“Taters - what’s taters, precious, eh, what’s taters?”

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread


Terry lead us to read again the prophecies of La Salette and we began to wonder about our Holy Mother's reference to potatoes. First she said:

"If my people refuse to submit, I will be forced to let go the arm of my son. It is so strong and so heavy; I can no longer hold it back. How long a time I have suffered for you! If I want my son not to abandon you, I am obliged to plead with him constantly."

"If the harvest is ruined, it is only on account of yourselves. I warned you last year with the potatoes. You paid no heed. Instead, when you found the potatoes spoiled, you swore. They are going to continue to spoil, and by Christmas this year there will be none left."

[An interesting note aside: "Potatoes" in the local dialect were called "las truffas." The lady had used the term "pommes de terre." Noticing that the children did not understand, she asked, "Don't you understand, my children? Let me find another way to say it." Using the local dialect, she repeated what she had said about the harvest, and continued.]

Her first set of words remind us of Fatima where she turned the flaming sword into a call to repent through her prays and supplications with her Son. Yet here she says she cannot turn Yeshua's (Jesus') judgment away and that she weakening in her attempts an appeal to Him. Why? We suspect the people of this age (1846) were ignoring her pleads for them to repent. What few may realize is that visionaries were seeing the Last Times in many dreams and visions and warning the flock through much of the 18th and 19th centuries to repent, yet no one listened.

We are not sure exactly which call our Blessed mother is referencing here, though we did try to find this. However it is clear she is saying here that the people's time was now "up". Yet one major event did happen in 1845, even though our Holy Mother's hand isn't seen there. It was the publishing by an Anglican cleric of a highly controversial letter called "Letter on Anglican Difficulties" where he affirmed the validity of Rome and took down many Protestant lies concerning our Catholic faith. Needless to say his brothers in faith did not appreciate his views, but he found a home that very year with us and for the rest of his life he served his church with an ecumenical flavor to his testimony. Could his appeal the year before for unity within the body of Christ have been the attempt in which our Holy Mother "warned you last year"? If so, then potatoes can't be the root crops. After all would Yeshua really send His holy Mother to earth to tell us that G-d was ready to bring judgment over potatoes?

We believe there is a clue to this paradox in that our Holy Mother used the French form for potato before changing to the local form and only after the children said they did not understand her? Now why use a form her audience would not know? Certainly being in the Presence of our Father she would be able to know the language she was to use, so it could not have been by accident, as far as we can see. Therefore might this have been another clue that she was drawing upon a parable? So what might this lesson be?

Potatoes grow in soil, beneath the ground. Yet they do not normally grow from true seed, but from cuttings from the mother plant. In the same way Catholic children born to a righteous Catholic homes are not born again as are new converts, but rather these come into faith at Baptism as babies, soon after birth while still too small to be cognizant and thus they literally only know a life of faith (or so they should). Yet we suspect these are spoiled by the sins of their parents. Further French is the tongue of the wealthier society and not that of poverty (the tongue of these poor children), which could reference the sins of wealth, which were spoiling the children of that day. Yet our Mother complains that when these Catholics found their children spoiled and falling away they swore aloud, but did not take responsibility for their own actions in getting these brats spoiled. How much like the parents in our generation here in the west.

"by Christmas this year there will be none left"

Assuming these potatoes are not literal potatoes, but the falling away within our Catholic faith, why did she say this? Why would faith be dead by that coming Christmas? Is this also symbolic? It's possible, however given the high level of "spoiling" American kids get during the Christmas season it could be also literal and this is how we take this. One more act of indulging your kids, we believe she's warning them and their faith will die. There is a threshold on sin as James warns us:

"Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am tempted by G-d'; for G-d cannot be tempted with evil and He Himself tempts no one; but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. The desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death." Jam.1.1.13-15

We believe our Holy Mother was saying symbolically exactly what James here was saying with one difference, whereas James was telling of a possible reality, our Holy Mother was warning of an immediate reality; and given the legacy of the twentieth century her prediction certainly came true. When their children grew to be rude, coarse and horridly soiled they swore aloud at their children and at G-d, and yet they were the ones that placed that desire before those little eyes and fed its appetite and when it conceived, it became the sins of pride and materialism. And further when it was full-grown in that generation it became two World Wars! So has anything changed?

"I warned you last year with the potatoes."

