1. Welcome to Mother of God Forums - A place dedicated to the Mother of God. Please feel free to join us in prayer and sharing. Please Register to start posting.
    Dismiss Notice

Charlie's Perceptive Take

Discussion in 'The Signs of the Times' started by Mario, Jun 14, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Harper

    Harper Guest

    Dolours, I think the problem is Charlie has offered to be a middleman in real estate transactions that will take place based on his prediction of social chaos and the desire of people who trust him to find a refuge. Even if he doesn't benefit directly (as in taking a commission), he is helping others to profit from his "heavenly messages."
    FreshEggs and Kevin Symonds like this.
  2. CrewDog

    CrewDog Guest

    "I don't understand the previous reference to selling property."
    I don't know if this is the "Property" but a couple of years ago some guy on Charlie's blog was promoting 5 acre plots in NH. I remember blogging my 2 Cents and told folks that anybody who thought they could survive on 5 acres in the boondocks was a fool. The woods are full of dope heads, Pot growers and ex-cons. Strength is in numbers and defensible positions. IT has always been so ..... and why talk & planning for Christian Refuges.

  3. Kevin Symonds

    Kevin Symonds New Member

    Who brings said judgment?
  4. Kevin Symonds

    Kevin Symonds New Member

    Exactly, though I would only make the following emendation, "...based on his and others' predictions of social chaos...."
  5. Kevin Symonds

    Kevin Symonds New Member

    If you want, I could check my files and see if I saved the reference.
  6. Kevin Symonds

    Kevin Symonds New Member

    If you want, I could check my files and see if I saved the reference.
  7. Dolours

    Dolours Powers

    What I don't understand is whether the suggestion came from Charlie or someone asked him to help find a buyer for a property they would have sold irrespective of his messages. Was it a one-off?
  8. CrewDog

    CrewDog Guest

    To paraphrase the Bard in "Hamlet":
    "The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks"

    DonnaS and a wee one like this.
  9. Kevin Symonds

    Kevin Symonds New Member

    That is irrelevant. Charlie consented to help put interested buyers in touch with the seller(s) of the land to be used for "refuges."
  10. CathyG

    CathyG Principalities

    Wow, earthtoangels! I've been following Charlie's blog for the better part of three years now and have no recollection of him posting pics of people without their permission and making cloaked remarks about them. Could you post a specific example of when this happened? Granted, I don't read every comment of every post but, generally speaking, I think Charlie responds appropriately unless someone continues to hammer at a point that has already been addressed or that has been covered ad infinitum on the blog. Then the person is usually referred to the search feature. Charlie tries to keep the comments from descending into rancor which I appreciate because it sometimes causes a lot of ill will (case in point is this thread). Mark Mallett doesn't allow any comments to avoid this altogether. When you speak of his generalizations (examples would be nice) I think it's important to remember that most prophecies are generalizations that can only be understood once they have been fulfilled. I also don't recall Charlie ever disputing the prophecies of approved mystics or saints. He has only said that if his prophecies don't align with theirs it could be a difference of interpretation. He can only report what he has been told. I have met Charlie twice when he was in the Boston area. I spent time with him at a dinner as well as driving him to his next stop along the journey. He is self-admittedly cantankerous sometimes and doesn't suffer fools gladly. I guess if that's narcissism then I am guilty of it myself. Like all of us, he is a sinner with his own personal shortcomings. He also suffers from a neurological condition which causes him a lot of discomfort. He is adamant about not accepting any money or donations for anything other than the bare minimum to get him to his speaking engagements. His story is consistent and he has not written anything that deviates from Catholic teaching. He, himself, says that you can take or leave his claims but his role is to give people hope by letting them know a rescue is coming after the storm. Although I'm a cradle Catholic, I have never truly understood the faith until finding Mark Mallett's site when intuition told me that a storm was brewing. Through Mark, I found Charlie and through Charlie I found MOG. I am a member of all of these sites and through them have learned so, so much. At one time, I thought Pope Francis was the False Prophet. Charlie, Mark and (yes, even) Padraig led me away from that cliff. Am I a "bandwagon" cheerleader for supporting and believing in all of these men? Maybe. I like to think that I have stuck around long enough to discern them intelligently. Their imperfections make me feel better about my own. Even if Charlie's predictions don't pan out, no harm, no foul. I have drawn much closer to my faith and God as a result of being one of his "cheerleaders." I truly don't understand the venomous opposition to him.
    DivineMercy, Karen, DonnaS and 6 others like this.
  11. Dolours

    Dolours Powers

    I think that it is relevant. If someone told him that they had a plot of land for sale and asked him if he knew anyone who might be interested, I can't see the big deal if he said yes on that one occasion. Now, if he is telling people to sell up and move because he knows someone selling property in a "safe" place, that would be enough warning for me to steer clear of him.

