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 claimed messages to Lory Kemner
under the title of "Yahweh Shalom Virgin Victorious"

Return to the Main List
The claimed visionary is called 'Child' throughout the messages and website. However, her real name, address, and phone number is also found on the apparitions website:
Lory Kemner
688 Apache Point Drive, Climax Springs, MO 65324
(573) 345-4710

In my humble and pious opinion as a faithful Roman Catholic theologian, the claimed private revelations to Lory Kemner, under the title "Yahweh Shalom Virgin Victorious," are not true private revelations from Heaven. A list of reasons and examples follows.

1. False predictions of future events

"*In December, 2006, Jesus said we would begin in January, 2007, a three year period. He said 'Disaster, Disaster, Catastrophe.' I asked Jesus what this meant and He said that He would awaken His children. He stressed Disaster in the second year would be worse than in the first year. The third year would be the worst."

We are now well into the year 2010, and it is clear that 2007, 2008, and 2009 were not remarkable for disasters or catastrophes. Now in any year, there will be some natural disasters and some unfortunate events in human affairs. But if Jesus truly had appeared and given a special prediction of disasters for those three years, then the years would have been very remarkable for disasters. They were not. Therefore, these messages are not from Jesus or Mary, nor from Heaven at all. For Jesus is Eternal God, and He can never err in anything that He knows or says or does. And all the faithful in Heaven, including the Blessed Virgin Mary, have the Beatific Vision of God, and so they cannot be mistaken about anything which they assert to be true. An erroneous message about the future cannot be from Jesus, nor from Mary, nor from anyone in Heaven.

2. Several Serious Errors on Original Sin

JESUS' LIFE Chapter 1 -- "The Downfall of Man"
"Then Satan tempted Eve. He tempted her because only she might be able to lead Adam to sin. Lucifer, who is pride, offered the temptation that struck at her pride. She and Adam had everything and the right to rule over everything except for one prohibition, and Satan kept insinuating that it was not right for God to prohibit them from having total control over procreation of other men. He told them if they would listen to him they would know what God knew. Eve began to work on Adam and over a period of time convinced him to listen to the Serpent. You must understand that this was not a decision of a moment, but the seed was planted and grew until these two, who had great understanding of their God and knew how much He loved them and promised to do for them and their descendents if they would comply with what He asked of them. Pride, envy, covetousness grew slowly but surely and finally they disobeyed. They lost innocence."

There are several theological errors in the above paragraph. Adam and Eve were without sin before the Fall from grace. Pride is a type of sin. The above quote admits that pride is a sin, by referring to the sin of Lucifer, which was pride. (1) However, the claim is also made that Eve had pride before she fell from grace. Since pride is a sin, neither Adam nor Eve could have had pride before the Fall from grace. (2) This same theological error is also found in the claim that pride, envy, and covetousness grew slowly, leading up to a sin of disobedience which caused the Fall, i.e. the loss of original innocence. But again, pride, envy, and covetousness are sins. So it is absurd to claim that Adam and Eve committed these sins of pride, envy, and covetousness before they fell. (3) Original sin is defined as the first sin of the human race. But the above quote repeatedly claims that Adam and Eve sinned repeatedly, over a period of time, prior to the Fall from grace when innocence was lost. This claim contradicts the teaching of the Church that original sin is first sin. The Catechism of the Catholic Church repeatedly refers to original sin as man's first sin (CCC, n. 396 and following). (4) The above quote implies that original sin was related to procreation, i.e. that sex was original sin. This claim is false; see the following quoted text from my book on Ethics.
Many persons wrongly assume that the first sin was a sexual sin; such is not the case. The verses on the temptation and fall of Adam and Eve do not mention sexual sin. Also, Eve was tempted first, and so she fell from grace first, just as Sacred Scripture explicitly states: "And Adam was not seduced, but the woman, having been seduced, was in transgression." (1 Timothy 2:14). So the claim that Adam and Eve fell from grace by have sexual relations with one another cannot be true.

Saint Thomas Aquinas: "It is written (Sirach 10:15): 'Pride is the beginning of all sin.' Now man's first sin is the beginning of all sin, according to Romans 5:12, 'By one man sin entered into this world.' Therefore man's first sin was pride." [Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 163, A. 1.]

Pride is the beginning of all sin because in order to sin, one must depart from the moral law, which is based on the love of God above all else. All sin is a type of disorder whereby the love of something less than God is placed above God. All sin is a type of selfishness whereby pride in one's self permits one to act contrary to the will and plan of God. Pride was the first sin of Eve, and next of Adam, not some sexual sin. Pride is the foundation of all sin; therefore, pride must have been the first sin. For a house cannot be built before its foundation has been laid.

