Charlie Johnston.

With all due respect crew dog, but Harper definitely is not coming across angry.

There are plenty of reason to seriously question Charlie, why not repond to the ones pointed out? Or maybe if you don't like Harper or Harper's message don't read it.

As for the reason one may point out concerns... There are many "prophets" that seem to start on the straight and narrow only to later veer off. Time will tell of course, but as of right now there are plenty of warning signals that are blinking bright red.

I recommend that everyone be very, very, careful about where s lead from her on out.

 

We will "Know", Frodo, ... What's What and Who's been Right in Very Short Order!!
I'd advise ALL HERE to plan for the Worst!! If the worst does not happen you will have "Stuff" to go camping with, eat & drink, give away to the needy and get a charitable deduction on your taxes

GOD SAVE ALL HERE!!

 

Julia,

I keep hearing that word "Beef." Almost like it's an echo chamber around here. Hmmm...

 

Harper,... I'll ask AGAIN ... for the 2nd, 3rd or 4th time ... what is, EXACTLY, your BEEF with Charlie Johnston .... Eh!!???

GOD SAVE ALL HERE!!

 

CREW DOG!!???

A PARTIAL ANSWER TO YOU!!

Lots of exclamation points there, CD. In the old days, you would have worn out one typewriter ribbon or more. You keep accusing me of having a beef. I don't know Charlie personally, but I've seen him and read him. My question to you: "Where's the Beef?" (Bet you're old enough to remember that commercial.)

I don't disagree the world is in a bad situation. What would make it worse would be for large numbers of people to fall for another LttW or MDM. It occurs to me one way to avoid that is to actually find out something about someone who claims to be heaven-sent before following him. Call me crazy! I'd like to know if Charlie's story hangs together. People swallow whole all sorts of claims. So let me ask you about your great friend, Charlie. I'd appreciate it if you'd answer on your own, from what you know personally, at this point in time. No cheating.

Charlie claims to be a former newspaper editor and writer. What papers did he work at? Any metro newspapers, printed and sold? Online only?

Charlie claims to be a political insider from Illinois. Do you know of any positions he held in a political party or as staff to an office holder? Do you know any particular candidates he worked for?

Charlie claimed a few years ago that he'd been "school president" at a large suburban school district in the Chicago area some 30 years ago. He would have been late 20s/early 30s at the time. How did he gain that post without an extensive background in education?

Do you have independent and personal knowledge of any of the highly placed individuals in government, medicine, economics or the military who allegedly are following Charlie because of his "stunning" (his word) successes in predicting the future? I'm not asking for names, just if you can independently attest there are in fact such people.

I’m asking this to make a point. This is basic easy stuff. I know this kind of stuff (past jobs, acquaintances) about my friends. I know this about people I work with and socialize with. In fact I know the life stories of a lot of people I go to church with, and even the stories of some of the priests who've worked in area parishes (I love the priests from Africa who visit, their stories are amazing).

You proclaim your belief in Charlie but I bet you don't really know many facts about him. You know his writings and they appeal to you, but you haven't vetted the writer. You and many others apparently are willing to make a leap of faith. You're willing to YELL AT OTHERS in online forums to defend Charlie’s honor. Even though many of Charlie's claims seem exaggerated and boastful on their face.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, pays close attention to the person who is making extraordinary claims. What is the testimony of his or her life? That's the starting point.

The archbishop of Denver took a preliminary look at Charlie. His conclusion? Archbishop Aquila urged Catholics to "exercise prudence and caution in regards to Mr. Charlie Johnston's alleged divine visions and messages." In addition, the archbishop decided it was best if Charlie were not be allowed to speak at Catholic venues within the archdiocese of Denver.

In the announcement and in a follow-up, Denver church officials also directly countered two arguments Charlie frequently makes in his favor.

First, “Johnston insists in writing and during his talks that the ‘prophetic’ parts of his message are not essential and should not be the focus of those who follow him. However, it appears that those same predictions are what attract new followers to his message and give them a sense of urgency and zeal.” (Archbishop Aquila)

Then, there was a response to the archdiocese’s announcement that Charlie was banned as a speaker at Denver Catholic venues -- from Charlie, then countered by the archdiocese’s chancellor, David Uebbing (from National Catholic Register):

“On the day the report was released, Johnston interpreted it on his blog as “permission” to continue, claiming the archbishop simply was exercising prudence.

To those who took the statement as an instruction to “turn off the lights,” Johnston responded, “I am enjoying letting the sourpusses expose themselves for lacking the most basic knowledge of ‘Churchspeak.’” He pointed to Bishop René Gracida of Corpus Christi, Texas, as publicly congratulating him for a positive outcome. When contacted by the Register, the 92-year-old bishop, who retired in 1997, said that his support is for Johnston’s “zealous witness to the Catholic faith” but “not with regard to his private revelations.”

