Well actually to my surprise I thought that they were very good. I say surprised because I admit I am quite biased and don't believe in Fr Michel at all and have a great respect for Professor Miravalle. But Professor O'Connor made some good points. I was also a little surprised that some of the points of contention are not really Theological at all but more to do with fact finding. Also some even of the theological points, like St Faustina on Purgatory are about fact finding and tracing back. I was a little surprised, as someone with no Theological education at all, that I actually understood what they both writing. It will take time to absorb and pray about what they both wrote. I have admitted my bias already. But it was enjoyable to read both Theologians in action. One thing I think about Mystical Phenomena like this is that when folks take positions there is just no shifting them. Those who support Fr Michel will probably support him till the stars wink out; those who do not , the same deal. Still so interesting. Fun to read them both. You know reading what they both write reminds me of reading posts on the forum. They both seem so untechnical, I don't recall one of them quoting Scripture once. I thought Theologians were forever quoting scripture. But what do I know?
Thanks for this passage Serena. This passage can also be a defense against those heretical Christian sects who says that Christians should not eat pork because it is written in the Old Testament.
I have been involved in endless controversies over matters like this before and have sworn off them. I understand that most people have made their minds up. Getting involved is a bit like a dog that chases its own tale. Better just to give your own two cents worth and vamoose. Who has the time?
One wonderful thing I find inspiring about Mark Miravalle and Daniel O'Connor in their good manners, courtesy and innate charity, an example. Also I like the way they set out there arguments and counter arguments in bullet points with supporting evidence placed out nice and orderly. This takes time and discipline. I love this. It reminds me fo the writings of Mark Mallett. Agree with him or disagree with him he takes huge time and care with his work. I love this. If I have any time tonight at work or when I get time next time when I am away camping I must look over their writings on this. Its so interesting, I must read them with time and care. I have been following responses in other threads. Again so interesting. The thought comes again and which has been made again and again on the forum is that Fr Michel's prophetic utterances are time limited. They will proved right or wrong this Fall. So I wouldn't get too hot under the collar about them one way or the other. Wait and see is fine. We won't have long to wait to see, time will discern for us.
Well to be honest and not to be argumentative it's quite true he doesn't. Professor Miravalle is right up there in the World's Best standards of Academics alongside the likes of Scott Hahn. Plus along with Scott the Professor is totally Orthodox and devout. Professor Miravalle would be supervising Daniel O'Connor as a Post Grad student and showing him how to do things if he was at Steubenville. I'm not being a snob about it, its just the way it is. They are on two totally different Academic planes. In a hospital setting it would be a bit like a junior nurse telling a Senior Surgeon how to get things done. Hopefully the Senior Surgeon would have patience and a listening ear , but at the end of the day, if you were a Patient its the Senior Surgeon you would be listening too. That's not being snobbish, its just the way things are. In this case Professor Miravalle is the Senior Surgeon, no doubt about it.
Oh, having an Academic in the family myself, I TOTALLY get that, Padraig. And I agree. For clarification, I was referring to the specific responses he chose to make and not his personal level of education or abilities in comparison to Dr. Miravalle, for the record. I am not in the business of raking over the coals Daniel O’Connor’s reputation. Not saying that because I believe you think that but just to clarify the record of where I stand.
Miravalle is far from an expert. I am deeply grieved he should be considered such. 1) He opens by saying he has no authority. But then ends by giving a "non constat", a formal declaration which only the local bishop can make. Worse, in one of the few videos of his I watched, Miravalle claims the "non constat" is not condemnatory but neutral (he is speaking of Medju). Thus he has twisted himself in knots. Here it is a condemnation, but everywhere else Miravalle says it is not. I honestly regard Miravalle now as a complete charlatan. He's not an amateur but a PhD and can't be excused for such recklessness. In truth the "non constat" is a NEGATIVE judgement given by the local bishop. 2) Miravalle rashly endorsed the book and as rashly condemns Rodrigue. Several points he errs on. Besides what O'Connor points out, Miravalle makes numerous factual errors that end in slanders. Fr Rodrigue never said he and God are one. Rodrigue doesn't foretell the election of a pope just the convening of a Council. 3) Miravalle psychologically evaluates Fr Rodrigue without even meeting him. The only point Miravalle is clearly correct on is the 4th. The AntiChrist is a political leader, not an hierarch. Daniel O'Connor (not a PhD) makes just as many mistakes. I had believed Fr Rodrigue but now have further questions, which I will list on another thread. I am shocked and very disappointed at how poorly the experts "discern." It's no wonder the confusion on false mystics, false revelations, and false cults are so great.