Saint Thomas Aquinas: "Now man was so appointed in the state of innocence, that there was no rebellion of the flesh against the spirit. Wherefore it was not possible for the first inordinateness in the human appetite to result from his coveting a sensible good, to which the concupiscence of the flesh tends against the order of reason. It remains therefore that the first inordinateness of the human appetite resulted from his coveting inordinately some spiritual good. Now he would not have coveted it inordinately by desiring it according to his measure, as established by the Divine rule. Hence it follows that man's first sin consisted in his coveting some spiritual good above his measure: and this pertains to pride. Therefore it is evident that man's first sin was pride." [Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 163, A. 1.]

Adam and Eve were not, before the fall from grace, in a fallen state; they did not have concupiscence. Therefore, they were not prone to sexual sins, nor to any sins of rebellion of the flesh against the spirit. For fallen humanity, temptation is from three sources: the flesh, the world, and the devil. But Adam and Eve were not yet fallen, and so they were not tempted by the flesh. And they did not live in a sinful fallen world, but in Paradise, so they were not tempted by the world. They were tempted by a fallen angel; he did not tempt them with sins of the flesh, because they were not susceptible to such sins. Satan tempted them to pride because his own first sin was the sin of pride, in his rebellion against God, and because pride is the beginning of all sin."
[Conte, The Catechism of Catholic Ethics, n. 469.]

The same work called "Jesus' Life", a work supposedly dictated by Jesus to , continues to assert doctrinal errors on the topic of original sin:

Chapter 1 -- "The Downfall of Man"
"Mankind held in the depths of their souls the remembrance of what had been and what had been promised. Every soul at the moment it is created, for a fraction of a second, sees its Creator and in the seeing, in that moment, the soul is impressed with the knowledge of the Goodness of God and it is given understanding of good and evil; what you call moral law. It understands Good because it is for that instant in the Presence of Infinite Goodness, Mercy and Love, and the soul knows that it is being created to live with this Infinite Good forever, but it also understands that there is an impairment and in that sense it understands evil because the impairment keeps it from living in union with this Infinite Good. At the moment of conception that impairment is in place and it is called Original Sin."

The claim is false that every soul, at its creation, receives the Beatific Vision of God (or anything similar). This cannot be true for a number of reasons. (1) Neither Sacred Tradition, nor Sacred Scripture, nor the Magisterium has ever taught any such claim. (2) The soul of persons conceived in original sin does not have sanctifying grace. Without sanctifying grace, the soul cannot have the Beatific Vision of God. For this vision is not literally a type of 'sight', but a direct knowing in grace. Without grace, there is no Beatific Vision, nor anything similar.

(3) The human person at conception is not capable of knowing anything. Even an infant, nine months later, has no substantial capacity to know moral truths. As a result, an infant cannot commit personal sin. But then it must also be true that the prenatal cannot know the moral law, and understand good from evil. Otherwise, prenatals and infants would be capable of violating that knowledge, by committing sin. So the reason that prenatals and infants are incapable of personal sin (CCC, n. 403), that they do not know wrong from right, is also the reason that this claim cannot be true: such very young human persons have not yet developed the ability to understand good from evil.

(4) The claim that original sin is an 'impairment' that prevents the soul from living with God forever is completely foreign to the teaching of the Catholic Church on original sin. This claim throws away centuries of teaching by the Magisterium on original sin, and substitutes a fable: the claim that the conceived human person sees God and knows the moral law and understand profound truths, all long before birth. The Catechism of the Catholic Church's teaching on original sin (CCC, n. 396 and following) presents profound truths and detailed information on the nature of sin. By comparison, the messages presented by Lory Kemner on original sin are superficial, erroneous, and contrary to Catholic teaching.

3. Doctrinal errors on the Immaculate Conception and on Grace

JESUS' LIFE Chapter 2 - "The Coming of the Messiah"
"To carry the God-Man, Mary would be given the singular privilege of being conceived without Original Sin which meant that from the moment God breathed life into Her She was in the state of grace. The Mother of God had to be in the state of grace, for God will not abide where sin is, but, My children, I want you to understand that I call My Mother Holy not only because of the singular privilege given Her, but because, on Her own, She strove with all Her Heart and Will to love God and obey Him."

