Talk:Vassula Rydén

handwriting analysis- undue weight to non standard interpretations
We have full paragraph on the works of one analyst to observes that the "spirit" writing " denotes a lack of freedom, a constraint, with a strong restraint of movement. " and then falsely leaves the impression that this is because Ryden is "fighting" the claimed spirit possession rather than the rather obvious interpretation that it is constrained because she is deliberately attempting to write in a way that is different from her natural writing style. - spiritual possession or deliberate fakery, which is most likely interpretation? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat my comment from TRPOD's Talk page: at least part of the Lombal material is sourced to "The Vassula Engima", published by Trinitas. The other part is sourced to something called "I saw Vassula write: Scientific analysis of True Life in God" by Philippe Coron and offered by a publisher with only one book to its credit, which is classified as "spirit writings" . Going by the extracts given, calling Coron's book a "scientific analysis" is staggeringly misleading. Neither are a suitable source of independent analysis. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My web search came up with this that looks like a legit publisher. I think the book on Ryden's writings may just have used an unconventional abbreviation? or is F.-X._de_Guilbert  a knock off press attempting to pass by having a close name? --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

http://www.fxdeguibert.com/ is the right publisher (tried to find it myself, you were more successful). Arkatakor (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I dont see it listed in their catalog though. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I see the fxdeguibert.com catalog is loaded with religious writings and accounts of religious miracles, so it's likely the same publisher as claimed for Coron. I don't know why it's not listed. Anyhow, the book in question, with a preface by ardent supporter Michael O'Carroll and on the "recommended reading" list at VassulaRyden.com isn't likely an objective source, so presenting M. G. Lombal as a disinterested scientific expert won't fly and listing his job credentials at the CEA as if they mean something is silly. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually they do because if you read the book, on top of being a certified graphologist and disinterested scientist, M. G. Lombal was an atheist (I don't know if he still is). It turns out that Parvis has also published the book which mentions M. G. Lombal's graphological analysis. Arkatakor (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I have done some research on both books. The Vassula Enigma book was originally published in French by Editions Favre at ISBN 9782828905460, which is not a TLIG affiliated publisher. Trinitas then translated and published the English version of the book which I then referenced here. The full information of the original French version is below:

L'énigme Vassula:  Jacques Neirynck Publisher: Editions Favre ISBN 9782828905460 Available from: http://www.parvis.ch/fr/livres-et-brochures/lenigme-vassula As for J'ai vu écrire Vassula the publisher is as follows.

J'ai vu écrire Vassula: Dr Philippe Loron Publisher: Editions de Guibert ISBN 9782868393470 Available from: http://www.parvis.ch/fr/livres-et-brochures/jai-vu-ecrire-vassula

I think at this point it should not be an issue to re-insert the edits I performed yesterday using the aforementioned publishers as a reference (which are after all the originals) as opposed to TLIG affiliated Trinitas. Arkatakor (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No we are not going to go back to your original version. You havent addressed the overall WP:UNDUE weight of the section nor why even without the publisher conflict of interest why we would consider as a reliable source one that promotes "This handwriting appears to be forced therefore she must be possessed" rather than the entirely more reasonable, "This handwriting appears to be forced. She is struggling to make it look unlike her normal handwriting". --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course, the elephant in the room here is that graphology is considered pseudoscience. We cannot seriously consider Ryden's handwriting analysis by Lobel to be scientific. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Doom, while I do agree that perhaps the overall length of the original graphological summary could be reduced somewhat, as per WP:UNDUE weight, the current graphological text in the article is missing the most notable findings now supported by no less than 3 certified graphologists. It is not up to us to judge what is "reasonable" or not. Thats the job of the graphologists. As for the publisher conflict, it was simply that the original publisher was a French publishing house which makes sense as Jacques Neirynck is Swiss. This should have been used from the beginning, not Trinitas. Personally I was unaware that Trinitas was a TLIG only publisher and am glad you pointed that out.

Binksternet, the real elephant in the room is the Joe Nickell's false experiment. Nickel starts with assumption that what he is analyzing is false therefore is not neutral in his approach. Here are a few observations I made on the latter investigator:


 * Nickels' findings were published in The Skeptical Inquirer, which is not a formal scientific journal.
 * Nickel is not a graphologist.
 * As a non graphologist, he conducted a false experiment as he never met the subject (Vassula Ryden).
 * His analysis is littered use of conjecture words: “suggest; suggests; suspects; supposedly; suspicion”. In other words his analysis is inconclusive in comparison to that of the certified graphologists who reviewed her.

