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   601 – 800 of 3140   Newer›   Newest»
carli said...

Thank you for posting the whole exchange. Yes, that is what I saw. So there could be several things that Charlie is saying here.

There are few things that come to my mind when I read the exchange. Is Charlie saying that THIS message did not come from God, but implying that other messages DID come from God? Did the message come from a demonic source or from Charlie's imagination? He's said he made a mistake, but if he's saying that this message did not come from God, then it had to come from somewhere. What mistake exactly did he make?

The whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth to be honest. I feel I've spent too much time on this, especially of late. I feel bad for those who have spent much longer. Charlie has cloaked his fraud in some attractive packaging, but in the end, it is fraud.

Anonymous said...

This is becoming Charliegate. Numerous religious and the Denver diocese are involved. It sounds sarcastic but do you know for certain what the Diocese told Charlie? I think a deal was struck and only Charlie and the diocese are privy to it.

Lisa said...

Judging from Charlie's words today, he still believes that his information is coming from God:

"I have not been released from service, just from public service. I will be watchful as I retire into prayer and direction. I would not return to the public square because of ordinary convulsions, even were they intense. I would not return except for something as compelling as a coup."

Anonymous said...

I think what is important for us to realize, is that yes, Charlie didn't carry himself lovingly on his site when it came to us, ie. Wiping out our comments and being cross, but I think that we could have carried ourselves better on this website, MOTC, with our attitudes towards each other. I, myself, apologize for any sarcasm, or inappropriate comments I may have made towards any of you, since I started on this site, MOTC, last March,'16. When people are stressed they tend to say things they might not normally say to other Christians. I know I was super stressed, because this subject was pretty unbelievable, and intense, so I am sorry if I offended anyone. I know that Jesus wants us to be aware of the effect we have on others, that might not be loving. Thank you for hearing. God bless.

Fred Keyes said...

I'd like to hear from the bishop--'Yong Duk.' I believe he was actually neutral on Charlie, but certainly his presence on the site and his jocularity gave the whole phenomenon some acceptability. Having put in his own two cents frequently he could help with some words of wisdom. A retired bishop in Texas was also a supporter; one would hope they would put their apostolic heads together and help the Archbishop of Denver give the faithful direction, in the tradition of St. Paul who did not hesitate to call out false prophets.

There were also several priests and sisters who supported him and continue to do so. Their support for Charlie the person is certainly laudable, but they also need to consider the needs of the souls whose faith has been tried and perhaps mislead by this debacle.

Anonymous said...

I respect Charlie Johnston, true or false, but why pay so much attention to him when we have Medjugorje and other more credible marian apparitions?

Anonymous said...

Charlie Johnston's prophecies, at least for me, have been a living nightmare. Waiting for martial law, the total collapse of the money systems, world wide civil war, war with Red China, 26 million dead (possibly from nuclear bombs), roaming mobs breaking into homes/raping woman and children, tanks rolling down the streets and trying to escape to the mountains and FEMA camps. Thank God the nightmare is over.

Joe said...

We are talking about a guy who said that he talks to Angels. Let that sink in for a minute. Now if anyone told you that on the street, you would think this guy is nuts let me get away from him ASAP. Then he tells you, I will prove it to you. My angels told me this crazy, unbelievable thing is going to happen by this date, if it doesn't, your right I am nuts. At this point you are at least curious, so you have a wait and see attitude. This guy goes around and creates quite the following and continues telling people this big thing is going to happen by this date. Though it will be rough for a short while your life and the world will be better for it. Now this guy claims he is doing all this for God and his following continues to grow. All the sudden you start thinking, this guy might be legit, now you are invested. As the date gets closer and closer, this guy starts talking about everything but what he originally proclaimed. He is talking about fudge recipes, Christmas cards, politics, weather and common colds. His followers, with the exception of a few are almost hypnotized by this guy and everything he says is the most amazing, glorious thing they have ever heard. Now you start to feel like you are in the Truman show where everything around you is fake. So you decide to ask this guy straight up what about this whole thing the Angels told you about that is supposed to be happening any day now. Immedietly he flys off the handle, gets defensive, nasty and then his cult like followers attack your character then he bans you from speaking about it any more. Ultimately when his proclamation does not come true. All of his followers still think he is the greatest man to ever walk the earth and you are left thinking to yourself this can't be real. This has to be a joke. I am sorry to say, but this is a true story and the name of the guy "conartist" is Charlie Johnston.

Joe said...

I have serious doubt that numb nut was a bishop

Beth said...

Hahahaha Joe!

Anonymous said...

As I read these comments about Charlie, I am really perplexed. He says that he was deceived. He takes no responsibility for what he did. People talk about him being a nice guy and someone, they believe, didn't mean to deceive, but he did deceive. There are other comments, too, along this line. The phrase that keeps coming to mind is this:

“No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth."
Matthew 6:24

Charlie will be back. He can't stay away. Next time, I hope that people remember that God wants us to love Him. He wants us to place our trust in Him and no one else. God does not deceive. It all goes back to this: Did Charlie ever have supernatural visits? I would sincerely doubt this. He's a self made man.




Sarge said...

I would like to offer a brief response to Anonymous at 2:09 1/21:

I don't understand how you got that I, "...don't know or don't care Charlie hurt other people, they worry about themselves and their situation..." from my post. I'm going to let that go.

I will say that many people in this forum appear to have been personally hurt by Charlie, and have become almost obsessed with tearing him down. I personally never knew of Charlie to hurt anyone. Sure, he could get a little cranky when responding to comments sometimes. I got into with him a couple times myself. I don't think anyone ever said he was anything other than human with an imperfect love like all of us. If he "hurt" people because people went out and made imprudent decisions based on his blog or worked themselves into a state of panic, I will defend him on that charge. Charlie said many times NOT to go out and stockpile food or become a "prepper". He also said not to worry about the coming "Storm" and that we should all learn to rely upon and trust in God. If people did the contrary, it is not Charlie who is to blame.

As for the fudge recipes and stuff like that...as someone who has been in many life or death situations, I chalked it up to a little bit of gallows humor. It's good to keep things loose if you think a serious situation might be right around the corner.

That is all I have to say on the matter. As Charlie once advised me with regards to a book written by a priest who apparently has said things contrary to the true Catholic teaching at times, "Take the good and leave the bad." Charlie's website had a lot of good, so I'll take that. The predictions were bad, I've always had a bit of an off feeling about them, so I'll leave those.

Peace and blessings to you, Anonymous.

Anonymous said...

Glenn! Thanks be to God! I am so happy to learn you are going to be much more prudent about "maybes" like Charlie from now on! Nothing is ever all bad and God can use evil to make us more Christlike. You are to be commended for listening to God's voice on this. I look forward to hearing about some of the lesser known but Church approved mystics on this site from now on. Have you considered some of the lesser known Carmelite blesseds?

Glenn Dallaire said...


Hi Lisa,
You said:
Judging from Charlie's words today, he still believes that his information is coming from God:
"I have not been released from service, just from public service. I will be watchful as I retire into prayer and direction. I would not return to the public square because of ordinary convulsions, even were they intense. I would not return except for something as compelling as a coup."
-----------------

The grave problem I personally have with this comment from Charlie is one of credibility. If after 55 years of alleged "prophetic training" and yet in reality to actually get his very first public prophecy completely wrong in both parts, I don't think that any discerning person could hold out any confidence in him if here were to try to make some kind of comeback, most especially anything to do with prophecies or predictions.

Meaning to say that I don't see how any remedial prophetic private re-training period is going to fix a double prophetic fail on your first public prophecy, after years of purported training to this point. The whole idea is just not a confidence re-builder, at least not for me anyway.

I simply happen to think that if one were truly "sent" to give a heavenly message supposedly for the ENTIRE WORLD, then God would make very sure your first public message hits home with some serious significance. It would not end with a double fail.

While certain public persons of recent memory seem to be covered in teflon whereas no scandal seems to stick to them (thinking of a certain recent political candidate here, for example), I simply don't see Charlie ever regaining any believability or a significant following in the future.

Just my .02 cents.
Glenn Dallaire

Glenn Dallaire said...


Thanks Anonymous @6:00 (a couple of posts above)

Yes!, I still have quite a few mystics that I hope to add in the future, God willing.

And as for Carmelites, I do have Saint Mariam Baouardy (St. Mariam of Jesus Crucified), as you may have already seen. She is an interesting one, for sure.

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

Anonymous said...

To Fred Keyes,

You mentioned "YongDuk" earlier. This is an answer "YongDuk" had to someone who asked why Charlie didn't apologize to those people who were writing that they had been hurt by believing in him. I truly don't think "YongDuk" is a bishop, he doesn't seem to feel Charlie has any responsibility for those he misled or even just spoke harshly to.

P.S. This "bishop" tells the poster that he/she needs to get integrity. I guess just for questioning Charlie!!


YongDuk says:
January 21, 2017 at 1:31 pm


Harper, to those who have been hurt by Charlie, his word or actions, shows a gross deficit in their personal formation, psychological or sociological.

To think that a person on an online website has that great an impact on someone to “hurt” them, makes me question the hurt person’s sanity.

Honor implies integrity–an integral formation. Please pray that you discover an integral formation for yourself.



Anonymous said...

Glenn,

Will you join with others in the comments who say they want to contact the Archdiocese of Denver and let them know about your experience with Charlie? I think as a sort of journalist and someone who has closely followed him from his early days you might be especially helpful to the archdiocese priests who have to study Charlie and make any recommendations. I am sure they don't have enough staff to have the information on Charlie at their fingertips as you do!! Please consider this as a public service and an next step of your work to help people get acquainted with mystics and to discern them!

Fulton J. Waterloo said...

I would expect "church ladies" to spend all their waking hours on this nonsense, but not grown males. The earth has more than enough potential catastrophes that do not need any "help" from the signs and wonders" crowd. So, use your time wisely with a good history or economics book.It might cure some of the posters from these seemingly endless, meandering, pointless excursions into " impossible to disprove" speculation. Please get a life, or a job.

Glenn Dallaire said...


To Anonymous @4:21:
Yes, sometimes one can hastily type up and post a comment that one regrets upon reflection afterwards. We all have done it at one time or another. But, as the saying goes "To error is human, to forgive is Divine." So, hopefully those who read through these comments keep in mind the strong feelings at this time of quite a few folks towards these recent events.

To "Sarge":
Your comments here have really been solid food for thought, I think. Thanks for commenting.

-Glenn Dallaire

Glenn Dallaire said...


Hi "Fulton Jack Waterloo",

Now THAT'S a really prestigious sounding name you have sir! I love it! Thanks for your comments.

The thing is, somewhat like the "Church ladies" I'm kind of a "Church guy". But hey, everyone's got their own interests. Like you, I really also like history AND economics. In fact quite often I devote some of my spare time to both. And I do have a full-time job too. And seven kids...but three of them are now grown and outside the house. And I really do like to think that I personally have somewhat of a life--I know I'm currently breathing at the moment so I must have some kind of life going on here presently, I think.

Anyway, thanks again for your sharing your thoughts and advice. Sorry this subject matter doesn't really interest you. Consider checking out some of the other articles here though---who knows you may like something else here.

May God bless you and your loved ones,
Glenn Dallaire

Anonymous said...

Sarge: No hard feelings, I was a little too quick to judge you - my apologies.
You may have had a good relationship with Charlie and a good experience - mine was not very good. You probably don't know what went on behind the scenes. Mine had nothing to do with prepping, I didn't go out and buy loads of stuff on his advice because I already had lots of stuff left over from the Y2K fiasco and Art Bell's advice.
He wasn't fair to me and others and some of it is outlined in the previous blog so I don't want to re-hash it. He was very deceitful in the way he handled my comments, I believe his ego couldn't take being challenged and being shown wrong because it would lead to the others questioning him - he did a smear campaign on me, but in the end he realized he was in the wrong direction and tried to play both sides of the fence and that made his situation worse and his control more authoritarian and then he decided to stick to his original prophecies and to live or die with them with some sort of qualifications. It turned out quite badly for him but he managed to keep the support of people like yourself. For me, if you knew the games he played it would shock you.

Lisa said...

Glenn,
Thank you for weighing in regarding Charlie's "service." I thought that was one of the more alarming statements that he wrote today. I hope that no one is deceived by him again after this. As someone stated above, our time would be much better spent in prayer, in adoration, or in Mass. And speaking of time better spent, I got to Charlie's website through this website, but I've also enjoyed reading about and getting to know St. Gemma. Thanks so much for all your great information on her!
Lisa

Glenn Dallaire said...


Hi Anonymous @6:30pm.

Awhile back I corresponded with one of the Archdiocese of Denver priests who soon afterwards was one of the three priests on the commission responsible for investigating Charlie. At that time he had been following things concerning Charlie quite closely, and therefore I am suspecting that he (and likely the two others concerned) have been keeping tabs on things, especially this most recent matter. And so, this particular priest on the Archdiocesan commission definitely knows how to reach me, if any needs be. I'm thinking though that the conclusions of this recent prophecy fail are self-evident, and any thoughts that this writer might offer are really not necessary.

It will be interesting to see though if the Archbishop makes any statement in the upcoming days/weeks. He may just let the obvious speak for itself.

-Glenn Dallaire

Joe said...

If you think that the fudge recipe thing was a anything more than a diversion for what his real prophecy was you are one gullible dude. Please don't compare Charlie's prophecies to life or death situations that is insulting.

Joe said...

Sarge probably never really challenged Charlie unless it was loaded with flattery, otherwise he would have the same fate as the rest of us. I just read Sarge's last response to Charlie and it was nothing but rear kissing just like the rest of the sheeple over there.

Anonymous said...

For those of you who "prepped" have you considered turning the tables on Satan and donating the goods to charity? Doing something positive like that may help with healing.

Anonymous said...

Our Blessed Mother warns if these False Prophets in her messages in Medjugorje. Never follow man but only the 5 stones. There are many of these False visionaries

Brendan Triffett said...

What would you do, I wonder, if God revealed to you personally that his personal revelations to you were not real? Hehe

Anonymous said...

Charlie often said that in the Storm, people's hearts will be revealed. The way some people here are piling on Charlie is certainly revealing what is in their hearts.

Anonymous said...

You would best not quote Charlie, he has no official standing anymore, I'll quote directly from the Bible in regard to Charlie:
The basic nature of God's Justice:
GALATIANS 6: 7-9 (KJV)
7: Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
Everything that you do has repercussions. It comes back to you one way or another.

Anonymous said...

TNRSers can attack and condemn and say whatever they want about us BOVOCs but the bottom line is that their leader failed to deliver the goods.
I think it was President Putin who said playing chess with Obama is like playing chess with a pigeon. The pigeon knocks over all the pieces on the board, then shits all over it and struts around like he won.
Playing Chess with Charlie and his followers is like playing chess with a pigeon, they knock over all the pieces , shit on the board and strut around like they won.

Joe said...

So what you're saying is that when Charlie gets caught telling undeniably tall tales, the people whose hearts are revealed "the bad guys" are the ones who call him out on it. Wow! I am impressed by how illogical that is.

Anonymous said...

No not hell, there's a reason to be there, however - Alice in Wonderland, nothing makes sense there or The twilight zone.

Anonymous said...

Joe 12:24 that's been the reasoning behind the TNRSers all along, illogical is the new logic, no wait Charlie logic, he decides what is logical because you minions don't understand how God works, Charlie does and I guess his followers have figured out his logic - whatever they decide is logic.
There are some people on his blog who actually use the Charlie logic as sarcasm but his followers give him thumbs up thinking it's Charlie logic but it's really Charlie logic sarcasm - if we did that we might have stayed on his site longer.

Anonymous said...

Beckita thumbs up the Charlie logic sarcasm all the time - it's actually quite funny.

