Catholic Planet
[ Home | Articles | Poetry | Music | Theology | Resources | Links | Contact ]
Discernment of Private Revelation

Claims of Private Revelation: True or False?
An Evaluation of the messages of Alan Ames

Return to the Main List
In my humble and pious opinion as a faithful Roman Catholic theologian, the claimed private revelations, in the form of the messages to Alan Ames (a.k.a. Carver Alan Ames), are not true private revelations from Heaven. A list of reasons and examples follows.
  1. Heresy on the morality of killing

    The Magisterium teaches the truth: that murder is always wrong, but that killing is not always wrong. Killing in self-defense, in pursuit of the common good by law enforcement officers, and by soldiers in a just war may be justified and is not always wrong. The commandment, “You shall not kill,” refers to murder, not to all killing.
    “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.” (CCC, 2265).

    “The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.” (CCC, 2267).
    Thus the Church definitively teaches that killing is not always immoral. But the messages to Carver Alan Ames say the opposite, claiming that killing is always wrong, regardless of the circumstances. There is a passage in his messages, said to be from God the Father, saying that killing is always wrong without exception. This passage contradicts Church teaching:
    “There are many ways of killing and many excuses for it but whatever the way, whatever the reason, it is still wrong, it is still a sin. If you kill for justice or for what is right, this is a sin. If you kill for truth and honor, this is a sin; if you kill for revenge or for your country, this is a sin. All killing is a sin unless it is an accident, unless it was not meant to happen. The taking of a life no matter what the reason offends Me your God deeply and it scars your soul mortally. Those who agree to killing, whether it be through their governments in wars or in justice, carry the scars on their souls also….Those who kill to stop killing become the same as those they oppose, they become filled with sin. All killing is wrong, all killing offends Me your God and all killing leads you away from God.” - God the Father, 4/2/95
    (Messages to Carver Alan Ames, p. 62.)
    Notice that the above quote equates all killing with murder; this contradicts the teaching of the Church. The Church teaches that killing in self-defense, or by law enforcement officers to protect the common good, or by soldiers in a just war, or even at times in the use of the death penalty can all be moral. The above message to Carver Alan Ames directly contradicts that teaching by saying that all killing is not only wrong, but a mortal sin: “it scars your soul mortally.” This claim is a heresy because it contradicts the definitive teaching of the Church on one of the ten commandments, and on self-defense, the death penalty, and just war.

    True private revelations do not contain direct contradictions to definitive Church teaching. Therefore, these messages to Carver Alan Ames are not from God. Yet there are still more reasons to reject these messages.

  2. Heresies about salvation

    Another message contains a heresy about eternal salvation:
    “When you pray for the dead, whom are you praying for? There are two types of souls you must pray for…. There are those in purgatory…. The other souls you should pray for are those who are on their way to hell. If you ask in your prayers for the Lord God to save them and to take them to purgatory instead, how can He not listen, for He is a God of love? If you knew the suffering in hell, you would not wish anyone, no matter what they have done, to go there. Surely also, if you love God, then you can forgive even the worst sinner, for this is what Jesus did with His sacrifice at Calvary.”
    (Messages to Carver Alan Ames, p. 15.)
    The above messages states that there are two types of deceased souls that we should pray for. First, correctly, the message states that we should pray for the souls in Purgatory. Second, the message claims we should pray for deceased souls “who are on their way to hell,” and that God will then save them, forgive them even if they are the worst sinner, and take them to purgatory instead. This claim directly contradicts the teaching of the Church:
    “Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ…. Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification or immediately,-or immediate and everlasting damnation.”
    (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1021-1022, on the Particular Judgment).
    All souls receive the particular judgment immediately after death, which decides irrevocably whether they will go to Heaven (perhaps by way of Purgatory) or whether they will go to Hell. It is not possible for a deceased soul to be on its way to Hell, and then be prayed for, forgiven and saved, and sent to Purgatory. First, souls are sent to Hell if the individual died in a state of actual mortal sin. Nothing that happens after death in such a case can save the individual. It is not possible for a soul to repent from actual mortal sin after death. Salvation is obtained in this life, for the next life. Second, prayers for the soul of a person who died in a state of actual mortal sin cannot save that individual from Hell. The Church teaches that all those who die in a state of actual mortal sin go to Hell immediately after death:
    “Moreover we define that according to the general disposition of God, the souls of those who die in actual mortal sin go down into hell immediately (mox) after death and there suffer the pain of hell.”
    (Pope Benedict XII, On the Beatific Vision of God.)
    The claim that a soul, which is on its way to Hell after death, can be saved by prayer, is an heretical claim that directly contradicts the clear and definitive teaching of the Church on salvation.

