{"content":[{"text":"page 37). This raises the question of how Pio knew that whatever told him what was on the letter was from God? Satan \n masquerading as God could have told him a lie to trip him up. Pio reported visions from Hell that looked exactly like \n Heavenly ones. Did Pio care? Did Pio know as much as God so that he could tell? There is a madness here. He reported \n that during one of his visions he asked the apparition he thought was from God but had suspicions about to call out “Hail \n Jesus”, and it couldn’t say the words and vanished in a cloud of sulphur (page 7, Who is Padre Pio?). This is totally \n ridiculous for loads of saints had visions of demons that pretended to praise God. Demons can mime the words but not \n mean them. Pio must have known that which is why he cannot be considered a dependable person regarding the \n supernatural.","bbox":{"left":0.0,"top":-0.00023,"width":0.974322,"height":0.128028}},{"text":"Pio and his Visions","bbox":{"left":0.0,"top":0.160118,"width":0.15458,"height":0.015783999999999992}},{"text":"Pio according to the Ruffin book said that he had a vision of a soul in Purgatory that appeared to ask for his prayers. Pio \n was supposed to be humbly embarrassed by the stigmata as it got him attention. Does that humility sound sincere coming \n from one that didn't have to tell about his visions but did nonetheless?","bbox":{"left":0.0,"top":0.192188,"width":0.9777089999999999,"height":0.04785300000000001}},{"text":"Pio had so many visions and revelations that if anybody knew that an apparition of the Virgin was authentic it was he. In a \n letter written by Manuel Pio Lopez, Archbishop of Jalapa to Fr Gustavo Morelos in 1966 it is stated that Pio believed the \n visions of Mary at Garabandal in Spain were genuinely from God and had told the four witnesses to speak the messages. \n But Garabandal was a hoax and the visionaries confessed to the hoax. Pio was a false prophet and God says in the Bible \n one error is enough to prove that God was not speaking through a man for God makes no mistakes (Deuteronomy 18). It \n would be blasphemous to trust a prophet to give the word of God when he makes mistakes in what he says is the word of \n God. You have to be very sure that something is the word of God before you could say you respect God by accepting that \n word.","bbox":{"left":0.0,"top":0.256327,"width":0.984572,"height":0.128027}},{"text":"St John of the Cross spoke about how dangerous revelations were and that it was a sin to desire them. If it is a sin to desire \n them then it is a sin to talk about them. Many saints revelled in their miracles and visions. They attracted those who \n admired them for their experiences and thereby led them into sin. That’s the kind of holiness they produced. The Church \n rejects miracles that have bad fruits in the lives of those who experience them. So miracles reduce their goodness and give \n them a devotion to goodness but not for its sake but for their own. They always have bad fruits. Period. Christians endlessly \n harp on about fruits proving the visions and miracles they want to believe in not realising that the fruits are at the end of the \n list of the four things for discerning if a revelation is really from God (Criteria for Discerning Apparitions by Mons Ratko \n Peric, Bishop of Mostar). The first is there must be only a few revelations. The second is that the revelations must not \n contradict the faith or incite to disobedience against the bishops. Third there must be no element of human work – for \n example, when the visionaries tell the apparition when to appear. God will do what he sees is best not what we see. Fruits \n are the fourth and are not a reliable test for any false apparition gets converts and ignites reports of healings – the Church \n says that the regular workings of God through the sacraments are often hijacked by miracle mongers as evidence that there \n is something in what they claim. Pio who read about the mystics knew fine well that his revelations if supernatural were not \n from God but Satan and didn’t care and didn’t warn people to ignore them.","bbox":{"left":0.0,"top":0.40064,"width":0.997782,"height":0.224236}},{"text":"Pio and his Nazi funded hospital","bbox":{"left":0.0,"top":0.63938,"width":0.263488,"height":0.01578400000000002}},{"text":"Pio lied that he was keeping his distance from those he described as false apostles and from crooks such as Brunatto (page \n 187-8, Padre Pio: Miracles and Politics in a Secular Age). He was also involved in shares and managing money despite his \n vow of poverty (page 193, Padre Pio: Miracles and Politics in a Secular Age). It comes as no surprise to learn he was \n always a cheat who wanted to convey a public impression of him that didn't match the truth. His arch-apostle the con-man \n Brunatto pretended to have empty pockets and provided the money to pay for Pio's hospital (page 205, Padre Pio: Miracles \n and Politics in a Secular Age). These funds were raised through fraud and black market trading.","bbox":{"left":0.0,"top":0.669668,"width":0.990216,"height":0.09595799999999999}},{"text":"The only excuse Pio supporters for his taking money from fascist Brunatto who is labelled as a chronic liar and money that \n came from dirty deals with the Nazis is that Pio didn't know. But Pio got millions of francs out of him for his hospital \n which means a lot of people were involved mainly him so he had to know. Why are we told how clairvoyant Pio was? Pio \n had to know and was careful not to comment.","bbox":{"left":0.0,"top":0.78013,"width":0.991559,"height":0.06388800000000006}},{"text":"Pio got the pope's permission to own the hospital in 1957 (page 259). Pio's shares were deposited with the Vatican Bank","bbox":{"left":0.0,"top":0.860303,"width":0.9660610000000001,"height":0.01578400000000002}},{"text":"Finally","bbox":{"left":0.0,"top":0.892373,"width":0.058173,"height":0.01578400000000002}},{"text":"The context of Pio's life shows that he was capable of lying about and faking his stigmata. The medical reports at best say \n he may have had deep fissures in his hands but the doctor did not do the examination well for Pio complained of being in \n great pain. It is known that Pio's marks could be explained without miracles.","bbox":{"left":0.0,"top":0.924443,"width":0.980248,"height":0.047853000000000034}}],"images_bbox":[],"images_bbox_not_text_overlap":[]}