Anonymous said...

No unapproved mystic or prophet is your dog to walk and until you figure how to quit micromanaging and besmirching the good name of everyone from a spiritual director right up to a Monsignor and the Pope and 2000 years of theology guided by the Holy Spirit in the matter for 'our own good', then you should clarify it is just your opinion and that is pretty much all you are entitled to. Secondly you are no more culpable for 'our own good' than you are if someone decides to follow Charlie Manson so you are disordered in that as well. You need to clearly define your own mission before you keep sowing such confusion, discord and error regarding your own culpability in the matter of yellow journalism before you start deciding for the church.

Jackisback said...

Anonymous at 2:09 PM,

Your analogous story of the female recruiters of a born again church is the most inciteful comment that I have read on this blog. It describes in a better way, my point about how I think Charlie is basically harmless, except for the folks who ended up buying lots of stuff from the Peppy Prpper that they could not really afford, but that there is still something very wrong with enticing people with a "doomsday-lite" and "rescue" prophecy, and then when folks look for details, they are told "hey my prophecies aren't the important thing here."

That last part is akin to the "let me introduce you to my boyfriend" part of your story.

Jackisback said...

Lisa and Carli,

The reason Charlie is using this language, appearing to blame God for his deception, is that he is silently referring to a passage in the book of Jeremiah that he quoted in Entering the Danger Zone. He takes that particular passage out of context in my opinion, and commits his par-for-the-course logical fallacy of appealing to authority - comparing himself to Jeremiah, a true prophet of the old testament.

That is why I pre-emptively admonished CP not to try that line of non-reasoning in my last post. In Charlie's mind, he's not blaming God per se, he's just looking at himself and thinking "I was duped, just like Jeremiah."

Bottom line: since he admits the information did not come from God, and he has previously alluded to not being immune from the possibility that "the satan" could appear as an "angel of light" (as he claims has occurred with other genuine prophets of the past - there's that logical fallacy again), Charlie is asserting that it's the fault of "the satan." "The satan" duped him. God allowed that to happen without intervening.

Charlie doesn't see the logical fallacy in this - a large blind spot for him.

Decision tree time: first, Charlie either did, or did not, actually communicate with a supernatural being as he claimed, from whom he attributes receiving the Presidential Prophecy. Second, asuming he did, and we know it was neither God nor an angel of God (because it was a lie), then it must have been "satan" or a servant of "satan." Third, however, assuming the original communication did not occur, and further assuming Charlie is a good enough Catholic not to have lied about the encounter, then Charlie is hearing voices and seeing images of the "angel Gabriel" that aren't really there to be seen and heard. That's a hallucination. That he insists and persists in believing as true the other "communications" ascribed to the hallucination is more troubling. That's a delusion. Prior to the publication of the DSM-V, these two things - hallucinations and delusions were the two most important symptoms in diagnosing someone as having schizophrenia. The DSM-V makes schizophrenia into a "spectrum disorder" (a feature normally referred to in personality disorders). I've read at least one good article complaining that the DSM-V is not an improvement over the DSM-IV.

Anonymous said...

Jack there are a couple of problems with your reasoning although it is basically on the right track. People with schizophrenia do not only have hallucinations and in fact this is not the core substance of the disorder. Significant cognitive problems including working, short and long term memory and fairly severe speech and language problems are the core problems in this disorder. Clearly Charlie has exceptional language and language processing skills and could not organise and run his little cult and website if he had the cognitive problems most persons wiht schizophrenia have. There is another scenario in that Charlie is a sociopath the criteria for a diagnosis of which are more in line with his behaviour and this whole TNRS fiasco has been a magnificent deception. Another is that he has narcissistic personality disorder although this seems less likely. Despite all this he is obviously very unwell spiritually and would probably benefit from time with an exorcist or good priest. Please take this comment in the helpful spirit it is intended I admire your thinking processes.

Unknown said...

To those that believe they can still take the good in Charlie's writings and leave the rest, I would strongly urge you to reconsider. This was presented as coming directly from Heaven, without equivocation ("I told you true"). It was not contingent but was to be. This clearly was not from God. Things not of God are the work of Satan. Satan will mix a portion of truth into a recipe to twist the reader into following a false path. We are dealing with forces we cannot comprehend. Fallen from the ranks of the 9 Choirs of Angels. Principalities. Powers. Thrones.

To presume we can sift through the diabolical deception and glean the good from the bad is to presume we can match wits with fallen angels. We cannot.

In addition to Charlie's failed prophecy, we have additional reason to take heed. After the failure, he foists the reason on God. God let it happen. It was not God's fault. And let's look at this for what it really is. It is not an attempt by God to rebuke or humble Charlie. This result has nothing to do with Charlie in the greater scheme of things. It was a sign for all of us. A sign of a false profit, who is not speaking for God.

And while Charlie states he was wrong, he expresses little remorse for those who took his words to heart. Not his fault people changed their lives. There us a doctrine in the law called foreseeability. One can be faulted for damages that result from their acts or words, regardless of intent to inflict harm, is the consequences were foreseeable. His dire and specific warnings created a sense of impeding doom. If one believed this message to be from God, would it not be foreseeable that people would react beyond Charlie's suggestions?

A final thought. The rescue. That troubled and continues to trouble me. I know of nothing in the Bible that suppports this concept. In fact, it seems contrary to Revelation. When you think about it, the concept of a rescue for the faithful bears little difference to the concept of a rapture. The significant difference being with the rapture the faithful are taken out of this world to safety, whereas the rescue has the safe places in this world.

As I recall, the Church does not support the concept of a rapture. And I doubt it would look favorably on the concept of a rescue.

Please reconsider holding onto the "good" here. We have been given a clear sign that Charlie is not a prophet if God, not that he just whiffed on one prediction. When even part of the whole is tainted, it is best to avoid trying to discern what has not been infected.

Mark said...


It takes time to wrap your brain around things and for things to sink in. Those people who are still "All in" will eventually be "All out" when it all sinks in.

Anonymous said...

To the anonymous who discussed the idea of foreseeability in tort law: I do not believe that would apply in Charlie's case. Wouldn't his speech be protected religious speech? As a practical matter, Charlie apparently doesn't have much money, although he's had his housing, transportation (a truck), travel/lodging/food paid for by the fan base.
Some of his followers do have deep pockets, like the man who set up the local group system, if I recall correctly, but followers too have exercise of religion protection.

If anyone knows more, correct me if I'm wrong.

Tim Swarr said...

Charlie is following in the footsteps of Jonah, a prophet of God who was 0 for 1 as far as fulfilled prophecy or warnings go. Jonah was not happy that the people of Nineveh repented and God changed his mind. Though Jonah's prophecy did not come true, we find an entire book attributed to him as 1 of the 12 Prophets. What gives? God said (1) you could tell a false prophet if what he says does not come true, but He also said (2) 'tell my people what will happen, perhaps they will repent and turn back to me and I will forgive them'. Could it be that (1) refers to prophecies of good to come, such as the virgin birth, the bear will feed with the cattle, etc.; and that (2) refers to prophecies of warnings and destruction, such as the invasion fo Babylon, Charlie's warning, etc. In that sense, it could be that Charlie did his job exactly as God would have him: he went out on a limb to issue a warning of disaster and hope; enough prayerful people responded by fasting and praying, and God relented of the punishment as He has done many times.

Unknown said...

I was not speaking of filing a lawsuit, but whether the consequences of what he wrote were foreseeable. And, under tort law, there are two parts: Whether the consequences or damages were forseeable, then whether there are defenses to liability. There can be clear foreseeability, and just as clearly no liability.

I was speaking of only the first part, whether it was foreseeable for people to react in a dramatic manner to messages of such dire tone and content. He may not be liable under our legal standards, but what is legal is not always moral.

Unknown said...

Jonahs prophecy was contingent, not set. Big difference.

And by comparison, there is none. A whole city repented bssed on the message, from the king on down. Charlie's messages had no such effect.

Finally, Charlie professed this as a certainty. From Heaven. There was no room for repentence or turning God's hand. It was going to happen. Not as a chastisement as with Nineveh, but as a sign of Charlie's authenticity as a Prophet of God.



Anonymous said...

To Tim Swarr

Jonah's prophecy was conditional: repent or else.
Charlie's was not conditional.
Furthermore, on the possibility that he might have been wrong leading up to things, he clearly and emphatically stated IT WILL HAPPEN and that this would be a sign from God.

I'm not sure things could be clearer in this regard.

Sarge said...

I'd mostly just like to reply @Anonymous 7:01 on 1/21, but I'd also like to wrap up a few other thoughts and then I'll be done.

Anonymous, thank you for your kind response. I am sorry to hear of your experience. I have no reason to doubt you, so I take you at your word. My experience was different, Charlie was generally very good to me, so for my part I have no ill will toward the man.

Reading through the comments here, there are a couple of people who, in my opinion, are taking some undeserved abuse. I followed Charlie's site for a year and change. I never knew Beckita to say an unkind word to anyone. You can certainly disagree with her, but I don't think she should be the recipient of some of the harsh accusations here.

Secondly, I do think Yong Duk is actually a bishop. He dropped a few hints as to his identity over the year, and he has a legitimate reason to protect his privacy. He treated 99% of people with great pastoral care, and he personally did me a great kindness, so I will always remember that. To say that he is not a bishop based upon one or two responses is an illogical argument. You might not like what he says, but it is irrelevant to the question as to whether or not he is a bishop. The response that someone cut and pasted above is advice I have given members of my own family (namely, you should really ask yourself why something someone you've never met anonymously posted on the internet is making you so upset.) Do I not love my own family?

There was someone posting on Charlie's site about a week ago who became the center of a conflagration. I am trying to say this as charitably as I can, while still being frank. This person's posts were abrasive and argumentative (for the most part, Charlie took the time to answer respectful questions, even the 1000th time he was asked the same thing). After a few back and forths, this person succeeded in getting a bishop to call him an idiot. Congratulations. If you have a well-behaved dog that is good around children, and it bites you after you kick it and pull its tail, don't get mad at the dog.

For the most part, I take Yong Duk's advice on things posted on the internet, but I don't let twisting of words go unchecked. Here is my final post to Charlie (keeping in mind the context that this is a man whom I corresponded with for a year and consider a friend.):

I would just like to say thank you to Charlie for many of the insightful articles you have posted. They have deepened my faith and been a huge help to me as I’ve been struggling through a very dark period in my life. I am also eternally grateful for the prayers and support of many friends in this community. I hope I have been able to support others with my prayers.
Clearly, the prophetic visions were false, but the overall “TNRS” message is authentic and I will always carry that with me.
We don’t need a prophet to tell us about a Storm; anyone who is paying attention can see that the world today is not living in harmony with its Creator. The only thing for the Church Militant to do is soldier on, as it has for 100 generations before us.

If telling someone that their life's work is "clearly false" is "rear kissing", I'm not very good at it. I do try to make my points with tact, but there is a world of difference between tact and rear kissing.

Finally, we would all do well to heed today's second reading. We don't belong to Paul or Cephas or Apollos or Charlie or anyone else. It was Christ who was crucified for us. Let us go forward in a spirit of unity. Exacerbating these divisions amongst Christians serves nobody except the evil one.

God bless you all.

Anonymous said...

Glen,
I have been enjoying your website.
Given the failed Presidential Prophecy, perhaps you might want to revise this article:
http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2015/06/the-time-of-purification-of-humanity.html

Just a suggestion.

Glenn Dallaire said...


As for the prospect of the Presidential prophecy possible being conditional, well numerous times Charlie made sure everyone knew it was not conditional.

For example, 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."
-------------------

One has no need to declare
"..that this be a sign to you to fortify you to trust Him",

and also to
"...declare myself unreliable and go away. But it will not happen that way",

if there was any prospect of it being conditional.

Additionally, numerous other statements from Charlie can be cited here, but the one above summarizes it well, I think.

-Glenn Dallaire

Joe said...

I am saddened by the foolishness of so many Catholic people on Charlie's site. I know we live In a dumb downed society but I always held Catholics to a higher standard. I see a lot of smart, rational thinking Catholics here and I am hoping Charlie's followers are just a small minority. Sarge I see you are talking about me. I am a persistant person and when I don't get clear answers to very simple questions, I press harder. When there is continued avoidance of answering anything directly, I have my answer. The man is a fraud and if you can't see that then I can't help you. At least on this site there can be a debate, on Charlie's site it is all a one sided rear end kissing parade.

Joseph J. said...


"It was a sign for all of us. A sign of a false prophet, who is not speaking for God."

These are words of wisdom, Jim M.

Another Karen said...

This comment is for Joe in response to his 10:38 comment and some of his other comments.

Hi Joe, I am 'Another Karen' from Charlie's site. I have followed him for awhile and like Sarge, have appreciated more the non-prophetic message to in essence, do the God's will at every moment to the best of my ability with a pure heart. I have also appreciated the community there who have also helped me on my journey, including some that I have met personally. I can appreciate your anger from your perspective and even your trying to help the community of followers there as a reason for your posts. I must ask though, how is your calling us sheeple or inferring that we all are stupid any different than what you are accusing Charlie (and perhaps Yong Duk) of doing to you and others? I can only speak for myself, but I find it hurtful and unproductive.

May God Bless you and all here and at Charlie's site. We all are in this together and need to work to build the kingdom of God, not tear it down.

Thank's for the ear!

Jackisback said...

To Tim Swarr,

Jim M's responses are on point, but I like to remind all Charlie defenders that come on to this blog, that this blog is about discernment. It would be a fair recommendation that when posting on these matters not to begin the discussion with a logical fallacy. This has been one of my main critiques of Charlie's line of argument/discussion about the subject you raise. On Charlie's blog, he even went so far as to attack a questioner by saying something to the effect of: "well, by your standards of proof, you would also have to conclude that Joan of Arc was also a false prophet, because she was wrong on some of her prophecies."

As I have explained here before, at length, for discernment purposes, it isn't up to us to disprove the assertion that you make - that Charlie's prophecy did come from God, but that God intervened and spared everyone from the result of that prophecy due to prayers of others. That's because such a suggestion/implication from you employs the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof from the one making the assertion, to the second party who is merely skeptical of the assertion made and asks the first party for proof.

Even if every claim you were to make about Jonah were true, it isn't up to Jim M or anyone else to disprove the notion that Charlie is just like Jonah. It's up to you to prove your assertion that Charlie is just like Jonah. But in this regard you make no actual attempt to do so. That's too clever by half.

The assertion that "Charlie is following in the footsteps of Jonah" also employs the "begging the question" logical fallacy. The assertion is a premise in the service of buttressing your conclusion that Charlie "did his job exactly as God would have him." But that is circular reasoning, because the conclusion is already embedded in the premise, which remains unproven. Analogies are not proof.

As others have pointed out, Charlie never asserted the prophecy was conditional, quite the contrary. In fact, he belittled those on his blog who suggested praying for relief from the Presidential Prophecy as well as all the other aspects of the alleged "storm" vis-à-vis the "crash" and the dire aspects of some of the "five fundamentals" - saying to them that they were displaying a lack of humility and that they were not surrendering their will to God's will. He asserted time and again that the Presidential Prophecy was "going to happen" and that the "storm" and all its untoward effects would be like rain that falls on good and bad alike, and, most egregiously, he compared the "storm" and "crash" as if God were curing a cancerous tumor, and concluded that those praying for aversion from those events were effectively praying for the tumor to grow rather than praying for the cure to the cancer.

So, forgive us all here who have a slightly higher hurdle for discernment. Some us simply fail to understand why you would raise an argument in Charlie's defense - that God swooped in at the last moment and converted Charlie's prophecy from unconditional to conditional due to prayers from Charlie's followers - that not only did Charlie not make, but that he scorned in very uncharitable terms.

