Earlier today the Totus Tuus Facebook page posted about Marthe Robin's mystical life and her being sustained by the Eucharist alone for over 50 years. I enjoy seeing the inspiring posts from Totus Tuus and often repost them here on the forum. However, the M. Robin post today brought back to mind the work of Belgian Carmelite Theologian Fr. Conrad de Meester, who investigated her mysticism and living 'Eucharistic miracle' and found some aspects of her life which raised serious concerns about her authenticity. I sent a message to Totus Tuus and attached an article about Fr. de Meester's findings, which I hope they will read and consider. I'll attach it here, if anyone else would like to read it too. We spoke a bit about this on the 'Epstein Files' thread a while back (in relation to spiritual fraud) but there may be some who didn't see those discussions and might be interested to read about Fr. de Meesters work now. Link to article below. https://crc-internet.org/further-in...raud-and-rome-s-methodical-heinous-crime.html
Yes Marthe Robin was on the news a while back, the whole Spiritual House of Cards a[[ears to be falling apart. There is a whole history of False Teachers and Mystics in Modern Catholicism which is breath taking. Of people who appeared to be saints and teaching great wisdom but where not. Thomas Merton, Jean Vanier and Tielhard De Chardin are just a few. Pope Frankie and Leo are another two.
Yes, Jean Vanier was a big shock (and eye opener) to me. I had known of him and his work with l'Arche for many years. He appeared to be very 'good' and 'caring'. He was also associated with Marthe Robin.
But I would say that the case of Marthe Robin is by no means an open and shut one just because of the apparently very thorough investigation of Conrad de Meester. Before making any personal decision I would recommend watching this wonderful investigation by Benoit on this case. Benoit deals with this case in its totality including De Meester's writing on it. I had to slow the video to x0.8 because it is dubbed into English and he does speak very fast in French. I acknowledge Dave in making known the work of de Meester. The web page Dave gives seems to be written by someone who maybe has sedevacantist views or at least he view Popes Paul VI and John Paul II as guilty of many heresies. It is good to keep this in mind also I think. The last 10 minutes of the video is a summary of Benoit's investigation.
Thanks for sharing that video InVeritatem, I hadn't seen it before. While helpful in that Benoit proposes various possibilities to account for the valid concerns raised by Fr. de Meester, who began his study with a positive view of Marthe Robin and later changed his position as he got deeper into it, it's still very unclear, even to Benoit, what the truth of the matter is. What also gives me pause for thought are the later revelations and concerns about those who were very close to Marthe. Fr. Finet her spiritual director, Fr. Peyrous the man in charge of her Cause for Canonisation and Jean Vanier. I also had a very positive view of Marthe for many years and have several books about her life and mysticism. I was very disappointed to read about Fr. de Meester's findings, a few years ago, but we can't deny that all might not be as it seemed for so long. It would be wonderful to find out later on that these 'concerns' were misplaced and that Marthe Robin was a genuine mystic. All we can do is wait cautiously for a fuller answer to these questions.
Thanks InVeriratem for pointing out the source of the article on Fr. De Meester's findings. To be honest I hadn't looked into the background of CRC and their founder Fr. Georges de Nantes (1924 - 2010). I did some searching and it seems he had strongly traditionalist views but did not advocate for breaking away from the Church. He wrote a scholarly work on the events and messages of Fatima, was a vocal critic of Vatican II, believed in the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, was concerned about the death of Pope John Paul I (he felt it was murder) and spoke about Freemasonry in the Church. At the time (1970s and '80s mainly) he was considered 'extreme' and his community regarded as something of a 'cult'. In light of where we find ourselves now, perhaps he wasn't too far off the mark. I saw this 1983 Notification from the CDF: Notification regarding Rev. George de Nantes, 13 May 1983 CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH Notification regarding Rev. George de Nantes The Rev. George de Nantes, founder and inspiration of the movement called “League of the Catholic Counter-Reformation,” accompanied by a delegation from the same movement, went to Rome to put in the hands of the Holy Father or “another person delegated by him” an “act of accusation against Pope John Paul II for heresy, schism, and scandal.” This document, which is already broadly known by means of a publication (undated, care of the “Catholic Counter-Reform,” Casa S. Giuseppe, Saint-Parres-les-Vaudes), and which reflects the allegations brought for many years against Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II especially in the “Catholic Counter Reformation” bulletin, officially demands the opening of a process personally against the Holy Father and before himself in the same instance as the “supreme judge of the faith.” In spite of the nature of this action and of his request of the superior Authority, Rev. de Nantes was received, accompanied by four delegates, by His Excellency, Archbishop Jerome Hamer, Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in the seat of this Dicastery, on Friday, May 13, 1983. In the course of the encounter, Rev. de Nantes was first of all asked to present his position and the object of his request. Archbishop Hamer then declared: 1. That he refused in the clearest possible terms to receive the book, because it was not possible to accept accusations that are unjustified and gravely offensive to the Holy Father, similar to those formulated long ago against Pope Paul VI, especially in a similar communication from 1973. 2. That the publication and the dissemination of this libellus (petition) constituted a grave violation of the obligation of Rev. de Nantes as a Christian, and even more over as a priest, and that the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had the firm duty, in virtue of his office, to forbid him in this regard and to formally declare this to him. 3. That the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has continued to wait for the retraction of his errors and his accusations of heresy leveled against Pope Paul VI and the Second Vatican Council, a retraction that was requested after the examination of his writings, undertaken at his invitation, and in his requests of April 25th, April 29th, May 3rd, and July 5th of 1968. 4. That, as long as this retraction has not been made, which must also include a retraction of the attacks of the same nature against the person of John Paul II, it is not possible to believe the sincerity of his desire for reconciliation which he manifested on two occasions, in 1978 and 1981, and which the Holy Father nevertheless remains disposed to receive.
From the CRC website: FATHER DE NANTES Fidei Defensor "FATHER de Nantes is a Catholic priest and theologian who believes that the new “orientations” of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), upheld and further developed by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II, have been an unmitigated disaster for the Church. For him the Council and its upholders have demonstrably taught, or at least insinuated, novel and unCatholic beliefs, which have never before been officially maintained in the Church. In fact, such beliefs had been forcefully condemned by previous Popes, right up to Pope Pius XII who died in 1958. Despite Father’s detailed and well-substantiated criticisms over these last thirty-five years, the authorities in the Church have consistently refused to use their powers to deal objectively with his accusations. Instead of taking up his arguments in their own right (argumentum ad rem), they have preferred to attack his person (argumentum ad hominem). Hence, they have directed their wrath against his alleged subjective attitude, his “tone”, his “contentious spirit”, etc. This was particularly apparent in 1968 when the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith examined his complaints against Vatican II and Pope Paul VI. Instead of condemning his alleged “errors”, the Congregation contented itself with stating that he had been disqualified... rather as if he had been a professional sportsman who was not abiding by the rules of the game! Today Father de Nantes is well-known and even feared in Rome. His three Books of Accusation against Pope Paul VI (1973), against Pope John Paul II (1983), and against the author of the so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church (1993) have proved to be impossible to answer. His accusations are of the most devastating kind imaginable in the Church, involving open charges of heresy, schism, and scandal against the Vicar of Christ on earth. But despite this, he has never been condemned for any kind of error against the Catholic faith and for thirty-five years his doctrinal criticisms have remained without a formal reply from Rome."
