Charlie Johnston.

I appreciate your stance Charlie, I really do, understanding that our best course of action are the three things you espouse. However, we are thinking breathing human beings that are naturally curious about truth, as is evident by the people on this forum. There are many things in the bible that leave much to conjecture, such as the Nephulim, the fall of the Angels, and the missing book of Enoch, (which is referenced in scripture) just to name a few. And we have these unexplainable stone ruins all over the earth, that scream out "lost civilizations with advanced building abilities!". I just wanna know how everything fits together. One more thing: I don't know if it's true or not, but if the Church knows truth that it's keeping secret, because it thinks the masses can't handle it, I don't appreciate that.

 

Thanks, Greggo, for that gentle reply. I try to acknowledge and respect that innate curiosity without making it the center of things or distracting from what is needful. I suspect the people at the Church level, most of our shepherds are just trying to do what the rest of us are - their duty as best they can.

 

I don't think the history of the Church's interest in life other than human life on only our planet earth through some of its major theologians and scientists is too frightened with it being some kind of diversion tactic by the demons. Rather they consider it to be a pretty natural wonder about a spectacular God Who cannot be easily classified for possibilities outside of what we can see and know.

Here is one example of a pretty open treatise on the matter among many:

UFOs and Extraterrestrials - A problem for the Church?
Monsignore Corrado Balducci, Rome
original source | fair use notice


“The Lord certainly did not limit His glory to this small Earth. On other planets other beings exist who did not sin and fall as we did."
- St. Padre Pio of Pietrelcina (1887-1968), canonized June 16, 2002

Msgr. Balducci is one of the best-known and most respected Italian theologians. The Roman priest and Curia member served the Holy See as a diplomat and member of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples ("Propaganda Fide"). He is an expert on demonology and parapsychology, was for several years the exorcist of the diocese of Rome, the Pope’s diocese. Msgr. Balducci wrote several books, including the bestseller "Il Diavolo" (the Devil) which reached 14 print runs in the hardcover edition. Furthermore he is a regular guest in the Italian State TV (Rai Due), where he made several statements on the UFO phenomenon since 1995. He spoke on the UFO congresses in Acapulco and San Marino. We publish his paper for the first time in an English translation. It is indeed noteworthy, since it is the very first detailed statement of a senior Roman Catholic theologian and Curia member on the UFO phenomenon.

Please note:

-I use the acronym UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) in the wider sense as a synonym for the existence of extraterrestrial beings;
-I participate in this debate under the premise that the described UFO phenomena are real. This is not in contradiction to the Christian Faith, a position to which most theologians would agree.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc814.htm

He does take into consideration all of the possibilities that could engender false sightings or experiences. But then the Church takes into consideration the other possibilities surrounding the actuality of demon possession as well. And it isn't a subject of willy nilly speculation for the uneducated, or, as they say today, the "low information" folks!

 

Charlie I find this a fascinating conversation on the alleged distinction between miracles and magic.
I believe it reveals how the meanings of those words vary over time and even between groups within the Church itself.

So I really don't have any problems with your original statement, "Satan can do miracles."
I would also suggest that in the past some people have had such a gift given to them at birth like any natural talent/quality (just like being good at music or drawing)...which suggest it is possible that such praeternatural gifts need be neither demonic or angelic but just "are".

What makes us put them in box1 (demonic\witchcraft ("magic"?)) or box2 (angelic/divine/supernatural ("miracles")) seems more to do with society or Church authority based on whether the characters involved are perceived/judged over time to exercise virtue or vice.
One man's Witch is another man's Seer.
Some don't seem to be either, yet just as undoubtedly have "the gift."
Why do they all have to be in one of two boxes?

Yet it seems to me there have always been cases that fall into the apparently unallowed box3...
And that box3 is ... neutral. No signs of especial virtue, no signs of especial vice, no meaning, no message - it just happens and we really don't know why.
There have been "ordinary" people with gifts of levitation and fortune-telling that they could use at will like any human skill.
They weren't possessed, they weren't overly religious, overly pagan, overly materialist or overly anything ... they were just ordinary like us in every other way.

