The Presidential prophecy- An update on Charlie Johnston

A triumphant Trump inaugurated amidst some bold predictions
Update Jan 1, 2018: Concerning Mr. Johnston's alleged prophecies and private revelations, from early on this writer often commented that time and events (or lack of events) will clearly reveal whether Charlie's prophecies are authentic, or not.  In other words, time will tell. 

Well, as of today (January 1, 2018) time has clearly revealed that Mr. Johnston's numerous prophecies have ALL been shown to be completely false, most notably his predictions concerning the Presidential election, the great worldwide "Storm" which he foretold would bring global economic collapse and civil strife, toppling governments throughout the globe, war with political Islam resulting with the mass conversion of most Muslims, then a war with China, and generalized  global chaos resulting in 26 million dead, all culminating with the miraculous "Rescue" apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary to all of humanity, all of which was prophesied by Charlie to occur by the end of 2017. 

In conclusion, since Charlie's prophecies have now all been shown to be completely false, he joins the list of recent failed visionaries whose stories have been highlighted on this site, such as "Locutions to the World" and "Maria Divine Mercy", and together they provide a strong cautionary warning for all of us in regards to purported visionaries and mystics of past and present, urging us to be very cautious and prudent in our discernment concerning such persons,  reaffirming the statement and warning of St Paul of the Cross, the founder of the Passionists and great mystic himself, who once stated that 9 out of 10 purported visionaries are false.  Perhaps this estimation from St Paul of the Cross is a bit high, but then again perhaps not.  -Glenn Dallaire
-------------------------------
UPDATE, January 20, 2017: 
With the successful inauguration of President Donald Trump comes the unfulfilled conclusion to both parts of the alleged angelic “Presidential prophecy” of Charlie Johnston, namely that Obama will not finish his term and the next leader will not come from the political system (ie.-not elected), as detailed in the article below. It was a bold two-part prophecy that has now ended in a double fail.

When one claims to be a prophet of God, one’s life and most especially one’s prophecies are automatically held for scrutiny before the court of public opinion. In this court of public opinion, the preponderance of the evidence is what often initially sways one’s opinion, yet there eventually comes to pass certain very important matters for discernment, such as key prophecies, which depending on their eventual turnout, will considerably authenticate, or invalidate, the purported mission and message of such persons.  And when one compares the alleged angelic ‘Presidential prophecy’ against today’s successful inauguration, the conclusions to be drawn are self-evident.  

With the above being said, one would strongly suspect that today’s inauguration, which by all appearances completely invalidates the first formal public prophecy of Charlie Johnston, will likely be one of these aforementioned key matters for discernment that will have a decisive impact in judging his purported prophetic mission and message for a good many people.  For if a prophet is judged by his prophecies as the saying goes, then today’s failure of the purported angelic ‘Presidential prophecy’,  as detailed in the article below,  will for many persons surely bring with it an unfavorable judgment in what concerns the prophetic mission of Charlie Johnston. 

For in his blog post "The Election...and Other Potential Triggers" Charlie writes:
"...If, next January, Barack Obama peacefully hands over the reins of power to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, I will declare myself unreliable and go away. But it will not happen that way, for God has appointed that this be a sign to you to fortify you to trust Him and choose the ordinary way to follow Him through the most frightening year for the globe in history."

And again, concerning today’s inauguration, for his part Charlie has also declared in his post entitled “Election day” on November 7th that:
 “…If, on January 20, Obama peacefully transfers power to either Trump or Clinton, I will declare myself unreliable and retire into silence.”  

With this pledge, one finds that today’s inauguration will bring with it not only the end of Obama’s term, but also the end of Charlie Johnston’s public blogging, speaking engagements, and future predictions, at least for a time, though the loss of credibility from today’s events will likely be permanent. 

And I say "for a time" simply because of Charlie's recent comments on his blog concerning the possibility of today's failure of his "Presidential prophecy", wherein he recently speaks about the possibility of being "recalled" by God into a silent, private period for some sort of remedial prophetic discernment re-training "for a time".

Nevertheless, for those who in good faith spread amongst their family, friends and coworkers Charlie's prediction concerning "Obama not finishing his term/next leader not coming from the political process", and who are now left feeling much like "the boy who cried wolf", one can only presume that any possible future prophetic predictions from Charlie will be given little or no credence, if not outright opposition by many who have followed his work and message, as is perhaps justifiably merited by today's developments. In the end, it is up to Archbishop Aquila of Denver to make any formal judgments concerning Charlie Johnston's private revelations.

As for this writer, I can say that while I have always been reluctant to highlight purported LIVING mystics and visionaries, I am even more so now after these recent events.

May God bless the United States of America, and all of humanity.
-Glenn Dallaire, January 20, 2017


Charlie Johnston during a recent FOCUS TV interview
The final days for the possible fulfillment of a purported Angelic prophecy 

By: Glenn Dallaire

Jan. 7, 2017 -Vigil of the Epiphany
Many readers of this website are familiar with the original article that I wrote back in January 2015 entitled  "Charlie Johnston -An alleged prophet with a critically important message for humanity".  In it I discussed at length Charlie's purported prophetic mission and message, along with a short biography of his life. And for the past two years it has been one of the most popular articles on this website.

Additionally, when the Archdiocese of Denver came out with a Statement in March 2016 concerning Mr. Johnston I published an article here discussing it.

The Presidential prophecy
In the past week, the comments beneath that original article have exploded (there are now currently a total of 770 comments), as has my email inbox, with most everyone commenting specifically on the angelic prophecy allegedly given to Charlie, which I have named "The Presidential prophecy":

"What I was told in the Spring of 2008 was that Barack Obama would win that year's election, that he would not finish his full term, and that the next stable national leader would not come from the political system."

The obvious reason for all of the recent attention to this specific alleged angelic prophecy is the upcoming scheduled Presidential Inauguration scheduled for this January 20th--just 2 weeks away from this writing. For his part, just yesterday Charlie published an article entitled "A Decisive Conundrum" which addresses this matter, in part.

This particular prophecy is the first of a series of alleged angelic prophesies concerning the world that are to occur mostly this year (2017). And since we are delving into this subject of alleged "Angelic" messages given to Charlie, it should be pointed out that the Angel whom has purportedly visited Charlie from childhood is the Archangel Gabriel, as was specifically revealed to Charlie during one of the "visitations". The other predictions that Charlie insists upon are highlighted in his article entitled "Go Forth". In it Charlie reveals eight worldwide events that are said to occur::

"I only have eight public prophecies that I insist on. Only the visible, miraculous Rescue by Our Lady, the Immaculate Conception in late 2017, is time sensitive. Five things must happen between now and the Rescue, but can happen at any time during that period. They are:

– The continued toppling of governments throughout the world, including that of the U.S. The toppling of a government does not mean the nation shall fall.

– The confrontation with and fall of political Islam.

– The mass conversion of most Muslims

– The confrontation between the Judeo-Christian world and the current government of China.

– The alliance between Russia and the U.S. to lead the Judeo-Christian world to endure the confrontation with China.

-Then, after the 5 things above comes the miraculous "Rescue" through the Immaculate Heart of Mary sometime in late 2017.

Then there are two prophecies that happen shortly after the Rescue. They are the unification of the faithful into one flock under one shepherd and the building and location of the Shrine of thanksgiving for the Rescue on Mount Meeker in Colorado.

Together these predicted events constitute for humanity what Charlie calls "The Storm"--a series of events which he states is already well underway. As of today (January 7, 2017), the most obvious observation concerning the prophesies above is that time is really running out for them to all happen before the miraculous Rescue in late 2017. Thus, from an intellectually reasoned perspective, it is probably readily apparent to many that such predictions are already a failure, given the time-frames involved for such things to occur in "real" time. But then, who really knows just yet? For God is not limited by our human constraints and He is always full of surprises.

It should be noted that the "Presidential prophecy" is NOT part of the eight public prophesies that Charlie insists upon. I don't know what bearing that may have, if any, in the upcoming days and weeks.

"God has appointed that this be a sign to you"
In his article "The Election...and Other Potential Triggers" Charlie writes:
"If, next January, Barack Obama peacefully hands over the reins of power to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, I will declare myself unreliable and go away. But it will not happen that way, for God has appointed that this be a sign to you to fortify you to trust Him and choose the ordinary way to follow Him through the most frightening year for the globe in history."

Of course for now the big question at this point is whether or not the purported angelic prophecy concerning Obama not finishing his term/next leader not coming from the election process will come to pass as foretold in the remaining two weeks before the scheduled Presidential inauguration on January 20th. And the obvious implication in the opinion of many people is that this prophecy is key in determining whether Charlie is truly an authentic prophet, or not. For as the saying goes "A prophet is judged by his prophecies", or as Scripture tells us:

"And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not fear him." (Deuteronomy 18:21-22).

For his part, Charlie has stated numerous times that if this particular prophecy concerning Obama not finishing his term were to fail, with the presidency successfully transitioned to Donald Trump, that he will post one last post on his blog, then go away:
Charlie Johnston during a presentation in July 2016
charliej373 says:
"If there is a peaceful transition of power from Obama to Trump, I will go away. If there is not, be not afraid, God has a plan."

or again:
 charliej373 says:
December 17, 2016 at 2:54 pm
"Now, as I have said, if the inauguration goes on without incident, I will go away. "

or again:
charliej373 says:
"Certainly, if we have a normal inauguration a month from now, I will retire from the field, for that prophecy will have been objectively wrong. I take full responsibility for that. But it won’t change what you are called to do.

Noting that I do and will take responsibility, your standard would require you to dismiss St. Joan of Arc as a false prophet for the times she erred on saying how the battle would go – and many of the Old Testament prophets who were often off on their timing, sometimes by years. I do not say this to try to justify any error on my part. I strongly urge you to examine yourself and consider what God calls you to. But yep, a month from now if we have a normal inauguration, you can give me a big old thumbs down."

charliej373 says:
January 8, 2017 at 9:21 pm
"If the inauguration comes off, I will leave the public scene, because that is what it means to honorably take full responsibility. "

And so, even though this "Presidential prophecy" is not one of the eight public prophecies that Charlie insists upon, according to several statements he has made he does believe that if it fails to come to pass as foretold, this would be significant enough to merit and declare himself "unreliable" and "leaving the scene". Time will soon tell how things turn out. For his part, Charlie has "laid it on the line", so to speak. We need only wait, watch and pray. Events, or the lack thereof, will reveal the truth concerning Charlie's purported private revelations.

Given all of the recent interest in this particular prophecy as of late, along with the popularity of the original article here on this website concerning Charlie Johnston, I thought I would publish this new article so that those interested can comment on this matter freely and directly here. As always, all comments are published immediately on this website, without moderation. I only ask that commentators be charitable and considerate in their comments.

***UPDATE: FEBRUARY 16, 2017: Archdiocese of Denver: "Statement on false claim regarding Charlie Johnston’s messages"

3,140 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   1401 – 1600 of 3140   Newer›   Newest»
Glenn Dallaire said...


As always I leave everyone free to comment here, or on the other article concerning Charlie-whichever one prefers. As for myself, I believe in open discussion and dialogue, and this is why I never delete or censor any comments, so long as they are not excessively uncharitable or contain foul language etc. (given that this is of course a Catholic website!) In short, I am definitely a proponent of open dialogue, even though sometimes these comment sections can seem somewhat like the "Wild West".

On the other hand, if Jack and Anonymous would like to discuss things privately, that certainly fine too, and I would be happy to facilitate the sharing of email addresses, if you both so choose (Jack, I did just receive your email message).

As for my own current perspective concerning Charlie's predictions for those interested?
Well, I like to let the facts speak for themselves, as the reality of events (or lack of events) ultimately bears the truth, and so here we are July 7th with at least 2 failed public prophecies, with zero of the eight that he insists upon that have actually come to pass. In short, for those keeping track, his prophecy accuracy thus far is -2 for 8.

And so, given the current failure rate and the time frame realities of the prophecies (that being that several of the ones that he insists upon like governments toppling throughout the world, worldwide economic collapse, war with political Islam, war with China etc. all literally having to happen in the next few months), culminating of course with the miraculous Rescue by year end, thus in my opinion anyone who at this point attempts to argue in favor of authenticity concerning Charlie's prophecies is obviously really coming from a very weak and increasingly strained position, given the realities involved.

Therefore, it seems that most people have dismissed him and his predictions at this point--and who really could blame them after the Presidential double prophecy fail and the fact that we are now in July with literally none of his predictions thusfar coming to pass.

-Just my .02 cents at this current juncture.
May God bless those who visit here!
Glenn Dallaire

Fred Keyes said...

I would hope that any further debate on this subject recognize that Jack's arguments are not "legalistic" arguments; the are based on formal logic. That's a different kettle of fish from any legal debate.

Thomas Aquinas' writings use these rules and applies them to theology, methods that the Church continues to use today.

I've studied some philosophy and taken courses in formal logic myself. Jack's grasp of formal logic is exemplary. Be prepared if you plan to debate him. Stick to facts, not conjecture, and remember that you are entitled to your opinion, but not your facts.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Fred. I'll take it under advisement. You know, that might have a little more credibility if a fella wasn't just recently taking someone's character apart with swipes like "self-serving" (06/21/17, 8:30 PM) and "political hack" (06/27/17, 1:22 AM)... and that was just at a quick glance. I know, you soft peddled it and even attempted to row back your speculation on the deep state as tongue-in-cheek, but what do you call that? At the very least I'd call it inconsistent with your warning of 07/07/17, 10:59 PM.

I won't even go so far as to say hypocrisy, lest Jack hit me with another logical fallacy/fault in reasoning label... even though saying "hypocrite" when it's based on the fact that a person has been unable to act consistently here with... let's just say two basic factions of commenters that many presume to sort into two convenient bins... most certainly is not a logical fallacy/fault in reasoning. That doesn't necessarily mean that certain methods applied here are faulty, weak or even in error, just inconsistently applied as I said.

No worries, I'll get through that and more besides when I have more time so I can get at what I believe to be much more meaningful.

Fred Keyes said...

Anon @ 1:58am; you got me on "political hack." Definitely a negative characterization. I was wrong to say that, I apologize. In the heat of debate it is much too easy to cast personal aspersions

But not on Charlie's being self-serving. That's a characterization of his arguments, not an attack on him personally. I suspect we are all self-serving in a way when we defend our arguments. But when we display an unwillingness to examine our own thinking and stubbornly maintain that our arguments are correct in the face of contradictory evidence, the argument (not the person who may sincerely believe s/he is correct) is self serving.

I'll repeat what many have said here who hold Charlie's views to be false--I have no idea how honestly Charlie believes his own stories. They are demonstrably flawed as we argue (in the best sense of the word—the word comes from the Greek meaning t"to shed light") here. Only God knows what is in Charlie's mind. No one else.

Fred Keyes said...

Anon...I also have to say, your defense of calling Jack a hypocrite has nothing to do with logic or fallacies. What you did was *ad hominem*--i.e., a direct criticism of the person, not his arguments. Similar to my calling Charlie a "political hack." Absolutely uncalled for.

Anonymous said...

I would advise people here to not be on the defensive with the Anon guy telling people here that they are 'hypocrites' or whatever - that is pure deflection from the real issue - Charlie. ( the Anon guy here has the style of michael over at the other site ).Charlie is on the hot seat, no one else. As Glenn stated Charlie is -2/8, that's not very good, in fact its horrible. Since Charlie's followers have no real ammunition with which to defend Charlie, they resort to attacking a critic, they did it on his site and they are doing it here. The only arguments they have, which aren't relevant is that he has a nice communal catholic site, he gets pictures with religious people and he is a catholic defending the faith - which makes him no different than the other 100,000 catholic sites on the net.

The style

Notice how Yong Duk has disappeared.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for that, Fred, and you're right. Better to humbly apologize and find a better approach than the alternatives.

I'm no lawyer or professional logician, but it was my understanding that argumentum ad hominem was indeed a type of logical fallacy. At any rate, Jack is right too, that's no way to argue a point and it serves as a sound example to all of something to avoid.

I didn't comment here to defend the Presidential Prophecy nor any of Charlie's alleged mystical experiences/prophecies. I did think it was worthy to try to make a case for commenters here to be more charitable, though it's clear to me that I'm no better at that effort than the next person, sometimes repeating the same errors that I'm railing against. Did I presume presumption on Jack's part? That appears to be the case since I can't fully substantiate my thinking and certainly don't know the full truth of his thinking and motives. Thus, I apologize to Jack as well.

My business requires a great deal of parsing and interpreting data. Easy to parse, but difficult to interpret well. It's not only a science, it's an art form. Naturally I rely on both, but can assure you that my track record is not flawless. In the vast majority of cases the data eventually speaks for itself, though I have found on occasion that the answer sometimes presents itself in an unexpected place (e.g. - not what's there in the data, but what's absent from the data). Oh, I'm not trying to be clever or subtle here, just sharing this insight so you understand a little bit more about where I come from and how I think. That, and I'm a creative at the core, so although I like Thomas Aquinas, I'm more apt to be reading something like "The Canticle of the Sun."

I had intended to parse a bunch of comments here that were obviously uncharitable, point out a bunch of inconsistencies when responding to other commenters (divided along the two basic lines that I pointed out), etc.

Yesterday I was out, walking along deep in thought, when I literally came within an inch of stepping on a coiled rattle snake. I was lucky I didn't get bit. At any rate, it immediately changed the course of my thoughts. For the remainder of the walk, I did little more than confront my own thinking with strenuous honesty. That led me once again to the biggest challenge at hand for me personally –– overcoming self.

Reminds me of a quote from St. Francis: "No one is be called an enemy, all are your benefactors, and no one does you harm. You have no enemy except yourselves."

Actually Anon (07/09/17, 11:29), I believe we're all on the hot seat together. Think about it... or don't. It's entirely up to you. I've also wondered what happened to Yong Duk, but have sort of had my fill of presuming to know at this point. Call me Anon, or Michael, or whatever gives you peace. I'd just be happy if you thought of me as brother.

Again, thanks for the example, Fred. I was kinda surprised you cracked the ice like that so fast. Course, I've been wrong before.

Jackisback said...

An apology graciously made is graciously accepted. So thanks for that, Anon. My own ferocious manner in making arguments often appears personal in nature; it's not meant to be. Others have pointed out to me in the past, that reason and logic are not 100% of the discernment process, that spiritual discernment also has a place at the table. They're right of course. Clearly, spiritual discernment is not "in my wheelhouse." And, while I don't have anything against the more spiritual side, I am wary (to a fault perhaps) of the notion of spirituality becoming an escape hatch from dealing with reality, whereas the use of reason would guard against that. So I return the apology to you to the extent that my tone or my stringent use of (and demand for) logic came off as uncharitable or attacking you personally, whom I do not know.

If it's any consolation, Glenn felt the same way about me for quite some time. Whenever someone posting anonymously takes issue with my point of view, I can never tell how long they have been following this thread, or whether or not they have read my posts from the prior main thread. So I never know whether they have seen commentary of mine where I try to make it clear that I really don't have an axe to grind vis-a-vis Charlie - I don't need him to be wrong. There's that, plus I am fully aware that it is a logical fallacy also to presume what Charlie says to be invalid solely because his communications may contain logical fallacies (that's known as the "fallacy fallacy"). So I'm on my guard for that too. So far, that hasn't come into play, but it may yet (between now and Christmas Eve).