She warned us of this with last year's "potatoes", and if correct this also relates to Bishop Newman's hair-raising letter talking about ecumenicalism. So what does ecumenicalism have to do with Christmas? The answer we believe is that at that time two form of ecumenicalism were popular. The first was that of Bishop Newman that all G-d's children should be united under faith and overlook petty differences. Yet Bishop Newman was also quick to stress the pillars of the faith, which supported Catholicism's views must not be compromised. The second was more secular. By the late nineteenth century, the Paradise Tree had been fully replaced by the Secular Christmas tree (a hybrid tree based on both the Paradise tree and Yule Tree- see our site at http://www.angelfire.com/ny/Yeshuaslight/Christmas.pdf). Whereas the paradise tree had simple symbols full of deep meaning, the new tree had bright lights and lots of colored bulbs and few now remember any meaning even of those that historically remained on that tree. Another distraction that had invaded the holiday by this date was Boxing Day, a day based on a Roman holiday, The "Feast of the Invisible Sun" and it was brought into this century and the wealthy were most likely to embrace this and spoil their kids with gifts they did not need.

So there are two forms of Ecumenicalism, one that is healthy; one that kills. The first invaded our world just before the twentieth century and this paved the way for two world wars and a falling away in our faith never seen before. The second came toward the end of twentieth century calling as Bishop Newman did almost one hundred years before for Christian unity. So will we chose wisely or will those precious "potatoes" will spoil in our days as well.

Shalom, C & C

-- C.Foegen (cfoegen@angelfire.com), October 01, 2003


Response to “Taters- what’s taters, precious, eh, what’s taters?”

Just a quick note--that's Ecumenism. :) God bless.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), October 02, 2003.

Response to “Taters- what’s taters, precious, eh, what’s taters?”

That's not ecumanism, that's heresy.

-- Hammer of the heretics (woopkl@jyrti.com), October 02, 2003.

Response to “Taters- what’s taters, precious, eh, what’s taters?”

Shalom Skoobouy,

Thank you. But what would you expect from a couple that spells potatoes as "taters"? So, besides our nemesis of our spelling, what do you think of the premise? Could we be seeing something in these visions of our Blessed Mother and in the Scriptures? We've asked a similar question before, but in this case, it's just the tip of the iceberg and anyone might see this if they take that passage of Zechariah to the very next verse. Still, our attempts have shown themselves to be either silence or mocking.

An example of this has just happened. We answered a question on whether the Holocaust is found in the Scriptures by referencing Rev.12 and correlating this to the vision of La Salette. Without going into great detail, what frustrated us was that we put a little test into this argument. After showing them where we saw the Holocaust (in verse 13), we also reminded those there of a writing we had given them earlier in the year (in which we had one response from a fellow pebble in private). In this write-up was our argument that the date that the star sign of Rev.12.1-5 was seen above Israel (this happened on Sept.12th 1999) matched in times to Rev.12.14 according to our figures. Further we believe this time being reached meant that the nation Israel was losing G-d's protection and that this would initiate the flood of verse 15 coming down upon her. We believe this happened exactly one year to the exact month in which that sign was seen September 2000, for it was then that the terrorism that has plagued Israel started.

At the same time Israel lost her protection, someone else became protected, according to verse 6. According to the text, this protection would be for basically three and one half years, which comes to the spring of 2004. Further, according to La Salette after the scourge (which we see as the Holocaust) there would be a false peace, which we see as the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1979. This period of false peace would last exactly 25 years, which would then be 2004 if we have the right "false peace". And this data matches the data above. This doesn't mean something is coming in spring of 2004, but rather we suspect it will mirror what happened to Israel, there will be a delay allowing the motions to take is course (again, possibly one year?). So, if Israel is our example and we have everything right, then we suspect this event is likely to come to pass and visible by the spring of 2005. And 2005 happens to be the year our Church reaches her 40th year with Vatican II in place. So is this ridiculous as some saying to do these figures? Why give us dates and numbers and tell us to "watch the sky for sign" if we are not to do this?

Rev.12.17 states that at prophecy's fulfillment the dragon frustrated that cannot reach the "woman" will turn his rage upon "her children", those that keep G-d commandments and believe in His son. And according to La Salette, if this indeed connects to Rev.12, then the attack from that dragon is no less that the forerunner of the antichrist! Therefore, to us this is serious stuff; and if we are correct, this isn't the first we stumbled in Scripture across a date and had this same foreboding, which the last one the came and so did events. And back then we faced these same claims, you can't read those things into the Scriptures, those number and dates mean nothing, People have been doing this down though ages and nothing happened until it did.

