Marian Revelation for the Third Millennium

A friend of mine offered me in-depth reflections about the topic of «public Revelation» and «private revelations». It was in reaction to my 2-part article about Marie-Paule Giguère or Mother Paul-Marie, the Foundress of the Army of Mary (see Part 1 and Part 2). The author of this essay is Father David Lorange, a member of the Army of Mary and the Community of the Lady of all Peoples. Furthermore, he’s one of the six men who became «priests» during the attempted ordination performed by Father Pierre Mastropietro, on June 1, 2007, at the Eucharistic and Marian Center Spiri-Maria, in Lac-Etchemin, Province of Québec. Father David and I met on a few occasions in the past, and we also developed a correspondence on different topics pertaining to this website, in the spirit of the Gospel, that is: cordiality, charity, mutual respect, and, crucially, humble and earnest truth-seeking and mystery-believing. Christians believe in Jesus Christ (the Redeemer) and the Trinity (Father, Son and Spirit). Paulians, as they identify themselves, while keeping the Christian faith, also believe that Marie-Paule is the Co-Redemptrix and that God has a feminine aspect, bringing the Trinity to the Quinternity (Father, Mother, Son, Daughter, Spirit) [note: the Mother is the Virgin Mary of Nazaret; the Daughter is Marie-Paule]. This implies a development in Revelation and doctrine. Is the very possibility of this development in contradiction with the Gospel and the Catholic Church’s teaching? Father David Lorange thinks not, despite the attempts by some theologians to declare that the Revelation is «closed»... The author takes the full and sole responsibility of his text and I’m happy to present him here on this blog as a guest writer.
Glenn Dallaire
July 25, 2015, Feast of Saint James, Apostle