Anonymous said...

Ronald Reagan - "trust, but verify"
Jesus - "beware of wolves in sheep's clothing"

Anonymous said...

Jack, It isn't solely a logical fallacy to presume what Charlie says to be invalid. The archdiocese of Denver has publicly stated his visions concerning events of 2016-2017 to be inaccurate. Charlie has attempted to spin this to mean, very narrowly, that only his presidential prophecy was inaccurate because he misinterpreted it, against the plain meaning of the text, with its plural visions and two-year timeline.

Anonymous said...

To anonymous above, you are correct that Charlie is now saying that the Archdiocese is only stating that his presidential prophecy is false, but that he has been correct in the broad sweep of things. I wonder why the Archdiocese doesn't step in with a further clarification to remove any ambiguity and to shut down this nonsense.

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:56, I am sure most here wonder the same thing. Maybe they simply don't have the time or resources to spend more time on this case unless it's absolutely necessary.

Anonymous said...

Question re: Charlie Johnston.

I know Charlie Johnston always talks about Take the Next Right Step. But I had someone tell me Do the Next Right Thing is a saying from AA (Alcoholics Anonymous). I googled Do the Next Right Thing and a bunch of links to AA-related materials and sobriety discussions came up. Do you think Charlie Johnston took this saying from AA and made a slight change and called it his own creation? Take the Next Right Step isn't different at all!

Also, if I remember Charlie Johnston is a smoker and drinker.

Jackisback said...

Anon from 6:59 AM, sorry for not being more clear.

The fallacy fallacy does not come about via presumption alone. The potential for committing the fallacy comes about by deducing that the conclusion made by your interlocutor must be false, because either the premises or the conclusion or both contain one or more logical fallacies. While that sounds perhaps like I'm splitting hairs with respect to a standard error of presumption, the distinction is meant to convey the notion that it is possible to get swept up into a perfectly logical train of thought, and by doing so, after sifting out various logical fallacies employed by the other person, making the seemingly perfectly logical deduction that your opponent's conclusion is false, solely because the conclusion isn't supported by valid reasoning. And yet, it's possible that the conclusion is true, or will turn out to be true if the conclusion involves future events, despite illogical underpinnings.

For those clinging to the notion that other eight "things Charlie insists upon" will still be coming true (partly because the clock has not yet run on 2017) we have very little hope of persuading them away from the current logically fallacious defense - that "Charlie was just wrong" in making an interpretation on just the first two items on January 20, 2017 (in fact they cling to the idea that he was only wrong on one of the two - Obama not finishing his term). Remember that these defenders were still vocally hanging on to the presidential prophecy coming true on January 19, 2017. And so, they need take but a small leap of emotion to cling to the idea that the Denver Archdiocese was really only speaking about the presidential prophecy when it used the plural term "visions" as not being accurate.

To the other Anonymous at 8:53 PM,

Could I ask that you steer away from disparaging characterizations - clearly uncharitable in my estimation? The attempt to link to AA and to bring up the possibility of Charlie being a "smoker and drinker" doesn't serve discernment on the topic of this thread, and is a non sequitur in any case. This is the kind of post that only serves to generate stones being thrown at all of us by Charlie's minions. In fact, I am wondering if this post of yours isn't really authentic, but rather a test to see who among us here would call you out.

Anonymous said...

I believe the point is that these two statements in format and meaning are suspiciously similar. One doesn't have to be a member of AA to be aware of the saying, just be familiar with the Twelve-Step philosophy and writings. Knowing "Do the Next Right Thing" makes "Take the Next Right Step" seem far less original and inspired.

I agree that discussing smoking and drinking is extraneous.

Anonymous said...

The phrase "The Next Right Thing" appears often in the work of Christian novelist Terri Blackstock. For example, from Downfall, An Intervention Novel.

How could she have been so stupid? Why hadn't it even occurred to her that her behavior today looked suspicious?

I was trying to live with integrity, Lord. I was trying to do the Next Right Thing. I promised I would. Why would you let me end up here? [in jail]


From Blackstock's Vicious Cycle:

"But as she reached the highway, she heard the echo of one of her twelve-step sayings. Do the Next Right Thing.

The next right thing. What was that? Was it taking Jordan to the hospital or getting rid of the drugs?

Anonymous said...

CHARLIE POSTS AGAIN at Next Right Step. It's part humblebrag, part exortation, with lots of Alt-Right red meat thrown in. He says getting a lot of "instruction," but doesn't say WHO the instructor is...

Given that he's led people to challenge the authority of the archbishop over him by ignoring that Aquila's public request that people get their nourishment elsewhere, it's not a leap to say his instruction isn't of God, is it?

I have had much instruction since the Inauguration. Yet there is no use in speaking of specifics. In fact, it would just confuse the issue – kind of like the mirror of Galadriel near the end of the Fellowship of the Rings. (I am reading the trilogy again – and it could be useful for you, as well. There is MUCH wisdom in there, which I have come to appreciate intensely). Things are bigger than I had imagined – and simultaneously easier and more terrible. A key reason is that God is moving in a way that is completely different than He has before. That should not have surprised me: when little minds argue that something can’t be from God because He has “never done it that way before,” I always chuckle ruefully. God is always startling, fresh and new. If something happens in a way that God HAS done it before, that is usually (not always) a sign of inauthenticity – that it is not from God but merely one of the satan’s pale imitations.

Anonymous said...

What does it mean to "chuckle ruefully".

A sincere observer said...


He's back and in a big way! Charlie's very large post today speaks authoritatively from start to finish, speaking as if he were a master of spirituality, with smatters of humblebrag, such as:

"People often say I have a gift for conveying complex notions with vivid simplicity..."

Well, who knows about that supposed "gift", but for sure people sure have had alot to say about his "gift" of failed prophecy! Maybe he should pontificate a bit about how it is that after 50 years of supposed "angelic instruction" he has failed miserably in his prophecies?
After all, after 50 supposed years of preparation you'd think he would have gotten the first formal prediction right--not! Yet he wrote publicly that the presidential prophecy was to be a sign:
""...If, next January, Barack Obama peacefully hands over the reins of power to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, I will declare myself unreliable and go away. But it will not happen that way, for God has appointed that this be a sign to you to fortify you to trust Him and choose the ordinary way to follow Him through the most frightening year for the globe in history."

Following his own words, Charlie was supposed to declare himself unreliable and go away as he himself said. Yet, those who read his extensive commentary today from his blog-pulpit are to view his spiritual instructions and advice as if coming from some sort of spiritual master who is worthy of offering such reflections for consideration? Simply put, on what authority or grounds is he offering spiritual advice in a public forum, especially after his completely failed track record of so called "prophecies" that were supposed to be from heaven...

On another note, I wouldn't be surprised if there will soon come some social unrest in the USA and abroad, for divisions and flashpoints are everywhere, and couple this with a likely very significant economic downturn, quite likely throughout the world, given the current worldwide economic realities. But both of these are a long time coming, and anyone who has eyes to see have been able to see all the clouds building for quite a few years now. So Charlies predictions in these areas are not unique, by any means.

Jackisback said...

I don't have time to read the whole thing, but the excerpt quoted above is either very telling or it is meaningless.

--begin quotedtext--
...when little minds argue that something can’t be from God because He has “never done it that way before,” I always chuckle ruefully.
--end quoted text--

To what could Charlie be referring here? It couldn't be the presidential prophecy could it, about which he has made a blanket admission that it was not of God? Or could that be precisely his reference?

The other part thatraises an eyebrow is:

--begin quotedtext--
A key reason is that God is moving in a way that is completely different than He has before.
--end quoted text--

It seems I've heard the phrase "it's different this time" before. Is it? Or, alternatively, should Charlie consider adding the book "Fooled By Randomness" to his reading list?

Anonymous said...

Jack,

I also took note of Charlie's statement:

...when little minds argue that something can’t be from God because He has “never done it that way before,” I always chuckle ruefully.

Maybe I'm reading too much into that statement, but it's almost as if Charlie is suggesting that his failed prophecies are an example of God now doing things in a new way. In other words, most people expect that a true prophet's prophecies will come true. But now God is doing things differently. He is allowing His angels to deliberately give Charlie false prophecies, or allowing Charlie to misinterpret His prophecies, in order to do things differently. This way God can separate those of us with "little minds" from Charlies' followers who presumably have large and open minds.

The whole thing is bizarre. But then again, I probably have a little mind and I guess so does the Archbishop of Denver who told us not to put any stock into Charlie's prophecies.

L Spinelli said...

Who are the friends and leaders Charlie refers to? Are they TNRS people or others?

This makes me wonder: exactly what was going on behind the scenes for the last six months?

Something doesn't sit right with continuing to consult with a supposed prophet who changed his definitive sign from God, never subject to interpretation...into an interpretation.

L Spinelli said...

Spinning Predictions — “If predictions were not fulfilled and no reason to think they were conditional, it is then to be believed that they are not of divine origin. False prophets do not allow themselves to be easily discouraged by their repeated failures. They always find some good reason to explain them away, or they pretend that the event is only delayed.” Father Auguste Poulain

Anonymous said...

To L.Spinelli, you are just proving that Fr. Poulain has a small mind and is trying to fit God into a box. Our God is a God of Surprises.

Fred Keyes said...

An article from La Civilita Cattolica which generally reflects the Holy Father's views is a strong repudiation of the theological beliefs of conservatives like Steve Bannon, and IMO, Charlie Johnston.

https://laciviltacattolica.com/june-2017/evangelical-fundamentalism-and-catholic-integralism-in-the-usa-a-surprising-ecumenism/

Fred Keyes said...

A comment on the La Civilita Cattolica article: If you want the *real* "broad sweep of things, this is it.

Anonymous said...

Indeed, Anon. @11:27,

Yes, who are we to believe? Fr. Poulain, a Jesuit theologian who wrote the classic on mysticism (The Graces of Interior Prayer) or a small-time political operative/used car salesman from Illinois like Charlie Johnston?

And if you have a minute, can you tell us if Charlie's promises on war with Islam and China, 26 million dead, the Regency, etc. are still valid? We're more than half-way through the year, and Charlie didn't bother to mention those, but I bet you can explain that because... SURPRISE!

Fred Keyes said...

Charlie says, "God is always startling, fresh, and new."

St. Paul says, "Remember your leaders who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teaching." [Heb 13:7-9]

L Spinelli said...

Anon @ 6:53 PM, 7/13:

Of course Charlie doesn't want anyone asking who he's talking to! The inevitable line of questioning will follow:

Since you admitted you couldn't have been talking to the Archangel Gabriel about the Presidential Prophecy, since you said "This was not from God", just who are you talking to now?

And he still expects us to take whatever he says at face value when he just might be talking to another Wormwood?

This whole thing has gone way beyond the absurd. Someone could write a bestselling satire about it at this point!

Anonymous said...

Fred,

Whose word are we to take? Charlie Johnston, a divorced talk-radio host with a sketchy background (full-service dating), or St. Paul?

Funny, how his supporters get this question wrong.

Anonymous said...

Yes, it's a cult. Or, as a traditionalist might say, invincible ignorance.


Patrick of SD says:
July 13, 2017 at 10:47 pm


Here we all stand at the edge of a dark precipice, awaiting great turmoil and suffering — no less than the Passion and Chastisement of the entire world — yet with unwavering hope, heeding divinely inspired guidance from a living prophet who has been instructed and refined in the crucible over decades by the Archangel Gabriel, Our Blessed Mother Mary, and Jesus Christ, Our Lord himself, praying for a spectacular Rescue from Heaven of biblical proportions… and still we are able to say:

“What’s up, Charlie?”

This is the coolest club ever!!

Jim D. said...

.If, next January, Barack Obama peacefully hands over the reins of power to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, I will declare myself unreliable and go away. But it will not happen that way, for God has appointed that this be a sign to you to fortify you to trust Him and choose the ordinary way to follow Him through the most frightening year for the globe in history. I appeal to you to quit trying to flatter yourself that you have figured out how God is going to accomplish this, for that way leads to destruction. Trust Him and follow Him whatever happens. I have told you true."

This man has started posting blogs again to his cult. He needs deliveance. The Archbishop clearly told peole to stay away. Please listen!

L Spinelli said...

Jim, I always thought Charlie would return, but not on this scale. It's like the failed Presidential Prophecy never happened.

Don't forget that he said in November 2016 that he would be wrong on something. That was actually the very first seed planted for a comeback!

Also remember his criticism of Locutions to the World (LttW). After LttW's own "Presidential Prophecy" tanked in 2015, that was it. The site disappeared and no further locutions (if there were any) were made public. There was no "further instruction" (by an unknown entity) or reinterpretation or spinning or whatever they're calling it over there.

This man isn't going to go away until something concrete is done. I don't know why Denver hasn't said anything since the spin began again in May, but as I said once before...they likely have more important things to be concerned with than a failed prophet.

This one, however, seems to be more crafty and cunning than most of the current crop of seers...

Anonymous said...

I think Charlie is done on 12/31/2017 - if there's no worldwide civil war, economic collapse, war with China, 26 million dead, the Regent, and Menses by midnight, and rescue by the Blessed Mother by the end of the year the gig is up.

Fred Keyes said...

Charlie is hedging his bets toward the end of his latest entry:

"I don’t know exactly what is going to happen or when, but if it does, I wanted to share with you some of the mainstays of what guide me in hopes that some of it may fortify you whatever challenges come. If the “invasion of Poland” moment comes, I will probably vanish for a short time to make camp in the mountains, to pray and seek instruction in the silence. It will be brief, certainly not as much as two weeks. But should it come, I do not want you to think I have fled or been taken."

Fred Keyes said...

Just a bit of practical advice, Charlie. The fee for a senior pass to National Parks is going up to $80. You can still get one for $10 if you hurry.

Anonymous said...

"I don’t know exactly what is going to happen or when, but if it does,....."

This statement is confusing. The first 11 words indicate that some unknown event is going to happen and the timing of it uncertain. Then after the comma, he uses the word "if". Huh? Over the course of a string of 15 words he contradicts himself. Is this unknown event going to happen, or isn't it?

I don't get it.

Little B

L Spinelli said...

not sure if anyone else has posted this, but I was thinking about what Charlie said “Obama would not finish out his term”……interesting that he’s still meeting with heads of state like he’s still in charge. just sayin.

Ummm...using Charlie's narrow interpretation of what the Archdiocese said not to revisit, this comment shouldn't have been posted.

But Beckita allowed it. It got likes. They're flouting the Archdiocese, and fairly brazenly too.

Mary H said...

At CJ's website, SteveBC takes on a critic in a less-than-persuasive post. The entire exchange below; it mentions this website (although SteveBC confuses Mystics with Mother of God forum):

Jim says:
July 14, 2017 at 2:36 pm


Charlie, out of intellectual honesty, post this OR I’m posting in Spirit Daily and Mystics of the Church, and explaining how you scrubbed all but positive responses.
[[Remainder and two other comments deleted by SteveBC]]



SteveBC says:
July 16, 2017 at 7:43 pm


Jim, being human, my first response to your emails was to be annoyed and try to figure out some way to needle you right back. But also as a human, I have the capacity to stop, rethink, and choose differently.

The fact is that we are all in this life together. As Charlie has pointed out so often, we are charged with helping God, as and when we can, to rescue *all* souls, not just those whom we like or who treat others with respect.

Personally, I bear you no animus. I don’t know you. I do wonder why you and a few others on MoG forum or SpiritDaily have such intense animus for Charlie. If you don’t think he is doing or teaching anything of value, why not just go your own way and ignore him and this community? Yet you appear not to be able to move on with your life. Life is short, Jim. Why spend it in a state of anger coupled with a desire to do harm?

When I was growing up, my mother told me a number of times that my own behavior and the kind of person I would become was closely connected with the company I chose to keep. Indeed, many successful people say that if one wants to be successful, one should associate with other successful people...
(continued below)

Mary H said...

...You are of course welcome to return to MoG forum or SpiritDaily and continue to consort with others who for some unknown-to-me reason insist on taking out their personal grievances on Charlie and who I have heard have created a number of different aliases so that they can appear to have a conversation about how terrible Charlie is. What a waste of their lives, to live in such a narcissistic solipsism. Do you really want to spend your days angry, having a conversation with 20 people who are actually only one or two people playing games with your head? My mother was always right about this.

Remember, I don’t know where you are right now, but God most certainly does, and He is increasingly asking each of us to Choose. Are you proud of the comments you recently wrote us? Do you think God will congratulate you for writing them when you meet the Being of Light after you die? I keep that image and reality ever foremost in my mind’s eye. Perhaps you should spend a little time meditating and praying on that moment in *your* future when you will meet that Being. It is sobering.

All of us here in this NRS community strive to love even as we debate. What is so wrong about that? And might it be due in large part to a man with a certain greatness of soul, named Charlie, who has constantly exemplified for us how we can help ourselves and each other become better people? We come here with open and questioning intellect and a loving heart. We have all combined to be a part of this community, filled with prayer and caring. It’s my blessing to have been asked to help this community grow in grace, to eschew anger for love, to seek to save souls rather than cause them to despair, and I am a better person because of this. And yes, it is my duty as one of the moderators to protect this community from people who come with anger, armed with sharp edges and seeking to draw blood in some sort of self-chosen crusade against … what exactly? Love and care? A seeking of God?

I will close by posing you a potential rescue for your soul and your sanity. First, consider the circle of ‘friends’ you have at MoG forum or SpiritDaily, who speak with anger, who hold in their hearts a desire for vengeance against a man they may never have met, and who see you only as a means to their own dark ends. Then consider the quiet and loving community here who would offer you true friendship if you approached us with respect, who have no axe to grind, no animus toward you, but only hold the Good for you. Then ask yourself, which community is better for your personal formation, for the formation of your soul?

It’s time for you to Choose, our potential friend Jim. Choose wisely.

Think about it, then make your Choice.

L Spinelli said...

Contrast this so-called "quiet and loving community here who would offer you true friendship if you approached us with respect, who have no axe to grind, no animus toward you, but only hold the Good for you" with testimony from someone who broke away - this is from Glenn's "Statement on false claim regarding Charlie Johnston's messages" article:

I posted off and on over the past 2 years as "A Quiet Person." I along with many others shared some of my greatest struggles and defeats. I felt supported by the community and I in turn felt like maybe I had been able to lift a few people up along the way. I figured I was in good standing because I had received a Christmas card from Charlie.

BUT, as that inauguration day approached I was overwhelmed with the realization that most of the people were strangers, including most especially Charlie and YD. It became so clear to me that anyone could present themselves as anyone and I felt compelled to push the issue.

Oh my goodness, the backlash! And what is absolutely incredible to me is that Charlie mocked me online for being sensitive (which I am but I don't need to be mocked for it). And then he made stuff up about me. Lies. It was really unthinkable at the time that such a thing could happen. And, sure enough, my reply was scrubbed considerably. Charlie "allowed" me to continue posting. But he left out the part in my reply that I would never post there again.

I did not bother to defend myself. I guess I just don't have that big of an ego. I mean, who cares? Besides, his really mean-spirited, unkind, and false witness against me revealed his character much better than anything I could have come up with.