    A similar heretical claim about salvation is found in another message. This message is a claimed revelation from God the Father, in question and answer format.
    “Q. If Jesus is the way to heaven and non-Christians do not know of Him, how can they reach heaven?
    “A. …if these people died and did not know of Jesus, then it is not their fault and this is taken into account by the loving Father in Heaven. This does not mean that they can get to Heaven without Jesus. It means that the Father in His mercy allows them a grace that enables them to accept or deny Jesus as Lord.” - God the Father, 4/4/95
    (Messages to Carver Alan Ames, p. 78.)
    The correct answer to the Question above is that those who do not know Jesus by name can know Him in a hidden manner by knowing goodness, truth, justice, mercy, and love, all of which are universal. They can obtain a state of grace through a Baptism of desire. They can remain in that state by doing good and avoiding evil, in so far as they are able to understand good from evil. They can return to a state of grace after a mortal sin by an act of perfect contrition. Therefore, they can die in a state of sanctifying grace and can be saved, even if they have never heard of Jesus.

    The Answer given in the quote above, supposedly from God the Father, claims that, after death, those who die without knowing of Jesus are given an opportunity to accept or to reject Him. This claim is heretical: It implies that salvation is not determined by what one does in this life. It implies that not everyone receives the particular judgment immediately after death. It implies that some person have their eternal salvation determined by whether they accept or reject Jesus after death. All three of these ideas are contrary to the definitive teaching of the Church on salvation. Salvation is determined in this life. After death, one's final destination cannot be changed. There is no opportunity after death to obtain or to lose salvation; for salvation depends on one's choices in this life.

    There are other errors on the topic of salvation in these messages. There is a general concept, presented in a rather diffuse manner throughout the book, that salvation is obtained by the spirit of man growing stronger, or lost by its growing weaker. Man is said to have the seed of love within him from his creation; and this grows or fails to grow based on free will and the influence of others. The concept of sanctifying grace given in Baptism is absent from the numerous messages on salvation; it is even absent from the section specifically on Baptism itself.

  3. Errors on the Sacraments

    Baptism is said to place a barrier between the child and evil. There is no mention of Baptism forgiving original sin, nor any mention of Baptism granting sanctifying grace.
    “God asked that each one be baptized in His name, the name of Jesus. This is to say the person is God's, this person is to spend eternity in God's love. This Sacrament is to claim what God created as His own, His child. This Sacrament places a barrier between evil and this child of God…. while the child is young he cannot defend himself, so God in His mercy gives each an angel to watch over and protect him…. As the child starts to develop, it then becomes part of the fight, a little at a time it enters into the battle and the angel slowly withdraws.” - Jesus 9/24/95
    (Messages to Carver Alan Ames, p. 158-159)
    The description of Baptism is remarkable for what is lacks, which is any mention of sanctifying grace, original sin, the character imprinted on the soul in Baptism, the Trinitarian formula (instead the Baptism is said to be in the name of Jesus), etc. Baptism is presented as if it had no discrete immediate effect, but were merely the start of a process of growing in love and fighting against evil.

    The claim about the angel is at odds with the belief of the sensus fidelium about guardian angels. The common Catholic belief is that everyone has a guardian angel, from conception until death. Whereas in these messages, an angel is only appointed after Baptism, and he gradually withdraws as the child grows. This also contradicts Sacred Scripture, since even Jesus had the assistance of holy angels, even in His adult years:

    {1:13} And he was in the desert for forty days and forty nights. And he was tempted by Satan. And he was with the wild animals, and the Angels ministered to him.

    {4:10} For it is written that he has given his Angels charge over you, so that they may guard you,
    {4:11} and so that they may take you into their hands, lest perhaps you may hurt your foot against a stone.”

    {22:43} Then an Angel appeared to him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in agony, he prayed more intensely;

    The section on the Sacrament of Confession (p. 159) does not mention mortal or venial sin, nor does it mention actual mortal sin and the loss of the state of sanctifying grace (the concept is entirely absent from these messages). Instead, Confession (and nearly everything else that is good in the Faith) is presented as merely removing obstacles to the individual's natural spiritual growth and development. The Sacrament of the Eucharist is presented in a similar manner (p. 160). The chapter on the Sacraments (chapter 2) does not mention the other Sacraments; only Baptism, Confession, and Communion are mentioned. And this chapter is supposedly, in its entirety, directly from Jesus Christ in private revelation. A modestly well-taught Catholic child could easily pen an essay on the Sacraments that was more thorough, more profound, and more doctrinally correct than this entire chapter. It is absurd to claim that this chapter is a revelation from Jesus Christ.