This all comes back to the beginning, where Charlie asserts he is a prophet who speaks with "angels" and directly with God on occasion. The discerning Catholics on this blog (and who are here because they are made to feel unwelcome on Charlie's blog) ask for evidence that the assertion is true. You offer none, only an analogy; that is not evidence.

Consider reviewing the website "Thou Shalt Not Commit Logical Fallacies" before reengaging on this particular discussion. It would save a lot of time.

Jackisback said...

To Anonymous at 4:59 AM,

You probably have much more expertise in psychiatric matters than I do, so I will defer to that expertise. I read at one particular article from a practicing psychiatrist who took great exception to schizophrenia being converted into a spectrum illness. He also had issues with the DSM-IV's more definitive analysis of proper diagnosis in this regard.

But I think of mathematician John Nash as at least one example of someone suffering from schizophrenia who was highly intelligent. He did have his periods in life where he could not function and had to be hospitalized. And, in my meager defense in holding on to this notion as a possibility for Charlie, the reading I have done indicates that hallucinations and delusions are not associated with the other possible explanations you raise. That's not to argue against you, per se, because my "guess" as to schizophrenia relies on accepting Charlie as being honest about his claim to hear voices and see visions. He may not be being honest about that, and if not, then your other possible diagnoses are definitely in play.

It is this kind of speculation, as to "what could cause Charlie" to have been so definitive about the Presidential Prophecy up to the bitter end, that his followers infer to be mean spirited and unloving, etc. It's not. It is merely analytical, at least for me. Either Charlie is right, that he did see and speak with a supernatural being vis-à-vis the Presidential Prophecy and his deductive conclusion that it was "the satan" who was deceiving him for "a time" is also correct - or it's not correct. If it's not correct, he is either lying about the "visits" or he is being honest in believing they occurred. If he's being honest, there is the real possibility of schizophrenia (I know of no other mental illness that has the features of hearing voices and seeing visions that aren't real) or personality disorder. If he's lying, there is no possibility of schizophrenia, but there is still the possibility of the other explanations you raise.

Ergo, the odds appear to lean away from my hypothesis. We may never know the answer, but it would be helpful to get an answer someday, as it would especially benefit those who were taken in by Charlie's "definitiveness." It would be an object lesson for the next time a new "mystic" appears on the scene and is attractive solely because he appears to embrace the magisterium.

Anonymous said...

Hi everyone :) Just wanted to pop in and say hi! Just got done reading the comments here and I'm happy everyone is calmer now, being a bit more charitable! Have a very blessed Sunday!

Glenn Dallaire said...


"Thou Shalt Not Commit Logical Fallacies"

Yes! That's the 11th commandment that Moses could not fit on the tablets! (ha, ha!).

You know, I've thought for quite awhile but with your last post I'm now convinced Jack that you are a paralegal, attorney or legal professor by profession (or something along these lines), because your commentary here over the past couple of years reveal a careful, methodical, point by point breakdown and analysis of each of the facts, like one would see in a courtroom. Not that I'm asking what your profession is...its just a guess and observation on my part.

Anyway, such thoughtful and careful analysis like yours and some others here is exactly what is needed in this "court of public opinion" because it really helps to refine one's perspective and discernment, I think.

Sorry though that I digress from the topic a bit. Now I'm off to read the "Thou Shalt Not Commit Logical Fallacies" website so as to hopefully never break this commandment in my own dissertations.

Thanks everyone for your comments.
Glenn Dallaire

Glenn Dallaire said...


To Jack and those interested in the psychological aspect in evaluating mystics and the their "visions and voices". Two professors co-authored a book "The Voices of St Gemmma Galgani" by Rudolph M. Bell (Rutgers University) and Cristina Mazzoni (Univ. of Vermont). In it they give some good analysis concerning St Gemma's visions and mystical phenomenon and how psychologists and also the Church has perceived her purported "ecstasies". I personally found it to be a pretty interesting read. -Just a suggestion for those interested in such things.

-Glenn Dallaire

david said...

Glenn, as part of the discernment process, why do you think the Archdiocese of Denver didn't ask Charlie to see a diocsean appointed psychiatrist or psychologist to rule out a personality disorder or mental illness? If you apply for an annulment in the Catholic Church they make you meet with a psychologist as part of that process. Here you got a guy who says he's talking to Archangels and is making all sorts of nutty claims and has thousands of followers including Bishop Yong Duk and yet the Archdiocese doesn't request this guy get his head examined.

L Spinelli said...

Hi David, the investigation the Archdiocese of Denver commissioned was only preliminary, so the questions of 1) what Charlie's Angel actually was and 2) his mental state weren't addressed. They would have been if a second and longer investigation was commissioned, but I doubt that will happen now.

Anonymous said...

Charlie Johnston is a false prophet, now proven false, again. His so called prophecies have proven to be nonsence. His archbishop has spoken and not positively about Charlie's visions. He explicitly forbade him to speak at any church property or at any church event. That alone speakspeakso volumes. Charlie deletes any accurate comments on his blog which cite objective facts or question his outrageous claims. He's a narcissistic personality who may have misled many. Glenn, you're usually excellent but you erred by giving this man ANY attention, which is exactly what he craves. He needs our collective prayers and perhaps even deliverance. Jim Dooley

Regina Barzyk said...

too many comments are mean and without any consideration to open heart, even if they don't agree. Their world is closed.

Thank you for letting me say that.
As for Charlie I pray for him. He needs prayers and support in this difficult time, fore than negative criticisim...
Regina

Glenn Dallaire said...

Exactly L. Spinelli--thank you! Among other things the Archdiocesan commission also reviewed the "archives" of letters that Charlie wrote to his spiritual directors over the years. My understanding was that the emphasis of the preliminary investigation was primarily evaluating if there were any significant theological errors. The authenticity of the private revelations were not part of the investigation. (again, this is my understanding from what I was told).

-Glenn Dallaire

Anonymous said...

Regina: Who's world is closed? Not me. Who needs to open up their heart - Charlie.
Countless people have been burnt, slandered, abused, demeaned by Charlie, including myself and Charlie needs our support? He's reaped what he sowed. Say a prayer for us, Charlie is in a difficult situation because of himself, we're in need of prayers because of what Charlie has done and what he has failed to do - you only see what happened on the surface underneath was a conniving Charlie.
Charlie needs our prayers because he needs to convert he hasn't shown he has, he is still up to his same tricks.

Anonymous said...

If Charlie were as honorable as some would still like to believe, he would be posting ALL the comments submitted to his site at this point. (But for ones that are over the top, vulgar, profane, etc). Anyone with the least bit of common sense knows there MUST be a significant amount of disappointed, hurt, angry readers who have been attempting to share their thoughts. The fact that his choice is to deceive in the full representation of the body of his readers responses- that he gives no voice to any but those who are still on board- speaks volumes as to his character...or lack thereof.

Joe said...

Snowy, can you ask Charlie why he doesn't allow anyone that challenges him on his site.

london strasbourg said...

Charlie said that it should be a "peaceful transition"..It is not and will not be
Chaos and bloodhed will follow..It will be a turbulent time and Charlie WILL BE CORRECT and it will only be realized later..Barack Obama will NOT allow the transition to be PEACEFUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Joe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe said...

Another Karen. The difference is that there is an open debate that is allowed to take place over here. The other major thing is I never spent years of time making outrageous, unconditional prophecies that were simply not true. I will pray for you though.

david said...

Glenn & L.Spinelli, Thanks for your response as to why the Archdiocese didn't have Charlie see a psychiatrist.

I guess I don't understand given the nature of Charlie's messages, and the extent of his following, why a 60-minute interview by a psychiatrist who is training in personality disorders was not part of that preliminary investigation.

Let's say that tomorrow I start my own blog. And on that blog I claim to be receiving messages from Pope John XXXIII. And I tell folks that Pope John XXXIII gave me the following 5 messages for the world:

1. Catholics should try and read the Bible every day
2. Catholics should only receive Holy Communion when in the state of grace
3. Catholics should frequent the Sacraments
4. Catholics should honor the Blessed Mother
5. Due to man's sine. the magnetic poles of the earth will shift in 2020 causing hugh tidal ways and worldwide destruction along the coasts of the United States, Europe and Asia

Let's further stipulate I begin to gain tens of thousands of followers, including priests and Bishops. I started to be seen in the company of Patrick Madrid, Fr. Mitch Pacwa, and other well known Catholic leaders.

And eventually my Archdiocese calls me in for a chat. After speaking with me would it make sense that my Archdiocese simply says there is nothing in my 5 messages that contradicts the Catholic faith or morals? (Consider that even the last nutty item about the magnetic poles shifting is not in conflict with Catholic teaching as the Church does not address the issue). Under the above scenario a 60-minute chat with a psychiatrist as part of a preliminary investigation would seem to be in order. Not only for the people who are now relocating inland due to the impending tidal waves I predict, but perhaps so if I were deemed false I can be encouraged to get the mental health help I need.

Anonymous said...

London: It has been a peaceful transition, it occurred on Jan 20, 2017, perhaps you were out of the country when it happened. Barack Obama has also left and is in California. Trump is in the White House as we speak with about 1 gazillion armed personnel. It also appears that Trump will be passing a law or through executive order that any politician can not lobby the government for at least 5 years, so that means ex-Pres Obama, otherwise they will serve jail time.
Accordingly, a lot of the protesters are paid. Some are paid provocateurs. If you were protesting and we're paid but the guy next to you was paid and doing the same job you did you'd want to get paid too. If not you'd be wasting your time realize if I'm not paid I'm outa here.
Regarding the women's march, most were rich white women and some foreigners, where were the black people? Also the march was about a few things equality in pay, minority rights, etc., OBAMA was in office for 8 years and I thought he addressed those issues. It was also about abortion, but to a lesser degree.
Things are not peaceful but it has nothing to do with Charlie predicting it. The progressives lost power they thought they had the election won, this definitely put a damper om their plans, especially since Trump won.

Anonymous said...

The Rite of Christian Exorcism would have been far better.

Joe said...

London. Even Charlie admitted that his prophecy was wrong. It is Jan 22 Donald trump is president, Obama finished his term. I know it is very hard for you but please just let it go.

Anonymous said...

I was thinking today if matters had turned out as predicted. Let's say there was NOT a peaceful transition, today the world was in complete turmoil and we were all sitting here awaiting societal breakdown, martial law, etc. Say I went to Charlie's site and said "I didn't listen to a damn thing you said because I thought you were being deceived and I didn't prepare a thing other than my soul!" What should I do??
What would the answer be from the leader and his followers?
"I told you true and warned you....if you were foolish enough to ignore God's warning when I have been repeating it for years then you will have to rely on the government or the charity of liberal strangers to sustain you through the worst year this world has ever seen." Then all the followers would hop on the wagon and start chiding the person and shaming them for not listening, not taking it seriously.
This is why it's all so ridiculous....the replies on that site to the people who took it seriously and actually did what they thought necessary to protect their children and family are chided and ridiculed as being silly if they believed someone writing on the internet and did such dumb things. IF CHARLIE JOHNSTON AND HIS PROGNOSTICATIONS WERE SIMPLY FOR ENTERTAINMENT, THEN THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A DISCLAIMER IN BOLD PRINT AT THE "START HERE" TAB.
Frankly, I believe from his writings, etc. that he wanted out of this and this is his out. I don't believe he is suffering at all. I think it was a price he was willing to pay to finally be free of the burden he felt from God. He mentions numerous times that he was desperately looking for a way out....He knows this will all die down in a week....the Church will do nothing because they can't and there's nothing for them to do.....and Charlie will be free at last.

Anonymous said...

But Charlie's prophecies were from years ago if not longer, at that point I don't believe he wanted out as he actually thought the prophecies were true. God didn't just change the prophecy for him so he could get out?
He was adamant there was not going to be an election then changed it in early 2016, to maybe and then in the last weeks it looks like there will be. If he wanted out he would have stuck with the mantra "there will be no election" and then proven wrong and he could escape at that point. I believe he realized he may be wrong in summer of 2016.

Joe said...

It is Jan 22 Charlie's prophecies were wrong, why is he still commenting on his blog site. I thought he said he was going to declare himself unreliable and go away?

Anonymous said...

Exactly right anonymous directly above. I think Charlie wanted an out for whatever reason and used this as a way of exiting. Thanks for your response to my comment Jack it shows an admirable amount of humility. Implicit in but not overtly stated in my comment was my belief that Charlie was not being honest. People with sociopathic disorders are pathological liars. If you look at Charlie's behaviour lack of honesty is a strong thread running through it, the deleting of opposing comments, fake claims a detractor on another site (I forget his name) had emailed him which was later proved to be false etc belie dishonesty. Most people who set up cults are sociopaths.

Lisa said...

Anonymous at 4:30 pm -- that's an interesting theory. Basically, you're saying that Charlie did a bad job for God on purpose so that God would be displeased and Charlie would have to stop his public prophesizing. However, your theory still presupposes that Charlie's voices and visions are coming from God and I don't believe that's the case.

Fred Keyes said...

Charlie is getting thanks and kudos from many for his positive spiritual effect on them. What I wonder is why these folks aren't reading the many approved mystics of the Church whose creds and spiritual direction are genuinely orthodox? Why rely on an unvetted source? Why put your spiritual eggs in the basket of a man with such strong political views that he himself said had nothing to do with his predictions? Aren't the large numbers of Doctors of the Church, the proven mystics, Church Councils (yes, including V-II) more salutary sources of spiritual food?

Anonymous said...

Charlie Johnston is a false prophet, now proven to be a fraud. His own Archbishop warned Catholics to be extremely cautious of him and his alleged prophecies. The Archbishop further forbade this narcissistic man from public speaking at ANY Catholic venue. That's a pretty strong slap down for simply a preliminary inquiry. It troubles me greatly to wonder how many gullible souls this narcissist misled.

Glenn normally you do a great job, but erred this one time by giving this narcissistic fraud any attention, which is exactly what he craves.

Charlie Johnston deletes texts on his blog which cite objective facts or question his outrageous claims. He needs our collective prayers and perhaps even deliverance. Avoid this man at all costs. He's a danger to vulnerable Christians. Anathema est.
Jim Dooley. Dukes2352@aol.com.

Fred Keyes said...

How many here believe Charlie's whole "thing" was driven by his political positions?

How many here believed him because you agreed with his political slant?

Anonymous said...

I think what bothers me most about Charlie Johnston is the fact that, once he's proven TOTALLY WRONG in his so called prophecies, his cult - like folloers spin and rationalize for him, with his implicit approval. He was TOTALLY INCORRECT regarding his predictions, and he remains defiant. Very troubling. Watch, he'll be back with more garbage. I was sympathetic. Not anymore, in case that was unclear! Jim Dooley. Dukes2352@aol.com

Joe said...

I agree. I can live with one nutcase making proposterous claims then being wrong. What bothers me is the amount of people that even when he is proven wrong still want to sing his praises and act like he is the second coming.

Joe said...

Maybe George Soros paid Charlie off to make conservatives look like nuts.

Anonymous said...

Jack said: "If it's not correct, he is either lying about the "visits" or he is being honest in believing they occurred."
Another possibility is that he is not lying and did receive some sort of communication, but did not interpret it correctly. Even if you think he's wrong, the principle of charity requires us to look on others in the best possible light. To hazard opinions about possible schizophrenia is dubious at best; even a trained psychiatrist would not diagnose someone without a personal interview.

Anonymous said...

Joe said: "It is Jan 22 Charlie's prophecies were wrong, why is he still commenting on his blog site. I thought he said he was going to declare himself unreliable and go away?"