Serious theological errors are found in the above quote. (1) Mary did not merely carry God Incarnate. For His Body was created from her body. (2) It is true that the Immaculate Conception was a singular privilege. However, that singular privilege did not consist in being conceived without original sin. Both Adam and Eve were created without original sin. Jesus also was conceived without original sin. Mary's unique privilege was in being preserved from inheriting original sin from her parents, who had original sin. Jesus would not make such a basic doctrinal error, therefore, this work called "JESUS' LIFE (Author: Jesus)", was not written or dictated or revealed in any way by Jesus Christ.

(3) It is true that the Blessed Virgin Mary was in a state of grace from conception. However, the above quote speaks as if the lack of the state of grace were the only effect of original sin. To the contrary, the Magisterium teaches that Mary's Immaculate Conception preserved her from "all stain of original sin," that is, from all the effects of original sin. And the Council of Trent condemned anyone who would claim that original sin affects only the soul, or only the body, and not both body and soul. (Trent, Fifth Session, Decree concerning Original Sin, n. 1 and 2.) Again, such a basic doctrinal error, in contradiction to the definitive teaching of an Ecumenical Council could not possibly be found in a work or in messages from Jesus, the Son of God.

(4) The claim that "on Her own, She strove with all Her Heart and Will to love God and obey Him" is contrary to the teaching of the Council of Trent (and of the Magisterium generally) on grace. No one, not even the Blessed Virgin Mary, can act in true spiritual love of God and neighbor without grace. In all such acts of true love and obedience to God, God's grace is before, during, and after the act. So it is not possible for Mary to be holy 'on Her own', nor to do any act of true love of God or neighbor 'on Her own'. The prevenient grace of God is first, before any act of true love of God or neighbor.

4. The same work, allegedly by Jesus, contains a false claim about the parents of the Virgin Mary.

JESUS' LIFE Chapter 2 - "The Coming of the Messiah"
"and then the loss of both Her parents while quite young…. Although Mary would have preferred to remain in the Temple, She obeyed the priests when they told Her they would find a suitable spouse who would take care of Her, especially since She had no parents."

Ss. Joachim and Ann did not die while Mary was young. Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich states that Anna was alive past the time when Jesus attained the age of 12 years. Joachim had died years earlier. But Ann remarried, twice. Blessed Emmerich describes, in her visions from God, various incidents occurring in the life of Saint Ann, including helping Mary prepare for her marriage to Joseph, in contradiction to the above quote.

Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich: "When the Blessed Virgin had reached the age of fourteen and was to be dismissed from the Temple with seven other maidens to be married, I saw that her mother Anna had come to visit her there. Joachim was no longer alive and Anna had by God's command married again." [Emmerich, Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary, p. 81 (ebook version)]

5. Doctrinal Error on the union of the Divinity of Christ with his Body

JESUS' LIFE Chapter 22 - The Resurrection
"At the appointed moment, which had been advanced for the sake of My Mother, My Soul and Divinity were united to My Body. Suddenly there was awareness in My Body. I opened My Eyes as best I could, for I had been smeared with balm to hold Me until the women could return to complete the burial rite. I sat up and My Body felt stiff until circulation returned to all parts of My Body."

This quote claims that, after the death of Jesus, at the time of the Resurrection, His Divinity was united to His Body. This claim is a serious theological error. The infallible dogma of the hypostatic union, i.e. the thorough union of Christ's two natures, implies that the Divine Nature continues to be united to the soul of Christ and the body of Christ at all times, even between His death and Resurrection.

Dr. Ludwig Ott: "The Hypostatic Union was never interrupted…. His death did not dissolve the attachment of the Godhead [the Divine Nature] and humanity, or of their parts. Even after their separation the body and soul separately remained hypostatically uhnited with the Divine Logos [the Divine Word]." [Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 150-151]

The rest of the above quote from 'JESUS LIFE' speaks as if the Resurrected Body of Jesus, the Son of God, was impaired by His death, as if His miraculous Resurrection failed to completely restore His Body to the fullness of life immediately. Such a claim is in effect blasphemous, because it presents Jesus as if He were not all-powerful: "I opened My Eyes as best I could….My Body felt stiff until circulation returned…."


There are many other errors in the claimed messages to Lory Kemner. The above-described serious doctrinal errors should be sufficient to prove that these messages, and the work called "JESUS' LIFE", are not from Jesus or Mary, and are not from Heaven at all. In my opinion, the most probable source of these apparitions and messages is fallen angels.

Ronald L. Conte Jr.
Roman Catholic theologian
30 September 2010

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