  4. Distorted explanation of the Trinity

    The following explanation of the Trinity cannot be from true private revelation, because it is a poor explanation, containing falsehoods and distortions and utter nonsense. It is as if written by a child, and not a child who had received much instruction.
    “Many people find it difficult to understand the Holy Trinity-how can one being be three? It all comes to faith, faith that with God all is possible. God has given there words to help explain: The Holy Trinity is Me and I am They. I am the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I am God, We are God. What a wondrous thing, three in one and one in three. Each God, each different, each the same, each, one with Me. All came from Me, all is Me, all is God. The Father the Creator, the Son the love, the Spirit the fire. Together God, separate God, together the creator, together the love, together the fire. One being, one God, three aspects, three different reflections of God. What a mystery, what divine love, what heavenly glory, what joy!” - Our Lady, 8/27/94
    (Messages to Carver Alan Ames, p. 17.)
    The above explanation of the Trinity is supposedly from the Virgin Mary in Heaven. But at one point, it calls the Three Persons merely 'three aspects,' merely 'three different reflections' of God, whereas the Church teaches that the Three Persons are each fully God and are not merely aspects or reflections of the One God. In another place, it makes the opposite claim that the Three Persons are 'separate God,' whereas the Church teaches that the Three Persons are distinct, but are not separate. It speaks as if God were the Three Persons plus the One God by saying 'each, one with Me' as if the Three Persons plus the One God made for four things, rather than Three in One. The Church teaches that the Three Persons are the One God; the One God is nothing other than the Three Persons. It uses grandiose rhetoric to hide the fact that it present no substantial knowledge or wisdom about the Trinity. It makes vague and inaccurate statements, such as: 'The Holy Trinity is Me and I am They,' and 'the Spirit is the fire… together the fire.' Such a poor and even heretical explanation of the Trinity could not possibly come from the Virgin Mary, not even when she was on this earth, certainly not now that she has the Beatific Vision.

    The claim that the Three Persons of the Trinity are merely aspects or different reflections of God is a heresy. The claim that the Three Persons of the Trinity are 'separate God' is a heresy. Much of the rest of what is said is perhaps better classified as nonsense than as heresy.
    “The merciful Father sent His Son Jesus to the world as an act of love and forgiveness. The Holy Spirit sent His Son to Mary as a union between God and man.” - Our Lady, 1/1/95
    (Messages to Carver Alan Ames, p. 25)
    This message correctly calls Jesus, the Son of the Father; but then it goes on to call Jesus the Son of the Holy Spirit. Again, the messages contain serious doctrinal errors, even heretical errors, on the topic of the Trinity.

  5. False claims about the Annunciation

    Scripture, as well as the private revelations to Saint Bridget of Sweden and to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, all present the Annunciation as occurring at one point in time, on one day, in a brief part of one day. Mary was visited by the Angel Gabriel, who announced to her that she was chosen by God to become the mother of the Savior. She accepted God's will.

    But in the claimed private revelation to Carver Alan Ames, this event is presented in a substantially different way:
    “While still young and pure, the Lord came to this woman and asked if she was prepared to make the sacrifice of her whole life to save man by giving birth to the Son of God. At first this woman was frightened and then wondered if it was God speaking to her. After some time, she came to believe it was God, she knew it was God and so she offered herself freely and completely.” - God the Father, 10/3/94 & 10/4/94
    (Messages to Carver Alan Ames, p. 29)
    There are a number of problems with the above quote. First, there is no Angel giving the Annunciation to Mary; instead it says: “the Lord came to this woman and asked her….” Second, Mary supposedly reacts with fear. But Sacred Scripture does not mention any fear by Mary. In the private revelations to Blessed Emmerich, Mary is immersed in an ecstasy of prayer, but she is not afraid at all. Third, Mary supposedly reacts with doubt, wondering if it is God speaking to her, and it supposedly takes her “some time” to believe that it was God speaking. In Sacred Scripture, Mary believes immediately. Her unwavering faith is even contrasted, in the Gospel of Luke, with the lack of faith of Zechariah, who was struck mute for his lack of faith. In the messages to Carver Alan Ames, Mary is presented as if she had more doubt that Zechariah. Fourth, the Immaculate Conception created Mary with sanctifying grace, with purity of love, faith, and hope, without any sin or imperfection. Therefore, she could not possibly have reacted with fear and doubt, taking some time to believe that it was God.