If you actually read Charlie's blog, you would see that he said he would clear comments through the weekend and then on Monday stop writing on it. Fact checking goes a long way; you might want to try it sometime.

Your comment about George Soros: I suppose you meant it facetiously, but it's not funny. Unless you have any proof of your accusation, it's just showing your willingness to believe the worst about someone without any proof. Why do you let Charlie get you so upset? That's not about Charlie; that's about you.

Joe said...

Charlie. It is funny to me at this point. Your nonsense is more comical than anything else. I am a little concerned that there is as many catholics that so easily fall into these traps. But All I am trying to do at this point is make up for all the comments you are scrubbing on your blog site.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 8:39 "showing your willingness to believe the worst about someone without any proof" - Joe has learned this from Charlie, Charlie does the same thing to people and yet it's ok? Fact checking works both ways Charlie.
When Charlie said "clear comments" he actually meant "screen comments" - fact checking goes a long way.

Anonymous said...

I'm amazed at the number of people on his site who think Charlie is great, but then again there's a sucker born every minute.
There was a very popular preacher where I live, his Church was growing so fast that he couldn't contain them all, people were mostly coming from the other born-again Church across the highway and the many disillusioned Catholics, as this preacher although not Catholic went to Catholic schools in the US and mixed in Catholic doctrine with his sermons which made the many ex-Catholics comfortable with him. He had to build a new Church, plans were set and everything was going good until the Iraq War. As you know Canada did not "officially" participate in the Iraq War. He went to the pulpit and lambasted Canada for not supporting our American brothers in the Iraq War. Within a very short time, he lost over half his congregation, some went across the highway to the other born-again Church and others just plain stopped going. His new building was put on hold as the funding was drying up. Many many years later he did manage to build his new Church but the congregation was now old and grey and he had to rent the Church outside of services to pay for the mortgage.

John Dillon said...

I believe the problem with Charlie Johnston is we possibly have a religious man that has a genuine spiritual sensitivity; perhaps a God given predisposition to the spiritual. It can't even be dismissed that there could be a history of early authentic experiences. For recorded precedence I would refer to historical individuals such as Rasputin who displayed genuine spiritual graces before a definite fall into error.

Having no experience of Charlie before my very recent and first visit here, it seemed clear to me having read only a short extract or quote attributed to him that if he indeed was its author than he had unfortunately become a slave to his own spiritual vanity. A man viciously fighting others in order for them to accept his prophesies is not a sign of an authentic mystic. The Lord blesses the mystic with many things but one of his greatest gifts is the company of doubters and the incredulity of others. Humility is the very life breath of the authentic interior life, the genuine mystic will embrace this source of humility. But be very slow to judge poor Charlie. What treachery lies in these deep waters requires great integrity and humility;

Christian Mysticism is truly the "deep calling on the deep" (Psalm 42) the hidden depths of the human soul in direct contact with the depths of God. A place of darkness to the senses and of great mystery for the weak and feeble man. He finds himself swimming in an ocean of the unknown, at the mercy of forces beyond his imagining. His anchor needs to be Christ; he must never stray from His trusted Master. But his only lifeline to Him is the precariously thin tread of faith and humility. Nothing else can be trusted here; beings of immerse power that prey on man's ignorance and pride collectively plan and lurk waiting to pounce. "my enemies are discussing me, those with designs on my life are plotting together." Psalm 71

Yes the place is rife with dangers especially if those who are spiritually (and often unconsciously) persuaded that they themselves have acquired a special privilege, earned by their own unique spiritual talents. The one who finds himself in this place must cling to Our Lord and heroically trust in His willingness to direct his or here spiritual life; “to whom much is given, much will be required” (Luke 12:48) The false and proud assertion that we can transverse this spiritual journey alone is disastrous to our personal discernment. We are lost and prey to all forms of subtle deception.

"What you most seek, and most anxiously desire, you will never find if you seek for yourself-not even in the most profound contemplation but only in deep humility and submission of heart." St John of the Cross

Regarding St John of the Cross, there is a story that I feel touches on this topic a little. One day when he was still but a young seminarian he was praying by a river when his fellow Brothers found him and informed him that a well known mystic was entering their village. Eager to meet this great mystic his brothers were frantic to bring St John along. But to their surprise he displayed no sign of leaving his place of solitude. Instead he informed them that he was in conversation with Christ and he needed nothing else. I think perhaps we as Christians spend too much valuable time arguing and debating what isn't very important, if we already have all we need to cherish and love our Saviour, perhaps we such get at it.

Our first action in regards to Charlie Johnston should now be our sincere prayers for him. I believe he has been a captive for too long.

God bless

John Dillon

Anonymous said...

Then again we may have something else altogether.
We may never know what lies in Charlie's heart.
What if he returns?!

Anonymous said...

Your comment is very timely. I just finished watching "A History of Russia", almost three hours long, in order to delve into the Fatima Message regarding Russia spreading her errors, etc. I think this year is a time to revisit the writings about Fatima. I also looked up the role of Rasputin in not only Russia, but eventually world affairs. I see that the "prophetic" hook is what attracts people to both true and false prophets. Much damage can be done by biting the lure of bate from a false prophet, whether the deceit comes from mental illness, some type of diabolical source, or desire for praise and power. God has provided us with a blessing through this forum to come to a clearer process of discernment regarding the FALSE PROPHECY of the Presidential Prophecy. And, Glenn, I too will look up "Thou Shalt Not Commit Logical Fallacies". Thanks to everyone who contributed to this discussion. God takes care of His own. Truth in Charity, Humility and Obedience are a sure sign of God's servants and His work.

Anonymous said...

January 23-rd, 2:00am, You show much wisdom in what you say. The Lord WILL take care of all of us. You're right, Fatima is the key for all of us. If we spent as much time looking to the true apparitions of Mary, in these end times, as we spend on Charlie Johnston, we would be hearing the vital messages that Jesus wants us to hear, and we would be doing well. And yes, it is my belief that Russia is the one we need to keep our eye on, during this 100-th anniversary of Fatima, now in 2017. According to Mary, it is Russia that will be the scourge of the world. We need to pray, pray, pray, and say the rosary to avert or lessen this threat. And the Blessed Mother says that the Eucharist, and charitable deeds, are also helpful. Mary has been appearing all over the world for years and years, giving her heartfelt messages and warnings. Let's turn our attention to her, and make her the focus of our time and energy. In Jesus love- a sister in Christ

Anonymous said...

That alleged Bishop YongDuk is a REAL PIECE OF WORK. From Charlie's site:

YongDuk says:
January 22, 2017 at 9:46 pm


John St. John, you have to remember that not only did Charlie submit to his Ordinary (his Archbishop), he has submitted to three Spiritual Directors, who are allPriests in good standing.

They, not Charlie, believe it or not bear the Ultimate Responsibility.\

So to say Charlie was deceived would be a falsity. Rather one would have to say that these Three Priests were deceived. They are the ones who allowed Charlie to go public.

That being said, the Archbishop and his Commission to investigate Charlie did not find fault with Charlie’s submissions to them; even though, he did express reservation and advocated prudent caution.

In Good Faith then did Charlie post / publish / speak.

What comes next from his Ordinary, I am not sure. However, the Onus falls far from Charlie, just as the Onus if Charlie was or is right and was or is suppressed and/or “persecuted” falls on those making such a pronouncement if they have information that none of us has / most none of us.

Charlie may have gotten this one wrong or may have been deceived on this one, but if other ones were accurate then the Archdiocese and the Ordinary has the responsibility to take that information into account.

To be in the position of discerning the Supernatural and Acting on it is no small matter. Anyone–and I speak of myself–who takes this on by accepting the Position of Bishop or Ordinary in terms of Canon Law better realise what they are getting into, as they have the Onus of all the Souls under their care from ordinary to extraordinary–and any Bishop or Ordinary reading this had better realise that this too includes the Action of Priests under you either in Scandal or Rigidity!

basta


Anonymous said...

I guess I'm your average Catholic, I go Church on Sunday and a couple of times during the week, say some prayers, love our Mother Mary, and have have icons on my desk at work and others at home
However, when I need clarification on anything I look to the business world - they seem to provide the most sensible answers to simple problems: As my business friend will say, I don't know if Charlie is receiving messages from God or whoever, I don't know if Charlie was part of the plan to create these messages, All I can tell you is that Charlie SOLD the messages and I got burnt. Charlie and everyone can defend him but the bottom line is Charlie was the one who sold them to me.

Anonymous said...

Yong Duk can say what he wants but he has no business sense.

Anonymous said...

Whatever the topic, there is always the truth of the matter –– including the charity or anti-charity clearly put on display by the participants.

Consider that Wisdom might get a word in edgewise if some folks spent more time prayerfully, quietly pondering... actually seeking Charity, rather than taking It for granted –– or worse –– ignoring It altogether.

Here's some questions. Have you spent an inordinate amount of time obsessing over this topic? Is that where Truth and Wisdom has led you? Really? Do you imagine that Our Lord has appointed you to that task? To over-analyze –– or worse –– obsess, insult, mock, ridicule, scorn, slander...? Really?

Do you really want to take on Deception. Great! Let's all start with the deception blinding us in our own eye(s). Oh, there's nothing quite so complicated there when compared to the difficult exercise of discerning prophecy and the like.

There's a wealth of great information and inspiration on Glenn's site here. I pray that all grow in Christ from the graces to be found here, but should it become yet another occasion to sin you had better start looking in a better (nay, the best) direction: Truth Himself.

MP

Anonymous said...

MP: that's a great motherhood statement however, there's a lack of common sense (which was given to us by God) in some of the things you said. If it wasn't for some of the people on this site we wouldn't have seen the true nature of Charlie.
I do agree that you are right about Charlie because he is obsessed, insulting, mocking, ridiculing, scornful and slanderous - "Do you imagine that Our Lord has appointed you ( Charlie )to that task?". You're right we were lead by a foolish man - the Lord would never appoint a person such as this - time to move on - hopefully his deception doesn't come back.
Yes, there are other excellent mystics on this site, there are worth looking into, I have and have been quite pleased.
Thanks for the insight on Charlie.

Jackisback said...

To Anonymous January 22, 2017 at 8:34 PM, you said:

--begin quoted text--
Jack said: "If it's not correct, he is either lying about the "visits" or he is being honest in believing they occurred." Another possibility is that he is not lying and did receive some sort of communication, but did not interpret it correctly.
--end quoted text--

Your quoting of me is accurate, but omits to what my first conditional phrase refers. The "if it's not correct" phrase very specifically refers to the preceding sentence where I am explaining the assumption - "...that he did see and speak with a supernatural being vis-à-vis the Presidential Prophecy and his deductive conclusion that it was "the satan" who was deceiving him for "a time" is also correct - or it's not correct."

If we assume that Charlie did have actual communications with a supernatural being, your third suggested alternative of misinterpretation is not possible. That is because of what we know Charlie insisted all along - that he was specifically "told" the Presidential Prophecy - "that Obama would not finish his term and the next national leader would not come from the political system." That's not a misinterpretation. That's a repetition of something he claims he was "told." Charlie, at no point, made any qualifications about this that could lead anyone to the idea that Charlie was drawing his own inferences from something else the "angel" was telling him. No. If the communication occurred, we now know it to be a lie.

So either Charlie is correct, that his "angel" was not his "angel" but rather "the satan" or a servant of "the satan" bent on deceiving Charlie, or he isn't correct. But if he isn't correct, it cannot be that he was speaking to any angel of God - because God could not send an angel to anyone with the expressed purpose of lying to Charlie about such a very specific prophecy.

If it's not correct that Charlie was receiving a communication from "the satan," then the only other possibility is that the subject "communications" never actually happened. There was no "angel;" there was no "the satan." No one ever spoke to Charlie about this Presidential Prophecy.

But in that case, Charlie clearly still believes that he did have such a communication, even though it never actually happened - which means he was hearing a voice that wasn't there and hallucinating the visual part. If you really want an interesting exercise, try to find a psychiatric explanation other than schizophrenia that involves both hallucinations and delusions (holding on to belief in something that is shown to be false).

Your attempt to introduce a third alternative, that Charlie did speak with an "angel of God" but made a misinterpretation, is a leap for a scenario with facts not in evidence. Your third alternative requires belief that Charlie heard different words than the ones that were actually spoken to him. That is no more possible than the notion that you are, right now, this instant, reading different words than the ones I am writing.

Anonymous said...

The most troubling aspect of Charlie Johnston's now failed prophecies are not that this narcissistic fraud was proven false, but that so many Catholics disregarded Charlie's Archbishop's clear warnings about him. Catholicso were urged to be extremely cautious of him and he was strictly prohibited from speaking at ANY Catholic venue. Mamy Catholicso paid no heed. THAT is the scary part. Watch, he'll be back in time with some ridiculous explanation. Sad and troubling. Jim Dooley. Dukes2352@aol.com

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, not sure what you're insinuating by "motherhood statement." For the record I'm a father.

You accuse me of lacking common sense. Very well, but you would do well to consider whether or not my comments have their foundational basis in Sacred Scripture first. Not once did I defend or reference Charlie Johnston. I was commenting on this topic in the broadest sense, and yet you chose to twist my words to suit your purposes, judging and accusing as you see fit.

So you think you see the "true nature" of a person? As far as I'm concerned, only God sees into minds, hearts and souls perfectly and without obstruction.

Let those with eyes see, and as I said, let the truth of the matter stand.

Glenn, God bless you in your continued efforts here.

MP

Anonymous said...

This is probably one of the best comments allowed on Charlie's site and sums up about 90% of Charlie: By Peter Novak;
Please everyone one here should be asking, how did we allow ourselves to be deceived? Discernment is the key. Be honest with yourself. I was able to pick up on things Charlie said so I left the site sometime ago. I left some objectional comments which I thought were reasonable and he didn’t post them. He seem to post the overly harsh one’s? Why? Because the out of line ones makes him look like he is going through “refinement.” The reasonable one’s could not be defended.
Sure out of this many friendship were made but that is not fruit of a legitimate prophet. I once was decieved into a bad business investment, I made some wonderful life long friends, however that was not fruit of fraud, rather God will use all things for good. Please we all love Jesus, but surely Charlie was and is not a prophet. Peace to all of you good people. We all desire communication with the Lord, and any knowledge of Him. Don’t let those desires blind you. It is sort of like reading an enjoyable fiction, we enter into it so profoundly the imagination blurs reality. I think that’s what happened here.

Excellent!

Anonymous said...

The truth is starting to come out and I wonder why they are allowing these posts. The reason why is to get the "crap" out of the system right now and let those people vent so it doesn't become an issue down the road. I'm sure they are still scrubbing posts but allowing a few summary comments mixed in with the farewell party which won't be noticed as much. They are setting the table for a Charlie return! Watch out and stay away!

Anonymous said...

