Countdown to the Kingdom

An imprimatur by a Bishop is considered to be an ecclesiastical approval....as guidance for the faithful, in general. There is no such rigidity as alluded to. People are extending an official commission re: a formal Church approval (which wouldn't be the case for Vassula anyway since she does not fall under the Roman Church's authority) of a Private Revelation by a local Bishop to another type of statement that can be used as a guidance prior to any such official commission/study which, in so many case, will never happen. And....I wouldn't use Emmett O'Regan as a source for any type of criticism. So, no "red flag"!

 

Catholic Canon Law states (canon 824 §1) that there are two authorities in the Church who can grant the Imprimatur:

• The local Ordinary of the author;
• The local Ordinary of the publisher/where the books are to be published.

Of course, the Holy See may also grant the Imprimatur in virtue of its universal jurisdiction.

§2. If permission is denied by one local Ordinary, recourse may be had to the other competent Ordinary. There is the obligation, nonetheless, to make the fact of the prior refusal of permission known. The second Ordinary is not to grant permission without having learned from the first Ordinary his reasons for denying it (cf. can. 65, §1)."

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19920330_istruzione-pccs_en.html

Edited to add: I wonder, did Christine Watkins ask for an imprimatur from the appropriate authorities before turning to a retired bishop in the Philippines?

Also, there is no mention of who served as Censor Librorum for the Archbishop (cf. canon 830 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law).

• Who was the Censor for Archbishop Argüellas?

.

 

I know what you mean, it can get intense.

I am revisiting Desmond Birch, and his wonderful book, Trial, Tribulation & Triumph: Before, During, and After the Antichrist. When I first came here and purchased this book at the recommendation of several members, I thought this was intense, and laid it aside. Now, I think I can read it with equanimity.

 

to "Christy 1983"

Again, it is not inferred that a Bishop's Imprimatur in all cases is an official act of the Magisterium, but it is, as I said, a "guidance" that can be used by the faithful when there is as yet no official study or statement given formally by the Church.

It should be pointed out that imprimaturs are issued by “local ordinaries” (cf. can. 824 §1), and not all local ordinaries are bishops. For example, local ordinaries include vicars general and episcopal vicars (can. 134 §1).

The fact that non-bishops can issue imprimaturs is a significant sign that they are not acts of the Magisterium.

It means that the work does not contradict Church teaching. However, it is not a positive guarantee that all of the opinions found in the book are true. In fact, this is sometimes expressly pointed out in the notification printed for an imprimatur.

In fact....
an imprimatur issued by a bishop in another part of the world would be unrelated to the apparition approval process. Such an imprimatur would mean is that a bishop somewhere in the world has judged (based on the opinion that the censor gave him) that the work does not contain anything that contradicts Church teaching.

The work may not even express itself well. It may have ambiguous statements that don’t necessarily contradict Church teaching but that could be understood in an erroneous way. It also may contain theological opinions that are false but that the Church has not (yet) condemned. And it may contain statements about non-religious matters that are inaccurate.

And, btw, only the faithful of the diocese under the authority of that particular bishop are effected by his statement or personal approval. Of course his weight or reputation as a dependable source for proper Church teaching also can be considered by those who are interested in that particular subject as a "guidance".

So, the implications for an imprimatur being given to a book of private revelations are the same as they are for any other book. It’s a judgment by an individual bishop that the work does not contradict Catholic doctrine. Nothing more.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/imprimaturs-and-private-revelations

 

Gisella Cardia – Everything Will Fall
Our Lady to Gisella Cardia September 8, 2020:

Dear children, thank you for being here in prayer and for having responded to my call in your hearts. My children, I see that you fear the famine that will soon arrive, but I invite you to prepare yourselves for eternal life, because that is more important. Dear children, everything will fall, the sky will be tinged with red, the earth will shake as it has never done before. Children, it is useless thinking about a career and accumulating material goods because all this will no longer make any sense. Children, the seas and hailstones will enter into towns and destroy crops; this is a land of sin and nature is rebelling – all this will happen so that all might kneel before God, acknowledging him as the Only God. My children, Jesus weeps because sin and abomination have entered the Church; he weeps because he loves his Church and in spite of profanation He is always there, in pain and weeping. The time is nearly over; please, children, there is no more time, convert. Look often to the heavens: at this moment my angels are fighting against the fallen angels, but pray, pray, pray, and fight on earth for the truth. Do not give in to changes because they do not come from God. Children, my remnant will have nothing to fear because my angels and archangels will protect you. Pray for America which will soon drink the bitter cup. Now I leave you with my Holy Blessing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Amen.

 

BUT

Why did Christine Watkins go to a retired bishop who did not have authority to issue an imprimatur on her work?

If she had researched and followed the appropriate canon law, she would have known that any imprimatur from the Philippines archbishop would be highly suspect. As it turns out, the bishop did not follow the proper form (censor) in granting the "imprimatur."

If she did not research and follow canon law, she is just plain sloppy.

I suspect she is just plain sloppy. This is the same woman who did not contact Bishop Lemay to determine Fr. Rodrigue's status before plunging into a media campaign.

I take the Vatican website as the final and most authoritative statement on the granting of an imprimatur.

Edited to add: This is not a small thing. She and her Countdown colleagues are attempting to attract followers. They have a financial and reputational interest in this work. They are not following Vatican guidelines concerning private revelations. They take no responsibility for the impact of their work--the anguish among fragile Christians described in Bishop Lemay's letter.

