Marian Apparitions in Argyle Texas

  • Thread starter Thread starter FridaCat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FridaCat

Guest
The comments under the post about the “Mystical Rose of Argyle” are closed, so I started a new topic.

I am sad to report that these apparitions have been proven false. You can see the statements of the bishop of Ft. Worth, and they include video evidence.

I belong to the parish where these apparitions were said to occur, I was present at the ones at that church (there have been others alleged at other locations) and I know the visionary and all the people involved with the website, etc. I have seen photos of the stigmata she allegedly bore, and other “miracles.” This has hurt many people who believed, including me. The parish is hurt. There are three Catholic churches in Denton (where the church is physically located despite the Argyle mailing address) and nearly everybody who knew about these “apparitions” is sad, puzzled, angry, and confused.

I know all the people involved well. I am close friends to the two married couples who have been her champion. I know they are vehemently supporting her because they are continuing to post on the website with the “messages.” She is now claiming demonic possession caused her to do what was caught on security video. They have hired a canon lawyer to represent her, and unfortunately it’s the same canon lawyer who started a movement to remove the bishop. I pray they were scammed, because if I found out they were in on the fraud, I’d probably change parishes.

I also know the woman who removed “blood” (that turned out to be latex body paint) from a statue in the church. She is interviewed in a very good article on a site called Churchpop.

We all know of bogus claims of apparitions. The vast majority of claims over history have not been deemed “worthy of faith.” I believe in Fatima, Lourdes, Tepeyac and have made pilgrimages to all three. That so many of us believed this charade makes us all sad and dealing with many mixed emotions.

Pray for these people. Pray that she gets the help she needs, and those who cling to belief learn and accept the truth. Pray for all hurt by this, that we may heal. Pray the parish divisions that have occurred are united. And pray for the pastor and bishop as they deal with the fallout from these revelations.

This is my first post on this forum, so I don’t know if I can include links. I’ll try in the reply section.
 
OK, I tried, but cannot post links, so I’ll give you Google Keywords.
FWDioc dot org

Churchpop dot com fake visionary or tears of blood

Star-telegram dot com Charlatan

youtube dot com forward slash watch?v=1g7QBT3LRY4
 
Last edited:
I don’t live too far from here myself. I’m sorry for all affected by the hoax. Quite sad. My parish would welcome you if you decide to take a break…
 
I am very familiar with the visionary and all the members of the Dry Bones group and have followed it for two years. I was totally convinced that she was authentic and the messages were truly from our Lady. She is very convincing and humble in demeanor. Another bishop is accepting of her story even though he knows about the deceit of her placing the rose at Loreto House. It has caused great confusion among my personal friends and family and the St. Mark parish will be divided for quite a while. It was hard to admit to myself that I was duped but I am now convinced that the claims are false. The Church places great emphasis on the visionary in these cases and in my opinion there are the following issues: 1) she was caught in a deception at Loreto House in placing a rose and claiming it was from the Blessed Mother. 2) One of the miracles was that blood appeared on the statue in the chapel of St. Mark in December 2017. It was confirmed that the substance was latex. 3) she was observed placing a red latex substance on the ground surrounding the statue in courtyard. There is another person who has delivered a background report to the priest at St. Mark about the visionary. The content is not public yet. It would be very easy to clear this whole mess up. 1. The visionary should submit to a polygraph test 2: she should provide an explanation about her background report including any negative items. The report was turned over to the diocese. There should be a quick investigation into the following miracles: a) the water filling up a glass container that she held at the statue of Mary in the chapel. Who witnessed this? b) the Dry Bones group claimed that a vessel filled with water and rose petals when they dug a hole in the ground at St. Mark. Who found the water and witnesses it? c) a doctor examined the stigmata wounds. What did that doctor see? I have seen the pictures of the stigmata and the blood does not look real to me. The bishop has called her a fraud and the ball is in her court to prove her story. It is not plausible that demons caused her to not remember the deception of placing roses at Loreto House. If demon are involved, in my opinion they had a plan to harm Loreto House since the organization is saving many babies and serving the pro-life cause honorably in the Diocese of Fort Worth.
 