Jack Gallagher- I'm not an expert on, this, but I did have the experience of working in Mental Health for 22 years. I am just introducing this idea. I am not saying Charlie is this. There is a mental illness diagnosis called Schizoaffective disorder. It is when a person has a mood disorder, bipolarity, and can also have psychotic features. When bipolar, a person can be in the manic end of the pole, or the depressed end of the pole. Mood shifts take place. One can be on the manic end of the pole for a certain amount of time, or one can be on the depressed end of the pole. Sometimes there is a "mixed" state, where people shift back and forth on that pole. In the manic state, one can feel elated, full of energy and productivity, and can be very irritable, and very grandiose. They feel like they can do all things. Manics can also spend money to the point of having absolutely no money. And if you add a personality disorder to the mix, there can be control, and manipulation. With Schizoaffective disorder, (I stress it is NOT the same as Schizophrenia, which is it's own disorder in the DSM), there can also be psychotic features. The person honestly believes in the hallucinations, voices, or delusions that he/she is having. Some of the things I've described here, could possibly fit Charlie. I'm not saying this is an absolute, of course, only a Psychiatrist can say that. And even a Psychiatrist can get an incorrect diagnosis at times, and has to re-evaluate for a new, or another diagnosis. Charlie at, times, did not seem "clear" during his life, when he was having his so called visitations. At times he said he doubted, and was even afraid to divulge to others what he was experiencing. And this "might" possibly to linked to the "shakiness" of his experiencing psychotic features. Bi-polars in history have become some of the greatest writer, actors, and thinkers. And Charlie appears to be very intelligent, and can write exceptionally well, as indicated in the articles he presents on his site. Again, I worked in mental health, and am not a Psychiatrist. But I had many clients in mental health, through many years. And again, I am NOT trying to diagnose Charlie. But thought I'd introduce my knowledge about Schizoaffective disorder, as food for thought. If a person has this diagnosis, they need our prayers, and they need the help, (if they choose), of Mental Health services, or the Mental Health Community. Legally, no one can force a person to have mental health treatment. They can legally only be taken in for a 72 hour hold, for evaluation, if they are a danger to self, a danger to others,(and I think this means physical harm), or if they are gravely disabled. These are the three legal criterion, where a person can be taken in for evaluation. And, again,this is presented as food for thought, from a mental health perspective. Thank you for hearing.

Joe said...

I think part of the reason he is starting to allow some challenging posts is because of the people calling him out over here.

Anonymous said...

That's true too but he was already allowing more to pass since he discovered he was being exposed here. With that said it appears he is still scrubbing posts.
Allowing negative posts to surface now especially the ones that encapsulate most of the issues with Charlie is a political tactic, get it out now, so that down the road he can say it was dealt with on such and such a date but no one payed attention to it so its not my fault.
He's setting himself up for a comeback, so all the dirty laundry is being aired now while he's away and inactive - perfect timing.

Jackisback said...

To MP (at 10:09 AM),

Your critique - via the asking of series of straw man questions - seems odd when directed to users of a weblog created precisely for the purpose of discernment of the truth about Charlie's "Presidential Prophecy."

Shouldn't, in fact, your questions:

--begin quoted text--
Have you spent an inordinate amount of time obsessing over this topic? Is that where Truth and Wisdom has led you? Really? Do you imagine that Our Lord has appointed you to that task? To over-analyze –– or worse –– obsess, insult, mock, ridicule, scorn, slander...? Really?
--end quoted text

...be better directed to Charlie's blog? Instead, it is tantamount to a "tu quoque" logical fallacy - answering criticism with criticism rather than addressing the substance of anyone's point of discussion or discernment vis-a-vis Charlie's prophecy.

And, pray tell, what exactly is charitable about making the accusations embedded in your "questions?"

As far as deception goes, that was derived, ab inito, from Charlie. I have no idea what you mean by the self-inclusive group accusation of "the deception blinding us in our own eye(s)." That sounds like ad hominem attack, and slyly done by virtue of including yourself. But as the old saying goes, speak for yourself, only. But if I've misunderstood, please explain what you really meant.

As for your reply to Anonymous (at 11:19 AM), you said:

--begin quoted text--
You accuse me of lacking common sense. Very well, but you would do well to consider whether or not my comments have their foundational basis in Sacred Scripture first.
--end quoted text--

That's an old logical fallacy known as the "appeal to authority" which is the attempt to make a claim sound valid by citing a higher authority, leading the reader to conclude that you must be right solely because what you say has its roots in Scripture.

I fail to see the charity there as well. In a blog devoted to discernment, no one gets off that easy.

In that second post you finish with this:

--begin quoted text--
Not once did I defend or reference Charlie Johnston. I was commenting on this topic in the broadest sense, and yet you chose to twist my words to suit your purposes, judging and accusing as you see fit. So you think you see the "true nature" of a person? As far as I'm concerned, only God sees into minds, hearts and souls perfectly and without obstruction.
--end quoted text--

It is true your first post didn't defend Charlie, but that is also a "straw man" assertion, as Anonymous didn't accuse you of defending Charlie. Instead, you chose in that first post to engage in the "tu quoque" and "straw man" fallacies - the tone from which Anonymous appears to have made an inference that you feel to be the more mature adult in the room, with a higher sense of truth and wisdom, a room full of squabbling children - obsessing over something needlessly and losing sight of their own imperfections. It's possible that such an inference is unwarranted. But if that is so, please explain - it sounded to me as if Anonymous made a reasonable interpretation of your words.

The last sentence of your retort to Anonymous is classic straw man argument "so you think you see the true nature of a person?" - Anonymous never asserts that in his post. He never claims to be able to see into another's heart, mind or soul.

In a blog devoted to discernment, and absent actual reasoned discussion of the substance of what anyone here says, I don't see where your "questions" and logically fallacious statements advance us, as you say, in the broad sense toward either truth or wisdom.


Helen I said...

Jack Gallagher- I worked in Mental Health for 22 years, and I thought I would present some information that perhaps people are not aware of. There is a condition called Schizoaffective disorder. It is in the DSM. It is a condition where one can have a mood disorder, called bipolarity, while at the same time, have psychotic features. It is NOT the same thing as Schizophrenia. That is it's own unique diagnosis in the DSM. The bipolar part of Schizoaffective disorder, can bring mood shifts between the part of the pole wear one suffers from depression, and the other manic end of the pole,(where one can feel elated,very productive, can have a great deal of energy, especially creative energy, and at times can be extremely irritable). People with mania can spend excessively, to the point of having no money. And if a personality disorder is added to the mix,the person may try to control and manipulate. As far as the psychotic features part of this diagnosis, the person hearing voices, or having hallucinations or delusions with this, feels that what he/she is experiencing is real. I cannot give Charlie a diagnosis of Schizoaffective disorder, I am not a Psychiatrist. And as someone on this site so accurately said, a person cannot be given a diagnosis without actually seeing a Psychiatrist, and being evaluated by that MD, in person. But I am looking at Charlies behaviors, and claims that he has had visitations from angels, with prophecies that just recently did not come to fruition, and this raises a red flag for me. If he has this disorder, that may explain why at times, Charlie seemed "unsure" or "shakey" about what he was experiencing, and why he did not feel confident to divulge, or share his experiences. As real as psychotic manifestations can appear to a person, there can sometimes be, in my opinion, a self awareness, or "third eye" that some mentally ill people have, where they can be aware of reality, even with their psychosis. If Charlie had this going on, this is why he may have been hesitant to share, or bring his experiences out, for many years. If he has Schizoaffective disorder, he can have the opportunity to get help for it, by choosing to get help. No one can legally force him, unless he meets the legal criterion for a 72 hour hold. These three criterion are: danger to self, danger to others- and I think this means physical danger, or his being gravely disabled. A person with this disorder needs support, and help. But, again they have to choose to get that help. And again, what I am presenting here is food for thought, not a diagnosis. Thank you.

Jackisback said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jackisback said...

Helen I,

Thanks for the info. I will look into that.

Anonymous said...

If you look back in our comments from the very first round we went through a lot of that, Charlie suffered a brain injury when young ( I believe ) and then had a stroke in the 2000s I think. I imparted that I knew someone who told me they were hearing things in their head, but he never told anyone except me, his moods would change from compliant to suspicion often without notice. He wound up getting tested by one of the foremost experts on the brain - Dr. Persinger. ( When you google Dr Persinger don't pay much attention to the classroom scandal in 2015, I believe, where he wanted students to sign a release form as that was way over dramatized )

Anonymous said...

I am very troubled. Not that Charlie Johnston is a false prophet, now proven false, nor by the fact that Catholics ignored the warnings of his Archbishop, or his Archbishop's prohibitons regarding him speaking on church property, nor by his erratic, narcissistic behavior, nor his crazy fabrications and lies. I AM troubled that Catholics apparently didn't receive enough solice or grace from sacred scripture, sacred tradition, the Sacraments, the sacramentals, the real prophets, or their parishes. This reality should trouble us far more than the ridiculous ramblings of a false prophet. How could so many educated Catholics be so badly duped?



Jim Dooley Dukes2352@aol.com

Helen I said...

To Jack Gallagher, January 23-rd, '17, 4:05pm- I forgot to add to my post, January 23-rd, 3:43pm, that the person with Schizoaffective disorder, in terms of the bipolar manic side, can also have the symptom of being grandiose.

Glenn Dallaire said...


-My apologies Jack and Helen---a couple of comments went into the "spam" folder but I just released them.

ALSO, concerning those here who are commenting about posts being scrubbed over on Charlie's site, Charlie did state that he was handing over the management of his site as of today (Monday) to Beckita, so this may very well be why more comments seem to be being published. Either way, throughout the weekend Charlie was still moderating comments.
-Just thought I would point this out.

Glenn Dallaire

Fred Keyes said...

No comments posted over at TNRS since about midnight last night.

Anonymous said...

Glen,
I have a question. When the Locutions to the World proved to be false, you gave a statement at the top of that page which said the following: "With the passing of this day and Pope Francis leaving American soil comes the confirmation that the purported "Locutions to the World" messages have now unequivocally been proven to be completely false, and therefore they should be rejected by all of the faithful."

Yet with Charlie you seem to take a somewhat softer stance with the failure of his Presidential Prophecy. You say "And when one compares the alleged angelic ‘Presidential prophecy’ against today’s successful inauguration, the conclusions to be drawn are self-evident." and "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. "

These statements fall somewhat short of the statement made about LTTW.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but since LTTW is to be considered completely false and should be rejected (and I do believe that to be wise), then should not the same be said of Charlie?

I'm not sure, perhaps I'm missing something.

I do find it a bit ironic that at the end of the comment section for the article on LTTW you close the comment section "with a few paragraphs from a recent post by Charlie Johnston"
Here is the link: http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2015/09/locutions-to-world-false-visionary.html?commentPage=2

Anonymous said...

TRo Nonymous at 7:58 am..

you said YongDuk said"

So to say Charlie was deceived would be a falsity. Rather one would have to say that these Three Priests were deceived. They are the ones who allowed Charlie to go public.

Are you serious? Under what article is this posted, if you don't mind?

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous at 7:40:
Here is a link to the page where YongDuk made his comments.
https://charliej373.wordpress.com/2017/01/21/ave-maria-stella-maris/comment-page-9/#comments

Here is the start of his post:
YongDuk says:
January 22, 2017 at 9:46 pm
John St. John, you have to remember that not only did Charlie submit to his Ordinary (his Archbishop), he has submitted to three Spiritual Directors, who are allPriests in good standing.

They, not Charlie, believe it or not bear the Ultimate Responsibility.

So to say Charlie was deceived would be a falsity. Rather one would have to say that these Three Priests were deceived. They are the ones who allowed Charlie to go public.
\
I hope that helps.

Anonymous said...

Glen,
I posted a question, but don't see my post. Could you please check the spam folder again? Thanks.

Anonymous said...

About the Yong Duk question, the quote is from Page 9 of the comments for "Ave Maria, Stella Maris!"

Another interesting find: Just before YongDuk throws Charlie's spiritual advisors and Denver under the bus, Charlie manages to conflate "The Rescue" with "The Triumph of the Immaculate Conception." I don't recall he'd ever done that before.


John St. John says:
January 22, 2017 at 3:24 pm


I have been following you for about a year, after having been told about you by two friends. I had never really paid attention to prophetic talk before, but for a number of reasons, like so many others, I found your message worth paying attention to. I won’t bother rehashing those reasons – I do think they were sound – but I just want to offer some thoughts given where we seem to be now.

From my view, I agree with your assessment that you have been deceived. I would go further and say you were deceived despite good faith. We can use a modified form of Lewis’ Lord/Lunatic/Liar paradigm to evaluate this...

...Given this summary, from what I know it seems to me that at least some part of what you have been told by supernatural beings over the course of your life has been deception. I’m not sure if it all goes in there or just some part of it; I suppose that all remains to be seen. However, I want to offer the following thoughts to you and to the other readers:

Finally, I just want to ask you point blank:

1. Do you think now that you have been deceived over the course of your whole life, or do you think you have been deceived about this particular thing only? I’m sure you have a lot of reflection to do on this point, but any thoughts you can offer would be appreciated.

2. Do you still believe that the Rescue will happen? Obviously, this is what’s most important to most of us. One thing I have become convinced of in the last few months is that this world is in desperate need of Our Lady to rescue us. I’m not sure there’s any other thing that could at this point.


May God grant you His Peace.


charliej373 says:
January 22, 2017 at 9:29 pm


I do not think I have been deceived over the course of my life. I will not mealy-mouth my error nor deny the value or truth of the bulk of what I have lived and experienced. And yes, I am convinced we will see the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart.

Joe said...

Does anyone else find it ludicrous that Charlie says if there is a coup he will be back on the scene. For what? Is that going to change the fact that you're only 2 major prophecies were dead wrong. Charlie quit trying to figure out ways to still be relevant. You have zero credibility.

Anonymous said...

I have read the comments here and on Charlie's site. I read his blog over 2014 and 2015. I followed all of it very faithfully. I wanted to verify some things so tonight I went to Charlie's Blog to go back and re-read some of the entries. There are some BIG changes. Almost all of the comments from the blogs over those years have been removed. I know. I made a lot of them. During that time I ran off copies of all the blog entries. I am not sure if I still have any since I have moved three times since then. I have not been to Charlie's blog over the last year (December 2015 to January 2017). I am familiar with ALL the material. Well, it's sure not the same.

Anonymous said...

An addition to my comment above:

Sanitized. Sanitized. Hummmmmm. Well, whadaya know.

Major, major removal of comments and does anyone have an accurate number of the entries? Apart from the three priest, that is.

Anyone want to bet? I could use the money.

Anonymous said...

And would you believe the change in the length, never mind number. Think, just think of all the paper I could have saved if I had just waited..........

Glenn Dallaire said...


To Anonymous @7:35 PM,
To reply, as time has passed I have learned that I should endeavor not give my own opinions publicly on these matters on this website or elsewhere--that I should simply report them as truthfully and impartially as I can. And so I really try to keep my own opinion or judgments out of what I write here on this website. Yet, even if I am simply reporting facts and presenting them in good faith, I bear responsibility for the subject matter and the content, and as I said in an earlier post, after these recent events I will definitely be even more reluctant in the future to highlight on this website any LIVING purported visionary.

If someone in authority asks me privately my opinion, I offer it. And if I am asked by persons in authority to write a report of my own findings and research, I do.

Of course like most everyone else I have my own opinion too, but in the end, in lieu of a public decision from the local Bishop, each of us has to discern for ourselves and make up our own minds, and my work here is to help by presenting facts from my own investigations. Perhaps the Archbishop of Denver may come out publicly with a judgement, or he may not. Meantime it is up to each one of us to discern for ourselves.

May God bless you an your loved ones,
Glenn Dallaire

Anonymous said...

Just watched Charlie's Focus Skype interview. Wow. First impression; remarkably cheery and good spirited given the circumstances. Second point: Again tries to use an alleged but anonymous European theologian to create a bizarre argument about wrong prophets not being as erroneous as fake prophets. If you are wrong you are fake. If you get it wrong how can you be a true prophet who "does a good job." Tries to argue he misinterpreted because it was communicated to him in such a veiled and tricky manner. Consider Christ's prophecies abou his death and resurrection, St Peter, the temple. They were all pretty clear and misinterpretation unlikely. Jesus is God, this is how he communicates prophecies not in a tough manner Charlie presents. If he was "visited" and it was done "through a glass darkly" he probably wasn't visited by heavenly beings. God created communication He's good at it. Third point: argues that the presidential prophecy could be mitigated by prayer, that's what went wrong. Despite this contradicting his earlier statements that he got it wrong, and taking responsibility God has shown us time and again that if a prophecy can be changed through prayer and use of free will He will state this clearly through HIs prophets take Fatima for example and the consecration of Russia. Fourth point: claims his writing are an excellent guide for all and this means he is an okay guy, but wait! Because he "hit the target" a few times. If his writings are based on a prophecy of a Storm and Rescue how can they be partial out of the overall gross fail. People are better reading the gospels or the "Story of a Soul" which is a much better spiritual guide. Point Five: no apology given and hints that he may return.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous: January 23, 2017 @ 8:19 PM

I'm the person who went back to recheck the blog entries.....and found them wanting.

