Countdown to the Kingdom

Thank you Julia. May God bless you too.

 

Amen, AED.

 

You couldn't have said it any better!! God Bless you Julia and everyone else on this forum.

 

Julia, I am afraid you will take this the wrong way. So I apologize in advance.

However, as regards your argument, Whose side do we think we are supporting when we continually broadcast the faults and failings of others. And get onto the Bishops to make them do our perceived will. This attitude is not from God....I reckon more jaw jaw, (prayer) and less war war, (harassing Bishops) would be in order for us so called foot soldiers in Christ...

It reminds me of what people used to say to those who noticed some priest seemed a little too friendly towards some of the kids. How dare you question Father? What kind of a Catholic are you, to say a thing like that!

We have a right and duty to question the behavior of priests who may be doing something to harm either the Faith or the Faithful.

Thank God those who were anguished and fearful after listening to Fr. Rodrigue's messages spoke up and questioned Bishop Lemay. It spurred him and the other bishop to take a public stand and tell the truth. It's not a pretty truth, but it is clear there are issues with Fr. Rodrigue's ministry that had to be dealt with. One glaring example, his claims of being an official exorcist are untrue. Neither bishop who oversaw him gave him that role. I hope he never harmed a person in need by attempting to perform an exorcism without authority. I trust the bishops will do what they can to ensure that will not happen going forward.

You cannot have a priest running around making claims of imminent doom without spiritual guidance and oversight, much less doing exorcisms or overseeing a new order. Happily, this will no longer be the case.

 

This is a traditional Catholic approach. It is prudent and charitable. Prayers for all.

 

I feel the same way, Sunnyveil. I have said so from the beginning.

 

I think I need to clarify a little here. Fr. Michel's statement was that he "tells everything" to Bishop Lemay. The hitch is that the Bishop responded that he was not told.
Fr. Michel has said that his Bishop "does not support" his messages.

 

I have to tell you that Fr Michel never submitted to me any of his locutions and visions for discernment or approval. Accordingly, I could not have supported the content of his talks which are not presented in my diocese nor elsewhere in the Province of Québec as far as I now, but mostly in the United States. Moreover, I learnt about his teaching while reading some reports on the website mentioned above. I did not and I do not approve his teaching with regard to his locutions and visions. Consequently, it is untrue that he “receives the full support of his bishop” as it is written in the Countdown to the Kingdom website and in the quoted book.

This is from Bishop Lemay's first letter, posted for clarification by me.

 

From Fatima expert and EWTN expert Kevin Symonds,

Countdown to the Kingdom Responds to the Bishops

This morning, I discovered that Countdown to the Kingdom (CTTK) has responded to the letter of Bishop Bourgon of Hearst-Moosonee.

CTTK’s entire argument rests, as I have said previously, upon the two Bishops’ statements containing no formal condemnation in forma specifica. Then, they add to this the following statement:

Were a bishop to issue a formal condemnation of Fr. Michel Rodrigue’s messages, and were the prophecies of the Warning, the Chastisements, World War III, the Three Days of Darkness, and the Era of Peace to then occur, such a condemnation would reflect poorly on said bishop and on the Catholic Church as a whole. An erroneous condemnation would put into question the sanctity and surety of any bishop’s official statement, which is presumed utterly correct and to come from a thorough investigation.

CTTK would likely prefer to think of this statement as something along the lines of a “friendly warning,” but I beg to differ. It comes across more as a bully-tactic in that it serves the purpose of backing the two Bishops into a corner of continual doubt. Doing this provides a soft and cushy “grey area” in which CTTK can then operate.

I believe it is appropriate to draw attention at this time to the 1983 Codex Iuris Canonici:

Can. 386 §1. A diocesan bishop, frequently preaching in person, is bound to propose and explain to the faithful the truths of the faith which are to be believed and applied to morals. He is also to take care that the prescripts of the canons on the ministry of the word, especially those on the homily and catechetical instruction, are carefully observed so that the whole Christian doctrine is handed on to all.


§2. Through more suitable means, he is firmly to protect the integrity and unity of the faith to be believed, while nonetheless acknowledging a just freedom in further investigating its truths.


Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.


Based upon the above considerations:

1. Bishops Bourgon and Lemay have made known their mind on the question of Fr. Rodrigue;
2. They have declared their total disavowal of Rodrigue’s alleged messages;
3. In doing so, they have exercised their office;
4. The faithful are bound to obey what has been stated.

I would add to these considerations the observation that BOTH Bishops have indicated that Rodrigue was never an official exorcist. This can be interpreted as a tongue-in-cheek (indirect) statement that Rodrigue has misrepresented himself, if not actually lied.