Yet when we pointed out to nay-sayers that it happened, we get silence again with only one response saying we had a right to our opinion. So are we going to have to wait until the spring of 2005 to find out if this time we read His word correctly like the last two times? This is our concern as history seems to be repeating itself but we hope by bringing this here this may come to a different end. Sorry to unload but this is extremely painful for us and we have to tell someone.

Shalom, C & C

-- C.Foegen (cfoegen@angelfire.com), October 02, 2003.

Response to “Taters- what’s taters, precious, eh, what’s taters?”

Shalom Hammer of the heretics,

You said:

>>> That's not ecumanism, that's heresy. >>>

“Let him who is taught the Word share all good things with him who teaches.” Gal.6.6

So instead just condemning what we wrote, perhaps you would be so kind as to show us exactly what you believe counts as heresy. After all, the burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused. Thank you.

Shalom, C & C

-- C.Foegen (cfoegen@angelfire.com), October 02, 2003.

Response to “Taters- what’s taters, precious, eh, what’s taters?”

Our dear Holy Father cannot allow this to happen. He cannot allow the modernists within to destroy and alter the Church he is the visible head of on earth. With every ounce of his breath he must fight the demons of progressivism. The month of May and the ones that follow this year will tell volumes as to where John Paul II will go down in history: Either as John Paul the Great or John Paul the greatly manipulated Pontiff who gave the store away in seeking to please all the customers. No one has defended and been more loyal to our Holy Father than we, but the recent events are very disturbing and cause of grave concern for all loyal Catholics. If, as we are reading more and more in both Catholic and secular media, the intent of the special upcoming consistory of Cardinals from May 21st to 24th is to "discuss" how to lessen the powers of the papacy in favor of political correctness and please others, then you should be greatly alarmed as well. Very, very alarmed.

Yes, you can dialogue with potential converts, but to then bid them adieu, without leaving the Message of Christ is an injustice to them, and a dereliction of duty on your part.

The pope has done this time and again in his travels. Why does he not leave that message of Our Lord? Does he want the missionaries to do all the work? He must be the inspirer, and set the example.

-- Hammer of the heretics (woopkl@uyrti.com), October 02, 2003.

Response to “Taters- what’s taters, precious, eh, what’s taters?”

Shalom Hammer,

You wrote:

>>>Our dear Holy Father cannot allow this to happen. He cannot allow the modernists within to destroy and alter the Church he is the visible head of on earth. >>>

What you say here is a paradox our own Church has struggled with and is evident right within our Catechism:

"The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her L-rd in His death and Resurrection. The kingdom will be fulfilled, then NOT BY A HISTORIC TRIUMPH OF THE CHURCH THROUGH A PROGRESSIVE ASCENDANCY, but only by G- d's victory over the final unleashing evil…" Cat.677

Note it will not be through "progressive ascendancy but only by G-d's victory over the final unleashing evil". She will take up Yeshua's (Jesus') cross and walk fully within His shoes sharing His death and Resurrection. Therefore though you are absolutely correct that our pope "must fight the demons of progressivism", both the Catechism and the Word of G-d as well as visions of our Blessed Mother states our Church will give their very life for this as did Yeshua (Jesus) did two thousand years before.

The apostasy of twentieth century that brought the "scourge" as our Blessed Mother describes the Shoah (Holocaust), we believe, gives us clues to how hasatan can meet this "goal" of world domination, which he fell short of back then with Hitler. Yet for us we will not reveal how we see those clues except to the one whose name we heard given to us in dream, and of this person we were told "the three of you should come together and unite". We were told in dream that we were "flirting" with prophecy and the name was not one we have seen on either of two boards we frequent so either he is lurking or incognito. Therefore, we believe he must be on one of two boards we frequent and give prophecy to defend our Church's positions such as we done here for Vatican II.

>>>Yes, you can dialogue with potential converts, but to then bid them adieu, without leaving the Message of Christ is an injustice to them, and a dereliction of duty on your part. >>>

Bishop Newman did not teach us to "dialogue with potential converts, but to then bid them adieu, without leaving the Message of Christ"; he taught us to dialogue with fellow believers, give them the Gospel of mercy, and love but left their conversion to G-d. He challenged their sacred cows and showed them the deficiency of hate, yet old hate dies hard. Therefore, it is our Christian duty to BE the Gospel, to love those who hate us, to pray for those whose seek our lives. We are walk in way of HaMoshiach Whom when questioned why He continued with sinners (as John Paul always is) said: "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Lk.6.31-32

It those who have new wine whom must never place this within the old wineskins, but old wine still in those skins will not cause them to burst unless this wine is removed so skins become brittle. This is what we believe our leaders are trying to say to the people; that our G-d, a merciful G-d who still loves the Jews for the sake of their forefathers and consigned them to disobedience so that He could give mercy upon us all, Rom.13.25-32.