Take note that despite the above, no WP:UNDUE weight is being applied to the text attributed to Nickels findings. Graphology as you mention is not a hard science, but its the best discipline available to analyze the handwriting, and certainly the most relevant. We now have 3 certified graphologists that came up with similar findings, much to the surprise of the authors who mentioned them in their books. I do hope that the issue of publishing houses has been clarified, and that a more comprehensive analysis of the certified graphologists can be inserted after the WP:UNDUE weight issues have been resolved. Arkatakor (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * someone who looks at handwriting and comes back with an analysis that says “suggest; suggests; suspects; supposedly; suspicion” is by FAR a more reliable source than one that comes back asserting "is being possessed by spirits" --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

reception section needs work
i ham-fistedly just lumped all the various "reception" content together without any cohesive editing.

it seems to me that the contents within the section should be something like:
 * she has cultivated a sizable fan base of believers around the world
 * including the support of a few "renegade" priests
 * the official reaction from both the Catholic and Orthodox church hierarchies has been a formal "DONT YOU BELIEVE IT"
 * the mainstream / skeptics find no evidence to assuage their logical view that her claims are pure woo.

is that a framework that seems accurate?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, better than what's there now. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Many of the priests who have positively reviewed Ryden are anything but "renegade priests". If you review the edit history of this article, particularly since the beginning May 2012, you will take note published works / articles of well-known and respected theologians / scientists / clergy (including cardinals) are systematically treated with disdain and prejudice and not allowed in the article (particularly by LuckyLouie). These authors include Niels Hvidt with his Oxford University Press publication, but also other authors such as graphologist and exorcist priest Fr. C. Curty, scientist and neurologist Dr. P. Loron (Paris), theologian and consultant on supernatural phenomena Fr. Rene Laurentin (France), scientist, politician and author Jacques Neirynck (Switzerland), author and theologian Fr. Edward O’Connor (Notre Dame University, USA), author and theologian Fr. F. Umaña Moñtoya (Colombia), Fr. Michael O’Carroll, member of the Marian Academy. Arkatakor (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * if you can name dozens of people willing to give these claims the time of day, compared as a percentage of the Orthodox hierarchy, they are a minuscule percent. When you add to the denominator the Catholic hierarchy and all serious religious scholars those dozens are less than any rounding error. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See my commented dated 09:36, 15 April 2014 in this discussion. Arkatakor (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you've mistaken an absence of reverence for the subject as "disdain", and a consistent questioning of supernatural claims as "prejudice". The irony is that you could help make this a pretty good article if you took Wikipedia editorial policies to heart. For example, it sorely needs a section cited to secondary independent sources and written from an objective point of view describing what Ryden supporters believe and why they believe it, what they think her messages mean about Christian unity, etc. But instead, your efforts have been narrowly concentrated on inserting strategic sentences about a Vatican "dialogue". I think many editors here would be willing to step up and help if you wanted to genuinely pursue improving the article, me included. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would have believed in your honest intentions for this article had your consistent questioning of authors / sources and particulary WP:WEIGHT concerns been equally applied to the critical material. Take note for example, that text attributed to Dermine, whose reputation and publication record does not come close to the theologians I mentioned above, is completely unchallenged. No WP:WEIGHT / WP:POV / WP:RS issues are ever brought up to challenge insertion of such critical content.  As for your mention of secondary reliable sources, they have been presented to you and rejected outright. As an example, your treatment of Hvidt's work, an Oxford University Press publication, displayed a complete lack of neutrality on your part on this topic (see Fifelfoo's reaction to your comments in the RSN with comment dated 00:07, 4 June 2012). Arkatakor (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources you submitted didn't meet requirements for being independent which is why they were rejected, not because of any bias. As for the rest, it's just reiterating the same themes as |the anti-Wikipedia statement Ryden read on YouTube. By the way, my offer still stands. If you want to abandon the advocacy mission and take a crack at encyclopedic writing, I'll pitch in and help. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * RE: The sources you submitted didn't meet requirements for being independent which is why they were rejected If you still believe this I invite you to take this view of yours on Hvidt's publication back to the RSN, open up a new topic and see their reaction to your comments. I for one will not continue to argue with you regarding the validity of that source.  The purpose of my pervious post was to highlight to non involved editors reading this conversation the prejudice that supportive / neutral authors have (and continue) to be subjected to.  