We don't say that artistic genius's (like Beethoven or idiot-savants) are demonic or supernatural if they are exercising very rare gifts that come naturally...unless they use those gifts in a very bad way (monsters) or a very good way (brilliant heroes). They just are.

Why is it different with the more unusual praeternatural talents such as levitation or reading the future?
The very existence of the "praeternatual" order in Catholic Theology suggests one does not need to always assume supernatural (or demonic) agency in the face of every unexplained "natural" phenomenon.
There is a borderline natural realm where the inexplicable, hidden causality may be simply .... a natural human "spiritual" endowment.
An endowment which can be used, mused or abused like any other latent natural talent given us by God at the moment of our conception.

 

St. Thomas' Concept of Miracle
A miracle is something which happens beyond the order of nature. However, it is not enough for the essence of a miracle that something occur beyond the order of a particular nature. Otherwise when a man throws a stone he would be performing a miracle, since his action is beyond the natural capacity of the stone. Consequently, when something is called a miracle, it means an occurrence beyond the order of all created nature. No one but God can do this; because whatever an angel or any other creature does by its own power is still within the order of created nature and therefore not a miracle. [14]

Immediately the question arises: How is St. Thomas to be understood when he says that only God can work a miracle? Does he exclude the possibility of miracles wrought by preternatural powers? As will be seen presently, a correct understanding of this point is essential for properly evaluating the Scholastic concept of miracle. St. Thomas treats the problem under the heading, “The Power of the Angels over Bodily Creatures.” The objection was raised that not only God but also the angels, certainly the demons, can work miracles, as evidenced from the pages of Scripture where false prophets and wizards are said to have worked wonders. He answers: Miracles strictly so called are those which occur beyond the order of all created nature. However, since we do not know all the forces of created nature, when something happens beyond the order of created nature known to us, through created forces unknown to us, the occurrence is a miracle for us. Consequently when the demons do something by their natural power, these are called miracles not in the strict sense, but miracles relative to us. [15]
In other words, St. Thomas recognizes only one type of miracle in the strict sense of the term: where the effect simply transcends the forces of all created nature, human and angelic. Extraordinary events which appear wonderful to us because the effect transcends the powers of man, are only relative miracles, i.e., relative to our ignorance of supramundane, preternatural powers, like those of the angels and demons.

Extensive research on this can be read here: http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Miracles/Miracles_003.htm

 

I am an enthusiastic fan of St. Thomas Aquinas - the real Aquinas, not the pedantic fantasy of Thomists. He was, of course, profound and deep...but even more than that, St. Thomas understood that truth will stand the test of examination - that a system must be internally coherent to possibly be true. In dealing with serious error - and particularly the Manicheans, Aquinas did not limit himself to speaking from authority. He got right down and argued first from the perspective of his opponents, showing how their arguments, even from their own perspective, could not hold up by exposing the internal contradictions. It was both powerful - and respectful - requiring a thorough knowledge of others philosophy. I hold him as one of my most important patrons.

 

This is all very well.
I think its obvious to all here that in the Bible, in the Early Church and today, 700 years after Aquinas, almost no one really holds to such an overly strict technical definition of "miracle" and probably never really have.

For if we did then most of the miracles of the saints, including Jesus, should probably not be classified "miracles" with any certainty at all.
(From my reading of the above quoted article Pope Benedict IV would seem to agree with this position and pretty much for the same reason)

Most people in fact still hold to Augustine's definition (ie that which is beyond the ken of all human experience) which Aquinas does not seem to agree with.

If we accept all that Aquinas opines here then it does seem to reinforce my small observation that the difference in definition between "relative miracles" (as opposed to "absolute miracles") and "magic" has blurred to such an extent they are equally worthy of the name "magic"?
Which few would agree with.
(May I observe that Fr Hardon's personal summary of Aquinas here is not backed up by actual references to Aquinas as they are missing despite the superscripts).