For the past 2 years I thought that many, many people who have given their "Yes" to Jesus seemed to have particularly heavy burdens with missions to big for our broken nature to carry to completion. I figured further though that the Lord does not have time to wait for us to get it together to be saints. He needs things done NOW and will take anyone with a pulse who says yes. I figured that is where I come in and Charlie too, rough around the edges but fulfilling his mission.

Well now, after all of this I don't know and it it not given to me to know. But, I have close, long-term, ongoing relationships with two people with remarkable similarities to Charlie. Possible mental illness, with an emphasis on delusions of grandeur, demonic involvement, sin, and the hardening of heart that comes with that over time create toxic misery. From my personal experience, the similarities of their behavior to Charlie's, their reaction when questioned or challenged, the over-inflated view of themselves are shocking for me to witness.

In closing I think people who feel like they have been misled by Charlie might be interested in reading the article right here on this site written by Glenn about Sr. Magdelena of the Cross. She was a famous but false mystic who bamboozled almost everyone in her life including very important and famous people. The only ones who seem not to have fallen for her nonsense were St. Ignatious Loyola and St. John of the Criss. And who among us have the kind of discernment of those two saints?

I think we might be a step or two closer now though!

Anonymous said...

Good comment, L. Spinelli.

Anonymous said...

Charlie scrubbing posts - never!
Charlie being nasty - never!
Steve BC scrubbing posts - never!
Charlie and Steve BC are men of God, they would never do such things.
This is a quote from Steve BC a few days ago proving these nefarious activities do not take place:

" All of us here in this TNRS community strive to love even as we debate. What is so wrong about that? And might it be due in large part to a man with a certain greatness of soul, named Charlie, who has constantly exemplified for us how we can help ourselves and each other become better people? We come here with open and questioning intellect and a loving heart."

Steve BC says this in response to a JIM who says his posts were deleted and tried to post them, but someone at TRNS deleted the posts that JIM tried to post.

Once again dialogue is allowed, there is no evidence otherwise.


Anonymous said...

In regard to L Spinelli's comment on July 16 at 10:48 about what someone posted about Obama at Charlie's site (which comment only got two likes), Beckita replied:
"SanSan, in these months since the inauguration, there are actually many who have made comments such as yours. Two important points about this: 1.Charlie has never attempted to reinterpret his prophetic error. 2. The Archdiocese has asked us not to do so either. We must let it rest as the error it was. God bless you."
(That comment got 6 likes).

The commenter replied "mea culpa" So Spinelli's comment doesn't report the whole thing honestly. It would be good if you held yourselves to the same standards you insist on for Charlie.

Anonymous said...

Out of curiosity what would those standards be?

L Spinelli said...

I didn't deliberately decide not to report the whole comment. I don't read Charlie's blog regularly, so I was unaware of the follow-up comment.

I'm not sure what standards you're talking about. I have only one, to find the truth.

L Spinelli said...

Are you suggesting that we're holding Charlie to an incredibly high standard? Well, once again, none of us here are claiming to speak for God...

Mary H said...

The root of the debate between Anon above and L. Spinelli revolves around obedience and docility to the Catholic Church. I disagree strongly with the notion Charlie and his followers have been docile and obedient to the Church during its discernment process.

Early on, Charlie was highly critical of one member of the archdiocese commission, saying a particular priest had a personal dislike and had conspired with a blogger to damage his (Charlie's) reputation. Charlie also dismissed a published warning from the Archdiocese of Omaha, saying -- as he does so often -- the warning Omaha sent was nearly libelous. Then there was the vicious attack by Charlie's followers on the spokewoman for Archbishop Aquila when she issued a public statement calling into question an ambiguous post by Beckita -- which also urged Catholics to avoid promoting or spinning Charlie's inaccurate visions (with no language limiting this to the presidential prophecy alone). Although Beckita and SteveBC acknowledged that ruling, Beckita cleared angry, threatening responses and quickly reverted to her pattern of posting statements assuming Charlie was actually hearing from God, the Saints and the Angels.

Charlie contradicted himself by coming out of "retirement" so quickly and posting his political thoughts and hints of additional "revelation." All this reflects a spirit of disobedience and pride.

Anonymous said...

The only point I was making in my comment above to L Spinelli, is that by reporting that comment on Charlie's blog the way Spinelli did, gave the wrong impression of what was happening. If Beckita's comment wasn't there when Spinelli viewed the blog, it is there now and has been for some time. In fairness to Beckita, I'm just pointing out that Spinelli's interpretation was proven wrong by that comment.
The standards I'm referring to are simply to be fair to people, and to present the truth, and not spin something to the detriment of another. Many here have seriously criticized Charlie, and certainly there is nothing wrong in disagreeing with his ideas. But to go beyond that and accuse him or others of having bad will, etc., is to judge their hearts. Something you cannot do unless you think you are God!

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 8.24 pm. I'm glad that you pointed out that what L Spinelli said gave the wrong impression "In fairness to Beckita, I'm just pointing out that Spinelli's interpretation was proven wrong by that comment." " If Beckita's comment wasn't there when Spinelli viewed the blog, it is there now and has been for some time."

Let's assume what you said is correct and we'll move on to your next comment "The standards I'm referring to are simply to be fair to people, and to present the truth, and not spin something to the detriment of another" - Bravo, finally someone from Charlie's side actually admitting to be fair. You may have walked into this one and not have realized that this has been an issue with a lot of us vis a vis Charlie and his site for a while. If you have been following us for awhile one of the biggest issues with Charlie and his site is his use of scrubbing, deleting and selectively deleting posts. I had mentioned this awhile back anything on Charlie's site can not no longer be trusted to be the truth because of the tools I had just mentioned, even Charlie himself has said "this is my site, you have no right to comment on my site" - by accusing L Spinelli of giving the wrong impression you are actually supporting our contention that Charlie does the same thing - remember Charlie has said numerous times "this is my site, you have no right to comment on my site" - Charlie has given himself carte blanche to do as he pleases.

However, your next quote is the best - "But to go beyond that and accuse him ( her ) or others of having bad will, etc., is to judge their hearts. Something you cannot do unless you think you are God!" - Exactly! Charlie fits this to a tee. Charlie has accused others of having bad will and as you say this is "to judge their hearts" which Charlie now fits, but your last quote is the best "Something you cannot do unless you think you are God!" - and what do Charlie and his followers think and have fallen in this trap that you say - Charlie can do no wrong, he is treated as God.

So by accusing L Spinelli you are also pointing the finger at Charlie and Charlie has way more evidence against him

Even SteveBC is keeping up the tradition of scrubbing posts and deleting select comments, I'm the one that set Charlie up on this issue by posting on other sites the comments Charlie would not allow. But his worst scrubbing is the selective variety to make himself look good.

But back to the L Spinelli comments, with all the scrubbing, changing, deleting that goes on at that site and proven by the SteveBC comment with JIM as little as a few days ago, there is no way anyone can accuse L Spinelli of anything because by his own admission Charlie can change, delete or add anything - there is no honesty on his site and by your own admission this is not fair.


L Spinelli said...

Great post, Anon above.

I don't think Charlie and his team ever expected "A Quiet Person" to come over here and tell us what we suspected all along, the deleting and scrubbing posts and Charlie wasn't what he seemed. She was a regular there for a long time. She surely didn't expect Charlie and company to turn on her when she posted her story of what happened with the so-called caring and loving community, i. e. it was all an illusion.

You're correct that Charlie's omissions vs. mine were for completely different reasons. As I said, I rarely go over there, so I had no idea that Beckita followed up. Charlie scrubbed A Quiet Person's comments to make her look foolish for wanting to quit his wonderful community. It backfired on him and his team, I'll say that much.

Fred Keyes said...

Those of you who have followed more closely: Did Charlie give dates for "the rescue?"

Anonymous said...

Yes, Fred, he gave at least two dates! First date he announced was October 2017, which he gave to Michael Brown of Spirit Daily some years ago. Then he changed his mind/"his angel corrected him"/whatever and the new date is now toward the end of this year.

Charlie J. was very clear that the Rescue would come after a series of events Glenn details in one of these articles (don't have time to look now!) A war against Islam and China; the fall of the American government and the rise of a Regent ("Heaven" asked him to draft rules for a new government); the death of 26 million people, etc.

What will be interesting is to see how Charlie and Beckita try to explain away the failure of any of these prophecies, although I bet they will try!!

Fred Keyes said...

As pointed out more and more here, the likelihood of *any* of Charlie's basic predictions coming true grows less and less possible as the days fly by. Of course we know that nothing is impossible for God, but such miraculous doings are rare. Grace builds on nature, as Aquinas said. It is the way God works normally and He seems to be telling us that we should expect a natural flow events to continue.

Note that despite the warnings at Fatima the flow of current events followed a track based on human decisions. The warnings and the miracles (the spinning sun; "a night illuminated by an unknown light ...") served as encouragement to the faithful, similar to the purpose of the Book of Revelation according to scripture scholars.

The whole idea of someone writing the rules for a new government in a couple of short blog entries is presumptuous and imperious on its face. It took months of debate and thousands of hours to develop the Constitution of the United States in a simpler time. And yet a pseudo-intellectual, political operator is entrusted with writing the rules of an entire complex society out of whole cloth?

Anonymous said...

To the skeptics above, Charlie might have been wrong about the presidential prediction, and he may also prove to be wrong about the war with China, 26 million dead, world wide civil wars, Menses, the Regency, the rescue by the end of the year, and Mayberry RFD. But even if he is wrong about all those specifics, the fact is Charlie is still correct in the grand sweep of things.

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:39,

My Aunt Tilly predicted Trump would be elected when he first announced his run, which was a MUCH BETTER PREDICTION than Charlie's. SHE gets the grand sweep of things, too. Are you saying all those other predictions are MERE DETAILS? My gut feeling is Charlie parrots all the things he reads on right-wing websites and you take his second-hand wisdom as proving he has some special wisdom. Plus you all only have Charlie's word that his insights are spot on. "Grand scheme of things?" My Aunt Tilly would tell you what to do with that :)

Anonymous said...

You are trying to put God in a box. He evidently changed His mind about the president due to all the prayers. God is not bound to act in a certain way. None of us can prove Charlie is not true. He has been under spiritual direction and angelic direction his whole life.

Cuckoo for cocoa puffs said...

"To the skeptics above, Charlie might have been wrong about the presidential prediction, and he may also prove to be wrong about the war with China, 26 million dead, world wide civil wars, Menses, the Regency, the rescue by the end of the year, and Mayberry RFD. But even if he is wrong about all those specifics, the fact is Charlie is still correct in the grand sweep of things."
_______________________________________

You forgot the worldwide economic collapse, the battle with "political Islam" and the subsequent mass conversion of all Muslims, the collapse of governments worldwide, and the "Jericho march" to Washington D.C.

But I do want to thank you for your comment because I laughed so hard at it I almost peed myself! Your last sentence was absolutely brilliant!

Cuckoo for cocoa puffs said...

"None of us can prove Charlie is not true. He has been under spiritual direction and angelic direction his whole life."
____________________________________

Yes! And the 50+ years of so called angelic spiritual direction has revealed itself in a vast array of stunning prophecies! Only one tiny little problem though: not one has ever come true, and several have already failed. But hey, don't let ourselves get bogged down in silly things like reality or facts! The skeptics here are just prophet deniers that let silly facts get in the way. I for one can't wait for Mayberry RFD coming to a town near me in a few short months! We just got to get through the global economic collapse, successive global governmental collapses, war with Islam, war with China, etc. all culminating with the "Rescue" by year end.

All you deniers here just remember that Charlie has been under spiritual direction and angelic direction all his life!

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:36,

How do you know Charlie has been under "angelic" direction his whole life? ONLY BECAUSE CHARLIE TOLD YOU, right? ISN'T IT LIKELY THAT CHARLIE IS AS MISTAKEN IN THAT NOTION AS HE'S BEEN IN HIS FAILED PREDICTIONS ABOUT POLITICS?

Anon, haven't you read the statement of the archdiocese urging Catholics not to condone or attempt to reinterpret Charlie's failed predictions to make them true? The Denver spokeswoman talked about PREDICTIONS (plural) and used the word INACCURATE and the dates 2017 AND 2017. Didn't Charlie's own archbishop urge Catholics to search for the truth in the Gospel. He's trying to warn people away from danger!!

Beckita, SteveBC and others who promote Charlie Johnston are WORKING AGAINST THE CHURCH'S DIRECTIONS.

Fred Keyes said...

Anon at 2:39: I'm not sure what "grand sweep of things" means; do you? That we have been living in extremely uncertain times wasn't something anyone who was paying attention needed to be told.

The direction in which history seems to be going is not a secret or in need of prophecy. It is the particulars that Charlie hung his hat on that point to the fact he is a false prophet. If his scenario and timing are wrong, then he's in the same boat as all the rest of us who already understand the "great sweep of things." I.e. we know all the elements of danger today--North Korea and China perhaps chief among them. And Russia, but Charlie thinks they will be our allies not the dangerous enemy that informed people are aware of.

There is nothing we need to know that we don't know already. Private revelations, even when they are genuine, are not necessary to lead a good life and make it to heaven. IMO, Charlie's scare-mongering is just a distraction that sucks people into a politically-biased set of beliefs, wrapped in a questionable mantle of religiosity.

L Spinelli said...

None of us can prove Charlie is not true. He has been under spiritual direction and angelic direction his whole life.

Charlie was under "direction" by something that was not of God for at least eight years - that is, when he got this prophecy that we've been debating, the very one that he staked his credibility on.

Mary H said...

Are we still not supposed to say Beckita lives? It's written in her bio, which appears with ALL HER POSTS at Charlie's website:

"About Beckita
Beckita, widow, mother and grandmother, lives in MISSOULA, MONTANA.
"

And, of course, the copyright on the website now belongs to "REBECCA HESSE" is printed on every web page!! In addition to which, her fellow Charlie followers posted messages after the recent Montana earthquake.

All of which means that it is NO LONGER SUPER SECRET information, not that it ever was!!

Mary H said...

Also, SteveBC seems to be saying Charlie's prophecies for 2017 are tied to Israel and congressional work on abortion. This is something CHARLIE NEVER CLAIMED.

SteveBC says:
July 26, 2017 at 1:04 pm

This issue and the question of how we treat Israel and its land seem to be two pivots on which our experience here in the USA will depend as we progress through the rest of this year. Let us pray that on both points our country Chooses well.


When will Charlie and his fans stop moving the goal posts on his failed prophecies? This is absolutely what Archbishop Aquila told them not to do!

Anonymous said...

Mary, I noticed that post by SteveBC as well. I thought Charlie told his followers that the storm must come and it was foolish to pray that it be mitigated because the storm was the cure. But here SteveBC seems to suggest that the effects of the storm are in some way related to how the USA treats Israel and how Congress deals with abortion. I seem to recall some posts by SteveBC a year or so ago where he was telling people about these apoctolyptic dreams he was having. It seems that everyone these days wants to be a mystic.

Fred Keyes said...

Marh, you can tie anything to "the grand sweep of things."

Fred Keyes said...

I meant to address that to Mary H....

Anyhow, I'm becoming a believer in the Rescue, I think. The White House seems to be coming undone, lately in the person of Mr. Scaramucci. We need a rescue, soon!

Anonymous said...

I always had the feeling that Charlie Johnston and his site was a "honey pot" for people of similar ilk as Charlie. Charlie even gave it away once or twice when he said he could "track down" anyone by their user name. Remember the time one when one guy was railing against him and he gave details on who this person was just by the user name, and then he scrubbed what he said because he had gone too far, even some of his regulars were taken aback by Charlie over this.
Steve and Beckita know that whoever is left on their site are hard-care believers in Charlie, they can lead them around as they please. No matter what Charlie says or does or gets wrong they still believe in him. If you noticed a regular by the name of "Crew Dog" was getting a little too radical for them and Steve BC had to reign him in. Everything at the site is controlled, that's why you have scrubbing going on to give a certain slant to the their beliefs.
Even the people that come from that site over to here are hard-core Charlites, some say they are while others pretend they are not. No matter what anyone says they still believe in Charlie.
The prophet/mystic Charlie Johnston is a bust, that part is a complete failure. He and his core followers are trying to re-brand and re-package him as a catholic writer/scholar. They figure this may work to "honey-pot" people.
Based on what we have seen to date or not seen for that matter, my advise is to stay away and stay far away from his site.

Formerly duped by Charlie said...

Did anyone read Charlie's three part "Rules for Regency"? In part 1 he states:

"Back in 2007 I was ordered to contemplate what a world in tatters would look like, a world where all our institutions had collapsed catastrophically – and develop a plan to get a shattered people back on its feet, filled with enough confidence and trust to confront the great challenges of the latter part of the Storm. "

So let me get this straight. Charlie's angel ordered him to develop a plan to get us all back on our feet. And in his "Rules for Regency" Charlie describes in grandiose detail his plan for Religion, Human Rights, Federalism, Accountability, Subsidiarity, Justice, Education, War and Peace, and Energy resources, to get the country up and running again after final crash.

And at the end of this series, Charlie states:

As I said when I began this, the items I have written here do not even amount to the tip of the iceberg of what I have been working at these last nine years. But they do illustrate the principles – and types of principles – that will be used during this critical period between the final crash and the definitive Rescue that will allow us to endure and prepare the way for Rescue. Come Lord Jesus!

I wonder whether Charlie and his followers thought that Charlie would be the Regent. In any event his followers are running out of time. In 5 months it will be 2018 and not one of his predictions have come true, despite that fact that he has "told us true."

Glenn Dallaire said...


My ongoing thanks and appreciation goes out to all who have commented here in recent weeks/months. In my opinion there has really been some great comments and interesting points brought forth for consideration.

May God bless all who visit here.
Glenn Dallaire

Bemused said...

Be sure to tune in this Friday to listen to the first ever Charlie Johnston podcast. Check the latest TNRS post for details.

Anonymous said...

Right. Charlie is taking questions, carefully screened questions, from his adoring followers. Because he is so important, and has all the answers, right?

I wonder who is paying for the podcasts, the website and the printing of his book. Charlie claims to have taken a vow of poverty, so it can't be him.

I can't wait until Charlie attempts to go into a public forum and pull his "sherpa" act.

Anonymous said...

YES, CHARLIE, US FOLKS HERE IN RIVER CITY ARE STILL WAITING FOR THOSE BAND UNIFORMS!!!

SteveBC says:
July 30, 2017 at 8:59 pm

Charlie, I think it might help people if you were to clear away some of the prophetic framework that you constructed for us in the few years before the Inauguration. I know you are very constrained on what you can tell us now, and it is clear that much of what you have been taught has been for your training and not for us to know.

But the change since the Inauguration has meant that there are many large concepts and small details from the prior descriptions that you told us in the 2014-2016 period that are in effect clogging up the minds of many people in this community.

It seems pretty clear to me that you are taking a different approach to what you are being exposed to and taught these days. That is leading you to attempt to get us all to open ourselves to something new, to get us to be alert but not tied down to any specific milestones or expectations.

However, many people (myself sometimes included) still hold in our minds a number of ideas and bits of information that can have the effect of obscuring our ability to open to the new.

Is it possible that you could help clear some of these already existing ideas away? Don’t tell us what is coming. Instead, tell us what we have heard may be coming that is no longer coming or can no longer be understood in the old way.

Help us open up to the bigger picture by tossing overboard some of the previously defined things that no longer apply. Unclog us! 🙂

L Spinelli said...