John, you are quick to label Dr. Miravalle as a “charlatan”. There is a LOT out there to his credit which would support a completely opposite conclusion.
I was watching this video. I don't quite agree with Mark Mallett's and Daniel O'Connors timeline on this. (In case anyone thinks I am going along with it all. But is so interesting)
Hi John. Grieve not. Dr. Miravalle is an expert. He has an advanced degree, He teaches on Mariology and private revelation at a University in both an undergrad and graduate level, his dissertation was on a private revelation, and he has been asked by bishops to be on commissions to evaluate private revelations. There’s no way that he is “far from an expert.” You honestly can’t get any more “expert” than him. That’s not to say you can’t disagree with him, but an expert he is. 1) He never makes an official pronouncements. To say he does is wrong. He said it is his private opinion and lists his reasons. 2) Dr. Miravalle’s evaluation of Fr. Michel seems spot on to me. To say that the devil is inside of you and the only relief is to lie down on a hot wood stove is deeply, deeply concerning. As is the claim that a bishop ran away from his house (which he eventually burned down) because of possibility of it. These claims, by using Catholic norms of discernment, need to be investigated. And need to be verified. 3) Dr. Miravalle claims he endorsed the Warning concept and that his endorsement was taken somewhat out of context. I’m not sure how you could claim and “rashness” here unless you personally know both him and his endorsement in context. Often times one has less than a two week window to read and decide to endorse a book before it goes to print - which makes a decision to endorse even trickier. Seems to me that you are judging his motives here. 4) It does appear that Dr. Miravalle has read the message incorrectly that states God the Father and him are one; I expect that he was given a bad translation and made an honest mistake. I’m sure he will clarify in due time. It seems John that you are labeling an expert a charlatan based on your personal opinion of his arguments. Better to disagree on the points he makes than to try to erroneously discredit his credentials.
Please. Read carefully what I wrote. ANYONE who writes and speaks like Miravalle is a charlatan. Again carefully read it. But to recap: He said he was not going to give an authoritative judgement at the beginning of the "review." Then he gives an authorative and condemnatory judgement only the Church can give. He is inconsistent in just a couple pages. Even worse, elsewhere he says a "non constat" is not a negative judgement but here he can choose to make it negative. Duplicity. Beyond that, he misconstrued and misquoted Fr Rodrigue like a bad journalist not like an expert or PhD. He should be stripped of his faculties.
This seems very, very harsh John. This is one of the reasons why I don't like to take part in discussions like this. Very harsh negative language like this is a big turn off to me.
Miravalle is 10 times more harsh. That is why I think he is an absolute charlatan. That is my point. I am ten times more offended by Miravalle's false and wicked argument than you are by the word "charlatan." He should know better. I have studied theology, philosophy, politics, and literature in grad school. Many friends of mine are profs. Two friends teach or taught at Steubenville. They are heretics no less. It's not the bastion you think. I do not look to names or titles as many here. Just the arguments. Miravalle has NO BUSINESS issuing a "non constat." He is a FRAUD for using it negatively when in very his videos and his very own words he says that the "non constat" is not negative. Does that make sense? He is abusing his authority. He is showing himself (a) completely incompetent or (b) a nefarious scoundrel. Maybe you don't understand the gravity of Miravalle's words. A man who arbitrarily and at a whim changes the meanings of official decrees of the Church is a scoundrel. He is ten times the scoundrel when it is his area of expertise. No one should give him any heed, no more than a barking dog. That said, I think Fr Rodrigue needs a thorough examination. I have followed him almost 2 years and now have some doubts. Quis custodit custodes?
Thank you, Padraig, I appreciate your reply. I think your advice "It will take time to absorb and pray about what they both wrote," is spot on. I am biased as well, I admit it, I like the little priest, but at the same time, some of what he says is troubling to me. That is why I appreciate people of the caliber of Dr. Miravalle and Daniel O'Connor who weigh in on these issues. I truly admire Dr. Miravalle, and I also admire Daniel O'Connor. I believe both made solid points, and clarified some of the concerns many have. I think now that these two broke the ice we shall be hearing from more theologians. Or maybe, even from Bishop Lemay, himself. Blessings to you!