I went to verify that facts regarding how the "Rescue" was phrased. I was unable to do so, despite going over the blog entries.

Like you, in my memory, it was not equated with the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart until the entry you quoted, dated January 22,2017.

Joe said...

Just watched the focus tv interview, good points above from anonymous 10:23. All things I noticed as well. I also noted the interviewer was very glowing and praising of Charlie much like all the people Charlie approves for commenting on his site. There was not one challenging question, pretty much what I figured. I can't see people sticking around to read Beckita's blog. I am sorry but weather it is Charlie or Beckita, take away the prophecies and that site becomes very uninteresting.

Anonymous said...

Glen,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. We are all learning as time passes, learning, growing, understanding, etc. The opinions that I held 10 years ago are vastly different than those I have now. I had not really thought of your website as something that has grown over time. For me, it has been an entire package, something that I came across awhile back, and I have been combing through articles, left and right, trying to learn and grow in my faith. Mystics are something that I never had thought much about until recently, and I find it fascinating, but hard to understand at times. But just as I'm learning and growing from reading the articles you have here, I need to remember that your website did not just spring up overnight, and that you are probably learning and growing as well as you research this fascinating subject.

Thank you for your work here. I think now it's time for me to put the subject of Charlie and his prophecy away, as I've spent more than enough time on it. I think it is unfortunate that Charlie is leaving the door open, backtracking and dancing around about the claims he made, leaving people to believe that he still is a true prophet, even if he did get this one wrong.

For me, this statement of his: "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." leaves no room for credibility now. If this was to be God's sign, and it didn't happen, why should I believe the rest? And yet he thinks we should? NO!

Anonymous said...

I blogged earlier regarding the title given to Our Lady for Her rescue at the near-end of this year.

Since I was unable to locate definite information in blog entries, I decided to read the transcript that the TNRS Team produced of the Birmingham talk, dated July 9, 20l5 it reads:

"...It'll seem hopeless but in very late 2017, Our Lady, the Immaculate Conception, will come to visibly and miraculously rescue all of us." See the sixth page in the Question and Answers

On the seventh page Charlie says: :...and also during the overlapping feasts of Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception and Our Lady of Tepeyac." (This is his title for Our Lady of Guadalupe.)


On the video interview with Chris Lyford, at 6:37 Charlie informs us that one of his priests says:

"....everything that you told us is true and I believe you..."


On the YouTube video dated July 15, 2015, Rejoice Always, (Dan Lynch), at 2l:20 he says:

"..visibly and miraculously rescued by Our Lady the Immaculate Conception."


I cannot find any reference to the rescue being a result of the Triumph of the Immaculate HEART.

These are two very dynamic, clear titles, and they are not interchangeable. Our Lady herself gave each of them to us. We do not celebrate the Feast of the Immaculate Heart on December 8th.

M.

Anonymous said...

This Charlie thing is beginning to look like a complete hoax. Now we know that a lot of the good comments have been filtered out so as not to challenge Charlie and to make him appear solid and true. We also know that a lot of the older blogs have been purged. We also know a lot of his messages have been filtered and changed. We also know that he is wrong on a lot of the issues. We are beginning to peal away the layers of the onion. Do we really know who's who on his blogging site? Do we know if some of them are the same or are different?
He has built up a little army to defend him for when he returns to protect him and his "messages" or whatever they are.
At this point I can say with a lot of the evidence coming forward he is a complete fraud. He may also need help as well - someone on his site suggested he seek medical attention.

Mary H said...

I am appalled by the Focus TV interview with Charlie Johnston on his failed prophecies. The interviewer sounds like Beckita's twin sister. If anyone else would like to complain, I found this contact information.

Focus Worldwide Catholic Ntwrk
Phone: (504) 840-9898
Web: Focustvonline.com

Name: Luke Burris, Publisher/Editor

Joe said...

Mary H, Thankyou for the number I left a message voicing my concerns. CNN is more fair and balanced then that interview was. What a shameful interview from a Catholic media organization.

Beth said...

It doesn't really matter if Charlie tries to make a come back. He's just one person and he has been discredited. Many of the comments on this website are very clear and helpful for anyone who is still confused and needs help discerning. I'm impressed by so many of the logical arguments that make the truth very clear for all to see. If, at this point, someone were to continue following Charlie or Beckita or the potential Charlie comeback, they would be choosing to be deceived.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, it will be the case.

Anonymous said...

Why and how, for God's sake, to people still pay any heed to this narcissistic fraud? He has been proven to be a false prophet, with NO credibility. His Archbishop warned us to exercise extreme caution, yet Catholics still look to this fraud for direction? Why? He was strictly prohibited from speaking on Catholic church property, for good reason. Get it? The fact that ANYONE pays this fraud ANY attention should trouble us far more than the ramblings of an apparent liar, like Charlie. He needs our collective prayers and perhaps even deliverance, buy he should get absolutely NO further attention. He's a fraud!

Jim Dooley Dukes2352@AOL.com

Anonymous said...

Once again, what really is nagging at and troubling me are NOT the rantings of a narcissistic fraud, like Charlie. What really troubles me are the thousands of educated, yet gullible, Catholics, who were duped by this so called prophet. Why weren't the sacraments, the magisterium, real prophets, and sacred scripture enough for them? Why did so many Catholic feel the need to look beyond our Sacraments for solace? That question is far more troubling than a proven false prophet, who appears to be setting up his own return, down the line. Deeply troubling.

Jim Dooley Dukes2352@aol.com

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous:

Please do not delve into Astrology. It is forbidden by God as a means of seeking knowledge and is just one more danger that you do not want to suffer for. It violates the First Commandment. Unfortunately, all of these "future seeking" avenues are leading to much devastation for people.

Fred Keyes said...

Ditto Anonymous 1:38. Glenn I hope you scrub the astrology entry. It has no business here.

Fred Keyes said...

And I see it's gone. Good riddance. :)

Glenn Dallaire said...


Yes, I just deleted the Astrology comment because it has no bearing whatsoever on this subject at hand.

Glenn Dallaire

Anonymous said...

He said the same thing as Charlie,Trump would face ultimate disaster Jan 19/20/2017 -didn't happen.
I said Trump would get elected from Day 1 - that's why Charlie didn't like me - I embarrassed him, I should start my own site too - I have better success than Charlie.

Anonymous said...

I wanted to make a comment regarding the Surrender Prayer/Novena that some here worried about that appeared on Charlie's blog.

I stopped following Charlie's blog sometime in the spring of 2016 after he closed down comments and banned talk and speculation about candidates of the Presidential race, so I do not know much of what happened on his blog since then. However, I did consistently follow his blog and the comments for 2015 and some of 2016, and I recall specifically how the recommendation of the Surrender Novena occurred. It did not originally come from Charlie, and I have no idea if he adopted it later as something he recommended after I left the blog.

Here's what happened: At some point the Prayer Requests section of Charlie's blog became very busy and many people asked for prayers there, sometimes for situations that seemed quite desperate. I don't know who first referred to it, but someone, in response to a particularly intractable situation, posted a link recommending Fr. Dolindo Ruotolo's Surrender Novena. (Fr. Dolindo was a contemporary of Padre Pio and lived near him in Italy.) After that, very often when a particularly desperate or pitiful prayer request was made, sometimes a commenter would recommend the Surrender Prayer or Novena, often providing a link, trying to help the person to give the problem over to God in trust.

According to Fr. Ruotolo, the Surrender Prayer and Novena are actually the equivalent of saying, "Thy will be done." In my mind, the prayer/novena combines the best of saying "Thy will be done" and "Jesus, I trust in you." Fr. Ruotolo proclaims we are to be like children, trusting God to take care of all things. It is a radical spirituality of trust in God's providence.

I myself found it to be quite an efficacious prayer and helpful when facing some difficult problems that were very stressful. It allowed me to find mental relief by giving the worry over to God, while I worked as best I could in a human way to deal with the situation.

Anyway, I do not know if Charlie appropriated this prayer into his recommendations or not, since I stopped following the blog. But I can say for certain this prayer and novena are not of his authorship, and he was not the one to introduce it to his blog.

I just wanted to clarify this, because I find the prayer quite helpful, and would not want anyone to reject it because of their negative judgement of Charlie himself.

L Spinelli said...

I wrote to Focus TV. Here's the answer I got (I was surprised I got one so quickly, but I think they got a lot of well-deserved criticism for continuing to allow Charlie to ramble on):

Thank you for your comments. However we will not be taking the interview down.

Charlie has been humbled and admitted he was deceived. We as Catholics are in the forgiving business not judgement. We did several shows with Charlie and we have a responsibility to our viewers to let them know what has transpired. We have always said that this is private revelation and to use your discernment. I hope you can find it in your heart to pray for Charlie.

God Bless,

Focus

Anonymous said...

That's a very good point because I found that Charlie often copied what others had given him and used it or took a good idea and claimed it as if he had been behind the idea. Isn't TNRS not of his authorship as well, didn't it come from a saint?

Anonymous said...

Like they say even bad press is good it keeps you relevant. Listen to that guy that exposes Hollywood and how they create crises or negative publicity or controversy to keep their clients ( actors, actresses ) relevant.

Anonymous said...

To Jim Dooley:
I'm not entirely sure about why so many Catholics feel the need to look beyond the Sacraments but I can offer an opinion from my experience and what I see in the Church.
The last couple decades have seen a great stripping of our Catholic identity. It has seen a tremendous reduction in the Fear of the Lord; reverence, awe, FAITH. Many of the Catholic churches we have attended would appear to be very Protestant. Worship screens, children being called up to the Altar during the Consecration, a truly lax atmosphere to say the least. In my opinion, the priests are not calling anyone to repentance, encouraging belief in the Real Presence and what that demands of us, nor giving any solid teaching to carry us in the world. You could scarcely discern anymore a Catholic in public from a Pagan. I began to see that people were treating the Mass more like a rally at the public school. Talking, laughing, kids running around including the altar, talking, incessant trips to the bathroom. The Church, the Mass have truly lost all sense of holiness. It has been reduced to being kind. That's it. That's what we're called to as Catholics. The "teachings" are not much different that what they teach in school now...equality, kindness, etc.
So, possibly to those who simply can't believe it, they would love for God to show himself and smack us all in the face. A big catastrophe would do that, they would hope. They almost look forward to it because they apparently aren't able to make any difference. They see such injustice towards God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and even the Blessed Mother in our Catholic churches and see these prophecies as God finally bringing justice to His Church. They see them as hopeful.
I have no doubt in my heart and mind that God is not sitting idly by. I was relieved by Donald Trump winning the election, but I do not see it as others may. I believe that this election revealed much truth. This through the intercession of the Sorrowful Mother. With Mercy comes responsibility. This country is predominantly spiritually rotten and corrupt. If the "Women's March" didn't prove that, I don't know what else would. Donald Trump is not going to fix that. I do believe we will reap what we have sown spiritually, and that may involve distressing times. It's my belief that the Mercy is that God has put in place a man that is open to direction, and a man that can lead in tumultuous times. That is God's saving justice. The truth was revealed, a mercy. People accepted the truth and responded. A mercy. A leader was chosen that will be able to steer this country through much tumult. Mercy/Justice. I do not believe that we should be proclaiming "peace, peace". This is a lull, but my heart says there's much more to come. I praise and thank God daily for His mercy. Mrs. Clinton would have sold us all if need be. Donald Trump appears to be a strong defender. This is good.
Simply my two cents and a possible angle to answer your question. (And no, I did not believe CJ nor was I a "follower")

Anonymous said...

Astrology is bad, astronomy is good.
Besides I listened to a few astrologists and they all had a different opinion on the election - go figure. It is soothsaying.

Anonymous said...

With a heavy heart I ask , Who are we to judge?
Jesus Christ.
The Apostles following the crucifixion, Joey Lomangino...
The life of Padre Pio?
The healings that took place with those of Garabandal, Glen's healing, all to name a few?
There were grave doubts ...
I , support the truth of the Gospel, the rosary, (its history) the scapulars, Our Lady Of Tepeyac, Our Lady of all Nations, Fatima, etc, the kissed objects of Garabandal and I support Charlie Johnston in full.

Anonymous said...

Who is "Our Lady of Tepeyac?" That is a title used by Charlie Johnston, while the Catholic Church uses the title "Our Lady of Guadalupe." Or do alleged mystics get to change the faith as they wish?

Anonymous said...

Hello;
I partially concur with your response to my initial question, i.e. why would Catholics follow this false prophet. However, I must add that Catholics from previous centuries, when Holy Mother Church was objectively strong, also were seduced by false prophets and varied heresies. So, although I concur the Mass is often without sufficient reverence, priests are often weak, and sermons give us little advice on how to save our souls, I still can't understand how Catholics could believe Charlie's nonsense, while totally disregarding the stern counsel of the Archbishop. When the Sacraments and the magisterium are not sufficient in and of themselves, we have a serious problem. When a false prophet is given air time, everyone suffers. However, it's clear that we, as educated as we are, both theologically and in a secular sense, follow false prophets, we're NO smarter or more educated than Catholics were centuries ago. They were caught in the dark ages; what's our collective excuse for following a false prophet?

Jim Dooley Dukes2352@AOL.com

Anonymous said...

Yes we are not to judge, so why is Charlie allowed to judge?
Even after Charlie is wrong on these latest prophecies and other messages he claimed, you still believe him? We haven't even picked apart his 2012 claim.

Have you noticed all the TNRSers that come on here are not as brash as before Jan 20/17. They seem to want to appeal to our emotions - poor Charlie. He's a fake and he does need our prayers because he's deceitful.

Joe said...

Great response anonymous 2:13 and Jim Dooley I feel your pain. I was a big fan of Father Corapi, his no nonsense way of teaching the faith really motivated me to try and live it. Since he was booted from the church, whether it was his fault or not is speculation, hearing an inspiring sermon is nonexistent. I go to mass and hear priests talk in circle's about nothing while I hear more social justice, liberal crap incorporated all the time. I really wanted to believe Charlie because we are so desperately in need of a purification in both the church and society, I never really bought it, but I was hopeful it was true. Once it was clear it was not, well before the inauguration, I found myself even more disquisted with the moral decay then I was before I found out about Charlie. I know I will be criticized for this but I even find myself upset with God. He has allowed everything to get so out of hand, especially when the people are desperate for a true sign, God allows these false prophets like Charlie to discourage us even more. I realize that my anger at God is sinful and something I need to work through, but I don't know how at this point. Trump gives me hope as he has guts, will expose evil and does what he believes is right no matter what the backlash is. I just don't know if any mortal man can get us out of this mess. It must take an act from God.

Mary H said...

Our Lady of Tepeyac is a name sometimes used for the Virgin of Guadalupe; however, Charlie claims it is the Blessed Mother's preferred name, which is certainly a bridge too far.

I feel for you, Anonymous @2:54, because you are holding fast to a falsehood and delusion. A heavy heart I can understand, but Charlie is no Padre Pio no is he likely to become one no matter how much you wish it. Happily, the Rosary and Scapulars are here and are efficacious. Please look back at the testimony of other followers of this discredited individual and ask Our Lord and Our Lady to guide you to the Truth.