Talk about crafty and cunning! Charlie vowed not to make any more public appearances in January. This technically IS a public appearance, but isn't because it isn't live!

These podcasts will consist of Charlie reading and answering questions posted on TNRS that he picks. What happened to the fictional Rosary meditations?

That's how many pledges from January broken now?

Mary H said...

L. Spinelli,

It is less crafty and cunning than it is needy and pathetic. Charlie just cannot let go of the public spotlight. He's like the Gloria Swanson character in Sunset Boulevard, just waiting for his close-up...

Bemused said...

Interesting exchange on TNRS blog.

SteveBC posts:
Charlie, I think it might help people if you were to clear away some of the prophetic framework that you constructed for us in the few years before the Inauguration.

And then Walter posts:
Agreed, and well said SteveBC. Will there still be a complete economic collapse, will our money be worthless, will there still be a Regent, will 26 million still die, will there be war with China, will there still be a Menses who will deceive us, and will there be a rescue in late 2017? These are the prophecies that Charlie has told us, but where do they stand today?

So looking at this exchange I'm thinking that we will finally get some clarity from Charlie Johnston as to whether ANY of his predictions are still valid.

But then Beckita jumps in with the comment:

With great respect for SteveBC’s request, the truth is: we "don’t" need it. We seriously don’t need it. My chiming in was nothing short of falling into the temptation to want to *know* about details. To what avail? How will it truly help any of us better man our posts?

So Charlie Johnston makes a dozen or so very specific predictions. The first prediction of the presidency fails, and now Beckita things there's no need for him to explain for us the status of the other predictions.


Anonymous said...

Someone above said Charlie made a vow of poverty. No, he didn't, and he never said he did. He said that he lives a simple, poor lifestyle with a minimum of material goods.

The radio show: Beckita is inviting questions from people. So, anyone is free to ask. I see nothing wrong with that; it gives anyone an opportunity to ask questions of Charlie, and of course a selection of them will be made. You are free to ask questions too. But if Charlie is what you say he is--a crank, etc.--why do you even care? Remember Gamaliel's principle.

also, have you been following the news lately about the missiles from North Korea? Charlie said the storm would break through North Korea. It just might.

Anonymous said...

According to Gerald Celente the sabre rattling between the USA and North Korea will continue but the issue will be settled and there will not be a war. Charlie can thank Denis Rodman for screwing up his plans the last few months - God works in strange ways and Denis Rodman was that strange way.

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:80,

Why even care about Charlie? Indeed, he is not worthy of the attention he's gotten based on his track record of poverty, or his personal holiness (he has admitted to a sinful life), but he has told lies about Our Lord, Our Lady and the angels, and has attempted to claim spiritual power and temporal authority. He has gravely misled the faithful and -- even now, after two negative rulings from his archbishop -- presumes to offer spiritual advice and leadership.

What lies, you may ask? He says Heaven has groomed him from an early age to guide humanity through its darkest hour, "The Storm," showering him with unprecedented favors and detailed inside information about the future. However, he also says during the time of visitations he was living sinfully and the angels did not rebuke him or insist he change his ways. Do angels overlook sin? Would Our Lord and Our Lady not bother to mention these "details?"

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:80,

Something Charlie does not mention to his followers, but something I would ask him about, although this would never get past his censors.

From the Antioch News-Reporter, March 2, 1990 of Antioch, IL. This is the “Politically Speaking:” column:

Although the list of former general assistance recipients is closed in Libertyville and other townships, those in Avon Twp. remember one particularly sad case.

It happened in December 1987 and January 1988. A mother of two was down on her luck. The rent was due. Her husband had left her for another woman. The electricity had been turned off for non-payment. She and her mother turned to Avon Twp.

She was given $100 to help meet the month’s rent. The Community Action Program helped pay the past due electric bill so Com Ed could turn the lights on. More help would have been forthcoming if the mother had not been too embarrassed to apply for food stamps.

Today the mother, Carrie Johnston, is making it on her own.

So is the ex-husband. He wants to make it big as a Dist. 4 County Board member in the Tuesday, March 20, primary. His name is Charles Johnston.


https://ia800706.us.archive.org/9/items/AntiochNews03021990/1990-03-02.pdf


Anonymous said...

Well, well. Nice work Anon @ 7:51 am. To be truthful though there are 2 sides to the story - I try not to judge based on a story, but it doesn't make Charlie look good, especially around Christmas. However, this is an excellent article to quiz Charlie about as it would clear the air, but like you said it would never make it past his censors.

Anonymous said...

Someone said above: "According to Gerald Celente the sabre rattling between the USA and North Korea will continue but the issue will be settled and there will not be a war."

Great, I get it. Follow Gerald Celente! He's the all-knowing prophet! And he doesn't even claim divine inspiration!

Mack said...

Anon who posted the news story from 1990 might want to find out if that was one of the libelous pieces against Charlie for which he sued and won, as he states here and NB-The Antioch News Reporter stopped publishing in 1997, which fits Charlie's timeline here:

"A little over two decades ago, an Illinois newspaper chain decided it was going to destroy me to elevate the slate of candidates it preferred. In most jurisdictions, it is brutally hard for someone who is classified as a “public figure” to win a libel judgment. Illinois at the time was the toughest. To prove libel there, you had to prove that the publication had shown extreme reckless disregard of the facts AND their allegation must, at some point, falsely accuse the person of a crime. Otherwise, they could merrily tell any lies they want about a “public figure.” Their nearly year-long campaign did some damage to me, but it was not getting quite the traction they hoped. So they got more and more frantic. Finally, they accidentally stepped into an area that would have made me guilty of a misdemeanor, if true. That opened the door. They thought they were very clever by avoiding any allegations that were criminal, but once they unintentionally opened the door, all their provably false non-criminal accusations became evidence of actual malice on their part. Their refusal to ever call me to get my response became evidence of reckless disregard of the facts. Once their Chicago attorney finished his day-long deposition of me and found I would not crumble on the witness stand, they almost immediately began settlement offers.

As I noted in a comment, that newspaper group no longer exists. It was not the $24,000 settlement and apology that did them in, but their skyrocketing libel insurance rates that took a heavy toll. Publications do NOT settle libel suits with public figures unless they are forced to, for the nuisance suits that would follow would bankrupt them. My attorney told me I was only the third public figure in a decade to prevail in such a suit in Illinois."

Mack


Mack said...

For anyone who will claim that Charlie was lying about the libel settlement, here is the newspaper account of it:

Johnston gets settlement



An insurance company
representing Lakeland
Newspapers has made an
out-of-court settlement in-
volving a libel suit brought
by a 1989 candidate for the
Lake County Board.

Charles Johnston of
Round Lake Beach has re-
ceived a negotiated $22,500
settlement from Fireman's
Fund Insurance Co.

The agreement was negotiated between lawyers for
the insurance company and
Johnston's attorney, Atty.
Rudy Magna of Gurnee.



https://archive.org/stream/AntiochNews11151991/1991-11-15_djvu.txt


I think that Mr Dallaire, the owner of this site, needs to be careful about allowing people to post things that may very well be libelous. It is not enough to say "I have a hands off no-moderation of comments policy." If libel is being posted, how is that in accordance with truth and charity? What if others did that to you, Mr Dallaire? How would you react?

Mack

Anonymous said...

Dear Mack,

What is the criminal act being posited in the article cited from the -- available online -- story of Charlie's ex-wife needing assistance? It is not a crime to seek assistance. It is not a crime to leave your wife for another woman. This cannot be the misdemeanor Charlie referred to.

Do you know it is this particular article is referenced in Charlie's libel action? How so? Are you in touch with Charlie? Are you his spokesman?

Are you also aware Charlie had left the newspaper that published this article after being its managing editor for a relatively short time? His libel suit was against his former colleagues and/ employer. Did the newspaper publish an apology or admit wrongdoing in any way for this story?

Right now, this is publicly available information on someone who still insists he is a public figure.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mack,

...As I noted in a comment, that newspaper group no longer exists. It was not the $24,000 settlement and apology that did them in, but their skyrocketing libel insurance rates that took a heavy toll. Publications do NOT settle libel suits with public figures unless they are forced to, for the nuisance suits that would follow would bankrupt them...

Well, Charlie disputes the amount, he claims $24,000 rather than $22,500. That looks like lawyer's fees to me. I would guess the out of court settlement was made to save money in the long run; insurers often settle.

As it happens, Charlie is completely wrong about the fate of the newspaper chain. Lakeland did not succumb to skyrocketing libel insurance. Bloomberg (cited below) published information showing the chain continued to exist continuously from its founding in 1956 through at least December 2005, when it became a subsidiary of Shaw Media. The Illinois Newspaper Project at the University of Illinois (below) indicates that this was indeed the same company that published the Antioch News.

Charlie, as a political animal, would know the chain was up and operating well after his suit!

http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=24949511

http://www.library.illinois.edu/inp/participant_results.php?location=Lakeland%20Publishers




Anonymous said...

Mack,

I should add that this whole business about Charlie leaving his wife for another woman and her needing public assistance after is something I would ask Charlie about during the podcast. Charlie has made his life and the alleged training for his purportedmission a focus of a very public campaign. The only thing he has ever offered as proof was his word. How good is that word? Should he be believed? Is he a moral and upright person, worthy of an audience?

In the same vein, I would like to know more about Charlie's DUI arrest in the late 1990s. I understand he was forced to leave a post on a campaign due to the arrest. Although he was later acquitted questions remained, for example, why he refused a breathalyzer test (which pretty much guarantees you'll be taken in).

Now that Charlie is once again seeking a public platform -- despite his pledge to leave the scene after his failed Presidential Prophecy -- questions about his past deserve answers.

Mack said...

To Anonymous: Here are your points to which I respond:

"What is the criminal act being posited in the article cited from the etc."
No, it's not a criminal act, but it's meant to impugn Charlie's character, as if he abandoned his wife and gave no support. He said the newspaper ran a campaign against him and only at a certain point talked about a misdemeanor, so this is obviously one of their other cheap shots at him.



"Do you know it is this particular article is referenced in Charlie's libel action? How so? Are you in touch with Charlie? Are you his spokesman?"
It's not clear exactly what stories they ran, but I think it's likely this was part of the libelous stories. I am not in touch with Charlie and am not his spokesman. I am just someone interested in the truth of things, and even if I disagree with someone, I want to insure that lies and slander are not part of any supposedly Christian discussion.


"Are you also aware Charlie had left the newspaper that published this article after being its managing editor for a relatively short time? His libel suit was against his former colleagues and/ employer. Did the newspaper publish an apology or admit wrongdoing in any way for this story?"
So what? They paid the settlement, which is an admission of guilt.


"Right now, this is publicly available information on someone who still insists he is a public figure."
As part of the libelous stories ran against him, no, it is not public "information" but public lies and slander, which should have no part in Christian discussions. Do you as a Christian and a Catholic approve of lies and slander?

Mack

Anonymous said...

No question about fact there was a lawsuit, Mack, but you are leaping to the conclusion 1) that this is article on Charlie's wife is the basis of it, and 2) that this is false. To my mind, this story contains seriously disturbing information, which is very specific and includes places, dates and amounts. That tends to give it credibility.

You insist a settlement is an automatic admission of guilt. My lawyer friends say not. Settlements are quite common. As for this case, the available court record online merely lists it as dismissed with prejudice, which means it cannot be refiled.

Charlie presumes to give spiritual advice to Catholics, yet he has publicly acknowledged he lived a sexually immoral life, including "full-service" dating. Isn't that enough to raise concerns?

Anonymous said...

Hey, Anon (Aug 1 at 8:58),

St. Augustine, St. Matthew, St. Mary Magdalene... need I go on.

Your last line is petty and ignorant.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 10:25, I don't see your point, Anon @ 8:58 raises a valid question which has been raised numerous times by Charlie himself, Charlie has pointed out his sex life, in fact Charlie even said something to the effect that if he met the right woman at this point in time, he might need to go to confession after. Charlie needs to answer the tough questions to clear the air otherwise these debates will go on forever.

Anonymous said...

To Anon above - Gerald Celente has a good track record, he claims no ability of prophecy, only trends, he even admits that some of his trends have been wrong, but he admits it. My point is if you want to see what the future will look like, he is one good forecaster, his track record is far better than Charlie.

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:53,

Really? You don't see my point? I just gave three examples of folks who led notoriously sinful lives, later repented and made fruitful. Seems like St. Augustine and St. Matthew went on to give plenty of spiritual advice to Catholics, no doubt having to endure being constantly reminded of their sinful past from petty and ignorant people. Apparently you both think it's more pressing for Charlie to answer your "tough questions to clear the air otherwise these debates will go on forever" than it is to be truly Catholic and exercise charity. Well, you go on thinking that, but I tell you that these debates will most definitely NOT go on forever. Better that everyone got their own spiritual lives in order so it doesn't go so bad when God is the one asking the tough questions.

Jackisback said...

Anonymous at 11:21 PM said:

--begin quoted text--
Better that everyone got their own spiritual lives in order so it doesn't go so bad when God is the one asking the tough questions.
--end quoted text--

And there you have it. Yet another Charlie defender asserts the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy in an attempt to cow his critics into silence. He ascribes to God something that he merely wants to believe will happen to others. But perhaps this particular Charlie defender hasn't spent enough time reading Charlie's viewpoint on using that logical fallacy with respect to God. Quoting Charlie:

"We all have a desire to appeal to authority – and what better authority to appeal to than God, Himself? Yet when we attribute to God what we merely want to believe ourselves, it is the worst form of bearing false witness – bearing false witness against God, which is a form of blasphemy."

Making a veiled threat of something "bad" happening to the discerning individuals on this thread, vis-a-vis God, if we don't cease debating the veracity of Charlie's claims to speak with God, the archangel Gabriel, Jesus and Mary? Ahhh, now that's true Christian charity!

Anonymous said...

C'mon, Jack. You could critique a good chunk of Proverbs using your same logic. Discern away. But we will be judged on our charity, or lack of it. Here's something you might find refreshing. Try discerning and considering something as a charitable rebuke every once in a while, rather than defaulting to your comfortable way of thinking.

Jackisback said...

Anonymous at 12:41 AM said:
--begin quoted text—
C'mon Jack. You could critique a good chunk of Proverbs using your same logic.
--end quoted text--
Ahh. Very nice - a Johnstonian reply that in one short sentence compounds a logical fallacy with a combination of multiple logical fallacies (sorry but this will take multiple entries to respond; taken together, my responses will likely seem uncharitable in the extreme; however, that is not my intent, which hopefully you will see if you read the whole thing):
1. A repeat of the Appeal to Authority fallacy - this time it is an inappropriate comparison by Anonymous of his veiled threat at 11:21 PM with King Solomon of Proverbs. No one here is daft enough to consider Anonymous or Charlie to be on a par with King Solomon, because that "begs the question" - more on that in number 6 below. At least we can be thankful that Anonymous limits his appeal to authority to Solomon rather than again reaching for God when engaging in this fallacy.
2. The Incredulity fallacy - embodied in the introductory "C'mon Jack" - as if anyone could possibly take the substance of my critique seriously - and/or implying that I am alone among a group of many thousands of faithful Catholic discerners who are all in agreement with Anonymous' point of view and equally shocked/incredulous at my way of thinking. The expression of incredulousness does not make the claim which follows it valid.

continued...

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:22,

I am anon 10:52. This is my first comment since my 10:52 one; you've been quoting someone else. There are a number of different people here.

Yes, some saints had sordid pasts, but they DID NOT SIN WHILE THEY WERE UNDER ANGELIC DIRECTION AND RECEIVING VISITS FROM OUR LORD, OUR LADY. Habitual sin is not compatible with a lifetime of almost unprecedented graces.

Jackisback said...

continued from prior post:

3. Burden of Proof fallacy – Anonymous employs an implied shifting of the burden of proof vis-a-vis the notion that, because Proverbs is recognized authentic prophecy, authored by an authentic prophet, and because my argument against Anonymous' use of the Appeal to Authority fallacy "could be" made against "a good chunk of Proverbs," the burden of proof “should shift” to me, where I must now clear this new hurdle. Because "a good chunk of Proverbs" also contains what appear to be logically invalid claims/prophecies (by virtue of the text having visually similar appeal-to-authority type language) I am now somehow required to convince the reader that the referenced "good chunk of Proverbs" MUST have been invalidly made by Solomon, in order for me to logically expect anyone to accept that Anonymous' veiled threat (about how "bad" things might go for us when God asks tough questions) in his prior post was invalidly made (or for anyone to accept my view that Charlie's own appeals to authority - especially the "sign from God" - were invalidly made). This is highly inappropriate - and utterly illogical - because the burden of proof that "things may go bad" for us with God if we continue to put Charlie's assertions to discerning debate rests upon Anonymous, for he raised the assertion. [Anonymous, having made no claim to be a prophet, cannot know the mind of God.] It is not up to me - there is no requirement upon me - to prove that God will not do as Anonymous asserts (it's the other way 'round). The same concept applies with respect to Charlie's assertions of prophet-hood. The burden of proof rests upon and remains upon Charlie; it isn't up to me to prove beyond all doubt that Charlie is not a prophet, with the implication that if I should fail to do so, by some tiny, narrow, sliver, then he must be a genuine prophet by default, in lieu of my meeting a shifted, newly-created-out-of-thin-air, burden of disproof. Charlie made the claim of being a genuine and virtually life-long prophet. He has the burden of proof, and, so far, has not come close meeting that burden. It is especially egregious, to the point of treating us all like we're stupid, when this Burden of Proof fallacy is asserted in tandem with a citation of some authentic prophet of the past (whether it be Jonah, Jeremiah, Abraham - a favorite of Charlie's – Solomon, Joan of Arc, etc.) or a Saint (e.g., Matthew, Mary Magdalene, Augustine). I discuss at more length why this is the case in #6 below. In the latter case of the three saints, none of them claimed supernatural conversations/experiences with God during the time of their "sinful pasts" of which they later repented (a Nonsequitur logical fallacy).


continued...

Jackisback said...

continued from prior post...
4. Straw Man Argument fallacy - Anonymous' assertion is guilty of this fallacy because I wasn't actually the source of the substantive case of "bearing false witness" or "blasphemy" by use of the Appeal to Authority fallacy; the source/substance of that argument comes from Charlie. There's that, and the fact that I am not on record as having made any Appeal to Authority criticism against King Solomon, the author of Proverbs, and I know of no one who has done so (not even Charlie). Yet Anonymous creates such a person out of thin air - the Straw Man - and implies that I should be required to defend the Straw Man's absurd conclusion that Solomon, ergo, must be a false prophet by virtue of his admonitions with respect to God in Proverbs solely because they appear to contain the Appeal to Authority fallacy; that's a nonexistent argument made by a nonexistent Straw Man. And besides, Solomon was an actual prophet who actually did speak with God. This Straw Man fallacy is considered clever in some circles, but on this thread, it has appeared so often as to become boring (and I'm being charitable here!). To put a fine point of emphasis on this concept, consider that when Charlie originally made his blasphemy argument, he was criticizing, legitimately in my view, the Appeal to Authority assertions of the author of the LTTW blog. So the question is, would Anonymous apply the same Straw-Man-Argument-standard and sarcastically assert that Charlie's critique of LTTW could be equally applied to "a good chunk of Proverbs?" I think I know how Charlie would react to that.
5. Tu Quoque fallacy - answering a substantive argument by answering back solely with [logically invalid] criticism, rather than with a counter argument of substance (and one that satisfies his initial burden of proof).


continued...