    Anyone who makes major decisions like moving home or investing in property based on unapproved messages really needs to get a grip. There's no harm in storing non-perishable food and other supplies for emergencies in these troubled times, but anything beyond that smacks of attempting to evade God's wrath or Protestant "rhapture" nonsense.
    fallen saint likes this.
  12. Mac

    Mac "To Jesus, through Mary"

  13. earthtoangels

    earthtoangels Powers

    The only refuges for the coming times are Consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Divine Mercy. The promises are given about them...no one else or any other "refuge". If anyone thinks he/she can pull him/herself out of this by him/herself I fear he/she might just realize along this terrible road that it's necessary to have supernatural help as so very many in this world are already experiencing. It's not until mankind looks to God for Mercy and asks for forgiveness that help can be given. As Fatima states...."it will be late". Fuse yourself with Christ NOW for that is what it will take, according to Luisa Piccarreta, to be fused with Him in His Divine Will in the coming Era. It is already necessary to do more than just "acknowledge" God. Current political leaders must also have such Divine assistance. To analyze their human strengths is wasting time in the big picture.
  14. CathyG

    CathyG Principalities

    In all charity, Kevin, this is totally untrue. The full text of Charlie's response on the Disqus link provides some clarification of this. I really don't understand what axe you have to grind against Charlie. I can only guess it has to do with his response to the articles you wrote about him which are no longer available for any of us to look at. Why is that? If we could see your original articles it might provide some context for Charlie's rebuttal. I think it's important that it be read in its entirety- along with his response to Patti Armstrong -- instead of cherry-picked quotes so here it is:

    "Your article, Mr. Symonds, merely proves you are a sloppy, slapdash researcher. You put emphasis on things I do not, while de-emphasizing things I do - and then garbling the things that have a grain of truth to them. Making an assertion is NOT proof.
    I have given encouragement to those who are using their own money and resources to prepare to help others who may be dislocated. I have encouraged people to trust God, that He knows where they are at and will gently guide them to take the next right step.
    I appreciate it that when I was in Dallas, you invited me to visit you a couple hours away. I was disappointed when I told you I had no transportation, but would be glad to set aside a day if you would come up to Dallas, you did not even give me the courtesy of a reply.
    I do not get much agitated at the malicious cranks who make things up about me and troll the internet posting nonsense where they can. From what I can determine, you are a reputable theologian. I would have expected better research from one who has your credentials.

    Charlie Johnston Patti Maguire Armstrong 9 months ago
    Patti, I do not object much to this particular article....but it does bother me when people say things I have not said...and particularly when they say I have said things exactly the opposite of what I actually say. I have NEVER encouraged people to move to refuges in the country. EVER. I congratulate people who, from their own generosity, use their own resources to prepare to help others in crisis, but what I constantly tell people is the most dangerous place to be is where God does not intend them to be...to trust God. In fact, my best friend and my son live on the edge of urban areas - and I have encouraged both of them to stay in place, because they have responsible public safety positions that will allow them to calm things down in the event of real crisis - to be a sign of hope. To tell people not to go where I tell them to is a non sequitur, since I I am not telling them to go anywhere.