Arkatakor (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@TRPod aka the Red Pen of Doom – re: [if you can name dozens of people willing to give these claims the time of day, compared as a percentage of the Orthodox hierarchy, they are a minuscule percent. When you add to the denominator the Catholic hierarchy and all serious religious scholars those dozens are less than any rounding error.] Anyone claiming that God communicates with them inevitably excites controversy along with ridicule or belief in mainstream/religious/skeptic circles – there’s not going to be a lot of middle ground between those who reject or believe such a claim. In light of this & with ref to [WP:BAL]: Regardless of numbers supporting or rejecting Ryden’s claims, while the article states that there are supporters of Ryden it doesn’t set out why they support her claims – what they believe and why they believe it - eg Frs. O’Carroll/Laurentin (internationally known theologians, journalists & respected prolific authors, experienced & sought after for their expertise in the area of religious mystical phenomena/ apparitions - serious religious scholars). By contrast, there is a relatively large amount of information in the article (Reception/ Handwriting sections) stating why some people/groups reject Ryden’s claims (what they reject and why they reject it). In encyclopedic writing ought not both sides of any controversial issue be set out? (Siamsiocht (talk)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siamsiocht (talk • contribs) 19:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I advise a thorough reading of WP:UNDUE (particularly WP:BALANCE and WP:VALID subsections) and WP:FRINGE. We are not here to validate anyone's claims of talking to angels or even present them as remote possibilities until their is actually a significant mainstream academic view that takes such a position. Until there is an equally significant amount of mainstream support for her claims, the mainstream claims against her position will of necessity make up the better represented portion of the content of the article.   --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * While I understand Arkatakor's reluctance to take up LuckyLouie's offer of help above, I would prefer to try to take up the offer if it's still being made. I think  "A section cited to secondary independent sources and written from an objective point of view describing what Ryden supporters believe and why they believe it, what they think her messages mean about Christian unity" would certainly be a very desirable addition to the current page.  On past experience I see almost no way of inserting anything on the page that isn't negative so if LuckyLouie could offer some guidance, I, for one, would like to give this a try.Sasanack (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Go here, follow instructions to create a userspace draft of a proposed section of the article. Save it. Post a link to it here on this Talk page. We'll discuss. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Since showing an interest in trying this path, I have paid more attention to LuckyLoui's precise suggestion. And the phrase "cited to secondary independent sources" has registered home!  This is the whole problem.  The media out there has no interest in a topic like this so the only citable source for information is from those who have studied Vassula's experiences and her messages.  But WP doesn't accept such sources because they are automatically classified as supporters of Vassula and thus not independent!  Maybe someone else could try to follow up LuckLouie's offer.Sasanack (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree on your point with regard to "the need to have secondary sources" being a problem. This is because there are reliable sources pertaining to a lot of the issues that have been disputed.  The real problem is that when they are presented they are rejected on the grounds that they are not "independent".  In this mindset it seems that sources can only be independent if they write negatively about Ryden - if reliable sources write positively about her then they are branded as "supporters" and thus "cannot possibly" be independent.  This is logic failure. Arkatakor (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you've got it wrong. My objection was to using someone who arranged an interview for her with a cardinal, drove her around, did errands for her, and appeared on stage at fan events to introduce her, etc. as an "independent" and "authoritative" view of her status with the RC Church. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See Despayre's comment in this RSN: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_124. I will quote it here:  "I cannot find a single reason why this source would not be RS for its claims. I understand that he is a follower of Ryden. I do not believe this outweighs his substantial credentials in this field. There is no evidence that is a case where he has put his personal beliefs ahead of his scholarship that I can find. Hvidt is an RS source for his claims."  If despite this you have ongoing concerns about the validity of Hvidt's publication as a source, my invitation for you to take this concern back to the RSN by opening a new topic still stands.  Arkatakor (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@TRPod aka the Red Pen of Doom – ''re: if you can name dozens of people willing to give these claims the time of day, compared as a percentage of the Orthodox hierarchy, they are a minuscule percent. When you add to the denominator the Catholic hierarchy and all serious religious scholars those dozens are less than any rounding error.''

Ok, let's not get off on the wrong foot here. I for one am glad that you have taken an interest in editing this article. Your approach to editing has sofar displayed a neutral approach, something that I have not observed in most other editors involved in this article. Now as for your opening statement I find that it illustrates a view that is too simplistic of what has actually gone down between Ryden and the church, those who has reviewed her and whatnot. The dispute history revolving around this article (in RSN's, DRN's and RFC's) was mainly focused on Rydens dialogue with the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), a dialogue (now entirely absent from the article) that occurred between Ryden and the CDF between 2000-2004.