Jackisback said...

continued from prior post...
6. Begging the Question fallacy - the overall tone of citing Proverbs (something already known to be valid prophecy) in defense of Anonymous' originally invalid conclusion about our potentially "bad" outcomes vis-a-vis God's yet to be asked tough questions, puts the cart before the horse; it has the effect of embedding the conclusion within the stated premise (making it impossible to come to any other conclusion except the one preferred by the one utilizing this logical fallacy) in which Anonymous directly implies that our collective spiritual lives are not "in [proper] order." That's commonly referred to as a circular reference - an unproven premise (that our spiritual lives are not in order), as Anonymous asserts in the first instance, if presumed true, contains an appealed-to-authority conclusion (things will go "bad" with God - well of course! how could they not!) embedded within it, and then, naturally, it must be true because...Proverbs. But note, at no point did Anonymous back up his premise, "better that everyone get their own spiritual lives in order" with substance (or make a substantive claim that our spiritual lives are in need of serious repair) but it's fairly clear that this premise implies that all of us who question how Charlie could be receiving heavenly communications during his time of "aggressive dating" of the "full service variety" are in big trouble with God for simply discussing this topic (even though Charlie disclosed it voluntarily). Our discussion can't be described, per se, as slander, libel, detraction, or calumny because it goes to the question of the Church's norms for discernment of authentic prophecy. So long as the context of the Church's norms for discernment of authenticity of an alleged prophet is adhered to, and the relevant facts are admitted (against interest) by the alleged prophet, it cannot even be said that the conversation that takes place here on this thread is uncharitable. If we accept, as I do, that Charlie was truthful in both the relating of the facts about his sinful life and the timing of his alleged supernatural experiences, and was also truthful about having fully confessed these sins and now lives a life where he sins no more in this fashion, then there can be no actual harm, nor any inferred/imputed harm by/to Charlie or his reputation, precisely because he was open an honest about these sins and displayed them publicly in a tone of contrite humility on his publicly available blog, and from which he claims to have moved on.

continued...

Jackisback said...

continued from prior post...
Anonymous also said:

--begin quoted text--
Try discerning and considering something as a charitable rebuke every once in a while, rather than defaulting to your comfortable way of thinking.
--end quoted text--

If there is a case to be made that Anonymous' words from the referenced prior post (at 11:21 PM) rose to the level of substantive rebuke, it has not yet been attempted. But even if one were to concede that it was an actual rebuke of some substance, describing it as charitable is beyond the pale, considering that it employed a technique that Charlie himself described as "bearing false wintess against God...blasphemy."

If there is a case to be made that my so-callex "comfortable way of thinking" is somehow wrong or uncharitable, it has not yet been attempted.

If you are the same Anonymous that claims to want to call me "brother" (I'm not saying you are, but your writing style is similar) then I'd like to, charitably, remind you that making an implication that you know the mind of God well enough to offer me what you deem a "charitable rebuke" ..."so it doesn't go so bad when God is the one asking [me] the tough questions," is defacto judgmental as well as presumptuous that my "spiritual life" is not "in order," and further implies that my insistence on discernment (a word which is not pejorative in nature - and is actually a "term of endearment" in our community) is by definition uncharitable. To that I quote Robert Bolt's words that he gave to Thomas More's character: "not so...I do none harm, I say none harm, I think none harm." Why must you infer harm from discernment?

Anonymous said...

I alluded earlier to Charlie's DUI, but not provide text evidence. It's below.

The Pantagraph from Bloomington IL Saturday Jan. 24, 1998 page 11

LIBERTYVTLLE (AP) - Republican Secretary of State candidate Robert Churchill is looking for a new campaign manager. Charlie Johnston, 41, of Round Lake stepped down from the post Thursday after being arrested Monday night for driving under the influence and refusing to take a blood-alcohol test. Johnston said he intends to plead innocent but did not want to tarnish Churchill's campaign. "Bob initially refused my resignation, but I insisted," Johnston said in an interview. "The cloud hanging over me I would not want hanging over Bob's campaign." He declined to discuss the details of his arrest. Churchill, the deputy minority leader of the Illinois House and a 15-year veteran of the General Assembly, said in a statement that, "Although he is innocent until proven guilty, my campaign cannot afford even the appearance of tolerance when it comes to driving under the influence," Churchill said. "Therefore today, at Charlie's insistence, I have accepted his resignation." He has not chosen a new campaign manager, spokesman Gary Mack said. Johnston said he has been friends with Churchill for more than a decade and plans to continue offering advice concerning his campaign. "But I certainly cannot direct his camp any more," he said. In 1996 Johnston served as chief aide and field director for Al Salvi's failed U.S. Senate campaign. Salvi is now Churchill's opponent in the March primary.


From the Chicago Tribune:

Ex-Churchill Aide Is Acquitted
April 14, 1998|By Susan Kuczka.

ROUND LAKE BEACH — Charlie Johnston, who quit as campaign manager for state Rep. Robert W. Churchill (R-Lake Villa) following Johnston's arrest on drunken-driving charges, has been found innocent of that charge.
In a hearing last week in Round Lake Beach, Lake County Circuit Judge Gary Neddenriep also acquitted Johnston of improper lane usage charges that were filed following Johnston's Jan. 20 arrest.
Johnston, 42, of Green Oaks, said he was arrested after driving to a bar for cigarettes. He said an officer noticed he was walking strangely and arrested him on drunken-driving charges.
During his trial, evidence was presented that Johnston had been treated for a bad back a few hours before his arrest.
Churchill lost his race for the GOP bid for secretary of state to Al Salvi in March.

Anonymous said...

One more thing, Mack:

You dismissed the notion that Charlie's past employment with the newspaper chain was relevant. Yet apparently he left after a short tenure, and within another short amount of time sued his former employer for libel. I am surprised Charlie never mentioned his link to the newspaper in all his posts on how much he says he suffered as a result of attacks by the press. Charlie laid the blame down to political differences, but it seems there was more going on, doesn't it?

Perhaps his well-known temper and tendency to lash out at those who opposed him made him many enemies during his relatively short newspaper career. I can imagine Charlie being seen as a boss from hell. After this, he left the newspaper field altogether (except for some freelance gigs).

This whole libel discussion is highly relevant in evaluating Charlie, since Charlie always lists his newspaper editorship as a credential -- as if it gives him greater authority and insight into public affairs. Also Charlie seems to claim libel frequently. He has threatened the National Catholic Register and other bloggers with libel suits; claimed that a warning against him by the archdiocese of Omaha was virtually libelous; and even, I think, charged that a Denver priest part of the commission to study his messages was engaged in a smear campaign against him.

As for the DUI story, Charlie has said the policeman later apologized to him but was unable to release because of ... politics. That seems fishy. I imagine the cop arrested him because he refused a breathalyzer. Refusing a sobriety test puzzles me. Surely Charlie knew it was grounds for arrest; if he was so worried about his political career/reputation, why not cooperate fully? Why would a policeman apologize for a by-the-book DUI arrest?

These episodes raise many questions about Charlie's character. I would like to hear Charlie or Chaz address them. As it is now, it seems Charlie's story is based on a "vast conspiracy" of the kind Hillary Clinton claims.

L Spinelli said...

Simply put, all this points to Charlie not being a credible messenger. It has nothing to do with being forgiven for past sins. According to the Church's Norms, this simply means that since these things happened at the time Charlie was receiving "grave messages for the world", those messages are moot and should be dismissed.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, Jack, I just scanned your recent post(s) because I find it to be more of the same, narrowly/selectively applied with the usual blind spots in my opinion. Don't take it as dismissive, just no sense in belaboring the point. We agree to disagree.

Jackisback said...

Anonymous at 3:36 PM,

If you are reconciled to the notion that this is just an area where we agree to disagree, then why the asymmetrical accusations of a lack of charity in the very same blog entries where you employ ad hominem attack against others with pejorative terms like "petty and ignorant?"

I spent a portion of my professional career with a firm that maintained belief in the motto "Think straight, talk straight." And that is what I have tried to do (and what I observe that most folks here at MOTC try to do, with very few exceptions), even when discussing Charlie's admissions of a sinful past in the context of the Church's norms for discernment of prophecy (and even when we discuss this, we take pains to note that our reason for doing so is that the time frames of the self-reported gravely sinful actions and the alleged heavenly communications, as indicated by Charlie's blog entries, overlap - as differentiated from the case of St. Augustine, for example). That's a legitimate conversation to have, and does not deserve the ad hominem rebukes of "petty and ignorant" directed at Anon of 8:58 PM yesterday.

And by the way, the disciplined use of logic is not a "comfortable way of thinking." It requires work, forethought, consistency in application, reconsideration, testing, editing, refining, and retesting. If it were comfortable or easy, there would be a chance that more people at TNRS would be employing it. It also has the benefit of ensuring that I avoid ad hominem attack against those who disagree with me, because that would be lacking in charity by definition.

I recommend to you https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

I find it worthy of my time and effort. But even if you find no value in it, I would still request that you consider refraining from leaping to judgements about the quality of the spiritual lives of those who regularly comment here, lest you fall prey to the oft-repeated admonition by Charlie not to overly concern yourself with every jot and tittle of the behavior of others.

Anonymous said...

Because that last line that I called out as petty and ignorant was petty and ignorant, and the other instance was as well. What's your definition of straight talk? Jack, it seems to me that you have some interesting things to say when you're not talking credentials and/or applying your particular methods narrowly and selectively. You will disagree... maybe treat us to another set of lengthy rebuttals. You get the last word if that's what you're after. Good luck with that.

Anonymous said...

Anon Aug. 2 @ 8:26 -- or Mack,

Are you talking about this exchange?

...Charlie presumes to give spiritual advice to Catholics, yet he has publicly acknowledged he lived a sexually immoral life, including "full-service" dating. Isn't that enough to raise concerns?
August 1, 2017 at 8:58 PM

Anonymous said...

Hey, Anon (Aug 1 at 8:58),

St. Augustine, St. Matthew, St. Mary Magdalene... need I go on.

Your last line is petty and ignorant.



You seem to be saying that it is petty and ignorant to question whether someone who has acknowledged habitual sin and, at the same time, proclaims himself to be God's Chosen 'Sherpa' might be a fake?

Charlie has written that he has manic episodes but refuses treatment. That, I assume, doesn't alter your willingness to accept his spiritual wisdom? The wisdom of an internet prophet with a track record of failure in his first major prophecy?

I suppose it is petty and ignorant to point out Charlie's predictions on two world wars, the death of 26 million, the Regency and the Rescue have only a few months to all come to pass.

Would you call the warning of Charlie's archbishop, whose representative called Charlie's visions of 2016 and 2017 "inaccurate" and urged Catholic faithful not to condone his visions or attempt to reinterpret them petty and ignorant as well?

L Spinelli said...

I'm going to share a story about my battle with pure O OCD. I had it since childhood, but was diagnosed in my 30s.

This comment of Charlie's gave me pause:

I can be amazingly productive, insightful and inspirational during my peak periods. I did not want to lose that…and figured I could discipline myself to do the basics during the bad periods even if I didn’t feel it until I would pull out of the downsides naturally...

It's dangerous to think you can "pull out" of mental illness naturally. Before I went on medication, some of my OCD spells cycled out on their own. But it got to a point where they didn't. I prayed the Rosary and begged God for help. Do you know what the answer was? Get to the doctor!

I did, went on meds, and manage the OCD just fine.

This advice of Charlie's - along with the one where he drank stream water and without purifying it - is foolish and dangerous. Trusting God means using human wisdom and solutions when the conditions call for them.

Anonymous said...

"THE PROBLEMS OF THREE LITTLE PEOPLE DON'T AMOUNT TO A HILL OF BEANS IN THIS CRAZY WORLD..."

Beckita attempts to explain her feelings about Charlie's failed prophecy to Joe Crozier, answering a question addressed to SteveBC.


Beckita says:
August 3, 2017 at 11:04 am


Joe, I know you addressed this to Steve and he can certainly speak for himself. I simply would like to offer another perspective on the idea that people have been failed. See, I don’t feel a bit failed concerning the inaugural prophecy. Why? Because I know Charlie gave his all and I know the nature of how God has worked with him is so different from the usual message bearer, i.e. Charlie has received great amounts of mystical input and has been called to interpret and discern what he is being asked to do, as well as, what to share to prepare us. And all this under the obedience, guidance and care of three priestly spiritual directors. Charlie has told us he has made many a mistake throughout his lifetime of training. We also know he has been corrected many a time after doing so. This time there was no correction offered. This is Divine Providence at work. How can I say such a thing? I have noted many a time that CJ is not a push button prophet. He’s a servant of the Lord. Charlie gives his best and God does with it what He will. For me, then, to say I have been failed is to ultimately blame God, for He Alone allows or directly intervenes in what happens with Charlie’s efforts. And I’m not putting this idea of blaming God on you, Joe. My intent is to simply share how my head has processed what has happened, in order to offer another way of understanding the big error.

The majority of the comments made at the end of January and beyond, revealed that most folks, at this site, went into self-assessment mode, asking: Have I been placing more trust in Charlie than God? I certainly contemplated this question and I began to do so with the posts Charlie put up which prepared us for the real possibility. These posts began with A Reality Check which he posted right after Trump was elected in November. This, too, was a prophecy Charlie made and I think it only fair to consider the totality of what we have been given through him, that we may process what did occur. How often, I have considered these prophetic words: “Sometime in the next year, I will be significantly wrong about something. It won’t be the Rescue, but it will be something. When it comes, it will not be a test of me, for I already know that God is good and seeks our reclamation. It will be a test for some of you, to see whether you have put your faith in me or your faith in God. If it is in me, your faith was always ill-placed. God is good, all the time, whatever the circumstances – and works to call us all back to Him. When I am wrong, I will accept the correction with gratitude and more wisdom. I will not leave the scene unless it is one of the fundamentals, and then, in full obedience to Holy Church, I will wait on the Lord, knowing that He will strengthen my heart and that it serves His purpose to call all His children back to Him.” So for me, I see that even in November, Charlie was preparing us to examine our expectations of what God would allow or do through, with and in him.

I appreciate the heartwarming ways you have inspired us here, so many times, with your writing. This comment contains something so splendid, to me:” At its height we will not be looking to the details of the Storm but simply gasping for breath. I suggest the oxygen we will breath will come from the preparation we have made by way of prayer, penance and good works.” May we continue to travel, in solidarity, with minds, hearts and souls anchored in prayer, penance and good works. May Christ continue to infuse this site and its people with a Peace only He can impart. May we move forward with great hope for God DOES have a Plan, for our welfare, not our woe.

Jackisback said...

Anonymous (at 12:39 PM), thanks for posting that.

Now here is a prime example of the lack of discipline in discernment from "Beckita's" post:

--begin quoted text--
For me, then, to say I have been failed is to ultimately blame God, for He Alone allows or directly intervenes in what happens with Charlie’s efforts.
--end quoted text--

This is a classic case of someone who clearly has been duped by the "Begging the Question" logical fallacy. It is an example of blind faith, and an abandonment of reason.

I also "chuckled ruefully" at her citation of Charlie's pre-emptive "I will be wrong about something next year" as being some validly drawn trump card in a game of bridge. But it actually is a prime example of the "Special Pleading" logical fallacy. Here's how my favorite website describes this fallacy:

--begin quoted text--
Humans are funny creatures and have a foolish aversion to being wrong. Rather than appreciate the benefits of being able to change one's mind through better understanding, many will invent ways to cling to old beliefs. One of the most common ways that people do this is to post-rationalize a reason why what they thought to be true must remain to be true. It's usually very easy to find a reason to believe something that suits us, and it requires integrity and genuine honesty with oneself to examine one's own beliefs and motivations without falling into the trap of justifying our existing ways of seeing ourselves and the world around us.
Example: Edward Johns claimed to be psychic, but when his 'abilities' were tested under proper scientific conditions, they magically disappeared. Edward explained this saying that one had to have faith in his abilities for them to work.
--end quoted text--

This is how virtually all of Charlie's defenders operate.

L Spinelli said...

Another point to note about that pre-emptive "prophecy" is Charlie never stated where it came from.

My opinion is he realized time was running out on his first and only "I have told you true" prophecy, so he gave himself an out two months ahead of it.

Anonymous said...

Sometimes you have to go back to Grade 1:

Which of the following items is not like the others:
A) 12 B) 14 C) 16 D) box
You picked D) that is correct, box is not a number like the other ones.

Let's try another:
A) blue B) green C) desk D) red
You picked C) desk, that is correct, desk is not a color like the others.

Let's try this:
A) St. Augustine B) St. Matthew C) St. Mary Magdalene D) Charlie Johnston
If you picked D) you are correct, Charlie Johnston does not fit in with the others
he is not a Saint like the others. Although all may have had storied pasts, the first 3 corrected their ways and lived a life of holiness.

That concludes our lesson for today.

Anonymous said...

Want to know what else would be a great 1st grade remedial lesson for you? How about that little matching exercise where you line the two groupings up side by side and draw the connecting lines to make the appropriate matches. Just don't be surprised at disparate parts when you finish.

Anonymous said...

Yes you are right - I apologize that was very unfair of me to put Charlie in the category of the Saints, however someone else made the comparison prior.
However, I attempted this exercise previously showing different people and Charlie just seems out of place.
With what other similar people would you group Charlie in? That would be interesting.

Bemused said...

It seems to me that Charlie either:

1. Has a very active over imagination
2. Has a mental illness
3. Is speaking to demons
4. Is speaking to Holy Angels who themselves are confused and who therefore give Charlie bad information
5. Is speaking to Holy Angels however Charlie misinterprets what they tell him

Or perhaps God is working in a whole new way with Charlie by allowing the Holy Angels to give Charlie misinformation so that Charlie would communicate this misinformation to his Internet followers test us to see if we are putting our faith in Charlie or in God

L Spinelli said...

@Bemused,

Angels leading Charlie up the wrong path is probably what he's referring to with that "God is startling, fresh and new" phrase.

Guess that also means that all the criteria for evaluating seers, like those of Father Poulain above, don't apply to Charlie since "God is moving in a way that he never has before".

Out of those five possibilities you listed, I always thought Charlie was talking to demons, but what do I know? I don't communicate with otherworldly beings...

Mary H said...

Bemused,

God doesn't lie. But there is a Father of Lies who is happy to string people along, offering them what they want to hear, then pulling the rug out from under them. And when they complain, the Father of Lies tell them it's their own fault, not his! That is how the Father of Lies, the devil, sows confusion, anger, and despair.

God is not Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown, despite what Charlie Johnston tells you. God is Truth Himself.

I would bet my bottom dollar Charlie's "three spiritual directors" are not on board with his description of how God works. But who knows what Charlie tells them, how often he sees them, what they tell Charlie, or if Charlie ignores/lies to them?

Anonymous said...

STEVE BC OFFERS A PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF WHY CHARLIE IS THE REAL DEAL.

STEVE, YOU ARE NOT EVEN WRONG.

SteveBC says:
August 1, 2017 at 10:10 pm

Hi, JoeCro! I gather that you are having a lot of trouble getting things that Charlie has said or you think he has said straight in your mind. Let me take a look at a few things with you, if you will permit me.

