Countdown to the Kingdom

But, I do know what the Church provides, for judging private revelations!

It announced a process, in 2012. This is outlined in a document called, “Norms Regarding the Manner of Proceeding in the Discernment of Presumed Apparitions or Revelations” published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). It gives questions people can/should ask about messages/messengers.

(Again, I am disappointed, Mark Mallett and others at Countdown did not do their own basic investigation into at least one "messenger" before publishing dramatic prophecies! That "undercuts" their credibility, for sure.)

From the EWTN website,

I. CRITERIA FOR JUDGING, AT LEAST WITH PROBABILITY, THE CHARACTER OF THE PRESUMED APPARITIONS OR REVELATIONS

A) Positive Criteria:

a) Moral certitude, or at least great probability of the existence of the fact, acquired by means of a serious investigation;

b) Particular circumstances relative to the existence and to the nature of the fact, that is to say:

1. Personal qualities of the subject or of the subjects (in particular, psychological equilibrium, honesty and rectitude of moral life, sincerity and habitual docility towards Ecclesiastical Authority, the capacity to return to a normal regimen of a life of faith, etc.);

2. As regards revelation: true theological and spiritual doctrine and immune from error;

3. Healthy devotion and abundant and constant spiritual fruit (for example, spirit of prayer, conversion, testimonies of charity, etc.).

B) Negative Criteria:

a) Manifest error concerning the fact.

b) Doctrinal errors attributed to God himself, or to the Blessed Virgin Mary, or to some saint in their manifestations, taking into account however the possibility that the subject might have added, even unconsciously, purely human elements or some error of the natural order to an authentic supernatural revelation (cf. Saint Ignatius, Exercises, no. 336).

c) Evidence of a search for profit or gain strictly connected to the fact.

d) Gravely immoral acts committed by the subject or his or her followers when the fact occurred or in connection with it.

e) Psychological disorder or psychopathic tendencies in the subject, that with certainty influenced on the presumed supernatural fact, or psychosis, collective hysteria or other things of this kind.

It is to be noted that these criteria, be they positive or negative, are not peremptory but rather indicative, and they should be applied cumulatively or with some mutual convergence.


II. INTERVENTION OF THE COMPETENT ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY

1. If, on the occasion of a presumed supernatural fact, there arises in a spontaneous way among the faithful a certain cult or some devotion, the competent Ecclesiastical Authority has the serious duty of looking into it without delay and of diligently watching over it.

2. If the faithful request it legitimately (that is, in communion with the Pastors, and not prompted by a sectarian spirit), the competent Ecclesiastical Authority can intervene to permit or promote some form of cult or devotion, if, after the application of the above criteria, nothing stands in the way. They must be careful that the faithful not interpret this practice as approval of the supernatural nature of the fact on the part of the Church (cf. Preliminary note c).

3. By reason of its doctrinal and pastoral task, the competent Authority can intervene motu proprio and indeed must do so in grave circumstances, for example in order to correct or prevent abuses in the exercise of cult and devotion, to condemn erroneous doctrine, to avoid the dangers of a false or unseemly mysticism, etc.

4. In doubtful cases that clearly do not put the good of the Church at risk, the competent Ecclesiastical Authority is to refrain from any judgment and from any direct action (because it can also happen that, after a certain period of time, the presumed supernatural fact falls into oblivion); it must not however cease from being vigilant by intervening if necessary, with promptness and prudence.

 

Thank you.

 

I believe Mark, Daniel, Peter and Christina have done their due diligence into whom they have selected to speak to as credible/trustworthy messengers for our prophetic times. They give their overview on the main page of www.countdowntothedkingdom.com of each alleged prophet in these last times, which I believe is very thorough. The prophets have their own charisma, but one thing they also often have in their prophecies is a consensus of what God, Mother Mary or St. Michael are revealing to other messengers of these times. This is a good measurement as well, which one likes to see in alleged prophets of these end-times. This, along with the fact that nothing they have revealed is contrary to scripture or church teaching is another sound bench mark of orthodoxy. One can dismiss them all, as some of this forum have done and that is to each persons freedom of will, but one had better be right in their criticism of these alleged prophets, because one will be judged for despising and belittling God's prophets as well, as the naysayers of the biblical times were. One does not have to believe in them, but scripture clearly teaches "do not despise the prophets", so silence and prayer seems to be the better course for the doubters.

 

Everything you listed is what the local authority himself MUST follow when a formal commission of study begins. Until that occurs and a judgement of condemnation is made then there can only be advisory opinions given for the faithful and only covers that diocese. There can be guidance given for the faithful which should be taken into consideration as well as orders re: the use of Church property and/or sales within Catholic store owners that may sell books, etc., within that diocese. That too is between the individual Catholic and his/her Bishop. If the middle decision is given which is NOT condemnation then the PR, as we have recently seen, can still be open for devotion by the faithful. And when it comes to PRs a decision can cover only what was available to him up to that moment in time .... which still leaves the PR open for further analysis by experts and any additional evidence that may be yet to come. Such decisions are not necessarily written in stone for all eternity.