One can dice it any way one likes but no one will get very far trying to convince me that levitation isn't a "miracle" in the accepted English meaning of that word .

In the end who knows? Miracles by nature are not fathomable and Public Revelation (i.e. Jesus) it seems never really gave us a teaching on how the miraculous actually works.

Why can't we just admit that without putting things in black and white boxes of magic/miracle simply because we want to be excessively curious, clear and certain?

 

Bottom line for me is, the devil cannot perform miracles. Miracles come from the grace of God alone. The devil is a deceiver and that is how he is able to accomplish his false miracles.

 

Mark 9:38-40

38 “Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in your name, and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow us.”39Jesus replied, “Do not prevent him. There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name who can at the same time speak ill of me. 40 For whoever is not against us is for us. "

 

I understand where you are coming from Fatima.
My understanding is that the Catholic Church has not come out with a firm position on the sorts of things this position implies - despite the Catholic aberrations of Medieval times which might appear to support that position.

Unfortunately by buying into that terminology we would be supporting a "model" of the supernatural that has not well stood the test of time. The list of discredited "truths" associated with this model seem to include the legitimate persecution of "witches", the Inquisition, bodily incorruption only of the Catholic Church's holy ones, a view that holds that we Catholics alone are graced with Divine help in the form of true private/public apparitions (whether of Jesus or Buddha or angels or departed loved ones), marvels that seem to defy nature only truly exercised by holy Catholics.

Yet in these times of greater cross-cultural communication and knowledge it seems we must acknowledge that God seems to work all these things (including sanctifying grace which is the most important) outside of the Catholic Church as well to varying degrees.

To say that "miracles come from the grace of God alone" may well be true but when we analyse what this phrase really means it doesn't really seem to explain much.
It suggests that this "grace" has to be sanctifying grace (ie only "holy people" confirmed in both supernatural faith and charity).

Yet this does not seem to be the case. Even Aquinas admits that.
How can he not - there are many Wonder workers in both the OT and the NT without either supernatural charity or even faith who clearly worked exactly the same wonders as the saints.
They had a gift of God ("grace") but not sanctifying grace. Some were obviously despicable people.
Why cannot God, for his own purposes, endow someone (even people who turn out bad) with the unusual grace of a preternatural gift - which humanity did afterall possess naturally in Eden before the Fall?

Sure, we can try to censor this sort of problematic by arbitrarily saying "only inexplicable wonders done by Saints in sanctifying grace may be called miracles - the rest is demonic or clever trickery (ie magic)." Yet this doesn't really work.

How would we make the sure judgement that the person is "of the Christian God" Well, by eventual canonisation I suppose.
But the problem still doesn't go away...
(a) there are still lots of Wonder-working people in heaven who won't be canonised, who may not even be Catholics or Christians in their life time. Were they not holy and in God's grace on earth?
(b) even the canonised have to be judged to have performed.... a "miracle". So the argument is circular and goes nowhere.

Anyways, most people in the face of a great inexplicable wonder are not interested in whether it can be attributed to the God of the Catholics or not (ie whether we call it magic or miracle).
Only the defensive committed who would never change in the face of any Wonder seem to think like this (whether Catholic, Muslim, Royalist (some Protestant Kings work miracles too apparently), Jewish High Priests or the Inquisition).

Open people with nothing to lose seem to first judge whether the Wonder is good or bad (or just plain random and without further meaning).
If it is good then they are forced to consider whether the "teachings" or message or religion or god associated with this person is that of the "true God".
Just as our Church teaches, miracles provide a "motive for credibility", a good reason for new or stronger believing (which is not the same as "proof" of belief).

So to say that the devil cannot work miracles seems to miss the real point.
Satan clearly does do many of the same inexplicable Wonders that appear to defy nature as do the Saints....
We have no good reason that I can see to assume the "spiritual mechanism" is any different (eg levitations).
Sure, the context, the meaning and the "message", as judged by humans, will be very different (which distinguishes "miracle" from "magic" for some Catholics)

To always assume the Wonder is evil (or not even a Wonder at all) or different from that of the Saints in its very mechanism just because we cannot see a connection to the God of the Catholics appears unwarranted.