I’ll pray for you and your parish and for the poor woman who felt driven to do these things (I can only imagine what would spark such a behavior)

❤️:pray:t2:❤️:pray:t2:
 
Randy, I was a believer from Day 1, too, but I had many of the questions you have. Your suggestions are excellent. It’s hard to admit we were duped, but there it is. We need to accept it, and I pray those involved will come to accept it. I also pray that the visionary gets the help she needs. Thank you for your great comment.
 
Last edited:
The Dry Bones group appears to be sticking to their story and supporting the visionary. There was an email provided by their Canon lawyer. here is the content I received from a friend. This drama is far from over. here is part 1 and part 2 will be added later as it exceeded the 3200 word limit for the forum.
Dear Friends,

As all of you are probably aware, the Bishop issued a statement regarding Ms. [name redacted] and the supernatural phenomena surrounding her. He also provides the link to a video that he uses to say she is a fraud. Finally, he identifies me as the one providing counsel to her and those associated with her. I send this email now merely as a quick FYI with the request that it be forwarded to all those on your email lists, including FRK Advocates, San Mateo, and the Removal Petitioners. For ease of forwarding, I have moved everyone on my core list to the BCC. At this time, I provide only a cursory response via this email. A more full response will be completed tomorrow by way of a letter that will be available for posting on websites and distributed via news outlets.
  1. I do confirm that I do serve as Procurator/Advocate under Canon Law for those identified by the Bishop in his letter. Those whom I have had the privilege to serve in this capacity know also the limits of my service and my immediate and constant pursuit of truth in the cause of justice; and always to advance the salvation of souls. As a canon lawyer representing those identified by the Bishop, my role is not to determine whether the supernatural phenomena is authentic or not. Neither is it my role to determine if a priest accused of wrong action in his parish is guilty or not. Rather, my predominant role is to ensure that my clients receive objective treatment in the Church in a manner consistent with the Gospel and the processes of the Catholic Church.
  2. I have read many of the messages received by Ms. [name redacted]. I have met her once and spoken with her several other times. Until now, nothing that I have read and nothing that I have observed would alarm me as fraudulent. Even now, the behavior shown in the video occurs within a context not identified by the Bishop. As in all my cases, I will not reveal those matters that should remain confidential, and I will not now. I will only say that the Bishop of Fort Worth has presented this matter out of context and with a rush of judgment.
Click to expand...
 
Part 3-4 of Dry Bones legal counsel.
  1. In addition to the lack of context he places to the video, the Bishop’s public statement violates a number of moral and legal principles related to the internal forum and canonical processes. Further, his words lead one to believe that all opportunity for him to meet with Ms. [name redacted] and those associated with her has been exhausted. I can say with first-hand experience, the Bishop invited a meeting at a date and time that was not convenient for all parties. When he was informed of this in writing, with an invitation to reschedule, he ignored the invitation to reschedule. He has done the same in the past with those of you from other groups in the Diocese. If he has conducted a full and impartial investigation into the supernatural phenomena surrounding Ms. [name redacted], I am not aware of it and have never been invited to participate in it, though he has publicly recognized me as her canonical counsel.
  2. Regards the events shown in the video, it should be known that it was not a third party who brought it to diocesan attention, but Ms. [name redacted] and members of the group associated with her. They contacted at least two individuals identified by the Bishop as liaisons in their regard, and told them of the events. Further, Ms. [name redacted] has continually been in contact with an outside bishop who was also aware of the events. Without saying anything further, this will give you all an idea of the good faith expressed by Ms. [name redacted] and her associates, and also the lack of context provided by the Bishop. In fact, I was the last to be told. The Bishop knew before I did.
Click to expand...
 
Part 5-6 of Dry Bones Canon lawyer reply.
  1. With the groups knowledge that I am writing this, I make it known that Ms. [name redacted] and those associated with her declined to sign a mandate for the Bishop’s removal. They were aware of the action and had a very short conversation with me and made it known that they had no intention of signing mandates or pursuing the action. Rather, they believed the ministry they were focused on was more important to focus on at this time. As a result, I have not discussed any of the developments in the removal petition case with them and they are not parties to the updates I send from my office. As I have many clients, sometimes several clients or groups in a single diocese, the same is the situation here.
  2. The contents of the Bishop’s letter do not surprise me. The represent the same kind of harmful approach that he has used with San Mateo, FRK Advocates, the Removal Petition Group, and countless individuals who have suffered under his leadership.
I only ask that we not rush to judgment based on the words of the Bishop or a video taken out of context. It is what he wants us to do. And, he will divide us in our faith if we let him. We should not cede our souls to behavior that has and continues to be inconsistent with both the Gospel and the disciplines of the Church.