When mediating this DRN: Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_35, non-involved user and mediator TransporterMan, who was a newcomer to Rydens background did some serious reading on Ryden's background, including the dialogue with the CDF. In his comment dated 17:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC) TransporterMan stated that he found the following non wiki usable link informative: http://www.cdf-tlig.org/ The aforementioned link contains a report which was written by Dr. Niels Hvidt, who was directly involved in Ryden's dialogue with the CDF. Hvidt also wrote an RSN approved doctoral dissertation titled Christian Prophecy, The Post-Biblical Tradition published in 2007 by Oxford University Press (OUP) (which I mentioned earlier). This book contains a paragraph on the case of Rydén with the CDF, titled “Dialogue between Vassula Rydén and the CDF”. Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the Foreword to the book, which is a big deal considering he was prefect of the CDF at the time the 1995 notification was issued. My first recommendation is to go through that website to get a more comprehensive understanding of what has gone down between Ryden and the CDF, paying particular attention to the four documents the Vatican has issued regarding Ryden. These are the 1995 notification, its reconfirmation in 1996, the 2004 document that stated that Ryden offered useful clarifications with regard to issues raised in the 1995 notification, and finally, the 2007 re-iteration of the 1995 notification.

My second recommendation is that you read TransporterMans's comment dated 17:07, 26 June 2012 in its entirety (also in the aforementioned DRN). To summarize, he stated that the four documents that the Vatican has issued regarding Ryden and her works were very ambiguous and could be interpreted in many different ways. As such, he highlighted that self-interpretation of the Vatican documents for purposes of inserting associated material into the article was in breach of Wikipedia guidelines. He concluded to say that for this reason and the fact that there was a lack of secondary reliable sources to interpret all four documents in unison, the section in question (everything related the Vatican's views on Ryden) should be removed until there is a reliable secondary source that makes a synthesis of all four relevant vatican documents. This suggestion was disregarded. Instead the 1995 / 1996 notification and its 2007 reconfirmation has been kept in the article and duplicated to appear in the lead. None of the sources currently used in the article that discuss the Vatican's view on Ryden perform a synthesis of all four Vatican documents. Any mention of the 2004 document and the Ryden-CDF dialogue that preceeded it, was (and continues to be) kept out despite the fact that there two reliable sources that confirm it took place (Hvidt's RSN approved book which I mentioned and an article written by a Cardinal from insidethevatican.com.

The repeated accusation against myself and other editors who are in favor of including the CDF dialogue is that we are trying to add a spin to the article to make it out that the Vatican has a different view other than the official line. This is not the case. We are simply trying to insert it as part of the chronology of events between Ryden and the CDF. See this discussion as an example. Arkatakor (talk) 09:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The 2004 'dialogue' was conducted by email, not in person. This so-called dialogue has resulted in no change at the Holy See, no relaxing of the Notification, no easing of the instruction to Catholic leaders to refuse to host Ryden-related events. Said 'dialogue' is being used by Ryden as a wedge to try and force a questioning of the implacable Roman Catholic official stance. No such questioning is called for—there is simply no change to the Notification. Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, a few clarifications on the dialogue with the CDF:


 * From 2000 to 2004 a dialogue followed between Ryden and the CDF in which the CDF’s collaborators examined her writings for doctrinal errors and submitted five questions in a letter dated April 4, 2002.
 * At the request of Joseph Ratzinger (head of the CDF at the time), Rydens answers to the aforementioned five questions were published in the twelfth volume of her writings.
 * The result of the 2000 to 2004 dialogue was concluded in a private audience with Ratzinger


 * In the light of the above, stating that this dialogue was conducted only by email seems to be yet another attempt to mislead people on your part. Both Hvidt's RSN approved book which I mentioned and an article written by a Cardinal from insidethevatican.com confirm the 3 points illustrated above. The latter source by Cardinal Prosper Grech states that:


 * ''Her response was precise and sincere, so it was thought that the CDF was satisfied. The then-Prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Ratzinger, gave her an audience, and the correspondence was interpreted as permission to leave it to the bishops to decide. In 2007, however, Ratzinger’s successor Cardinal Levada reiterated that the Notification was still in force.

''
 * Again I re-iterate - no one is trying to make it out as if the official stance has changed. We are simply discussing about inserting it as part of the chronology of events between Ryden and the CDF. Arkatakor (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * any third party sources that have indicated the "dialog" was worthy of mentioning? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And your continued instance that the one editor who has agreed with you about the source is the only one whose opinion matters is a little disrespectful to everyone else who has voiced other opinions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I held transporterman's opinion in high regard because he was very neutral in his approach to this article and most importantly, because he did some serious background reading on the topic. Regarding certain other editors who have voiced their opinion, they have taken a very one sided approach to editing the article and have consistently disregarded facts, tried to manipulate them or posted misleading statements in the discussion boards.  How am I then to hold their views in high regard?  RE: any third party sources that have indicated the "dialog" was worthy of mentioning? Yes, as mentioned, Cardinal Prosper Grech in this article. Arkatakor (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom Re ’Until there is an equally significant amount of mainstream support for her claims, the mainstream claims against her position will of necessity make up the better represented portion of the content of the article.’