  6. Errors about the Fall of the Angels

    Chapter 3 of his book contains messages supposedly from the Holy Spirit. These begin with a message describing the Fall from grace of the Angels:
    “With this freedom some of the angels believed they were as God; some believed they were God's equal…. Then, as they saw how the angels, who took God's gift and returned it to Him with thanks and praise, were rewarded by the Father, they became jealous…. they still believe they can defeat God.” - the Holy Spirit
    (Messages to Carver Alan Ames, p. 38-39)
    There are a number of problems with this description. First, the fall of the angels is not portrayed as a discrete event. Some angels are portrayed as thinking that they were equal to God, but this is not said to be the fall; later these angels are said to have become jealous of the other angels. The later event is treated as if it were more significant concerning the fall from grace. Second, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, the fallen angels did not and could not have desired to be equal to God: “Consequently it is impossible for one angel of lower degree to desire equality with a higher; and still more to covet equality with God.” (Summa Theologica, I, 63, 3). The sin of the fallen angels was pride in themselves, not thinking themselves equal to God. The Catholic Encyclopedia says: “And what is more, the highest of the angels, by reason of their greater intellectual illumination, must have the clearest knowledge of this utter impossibility of attaining to equality with God.” ( Third, since the fallen angels had enough intellect to know that they were not and could not be equal to God, they must also have known that they could never defeat God. But these messages claim the contrary.

    Fourth, the more probable explanation as to why some angels fell from grace, and that which was held by Aquinas and other theologians from his time, is that the angels were all shown God's plan in Jesus Christ, and asked to worship Christ. Those who did so attained to the Beatific Vision in Heaven, for no one, not even an angel, can enter to the Beatific Vision except through Christ. Those who refused to do so refused because Christ was God Incarnate, taking on human nature. The angelic nature, being pure spirit, is greater than human nature, which is partly comprised of matter. The pride in their own nature caused their fall from grace, not a mistaken belief that they were equal to God, and not jealously among the angels.

  7. Errors on Adam and Eve

    These same messages, after describing the fall of the angels, next describe the creation of Adam and Eve, and their fall from grace.
    “God, who is complete love, became sad at the actions of these evil angels. He was unhappy that they could turn from His love, even though He knew it would happen. God's love was made complete again when He made man in His image, and image of love…. The Father, in His mercy, decided that man should have a companion to share and enjoy the gifts God had given. God created woman, woman and man, one in God's eyes. The love and joy in God and God's gifts brought happiness to the Father…. Man, in his weakness, was tempted and ate of God's tree. God was sad even though He knew this would happen. God was sad, for He loved man.” - the Holy Spirit
    (Messages to Carver Alan Ames, p. 39-40.)
    Again, messages allegedly from the Holy Spirit contain numerous serious theological errors. First, God cannot change, and He cannot become sad or unhappy. God is utterly perfect and so always happy. That which is the highest perfection cannot change, because any change would mean a decrease in perfection. The claim that God became sad and unhappy, and that next His happiness was restored by creating Man, is contrary to Catholic teaching on the very Nature of God. Second, for the same reasons, God's love cannot be somehow incomplete, and the be “made complete again” by the creation of Man. God is perfect in love; God is love. He can no more be incomplete in love than He can cease to exist. Third, the description of the creation of man and woman treats man and woman as if they were equal in their roles. The woman is called a companion, rather than a helper. There is no mention of the woman being created from the side of Adam, which in the Bible is one indication of the difference in roles of Adam and Eve, man and woman. Since Adam and Eve are a figure of Christ and Mary (and of Christ and His Church), this lack of distinction between Adam and Eve destroys the figure used by the Bible to describe the distinctions between Christ and Mary, and between Christ and His Church.

    This error on the roles of men and women, namely the error of treating men and women as if they had no difference in roles within God's plan, is also found elsewhere in the messages:
    “When God created mankind, God created man for woman and woman for man. Mankind has been created this way so that man and woman in love can become one with God. Mankind has been created that way to bring love into the world in My little ones…. Man is one half of the equation, woman, the other. Both equal and both joined to be one with God in creation. If it was to be any other way, then God would have made it so.” - God the Father, 4/2/95
    (Messages to Carver Alan Ames, p. 63).
    The above message is contradicted by Sacred Scripture:

    [1 Timothy]
    {2:11} Let a woman learn in silence with all subjection.
    {2:12} For I do not permit a woman to teach, nor to be in authority over a man, but to be in silence.
    {2:13} For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
    {2:14} And Adam was not seduced, but the woman, having been seduced, was in transgression.
    {2:15} Yet she will be saved by bearing children, if she has continued in faith and love, and in sanctification accompanied by self-restraint.