Despite these facts, CTTK has decided to downplay the statements of the Bishops by dismissing them as being merely their “personal opinion.” In doing such, CTTK is dangerously running close to encouraging disunity within the Body of Christ. Moreover, if Fr. Rodrigue has misrepresented himself as an “exorcist,” CTTK is not wise in continuing to defend him.

They need to stop. Now.

If CTTK believes the Bishops’ statements are erroneous, unclear or rooted in improper methodology, the 1983 CIC has provisions relevant to these matters:

Can. 212 §2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.

§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

I strongly encourage CTTK to take advantage of the law and write to the two Bishops and seek clarification. I would add, however, that this should have been done before publishing the present statement.

Let me be clear: CTTK, knock it off.
.

 

I have no horse in the race here. I follow prophecy but dismiss much of it. I am just not sure of my personal interpretations of the modern seers. Does not mean they are not legit. That is certainly NOT what I am saying. I do not have the authority. What bothers me now is that bishops have weighed in on this. They sent letters. That kind of seals it for me as a lay faithful. I am bound by obedience to accept the decisions by the bishops. But a bishop has been speaking up about one of his priests who is speaking up about evil in society (Fr. Altman). I think Fr. Altman is correct and has a right to speak the truth. It is different but maybe the CTTK people look at it this way.

I have not been a fan of the CTTK website itself. It puts a knot in my stomach and I don't know very much about their seers listed. I really do stick to church approved because I just don't trust myself not being duped. I do read though. They keep down playing all this negative coming at their seers, especially Fr. M. One has to ask themselves, is this because they believe in them and have promoted them and are trying to save face? Or simply because they honestly believe in them.

I guess that is why I choose to stick to Scripture and the approved seers. If God "dings" me for not following one of His prophets then He does. It is not out of blatant disregard it is out of confusion.

 

Yes, you have questioned the truth of these prophecies from the beginning. I know because last week I reread this entire thread.
We have several friends who either went to one of Father Rodrique's conferences last year or read the CTTK messages and are telling us to prepare for Trump's demise and nuclear war. The CTTK website has multiplied Father's prophecies to a lot more people. None of this is good.
Bishop Lemay's message regarding Father Rodrigue is summed up in this statement:
I invite you to reread the words of Jesus, quoted by Saint Luke: “Take heed that you not be deceived” (Lk 21:8; cf. Mt 24:4ff and Mk 13:32).

 

Tanker, I too wonder at the insistence of pushing Fr. Michel’s messages. I think there has been pushback elsewhere on some of the other seers on their site, but there almost seems to be a special interest in not setting his aside. I wonder if it is because they are such specific predictions that they give people something to hold on to, or anticipate, so to say. Not that anyone should be hoping for multiple nuclear missiles to strike, but I think this speaks to the desperation so many feel about the times in which we are living. Each day, it seems something new happens that makes me wonder how much longer we can go without some sort of Divine intervention. I do not believe in the messages he is sharing anymore, but I suppose regardless of all of our individual beliefs, he has put forth a time table by which the accuracy of these messages can easily be judged. Again, this reminds me of Charlie Johnston very much. I think one of the biggest concerns now is, should things start to not come pass, if there are new “interpretations” of what Fr. Michel’s messages really mean. For now they are plain and straightforward, but I wonder if they will always be so.

 

Wouldn't it be interesting if there was such massive outrage at what Father James Martin is preaching. But hey I guess his messages are acceptable; no mention of repentance, fasting, praying, Eucharistic Adoration or any other little inconvenience that might spoil the pink and fluffy party.

Silence is consent in law, and we know the devil is a legalist. So who are we really consenting to without saying a word. I wonder if anyone is harassing his Bishop.

 

Thank you, John. as well. Thank

 

You mean like this?

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news...ds-to-rumors-of-fr-martin-becoming-archbishop

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove....

 

The thread is self evident. Red flags or warnings about Father James Martin not found on the forum thread.

Not that I would read it to be honest, as per your link, there are plenty of others who raise the red flags elsewhere.

If they make Fr Martin a Bishop, will you be prepared to pay and obey whatever nuanced interpretation he preaches from scripture. The other poor alleged prophets get a hard time even when they are keeping faithful to the Gospels. Maybe that is what I am trying to prove.

 

That's a pretty bad take right there.

Type "James Martin" in the search box and you will fine many, many posts on this very forum that decry what he stands for.

Let's get real for a minute - no one is giving Fr. Michel a hard time for being faithful to the Gospel. Alleged prophets are to be discerned, and that's what we are doing on this thread.

 

This is the straight truth. Thank you.