My Writings are NOT the Visions of Another Mystic

They are not a parallel to Conchita (Catholic) or Feliksa Kozlowska (condemned by the Holy See), they are a parallel to Chesterton (Catholic) or C. S. Lewis (a heretic, though with valuable insights on some points).

Polish Mystic Gets EXCOMMUNICATED! SHOCKING HISTORY 😲
Jerome Chong | 18 Febr. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrFsGTsJhTc

[omitting a discussion on the place name Płock and its pronunciation, wikipedia has an audio]

Have you heard of the Old Believers?

By the time of Avvakum, they were defending the Immaculate Conception, which the Russian Orthodox Church started to deny following 1666, when a Skirzhal (manual) translated from a Greek Orthodox in Venice who had been influenced by Lutherans was introduced.

By 1900, the Old Believers had come to include many divisions, one of the more famous ones being Molokites ... don't worry, it doesn't mean Molochists, it's just a question of using milk and bread for "eucharist" ... they were part of the Bezpopowcy = priestless. A bit like a certain village in France, when a Dominican arrived, was found venerating a dog as a martyr. The dog had been found covered with blood, the owner believed it had killed and eaten their baby, they beheaded the dog, then went around and found the baby alive, but a big snake dead. The dog had first saved the baby from death, then been wrongly accused for its non-extant death, and this precisely because of saving it, so the dog had died "for righteousness' sake" ... obviously the righteousness of God and the guardian angel. When the Dominican arrived, he found the village had been priestless too long.

That happened to the Molokites, but on top of that I find it highly credible that they had suffered infiltration or other means of undue influence to manipulate their belief system until it became ridiculous.

The Mariavites also started out under a privation of due Catholic pastoral. They can also have been manipulated.

M E A N W H I L E

I am not a mystic. I am a writer. I have joined what you would certainly call an "independent Catholic Church" but not one based on mystics.

I had quickly joined and 14 months later quickly left the Palmarians.

Popes Michael I and II are not the same. Their case is not built on mysticism, my adherence is not built on mysticism, their case is built on:

• sedevacantist analyses of the Vatican II establishment
• a divergence from most sedevacantists in taking "perpetuos successores" as a necessity that a new Pope has to be had within reasonable time
• another one in taking the freedoms from positive laws applying in necessity as not only going for episcopal consecrations, but also (1989 to 1990) for calling a papal election.

I do not appreciate if either my Young Earth Creationism, my Geocentrism, or my adherence (posterior to this) to Popes Michael I and now II, who share this, is to be taken as a "mystic revelation" to be analysed and scrutinised by exorcists and psychologists, it's my conviction, and writing on it is my trade, or one important part of my trade as a writer, not part of a mystical vocation that the Church can dispose of or test, as with the Mariavite revelation.