Anonymous said...

Hi Jim,
I think most people disregarded the stern counsel of the Archbishop because there is little trust and faith in our bishops these days. Little trust and faith in any authority to be honest. After the comments from some Bishops after Pope Francis' election I think the truth became clear that many were businessmen, not Shepherds and they weren't in tune spiritually. That was my understanding. Hence, distrust of their spiritual opinions.
We have read the likes of St. Faustina and the condemnation of the Divine Mercy message, and others throughout the ages that have proven to be true at a later date....sometimes much later! People today are impatient and not accustomed to waiting on the authority of the Church to speak on things. The Church has certainly pulled back...way back...in establishing authority among the sheep. We have mostly been deemed intelligent enough to figure it out for ourselves. Maybe they don't want to be seen as telling us what to do. We're educated, intelligent, free-willed people who can make decisions on our own with our well formed consciences. That's why I think people ignored the Archbishop.

Anonymous said...

Your logic and reasoning are indeed totally flawed, scrambled.

Different doctors may have different diagnosis about the outcome of an illness. But it's the good doctor who gets it right.

Different economists make different forecasts about a nation's economic recovery. But it's only a good economist who turns out to be right!

The same holds true for astrologers and other professionals.

Go figure! Just don't be narrow-minded!

Anonymous said...

So how does one know who is good?

Glenn get rid of this guy, this is different topic, we don't need to go down another rabbit hole, one is enough. He can set up his own site to discuss astrology.

Anonymous said...

Joe,
Did you know a respectful anger, and the courage to acknowledge it is a sign of growth in maturity in your spiritual life? Maybe something good came of your experience, although I'm sure you're loathe to admit it! (smiling!)
The book of Job, Jacob wrestling with God at the River Jabok, etc. are fine examples of men that had a mature, responsible relationship with their Father. God. God did not punish them for expressing the truth that was in their hearts in a respectful manner. God knew their hearts anyways so them acknowledging it would be pleasing to God.
As for God allowing all this and not doing anything, well I have been through that anger and dilemma myself. Most people will tell you it is because God has given us free will and this is all a result of people's free will. Personally I never found that reply comforting or helpful but it is true and difficult to accept sometimes. I think what you want is Justice. God to save us with His Justice. The Psalms are very good to read and are full of pleas to God for justice. Try reading them. You will begin to relate to the struggles, lamentations, sorrows, distress revealed in them, and the prayers that came forth from those struggles, fears. When I first started reading the Psalms, I felt afraid. The words, the prayers, the violence of some!! hahaha!! I felt it may be sinful to pray these! The Church does not speak at all like that anymore! In fact it is entirely opposite of the Psalms! I persisted, and began to experience much peace in them. As it should be. Give it a try if you want. You may find expression to the turmoil you're feeling in your heart.

Anonymous said...

Joe; I feel you pain, I thought Charlie was going to give me hope, so I listened, however, I soon began to realize with the scrubbing of my posts that this guy had some problems so I looked on the Net and found other complaints about him, then I realized Charlie is a real piece of work.
But, I really didn't invest myself 100% in Charlie because I saw this before, I still went to Church, Marian hours, etc. I have a good friend and we vent about the things in the Church.
Don't stop doing the little things like going to Church, say the rosary, etc. I have also attended the Latin Mass and it is far more reverent. I do like our Church because our Priest is 100% on fire for the faith and has good sermons ( a little long ) but some don't like them.
Don't worry too much about the decay, worry about making your own little world better, you can't change the whole world.

Jackisback said...

To Joe at 3:09 PM and Anonymous at 3:44 PM,

Anonymous gives a good piece of encouragement Joe. I second that.

Also, consider that this world has always been full of sin and death and lacking in justice. Justice comes in the next world, not in this one. Even though the Christ told us His kingdom was at hand, consider that He meant that in terms of time - at the time of His death and everlasting thereafter - but not in terms of geography, this world.

Indeed, isn't this what makes any prophecy of a "storm" from which we need to be rescued absurd? The world is always in the middle of a "storm." It never stops being stormy and anyone who promises you that it will stop, in our temporal world during our lifetimes, ought to cause us all to raise an eyebrow of incredulous skepticism rather than give birth to a large cohort, or cult-following-group, of Catholics.

The Christ did not promise us external temporal peace vis-a-vis the world we live in, He gave us His internal peace via His Holy Spirit. The peace comes from simple recognition that the everlasting covenant that He made with us, is real and true and permanent, and not needing to be augmented in any way.

Can you believe I got through an entire post without referencing logic?

Anonymous said...

Very funny Jack. No logic comment. We'll call you "lo-Jack". Your new handle.
I think Justice comes in this world. I believe that a lack of justice creates discouraged, hopeless, faithless people. I have prayed for God's restorative, corrective, healing justice for situations and definitely saw His response. I pray this with the full knowledge that I am also in need of justice. Justice defined as God putting things in His holy order that sin has damaged or corrupted or distorted. I think many see justice as an expression of Gods wrath. It can be that, too, according to the Old Testament.
Can you imagine the hope, joy, and renewed faith that would grow from witnessing God's Justice for say someone incredibly beaten down, abused, etc. The trust that such an event would evoke would be amazing.
Justice is mine says the Lord. It is His. Occasionally when prompted by the Spirit in prayer, I ask Him for it trusting that He is Wisdom, and whatever form of justice the situation needs, He will provide it.
Frankly, I think the Church has become entirely too focused on Mercy. It does not promote the entire personality of God as Father, just one side. This has confused people and promotes error and injustice.

Glenn Dallaire said...


"Can you believe I got through an entire post without referencing logic?"

Actually, I personally cannot believe it Jack---is this really you?
If so, I'm left wondering:
-If you actually get through an entire comment without referencing logic is this a logical fallacy or just a failure to use logic?..Just wondering....

-Glenn Dallaire

Anonymous said...

Mary H,
I never implied Charlie was another Padre Pio.
I left my response for people to investigate further and to heavily contemplate before they judge.
Honestly, this is a rarity that most , stop and fully evaluate before they voice, we ALL ERROR IN ARROGANCE AND LACK OF KNOWLEDGE.

Joe said...

Thanks for the responses to my comment at 3:09. I appreciate all of the enouragement and advice.

Anonymous said...

Okay here we go again:
A person by the name of DevineMercyNetwork has said that they had several e-mail exchanges with Charlie. He/she said that in his latest interview Charlie said that he was right 9 times out of 10 in his accuracy, but missed one.
So this person asks for more detail on the correct prophecies he claims - specific times, dates, etc.
SteveBC reply as he's taking over for Beckita as she is sick:
DivineMercyNetwork, how I do understand how you feel and what you would like to see. Unfortunately, Charlie has repeatedly said he would not do that while still performing his mission. You probably know that his spiritual directors have reviewed and archived a huge volume of material, and all of that material was given to the Archbishop who oversees Charlie in Denver, Bishop Aquila, when the Diocese investigated Charlie last year. I have seen Charlie say that all of that material either will or may probably be released well after his mission is completed. I must counsel patience.

First of all, Charlie said specifically that the correct hits were on his site he wasn't going to do your homework. So Steve saying that Charlie would not give this information is a complete lie. Actually he called these hits -prophecies.
Second of all, I thought that this prophecy that was missed was his first prophecy.
Apparently there have been prophecies that have come true? Charlie has always said there were other prophecies and they were on his site. Now they are being called predictions. However, Charlie is saying in the interview that just because he missed one it shouldn't affect him. So, he mentions his correct prophecies, but the Archbishop's office has it, but he said it was on his site?
Down the rabbit hole we go - again. But, they won't be released until his mission is over.
Now this is interesting SteveBC says that his spiritual advisers had reviewed his material, Glenn indicated this was not the case, they were only there to help his spiritual life not archive his predictions/prophecies.
I don't know if they're going to keep these lies going.

Anonymous said...

To Jim:

The reason that I personally got sucked in was becaus :

Charlie has stated with his picture just before the comments following his blog entries a "blurb
" giving information to his readers. It clearly states there that his priests have "vetted" his material. In his blogs (as in his taped videos - including the two Focus Interview) that they support him.

All through his blogs during 2014 and 2015 when I participated blogging often in the comments, he wove very openly that his priests were aware of his material and supported him.

Charlie's very best trait is his very clever twist of words. Thus, we believe he's got their unwavering approval. If any of them read his blog, they MUST have been clearly aware of this. The fact that he is "vetted" by them is stated as I comment here. Look on any entry, just before his blog comments begin. He has his picture and some facts with it. Read it.

On the latest Focus Interview he again reiterated that fact.

THAT'S WHY I GOT SUCKED IN.

I quit when the unbelievable economic crash did not materialize nor any of the domesday events follow.

Charlie is nothing if not a wizard with twisting words to say what he wants, with unbelievable finesse.

No! NOT ME! All I said was......

I was long gone before the Archbishop finally got around to making a statement.

And, yes, I did spend to my max. in preparation. .... no more than I could then afford. It has gone to those who can use it. And I have to hope I won't need it in the future.

Best of all, I am no longer alienated from my son. And, bless him, he has never told me I was crazy to follow Charlie.

Well, ok. Often during, but not since.

For those who stayed? Well, they have brains too. And if they can blog, they can read.

Jackisback said...

To Anonymous at 5:04 PM,

It is not for me to question your points of belief - of having faith in God meting out justice in this world. Perhaps I can be accused of an extreme defense mechanism - if I never expect justice in this life, I won't ever feel abandoned by God. Perhaps that's not the best way to look at things. It is my way, but not the only way.

To Glenn at 5:55 PM,

Ha! Perhaps it was the "appeal to emotion" fallacy. Then again, I was talking about faith, and my policy is not to intertwine faith with emotion. That is how so many get sucked in by likes of Charlie. But still, touche' Glenn.

Anonymous said...

The question is did his "Priest Advisors" vet and/or approve his messages? If so or even not did they allow him to go public?
What exact role did the diocese play?
I go back to my theory that the diocese allowed him to continue his ministry, but once he made a bad prophecy he had to step away but was allowed to keep his website ( however details are emerging of scrubbing information from the past ). I believe there is a lot more going on behind the scenes than we are told. Don't forget the Archbishop is building a multi-million dollar home for himself at a time when the Pope is telling the religious to live Spartan lives.

Anonymous said...

@Joe on Jan 24 2017 at 3:09pm

Joe said, "... I know I will be criticized for this but I even find myself upset with God. He has allowed everything to get so out of hand, especially when the people are desperate for a true sign, God allows these false prophets like Charlie to discourage us even more. I realize that my anger at God is sinful and something I need to work through, but I don't know how at this point."

Joe, everyone who truly loves God, including all the saints, have faced this perception and frustration at one time or another on their spiritual journey back to God. At some point we look around at the world and see the horrible wrong all around, the bad direction things are taking, and we think we see where this all is going (which, if you think about it, is actually a wonderful epiphany for us that God opens our minds to see the problem for real) and then we see some kind of good must be done to fix it. But then we see the problem is so massive, so immense, so deeply ingrained, only God can fix it. So we pray that He do so. And we join others who pray that He do so. And then time goes by, and things appear to be getting even worse...

Joe, this point in your spirituality is crucial. It is a test of Faith. Can you actually believe God not only see the problem, but is working to fix it?

Example: Right at Christmas Msgr. Pope in an article on his blog spoke of Jesus' birth thus: "The conception and birth of Jesus Christ were events that changed human history. It was a daring, hidden raid by the Kingdom of Light into the kingdom of darkness, an incursion behind enemy lines, into enemy territory. Only some shepherds in Bethlehem and a few magi from distant lands were witnesses to this event, one which began the undoing of the long reign of sin." http://blog.adw.org/2016/12/2017-will-important-year-homily-solemnity-mary-mother-god/

Isn't that a great image? Isn't it true? Don't we believe that?

Part of our spiritual growth is to get over the impatience we have at the perceived slowness and even failure, in our estimation, of God's plan of salvation, of "fixing" our world and saving souls. We know what is good. There's no doubt about it. But we as humans often have solutions that aren't the way God is going to do it, and we find we are upset with God, even angry. This is where the "Thy will be done." has to be lived. Oh, and it's hard. It's really, really hard.

(In no way am I saying all this in defense of Charlie or relating this to Charlie's failed prophecy. I am simply speaking in general of what we know and is taught in our Catholic Faith.)

Think of the apostles, who once they realized and believed Jesus was God's Son, with the power of God Himself, asking Jesus if God is going to send down armies to fix the problem of Roman rule, and the sufferings under it. Instead, Jesus is crucified.

Look at what Judas did about his frustration at God's plan. Look at what Peter and most of the other apostles and disciples did as God's plan unfolded. Look at what John and Our Lady did.

Ample food for reflection.

Know you are not alone in going through such frustration. It's what you do about it, taking it to God and telling Him about it, that will decide the next step on your journey to God. (Hint: what St. John and Our Lady did is best.... :-) )

I also highly recommend Msgr. Pope's blog for reflection and teachings that follow the liturgical year. http://blog.adw.org/ It is excellent.

God bless you all here, and Glenn for this blog. And thanks Glenn for allowing discussion of this topic and how we react to someone who claims to be a mystic but turns out not to be. Hopefully some who are angry and disappointed can find solace here.

Anonymous said...

I find it very disconcerting that Charlie's past "mystical" experiences are hidden from public view. Although he does state that it is all there on his site. Yet, his comment clearer says it's not available.
I also find it disconcerting that his "Priest Advisors" may have a had a greater role that initially thought. Is this why he was not nervous as the Jan 20/17 deadline occurred. Don't forget a supposed Bishop Yong Duk essentially blamed the diocese and his advisors for allowing him to go further. So in actuality in may in fact be their fault for not muzzling him?
This leads me to believe that a lot of his past stuff may well be doctored after the fact. Don't forget Charlie had been notorious for post scrubbing and other nefarious acts. I wouldn't put anything past anyone at this point.
This isn't over by a long shot.
In fact, I think we need to review the 2012 date as well because this may well have been overlooked or glossed over. The 2012 date would actually debilitate Charlie for good.

Anonymous said...

Ok. Now think about it.

At this point, do you still believe that there actually were any previous correct prophecies? We have only Charlie's word. Do you believe him?

Do you really believe that a bishop would blog onto an unknown and unproven guy's blog on the internet?

All five bishops, including one Archbishop, that I know are smarter than that - look, maybe, blog- never!

The Duck is not, I repeat, NOT a bishop. He can prove me wrong by saying who he is. However, like Charlie's previous correct prophecies being verified on his blog, the Duck will not ever disclose who he is.

Bishops have to be really smart. They actually are "vetted" BEFORE they ever get close to being a bishop.

Now trust me when I say I'm an angel sent to clarify this for you.

Prove that I'm not

Fred Keyes said...

I know that Keith Olbermann is a super liberal, that one can't alwyas considr him a friend of Catholics, but sometimes you have to give the devil his due.

I have stated I believe Charlie was driven by his political views, which appear to move him more passionately than do his prophecies. His support of Donald Trump is exhibit #1.

Now I know some of you here supported Donald Trump. I certainly did not; the man is scary and unbalanced emotionally, IMO. Nor did I support Hillary Clinton--a more anti-Catholic politician you will not find. I voted for Mike Maturen, the candidate for the American Solidarity Party (check out their website and FB page--a great candidate and party for faithful Catholics).

Take a look at this Olbermann video. I believe one can ask very similar questions about Charlie Johnston: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv28Hnx9uCg


Unknown said...

This is my first post after reading this site with interest for several months. I find it astonishing that some continue to perpetuate the fiction that Bishop Yong Duk is a real person. A simple google search shows absolutely nothing that hints of the existence of such a bishop, who could not hide his existence from such an internet search if he were real. That's all I have, except that I also find the phenomenon of the fraud Charlie Johnston equally astonishing, in that so many could be so fooled.

