Furthermore, the "revelations" contain statements contrary to Catholic teaching including references to "Rapture" like events and to my knowledge, none of Mrs. Lueken's predictions have come to pass.
Finally, it was condemned outright by the local bishop.
The "apparitions" will be found "thought-provoking" only by those who already believe that everything which currently occurs in the Church is the result of a conspiracy.
Those who respect Catholic teaching and the Pope will find these "apparitions" bogus.
Oh, Jesus has on a most beautiful red velvet gown, tinged in gold all about the edging. And I can see Jesus’ slippers; His are a tan. It looks like some type of an animal skin, but they’re tan, and they’re open. His feet are very evident in His slippers.
And, if Luekens' account is to be believed, Jesus doesn't know Church History:
"Understand well: when I appointed the Apostles there were no names given as cardinals or bishops; but Peter was the first Pope, the leader, and would you say not that the Apostles were the first bishops? And after that they chose from out of multitudes, seven whom you call deacons and listed as deacons, but they were truly priests at that time.
As we all know, the early deacons were truly deacons: they did not celebrate the Eucharist, but assisted the bishops only. The office of priesthood came about in the second century, when bishops were not able to personally preside at every gathering of Christians.
Laying aside the source of the article, Cardinal Spellman is a reliable source, and I believe he had a well reasoned argument. He was not opposed to the perm diaconate in principle, just in actual practice as he deemed it unnecessary. Wouldn't the church desires more priests than more deacons? Makes sense to me.
However, fast-forwarding to now. We have the exact situation he foresaw. I don't imply causality, because I believe this is far down on the list of causes for the decline in vocations. But, if one were to think practically as Cardinal Spellman did in his time, I think the existence of a permanent diaconate is now a necessity. They can perform a significant number of priestly functions outside of the Mass, and they are usually not paid, saving the church the expense of supporting these men. I realize I am departing from the TLM status quo on this. But I, like Spellman, do not oppose the permanent diaconate in principle. I do oppose the way and the reasons it came to be existent today. Furthermore, in my experience, I can count on one hand the number of permanent deacons I have known to be theologically and liturgically orthodox. The rest of them I have found highly questionable in their words and in their demeanor.
So, I offer a present day solution to this issue. Use the permanent diaconate as it now exists in places where the number of priests are substantially low. In other places, either phase it out or transform it into a more clerical function. What do I mean? Well, hypothetically, if I were a deacon today, I would don a cassock and collar whenever I was in the presence of parishioners I serve, perform the liturgical roles proper to my office in their fullest extent possible, always use the title "Rev. Mr." in all correspondence. In other words, I would act as if I were no different than a deacon in the seminary, except that I would be married.