Even if an official commission takes place and the protocol for such is NOT followed by the local authority then that decision can be objected to to higher authorities. That has occurred and those who had given the statements and lack of due diligence by the local authority in forming a commission....to his personal liking due to his own disbelief in mystical events as a whole and prejudice to even approved PRs.....were told that such a situation qualified for another investigative commission. People who, in culpable ignorance, do not know of the responsibilities attached to the protocol for the Bishop and who abide by and accept a decision of error w/o question could themselves be guilty of preventing the graces intended for the faithful.

If there is no formal commission of study begun then the faithful have the "other" guides for discernment that the Church offers during this period. And we have such guides as ecclesiastical imprimaturs offered....from the Church....and other opinions offered by those prelates or other considered experts who are familiar with the chosen messenger and w/ backgrounds themselves for proper discernment of PRs.

As before, you do not cover that portion for discernment by the faithful that is also offered by the Church when it comes to this mystical portion of the Body of Christ....esp. while things are left hanging. If a PR has not been condemned....and that condemnation also has to fulfill the mandated protocol of the Church by the ruling authority.....then no one outside that authorized authority has any business telling the faithful just what they should or should not do. Such people cannot be self appointed speakers for the Church.

 

Of course, it turned out "Mark, Daniel, Peter and Christina" did not do their due diligence, with respect to Fr. Rodrigue, because they did not discover his bishop said he was completely unaware of Fr. Rodrigue's's prophecies, and disagreed with what Fr. Rodrigue said. It's hard to imagine, a bishop forgetting he'd been told seven nuclear weapons were to hit the US! And, if this group were careless in this way, I would not assume they were careful, with other "messengers."

"..one had better be right in their criticism of these alleged prophets, because one will be judged for despising and belittling God's prophets as well, as the naysayers of the biblical times were."

This statement, above, is itself against Catholic teaching! The Catechism says, we are not bound to believe ANY private revelations. None, to achieve salvation. We already have everything we need. How could God punish us for doing something His Church on Earth teaches us we have every right to do? God CANNOT contradict Himself. What is bound on Earth, is bound in Heaven. But, those who push prophets on the internet, often claim "punishment" for those who question/don't believe or follow. Isn't that putting themselves and their "discernment" above that of God and the Church? Why, the focus on "punishment"?

Most who claim to be prophets, aren't. They may be good people, but they may be misled, ill, over-emotional, or even, trying to get attention/money. The Bible warned us against the many false prophets who were to come. There are many already here, today.

 

No, this was not published for the bishops, but for the public.

That was said when the Vatican took these guidelines--which, previously, were only circulated within the Church--and released them, translated into English, for everyone to read and know! It was a response, to the flood of "unvetted" messengers, to give Catholics a way to understand the process, and to apply "reasonable" and just rules, to new situations.

I feel so many people here are looking, always, for The Next New Thing (new "messenger"). This restlessness, it is not the way the Spirit works.

 

So what, the rules themselves did not change just because the public was enabled to see what they were. Apparently then, you have no excuse to not understand what the rules are since they were made public for the purpose of educating you too. It doesn't matter what you "feel". You are not a judge in the case of PRs. The local authority is. The public should know what the protocol of the Church for judging PRs is so they understand. So what! The local authority then can be held to account by the faithful, hopefully, if or when a judgement is made and if there was any error involved that did NOT comply with the outlined protocol they should present that to a higher authority. They also need to understand what each possible judgement means which you yourself don't seem to comprehend. You seem to think there's some kind of thumbs up or thumbs down and that's it. You appear to think that PRs and their allowance for error in judgement should be treated as if those judgements are the same as doctrine or dogma.

And in the case of Fr. Michel, the actions of the Bishop spoke to the public about what he could be assumed to have believed about the messages coming to Fr. Michel who had spoken of them for years at places within the diocese itself as well as outside of it. The Bishop approved of the new Religious Fraternity which came from the messages; he approved the Constitution for this new Religious Fraternity; he approved of building not only one monastery for same new group, but two and the second to be done hurriedly, due also to the messages' requests; and he approved of relieving Fr. Michel of his other diocesan duties under him in order to carry out that request of God the Father. After all of this time and the Bishop never making any public verbal statement that would contradict what he had acted upon, or putting anything in writing to the opposite of what he was actually doing, no one would have assumed that he had any reservations at all. And only when he was put on the spot by a simple commenter on a blog did he suddenly reply that he did not approve of the "things" within the messages. This new revelation by him would then have him discontinue what he had already allowed to start. As far as I know Fr. Michel continues with the second monastery as well as the new Fraternity that trains priests for these times....that the Bishop doesn't believe in!!! That sudden communication went against the protocol of the Church since he had not followed the necessary steps prior to making an announcement of only a personal opinion. That cannot stand as an official judgement by the Church while Fr. Michel acts in obedience anyway. And those "things" involved what the Church herself has accepted....witnessed to by other approved PRs like Fatima....New Era; purification and tribulation; major wars; protection of the Woman and her children within places of some kind of refuge.