What follows represent my humble research about the «teaching of the Church» on private revelations and their connection with public Revelation. I’m not infallible myself (of course!) and I don’t pretend to exhaust the subject. I hope, Glenn, that you and your readership will appreciate my honesty in presenting the magisterial teaching integrally, as best as I could.
There is a theological axiom, often heard of in recent times, to the point of even being used by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, in their Doctrinal Note concerning the Army of Mary (2001).
Here is the axiom:
«[Public] Revelation ended, or was completed or closed, with the death of the last Apostle.»
In all intellectual honesty and rigour, I tried to find a [Roman] magisterial statement supporting that axiom. The closest I found that resembles that axiom comes from a decree of the Holy Office, entitled Lamentabili, 3 July 1907, with the approval of Pope Saint Pius X.
That decree was aimed at the errors of modernism and rationalism. The context, which is worth noting, is a lack of faith toward public Revelation, not an excessive trust or belief in private revelations. Here is Proposition 21, one of the modernist errors condemned by the decree:
«Revelation, constituting the object of the Catholic faith,
was not completed with the Apostles.»
That’s the closest I found that resembles the axiom above-mentioned, concerning the «completeness or completion of Revelation with the Apostles». Not everything is «infallible» in a Church document, not even in a «dogmatic constitution» (much less in a decree from the Holy Office). And every expression needs to be interpreted in the proper context.
Before Lamentabili, I found nothing (of importance or expressed in strong words) about «Revelation completed or closed», neither in the Council of Trent (decree De canonicis Scripturis), nor the Council of Vatican I (dogmatic constitution Dei Filius). After Lamentabili, the most important magisterial document on the topic is the dogmatic constitution Dei Verbum, from the Second Vatican Council (18 November 1965). In there, we can find the idea or concept of «completion or fullness of Revelation», but also the evolution toward the «fullness of truth».
«By this revelation then, the deepest truth about God and the salvation of man shines out for our sake in Christ, who is both the mediator and the fullness of all revelation.» (n. 2)
«The Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away and we now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.» (n. 4)
«Therefore Christ the Lord in whom the full revelation of the supreme God is brought to completion /.../.» (n. 7)
«For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.» (n. 8)
«For the Lord Jesus was with His apostles as He had promised (see Matthew 28:20) and sent them the advocate Spirit who would lead them into the fullness of truth (see John 16:13).» (n. 20)
Afterward, I also found this passage from the dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium, again from the Second Vatican Council (21 November 1964):
«But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church. The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents; but a new public revelation they do not accept [in French it says: receive] as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.» (n. 25)
The context is the dogma of infallibility, promulgated by the Council Vatican I, with the dogmatic constitution Pastor aeternus (18 July 1870). The passage I underscored in Lumen gentium then refers to Pastor aeternus, especially the following sentence:
«For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles.» (chapter IV)
It means, according to me, that it is not the mission of the Pope to propose a new revelation, but to guard and to protect the deposit of faith. (I think Dei Verbum, n. 4, quoted previously, can be read in that light too.) At the same time, even the Pope must remain open to God’s intervention in human history.
In fact, every theologian worthy of the name will acknowledge this: the Mystery of God was progressively revealed through history and, consequently, our understanding or knowledge of that Mystery also evolved and deepened through history. George Weigel, in a column dated 27 August 2014, hammered that idea home, as we can see in the following quotes:
«The first Christians, pious Jews, were strict monotheists. That Christianity came to embrace the doctrine of the Holy Trinity ― indeed, that it put that doctrine at the center of its creed, along with its other key doctrine, the Incarnation ― is one of the great surprises of religious history. The two are linked. And that link is found, not in the abstract speculations of theologians, but in the historical experience of the Christian community.»
«We know the Trinity, not because we have reasoned our way to it, but because we have been touched by the Trinity’s entry into history.»
If the «Trinity’s entry into history» is true thanks to Jesus Christ (the Redeemer), why the «Quinternity’s entry into history» couldn’t be true as well, 2000 years later, thanks to Marie-Paule (the Co-Redemptrix)? We, as «pious Christians» who became the «first Paulians», believe so, in the «historical experience» of the Community of the Lady of all Peoples.
After Vatican II, here is what we have:
1. Catechism of the Catholic Church, nn. 65-67 (15 August 1997).
There, the Catechism quotes Heb 1:1-2, the oft-quoted passage from Saint John of the Cross and Dei Verbum (nn. 2 and 4). (Click on the link above to read those quotes.)
Based on these sources, the Catechism summarizes through the two subtitles:
― «God has said everything in his Word»
― «There will be no further Revelation»
We also have a specific mention of «private revelations», as a matter of secondary importance, in n. 67.
2. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, theological commentary about the «Third Part of the Secret of Fatima» (27 June 2000).
That commentary offers some reflections on «public Revelation and private revelations». Cardinal Ratzinger, based on the Catechism, speaks of the «definitiveness» and «completeness» of the public Revelation, in the line of the axiom quoted at the beginning of this study (indeed, it’s almost the axiom itself with a different wording):
«In Christ, God has said everything, that is, he has revealed himself completely, and therefore Revelation came to an end with the fulfilment of the mystery of Christ as enunciated in the New Testament.»
He also quotes Cardinal Prospero Lambertini (the future Pope Benedict XIV) and Flemish theologian E. Dhanis. Since Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote a «theological commentary», we can assume he wrote it as a theologian himself.
3. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger), declaration Dominus Iesus, nn. 5-8 (6 August 2000).
The context of this document is the moral and religious relativism of contemporary society (again, a lack of faith toward public Revelation). Here, the affirmation of «the definitiveness and the completeness of the public Revelation» possibly reaches its pinnacle. The whole section begins as follows:
«As a remedy for this relativistic mentality, which is becoming ever more common, it is necessary above all to reassert the definitive and complete character of the revelation of Jesus Christ.» (n. 5)
But the document itself concedes:
«Therefore, the words, deeds, and entire historical event of Jesus, though limited as human realities, have nevertheless the divine Person of the Incarnate Word, “true God and true man” as their subject. For this reason, they possess in themselves the definitiveness and completeness of the revelation of God’s salvific ways, even if the depth of the divine mystery in itself remains transcendent and inexhaustible.» (n. 6)
Among the chief references are Dei Verbum and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But there is also an important quote pertaining to our subject, from the encyclical Redemptoris missio of Pope Saint John Paul II (7 December 1990), that previously slipped my notice in my research.
«God’s revelation becomes definitive and complete through his only-begotten Son: “In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom he also created the world.” (Heb 1:1-2; cf. Jn 14:6) In this definitive Word of his revelation, God has made himself known in the fullest possible way. He has revealed to mankind who he is. This definitive self-revelation of God is the fundamental reason why the Church is missionary by her very nature. She cannot do other than proclaim the Gospel, that is, the fullness of the truth which God has enabled us to know about himself.» (n. 5)
4. Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger), post-synodal apostolic exhortation Verbum Domini, n. 14 (30 September 2010).
Finally, n. 14 of that document summarizes all of the above, especially making reference to Dei Verbum, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Saint John of the Cross and the theological commentary about Fatima of 2000.
It’s interesting to note that the Doctrinal Note of the Canadian Bishops was asked by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger on 29 February 2000. Because of the lack of unanimity (2 votes against and 1 abstention), that Note needed to receive Rome’s recognitio, which came on 10 August 2001, and then it was published on 15 August 2001. Coincidentally, in that same period (the summer of 2000), were published the theological commentary on Fatima and Dominus Iesus, both documents of Cardinal Ratzinger.
I also want to observe that the specific theme of «private revelations» arises explicitly only in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the theological commentary (Joseph Ratzinger) and Verbum Domini (Benedict XVI). I find that corpus of [Roman] magisterial statements on that topic rather thin. Not only, but the topic of private revelations is also in great part a subject open to debate among theologians.
[In 1978, the Vatican issued norms for the discernment of private revelations. These norms were made public in 2011, with a preface.]
Before I quote some theologians, I just want to give my personal evaluation of our fashionable theological axiom (used in the Doctrinal Note):
«[Public] Revelation ended, or was completed or closed, with the death of the last Apostle.»
This is only a theological axiom, not an infallible dogmatic statement. I even found one theologian, on Internet, criticizing this axiom, especially «the death of the last Apostle claim» (click here).
For me, that phrase can be used mistakenly (like in the Doctrinal Note) as a radicalization of the theme of «the definitiveness and the completeness of the public Revelation» in Jesus Christ. I personally understand the «definitiveness» and «completeness» of the Revelation of Jesus like this: Christ’s Revelation is superior to the revelations and inspirations contained in the Old Testament, and also in the other religions; it also gives all that is sufficient and necessary for our salvation; it reveals us the Most Blessed Trinity: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Concerning the following quotes, I want to underscore some nuances:
«/.../ we now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ» (Dei Verbum, n. 4)
«In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he [God] spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word ― and he has no more to say [y no tiene más que hablar] /.../ because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the all who is his Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behaviour but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.» (Saint John of the Cross, quoted by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 65)
With the supreme revelation in Jesus, we should not «await», or «desire» a new revelation, or «question» God, because the Gospel is «sufficent» and «necessary» for salvation. But God keeps his supreme liberty of initiative in the realm of revelation and advancement of his Plan of Love for humanity. The Church, here, ought to be humble, because she’s only a means to reach God. The Church (bishops, cardinals, even a pope) must resist the temptation to control God.
Even though he’s a Doctor of the Church, Saint John of the Cross is also a man with human fallibility. I agree with him that we must be detached from the desire of some new vision or revelation. But I won’t buy a radicalization of «[God] has no more to say». No theologian, no Doctor of the Church, no Pope, nor any other man can muzzle God and say to him: «You have no more to say! You said everything!» For me, God has again spoken to humankind through his Daughter (Marie-Paule), like he did through his Son (Jesus Christ). Of course, at the time of Saint John of the Cross, God possessed only one Word, the Son: the Daughter was not yet sent or manifested.
When the Catechism says: «God has said everything in his Word», we must understand «everything» necessary for our salvation. And when it says: «There will be no further Revelation», it modifies, wrongly I think, Dei Verbum’s «we now await no further new public revelation». «We don’t await» does not equal «There won’t be».
After Jesus, the subsequent private revelations will refer back to him and the Gospel, but the door remains open to my eyes to Marie-Paule’s Revelation (which is unique after Jesus’ Revelation) about the Immaculate and the Quinternity (that is, the Feminine in God), and about the regeneration of souls and the resurrection during the terrestrial Kingdom.
The Catechism (n. 67) says it’s not the role of private revelations to «improve» or «complete» or «surpass» or «correct» the public Revelation culminating in Christ. I want to observe that n. 67 is written in small print, which indicates «observations of an historical or apologetic nature, or supplementary doctrinal explanations» (CCC, n. 20), but surely not is a definitory and infallible statement of the Magisterium. Because, in fact, if imprudently we radicalize this God-has-no-more-to-say approach, I want to ask, in all humility and honesty: how should we understand this passage from the Gospel:
«I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.» (John 16:12-15)
Marie-Paule and Life of Love do refer back to Jesus and the Gospel (being totally impregnated with Jesus and filled with the Gospel), they do not contradict the Bible but, on the contrary, are therein contained in embryo (whatever says the Doctrinal Note). Marie-Paule, as the Daughter, does belong to the Father and to the Son («he [the Spirit of truth] will take from what is mine /.../ everything that the Father has is mine»). The feminine complement brought by Marie-Paule to the work of Jesus Christ in no way abolishes the Gospel, but yes, it does bring some sort of fulfillment (Matthew 5:17).
When the Doctrinal Note says:
«The presumed private revelations, upon which members of the Army of Mary stake their claim, do not merely urge Catholics to follow the Gospel more faithfully; they include spurious new doctrines that are without foundation in Scripture or Tradition
For me, the underscored part is simply an error or a lie.
Furthermore, we understand that we are living the Time of the Apocalypse, time entrusted to the Woman. Apocalypse = Revelation. At the Three Fountains in Rome, the Immaculate said to Bruno Cornacchiola in 1947: «I am the Virgin of the Revelation.» All modern apparitions of Mary, in our eyes, are a preparation to the «personal presence of Mary on earth» in Mother Paul-Marie. The heart or crux of the Book of Revelation is:
«A great sign appeared in the sky, a Woman!» (Revelation 12:1)
Thanks to her, we now know the Quinternity!
«At the time when you hear the seventh angel blow his trumpet, the mystery of God shall be fulfilled, as he promised to his servants the prophets.» (Revelation 10:7)
[Raoul Auclair demonstrated the «eschatological» or apocalyptic aspect of all modern Marian epiphanies, which established the role of the Woman and explained the times we are living: (using the symbolisms of the Apocalypse) the Great Prostitute (Western Christianity having apostatized faith), the Beast of the Sea (communist Russia and the Eastern Bloc) and the Beast of the Earth (Antichrist) mystically AGAINST the Woman (the Lady of all Peoples, the Co-Redemptrix, Marie-Paule).]
More than once quoted by Marie-Paule, here is a declaration from Sister Lúcia of Fátima:
«She [Mary] told me that, the other means scorned by men having been exhausted, she was giving us, trembling, a powerful (ultimate) anchor of salvation which is THE MOST HOLY VIRGIN MARY IN PERSON.» (see for example: Marie-Paule, The White Book IV, The Covenant between Heaven and Earth, p. 57).
[The Immaculate-Mother (the Virgin Mary) was giving us the Immaculate-Daughter (Marie-Paule).]
[The origin of Sister Lúcia’s declaration is an interview by Father Augustine Fuentes on December 26, 1957, at her convent in Coimbra, Portugal.]