First, a correction. You say, “The fact is we have been given an event called “The Rescue” about which we know next to nothing, through which it is suggested we are able to acknowledge God, [etc.].” This is incorrect. Charlie has never said that the Rescue is linked to what he teaches. When he says, “Acknowledge God, take the next right step, and be a beacon of hope to those around you,” he is encapsulating the theme of all he has taught and continues to teach us. This teaching has nothing whatsoever to do with the promised Rescue, and neither one is dependent on the other in any way.

As to the Rescue, he has reported to us exactly what he was told, in the exact same words as he heard his visitor speak about it. No explanation was given to expand on the original statement, and he has offered no interpretation of the statement he was told. This prophetic incident required no interpretation by Charlie at all. It has no internal connection with any of his interpreted prophecies, and he reported it to all of us because he was told to, not because he wanted to. Therefore, it will stand or fall on its merits, if and when we see it take place sometime late this year – or not. As far as I can tell, this particular prophetic statement given to him is not designed for anything other than to give us all the hope that whatever comes to us in the Fullness of the Storm has an end. Charlie has likened it to being in a shipwreck while knowing that the beach is “right over there.” If so, then it is a *profound* and profoundly beneficent gift from God to those who have ears to hear it. I recommend that you take it at face value, as baldly as it was stated. If you want to set it aside, feel free. However, it is pointless to try to understand it within prophetic history. It is what it is, or it is not...


Anonymous said...

...I also want to make a point that Charlie has often stated but which people appear not to give true weight to. An unknown but very high percentage of what Charlie has received in prophetic information has been to train *him* and *not* to enlighten us. This became abundantly clear on Inauguration Day, Charlie’s greatest test. His visitors had several months when they could have corrected his interpretation, but they did nothing. This speaks volumes to me and it should do the same for you. Charlie has often said that most of his visitations and most of the information he has received has been to train him for some task, a task which he has not yet begun and about which (as far as I can tell) cannot speak. Part of that training process prior to Inauguration Day involved passing a very small portion of that information to those around him, i.e., us. The vast amount of what he has taught us with that very small amount of information he could and did pass on to us, I think had two purposes. First, to train us to help others during the Fullness of the Storm, when God will be moving visibly in the world. We have needed to be trained in the difficulties of seeing what God plans, so that when everyone else is reeling, we can know to focus them away from the Big Picture God and down to the little in front of them that they can actually do – trust, do, love. Second, we are being challenged in much the same way as Charlie has been challenged about prophecy. In this area I think you are not doing well. You are trying very hard to fit everything into little slots, one slot, then the next slot, and so on. It may be reassuring to you to have everything fit together, but it is an impossible task when God is using *failed* prophecy to teach Charlie – and you and me! – not to fall into that trap. If you have a logical and orderly mind, as I do, this is a real temptation. You’re a doctor. Do you understand everything about the human body? Obviously not, so how could you make something as complex and non-linear as prophecy-as-training into a nice linear series of boxes in neat little slots? Doctor Baker has a prescription for you, if you have a technical bent: go find a couple of really good books on quantum mechanics, which is the closest non-linear science I know to prophecy.

Lastly, I think you are making one other very important incorrect assumption. You appear to believe that the Rescue Charlie was informed of and the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart are somehow competitive, that Charlie’s promised Rescue somehow conflicts with the Triumph. That is only an assumption on your part. It does not have to be true, and only if and when it occurs can you fit it into your larger picture. There are many different forms of Rescue possible, and any Rescue could be just a part of the larger Triumph. What if the Rescue Charlie was promised turns out to be a literal Rescue from the crises of the Fullness of the Storm? That would have absolutely nothing to do with or be in any way competitive to the Garabandal material, which as far as I can tell is about spiritual rescue. God and Mary are rather larger than what you or I can perceive.

Think of it this way: You think you are comparing apples and oranges when in fact you are holding bananas.

Here in the US we have a joke sentence when someone calls his doctor late at night. The doc says, “Take two aspirin and call me in the morning.” I want to say, “Read two books on quantum mechanics and call me in the morning.” �� I’m not sure who said the following, but I think it may have been Richard Feynman: “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t.” Wrap your head around that deep statement, then realize that that applies even more so to prophecy (which is even more non-linear than QM: “If you think you understand prophecy, you don’t.” ...

Anonymous said...

...Like quantum mechanics, prophecy is something that can be useful, but it cannot be understood by a human mind. After all the hard work you have done in these matters, JoeCro, sometimes all that you are left with isn’t understanding, but awe and wonder. As it was for Saint Thomas Acquinas, *that* is the moment when your mind truly opens up to God and His works. I pray that you be granted such a moment. ��

I wish Richard Feynman were still alive to address all the muddled thinking in your treatise, SteveBC. He didn't suffer fools easily.

L Spinelli said...

As to the Rescue, he has reported to us exactly what he was told, in the exact same words as he heard his visitor speak about it.

Replace Rescue with Presidential Prophecy.

I didn't need to read anything else in that twisted word garble to dismiss the rest of it.

Anonymous said...

I'm not 100% following it but in the last posting - JoCro has been questioning a number of things of what is happening with the prophecies, rescue, etc. and wants straight answers as he is a straight forward guy but he is not getting them, this has lead to some extremely lively debate by JoCro and some pretty fancy stick handling by SteveBC and Beckita which JoCro doesn't appreciate.
If any of us would have said the things JoCro said we would have been turfed out of the site so quickly and violently we'd need paramedics to revive us.

Jackisback said...

Anonymous at 7:55 a.m. (and 7:57 and 7:58 a.m.)

Thanks so much for posting that treatise from Steve BC which basically says "heads Charlie's angel wins, tails you overly-discerning-Catholics-insisting-too-much-on-reason (when even Thomas Aquinas gave up) lose.

What is more notable is the first part though, where Steve BC puts Charlie into a literal box with respect to the Rescue prophecy, referring to it as something that is not amendable and not an interpretation (which as L Spinelli notes, is odd, given that the same characterization was made by Charlie about the Presidential Prophecy) - a box that not even Charlie would actually put himself into. Consider this sentiment about all prophecy from Charlie:

Musings – China Rising, Refuges and More
Posted on November 15, 2014 by charliej373
--begin quoted text--
Most of the Old Testament Prophets were off by at least a few years in most of their most immediate prophecies. We never get a pass from our need for discernment. Most of the most important insights in Church history have come through natural means. Inspired certainly, but not directly from locutions. Even when there are authentic visitations involved, God always works through the authentic personality of the person visited, so there is still a filter there.
--end quoted text--

And then this:

Grab a Helmet
Posted on October 3, 2015 by charliej373
--begin quoted text--
When LttW imploded, I thought the Lord was giving many the chance to see what I had been taught mostly privately over decades. There is no shame in being deceived – particularly if the deceiver is likely sincere but errant rather than malicious. There IS shame in not stepping back and learning from the error rather than just continuing on the same path that led you to be deceived in the first place. LttW was perfect for this lesson. Though I may be wrong, I saw no intent to deceive – just someone who was deceived promulgating messages to people eager to hear them. This gave those outside the inner circle of the failed locutionist an opportunity to be both magnanimous and learn to adjust their own expectations so as to discern better.

...Astonishingly, some people continued, after the deception was revealed, to relentlessly try to explain why that square peg really did fit in that round hole. Don’t you know that God allowed this both so the locutionist would learn and repent – and so that many would see how deeply flawed their own expectations are? If you continue with the same expectations, you will get the same results. Judge righteous judgment.
--end quoted text--

And for the coup de grace, this:

On Prophecy – and LttW
Posted on September 28, 2015 by charliej373
--begin quoted text--
LttW prophesied in the name of Our Lady that the economic crash would come while Pope Francis was visiting America. There was no ambiguity about it. It was completely errant.

I was annoyed when adherents of LttW would sometimes shriekily attack those who were not convinced, by insisting these were the direct words of Mary and of Jesus – and any who did not accept them must not believe in Mary or Jesus. They might or might not have been…but in ALL private revelation, they are merely the words “as recounted by” whoever the locutionist is. The only time it is appropriate to say these are surely the words of Mary or Jesus without that modifier is from quotes from Scripture.

(As Glenn Dallaire of Mystics of the Church points out in the comments, this was not a prophecy, but claimed to be a direct word from Our Lady, herself – so the locutionist is not authentic.) Certainly, this prophecy turned out to be false.
--end quoted text--

It is interesting to me that Steve BC is putting so much weight on the Rescue as being something that cannot be wriggled out of if it does not come to pass by the end of this year, but refuses to look at the Presidential locution in the same way - given that Charlie used the same "I have told you true" language when describing both.


Bemused said...

Jack,

While today (August 2017) SteveBC is saying that the Rescue by the end of 2017 is something that is unconditional and will absolutely come to pass, I can guarantee that come January 1, 2018, his spin will be one of the following:

1. That God is also using this failed prophecy to test us and to see whether our faith is in Charlie or in Him
2. That God is moving in new ways
3. That those of us who continue to question Charlie are trying to put God in a box
4. That the prayers of Charlie's internet followers have mitigated the storm (since there will be no war with China) and therefore the need for a rescue has been pushed back


Anonymous said...

Bemused,

SteveBC may surprise us. He posted a comment on the podcast article, asking what parts of Charlie's past framework needed updating:

SteveBC says:
July 30, 2017 at 8:59 pm

Charlie, I think it might help people if you were to clear away some of the prophetic framework that you constructed for us in the few years before the Inauguration. I know you are very constrained on what you can tell us now, and it is clear that much of what you have been taught has been for your training and not for us to know.

But the change since the Inauguration has meant that there are many large concepts and small details from the prior descriptions that you told us in the 2014-2016 period that are in effect clogging up the minds of many people in this community.

It seems pretty clear to me that you are taking a different approach to what you are being exposed to and taught these days. That is leading you to attempt to get us all to open ourselves to something new, to get us to be alert but not tied down to any specific milestones or expectations.

However, many people (myself sometimes included) still hold in our minds a number of ideas and bits of information that can have the effect of obscuring our ability to open to the new.

Is it possible that you could help clear some of these already existing ideas away? Don’t tell us what is coming. Instead, tell us what we have heard may be coming that is no longer coming or can no longer be understood in the old way.

Help us open up to the bigger picture by tossing overboard some of the previously defined things that no longer apply. Unclog us!
🙂

Certainly, Joe Crozier has expressed doubts, and who would have figured that?!

Of course I bet Beckita will stay on board regardless. She seems indiscriminate in her embrace of failed/fake mystics, including the Our Lady of Emmitsburg, condemned by the Archbishop of Balitmore in 2008 (Beckita's avatar depicts "Our Lady of Emmitsburg). Recently Beckita came out on Charlie's blog as a supporter of the controversial Vassula Ryden, declared as a heretic by her own Orthodox Church. Beckita is also a follower of another controversial character, "Anne, a Lay Apostle," whose ministry was called into question by Johnnette Benkovic of EWTN and blogger Kevin Symonds.*

*Questions about "Anne" broke with the release of some of her profanity-laced emails. Sounds like Charlie Johnston, who engaged in angry and unseemly com-box combat on Disqus shortly before he launched his career as a traveling seer.
http://motheofgod.com/threads/charlies-perceptive-take.9310/page-6#post-138843

Anonymous said...

SteveBC is on the hot seat, for some reason JoeCro has wanted specific answers and he has been getting the run around from Steve and Becks, he eventually called Steve out for treating him like he was unintelligent and putting fluffy questions to Charlie - JoeCro wants the tough questions answered. So, this is SteveBC's attempt to appease him and some others.

Anonymous said...

From Anon@12:17,

I need to put in a correction. In the last paragraph of the August 5, 12:17 comment, instead of profanity-laced email, it should say an email exchange laced with vulgarity!

That characterization comes from an article on the "Women of Grace" website, http://www.womenofgrace.com/blog/?p=10696

Anonymous said...

Charlie Johnston has posted a podcast with his son, Chaz, on SoundCloud. You can leave comments on the website, by the way, by registering with your email. Let's hope some MOTC posters will go over and make their thoughts known.

https://soundcloud.com/user-4851768/tnrp-episode-1

Anonymous said...

Just listened to his podcast and skipped over a lot of the mount meeker stuff, there was no questions, just a history of Charlie and TNRS. He touched on his prophecy failure, and why he is back, there really was nothing of substance that we don't already know. Bottom line, the world is in chaos and his job is to give hope by TNRS and to Trust in God like Abraham did and to go blindly forward trusting God.

Mary H said...

Charlie claims he returned to public commenting as a result of hearing John Brennan (former CIA head) talking about a coup two weeks ago. This is not true, since Charlie started posting essays on his blog after a relatively short retirement (end of January to May 23, 2017).

Alas! For a short period of time, listeners could post comments on the SoundCloud. Charlie must have realized his mistake right quick, as no comments are visible at the podcast site any more. It wouldn't do for peasants to be able to question their Sherpa, would it?

L Spinelli said...

http://www.npr.org/2017/05/23/529598301/former-cia-director-tells-lawmakers-about-very-aggressive-russian-election-meddl

Note the date.

Fred Keyes said...

That Charlie is so worried that a coup could take place is a bit puzzling. It would be very difficult under our system of government.

That there could be 2-3 days of uncertainty during a period when an impeachment of the president and his subsequent trial were held is always a possibility. In the minds of a few people such uncertainty existed just before Nixon resigned the office. There were worries about a coup, but later accounts downplay such concerns:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stanley-kutler/the-imaginings-of-james-r_b_5066130.html

But Charlie's man is in the White House. So if an impeachment is imminent no doubt he will push the 'Jericho March' button and try to get a citizen's militia to march with him. The way things have gone so far though, I'm afraid his march would be overwhelmed by marchers in support of impeachment and conviction.

Fred Keyes said...

I have to say, the phrase that comes to mind about Charlie's never-say-die supporters is "invincible ignorance."

I don't mean that in an 'ad hominem' kind of way —God bless all of them— but what else do you call a complete lack of understanding in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

Anonymous said...

Fred,

If Charlie's Jericho March is anything like his 2011-2012 pilgrimage, he'll catch car rides or maybe take an airplane. Blogger Kevin O'Brien nailed Charlie for his many exaggerations about his pilgrimage by closely reading Charlie's pilgrimage FB page and looking at the mileage inconsistencies.

Charlie wasn't a fan of Trump and didn't see him coming until late in the game. Can't call him a Trump loyalist. I think he was really hoping everything would go up in smoke.

(Kevin O'Brien wrote about Charlie here:

http://thwordinc.blogspot.com/2015/09/is-sasquatch-antichrist-or-temptation.html)

Anonymous said...

I listened. I took note of one part where Charlie said that "...the false prophecy was a good thing in many ways" because people were trying to figure out God's plan.

So I guess God deliberately gave Charlie the false presidential prophecy in order to increase his followers trust in God rather than to think they have it all figured out.

Anonymous said...

Charlie and his attitude remind me a lot like the CBC ( Canadian Broadcasting Corporation ), the whole world could be under attack by aliens and the CBC would joke around with the guests on how dapper they look - the CBC is always cool like a cucumber, they never get excited - alien invasion?, don't worry we'll stay with our regularly scheduled shows.
Charlie has stated that the rescue and a whole list of events are going to happen this year, we are in August already. For Charlie to post the podcast with that picture - he does not even take himself seriously. The world is going to be transformed within 5 months and that's the podcast we get?
This is what one of his own bloggers said:Hi Charlie,I’ve been following you many years although I’ve never commented before. I continue to follow & attend meetings with many
loyal followers. This pod cast to me seemed more of a spoof ,the costumes The parody, if I were just tuning in I’d think this is crazy. I listened for 30 minutes hoping something sensible would occur. I’ve had the pleasure to meet with you Personally on many occasions.
I read so many of your well written insightful blogs. If the subsequent podcasts are similar I won’t be tuning in to listen.
God Bless you Charlie.Ignited through Christ,Patricia

Anonymous said...

I think this is a legitimate question by Neil:
This is a question for Charlie and his podcast: I understand that you are still having visits. In the past you have emphatically stated that by Christmas of 2017 we will be saved by the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Knowing that things can change through prayer, and knowing that prophets do not usually give a definite time to events taking place as everything is in God’s time, are you still receiving confirmation of this event in this timeline?

This is the answer by Becks:
Neil, as Charlie has said in the podcast, rather than focusing on more detailed information, we are encouraged to surrender all details to God and simply trust in Him. No matter how, what, where and when His Plan unfolds, it’s always acknowledging God and taking next right steps that will carry us through. God bless us, one and all.

The answer speaks for itself.

Bemused said...

Check out this exchange:

BJ says:
August 9, 2017 at 11:30 am
Charlie, OK future prophetic specific dates are not important but where do you now stand on the very specific time line of late 2017 being a massive turning point for rescue? At one point you stated that you were more or less ordered to provide this date against your wishes, and i believe you, but what now?


The poster asked a very specific question...will the rescue occur in late 2017. This question is reasonable give that Charlie Johnston has never been shy when it came to making very specific prophecies, e.g., 26 million dead, war with China, economic collapse, the rescue in 2017, the Mt Meeker Shrine, the conversion of Muslims, followed by living in Mayberry with Goober, Aunt Bee and Andy.

Now here is Beckita's response:

Beckita says:
August 9, 2017 at 11:41 am
Hi BJ. Charlie has already addressed your question via the first article he wrote upon his return. You’ll find it here.


Instead of giving the poster a straight Yes or No to their question, she points them to a post by Charlie in May 2017 called "Lord Save Us; We Perish."

I read the "Lord Save Us; We Perish" post TWICE and Charlie does NOT say in that post whether the rescue will be in 2017...only that there *will* be a rescue because Our Lady of Fatima said so.

So I guess Charlie's position today is that there'll be a rescue but not necessarily by the end of 2017.

I thought that he "told us true" about the rescue this year.

Anonymous said...

It was around August of 2016 when CJ started to pull back a bit on the Presidential prophecy. Now in August of 2017 they are pulling back on the Rescue prophecy.

Joseph J. said...


Looking at the accompanying main photo of Charlie and his son dressed in silly Indian costumes in the official Podcast interview that was just posted on Aug. 7th it is indeed nearly impossible to take this man serious at this point. Looking at the ridiculous accompanying photo while watching the podcast wherein Charlie insists that he has been receiving heavenly "visitations" since childhood, one is left thinking how it all seems just a foolish parody at this point. What a clown show its all become!

Anonymous said...

He must have listened, he changed the picture.

Anonymous said...

Even though the majority of his comments were positive, there were only 89 responses in 2 days, the others had nothing to say. I'm getting the feeling the TRNS tribe needs something more concrete next time - the pressure is on Charlie to put some sort of substance on the vagueness that seems to have fallen on the TRNS site and their leaders.

Anonymous said...

Apparently the answer to those queries was "nevermind."

Anonymous said...

Charlie missed on the Trump issue and he made a fool of himself by ridiculing people who thought Trump would win. I said during the Republican primaries that Trump had no effective opposition and that he would win the nomination - which he did, I then said he was going to take the presidency and Charlie called some of Trump's supporters names and mocked them, he had to be careful though because he was ticking off a huge part of his following and he did loose some. He actually did not pull back 100% on Trump until about 2 weeks before the election because he was still making fun of me talking about Trump as the only choice. However, in the last 2 weeks he saw how close it was going to be and had to save face by joking around and say he was going to drink a few, or something similar and vote for Trump.