They do not have the intellectual heft or standing to go toe-to-toe with the likes of Mark Miravalle, Fr. Iannuzzi, or the bishop.

 

Excellent work as always Christy. Thanks for posting all the information you come across. No doubt it is helping many who are honestly trying to discern.

 

An Imprimatur by a Bishop, retired or not, is not "suspect". That appears to be your own kind of handling of something in order to use it as a kind of desire of lessening an individual's content before the public....or infiltrating doubt into minds prior to even their initiation to the subject.

There aren't that many Bishops, or even members of the public for that fact, that are even aware of Fr. Rodrigue or have seen the only presentation he's given that is available on video. Christine is offering a service for those who perhaps could or should also be awakened to these times and to what he has offered for preparation, esp. spiritual.

And it's not very Christian to now add on another dart against the reputations of good people re: some "financial and reputational interest".....or to say they are not following "Vatican guidelines". Perhaps it's your own selective reading of just what these communicators have stated that is itself what you project upon another, Christine, whom you know not personally....."sloppiness"!

 

Except for what was left out.....for what would appear to be personal expediency.

 

You need to stop the personal attacks, earth. They do nothing to advance the conversation.

 

Christy posted the canon law which applies.

CTTK was promoted here on this forum as a site that vetted their "seers"

This is at least the 3rd instance of promoted "seers" with questionable vetting.

I have no idea if some, none, or all of the seers are authentic. But certainly I will not just accept the CTTK authors opinions as having any gravitas.

 

The link:
wow.....!

 

Luz de Maria is one of those alleged seers showcased in "Countdown to the Kingdom." One would hope writers and "seers" are not bishop-shopping these days, to obtain imprimaturs for their work.

https://www.ncregister.com/blog/beware-of-so-called-church-approved-coronavirus-prevention

.

 

"Bishop shopping"? You do know that the Bishop who gave his Imprimatur was the Bishop who had the messages published and a most knowledgeable representative for such an action? After all that was one of your own stipulations for an "official" Imprimatur.....one from the Bishop who published the messages!

And why are people claiming that anyone is stating that these, among other current PRs are already officially "Church approved? Stating that various Imprimaturs are offered by those authorized by the Church is anything other than offering guidance to the faithful that there is nothing against Church teachings is not stating that they are as yet "officially" Church approved. That seems to be coming more from the critics than the actual facts of the history. But to say that they may not be read or understood when there is this guidance available is just wrong and beyond anyone's personal authority.

 

A respectable Catholic newspaper, the National Catholic Register, part of EWTN, raised questions about Luz de Maria in an article. The reporter had not succeeded in getting a response on how/why an imprimatur had been granted. Given the questions raised about Christine Watkins' "imprimatur" -- which appears to be obtained in an irregular manner--this is a perfectly reasonable thing to note.

If you have a source for your assertion of jurisdiction, please post it.

Also, no one said anything like the boldface statement in the quote.

 

I have a bit of an issue with the line... Children, it is useless thinking about a career and accumulating material goods because all this will no longer make any sense.
I don't think God is going to pay the rent, mortgage, heat, hydro or buy everyone food. (not yet anyway) This line lacks hope and everyone is called to fulfill the duties in front of them. Work/career being a vital one for many. I can just imagine telling my daughter after 6 years of post secondary education, hey guess what it's useless thinking about a career so stay home and watch TV on the couch and wait for the world to burn!! She has faith and puts work in it's proper place but I sure want her to be hopeful of the future!! If something happens we will deal with it then.

I don't know or care if any of these seers are true or not. I read them and if the words stir my heart then I take something good away from them, if they don't, I don't even remember them 5 minutes later.

 

I have an issue with this as well. I don't know anything about Gisella Cardia, but I do know that this hopeless message is not from God.

 

If you have a source for your assertion of jurisdiction, please post it.

I already did so when I gave the extended types of Imprimaturs and just who is qualified by the Church to give his Imprimatur. Perhaps you glazed over that portion?

A Bishop's, as already explained, "jurisdiction" is his diocese. I would assume that any other prelate who also is permitted by the Church to give his Imprimatur has his own physical or even educational jurisdiction within his competence. But the faithful in general can use all Imprimaturs as guidances given by respected authorities of good standing within the Church to assure them that within those PRs there is nothing that is against Church teachings.....up to that point at least. It's not really that hard to understand unless one is deliberately attempting to make things more confusing and to instill doubts within the faithful.

Perhaps that reporter of that cited "respectable Catholic newspaper" should just simply inquire of the prelate who offered his Imprimatur to the book authored by Christine Watkins as to why he did so instead of planting some nefarious and unverified assertion in the minds of the readers.

 

No. The bishop giving an imprimatur is either

a) the bishop of the writer's place of permanent residence (not visiting), or

b) the place of printing.

Luz de Maria's online biography says nothing of her living in any place outside of Costa Rica and Argentine. It would be strange, but not impossible, to publish in another country, but you offer no evidence that is the case, either. You may say so, but that is not sufficient evidence that something is true.

So, the questions raised by the National Catholic Register remain unanswered. BTW, I dispute your inference that the reporter--a she, not he-- did so to plant a "nefarious and unverified assertion in the mind of readers."

I am done with this exchange. Finally.

 

It also goes smack against Catholic Social Teaching.—~AN