to declare dogma and doctrine that is binding on all Catholics, and all baptized peoples? For neither do they exist in the Age of Public Prophecy either. Or are they somehow public prophets still? No, Larimar. The pope has no authority it issue any new public prophecy. And neither does the Magisterium. The infallibility that I have given to the pope is an authority to have the final say on any dispute regarding the deposit of faith, restricted to only issues of faith and morals, and when issued from the Seat of Peter in the faculty of preaching to the entire Catholic Church.
Thus, when the Pope condemned Galileo for saying that the earth orbited the sun, he was operating outside his limits from those matters that concern only faith and morals. His papal infallibility did not cover that area of dispute. But Lord, what about the story of Creation in the Book of Genesis? It contradicts many findings of science. Isn’t it a matter of faith for the pope to issue a proclamation on all those contradicting issues as to whether Genesis is true or false in what it claims happened that contradict the scientific beliefs? Or do You draw a fine line between what the Church can issue decrees of validity on and what science can propose hypotheses on and develop explanations for and test and measure their hypotheses to establish theories on. Indeed, I do, Lord Larimar. On those issues where it is possible to conduct tests and to measure results, that is the dominion of science. But on those issues where Mankind has no means possible to conduct tests on and to measure results, that is the dominion of religion, theology and that region of thought where only the Church can rule decisively as regards to the deposit of faith. Hence, the scriptures contain the story of the destruction of the City of Sodom. It is in the realm of science to determine the validity of the details as to whether such a city existed in history, and whether it was destroyed by a rain of fire falling from the heavens. Such are things that can be uncovered by archaeology and measured and tested by various analyses done on such a discovered site, were it to be found. But there are also those things that science cannot test and measure, such as the punitive supernatural reason behind the event, and the answers to the questions as to why God had this happen to this city? Science oversteps their bounds to rule against a supernatural cause or first motion due to the very fact that this is something that they do not possess the means of testing and making measurements of. Hence, science is able to answer questions such as how did this occur by natural processes? And the Church answers the questions as to why do bad things happen to good people? And why was I made? And why are we here? Science can explain how the universe was formed, but cannot give an explanation for why it was formed.
Lord, tell me about the girl I shall marry. Who is she and when does she enter my life? Lord, Hyacinth remains in my life and it seems that we are somehow bound to each other. But you say that the girl I am to marry is someone else yet to come? And that when the time comes for her to come, you will be taking Hyacinth away? Am I correct in these beliefs, O’ Lord and Master? We in heaven placed Hyacinth into your life to test you and to prepare you for the one who We would ultimately join you to. Hyacinth is a good woman. And by your love for her, We were able to bring her to salvation. Hence, when her time comes, and it is soon, We shall be taking her to her Master in heaven who shall be well pleased with her and who shall reward her with many good things. For you have guided this little lamb, who was once lost, safely into My flock, Lord Larimar. And for this deed, the reward is of infinite value. And We in heaven have taken note that you have never sought her death, so as to speed up the time for the coming of Ester into your life. For you know that Ester cannot come to you before We first take Hyacinth away, and you know that you shall be given the vision of Hyacinth as having been taken away when she is in fact taken from this earth. Like a faithful and true spouse, you have not sought for this event to take place. Now We shall speak.
Eric, Hyacinth’s departure from this world is very soon. And her soul has been saved. Yes, Larimar, you have saved her soul. Now, it is also true that she believes that she will marry you. Of this she is convinced, for she has received promises from Mary and from Me that she was to marry you and to bear your child. And how do We keep our promises to her that this shall be the case if you are to go to another woman, one whom you are yet to meet? But Lord, do you even make it possible for me to marry her? Is that even a remote possibility for me at this point, O’ Lord and Master? Everything is possible for Me, except to make someone love someone else. So, My Lord, is it in Your will that I marry Hyacinth and father children by her? Or do I wait for another who is yet to come, where things will be easier to do?
It is for you to will what you wish to do and to will what girl you would marry, O’ Larimar King. I do not and cannot decide your decision as to whether you marry and to whom. But should you elect to marry Hyacinth, then the door to marrying Ester shall shut. But should you remain as you are on your current trajectory, We shall take Hyacinth from your life and bring Ester into it for you to marry her.
And so, We in heaven see you. We see your peaceful inertia, that you are a ship in motion that will not deviate from your present course. And in that course, you shall not take Hyacinth as your actual wife, but will wait until your true wife comes, the one who in your pantheon of Rulers is called Ester, Queen of Mexico. And Hyacinth, who is Queen of Ireland, is just too far across the sea to be viewed as a viable mate for you. Had you married Hyacinth, your descendants through her would have remained White. But since you are irrevocably set to marry the one who is to come, who is a Mestiza of Mexican roots, your offspring by her shall be forevermore of the Mestizo people. Congratulations, Eric. You have crossed the color barrier and become a hybridized man. Amen. You will not regret your choice, O’ Larimar King. For the girl We have chosen for you is well fit for being equally yoked with you. As for should you have chosen Hyacinth, you may not have been so equally yoked, and My purpose in you would have been hampered. Now, go, Eric, and take your rest. This post is now complete. We shall take Hyacinth away from you very soon. And when you see the vision of her having been taken away, realize that Ester has reached the gates of your city and is about to enter your life. Oracle of the Lord. God has spoken. Amen.