[Events led Marie-Paule to be in contact with many other mystics (like Marthe Robin or don Stefano Gobbi), who received messages that tended to confirm the reality that she was the «personal presence of Mary on earth». We don’t say she is the reincarnation of the Virgin Mary. More accurately, we say that the Virgin Mary is the incarnation of the Immaculate (as Mother) and Marie-Paule is the reincarnation of the Immaculate (as Daugther). Both the Mother and the Daughter are the Immaculate, like both the Father and the Son are God. But we maintain the distinction between the Persons. We continue to be «strict monotheists» but from «Trinitarian monotheists», we became «Quinternitarian monotheists».]
In her writings, Mother Paul-Marie offers reflections on the theme of «private revelations». I would summarize in 5 key ideas:
1. Everything, in the «public Revelation», was at first «private revelations»: God communicated privately to Adam and Eve, to Abraham, to the Patriarchs, to Moses, to the Prophets, to Saint Joseph (Matthew 2:13.19-20), to the Virgin Mary (Luke 1:26-38), even to Jesus himself (John 15:15). Later, through the Church’s authority, those revelations became «public, mandatory, universal, Catholic Revelation» [the deposit of faith].
2. Some mystics received a special charisma with immediate evidence of God’s revelations (for example Joan of Arc), or sometimes the charisma is so purified that the human aspect cannot slipped through (I believed it’s the case of Mother Paul-Marie). These are more exceptional cases.
[Joan of Arc, condemned by Bishop Pierre Cauchon, said that she would be damned if she would deny her voices or her mission; she believed in the apparitions to her of Saint Michel the Archangel as firmly as in the mystery of Redemption. Some theologians conclude that such mystics have to believe with supernatural and divine faith in the authority of God manifesting himself. Cf. Jacques Maritain, quoted in our paper Le Royaume: «Sainte Jeanne dʼArc et les révélations privées» (Le Royaume, n. 149, mai-juin 2001, p. 16).]
3. With the mind open to supernatural realities, we have a certain duty or obligation to believe authentic private revelations, as beneficiary or as witness, according to Saint Paul:
«Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophetic utterances. Test everything; retain what is good.» (1 Thessalonians 5:19-21)
Based on Saint Paul, I think it’s not quite true when we hear that we are not obliged to believe private revelations (when deemed authentic).
[If Pope Gregory XI didn’t pay attention to Saint Catherine of Siena, the papacy would have remained in Avignon, and the Devil might have succeeded in destroying the Church or seriously jeopardizing her. Actually, the Lord preserved the Church through the private revelations to Catherine. Saint Joan of Arc preserved royalty in France, which contributed also to preserve the Church. Both women were prefigurations of Mother Paul-Marie who saved the Church at an incomparably higher level (through the Church of John). And why Popes visited the sites of Marian apparitions and even instituted liturgical feasts in their honor?]
4. God reveals himself to the childlike, the little, the humble, the simple, the pure of heart.
«I give praise to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for although you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned you have revealed them to the childlike.» (Matthew 11:25; Luke 10:21)
5. Persecution, trials, suffering + love, charity, forgiveness = a strong sign of authenticity.
A few times, Marie-Paule also quoted theologians about the theme of private revelations (I only have the French references, as quoted in our paper Le Royaume):
1. Cornelio Del Zotto, o.f.m.
Cf. article «L’éternelle Immaculée Conception» (Le Royaume, n. 98, mars-avril 1994, pp. 4-5; cf. p. 11).
2. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, o.p.
Cf. article «La théologie doit céder le pas aux affaires de mon Fils» (Le Royaume, n. 100, juillet-août 1994, p. 6).
3. Gabriel M. Roschini, o.s.m.
Cf. article «La pédagogie divine: splendeur de simplicité» (Le Royaume, n. 113, september-octobre 1996, p. 8).
4. Robert Ernst
This last theologian is particularly important, because Marie-Paule quotes him many times and lengthily. Robert Ernst is the author of the book Y a-t-il encore des révélations? [literally, Are There Still Revelations?], published in 1958. It was Father Veilleux, Marie-Paule’s spiritual director, who gave her that book. That is reported in Life of Love, volume II, chapter 53. That chapter, where Marie-Paule also comments the thought of Saint John of the Cross, is important for our topic and a must-read.
Then, very long quotes of Robert Ernst are provided in the following article:
«Qu’est-ce que l’Armée de Marie?» (Le Royaume, n. 24, septembre 1984, pp. 8, 10-11).
That article (containing these quotes) was later published in the brochure n. 4 L’Armée de Marie et la Dame de tous les Peuples (cf. pp. 25-26, 32-36 in French).
Finally, in Life of Love, Appendix IV (pp. 15-16 in French), of which the English version exists but is not yet published, we can find other very long quotes of Robert Ernst. It’d be nice to quote that theologian lengthily, but I will for now limit myself to this passage:
«But on the other hand, a prophet or person endowed with a charism can never take advantage of obedience as a reason for denying the truth of what he has been given by God to see or to repeat ― and for that matter, no one can ever do so who is convinced, by reason of the facts of personal experience, of the authenticity of a revelation. In this case, the one privileged with a charism, or his witness, is under the obligation to be ready to suffer any penalty, even excommunication, rather than to act contrary to his conviction, or to tell a lie.» (Robert Ernst)
Also, Robert Ernst says that the judgment of the Church (either the local Bishop or the Holy See) in matters of private revelations is not infallible, and thus can be mistaken. Interpreting God’s language isn’t easy, it first requires an humble attitude of faith and patience, attentiveness to events, a childlike trust. Only later, we do finally understand.
That’s it Glenn!
Of course, in this essay of mine, I haven’t quoted in extenso all the references I gave you (also because I don’t have all the English translations), but they exemplify what I said earlier: that the topic of private revelations «is also in great part a subject open to debate among theologians». If we are seekers of truth, which I believe you and I are, we must get to the bottom of things and not remain superficial.
When we look at the entire life of Mother Paul-Marie, endlessly punctuated with trials, at all the charisms and celestial indications which constantly proved right subsequently by events, at the intensity of purification of those charisms (where the «human» was absent, which prevents me to speak of «self-fulfilling prophesies»), not to mention miraculous healings through her which are not illusions or human interpretations;
when we see all the serious priests who supported her during her life, all the providential events conducting Marie-Paule and the Work through incredible adversities from top religious authorities, the total lack of justice and truth in the manoeuvres of late Cardinal Louis-Albert Vachon ― God rest his soul ― and other religious authorities toward the Army of Mary, and the total lack of authentic theological dialogue with Marc Bosquart;
when we consider how Marie-Paule lived her life without understanding it and obeying all the time, despite the contradiction of different authorities; how coherent was the progression of her mystical life and the evolution of the Work, in the build-up of a complex reality in which all the elements fall into place and that no human imagination could invent or ever conceive; how innumerable fruits of conversion and spirituality that Work has done (even my own conversion-vocation and your own conversion or «reversion» back to religious Catholic practice);
when we finally contemplate the infinite charity and love Marie-Paule constantly had for everyone, even the enemies, and the way she lived her suffering, especially during her 5-year long agony;
and when we understand she was mystically abandoned by everyone (as prophetically foretold: «You will be alone to the very end, without the support of the religious authority»), even by her Paulian followers, from top apostles to simple disciples who had difficulty to understand her Spirit, and nonetheless she continues mystically and divinely to keep the Work on an even keel (because humanly speaking that Work should have died long long ago);
well, I can only make an act of faith, hope and love, saying, with the Centurion (just upon seeing the way she suffered and died, and even before any glorious manifestation which would affix the seal of confirmation):
«Truly this woman was the Daughter of God!»
(cf. Mark 15:39)

