Bishop disavows Fr. Rodrigue, removes

And those who promote false prophets even to the point of saying falsely their Bishop supports the prophet will also have to answer.

It is not our responsibility to determine if a prophet is authentic, that is the job of the Bishop.

There is a real danger in promoting a prophet who is later condemned by the Church. It can lead people astray.

The Church teaches NO private revelation is necessary for salvation, even Lourds, Fatima etc.

It takes humility to obey.
It takes humility to say I could very well be wrong about a certain prophet.

 

What you wrote, non sum dignus, reminds me of a quote from Fr. Thomas Dubay in "Fire Within."

“One of the acid tests of humility and thus also of prayer growth is obedience to human superiors. Proclaiming that one is “listening to the Spirit” rather than to the visible representatives Jesus has appointed in His Church can conveniently camouflage what is really a refusal to obey. It is surprising how otherwise intelligent people can convince themselves that they are listening to the Spirit when it is obvious to others that they are doing nothing other than baptizing their own personal insights and inclinations.

"The New Testament is far more realistic when it gives as a criterion of listening to the Lord the very obedience given to His representatives: “He who hears you, hears me; and he who rejects you, rejects me.” Egocentrism is of course at the root of the refusal to obey human superiors and teachers in the Church: it is often the I-know-better syndrome: I know better than those whom “the Holy Spirit has made overseers to feed the Church of God”. This arrogance kills prayer at its root.”

 

And those who promote false prophets even to the point of saying falsely their Bishop supports the prophet will also have to answer.

In Bishop Lemay’s June 17, 2015 letter, he wrote that “Fr. Joseph-Simon Dufour as well as Fr. Michel Rodrigue, given their prior Seminary and theological Faculty professorial experience, have my support and complete trust…”

He just doesn't like messages that have to do with such Church accepted prophecy of the end times and does not support those messages of Fr. Michel.....because he personally doesn't believe in them. So there! Therefore t'would be the same for any messenger who would speak of messages given about those topics.

Unfortunately for the sake of justice and just plain Christian charity (one would expect Bishops to be exemplar models for both) while the Bishop of the incardinated diocese of Fr. M says he hasn't had any news of Fr M since 1996 he nevertheless immediately, apparently w/o even making that contact with the targeted one, completes the pact w/ Bishop LeMay of "total disavowal" of messages and prophecies. How could anyone make such a seeming rapid judgement after not even having contact with the subject for 24 years? Are they the Bobbsey Twins or something.....just repeat what the other says? And yet, after all of that "disavowing" type of separating their persons from the person now experiencing a type of "anathema", those messages are not condemned.....probably because they know that they fall within the consensus of prophecy of the Church within their topics.

This is a very bad scene for the faithful to have to witness. So as the times increase in their seriousness and chastisements of the world I would be very wary to seek any guidance from such a "shepherd" who has already let it be known that such realities simply cannot be since he simply personally doesn't accept them! It would seem more likely that it would be the "shepherd" himself who would need the guidance from a believer! Is he (they) living in the same world as everyone else?

 

I will not criticize the Bishops or Fr R.

I have no authority to judge the validity of the prophecy.

But there seems to be clear contradictions in statements, and none of us know for sure who is representing the situation clearly between the Bishops, Fr R and the CTTK site. I will not speculate as to the intentions of any of the people involved.

I would disagree that a "consensus of prophecy" exists even between those featured on the CTTK site.

 

Ok let's wait if there will be a World War 3, as well as the 7 nuclear missiles that will hit the US.


"He [the devil] will start a nuclear war that will be global-the third world war-his war against all of humanity. The devil will kill one third of humanity in this war, and through plagues and abortion, just as one third of the angels were cast out of heaven into hell. Seven nuclear missiles will be permitted to strike the United States as a result of its abominations."

 

Deuteronomy 18: 20-22

20 But the prophet, who being corrupted with pride, shall speak in my name things that I did not command him to say, or in the name of strange gods, shall be slain.

21 And if in silent thought thou answer: How shall I know the word that the Lord hath not spoken?

22 Thou shalt have this sign: Whatsoever that same prophet foretelleth in the name of the Lord, and it cometh not to pass: that thing the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath forged it by the pride of his mind: and therefore thou shalt not fear him.

 

Cross-posting from "Countdown" thread. From Fatima expert and EWTN expert Kevin Symonds,

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.