    As for an endorsement by Fr. Mitch Pacwa, I saw after I had visited him that some of my readers mischaracterized the visit, so I put up this article https://charliej373.wordpress....to put to rest the idea of endorsements. I did not have much trouble after that with people overstating my meetings with a host of substantial people.
    Mr. Symonds, the author here, seemed to have done a reasonable first read of some of my material, but I have a tough time believing it was exhaustive or especially careful. I say routinely that, as big as the conflagration upon us will become, the physical casualties will only be about a third of what they were in WWII. He goes to great lengths to repeat what I said about how small the number is, without seeming to get that that is the point I have made almost every time I mention the casualties.
    My fundamental message is that we are in a Storm, that the safe way to get through is to always acknowledge God, take the next right step, and be a sign of hope to those around you. Take responsibility for yourself and act, in accordance with the Church. The fundamental prophetic element is that we will be rescued from the worst of these things visibly and miraculously very late in 2017 by Our Lady the Immaculate Conception. I posit a rescue, not a wreck - and tell everyone that God has work for them in the process if they will accept it - which is to do the three simple things I always talk about; acknowledge God, take the next right step and be a sign of hope. When people try to get me to play guru, I tell them that the heart of what I say is not that God is close to me (though I believe He is) but that He is right at hand to each of you - and waits for you to call on Him instead of trying to find a guru.
    Please don't get me wrong. You have a good website and do good work. Mr. Symonds seems a pretty fair-minded fellow...but much of the article garbles some things I say. You actually hit a hot button when you said I tell people to move to the country...when I go to great pains not to allow people to treat me as a guru who will tell them how to make decisions that they, themselves must make in accountability to God....but that when they trust Him, even their errant decisions will draw fruit.
    In any case, keep up the good work you routinely do in being a sign of hope to your readers...and if you are going to criticize me, go ahead, but please stick with criticizing what I actually say rather than what I do not say.
  15. Kevin Symonds

    Kevin Symonds New Member

    His remarks clarify nothing but only serve to muddy the waters. That is a classic tactic to throw people off track.

    I have nothing against Charlie personally. As I have said--and Charlie himself knows--I think he's a rather affable fellow. His claims, however, to private revelation are suspect and that is all.

    Oh, and I did not need to provide a link to Charlie's remarks as someone else did that already.
  16. Joe Crozier

    Joe Crozier Guest

    Dear Mr Symonds

    Is it true that you were in cahoots with Patti Maguire Armstrong as a deadly duo going after Charlie since last fall. D

    I believe that you translated the Vatican’s Congregation of the Faith’s Guidelines for Bishops discerning private revelation. They were only available in Latin for years. You and another person made the first translation to English. Could this have gone to your head? I ask this because it seems you have corrected Irish Bishop Leo O’Reilly after this bishop approved a series of Heavenly messages given to someone in his diocese. A translator does not have legitimate authority to overturn a local ordinary’s decision after investigation. Do you think that it is a little over-reaching and even arrogant to attempt to overrule the ordinary simply on the basis of your academic prowess.

    I believe Patti Maguire Armstrong was the writer for the NCR who published an article that seemed to be a deliberate attempt to defame Charlie.

    Enough said for now. Remember the scripture: Whoever welcomes a prophet as a prophet will receive a prophet's reward, and whoever welcomes a righteous person as a righteous person will receive a righteous person's reward.(Matthew 10:41)

    I’ve pondered, in light of this scripture, how smearing a true prophet of God must bring a negative spiritual result."

    I am familiar with a good and holy bishop who fully supports Charlie in his mission. And no I will not give his name for obvious reasons as seen on this thread.

    Your faithful servant

    Joseph Gregory Aloysius Crozier
    Karen, DonnaS, janet Walton and 3 others like this.
  17. CathyG

    CathyG Principalities

    I have no problem with your unbelief in Charlie's claims. That is certainly your right. I do take issue with your assertion that he "was looking to help others profit off of his alleged messages." This is untrue and it is incumbent on you to back this up with some proof. Again, could you supply a link to the articles you wrote about Charlie so we can do our own discerning?
  18. MMarie

    MMarie Guest

    Could you please remove this?
    Sam likes this.
  19. padraig

    padraig New Member

    The Church, yes the Church authorites, appointed by the Church to look in a private way into such personal matters.

    Not Catholics , acting as individuals, dragging what we think to be someones dirty laundry out into the open for the whole world to view. What gives you or anyone else the right to do this Kevin? Who appointed you this man's judge in doing this? What makes you think you are free from the charge in doing this of matters of grave sin lile slander, calumiiny and detraction?

    The Church Authorities arethe Church Authorities . You are not the Church Authorities , Kevin, you are not this guy's appointed judge. I think you have crossed a line here.

    I repeat,
    'Who appointed you this man's judge?'
    Booklady and a wee one like this.
  20. Kevin Symonds

    Kevin Symonds New Member

    I do not particularly care for your characterization of me, Mr. Crozier. People wonder why the Vatican does not like to respond on these issues. Look what happens to those who do. It is an endless barrage of demonization. I think Karl Rahner was right.

    If you would like to ask me questions about my work, by all means, but I will not answer them under the uncharitable auspices in which you have posed the current questions.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page