David Uebbing, chancellor for the Archdiocese of Denver, told the Register, “The official statement of the archbishop stands on its own, apart from Mr. Johnston’s interpretation, and should be considered in its entirety.” He explained, “The archdiocese does not allow the propagation of messages or visions without certitude that they are from God, which requires a much longer process involving analysis by experts from outside the archdiocese.”

Crew Dog, I do have more I might say, and I might say it tomorrow.

Or not. Depends on how I feel.

 

Harper Sez: “The official statement of the archbishop stands on its own, apart from Mr. Johnston’s interpretation, and should be considered in its entirety.” He explained, “The archdiocese does not allow the propagation of messages or visions without certitude that they are from God, which requires a much longer process involving analysis by experts from outside the archdiocese.”
Just like Garabandal. Akita, Medigorge and/or any other "Not Approved" by The Church message! Harper, are you also so adamant against the above "Not Approved" or is it just Charlie Johnston that you have a problem with ... Eh!!?? ... Kindly explain, exactly, for the 3rd, 4th or 5th time!!!??

GOD SAVE ALL HERE!!

 

Crew Dog,

Bless your heart. You can't answer any of my questions about Charlie, can you?

 

Nor, Harper, can YOU answer my question ....... Bless Your Heart

GOD BLESS ALL HERE!!

PS: For you Yankees and Folks not from the USA... "Bless Your Heart" is an expression from the Old South that is meant to insult simple minded people... Now!! ... I'm guessing, that if I cared too ... I could add
more "letters" after my name than Harper ... but who... "These Days" ... really cares??

GOD SAVE ALL HERE!! X Two

 

Harper, thank you for all you wrote. It's going to help a lot of people make an informed decision in a quicker amount of time.

What I'd like to know is why no one from Charlie's past has ever stepped forward to present an unbiased view of him. I find that pretty strange in light of the extraordinary claims he makes.

 

What exactly will we know shortly CD?

We will know if Charlie is incorrect shortly, if he misses.
If he hits, what will we know?

I hope you arent suggesting he must be true if he gets something right.

 

Hmmm.. I have heard before, where God is present, so is satan.

 

Let me finish the long post I began last evening. Part of what drew many followers to Charlie were a series of apparent celebrity endorsements. For example, a poster on Charlie's blog said this in an Aug. 31 comment:

"...I found your site after you were mentioned on EWTN radio by Fr. Pacwa earlier this year. I have known and trusted him from years of listening to him on EWTN – what a Priest, right? Even though he didn’t endorse you he seemed to me to imply a respect for your messages so I looked you up..."

On Aug. 30 another poster said:

Listening to Catholic radio this morning and Patrick Madrid was musing on how the potential impact the Russian hacking of the Illinois and Arizona voter registration system could totally result in a call for Obama to extend his presidency until a new election could take place. He hypothesizes that either losing party would contest the results and the “Chit” fiasco in Florida would seem a minor hiccup in comparison. Interesting commentary based on your latest post. Does Patrick Madrid follow you? Hmmmm

Charlie replied:

I don’t know that Patrick follows me, but we chat from time to time. We are friends.

But many of those Charlie claims as friends on his blog are not following him and have said so for the record. Let me quote an article describing the fallout from the Denver archbishop's preliminary on Charlie:

"Although Johnston continues to generate speaking events, the ban in his own archdiocese is having an effect. In March, Relevant Radio canceled an interview with Johnston. A spokesperson for the station explained, “Relevant Radio supports and abides by the prudent decision of the Archdiocese of Denver.”

Last fall, former EWTN radio host and current Immaculate Heart Radio host Patrick Madrid interviewed Johnston in response to his popularity, but stated in an interview with the Register that he would not do so again. “As Archbishop Aquila has so wisely advised, the danger is that people can get off course,” he said, referring to any of the faithful who, by following unapproved, alleged apparitions, seers, etc., can veer off course spiritually and theologically.

The report has also influenced bishops across the country. Bishop David Kagan of the Diocese of Bismarck, N.D., commented that bishops pay attention to one another. “I would not allow this person to speak on any religious subject in the Diocese of Bismarck, since it is clear that his activities in Denver and elsewhere have caused confusion among the Catholic faithful,” he told the Register.

In the Diocese of Springfield, Ill., Bishop Thomas Paprocki told the Register, “Since Mr. Johnston will not be approved as a speaker in the Archdiocese of Denver, neither will he be approved as a speaker in the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois. The faithful should seek their security in Jesus Christ, the sacraments and the Scriptures.”