For 2017 though, he has a winner in Our Lady of Fatima. What better way to save face than to attach himself to Fatima. If something happens he can say I told you so "true" , if something doesn't happen then he can play the God spared us because of our prayers. All he needs to do is keep it vague enough that he can explain any scenario. I don't think most of his folk are buying into it, Charlie's responses for the podcast after 2 days are just over 90 - that's not very good after such a big build-up.

Anonymous said...

"What a clown show its all become!" - yes it has, however in the words of Charlie Johnston it's "poppycock", "100%, pure unaltered poppycock".

Anonymous said...

Can someone tell this guy to stop it, he's making a fool of himself. I feel sorry for his son, he didn't have to drag him into this foolishness.

Anonymous said...

Like all of Charlie's video talks very forgettable. Full of a lot of 'filler" material about Charlie himself, uninspiring oral presentation skills, seems to have not normal vocal quality and way of saying /s/. It usually took the Fatima seers a few minutes to communicate Our Lady's messages and they didn't add an extensive, elaborate preface about their own lives first! I found the Indian costumes bordering on racist at worst, disrespectful of another culture at best. If this is the new way prophecies are going to be communicated to us then God help us.

L Spinelli said...

So this is the new way God is moving. Incessant chatter about himself and the pilgrimage (all that were recounted who knows how many times) and rebranding his definitive prophecies as interpretations. All that and the silly picture to boot. This guy isn't even in the same league as the Fatima seers. But remember! We're supposed to throw out the Norms for evaluating seers and all the articles written on how to discern them by theologians and Church Fathers, because "God is fresh and startling and new".

I've lost my patience with this nonsense. He and his "core nutters" are STILL doing what Denver asked them not to. I hope they shut down this ridiculous podcast venture and SOON.

Anonymous said...

It is almost not worth bothering to comment any more. If Charlie Johnston's first public crusade via trips and web posts was a tragedy -- and it was for those who lost money and self-regard by believing in him -- his second go-round via podcast is farce. Farcical, too, are Beckita’s attempts to soft-pedal Charlie’s refusal to give a straightforward “yes” or “no” answer on whether the "Rescue" will happen this year.


Beckita says:
August 10, 2017 at 11:01 am


God bless you, BJ, for your respect, sincerity and kindness. Charlie’s current work keeps him from reading comments every day, but he does check in when he can. He is aware that people want to exactly hear, again, that there will definitely be a Rescue at the end of 2017. Aware of this, I both value and take pause at the ways he has chosen to respond, recently, concerning this issue. I see him stressing, in even more fervent ways, to contemplate the Biblical people who are highlighted in the recounting of our story of faith, throughout the the ages, for we are living salvation history-in-the-making at a most dramatic time, the end of these times. I find myself praying to the saints of old for help in securing more perfect TRUST: to Abraham as I connect with his walk up the mountain to sacrifice Isaac… to Moses as he constantly interceded for God’s stiff-necked ones, and, as Charlie reminded us in the podcast, with the Egyptians at his heels, Moses had to have incredible TRUST just before God parted the Red Sea… to St. Mary Magdalen whose forgiveness prompted her to love with greater depth and breadth – willing, with heroic virtue, to remain by the side of Our Lord in His seemingly darkest hours… to the Apostles, even they, who literally walked beside Jesus as he mentored them and prepared them, had to exert *great* TRUST as God’s Plan unfolded before them and they discerned what God, in the flesh, was asking them to do.

I remember well your many good contributions on this site, BJ, and have always perceived your good will. Of course, you are accurate in this recounting: “…he reminded us many times that he did not want to ´give dates´ but was ordered to do so on this one!” For this reason, I, personally, expect a Rescue at the end of this year. Yet, if God Himself came to tell me this news, how would it change what I need most to do? With or without the confirmation, I, ultimately, need to focus on Him in prayer and pay ever closer attention to discern what it is He is asking of me in these days of such import. And with all the gentleness electronic communication can convey, the archives are replete with the true backbone of Charlie’s ministry: Acknowledge God, take the next right step and be a sign of hope to those around you.

Bemused said...

I just read Beckita's response to BJ that Anonymous posted directly above.

Is it me or does Beckita seem to be suggesting that Charlie is like Moses and those of us who are asking for clarification on whether the rescue will occur this year are like the stiff-necked Israelites?

Anonymous said...

Hey, Bemused,

Charlie certainly prefers to style himself after an Old Testament prophet and not have to worry about New Testament ideas such as the Beatitudes. Beckita and Steve BC clearly don't know if there will be a Rescue or not. Maybe they've gotten the run-around or maybe Charlie refuses to discuss it with them. Will they hang on to Charlie after December 31?

L Spinelli said...

Here are some excerpts from the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Gianna Talone Sullivan that came out in 2002. These can easily apply to Charlie.

At present, our country — and some would even say the world — is faced with a proliferation of persons who claim that they are receiving divine messages. While undoubtedly some apparitions have, in the course of time been recognized as authentic, this phenomenon of alleged visionaries is disorienting and confusing many good people who are seeking to know and embrace God's will. As the year 2000 approached, Pope John Paul II and other Church authorities advised us to avoid millenarianism in any form; we should not encourage apocalyptic predictions or cater to a miracle-mania mentality.

In brief, it would be pastorally irresponsible to promote a diet based on the regular reading of these lessons and messages alleged to be from a divine source, claiming indeed to be "the Word of the Lord". They are doctrinally orthodox, but seem to be a deficient presentation of our Lord and His teaching. It would be pastorally more advisable to encourage the solid food of lectio dthia, prayerful reading of the Bible which the Church recognizes to be divinely inspired. In this regard, we are reminded of the words written by the late Fr. Fred Jelly, O.P., who had served on a Commission appointed to investigate alleged apparitions:

We cannot build our faith on the sand of alleged apparitions and private revelations, regardless of how well-intentioned the individuals involved might be. If we believe that our salvation depends on what is found in private revelation, or if we place — with vain credulity or naiveté — our confidence in private revelations, we are mistaken and are not building our faith on a solid foundation, namely, the Word of God, Scripture, tradition, and the teaching of the Church. Even with properly approved apparitions, we must maintain a proper perspective - viewing them as an assistance to nourish our divine faith in the central dogmas of Christ, the Trinity and the Eucharistic.


To conclude this section: given the present circumstances throughout the world of what may be called a growing addiction to the spectacular, we think that the Church should not promote or encourage persons claiming to have extraordinary channels to God. It would Excerpts from the Report of the Commission be pastorally more advisable to ensure Scripture-based preaching that can rekindle and deepen faith in the efficacy of the sacraments to give and sustain life in the Spirit of Christ.

Anonymous said...

Well said L. Spinelli.
The people who follow such messages are probably well intentioned Catholics looking for answers in a society where it appears that God has forsaken us. Also, they see all the TV preachers and other evangelical ministers healing, converting, and exorcising people, so it seems that God has favoured them.
So when a Catholic comes around and seems to have some sort of divine message a lot of Catholics gravitate toward them for a) solace in these times or b) pride that Catholics have these evangelical abilities as well. These Catholics are easy pickings for people who have "divine" messages or abilities.
Catholics fail to realize that our rich faith includes the most divinely inspired gifts - the sacraments and of course the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. If we could root ourselves back to these we wouldn't get taken in by "divine" inspired people.
Another point is that people also don't want to miss the boat in case the messenger is real. They want to be a part of the "great divine message" and then they can brag to others - "I knew this person, I was involved in this message from God right from the beginning, I'm special because I knew it was real when others thought otherwise, now I can bask in the glory of being a initial follower."

Anonymous said...

Based on the above does anyone need Charlie to tell us to turn to God? Times may get rocky? Trust in God? Doesn't our faith teach this.
Furthermore why would God send/train Charlie to tell us something we already know? I thought that's why we have priests for? We also have local people in the Church, do we really need Charlie, he doesn't add anything new to the faith that I can not access in my area or from other on-line sites. It doesn't seem like God would waste his time like this to tell us stuff we already know?
The rescue 2017!
Can I live without the rescue? If the rescue happens - it happens, if it doesn't - it doesn't, I wouldn't have known there was supposed to be a rescue. I can not see any sort of benefit to the mention of a rescue for 2017. But wait, Charlie says it can happen even after 2017, even though the rescue is definitely 2017. Follow the faith, not Charlie, it's a waste of time, Charlie adds nothing to my faith.

L Spinelli said...

@Anon, August 7:

So I guess God deliberately gave Charlie the false presidential prophecy in order to increase his followers trust in God rather than to think they have it all figured out.

Wait a minute. Charlie said the Presidential Prophecy didn't come from God at all. That was on January 20 or 21. So how could it be part of God's plan to put our trust back in Him?

This whole thing gets more twisted by the day...

Anonymous said...

The Church (as represented by the Archdiocese of Denver) prudently and cautiously uses such terminology as, "Mr. Johnston claims...", "According to Mr. Johnston...", "Mr. Johnston also insists...", "alleged...", etc. That should be sufficient for faithful Catholics to remain prudent, cautious and balanced when encountering and even interacting with such situations.

Obviously some people believe wholeheartedly in the claims, so it's not a surprise that they may, and sometimes apparently have, extended that to much more that he has to say, believing that content to be influenced/inspired by purported visits from Jesus, Angels, etc.

I think Charlie acknowledges the danger there and is trying to reel it in. Whatever the case, it certainly has become a fine mess for some people.

Anonymous said...

I noticed very little traffic for his last 2 podcasts, do you think people have caught on? You would have thought there would be a lot of traffic after Charlie has spoken - but it's very low. Oh wait, how many people have they kicked off their site?
What's that sound coming from TRNS? It sounds like scrubbing - scrubbing the negative posts?











Anonymous said...

Glenn, do you have any thoughts to share about Charlie Johnston branching out into podcasts? I listened to the first few minutes and he denied having a manic disorder, even though he's written about mania on his blog, it's quoted here somewhere. Also about Charlie's insistence that he's free to say or write anything he wants about his alleged visions?

Anonymous said...

While it is true that the Archdiocese warned the faithful about putting their trust in God and not trying to reinterpret Charlie's messages, the Archdiocese did NOT tell Charlie to take down his blog, to stop prophesizing or to stop public speaking. While Charlie cannot speak in the Archdiocese of Denver without their permission, he is free to speak anywhere else and to continue blogging and making predictions. Maybe it's time the Archdiocese of Denver steps in and issues a formal condemnation of his prophecies, unless of the course the Archdiocese is trying to hedge its bets.

Glenn Dallaire said...


"Glenn, do you have any thoughts to share about Charlie Johnston branching out into podcasts?...."
----------------

I listened to both podcasts and I have been attentively reading all of the comments here in recent months. Concerning Charlie's prophecies, well, as the months pass and the year comes to a close, I think that world events, or the lack of these events, will readily reveal whether Charlie's purported revelations are authentic, or not. In other words, the truth shall soon be made self-evident. For sure, the two Presidential prophecies were a double fail, and time is sure running out quick for the fulfillment of the others, though in all fairness the recent events in N. Korea do raise an eyebrow a bit (given Charlie's prediction that everything would start with N. Korea).

As I wrote to a friend just yesterday, it seems that the vast majority of folks have (and probably very rightly) moved on from Charlie since the Presidential prophecy double fail, but we do see that there are a few folks still lingering around on his blog. I imagine that if/when the rest of his prophecies fail in the upcoming few months, by the end of this year the rest of the folks following him will probably lose interest (by prophecies I am speaking here of the predictions concerning the war with "radical Islam", war with China, worldwide economic collapse, failure of governments throughout the world, the Rescue in late 2017 etc...).

And so, barring any truly extraordinary worldwide events in the upcoming months that align to his prophecies (for which most folks obviously are not expecting at this point) I'm thinking that in a few short months Charlie will really be taking a retirement, as his credibility will essentially be lost at that point. For one key remaining prophecy is very much time specific--that being the "Rescue" in late 2017--and it stands or falls on its own merit, and is obviously stated in such a way that it is not subject to any goal post moving. So, time will soon tell, but obviously most people at this point would agree that the odds in favor of authenticity is quite a long shot, to say the least!

May God bless all who visit here,
Glenn Dallaire

Anonymous said...

I thought that the reason Charlie was in training for 40 years, and why he gave us these predictions, was to raise an army of "Sherpa's" to guide and to give hope to mankind as we lived through the worst Chastisement since the flood. But with his failed prophecies, especially given that the presidential prophecy was supposed to "prove" that he is a true seer, I don't see how he can accomplish his supposed mission. Where is this army of Sherpa's beyond SteveBC, Beckita, Contemplativegrandma, CrewDog, and a few others? At this point it seems his prophecies only serve to tickle his followers ears.

Anonymous said...

Not so fast, he says even the Rescue of 2017 could be later!
This guy never gives up!
I think a lot of his followers have given up, there's only so much waffling one can take.

Regarding N Korea, once again Gerald Celente insists there will not be war with N Korea, most of it is just bantering, even Tillerson said they want dialogue. If you follow main stream news which Charlie does, N Korea is a side show, one military guy pointed out the logistics for a war are completely missing, it would take months to accomplish and there are no indications it will happen soon.

Iran is the real target.

Anonymous said...

Regarding approved apparitions, the late Rick Salbato used to say there was always the true apparition and then other people would claim to have received messages or something supernatural so that they try and attach themselves to the true apparition.

In this instance, we had the true Fatima 100 years ago, Charlie attaches himself to the original Fatima by claiming Our Lady will rescue us in 2017 ( or after, depending on how God feels ).

However, Charlie has given nothing concrete or specific which indicates to me he really has nothing specific on it, he's just guessing that Our Lady will give some sort of Rescue. If you asked most Catholics who follow Fatima, they probably expect something, what, they don't know, they get the feeling that God will honour Our Lady in some way. So if Charlie has something specific on it, he has to spit it out.

I told some of my friends awhile back that I felt the only person who could save us was Our Lady and I'm sure a lot of others feel the same way.

So if Charlie has something specific, he needs to come forward yesterday. There are a number of people on his site who want answers now, TNRS doesn't cut it when you say you proclaim a "Rescue" - what exactly were the words used and who told you - we need some details.

Bizlep said...

Folks
I don't wont to 'dig out a corpse', but this amazing [and odd] interview (and the situation it describes in general guidelines both in domestic US [civil war] and international [nuclear war with Russia helping the US against China].

Without details, 'the rescue' and timeline, is pretty what CJ stated in general lines.

This is an interview with the guy that most investigated the John Titor 2030 time traveler story. It really tucked me for the 'coincidences'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbLL9LDXfU8

I personally think CJ is not a false prophet but God tricked him (and others) when he allowed a last change to happen. And I now have some more data in favor of this interpretation: God has given Trump Presidency prophecies to other guys (google Kim Clement and Mark Taylor). God did 'played in two possible distinct timelines.

Anyway... this interview shows that part of CJ content is not entirely original.

Mary H said...

Anon@4:27,

Are you arguing Charlie got some of his material/alleged insights from the John Titor hoax? That's different, although I wouldn't be astonished if Charlie is revealed as an Art Bell fan. However, I don't believe there is a place for a trickster God in Catholicism. If you have to postulate alternate universes for Charlie to be "not a false prophet," you might as well give up.

Anonymous said...

Charlie's only chance for redemption at this point is to give details on the "Rescue".

He has to give details, saying there is going to be a "Rescue" is no good, I know many people talking the same thing including myself and have for a while, but I have no details, just a hunch based on time frames.

Charlie is not one to hold back on speech, so now is his opportunity to tell us "true". He needs to talk now, not after the fact.

Fred Keyes said...

Re the events over the weekend in Charlottesville: Has CJ ever specifically condemned the Alt Right movement and the other white nationalist groups?

How much of what animates Charlie comes from the extreme right and Protestant white nationalists? Why the yearning for lily-white Mayberry? A dog whistle perhaps.

Obviously I still see CJ's religious fictionalizing as a vehicle for his political proclivities.

Anonymous said...

Fred, Charlie has a black son-in-law and two bi-racial grandchildren. Please, don't start to suggest he is a racist. Don't even start with such scurrilous insinuations. You may not agree with him or his politics, but keep the level of discourse on a charitable plane.

Mary H said...

Anon@4:34,

Fred did not call Charlie a racist. He wonders at the level of influence the ideas of the "alt-right" -- which includes non-Nazi groups -- have had on Charlie's writings. I wonder that as well. It is not wrong to look into Charlie's political ideas, since they are a drawing card for many of his followers.

Charlie pushed a survivalist/prepping lifestyle early on, and wrote that he'd visited refuges. He posted information on property for sale for refuges, too.

What Charlie has lately been calling a Jericho March he earlier described as a "10 Million Man March" to Washington at least once, terminology directly lifted from an alt-right event held in 2014. (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/05/10-million-man-march-recruits-several-hundred-to-overthrow-the-government/450012/)

Anonymous said...

Why wonder at all if you have to lace it with innuendo? Mary H, one doesn't have to say, "so and so is a racist (or whatever)," to actually call someone a racist (or whatever). Maybe take another look at that bit and ask yourself some better questions.

Here's some questions I often ask myself:

Does it need to be said?
Does it need to be said by someone?
Does it need to be said by me?

Like a good many other people, I could stand to hold back on a bunch of things I articulate fruitlessly.

Anonymous said...

Please don't get sidetracked.
Charlie has his feet to the fire, even his own loyal followers are needing answers. He needs to give more details.
Charlie proclaims the "Rescue". Where are the details? He needs to be held accountable - yesterday.

Anonymous said...

Keeping in the vein of questions, Anon 11:26 pm,

If you believe he's a false prophet, why do you care about getting answers from him?

If you believe he's an authentic prophet, why would you push him for answers and run the risk of putting God to the test?

Anonymous said...

Charlie was an alt-right keyboard warrior in the comments section of various right-wing blogs before he decided it was time to turn Sherpa. These quotes give a taste of his ideas, as well as his personality. Quotes are from National Review Online.

Charlie Johnston
How many times must a white man allow a black man to beat his head against concrete before he is allowed to defend himself without the government acting as a lynch mob?
When did the once-honorable N-double-ACP become the N-double-A Klux Klan?
Why do Obama, Holder and Sharpton give lip service to the memory of Martin Luther King while emulating Lester Maddox and Bull Connor?
Is this an intentional effort to spark riots in order to assume emergency powers? (Martial law)
Cry, the beloved country. This lawless administration is not going to end well - for any of us.


Charlie Johnston
Actually, they did it to Terri Schiavo eight years ago - and she had done nothing except being brain-damaged. At the time, I recall the left explaining that starvation was a very compassionate and refined way to kill someone - that the victim would just go deeper into a euphoric state as they were starved. So I am perfectly fine with treating leftist criminals with the same "compassion" they have already publicly advocated for - and used - on the handicapped. (This may already be the Obamacare approach for the handicapped.)

Charlie Johnston
You really are just stupid and mouthy, aren't you? You don't know grammar or the rules of written English. You're the perfect example of a leftist - ignorant and snarky about it. Could you try, before you correct someone, taking a moment to find out whether what you are saying is actually correct or not. We are really accustomed to a better quality of troll around here.