-Father David Lorange

Update June 2017: For those interested, Fr. David just published a book (currently in French only) entitled "Le Secret de Marie" (French Edition), which is available at Lulu

Update December 2017: Additionally for those interested Fr. David is now publishing his own blog entitled "Le Secret de Marie"


Unknown said...

Home » News » Americas
Army of Mary excommunicated by the Vatican





Declaration comes after a six year investigation
Quebec City, Canada, Sep 14, 2007 / 10:46 am (CNA).- The Vatican has excommunicated members of the controversial Community of the Lady of All Nations, better known as the Army of Mary, based in the Archdiocese of Quebec.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the declaration of excommunication on July 11, after extensive consultations with the Canadian bishops and the Vatican’s Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. Pope Benedict XVI approved the declaration, which was only announced by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops on Sept. 12.

Despite repeated warnings by the Canadian bishops, including their local bishop, Cardinal Marc Ouellet, members of the Army of Mary participated in ordinations forbidden by the Catholic Church.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said it was forced to issue the declaration because of “the very grave situation” and because there was no “hope of another solution.” The investigation into the Army of Mary has been going on for six years.

Those excommunicated include Fr. Jean-Pierre Mastropietro for having attempted to perform ordinations as well as the six “priests” and “deacons” claiming to have been ordained by him.

The declaration noted that other members who participated at the ordinations, despite a warning from the cardinal, and those who continue to associate with the movement have entered into schism with the Church and are also, therefore, excommunicated. The excommunications were incurred automatically.

The declaration concludes by stating: “Whoever knowingly and deliberately embraces this doctrine incurs an excommunication latae sententiae due to heresy.”

"It is our hope that the clarification provided by this present Declaration will assist those whose faith may be harmed by this schismatic group to remain faithful to the Catholic Church,” reads a letter that accompanies the declaration.

The excommunications follow a lengthy process, including appointments by the Holy See of Pontifical Commissioners for the priests associated with the Army of Mary. Bishop Gilles Cazabon, OMI, of Saint-Jérome served in this capacity until 2003. Archbishop Terrence Prendergast, SJ, of Ottawa succeeded him.

The Canadian bishops had issued a doctrinal note in 2001, confirming that the teachings promoted by the Army of Mary were contrary to the doctrines of the Church. The group has contradicted the Catholic faith by claiming that their founder, 86 year-old Marie-Paule Giguere, is the reincarnation of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

In March 2007, Cardinal Ouellet issued a warning that those responsible for the Army of Mary had excluded themselves from the Catholic Church, that its particular teachings were false, and its activities were not to be attended or supported by Catholics.

Unknown said...

As faithful Catholics we have to believe in one authority ... The Holy See ... Otherwise we become like the rest of the Protestants .. God bless

Unknown said...

As Catholics we believe in a two-fold font of divine revelation: Scripture and the teachings of the Church. From Scripture and tradition, the Church draws all the truths of our faith. They are divinely inspired and complement one another to present to us the fullness of God's revelation. Nothing may be added or taken away from those truths, and we believe nothing that is contradictory to them. They are the foundation of all that we believe as Catholics, express in the Creed, and celebrate within the sacraments. To oppose them is to place one's self outside of full communion with the Catholic Church.

Anonymous said...

Forgive me Glen....but need to say this...stop publishing such views which are not according to catholic church because i am a great fan of your website and have gained immense from your saints biographies.....and i always point this website to others....but now it is creating confusions.....

Glenn Dallaire said...

Hi Anonymous,
Thank you for your comment and for your sincere concern. Please understand that I publish this article (and the other article associated with it that I personally wrote) in a spirit of openness and dialogue.

The good God knows that there are plenty of articles on this website for those Catholics and persons of all backgrounds and perspectives, and the vast majority of the mystics/visionaries highlighted and presented here are in conformity with the Catholic church and Its teachings. But since this is a special case, for the sake of providing information, and calling to mind that there is always two sides to every story, I chose to publish this article for those who may be interested in this subject, and I think that the opening (first) paragraph gives sufficient explanation concerning my intentions in posting it.