    God intends men and women to have different roles in the Church, the family, and society. But the above quoted messages present men and women as if they were intended to have the same roles.

  8. Summary of additional problems


    There is an odd message entitled 'The Evolution of Mankind.' It explicitly talks about evolution, at times seeming to support it and only a few sentences later seeming to refute it. At one point it says: “it does not matter how certain creatures or plants evolved….” This would seem to indicate that evolution has occurred, as does the later claim: “and God made it so that all could adapt as the environment changed.” But elsewhere the same message says: “Why, if mankind is descended from apes, have apes not evolved to be more like mankind?” Other apparent criticisms of evolution are also phrased as questions. The result is an ambiguity which does not even remotely resemble a teaching from God the Father; rather, it resembles a poorly-written essay by a schoolboy (and not even a well-taught one at that). (Messages to Carver Alan Ames, p. 71-72).

    Queen of the Cross?
    “I ask to be called 'Queen of the Cross,' because the Father has granted me the grace of sharing in the redemption of mankind with my Son Jesus who by His sacrifice has opened the door of Heaven to His children.” (12/31/94)
    (Messages to Carver Alan Ames, p. xiii; actually an unnumbered page)
    False private revelations often promote themselves, and attempt to endear themselves to the faithful, by offering a new title for the Virgin Mary. This title, Queen of the Cross, is theologically problematic, at best. In other titles, the term Queen is used to indicate that Mary has some role in guiding or directing or ruling over something. So as Queen of Heaven, Mary has a role over the faithful in Heaven. But God is nevertheless the Divine Ruler over Heaven and earth. As Queen of the Angels, Mary has a role directing the Angels as they do the work of God.

    But the term Queen of the Cross would imply that Mary has some role of direction or authority or guidance over the Cross of Jesus Christ. This claim is unacceptable because it would give Mary authority over Christ who is the Son of God, and because it would put Mary above Christ in importance in our salvation. So even though it sounds nice to give Mary every possible title one could think up, not every title is a fitting or true description of her limited role in God's plan.

    Worldly Language in Claimed Heavenly Messages

    A common indicator in false private revelations is the use of worldly language, instead of heavenly language. Jesus and Mary are in Heaven, therefore they speak in a heavenly manner. Even when Jesus and Mary were on this earth, they spoke in a heavenly manner. But false private revelation often portrays them as speaking in a worldly manner:
    "The prayer of silence needs to be an uninterrupted time. Sit in a quiet room, put up a 'Do not disturb' sign…. "
    (Messages to Carver Alan Ames, p. 5-6.)

    "Electricity is an invisible force that can move objects, faith is like that…. If you can believe that electricity is there and it will power your light in your house when you switch it on, then you should believe that faith will power your soul when you switch it on. You believe in electricity because you can see the results when you flick the switch. Faith is the same."
    (Messages to Carver Alan Ames, p. 10.)

    "Man must now look to helping himself as a species, as brothers and sisters in God."
    (Messages to Carver Alan Ames, p. 11.)
    In addition to worldly language, these messages often lapse into flowery but empty expressions; they play with words, sometimes moving from correct expressions, such as Lord of Lords, to absurd expressions, such as Perfume of Perfumes:
    "Sweetness is the taste of the love that Jesus brings. Sweetness is the taste of the joy that Jesus brings. And sweetness is the taste of Jesus for He is love and He is joy." - Our Lady, 12/12/94
    (Messages to Carver Alan Ames, p. 22)

    "Truth of Truths, Lord of Lords, God of Gods, Jesus. Light of Lights, Flame of Flames, Love of Loves, Jesus. Perfume of Perfumes, Flower of Flowers, Honey of Honeys, Jesus." - Our Lady, 12/29/94
    (Messages to Carver Alan Ames, p. 23.)

    "Long to live, long to love, and long to pray. Living is loving and loving is praying." - Our Lady, 1/28/95
    (Messages to Carver Alan Ames, p. 28)
    This is the kind of text that could have been written by a poorly-instructed schoolgirl; it is filled with shallow platitudes and flowery rhetoric. By contrast, true messages from the Virgin Mary would show her profound yet subtle wisdom, and the great insight that she has from the Beatific Vision of God.

