Countdown to the Kingdom

I have a very good friend who coordinates and brings people on pilgrimages (I’ve been on two with him) and told me of a man (unknown to me) who was just like this woman—and more. On one trip, he said the group needed to stop at the rest stop to use the facilities because “Our Lady“ told him so. My friend refused. Nothing dire happened.

 

Well said!

 

I agree that everyone should always have a supply to hold their family over for any number of potential events.And you’re right...supplies are behind...depending on the item. Everyday I hear of long wait times to get any number of items. Yesterday I heard that furniture is back ordered....that’s not a necessity, but food and staples are. The c virus has factories behind and driving up cost. Error on the side of caution to protect your family.... IMHO...

 

great response!

 

“It is forbidden, as well as sinful, to propagate private revelations which have received a negative judgment from the local bishop, the conference of bishops, or the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.”

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6602


Two bishops disavowed, or gave a negative judgement on Father Michel. Countdown is playing semantics by continuing this “not condemned” charade.

 

I am amazed they are doubling down. They are destroying the last shreds of their credibility by holding on to this. They have rejected fraternal correction from Dr. Mark Miravalle and Fr. Joseph Iannuzzi. They have rejected the disavowal of the two Canadian bishops by insisting it is only an opinion. What will it take to get them to see the light?

 

I have a question here about Garabandal. It stems from the same concept that we are discussing with Fr. M's revelations. So I agree with everyone saying that Fr. M's bishop (two of them) have disagreed with his revelations. Therefore, we should not as Catholics propagate them as such. No concern there. My questions stems from this article posted. It says in the section "Examples of Visionaries Judged to be False" about 3/4 the way down the following:

"Another example: the alleged apparitions in Garabandal in northern Spain, in which four young girls alleged that the Virgin Mary appeared to them from 1961-1965. The response of successive bishops of the diocese of Santander has been uniformly negative, and the present Bishop Vilaplaua has concurred with this verdict. Despite this, there are a number of active associations supporting Garabandal. A simple case of disobedience to lawful authority."

The question then is Garabandal in the same situation as Fr. M?

 

You are free to believe or disbelieve...but non the less...when you are swept up by the chastisements that have already begun...you shall eat off the table you have set. God told you what Noah..off with your nonsense.

 

When I read things like....rejected the disavowal....saying the Bishop's letters are a negative judgement, saying “not condemned” is a charade, they are doubling down....etc it makes me wonder are these opinions or facts?

These arguments are getting legalistic in nature so it becomes VITAL to know the actual, full truth of whether rejecting the disavowal is an act of disobedient or if the Bishop's letters are an official negative judgement on Fr. Michel's messages. Does the Bishop have to declare them not of supernatural origin or not worthy of belief or simply false or advise directly to the faithful what course of action to take?

If these arguments are true, and provable, please put the proof forward without any opinion added. I'd like to know for sure myself too. If these are not provable arguments with facts then they are just opinion arguments and really hold little weight.

 

Hi MMM,

WTW gave a citation from Catholic Culture, so you can follow that link. I previously posted the "Norms Regarding the Manner of Proceeding in the Discernment of Presumed Apparitions or Revelations" published by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It's at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...cfaith_doc_19780225_norme-apparizioni_en.html

Both of the Canadian bishops indicated Fr. Rodrigue had been untruthful; Bishop Lemay of the Diocese of Amos stated this quite forcefully. The character of the alleged visionary is the first thing the CDF recommends bishops consider when investigating alleged apparitions. There is no reason for a bishop(s) to proceed with a theological commission when the alleged seer has not passed the character test.

 

No. GlennHudson has LOADS to share about this . Look for his main thread on this very forum. Some history there to read thru for your answer(s).

 

MMM, I am francophone and speak French fluently. I read the Bishop's letter and I did not understand the same thing as most who support the silencing of this priest. For example, people say that the Bishop denied receiving the messages. In my reading, he did not deny this, he says that he did not approve them. In his letter published on the Amos Diocese website, he says in response to certain claims on the CTTK site: "je suis extrèmement choqué et je me sens trahi par ces propos puisque je ne les ai jamais approuvé" - which means I am extremely shocked by these words because I never approved them [meaning Fr M's messages]. The first time that I read this, it was clear that he did not say that he didn't receive Fr Michel's messages, he said that he did not approve them.

So from that point on, I stopped listening to anglophones who repeat that Fr Michel lied. That is not stated in the Bishops letter.