For several decades, the Army of Mary was a movement within the Catholic church, yet in 2007 there came an excommunication, but nevertheless it must be acknowledged that for 36 years it was a movement very much WITHIN the Catholic church. And so I believe it is a subject that interests a number of faithful Catholics, and so I present it here with this in mind.

Thanks again for your comment and may God bless you and your loved ones,
Glenn Dallaire

Father David Lorange said...

Dear Sandra,
Thank you for reminding us of the report by the Catholic News Agency (CNA), about the excommunication of the Army of Mary.
The CNA may well be «one of the fastest growing Catholic news providers», but it might not always be thorough in its research. In every story (especially conflicted ones), there is always the two sides of the coin. History amply shows that the Catholic Church authorities (bishops, cardinals, even popes), like any other religious or secular authorities for that matter, are not always examples of virtues in their leadership (let alone their personal lives), and that they are not always infallible in their judgments, especially condemnations. Christ Jesus himself was condemned by the highest religious authorities of Judaism (in Roman Palestine).
It was precisely my point to demonstrate that the «Marian Revelation» in which we believe does not, per se, «contradict» or «oppose», is not «contrary» to the truths contained in Scripture and Tradition, and taught by the Magisterium (it is even therein present in embryo). That is why the accusation of «heresy» can’t apply, as we do not deny or doubt any of the truths which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith (canon 751).
The (radicalized) theological argument about «Revelation closed» got it wrong (as I tried to explain) and underlies the doctrinal note of the Canadian Bishops (which was approved by Cardinal Ratzinger and quoted in the declaration of excommunication. The high-ranking Church authorities who embrace that argument («nothing-can-be-added-to-the-Revelation» or «God-has-no-more-to-say») are theologically mistaken and misleading (like in the letter of J. Gaston Hebert, the diocesan administrator of Little Rock in 2006-2008, quoted in your reply).
The apostolic reply: «We must obey God rather than men» (Acts 5:29) still stands in the Catholic Church. God is Light (Truth) (1 John 1:5), God is Love (1 John 4:8.16). Theologian Robert Ernst, that I quoted, says we «can never take advantage of obedience as a reason for denying the truth». It’s the very reason why Saint Joan of Arc was burnt at the stake. Those concerned by the Army of Mary must look at the two sides of the coin thoroughly, otherwise it would be more advisable to follow Gamaliel’s wisdom (Acts 5:35-39).
I admit it is probably easier to believe in Jesus Christ who lived 2000 years ago, than to believe in Mother Paul-Marie, a contemporary woman who lived most of the 20th Century and died recently on 25 April 2015. Only a handful of pious Jews accepted to follow Jesus at the beginning. But for us, there is no contradiction between Jesus and Marie-Paule, they complement each other in the Total Redemption.
«Whoever loves his brother remains in the light.» (1 John 2:10)
With my kindest regards,
Father David Lorange
August 1, 2015, Feast of Saint Alphonsus Liguori

Anonymous said...

Thank You Glen for your reply....may your favourite saint Gemma help you to discern in this matter
With due respect Father David Lorange.....pls. pray for the spirit of discernment.....because we may argue and argue but it is God who can show the true light .......

Father David Lorange said...

Thank you Anonymous for your kind words. It’s been now 25 years that I follow the Work of the Army of Mary. I belong to this small but significant group of persons (mostly francophones) who have reasons to believe in the authenticity of Marie-Paule Giguère, or Mother Paul-Marie (1921-2015). Within that context, I received my sacerdotal vocation (age of 14) and ordination in 2007 (age of 30), vocation-ordination in which I sincerely believe (even if the excommunication decree states my ordination is invalid).

Locally (Archdiocese of Québec city), we felt the paternal protection of Cardinal Maurice Roy (1905-1985), and globally, we also felt that Pope Saint John Paul II (1920-2005) protected us in his own way. From an objective standpoint, we haven’t received a fair treatment from other high-ranking Church authorities.

I do care for a spirit of discernment, which matured over all those years. I grant you this: the faith we have in Marie-Paule is as huge as the faith the early Christians had in Jesus. Let’s try to imagine ourselves in Palestine 2000 years ago. Let’s put ourselves in the shoes of the Jewish people. Would have we been in the group (small but significant) of the first disciples who believed in Jesus? The question is interesting. Of course, God only needs a tiny group of persons (like the Gedeon’s Army) to win the war. Who were schismatic? The small group of the first Christians, or the vast group of the Jewish people who did not recognize the Messiah?

Now that our foundress and spiritual mother is dead (since more than 3 months), our faith may be tested and we may feel helpless (pretty much, I would say, like the apostles who abandoned Jesus at the moment of his Passion and Death). But something in me continues to trust Marie-Paule, «hoping against hope», like Abraham (Romans 4:18). [That faith and trust in Marie-Paule (the Daughter) also means to believe in and trust Jesus (the Son), the Virgin Mary (the Mother), God the Father, in the unity of the Spirit: there we have the Quinternity.]

I’m not asking you to believe in the Quinternity. It may not be your path right now. But I think we can share a common attitude of charity and mutual respect. How can we call ourselves disciples of Christ without love? That’s why I quoted the letter of John: «Whoever loves his brother remains in the light.» With that simple love, my friend, we will change the world, and build bridges among the peoples, the cultures and the religions.

As for us Paulians, we believe that such a universal reconciliation will happen with the help of the Lady of all Peoples (in whom we recognize Mother Paul-Marie). And yes, I absolutely concur with you: «It is God who can show the true light.»