>>>The pope has done this time and again in his travels. Why does he not leave that message of Our Lord? Does he want the missionaries to do all the work? He must be the inspirer, and set the example. >>>

These same charges were leveled at Yeshua (Jesus) and Paul. Both were condemned for hanging around tax collectors, prostitutes, Romans soldiers and pagans and yet neither bowed to peer pressure and both died for loving these sinners. Would that we could fill shoes so great.

Shalom, C & C

-- C.Foegen (cfoegen@anglefire.com), October 03, 2003.

Response to “Taters- what’s taters, precious, eh, what’s taters?”

Yes, Mr. Foegen; You write a beautiful piece, except for the last paragraph.

Yes indeed, the Lord, and Paul, loved those people....but they never left, without first leaving the message of salvation.

-- Hammer of the heretics (wopkl@iyrti.com), October 03, 2003.

Response to “Taters - what’s taters, precious, eh, what’s taters?”

Shalom Hammer,

We suspect you misunderstand and perhaps a personal story can help overcome our misunderstandings. Years ago we had a friend who had no faith at all due to what she saw as hypocrisy in her Christian upbringing, and ended up marrying a man in a cult. She knew we were Catholics when we met her and she had some real problems with the Catholic faith because she heard our Church was a cult from the pulpit. However we never put pressure on her, we only behaved as friends and so she never felt threatened to tell us anything. In time as her husband’s evil grew she began to ask us questions about Scripture to challenge his lies about faith, and we answered these, not through the Catechism but rather on what she was asking from our own studies in Scripture. Only once that we can remember in those early conversations that she had asked us why we were Catholic and we answered it was because as Catholics we are called to keep our brains plugged in and our minds turned on. She thought we were crazy and claiming that all Catholics think alike. We gently told her that she seemed not to have met many Catholics before, which she agreed. We added that we are a family and also asked her when do members of any family agree on everything? It is Eucharist that keeps us together we said and our commitment to the rules our Holy “FATHER” and our “MOTHER” Church put upon us. She found the analogy funny and let it go from there coming from a dysfunctional family herself.

To make a long story short she did come to Christ in time, but chose a Protestant denomination at first. Yet over time she grew disenchanted by the Protestant denomination and this now led her to ask us more questions on our Catholic faith, remembering that comment we had before about the Eucharist keeping our dysfunctional family together. In time our answers got her to joined a local RCIA to learn about our faith from another source and she found there were enormous diversities among Catholics (we argued constantly and then shared pizza) and sound teachings. So she was confirmed one sunny Easter Morning and is with our Church even to this day.

Had we tried to bring her into the Catholic faith with husband already in a cult and her southern Baptist upbringing that taught from pulpit that our Church is a cult; we would never have gotten even to the point of friendship. Yet by building first that friendship and trust, then allowing her to set the mood and choose the questions (as we were praying all the while for her), we believe this is why she came to become Catholic even if she took a round about way getting there.

We believe from experiences like these (and we’ve had our share) that John Paul II is planting seeds in his visit to dignitaries around our world. He may never get the Deli lama or Arafat to come unto Christ, yet by treating these men with the same respect every other human being made in the Image of G-d deserves, he sends a message to all those other members of that faith that it’s safe to make friends with Catholics and even ask us questions. And if Yeshua (Jesus) is calling them as He was calling our friend above, then He will make the moments in those friendships for us to witness our faith in His Own timetable.

Still this form of Evangelization is a lot harder than handing out tracts and going door to door because it requires us not to “speak” the Gospel’s only but BE the Gospel and to control our tongues, waiting patiently for them to ask before we give. Thus the words attributed to St. Francis of Assisi still ring true, “Evangelize always, but speak only when absolutely necessary”; because Faith is an action word! We also remember the old adage, sometimes the only Bible people get to read is YOU!

Shalom, C & C

-- C.Foegen (cfoegen@angelfire.com), October 05, 2003.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