    Daughter of Desire?
    "Mother of Mercy, Maid of Love, Daughter of Desire. The Mercy and Love that is Jesus and the desire to serve God." - Our Lady, 1/16/95
    (Messages to Carver Alan Ames, p. 26)
    This message claims that Mary called herself the Daughter of Desire, and then explained this desires as the desire to serve God. But she cannot be the daughter of her own desire to serve God; then she would be her own mother. Nor can she be the daughter of the desire of her Son to serve God; then she would be the daughter of her Son. Again, the messages contain rhetoric which sounds holy on a superficial level, but which is false, or heretical, or nonsensical. The extremely poor theology that underlies these messages shows that the messages are not from the Virgin Mary, seat of Wisdom.

    A fountain of youth and a deal with the devil

    There is an odd story, supposedly told by Jesus in this claimed private revelation to Carver Alan Ames, which talks about a man who did not believe in God. The man, as he aged, sought a way to live forever:
    “In a little while he came to a place called the fountain of youth. He asked if he could bathe in it but the owner said there was a price to pay…. 'It is your soul,' said the owner…. and so he gave it willingly. After he bathed in the fountain, he became young again and he was happy… On his way home he was crossing the road when a car came and knocked him down and killed him…. Satan took his soul and kept it in hell for eternity.” - Lord Jesus 8/26/95
    (Messages to Carver Alan Ames, p. 150)
    There are a number of problems with this claimed message from 'Jesus.' First, the reference to a fountain of youth is a worldly legend; Jesus does not base His teachings on worldly legends. Second, Jesus would not portray Satan as being the owner of a fountain of youth; fallen angels have no abilities other than the abilities natural to any angel, and even holy angels cannot grant youth to the aged or eternal life. Third, Hell is not run by Satan. So Satan cannot keep take someone's soul to Hell and keep it there forever. Hell is the place where Satan and his angels will be sent to be punished. And Satan does not take anyone's soul down to Hell; souls are sent to Hell by God after the particular judgment.

    {25:41} Then he shall also say, to those who will be on his left: 'Depart from me, you accursed ones, into the eternal fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels.'

    Pleasure and God the Father

    These messages claim that God receives pleasure when we believe in Him, trust in Him, and accept His gifts. The problem with this claim is that it presents God as if He were not immutable; it presents God as if He were changeable and subject to feelings of pleasure. (The above described errors on Adam and Eve similarly describe God as being happy or unhappy, depending on our actions.)
    “Pleasure of love, pleasure of fatherly care, pleasure of giving. This is the pleasure the Father gets when His children accept His gifts. Pleasure of sharing, pleasure of hoping, pleasure of filling with Him; this is the pleasure the Father gets when you trust in Him. Pleasure of pleasures, pleasure of returned love, pleasure of union in Jesus; this is the pleasure that the Father gets when you believe in Him.” - God, the Father, 3/20/95
    (Messages to Carver Alan Ames, p. 200)
    To the contrary, God is immutable; He cannot change. He is always perfectly happy, never less happy and never more happy. And His happiness does not consist in sensible pleasure. Furthermore, God is love. It is false to say that God receives pleasure from love, as if pleasure were the end and love were the means. In truth, God is Love. For us, love is means and the end to God. But even for us, the greatest good is not pleasure, but God who is Love. The emphasis on pleasure, and the claim that God receives pleasure, are contrary to sound Catholic teaching.

The vast majority of these messages of claimed private revelation offer empty rhetoric, worldly platitudes, and shallow teachings. Many of the messages use plays with words to produce a flowery phrasing which substitutes for insight and wisdom. There are hundreds of messages of this kind. There are also messages that pretend to offer instruction on various subjects. There are many explanations, supposedly from the Father or the Son or the Spirit, or the Virgin Mary, which are notable for their lack of insight on every subject; many words are used to say very little. And all of the messages sound like they were written by the same individual; there is little difference between messages from God and those from Mary. Most of what is offered, if it is not outright error, it is a superficial expression of common knowledge, and even then it is poorly worded. And at their very worst, these messages present heretical and doctrinal errors which contradict Church teaching. It is utterly amazing how any faithful reasonable Catholic could mistake this tripe for a private revelation from God or from Mary. Therefore, I conclude that the messages to Carver Alan Ames are not true private revelation from God or from Mary.

by Ronald L. Conte Jr.
March 1, 2008

 This Web site copyright by Catholic Planet. All articles, poetry, and music are copyrighted by their respective authors.