May God bless you!

Father David Lorange
August 4, Feast of Saint John Vianney

Discerning Catholic said...

Sorry, Glenn, but I’m not buying it. I don’t believe this latest article concerning the late Marie-Paule Giguere is just an objective report, posted for the sake of providing information “in the spirit of openness and dialogue”. It’s more than obvious now that you actually believe in these condemned private revelations and you’re posting this additional information in order to promote, in a subtle manner, Marie-Paule’s messages and movement on your blog. I visit your blog often, but that’s about to change, because the promotion of these messages pose serious concerns for me.

I won’t even bother reiterating some of the off-the-wall claims Marie-Paule has written about and passed on to her cult of followers (yes, this is a cult movement similar to the followers of the condemned apparitions of the late Mary Ann Van Hoof in Necedah, Wisconsin and those of the late Veronica Leuken of Bayside, New York)… but any knowledgeable Catholic who has read anything about these revelations (including your prior two articles about Marie-Paule) should immediately recognize the major RED FLAGS contained in them and stay clear of this movement. I am not a mystic or prophet, but I dare make one prediction - these false messages/doctrines/movement will never be approved by the Catholic Church; the world will end first before these messages are considered truth.

But my main concern lies with the not-so-knowledgeable Catholics out there. With so many people eager for reports of mystics and miracles, some may find their way to your articles about Marie-Paule and be mislead into thinking her private revelations are actually worthy of belief, especially because you’ve included her biography along with those of genuine mystic-souls such as St. Gemma Galgani, Bl. Margaret Bays, Bl. Maria Bolognesi, etc. There is a risk here of tremendous spiritual danger to souls due to the potential for many to be lead astray from true Catholic Doctrine; that you‘re actually [knowingly] doing the Church (the one you say you're loyal to) a great disservice by encouraging “dialogue” about a false, EXCOMMUNICATED mystic who tried to pass herself off as the incarnation/reincarnation of the Blessed Virgin Mary on earth (ABSURD! And again, RED FLAGS).

TO MY FELLOW CATHOLICS OUT THERE… BEWARE of these FALSE revelations from Marie-Paule Giguere. Stay within the safe haven of the Catholic Faith, which has existed and taught the true doctrines of Jesus Christ for over two thousand years. Private revelations - approved or not approved - are not necessary for our salvation, only what Jesus Christ has taught us and passed on through His HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH can lead us to sure salvation (not the “Paulian” version of Catholicism or the "Church of John"). Be informed and use your common sense. Remember the warning given to us in Scripture:

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." - Galatians 1:8

Glenn Dallaire said...

Hi Discerning Catholic,
Thanks for your comments. While your concern for fellow Catholics is very justifiable and commendable, I would just like to point out that as stated in the opening paragraph, and also in the subsequent comments, the above article is a GUEST article, and therefore does not necessarily reflect my own faith or beliefs. In fact, as I have stated in BOTH of the original Part 1 and Part 2 articles, I left the Army of Mary back in 2007, just prior to the excommunication, out of obedience to the Catholic church. I point this out, for a third time now, just so you know that the following accusation here is completely incorrect:
“It’s more than obvious now that you actually believe in these condemned private revelations and you’re posting this additional information in order to promote, in a subtle manner, Marie-Paule’s messages and movement on your blog.”

Since you apparently missed it, for the record here is what I stated in Part 1 back a few months ago concerning my past involvement in the Army of Mary:

For eleven years, the author of this article and host of this website was an active member of the Army of Mary, and was a lay Son of Mary in the Family of the Sons & Daughters of Mary--that is, two of the "Works" founded by Marie-Paule Giguere. I met Marie-Paule many times over the years, and read all of the volumes of her autobiography "Life of Love" and actively participated in the Army of Mary throughout the 11 years. After much soul searching, I left the Army of Mary and its associated branches in June 2007 out of obedience to the Catholic church, due to the schismatic ordinations that occurred in the Communities Spiri-Maria chapel earlier in that month. Three months afterwards (September 2007) the Archdiocese of Quebec announced the Declaration of Excommunication issued by the Vatican, as stated in the above article. In this, as in all things, the author and host of this website endeavors always to be in communion with the Catholic church and Its teachings.

I hope this reiteration of my own current position vis-a-vis the Army of Mary helps to clarify where I personally stand on the matter, for whatever it is worth.

May God bless you and your loved ones,
Glenn Dallaire

Father David Lorange said...

Love only will save the world.

In his first encyclical, Ecclesiam suam (6 August 1964), Blessed Paul VI said:

«To this internal drive of charity which seeks expression in the external gift of charity, We will apply the word “dialogue”.» (n. 64)

«The Church can regard no one as excluded from its motherly embrace, no one as outside the scope of its motherly care.» (n. 94)

No one is excluded from dialogue (unless one excludes oneself). The Pope also pointed out 4 characteristics of dialogue: clarity, meekness, confidence, prudence (n. 81). Speaking of confidence:

«Confidence is also necessary; confidence not only in the power of one's own words, but also in the good will of both parties to the dialogue. Hence dialogue promotes intimacy and friendship on both sides. It unites them in a mutual adherence to the Good, and thus excludes all self-seeking.» (n. 81)

As for Saint John Paul II, we can quote these passages from his encyclical Ut unum sint (25 May 1995):