If CTTK believes the Bishops’ statements are erroneous, unclear or rooted in improper methodology, the 1983 CIC has provisions relevant to these matters:

Can. 212 §2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.

§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

I strongly encourage CTTK to take advantage of the law and write to the two Bishops and seek clarification. I would add, however, that this should have been done before publishing the present statement.

Let me be clear: CTTK, knock it off.

 

When the "consensus of prophecy" is mentioned it only means that what has been covered in messages/predictions of yet unapproved PRs falls similarly within what already has been approved PRs by the Church. Each may differ in specifics but the general predictions are similar.....like "fire falling from the sky" is left up to what could fall within that prediction.

 

Now Father's direct bishop has also disavowed him:

https://kevinsymondsdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2020/09/hearst-moosonee_letter.jpg

Good. I am glad to see that now both bishops have addressed this. Sadly this will be like Bayside... the Church spoke against it but there were still those folks who firmly believed in it. Now decades later we see clearly it was false. Some people seem never to be convinced though and let their self pride rule.

Not to mention there are people associated with Father that have $$$$ on the line via books, etc.

 

Gisella Carda is another one that is false.

 

The Faithful are bound to obey what has been stated.

IOW, from what has been stated, don't bother these particular Bishops on the subject of the messages or mystical experiences offered by their priest, Fr. Rodrigue. He's apparently on his own.....hung out to dry. Now that kind of treatment will convince the Faithful of the required judiciousness of each of these shepherds! But meanwhile the messages have not been condemned and the only objections offered are themselves lacking in neutrality of judgement since the authorities here personally don't believe in even what has been accepted by the Church Herself......new era, chastisements of the world, Church history of other refuges for Christians, Warning of some type. Does Mr. Symonds himself speak for some higher authority that has issued some kind of condemnation that the Faithful haven't as yet heard of? Does he know of any official (everyone seems to love that word) commission for study for the entirety of Fr. M's mystical communications which is required by the Church prior to any offered pronouncements? Because there would appear to be a slew of witnesses to call upon for verification. All of these personal assessments offered from the balcony, far from the stage, come from those who admit that they have never met or talked with their target for judgement here nor are they acquainted with the nuances, often corrected on the spot. that occur within the more unfamiliar English language used by Fr. Michel.

If not, then Mr. Symonds might take his own advice so freely offered to others and not with charity btw: "Knock it off"!

 

Can we just DROP this please. It has been examined from every possible angle. It is dangerous territory for us because of real temptations to anger and sins against charity from all sides. Whatever the truth is about Fr Michel his advice to get to confession is good advice worth taking. For the rest of it the Bishops have spoken.. The subject should be closed.. please please can we "let go and let God?"

 

Why are not the bishops under whom these CDTTK individuals operate regulating this group in some way? Right now, they’re a loose canon in need of some authoritative guidance from Holy Mother Church. ~AN

 

Hello, AED.
Here is the problem I see with simply dropping it: there are many, many people other than ourselves who are members who come to this site to read about the Mother of God and everything else that’s categorized on the first page. If all they see is information clinging to one side, it will be a misrepresentation.. May I suggest simply not responding to those threads that might cause a disruption of your spirit? As long as we are maintaining respectfulness, I see no reason why this cannot continue in search of the Truth.~AN

 

You make sense. I hope the discussion can remain charitable. I will not continue with it however.

 

I see your point. Plus this is an ongoing issue.

 

You are completely correct! I compared some of the aspects of this situation with Bayside awhile back. Thank you for confirming.

 

I edited my mistakes in my first draft! Whew!

 

I edited my mistakes in my first draft! Whew!

 

Hi earth-I have been following this and the other CTTK thread on and off and had been trying to discern Fr. Michel’s messages. Forgive me if I’m incorrect in assuming, but it seems you do believe him and the messages he shares. I’m not sure if you have already addressed this early on in the discussions, but I was curious if you could explain why. I know both threads have now trended toward discussing matters of his bishops approval and whatnot, but I was wondering how you approached discerning his messages. In full disclosure, I no longer think his revelations are valid, but I am asking this sincerely as I realized I hadn’t read much about why those who weren’t authors of the CTTK site believed in Fr. Michel. These threads have grown very long and trying to sort things out has been difficult for me at times and I was interested in hearing your point of view.