I write this while away from the office. Though away, I will address this more fully in the next 48 hours and provide a letter that will address—insofar as my position allows—the points found in the Bishop’s recent letter. Until then, let us continue to pray for the Diocese of Fort Worth, Bishop Olson, our priests and deacons the faithful, and in a special way let us pray for Ms. [name redacted].

God bless you all; St. Joseph keep you.

Peace,
Philip Gray
Click to expand...
 
I may be missing something here, but why does this woman need a lawyer?

She claimed she saw apparitions of Mary, saints etc.

The bishop was suspicious and has decided, based on this video of the rose being dropped and other evidence, to warn his flock away from the apparitions.

Presumably this warning doesn’t stop this lady from continuing to assert that she receives visions, and doesn’t stop people from believing in her if they’re bent on doing so. Obviously she wouldn’t be able to be conducting her visionary experiences or discussions about them on church property, but that’s about the only effect I see here.

Where is the legal matter in all this?
 
I really don’t know. This is the canon lawyer who has been retained by a group unhappy with some decisions the bishop has made and who are petitioning the Vatican for his removal. I don’t know enough about canon law to do more than speculate, but I’m guessing they’ve retained him to identify potential violations of canon law in the way the investigation–which has been going on for more than 2 years–is being handled. This would build the case for his removal. If JPII knows, maybe he’ll tell us. That’s just speculation on my part. I am close friends with one couple who is part of the dry bones ministry, and are her staunch supporters, and I am baffled at how they can deny something sketchy has been going on here. As more evidence comes to light, it just makes their case weaker and weaker. Very few people were aware of these alleged apparitions until they set up the website and started posting the messages. That’s when the bishop had to issue his earlier statement that the visions weren’t verified and that the rumors flying around weren’t true. I’m not sure why, just a week or two later, he felt the need to issue the statement debunking them, but I don’t think this would have blown up if they hadn’t gone public. When all this started more than 2 years ago they were under strict instructions by the diocese to keep this quiet until the investigation was completed, and all of us who were witnesses or knew about it kept quiet. I was floored when suddently it became public, in defiance of the bishop’s orders. As more evidence comes to light, it’s obvious the diocese knew two years ago that some of these events weren’t supernatural. (Read the churchpop article about the woman who cleaned one of the statues at St. Mark. That was in 2017.) The diocese could have shut the investigation down then, but they’ve kept going with it. To me that’s not a snap judgment. That’s thoughtful, careful attention to the evidence and the process. They may have even been giving her the benefit of the doubt until the video surfaced.

I am really bummed out about this because I feel it’s going to negatively affect my friendship with a couple who were helpful and supportive in many ways as my husband’s younger-onset Alzheimer’s progressed. They bought food for us. They prayed. They organized meal trains and fundraisers. And they were with me in his last hours. I’m not the only one feeling this way. And it’s immeasurably sad.

I’m also interested to know who the bishop is that they claim supports the claims. He can’t possibly have access to all the evidence the diocese has.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
I may be missing something here, but why does this woman need a lawyer?
Click to expand...
Personally, I never talk to my bishop without at least one canon lawyer present.

In her case, if I was her, one thing I would be worried about is possible penal action being threatened or initiated (stop doing such and such or else I will…). Other than that, trying to keep as much of a good reputation as I can (as is my right)… That’s about all I can think of off hand as far as what a canon lawyer would do.

Dan
 
I just googled and read a bunch of stories about the reasons this group is trying to remove the bishop, apart from this apparition business.

From an outsider’s perspective, I understand that one group of people are upset about a church closing.
It’s never pleasant to have your church close. But apart from that, this diocese seems a bit out of control.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top