I actually understood other things from the Bishop's letters, which I haven't seen mentioned anywhere and may be a case of being francophone. I won't share this but it seems to me that there are two different spiritualities involved: one the one hand, a priest who speaks of the end times, the importance consecration, devotion to Our Lady, the apparitions, the enemy (the devil), our angels etc and on the other, almost none of that as you can see if you go on the diocese websites and read or listen to the many interventions present there.

Totally agree with you, things have gone way off course and down the legalistic path of the pharisees. Can we bring in the wise counsel of Gamaliel at this point:

“Men of Israel, he said, “consider carefully what you are about to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men joined him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and drew away people after him. He too perished, and all his followers were scattered. So in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone. Let them go! For if their purpose or endeavor is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop them. You may even find yourselves fighting against God.
​

I have heard from others who have known Fr Michel for years and whose faith and health benefited enormously from the fruits of his apostolate (he has many gifts of the Spirit) long before Christine Watkins wrote her book. There is indeed much strangeness in all of this because Fr Michel is known as a priest with charisms who has been out there for a long time in French community and there are many stories about him. I don't see how it is possible that the Bishops didn't know about any of this. But as we can see all see, Fr Michel is obeying and is remaining quiet so we should pray for him and his Bishops, because discord weakens the Church and hurts Christ and Our Lady.

Edited to add that I'm deleting the rest, which I think does not help the Church.

 

"...In April, a letter about Fr. Rodrigue from his local bishop—Gilles Lemay of the Diocese of Amos, Québec—was sent out via email to a number of people who had inquired about his messages (Kevin Symonds reproduced the full text of the letter here). Prior to this, Fr. Rodrigue had publicly stated that he always shared his messages with his bishop and had his full approval. In this letter, however, Bishop Lemay asserts, contrary to Rodrigue’s claims:

“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...”

ALSO,

"...The bishop continued:

To this total disavowal of Father Michel Rodrigue’s messages and prophecies, I add that I withdraw my support and that of the Diocese of Amos from the Studium Saint-Joseph, founded in 2015 by Fathers Michel Rodrigue and Simon Dufour. This Studium, of which Father Rodrigue is the rector, had as its goal to give theological training in Abitibi, a region far from the major centers.

Finally, I would like to inform you that, since June 30, 2020, Father Michel Rodrigue’s residence on our territory has become his only link with the Diocese of Amos. He has renounced his pastoral charge as pastor of the three parishes that I had entrusted to him. He also renounced his membership in the Presbyteral Council and the College of consultors. He also retired as an active priest in the diocese. He remains an incardinated priest in the Diocese of Hearst-Moosonee, Ontario. At this time, postal mail is our only means of communication with him.“

Fr. Rodrigue, while incardinated in the Diocese of Hearst-Moosonee, had resided in the Diocese of Amos with the permission of the bishop. This letter explains that the Diocese of Amos has withdrawn support of the Studium Saint-Joseph, where Fr. Rodrigue had been serving as rector for a the formation of priests for a religious order he founded. Fr. Rodrigue also retired from the active ministry of the priesthood. In other words, Rodrigue’s only connection to the diocese is the fact that he resides there..."

I suspect Fr. Rodrigue's status is "retired" and not "in good standing." He has had his faculties removed, along with all his positions in the Church. If his order is no longer under the supervision of the bishop of the diocese where it is headquartered, it likely does not have any official status, since it was a diocesan creation.

These are severe and public penalties. Not lightly undertaken. The reasons given were not just theological differences of opinion, but of Fr. Rodrigue's behavior.

https://wherepeteris.com/fr-michel-rodrigue-when-will-no-mean-no/

 

Andree, I have to take issue with you respectfully. Bishop Lemay wrote that he learned about Fr Michel’s teaching through a website. And he was shocked.
That’s quite plain.

 

HH, it's ok to disagree

I'd like to bow out of this thread now and hope to stay away from it from now on.

 

Andree, you can always come back.

 

Thank you but getting worked up over this stuff gets in the way of prayer and that's not good!

 

I get this completely, Andree . None of us are immune from this subtle yet potential robber of precious prayer time.~AN

 

The fact is none of us know, or have any way to find out, if Father M’s visions are coming from God, the devil, etc.

The devil can appear to know the future and make predictions that seem like prophecy. Plus the general themes of his messages have been put out there by other priests or seers. It’s very possible that some of the things he said will happen but that doesn’t mean they all will.

Listeners of Father M are basically told that they will be free from the pains and suffering to come. They won’t starve because they will have food stored, their houses will be protected, and when it’s time they will be safely led to a refuge. I can understand why people want to believe them.

I worry for the people who are only exposed to the messages but I think we’re all better off due to the discussion on this thread.