Charlie Johnston
No he did not. You keep making it up as you go along...I suppose I should expect that. That is exactly how your Messiah does Obamacare…

Joe, it's not a persecution complex when you are actually being persecuted. Your fascist sensibility is showing…

You guys just re-write history to suit what you want it to say, don't you? What do you think you will accomplish? Do you think the mindless, voracious beast that is big government won't come for you later just because you were a good little toadie?


And, from an article "On Civility," Charlie had this to say:

Holy cow...I went to the archives to read up some Jason Lee Steorts stuff as I really was not familiar with his point of view until this spat. The guy is unreadable...pretentious, vain, vacuous, rarely coherent, much less insightful...it is like reading philosophy papers from high school sophomores. How the devil did this guy ever get hired to be an intern at NR, much less an editor? Doubt me, go read the archives yourself...this guy is a total embarrassment. Does he have a picture of some NR honcho in a compromising position with a goat? WTF?!

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 12:05 am, don't make assumptions as to whether I believe Charlie is a false prophet or a legit prophet, I'm neutral.
As a neutral observer, if someone tells me the sky is going to fall down tomorrow, I want to know some details, I'm not going to listen to someone just because they told me.
In Charlie's case he has made a number of prediction that he is said "I have told you true", now he's saying the only thing he has been told is the "Rescue - 2017". I need details, exact details and other people on his site want details, otherwise why should I believe him? Plus, he said the "Rescue - 2017" may be later?
How can you do God's work if you don't explain exactly what was imparted?

Anonymous said...


CHARLIE SAID IN 2016 "ABSOLUTE" KEY PREDICTION WAS THE PRESIDENTIAL PROPHECY

"I am glad to see that my critics here, instead of claiming that I am wrong as they were saying just a year ago, now claim that though I am right, anybody could see it coming. You will note in my Archbishop's letter cautioning people to be prudent in listening to me, he also noted that they studied materials going back to 1998 from the archives. I did not just start saying these things recently, though I did just start saying them publicly a few years ago. The main reasons no restrictions were put on my content, in either my website or my presentations, is because I have been theologically sound, consistent, and obedient to the Church. They made no comment on my prophecies because they know, as you do, that they will or will not unfold in real time. Much already has.

"I still see more than a few things that reference things I never said, or put the worst possible spin on things I did. Ah, well...and so it goes. I rarely respond to these sorts of things any more, for we are in the fullness of the Storm, though it will get worse before it begins to get better. These things come whether anyone believes or not...and the question is will you, as they come, humbly decide to acknowledge God, take the next right step and be a sign of hope or will you double down just to convince yourself you knew the mind of God all along? There are plenty of Jobs here, honestly expressing bewildered anguish at the state of the world. But there are plenty of Job's pious friends here, too.

"An absolute key, something not subject to interpretation on mine or anyone else's part, is whether or not the next national leader in the US comes from outside the political system and Obama does not finish his term. If that failed, then you would not need to view me with more skepticism. I would take early retirement after wishing you all well and still encouraging you to acknowledge God, take the next right step, and be a sign of hope. But the large sweep of what I have been told all my life, have told my Priests for 21 years, and written publicly about for three years has been true. I promised, beginning when I was a boy, to speak in His name if these things came to pass. I would be a miserable worm if I did not keep my promise.


http://motheofgod.com/threads/charlies-perceptive-take.9310/page-5

Anonymous said...

How easy it is to forget those exact words, thank for reminding us.

Fred Keyes said...

Anonymous on August 14 at 11:09:

Here are a couple of answers to your questions:

**All that’s necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do or say nothing.

**When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.

Keep in mind that the absence of truth is evil, objectively at least. Subjectively, I don't judge.

Anonymous said...

OK, Fred. So now the not-so-subtle innuendo that Charlie is among the forces of evil in the world. Seriously? With all the major challenges in the world plaguing the Faithful, this is the snarky little firecracker you want to toss on the pile? Nah, don't bother to answer. That's a rhetorical question.

Jackisback said...

To Laurence D. (from way back on June 11th at 11:00 p.m.), you said:

--begin quoted text--
It's true that Charlie said the Presidential prophecies (call them "A") coming true should make the Rescue (call it "B") virtually certain for people. That is, IF A THEN B. If we now know that A is not true, it does not follow, however, that B will not be true. You logicians can verify this, I think. So either Denver made this logical error, or else by "alleged visions" they meant specifically the Presidential ones (and others only by implication because of Charlie's demonstrated unreliability).
--end quoted text--

Yes, Laurence, I believe you correctly pick out a logical fallacy here, on a per se basis. It is akin to the logical fallacy formally known as the "composition/division" fallacy - where one may inappropriately assume that "one part of something must be applied to the whole or other parts."

So in logical terms, just because Charlie spoke presumptuously when repeating his alleged Presidential locution, and just because that locution "as recounted by" Charlie turned out to be false, it does not logically follow that the "rescue" locution "as recounted by" Charlie must also be false.

It's possible Charlie could be "telling us true" about the "rescue." This is despite the fact that Charlie claimed that the Presidential locution was a sign from God so as to fortify us to have faith in a "rescue."

There has been a propensity for Charlie's defenders to cling to this notion and figuratively say "aha! You cannot prove the rescue locution is false yet; you're jumping the starting gun." But are we?

Most discerners on this thread are applying a common judicial standard to make a technically illogical leap - known as the preponderance of the evidence. Judges in non-jury trials apply this standard in a way that basically says " when one party to a dispute is found to be making false statements under oath, it is reasonable to judge that said party is making false statements about their remaining testimony before the court.

While I do not make this leap, it bears repeating that the burden of proof that Charlie actually received an alleged "rescue" locution from a divine source rests upon Charlie. It's not up to us to prove in advance that he did not receive said locution or to prove that, even if he did receive said locution, it is false or emanates from an evil source.

So if you don't mind, I'll turn the question around to you. Knowing that Charlie has spoken presumptuously vis-a-vis one particular time-sensitive alleged locution (one which said Charlie pointedly links to a second alleged time-sensitive alleged locution) what would be the logic in choosing to believe in the second alleged time-sensitive locution? Would you not be engaging in placing faith in the "triumph of hope over experience?"

Or, are you taking and accepting Charlie's word about the alleged "rescue" locution at face value -ipse dixit- because Charlie says so?

One more question. Does Charlie's alleged repetition of another alleged locution - that Charlie must tell us true about the "storm and rescue" and we must "choose or perish" - lend more credence or less credence to the "rescue" locution as being worthy of belief?

Also, does it make sense that the Church, which does not require a person to believe even in approved apparitions, should consider giving credence to an alleged locution that ascribes to God a promise of death to those who choose not to believe Charlie's alleged private revelations?

Laurence D said...

Jack (3:48 AM), Thanks for getting back (as in, jackisback). Your logic usually does cool the fires of passion around here. Of your questions above to me I will speak at this point to the ones about preponderance of evidence and the triumph of hope over experience. My continued openness to a Rescue, even by the end of this year, is not from Charlie's having said so per se; and I agree that the burden of "proof" (when I would try to persuade anyone else) is on me. I am not expecting to iron-clad "prove" a Rescue to anyone, only persuade, and only if they are interested. My preponderance of evidence is from scripture and perhaps reading signs of the times for myself; and when Charlie came along, I guess I just added him as evidence or as a sign of the times. (Well, even false prophets showing up is a fulfillment of prophecy.) Christ gave the apostles a bad time for being so "slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken." That is, Scripture.
Anyway, what is the logic of adhering to the second time-sensitive prophecy once the first one failed? You cite juridical practice. Giving less weight to overall testimony by a witness who has been refuted on one point is natural, but not foolproof. Other, more reliable, witnesses may corroborate the unrefuted parts of his testimony. I don't have such evidence (beyond Charlie's say-so) for the end-of-2017 date, but I see trends in the world that make it possible that such a rescue will be needed by then. My contention is two-fold -- that we will need a major rescue at some point "soon," and that God does plan to provide it. Some here may agree with that much, without counting anything Charlie says as relevant. I'm fine with that and will be heartened by their agreement.

Fred Keyes said...

Anon @ 9:42PM:

Rhetorical question? Don't be so humble.

We all have a responsibility to oppose untruths. Charlie has demonstrably not told the truth. And as untruths go, what he has said is not harmless; it is misleading people and potentially endangering their faith.

By the way, do you understand the difference between objective truth and subjective truth and the moral implications of each? You need to study up before you accuse anyone of ad hominem statements.

Fred Keyes said...

Laurence D, I have a couple of problems with the "rescue." It's one of those claims that says it all—and nothing at the same time. Such an inherently vague concept might be applied to any event that occurs that changes the course of history, whether supernatural or natural. Where's the beef?

Further, it has no basis in Divine Revelation. The gospel exhorts us to "take up our cross" and follow Jesus. There's no promise of anything except final salvation for those who do the hard work of keeping God's commandments. That some event is going to occur that rescues us all in Old Testament fashion is magical thinking of the highest order. Placing our hopes in a "rescue" rather than in the ongoing presence of Our Lord through our troubles and tribulations is a misguided thing.

Fred Keyes said...

By the way, Laurence D, I do believe in the rescue. Mirabile dictu——it happens in the confessional every time I go. What else do I need?

Laurence D said...

Fred (1:04 PM), To give you an idea of the kind of event this Rescue might be, I'll cite Our Lady of Guadalupe's gift of her image and how it was able to change the ingrained history of a culture given to human sacrifice.
I don't think you mean to discount that there have been needed rescues in the course of salvation history. Divine Revelation recounts plenty of them, from Noah's ark, the atonement of our Lord's death, through Pentecost at least. And what happened at the Red Sea was no magical illusion (otherwise we are not receiving Divine Revelation as Revelation).
Let me assume that you mean that Scripture and Tradition offer no basis for expecting any more major and obvious rescues, since we have been left with all that is needed -- "the hard work of keeping God's commandments," as you say. Well, then the book of Revelation and Christ's deliberate descriptions of things preceding the End would be pointless for us now. (Beware: the Pharisees were so hard at work keeping God's commandments they saw no need for the prophesied Savior.)
I gave a few other scriptural examples of upcoming rescue back on Feb. 1, 2017 at 3:13 PM.

Fred Keyes said...

Our Lady of Guadalupe *no doubt* had a strong influence on the conversion of the native population of Mexico. But please read about the conversion of Mexico. It was an event that unfolded organically over a period of time, it wasn't an overnight parting of the seas. What CJ has predicted is more instantaneous——something altogether different than has ever happened in 20+ centuries of Christianity. What he seems to be hoping for is an event that would run contrary to Jesus' words to the Apostles: "Jesus said to him, “Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Catholic_Church_in_Mexico#The_First_Evangelists_to_the_Indigenous

Faith is necessary to salvation. The hope for spectacular events would obviate the need for faith that Fathers of the Church have consistently held is indispensable for Christians. See:

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=952



Fred Keyes said...

Laurence D you are forgetting some basic doctrines about the faith pre- and post- New Testament times. For instance, don't forget that in Baptism which OT peoples did not have, we are infused with the Theological Virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity. As Jeremiah prohesied, "But this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days—oracle of the LORD. I will place my law within them, and write it upon their hearts; I will be their God, and they shall be my people." So while spectacular events were necessary for the OT people of God, for us faith is already gifted. Miracles are helpful but even those require faith if we are to accept God's gift. The "Rescue" would be no panacea, but the impressionable buy it like they might buy a lottery ticket: "If only this thing happens, I can believe."

Also in regards the Book of Revelation: You need to do a lot more study about the meaning of this book. Catholics don't take that book literally which you seem to be doing.
Here's a good explanation from the USCCB: http://www.usccb.org/bible/revelation/0

By the way—and I haven't read this anywhere in this thread—I'm a bit scandalized by CJ's barely veiled contempt for many of the bishops who don't meet his criteria or agree with his take on many issues. When I recite every Sunday that "I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic faith" I am expressing my respect and obedience to the apostolic leaders of our faith. They do not always agree--neither did the original 14 apostles. But they were all in the "big tent" of the Church and all had something to say that added to the deposit of faith, and our bishops deserve the same degree of respect and obedience.

Laurence D said...

Fred (3:43), Because some dramas take time does not mean they all do. True, Charlie has depicted a turning on a dime event, so to speak. And indeed, we shall see. But it is not unprecedented; go back more centuries and consider the Passover. There are unprecedented things too: the incarnation, and the way the Lord characterized a coming storm -- "for at that time there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will be" (Matthew 24:21).
For Thomas seeing was believing. Yes, in that regard he was not as blessed as those who believe upon just hearing; but it was still genuine faith on his part: "My Lord and my God!" Whatever it takes.

Laurence D said...

Fred (4:34 PM), along with the USCCB you say about the book of Revelation, "Catholics don't take that book literally." The USCCB, however, is not the Magisterium, and is, I'm afraid, parroting modern bible scholars more than apostolic teaching. The Fathers of the Church took much of it literally, and not because they didn't have today's bible scholars.
Mark Mallett is carefully faithful to the Church and outlines how Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium are all open to a much more literal understanding of a new era of the Church (ala Revelation) than these scholars are willing to even consider. See https://www.markmallett.com/blog/2013/04/25/dear-holy-father-he-is-coming/

Fred Keyes said...

L. D--Your quote about times of tribulation are understood to be eschatological. CJ has insisted that his predictions are not about the end times. Guessing about end times is a fool's errand; on that I believe he would agree.

About the Book of Revelation: Being open to a more literal understanding is not equivalent to accepting a literal understanding. Clearly some things are to be taken literally in scripture while others are not. The Holy Spirit will lead us to all truth. Meanwhile, I'll listen to my bishops, the successors to the apostles, before any unqualified, self-proclaimed prophet who can't back up his prophecies with fulfilled predictions.

By the way, the Magisterium hasn't taken a position on Revelation from anything I've read. The basic teacings of the Church are that the Book is divinely inspired and inerrant (as the CCC defines those concepts. But you can find as many interpretations of it as there are folks out there with big imaginations. The best exegetes study the book in relation to the times in which it was written; i.e., during times of intense persecution. It is a symbol and a promise of hope in final salvation, written in a chiastic structure. Truly a beautiful piece of literature.

Fred Keyes said...

Oh...and since when are the bishops not teachers who are a very important part of the Living Magisterium of the Church? Why on earth would any faithful Catholic dismiss them so easily?

Laurence D said...

Fred (6:37), you say, "Your quote about times of tribulation are understood to be eschatological." Understood by whom? The Church officially?
Fred (6:41), I would not easily dismiss a bishop. I don't give the same credence to the USCCB unless it can speak unanimously for the bishops it is supposed to represent. (And majority votes don't cut it.) Can you name one bishop who has attached his name to the USCCB article on the book of Revelation that you cited (at 4:34 PM)?

Jackisback said...

Laurence D.,

Even Mark Mallett admits, in the link you provided, the notion that any "...historic and universal era of peace, as opposed to millenarianism..." as embodied in a question posed by Padre Martino Penasa to the CDF, "“Is a new era of Christian life imminent?” was answered with a big, "we don't know" response from then CDF chieftain (and now Pope Emeritus) Benedict XVI:

"The question is still open to free discussion, as the Holy See has not made any definitive pronouncement in this regard."

It seems fairly obvious to me that a question being still open to free discussion includes discussion on "whether," as opposed to solely "when" such an era of "peace" could actually occur in our temporal world.

And in the same citation from Mallett, there is this:
--begin quoted text--
Thus, the “new age,” the “era of peace” or “third millennium” of Christianity, says John Paul II, is not an opportunity “to indulge in a new millenarianism”…

…with the the temptation to predict substantial changes in it in the life of society as a whole and of every individual. Human life will continue, people will continue to learn about successes and failures, moments of glory and stages of decay, and Christ our Lord always will, until the end of time, be the only source of salvation.
--end quoted text--

Sorry, but every time I read what Charlie says about the alleged "rescue" it definitely crosses the line of predicting "substantial changes in the life of society as a whole" (see for example, his claim of one flock under one shepard, an implied "reverse reformation moment"). There's that, and the fact that Charlie's "rescue" locution insists that this "new era" is imminent - and will begin between now and Christmas 2017 - though he adds the fireworks of an apparently undeniable action of Mary being "visibly sent to miraculously rescue us."

Charlie claims to reject millenarianism, but the effects of what he claims to have been told will occur bear a very strong resemblance.

By the way, thanks, as always, for being charitable in your responses and for making an honest attempt at persuasion, backed up with citations, as opposed to solely your own opinions.

Fred Keyes said...

L.D--See MT 24 and the notes to that chapter here:

http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/24#48024021-1

I'm being a bit facetious but do you not accept the judgment of Consistory members--eligible Cardinal Bishops of the Church--when they vote for a new Pope? You know that it only takes a 2/3 majority to elect a pope, right?

Fred Keyes said...

LD, you ask if I can name one bishop who has attached his name to the article I posted.

The duty of any bishop is that of teaching the faith reliably. Can you name any other sanctioned body of the Church that is more reliable in our country in teaching the faith than the USCCB? Can you counter the teachings on that site with anything better?

Laurence D said...

Fred (9:15 & 9:40 AM), I hereby withdraw my discounting of majority votes by bishops conferences. However, the Church has not clearly defined what the doctrinal authority of a bishops conference is. And verse-after-verse commentary on Scripture is hardly on the order, historically, of Magisterial pronouncements on Scriptural interpretation, which limited themselves to correcting specific heretical interpretations.

Anonymous said...

In "The Ratzinger Report" (1999), then Cardinal Ratzinger said:
[Bishops' conferences] “have no theological basis, they do not belong to the structure of the Church, as willed by Christ, that cannot be eliminated; they have only a practical, concrete function.”

AS Pope he reiterated this, for example, in his Nov. 15, 2010 address to the Brazilian bishops. The conference does not and cannot replace the authority of the individual bishop in his diocese. Jesus established bishops (Peter and his successors), not episcopal conferences. They are a modern invention and as such, are not indispensable in the Church.

Anonymous said...

Pope Benedict:

"In fact, an ever closer and more harmonious cooperation with their Brothers in the ministry help the Bishops to carry out his mandate better (cf. Christus Dominus, n. 37), without abdicating from the principal responsibility of leading his particular Church as the proper, ordinary and immediate Pastor (cf. Motu Proprio Apostolos Suos, n. 10), making heard the voice of Jesus Christ who “is the same yesterday and today and for ever” (Heb 13:8).

"The Bishops’ Conference therefore coordinates the Bishops’ efforts and intentions, becoming an instrument that enables each to share his burdens; but it must not become a parallel or substitute of the ministry of each one of the Bishops. In other words it must neither change its relationship with the respective particular Church or with the Episcopal College nor make itself an intermediary between the Bishop and the See of Peter."

http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2010/november/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20101115_ad-limina-brasile.html

Jackisback said...

But the context of these citations do not take away from Fred's point.

For more context on this, the key factor with respect to what any Bishop or conference of Bishops may communicate, we only need to look to Lumen Gentium No. 25:

--begin quoted text--
25. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent.

...Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)
--end quoted text--

Laurence D said...

Don't get lost, everybody. The topic was Charlie and whether his alerting people to some unprecedented things could hold any water at all, given that some here (citing Bible commentary approved by a bishops conference) see no precedent for unprecedented things (short of the very End).

«Oldest ‹Older   1401 – 1600 of 3140   Newer› Newest»

ShareThis