«Love for the truth is the deepest dimension of any authentic quest for full communion between Christians. Without this love it would be impossible to face the objective theological, cultural, psychological and social difficulties which appear when disagreements are examined. This dimension, which is interior and personal, must be inseparably accompanied by a spirit of charity and humility. There must be charity towards one's partner in dialogue, and humility with regard to the truth which comes to light and which might require a review of assertions and attitudes.» (n. 36)

«Above all, these disagreements should be faced in a sincere spirit of fraternal charity, of respect for the demands of one's own conscience and of the conscience of the other party, with profound humility and love for the truth.» (n. 39)

For us, Paulians, it’s clear that we don’t contradict the Scripture and the Tradition (and thus the Magisterium). The high-ranking Church authorities, who excommunicated us, have not explained clearly to us, in our view, how the Quinternity and the Co-Redemption (as we understand them) contradict the Catholic doctrine. Jesus himself raised some red flags of absurdity for some pharisees and scribes. But he wasn’t contradicting the Torah and the Prophets. We don’t preach another Gospel than the one preached by Saint Paul (the Marian Revelation of our time doesn’t contradict it, in our view).

[The word «cult», used by some people towards the Army of Mary, can be related to sectarianism, extremism, authoritarianism, exclusivism, not to mention manipulation, isolation, indoctrination, extortion. These are grave words and accusations to be proven.]

I want to thank you Glenn for your spirit of charity, friendship and dialogue, in giving me a chance to voice myself on your blog. I’m sure this spirit of love enables you to be a discerning Catholic, one that is prudent in passing judgment.

«What unites us is much greater than what divides us.» (Ut unum sint, n. 20, Saint John Paul II quoting Saint John XXIII)

Father David Lorange

Anonymous said...

By my last sentence I meant that people who are obedient to him do not become excommunicated. All souls belong to God, those who are excommunicated are called to come back to the true faith. So in that regard he does allow some that warning to bring them back. This is not the kind of suffering, though, that is meant to prove that someone can suffer and has thus prove their merits. Excommunication is for a persons well being, no stronger call to return can be given. There is also no stronger warning to others not to follow such paths.

Anonymous said...

Also why was my original comment, deleted.

Glenn Dallaire said...

Hi Anonymous,
Your comment was definitely not deleted. Try refreshing this page by hitting the F5 KEY on your keyboard (it is up at the top, usually above the #5 key). This will refresh the page with the latest comments.
The only comments I ever delete are ones that contain foul language or are inappropriate.

And thanks for your comments!

May God bless you and our loved ones,
Glenn Dallaire

Anonymous said...

No thanks. I'll stick to the tried and true Catholic teachings we already have. Saints have been going to heaven since the time of the apostles without Marie-Paule's heresy so don't need it and definitely don't want any of it.

RG said...

Hi Glenn,

Thank you so much for all the resources you have posted on this website, it is "very much" appreciated, and edifying.

I just found this page about Marie-Paule Giguère and the "Armée de Marie". The rule for our discernment is first and foremost obedience to the Magisterial authority of the Church and here this is regarding private revelations. Taking into account the condemnations of the Catholic Church regarding this group and their publications, you should definitely refrain from publishing anything that could undermine the instructions of the Church on this matter, this is the correct way to act, this is the way of all the true mystics of the Church: obedience.

On the other hand though you and some other persons, maybe even some priests, might not understand the reasons behind the condemnations, still then personal obedience is always the way of true mystics.

But, I can assure you that the condemnations of this group are very well founded, and had been extensively researched by the best theologians, and this has been done in a spirit of dialogue through many years, I would say from my personal experience with this group, at least 26 years of exchanges and eventually unheeded warnings, before the excommunication was decreed by Rome.

There is "no doubt" in my mind that you or anyone else you might refer as supporting contrary views or doubts to the scope of the decree of excommunication, are in disobedience to the Church.

This (your) website is so well documented in other respects, that this particular page can even more be cause for scandal. And Jesus said to his disciples: "Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come". Luke 17:1

It cannot be any clearer than that. So it is up to you and your conscience, but in doubt questions like this can and should always be discussed in spiritual direction with a "learned theologian" (the best available one could meet) which can be referred to us by our bishop or chancellery office for example. This is what Saint Theresa of Avila would suggest to us, to consult a "learned theologian", and this is what we must all do in such grave matters I think, mostly so if you are to publish something on your website!

Otherwise though, thanks again for your beautiful work with this website.

Blessings, and united in prayer,

Robert Guertin

Glenn Dallaire said...

Hi Robert,
It is nice to hear from you! Thank you for your thoughtful and well reasoned comments.

I agree with your position, vis-a-vis that obedience to the legitimate authority of the Church is paramount, and that this has always be a key lesson from all the Saints.

In fact, concerning purported visionaries and mystics I have written about the necessity of obedience to the Church in an article of this website here, just in case you may have missed it.

In summary, as you say all private revelations should be subject to the discernment and official judgments of the Church. And in Part 1 and most especially in Part 2 of my articles on this website about Marie-Paule Giguere I reported quite extensively on the history of the judgments of the Church concerning Marie-Paule Giguere and the "Work" that she founded, and in both of my articles I specifically reported on the official declaration of Excommunication, and in both cases for those interested I linked to the official document.

With these facts previously established and published here on this website, since there are always two sides to every story, the guest article above from Fr. David Lorange is NOT presented in disobedience to the Church, but simply represents the "other side of the coin", so to speak. In other words, it is a sincere attempt at fair and balanced reporting.

Thanks again Robert for your comments. May God bless you and your loved ones.
Glenn Dallaire