Like guns, like alcohol, like nuclear energy ... it is not these "gifts" in themselves that are evil.
If these things are judged evil it really seems to be because of the will of the people who abuse them and make them so.

So I personally understand "Satan can do miracles" as a legitimate way of saying that through Satan's agency some humans can perform exactly the same inexplicable Wonders that the Saints have done (though not all of them).

Sometimes the associated human is a hardened sinner, a holy person, or plain ordinary.
Sometimes there is a clear Divine message, sometimes there is a clear Demonic message, sometimes there is a deceit, sometimes a lot of static.
And sometimes the Wonder is just neutral and random with no religious context or associated message and just makes no sense whatsoever - other than witnessing to the fact Life is bigger than our boxed conceptions of it and not even Science or Theology or Mysticism or the Church has all the answers even to things spiritual.

The binary categories of either "magic" or "miracle" as the only way of making any sense of all this don't really seem that helpful anymore.

 

Charlie, I read your recent blog on the New Advent and the shortening of the tribulation. Can you reveal who told you this and when?

"So let me tell you what is really going on: We are at the end of a prolonged era…the era of division and false enlightenment. This is the New Advent, a penitential season. In the first Advent, we looked forward to Christ. In the New Advent, we travel back to him. The Storm should have entered into deep violence before the summer of 2012 was out. But the prayers of the faithful were heard, the converts who were turning their heart to God obtained a great mercy that all will know of only after the Storm. For the sake of the faithful, God shortened the days of tribulation, the pangs of labor that herald the birth of the new era so its full intensity would only be felt for three rather than five years. And now the contractions grow ever closer, as Christ is being reborn in the heart of the world. As with the first Advent, He comes to us through His Mother".

 

Charlie, Harry Potter is not a classic tale of 'good vs evil' .
Is this your own understanding, or have you been told this? [by your angel]
It is evil vs evil.

 

No Mac, I have quite a few opinions that are my own. Some are refined, a few are clunkers. This is mine. I know many good Catholics oppose the series - and many support it. At the Vatican, some priests opposed it, some supported it. Though invited to do so, the Vatican declined to condemn it. A former Vatican exorcist opposed it publicly. One of the priests who authored the Vatican document on the New Age and the occult, Fr. Don Fleetwood, publicly praised it repeatedly. Cardinal George Pell has been an absolute enthusiast for the series. The closest the Vatican came to making a statement on it was this glowing review published in the Vatican Newspaper after the series was finished. I hosted a vigorous debate on the matter in the comments section of an article on the occult here. Some very good Catholics oppose the series and a few go so far to claim it is the devil's work. Some very good Catholics support the series and a few go so far as to claim it will eventually take its place among the classic Christian allegory. I fall in the latter camp. And since the Vatican remains officially agnostic about it, good Catholics are free to take either position.

 

Fatima, it did not happen all at once. In May of 2012 I was told that the Lord was going to "shorten the days" of tribulation because of the intense prayers and obedience of many of the faithful. I did not quite understand it at that time. When I don't understand something, I just ponder it and wait for the Lord to make it clear. I was supposed to perform a particular act later that year that, when accomplished, would be a sign of the division that had come upon the world. It would not be that people could not move from one side to the other after that, but it would be a LOT harder. The ranks were to be fully formed. But a lawful authority, completely unaware of the significance of what they did, prevented me from carrying that simple act out. As part of my obedience, I always submit to lawful temporal authority as the normal direction of God. (Please note I say lawful authority here, not any authority). Later, my angel told me that was the meaning of what I was told in May and why I was prevented the simple little act that would have defined the lines of battle. I expect to carry that act out before this year is out in a hidden way.

This was one of the things I am routinely told to help me in my work. I was not told to tell anyone else and neither was I forbidden. I am reticent about speaking of those things and only do so if I think it can be helpful in heartening the faithful in a significant way. I think, in this instance, that was the case. But on these types of matters, where I am not expressly directed to or forbidden from telling, the decision is entirely mine and I will have to account to God for how I exercised that responsibility.