Now then, according to your own outlined protocol of the Church for the proper assessment and judgement of PRs, this particular Bishop could never be a neutral judge for any sort of "Church" judgement over a PR. He's already prejudiced himself. So you can't make demands based on the rules of the Church while you are willing to insist that the Church authority himself who will make the final judgement does not have to abide by them.

 

The local Bishop has the authority to rule in cases of apparitions.

 

And no one has said otherwise so why do you imply such???......but he must do so according to the mandated rules of the Church for such judgements or it doesn't represent the Church in Truth or else there wouldn't be a provision for the possible overturning of the Bishop's decision by higher authority. And that was done in the case of Medjugorje where the dossier of the Bishop was taken over by the Vatican for a full and comprehensive study that had not been done properly....and which continues. The faithful played a big part in that!!

In the case of Fr. Michel there has been no final judgement made and there is no condemnation. We do know though the prejudices of that Bishop that are involved in his personal opinion.

 

This 11 minutes video...at around the 8:12 time frame mark...it appears they're saying they believe the warning will be during this year of 2020? (Fr. James Blount and Mark Mallet)

 

I’m not implying anything. I’m stating a fact.

 

Earth, you say, "We do know though the prejudices of that Bishop are involved in his personal opinion..."

So, earthtoangels, when did you communicate with Fr. Rodrigue's bishop? You say, the bishop was aware of all Fr. R was doing, but how do you know that?

I fear, you assume things, think they are "obvious," they must have happened a certain way--but you don't know, for a fact, unless you have considered both sides. Why not investigate more? We know, the bishop answers questions by email, because he has written others. Maybe, after contacting the bishop, you would have information to counter the charges you make against the bishop. Now, it seems like "rash judgment."

The only thing really known, now, is that there is a public "dispute" between Fr. Rodrigue and his bishop.

The Vatican tells us, one of the things to look at is, "sincerity and habitual docility towards Ecclesiastical Authority." So, there is already a question, a red flag, in this case.

Also, Fr. Rodrigue is writing letters to donors for the monasteries. Again, things need to be clear, between Fr. and the bishop, if he is raising money for something relating to his messages. The Vatican guidelines mention financial gain, this is another red flag.

 

It seems to be rats nest of confusion and contradiction. The only clear guide is the Bishop. He has clearly stated his position on the messages therefore I will not listen to or share the messages. As for Fr Michel's ministry if people wish to donate and his Bishop doesnt object then that is permissible. Everything rises and falls on the Bishop to whom Christ gave the authority.
Several priests on sensus fidellium have excellent talks on discerning locutions and apparitions. Well worth listening to.

 

Here are some lovely videos of Fr. Michel's Masses up to June 7, 2020. There are several videos on this page where you can join in with Father and the beautiful religious Fraternity all the way back to the Bishop's involvement at its beginning, including the days of the building of the first monastery. The homilies are usually given partially in English for the benefit of those who don't speak French. Some of the singing uses the choices of melodies that are used in Medjugorje. Fr. Michel had many amazing experiences there during his pilgrimage. So he continues in his mission given to him. What a blessed mission and what reverence abounds within these simple and lovely Masses w/ his homilies, so very humble and charitable in their very essence.

https://www.facebook.com/596058943744079/videos/vb.596058943744079/1513398685494006/?type=2&theater

 

Fr. Blount says - We hope it will happen, we believe it may happen in 2020. I'm not sure who his "we" are though.

 

I don't know for sure either on who is "we" ... both Mark Mallet and Fr. Blount? I didn't think Mark would outright say that he agreed along with Father. But who knows? If you watch Mark's body expressions at that moment...he shifted alittle in his seat, breathed in, and then nodded his head slightly. Does that meant he agreed or was it a his moment of hesitation?
Re: unclear on reading the close captioning... What did Father say exactly (word, "cute") around beginning with sentence, "this year kind of ironic kind of ? 2020 vision..." Is it acute... meaning intense or sharp? Can't quite hear it good myself. What does he mean by that and whose vision of 2020?

 

Catherine, hi! I watched that segment a couple of times. I did hear “cute”
Was it “cued”? IDK
Fr. B is really looking for the Warning in 2020. I like his way of describing it.

 

The Warning will not happen in 2020, as it comes before the Miracle, which comes in April, which has come and gone in 2022. Glenn has clearly relayed on his Garabandal site details of the Warning and Miracle as spoken by the Garabandal seers. The Warning seems most probable to come in March of 2022 and Miracle in April of 2022, as St. John Bosco's 1st prophecy indicated the era of peace would come in the "month of flowers when two full moons shall shine" which the next time this happens is May 2026. Count back 3.5 year reign of the Antichrist and you come to his reign beginning in mid 2022, after the Warning and the Miracle in April 2022. The next year after 2022 that "Two Full Moons shine in the month of flowers" is 2045.

 

Edson Glauber – Vatican Vision


https://www.countdowntothekingdom.com/edson-glauber-vatican-vision/

 

Fatima you are probably right. But things have turned bonkers lately. So, having the Warning this year may not be so far fetched. According to Garabandal the Warning, not the Miracle, comes during an even numbered year. It would still give us a year from now to April of 2021.