Human nature always makes it difficult to leave a stage after one has accumulated a quite devoted audience who will forgive anything....or else themselves perhaps be criticized in the end for doubting what could next be predicted.
Charlie is in a difficult position. Unlike most others who have allegedly been receiving prophecy Charlie provides little 'word specific' messages and allot of private interpretation in endless blogs. For instance, if one were to read Jennifer's alleged messages in www.wordsfromjesus.com or Verne's alleged messages in www.godspeakswillyoulisten.org or a several others who have posted in books everything that they were given you will read only what they have claimed to be given. They give no spin or personal interpretation of what they received. Charlie is one of the few alleged messengers who has chosen to have an ongoing dialog on his very limited revelations. In doing so, it has its benefits and challenges. He can draw a large following with his dialog, but the only thing we can all know with certainty and agree upon is his motto, "take the next right step".
Ok , so if his message is proven false,then it is clear his information did not come from heaven. Why would he make a comeback if something happens further down the track? So he can continue to mislead people? with messages from a fallen angel? Take the advice from Fr Hardon. 'IF ONE THING WRONG ,THROW THE WHOLE THING OUT'!
I wonder if you could suggest another explanation for St Paul's conversion as stated in my 'ridiculous' post. I had said "Here was a very learned and intelligent man, totally steeped in the Jewish Law. He persecuted the Christians much more savagely than the critics do with Pope Francis! Then he made his fateful journey to Damascus.". Could someone respond to explain why St Paul's behaviour changed overnight?
I am a bit scared to take part in this debate but one thing I must say: Charlie keeps his blog and has an ongoing dialog with his readers simply because his task is to be a guide, "sherpa" to them, to us. It may be irrelevant to you but to us readers and commenters he is a good friend and support. He is near and tries to help people in need of advice and support. What is wrong with it? You seem to have some misunderstandings... He is not only a prophet but a guide, too.
There are many reasons to be wary of anyone claiming a special mission from heaven. Until the church has ruled, you cannot be certain of the intentions of the messenger and the source of the message. Some messengers start off bringing benefits to followers but veer into heresy and dissension. Others become "messengers" for self-serving purposes. Still others are confused, mentally ill or simply have too active an imagination. Church experts say the vast majority of visions and messengers are false (99 percent-plus). Any messenger who predicts catastrophic events is likely to inspire fear. Followers of Locutions to the World -- allegedly "vetted" by a famed exorcist and writer -- spent thousands of dollars preparing for doom last fall and/or strained relationships with family and friends. They were left humiliated and poorer when predictions didn't pan out. Even a relatively benign messenger may soak up time and attention that could much more appropriately go to prayer, sacrifice, works of mercy in the local community. Connecting with others in your own parish or diocese will lead you to good friends and support in real life, not on the internet. These ties will be closer and longer-lasting. This is the most complete article on Charlie from a Catholic source (The National Catholic Register is owned by EWTN): http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...ston-continues-ministry-despite-denver-archdi
The overnight change in Paul's behaviour has nothing to do with the error in your post. Your error is to compare Cardinal Burke with Saul. On this logic, you would have sided against Athanasius. It is not Cardinal Burke that's persecuting Christ in this instance, that's for sure.
Yes, it is true that I was comparing Cardinal Burke to Saul. But my question remains unanswered. How can someone so intelligent and steeped in the knowledge of their religion (Saul) change so totally, overnight. I answer it by saying the change came not from more knowledge but from grace.
According to Acts and as St Paul himself says in 1 Corinthians 9:1 and 15:8, the Lord appeared to Saul. Undoubtedly, much Grace poured upon him, but it can't be denied this was also a world-uprooting cognitive event. So, I would say knowledge (or more accurately, Wisdom) and Grace, both.
I think we are rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic here....things are going down world wide.....you don't have to be a prophet to cite that...hold tight to the January 20 date all....or is it more important you view yourself as correct right now?
This thread is no place for unrelated posts about the pope or cardinals. People that want to avoid those threads/post should be able to by avoiding the thread titles related to such things. Please don't turn this thread into something it's not, start a new one. This one is about the fall of Charlie Johnston haha If Charlie is wrong (even more so than hes been so far) come January I will never read him again. If he has the nerve to come back after saying he will leave everyone would be wise to avoid reading and watching him. This will prove (to me anyway) he is not just a false prophet, but not a man of his word. The attention seeker I suspect he is would be proven true. Things will become bad here in the West, you don't need to be a prophet to see that coming. Charlie's physical refuges might be partly true but to suggest everyone would need to move to these places is totally off base. If we truly have faith we know that it will be a spiritual refuge in communion with Mary. Don't forget fearing for your life or those of your family is showing lack of faith. True faith required a surrender to God's will. God's will might mean you die today. It also might mean He steers you to 100 years old to become part of the remnant enjoying God's will on Earth. Either way you win!!!! There is such an obsession with prophets and messages it really runs counter to our faith. If any person or message isn't pushing you directly to Christ, often through His Mother you might want to question what and who you are spending your time on.
I highlighted the part that is the most difficult for me I admit, some moments I can remind myself of this and I am ok, other moments the worry creeps in. Maybe that is why God brought us all together on MOG, to help each other through.