Michael O’Neill, author and creator of MiracleHunter.com, who often talks about visionaries on his radio program, pointed out that the Archdiocese of Denver statement is not a condemnation and does not prohibit the faithful from following Johnston.

“It does not assess whether or not it is a supernatural event, but instead urges caution, in order that the faithful might keep their focus on an authentic practice of the faith, keeping the words and works of Jesus Christ, as given to us by sacred Scripture and Tradition, as the center of our faith,” he told the Register.

Nonetheless, O’Neill acknowledged that, given the plethora of beautiful devotions already present in the Catholic faith, it seems sensible to treat such claims with an appropriate level of cautious skepticism. He added, “Such prophecy does, however, provide a good backdrop for being ready and keeping our souls in the state of grace, for ‘you know neither the day nor the hour’ (Matthew 25:13).”

Kevin O’Brien, blogger and founder of Theater of the World Inc., has warned Catholics against following Johnston, calling his predictions “patent nonsense” that give him “a cult status among gullible Catholics.”

Last summer, after “hearing about Johnston from all corners of Catholicism,” O’Brien investigated and wrote about his findings. He pointed out several failed prophecies and gave evidence, using Johnston’s Facebook posts, that his claim to have walked 3,200 miles across the country was false. O’Brien said in his blog that his concern is that Johnston’s followers are falling prey to a morbid curiosity and a desire for more than what we have, “which is the presence of Jesus Christ himself and his Spirit and access to his Father as adopted children.”

EWTN host Father Mitch Pacwa was present at a 2015 talk by Johnston that was widely circulated on the Internet. Some viewers have taken Father Pacwa’s presence at the talk as an implicit endorsement of Johnston. But Father Pacwa explained to the Register that he had attended the talk only out of curiosity and has never endorsed Johnston.

Father Pacwa said that he too has great concern for the state of the world, but stressed, “Our goal must be to be faithful to our blessed Lord and to call our people to be faithful to Our Lord, his Gospel and his Church, no matter what a visionary might say or not.”

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...ton-continues-ministry-despite-denver-archdi/

 

I don't think it was brought up, but none of Charlie's talks from July or August surfaced yet. That's strange in itself. The last one that was uploaded on YouTube was from June 28. There was one comment from him that really gave me pause.

It was in the Q & A part. Someone asked about a Protestant prophecy where the guy was told that Donald Trump would be the next President. Charlie paused, laughed, and said that Protestant prophecy (which his was before 1991) was wishful thinking. He then retold the story of how his "angel" told him that HE was sent, not them!

He keeps asserting that he's sent when the Archdiocese of Denver hasn't given us any indication whether he is or not. Constant, repeated assertion keeps the followers bound to his every pronouncement...just saying.

 

http://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/...-ministry-despite-denver-archdi/#.V8iUvVkpBda

"He (David Uebbing, chancellor for the Archdiocese of Denver) explained that the Archdiocese does not allow the propagation of messages without certitude that they are from God, which requires a much longer process involving analysis by experts from outside the Archdiocese."

 

Exactly. That is why he is been forbidden to speak at Catholic venues in Denver. The archdiocese was clear that it had not conducted a study of the content of the messages. That is done when a formal ruling is to be made on whether a set of apparitions is supernatural, etc.

I think -- but don't know for sure-- this preliminary exam is similar to first court appearance, or maybe a grand jury investigation. It was not comprehensive. The next step would be bigger, more intensive and more exhaustive, including -- I believe-- things like a psych evaluation.

 

Step one...obedience and the proposed seers reaction to Churches initial decision.

The Catholic Church will not go any further in our friend Charlie's investigation. The moment you fight back or rant or rave about how you are treated...it's basically over.

 

I think the argument on this topic about Charlie J is deeply flawed.

LttW or MDM were anonymous, Charlie J is prepared to stand up and take the flack for what he claims.

Of course we don't know if everything he says is going to happen the way he believes. But he has given good sound brotherly advice at a time when a lot of people need encouragement and support.

I wonder what encouragement the critics would like to give us. Or is it just jealousy because Charlie has the knack of capturing the imagination, without offending any of our beliefs in Almighty God. And at a time when our culture and Faith are under the most vicious attack from without, and now thanks to the likes of the critics, from within as well.

 

Good advice maybe...but when you state visions and mandates from heaven, everything changes.

 

So trusting in God, doing what is right in the sight of God, and encouraging those around you is changing what in the Bible.

 

M

In fairness, if Charlie himself believes these to be genuine, isn't he to be commended for sharing them with us, simultaneously putting his own credibility on the line? From what articles of his I've read, he seems to continue to walk the tight-rope of orthodoxy and if he turns out to be wrong in his prophesying does he deserve to be totally thrown under the bus or does the good advice and prayer he has been offering not stand on its own as having value?