Countdown to the Kingdom

https://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2020/06/will-purification-for-humanity-begin-in.html

 

What in the name of God is that post about. It comes across as paranoia.

 

This is wonderful and extraordinary.

 

Garabandal,

Perhaps this article will clarify things re: 'condemned.' It cites canon law. It was published previously on this thread.

Edited: Earth to angels also started talking about a "True Magisterium" vs. an institutional church, and messages telling us to obey the True Magisterium. That is quite worrisome. There was more to the issues than just the bishops letters. Reading the thread would help answer all your questions, yes?

Also, I take issue with "semantics." How does this case differ from that of John R, in which you were involved?


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.

 

That's awfully harsh, Julia. There are better ways to ask a question.
.

 

this is very serious. Cttk is under grave deception.

 

I have felt that way, too

 

From my experience Father M appeals to people who are already living a good Catholic life AND are already into prophecy. Those people are going all in, so to speak, in their preparations (spiritual/physical/financial). While it seems most of the people here are prudent, we can’t forget about the people that are taking the messages and website at face value. I think most of us have read about followers of Charlie Johnston or Locutions to the World who destroyed their financial future thinking that the world as we knew it was over. The damage to their lives and those around them was severe. But who of us wouldn’t make the gamble if we knew we were given the winning number ahead of time? And the countdown website is telling people they have that winning number. At least the people reading this thread, even if they don’t agree, are being confronted with information to help them be more careful in their choices.


Unpopular opinion but I think the “good fruits” people are seeing now are setting them up for an even greater fall. It feels awful to find out you’ve been duped. And it’s even worse if you’ve made major financial and life decisions you wouldn’t have otherwise.


This doesn’t even get into the recent “church vs true magisterium” insanity.

 

With regard to semantics I was using it in the context of Fr Michel's messages whether the Bishop 'disavowed' the messages or 'condemned' the messages. Big difference in these 2 words.

 

Thanks Padraig for these sources of information. They are very revealing.

 

I wonder if you have been bitten by being sucked in by some of those who published alleged messages or intuitions/locutions in the past.

All or any message published allegedly from Heaven should not send us rushing to the bank to donate money in the hope of getting a front seat at the second coming. For the love and honour of God.

What we need to be focused on is rushing to get a front seat in the confession queue, and making a special effort to receive Holy Eucharist with great respect and reverence in deep humility. For God Who is with us will be greatly honoured and consoled, and that is all that matters when all the chips are down.

Anyone who ruined their own life or the lives of their families trying to get ahead of the rest of us using their money have got what they bargained for. Nothing. And that should be a big lesson to all of us. We can not serve God and Mammon. Some must have tried, and surprise, surprise! failed.

 

Garabandal,

You said earlier, "But banning someone over semantics seems a step too far. Just saying. Perhaps someone can enlighten me where Fr Michel has been condemned?" You also said there was a "big difference" between disavowed and condemned. I disagree.

I think the canon law is clear on the requirement for obedience to statements of bishops in exercise of their office, in teaching and reassuring the faithful. The "disavowal" of Fr. Rodrigue by his bishops falls into that class of statements that demands obedience from the faithful.

A formal condemnation is not necessary before a bishop can render judgment on the worthiness of a private revelation. If you look at the Vatican guidelines on private revelations--already discussed and posted on this thread earlier, along with both bishops' letters--you'll see the bishops' indirect but clear reference to Fr. Rodrigue's untruthful statements. This speaks to character, the first step in the investigation of a private revelation. The bishops, apparently, did not go beyond the first step of an investigation before coming to a decision. They didn't need to.

Now, as to the standards by which members of this forum should discuss banning, you wrote: "He is not in communion with the Pope therefore he is schismatic. 'Where there is Peter there is the Church'... I may well be in a minority of one in this matter but if he is schismatic then how can we take him seriously on any moral or theological issues?"

Do you apply that same standard to anyone who denies that Catholics must be obedient to the statements of bishops made as part of their official duties? Bishop Lemay said he spoke for himself, as bishop, and for his diocese. Should anything said by a poster who rejects an official statement of a bishop be disregarded? Is that not "schismatic"?

 

Thank God I have always been faithful to my own Bishop and to Church teaching.

Bishop Lemay has done a good job.

 

Doesn't answer the question of standards, which you have publicly presented before...

 

? I'm afraid you have lost me on this one.

 

Doesn't address the question of standards. Your previous standard, I think, was someone who disagrees with a requirement of the faith should not be allowed to address other issues on this forum.

ETA: My keyboard keeps posting things before I'm finished.

 

Julia, I am sincerely glad that you are informed and cautious. I agree that we should be rushing to do the spiritual work but I don’t think you’re being very kind to the potential victims of the countdown site though. Father M gave step by step instructions that start spiritual but then move on to physical/financial. It’s logical that people would continue to follow the steps if they believe.

The lottery example was meant to convey that we make different choices based on perceived level of risk. If I cash out my retirement and fill my house with rice and toilet paper for the apocalypse I don’t consider that as serving mammon... or even a life win. Haha.

eta Prior to the bishop’s disavowal people were only able to go off of the information they were given on the website which included that he had the full support of his bishop. This information did tell people to rush out and store up food, etc during the summer because of the fall deadline.

 

The standard I was speaking of in relation to fidelity to the Pope did not come from a poor old sinner like me -- it can be found embedded in the teachings of the Church Fathers including St Ambrose of Milan.

"Ubi Petrus ibi ecclesia, et ibi ecclesia vita eterna."

“Where Peter is, there is the Church. Where the Church is, there is Jesus Christ.
Where Jesus Christ is, there is eternal salvation.” St Ambrose (340-397)
— St. Ambrose of Milan

He who rejects Peter rejects Christ.

 

Yes, but you posted on this other instance, similar in kind. Why would the "shouldn't be allowed to comment" standard not apply, in your opinion?

I ask because you were a prime mover in the case of the last person banned on MoG. Since you jumped in to the latest discussion on a potential banning, I thought you would be willing to discuss the broader issue. I think we all agree with St. Ambrose.

 

I was a prime mover in getting someone banned. Let's see.

I have no authority on this forum. I am not a moderator. That decision was taken by the moderators.

Seems that you have an issue with me expressing an opinion or point of view.

You need to take it up with the moderators who banned said individual. They made the decision not me.