"Charlie's physical refuges might be partly true but to suggest everyone would need to move to these places is totally off base." What are you talking about? Charlie's "physical refuges"? Suggesting everyone needs to move to one of these places? I think you have Charlie confused with Deacon John Martinez? The smoke of confusion is getting thick, which to me is another sign things are close . . .
Charlie has been a strong proponent of the refuge movement and thinks it is a critical part of being a sign of hope...
No he has not. The exact opposite is true. It's very enlightening to me that his words get so twisted, that to me is another sign that shows he is true seeing how attacked he is and how what he says and guides us to do gets twisted by the evil one to become the opposite. Here's the truth on what his exact words are on the subject of refuges showing what he really says: https://charliej373.wordpress.com/2016/10/20/i-killed-christ-and-so-did-you/ "I am often publicly impatient with Catholics who promote the idea that angels will lead all the faithful to refuges, safe havens to weather the full fury of the Storm. While that may be figuratively true, it is not literally true. It is just a Catholic version of the Protestant doctrine of the Rapture that has sprung up over the last 200 years. (The idea of Rapture was first proposed by John Darby of the Brethren Movement in 1830). Both ideas posit that God is going to mystically take the good folks to a place of complete safety while all the rest on earth suffer through a terrible chastisement. Everybody who posits such things assumes that they are included in the cohort of good little boys and girls who are going to be taken to safety – and sometimes are at pains to hide an unseemly glee at the idea of all the rest of those poor slobs out there getting smacked down. I am also unsettled when people speak of being part of “The Remnant,” once again all the good little boys and girls who have kept faith – and again with the unwarranted triumphal assumption that the speaker IS part of that anointed tribe, not like those dirty, unwashed heathens who so abound out there. This troubles me for two major reasons. First, many otherwise decent people are liable to go into despair that they are not among the chosen when no angel comes to lead them to safety or that they are left behind with the rest of us when the final crash comes. Second, few who hold to such things are likely to consider that they have misread God’s call to action in troubled times for a promise of immunity – when it does not happen as they expect. We are each called to be refuge to our neighbors and to leave the old worldliness behind, so that we can act as God’s hands and feet during crisis. Second, it presumes some facts that are very much not in evidence to quietly support a smug complacency. We are taught, Magisterially, that we cannot know with certainty that we are in a state of grace. How then can we be so certain that we are the elect, the remnant? Is it just because we have not violated the laws? If so, we are unprofitable servants, indeed. As Christians, we are called to go forth, not just to sit tight. I doubt that many people here have actively participated in the ongoing assault on faith and culture that is rapidly reaching its climax. But as the Penitential Act I quoted above so pointedly says, we are not just responsible for sin in what we have done, but in what we have failed to do. Could we really have reached this pass had there not been a massive failure in what we, as Christians, are called to? A few examples of what we have failed to do…"
Really? charliej373 says: July 26, 2014 at 7:42 pm "I strongly support the refuge movement. I believe that preparing for the temporal needs of people who will be displaced and in need is a critical part of being a sign of hope. I have visited several places of refuge already up and prepared – and work quietly with some others in preparing more. On the right hand of this blog is a link to “The Peppy Prepper” which gives practical advice on how to prepare self-supporting living and the things necessary to welcome others in. It is written by a friend of mine, John McConnell, a faithful Missionary Baptist man and one of the noblest souls I know. He has led teams of volunteer men throughout the country to the worst disaster sites over the last decade. He was at Katrina, Sandy, Joplin…all the ones you have heard of and many you have not. He knows from experience what things are most needed when all has been taken, how to comfort the afflicted, truly how to be a sign of hope. Check his blog out."
Yes, Charlie has told us what the refuges really are all about, BUT he definitely advocated for them and also has toured quite a number of them. That alone is very disturbing. Does he have any authority that we know of to do this? Not that I know of. Why are they looking for his approval? That circles back to the question Harper posed: How do we know, notwithstanding his assertions, that he's a messenger of God? We don't, and Denver hasn't ruled on him yet. ETA: Thanks, Frodo. I was looking for that to back my statement up and couldn't find it!
Good gravy you folks are really tied up in knots about Charlie. Again, the storm is raging, leave this forum and go read the news of what has happened in the world just today! Read what I posted above. That's what Charlie wrote a few weeks ago. The comment you pulled from 2 1/2 years ago was in support of his friend. He's talking about his personal friend who runs a prepper site. You ever speak out in support of a friend? What a horrible man, he spoke in support of his lifelong friend! Goodness . . . and what kind of "authority" does one need to visit the land that friends of his own? Do you need "authority" to go visit for your Aunt June for Christmas? Please prayerfully consider that mabye, just mabye, the ones you think that God would choose to be a prophet, may just not be the ones that God chooses in His infinite wisdom to be His prophets: Throughout the Bible, God called on unlikely people. Moses probably stuttered (cf. Exodus 4:10). Jeremiah was "too young" (Jeremiah 1:6). Peter was uneducated (Acts 4:13). Saul of Tarsus hated Christians (cf. Acts 9:1). All were unlikely prophets or apostles ― yet they let God use them.