 

Interestingly, Charlie isn't the only person to have written/spoken about a two-year delay. I can think of at least two other prophetic voices who have gone on record stating much the same thing: i) R. Loren Sandford (also from Colorado), an evangelical pastor with First Nation roots, son of John and Paula Sandford who were and are major names in charismatic circles ii) Neville Johnson from Australia (at a conference either this or last year - he's primarily a speaker, not a writer). Where Charlie's statement becomes intriguing is in the idea not only that the tribulation has been delayed but also shortened, although this of course is precisely what Our Lord indicated would be the case in Matthew 24:22:
'If those days had not been cut short, no-one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened'

 

Thanks for this info, Charlie. My 11 year old son has been wanting to read the series for a long time, but I have been putting him off it. His dad has been fighting his corner and is beginning to wear me down (sigh). What I do find disturbing though is that my son has been spending a lot of time with another boy who is a big Harry Potter enthusiast and they recently started playing a game of "casting spells". I had to forbid him from playing such games. When I was younger I dabbled in ouija boards and tarot cards and such, thinking it was just a game. I quickly found out that it's not. I do think Harry Potter gives kids an unhealthy/dangerous fascination with the occult.

 

I would agree with you that it can, Adoremus. The heart of the series is the sacrificial love and solidarity the characters live for and with each other. It may be good to point out to a child that, in the book, a person cannot become magical - they either are or they aren't. (Non-magical children born to magical parents are called "squibs.") No amount of spells will change that. In fact, the spells just focus qualities they already have - but are useless if they don't have them. But a child might get caught up in the literary device rather than the heart of the story...so it is good that they be given some adult commentary if you are going to allow them to read it, I think.

 

Where I don't yet think there is a clear 'prophetic consensus' as far as I can see (although I'm always open to new information) concerns what happens after around 2017, which Charlie has signalled very clearly as being the time for the Rescue. The reason I say this is that a number of sources that I consider merit serious consideration (which of course doesn't mean blanket approval) are suggesting that the whole purification/renewal process that the Earth is currently undergoing may take us quite a lot longer (John Paul Jackson's visions of the Perfect Storm extend at least to 2020, 2030-33 seems to be the timeframe given angelically to Valentina Papagna , while Terry Bennett, who like Charlie claims to be a dialogue partner for Gabriel at least since 2001, claims to have been told of a period extending to around 2028. Would be very interesting for you and Terry to compare notes about your favourite Archangel, Charlie!!!). So the question arises - what is the place of the Rescue in all of this? Especially as it would seem clear that the construction of the global Antichrist system in its integrated economic, political and religious dimensions, is only in its initial stages and will start taking off in earnest with the coming economic meltdown which constitutes one of its conditions of possibility. Is it the case in this scenario that the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart is not posterior to the appearance of the Beast but in parallel to it?

I certainly don't have any answers for any of this. My sense is that if the Lord has not revealed certain things this is not a coincidence - not only does He want to keep us waiting on Him, but He doesn't want the 'strong man' to be able to stop having his house broken into by his Intelligence Services!

 

Well, Peter, on the one hand, I don't seek information that is not necessary for the specific work I have to do. In fact, I have asked that I be given none that I don't need to carry out the specific assignments given to me.

That said, contemplate this...if you have wildcats tearing through your house, the first order of business is to get them out. But once you have accomplished that, you still have the matter of restoring and refurbishing the house. Whatever happens, my work, except regarding the Shrine, ends except for a little mop-up shortly after the end of 2017. And we will have been delivered of the wildcats that were tearing through our house then. But what a joy and blessing to participate in the rebuilding of civilization from a Godly standpoint, eh?

 

I find myself reading this over and over again and I just feel very dense! I suppose I am getting stuck on lawful authority....do you mean political or a church figure, or maybe you can't elaborate and if not I apologize, I just can't wrap my head around this although, Charlie, as you know I find your writing and reasoning sound and quite reassuring!