Have read links you suggested, thanks. I’m wondering exactly how the academic credentials, renown, publication record of a source is relevant in Wikipedia as per: (ref WP:SOURCE Type/Creator/Publisher of the work) The credentials of some supporters of Ryden appear to surpass a number of sources whose mainstream claims against her position are included in the article. Does being outside of the mainstream automatically silence all sources regardless of calibre of academic credentials etc? Is it not of interest to know why, despite a Notification from Vatican & Orthodox Church (detailed in the article), some high ranking clergy & world renowned theologians continue to support the claims of a Greek Orthodox whom they are told to disregard? Can not the rationale for their support of Ryden’s claims be set out to some degree in the article even if mainstream claims against her position as you say: ‘will of necessity make up the better represented portion of the content of the article.’? Siamsiocht (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * see the post that opened this section. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Cardinal Grech's review of Vassula's 'Heaven is Real' book
I just cannot find how to edit the reference below to Cardinal Grech's review of Vassula's book which is an outdated link. The working link to the review is: Inside the Vatican Cardinal Grech review Sasanack (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * . I changed the day from 13th to 13 February. I also put in a reflist-talk template so that the reference appears right where it is being discussed. It is no longer "below". Binksternet (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Father Tardif did not endorse Vassula
In the "Reception" section, Father Tardif is mentioned as a supporter of Vassula, defying the Vatican's directives. This information is based on an interview Father Tardif gave to an Italian journalist in 1996. However, in 1996, Fr. Dermine of Radio Maria Italy wrote a letter to Tardif asking him about the interview, and Tardif wrote back saying that he had been misquoted, that he barely knew Vassula's messages and that he had never said that she was an authentic mystic. The letter, with Tardif's permission, was read during Fr. Dermine's program on the Radio. The original letter has now been published on the Pseudomystica website (given to them by Fr. Dermine). Would it be possible to amend the Wikipedia article in order to add this information? Or at least to remove Tardif's name as a supporter? All the documentation is here: www.pseudomystica.info/tardif.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by MARobles (talk • contribs) 07:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Are there any reliable sources for this information aside from "pseudomystica.info"? - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The only recent source I found was pseudomystica.info, which includes a copy of the original letter with Tardif's signature. The other source would be an audio one: Dermine's 28/12/1996 radio program on Radio Maria Italy, where Tardif's letter was read and which launched the controversy on the Italian magazine Segno del Soprannaturale back in 1997. Unfortunately, neither the Radio Maria nor the Segno del Soprannaturale on-line archives go that far back, and therefore I was unable to find and verify the exact references. So, for the moment, I agree that the above information cannot be added. --MARobles (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, I did some careful review of the sources already present in the article. Specifically citation 52, which states that Ryden's organization's claims of endorsement by Tardif are dubious:


 * "'...according to the 'official' web movement of Vassula Ryden (exactly here: http://www.tlig.org/sp/sptardif.html) in 1996 Father Tardif told an Italian journalist in a publication (untraceable Internet and unproven existence, or at least no one could find) that 'Ratzinger authorized the faithful to spread the messages' of Vassula. ...Tardif's alleged statements were supposedly recorded by the 'Italian journalist Marino Parodi in the newspaper Il Soprenaturale Sign' of which no trace can be found'"


 * Since the sources contradict, I'm removing the mention of Tardif's endorsement. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2021
Catholic Church On the basis of Nihil ObstatItalic text issued by Felix Toppo, S.J., D.D. Bishop of Jamshedpur, Censor Liborum (28 November 2005) and ImprimaturItalic text by Ramon C. Arguelles, D.D., STL Archbishop of Lima (28 November 2005), the Messages entitled True Life in God between the dates of September 20, 1986 and Messages ended on April 30, 2003 have the approval of the Catholic Church. This allows reading and publication of the Messages together with distribution within the Catholic Church around the world. Later Messages post April 30 2003 until the end of 2020 also have received Nihil ObstatItalic text and ImprimaturItalic text from the same source ( Archbishop Felix Toppo and Archbishop Ramon C. Arguelles. Paweł Arabski (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌. First problem is verifiability: you have not supplied easily verified links to the writings of Toppo or Arguelles. Second problem is that Rome is in charge of this matter, not Lima or Jamshedpur. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)