Anonymous said...

@Mike Campbell:
Re Bishop Young Duk: is was always assumed this posting ID was a pseudonym.

It's hard to tell whether he was an authentic bishop or not. Given the anonymity of his postings behind a pseudonym, I chose to discount his claims of such. I gave his comment no more weight than I would any other.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous at 4:30 pm
It is good that you did not give his comments any more weight than any other. HOWEVER, I believe that many who posted at Charlie's website probably did in fact give more weight to his comments because he put the word "Bishop" in his pseudonym. The reason that I believe this is because there was a priest by the name of Father Mitch Pacwa who attended a 2015 talk by Charlie. Some people have (mistakenly) taken his presence as an endorsement of Charlie. Imagine someone posting regularly who is referred to as "Bishop"! The very fact that Charlie allowed this says to me that he feels people will give him more credibility because a poster who is named Bishop is regularly and favorably posting on his website.

Laurence D said...

I have followed Charlie for about a year and am now in debriefing mode. You folks here seem like you could be helpful. In my mind I am still assuming the best about him -- that he was sincere rather than a con man -- and the best about the source of his prophecies, that they were angelic. Then I ask myself how he might have got the Presidential prophecies wrong. The flaw I can see is in his tendency to be a current affairs commentator, to give his take on things, so that how he stated that 2008 thing did not respect how the angel delivered it. When Lucia wrote the Fatima story down, she would quote Mary. But Charlie does not quote; he indirect-quotes: "I was told 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." So I am left imagining and reconstructing an original 2008 angelic statement, as follows:
A. "The next President will be Barack Obama;
B. the next President will not finish his full term;
C. the next stable national leader will not come from the political system."
In this scenario Charlie would have simultaneously seen in November of 2012, that Obama had finished that first term and also that he was re-elected. Therefore he supposed that it must be Obama's eight-year "term" that would not be finished. But this reconstructed original prophecy can itself still prove entirely true if Trump (B. above) does not finish his term now. The rest of the prophecies may still prove true too, but indeed my trust in them has certainly been undermined by Charlie's interpretation of this Presidential one. There may be no way to know any of the angel's own prophecies, unless they might be revealed in the Denver Archdiocese archives on Charlie.
I welcome your thoughts.

carli said...

Laurence D,

I believe that you are in good company here. I believe that the following exchange (found on Charlie's website) will be helpful to you. Please note Charlie's response:

Thomas Cavanagh says:
January 21, 2017 at 9:34 am
I am not a hater. I saw Charlie when he was in Dallas and thanked him for what he has done. I’m inspired by him to be a better Catholic. But that being said. The messages are not from God or it would have happened. Charlie has tried his best to make sure he was receiving them from God. I just don’t want to see gullible people let astray by something not from God. If I have learned anything from Charlie it is to stand up and speak the truth

charliej373 says:
January 21, 2017 at 9:56 am
This message was not from God.

Charlie clearly says that this message, meaning the Presidential Prophecy, did NOT come from God. Where did it come from? Not his angel, because a true angel would only carry a message from God, no one else. A demon? Satan? Charlie's imagination? We don't know. But not from God. The prophecy cannot, nor should it be, reconstructed. It did not come from God.

Unfortunately, the way Charlie has worded his response to Thomas, he is leaving open the possibility that he feels his other messages DID come from God. I would not trust that they did though.

Jackisback said...

To Mike Campbell and Anonymous at 4:30 PM,

You could spend a lot of time and still not be able to find the truth of it. The subject was raised recently on Charlie's blog and I remember "Yong Duk" responding to an accuser (who had claimed he wasn't a real bishop) saying that indeed he was an ordained bishop, and that he had good reasons to use the pseudonym (but reasons he would not share) and cryptically said that he had "given away" his actual identity in prior posts, if anyone actually cared to read them to figure it out.

Of course, he posts so prolifically that it would take you way more time than you might like to devote in order to go through them all. But let's remember, even Charlie has written that bishops sometimes give imprimaturs to materials produced by a would-be mystic, where said mystic later turns out to be less than trustworthy on their claims of supernatural communication.

Joe said...

Laurence D. Charlie has made the whole thing up. The reason I know that is because he said that he has been right on 9 of 10 prophecies. I personally confronted him on this to prove these other prophecies he has been right on. He got defensive and said he didn't have time to do my bloody homework for me. He told me I needed to look back and find them on his blogs. I did and found nothing as have many others on this site, Not even his biggest supporters, Beckita, Youngduk, Joe Crozier could give proof of even one correct prophecy, a pretty simple task considering there has been nine. Charie just makes this stuff up as he goes along. It is really sad.

Laurence D said...

carli, I could not find that exchange with Thomas Cavanaugh. Do you suppose it has been scrubbed?

Helen I said...

I have left two detailed posts, in the past couple of days, regarding what I think of Charlie Johnston. I have been following Charlie's site, and this site of Mystics of the Church, for almost a year's time, and I have come to the following conclusion. In my opinion, Charlie is a good person who appears to have a mental illness. As far as good attributes, he supports the rights of the unborn, he loves the Blessed Mother, he values the Eucharist, he supports the idea from his TNRS, of love for ones neighbor, and love and trust in God. He greatly values Mother Church, and claims to be obedient to her. He also appears to value family,and appears from what he has said, to have raised responsible, good children, who are adults now. He is extremely intelligent, and expresses himself exceptionally well,through writing. His followers claim that his efforts have drawn them closer to God. And all of these are good. But after my experience working in Mental Health for 22 years, I see some unhealthy behaviors that appear to me, to be signs of mental illness, or chemical imbalance of the brain. But as I said in my last two posts- I cannot diagnos him. I am not a Psychiatrist,MD. But I worked with many patients through many years, in the mental health system, and I do definitely have an opinion regarding Charlie. In my opinion, he could very well have not Schizophrenia,(it has its own unique diagnosis in the DSM), but he may possibly have something called Schizoaffective disorder,(a combination of mood disorder with psychotic features), with possibly, an added personality disorder. Charlie is not a bad or evil person- in my opinion. Charlie is a person who may very possibly, be lacking in mental wellness. Charlie may not even be aware that he is not well- but Charlie may very well know that something does not "feel" right, or "seem" right. He has at times doubted, or questioned his visitations, and he is probably shocked, and possibly depressed, that his prophecies that he thought he was SO SURE OF, did not come to pass. It is my opinion, that Charlie may very well need mental health treatment, and that of course, he needs support and prayers. But Charlie must choose mental health treatment,himself,no one can legally make him. Only under a 72 hour hold, with accompanying legal criterion,can someone be made to have evaluation and treatment. But if Charlie chooses to have treatment under normal circumstances,I do believe that he'll not only be helping himself, but many others as well. Thank you for hearing. God bless you Charlie, and everyone.

carli said...

Laurence D.

The comment is still there. I did have to hunt for it; it was hard to find. I should have provided the link initially though, sorry. Someone else here had posted it earlier in this thread, in response to a comment of mine, because I had seen it and had questions.

It is here:
https://charliej373.wordpress.com/2017/01/19/time-to-choose/comment-page-4/#comments

Scroll down about 1/3 of the page.

I hope that helps.

Glenn Dallaire said...

Since there has been a few matters raised in recent comments I thought I would address a couple of things.

Firstly, last year I was given a selection of the archives and I read them. I would add though that there was at least a few specific selections that I was not given, any maybe many, perhaps because they contained private information--I don't know. Of course I'm not at liberty to discuss anything from them, other than to say that I personally found nothing earth shattering in them. I did, for example, find the specific letter from Sept 14, 2001 concerning the prediction of the "Rescue" in late 2017.

I bring this matter up simply to state that in the archives I found no purported "heavenly" prophecies or predictions that have been fulfilled. While I stated it in an earlier post, I will reiterate it again now, since it seems to be an ongoing speculation here--I personally know of no specific formal public prophecies from Charlie prior to the "Presidential prophecy"---and certainly none that have come to fruition. If there were any, I'm quite sure Charlie would have brought this out on his blog or in his conferences as a heavenly sign which would have confirmed his mission. I have certainly talked and corresponded enough with both Charlie and his spiritual director over the past 2 years to have very likely been informed of any such fulfilled public prophecies, and never has any such thing been discussed.

As I have said in an earlier comment: What Charlie referring to as being accurate on is his PREDICTIONS, and NOT formal prophecies. Predictions for example such as Americas on again, off again, on again positive international relations with Russia, and the increased persecutions against Christians here in the USA and abroad, just to name a couple specific ones. These examples are just a couple of what he calls being correct on the "grand sweep of things" or "9 out of 10". These are general predictions and NOT formal prophecies.

Now as for failed predictions which may actually be prophecies (more clarity and info would be needed), the prediction of Christmas 2014 being the "last traditional Christmas" would be an example of a failed prediction. And there are a couple of others, which have been mentioned in earlier comments.

But the "Presidential prophecy" was for sure the first definitive public "heavenly" prophecy, which as we know just recently ended in a double fail.

As for Charlie's spiritual directors, again, I personally only know one of them. My understanding and perception is that there main emphasis was on Charlie's personal spiritual direction, and not the private revelations. And concerning the private revelations, my perception is that they essentially took a light handed "wait and see" approach. Obviously they gave him the "OK" to go public on his blog, but the one that I know specifically told me that responsibility for Charlie's mission and message lies solely with Charlie. Charlie's message is solely his own, and it is for him to take responsibility for his words and actions.

(Continued below)...

Glenn Dallaire said...

(Continued from above)

Now, some here apparently are blaming his spiritual directors for letting him go public. I personally don't blame them at all. Sure, it's easy now after the fail of the Presidential prophecy to Monday morning quarterback, but you have to consider things the way they were at that time, back a few years ago in 2014.

We had a 57 year old out of shape man with often painful neurological damage who had walked on a spiritual journey some 2700 miles across the country. Prior to this he had taken a private vow of chastity and poverty. He moved to Colorado, though not knowing anyone there, because he "was told to"by his visitors. For decades prior to all of this he spoke of a great "Storm" and "Rescue" that would affect all of humanity.

Now, given the potential import of this "storm" and subsequent "Rescue" for humanity, (think here for a moment if the importance for humanity if it was actually true) could anyone actually blame his spiritual directors for letting him go public back in 2014? What if he was actually sent by God to announce what was coming? Would you want to be responsible for NOT allowing that message to be announced?

So you see, I personally don't blame his spiritual directors at all. You have to put yourselves in their shoes. Since they apparently had no serious reasons to doubt Charlie's sincerity, so given the seriousness of his purported heavenly mission and message for humanity, they let him go public. And it was for the same reasons that I wrote the original article concerning him at the end of 2014. Sure!--it is very easy now to say that they should not have let him go public, but back in early 2014 things were not nowhere near as clear and established as they are now.

And so, historically speaking, I don't blame his spiritual directors or his Archbishop for essentially taking the "wisdom of Gamaliel" approach in what concerned Charlie's message, because this too was my own position. Obviously, given these recent events I surely will be even less likely now to ever highlight a living visionary on this website, but with Charlie I know why I did it, and that it was done in all sincerity and good intention, as was I am sure his spiritual directors decision to let him go public in the first place.

And finally, as for Charlie, who knows for sure---in the end, I personally think that he was sincere because he seemed to really put his heart into his "work". I will leave it to God (and his Archbishop) to judge. And as I have said in the past, one can be sincere and yet be sincerely mistaken. And for sure, with the "Presidential prophecy" he was definitely mistaken, and because of this the loss of credibility will likely be permanent.

May God bless all who visit here.
Glenn Dallaire

Anonymous said...

I disagree Glenn. I think Charlie's spiritual advisors are at least partially responsible. A past parish priest of mine was an approved diocesan exorcist. He explained that he was part of a team which included mental health professionals and that anybody who was referred for deliverance needed to be absolutely cleared of mental illness first. He also stated that most who are referred have mental health rather than primarily spiritual problems. Similarly all spiritual directors/advisors these days have some psychological training to "screen" people for mental health problems and are obliged to refer on if they suspect someone has a problem. This is standard practice. Anyone with reasonable training who spends some time with Charlie I think would have to question his mental health status. Similarly there are certain obligations under Norman Congregatioin which I believe his advisors have not upheld.

Anonymous said...

Glen,
Do you know that the blame game actually started on Charlie's page with the "Bishop Yong Duk"? He's the one that started with blaming Charlie's spiritual directors.

Here's his post:
Reply
YongDuk says:
January 22, 2017 at 9:46 pm
John St. John, you have to remember that not only did Charlie submit to his Ordinary (his Archbishop), he has submitted to three Spiritual Directors, who are allPriests in good standing.

They, not Charlie, believe it or not bear the Ultimate Responsibility.

So to say Charlie was deceived would be a falsity. Rather one would have to say that these Three Priests were deceived. They are the ones who allowed Charlie to go public.

https://charliej373.wordpress.com/2017/01/21/ave-maria-stella-maris/comment-page-9/#comments

Glenn Dallaire said...


Yes, thanks to an earlier commenter here I am aware of that comment from "Yongduk". My point is not so much as to whether they (his spiritual directors) were ultimately right or wrong in allowing Charlie to go public, but that one should not be quick to blame them for doing so. After all, let just switch things around and just imagine and say that what if one was to change both their decision to let Charlie go public, and if just the "Storm" were to have come true? This is why I say that before doing the "blame game" one needs to go back to that time and circumstances instead of what just recently transpired.

The one priest that I know has known Charlie for over 20 years. He's a solid "meat and potatoes" no nonsense priest, and I trust that he and the two others made the decision as best they could at that time, and I personally don't blame them in any way for it. Such decisions are not black and white, and clarity often only comes in time.

I suspect that if they were at all like me, then back in 2014 it came down to this core question: Could this message of Charlie for humanity possibly be coming from God? Could he actually be sent as he proclaims to be? If nothing significant tells us otherwise then why not give him a just hearing and find out? Such was my take back in 2014 anyway.

Glenn Dallaire

Anonymous said...

Glenn,
I think you were right and are right in the basis of your decisions. I think you did a good job at summing it up. It deserved to be aired. Good Job. I think the Church has become rusty in Mysticism. It sees the "gifts" we have all been given by Holy Spirit as talents...cooking, caring for others, carpentry, financial, being a mom or dad. The true gifts of the Holy Spirit are not being developed in priests or laymen, therefore the priests and laymen are unable to discern spirits/supernatural phenomenon properly. It shouldn't be treated lightly...the supernatural. It is difficult and time consuming to discern these things which may be why it isn't being done and these prophecies are being thrown out there with the permission of priests to see where they land. Sort of letting it discern itself.

Anonymous said...

Musings – Despair, Prophecy and the Ruler of This World
Posted on December 23, 2014 by charliej373
...I am a little concerned about how many people are writing in comments matter-of-factly about what the Lord has told them.

It is a fearsome thing to be in the hands of the Lord. To attribute directly to Him what is merely what you already believe or even your deep and hopeful insight, is a risky business, indeed. Through the ages, that technique has been used by many to lend authority to their own particular prejudices. It does not go unnoticed by the Almighty. You should not despise prophecy. Yet you must approach it knowing that the satan knows what you already believe and eagerly tries to confirm that dramatically to lure you into attributing to God what merely came from you – or worse, from him.

Anonymous said...

I suspect that if they were at all like me, then back in 2014 it came down to this core question: Could this message of Charlie for humanity possibly be coming from God? Could he actually be sent as he proclaims to be? If nothing significant tells us otherwise then why not give him a just hearing and find out? Such was my take back in 2014 anyway.

Glenn,

I think the priests and you got it wrong. The Archdiocese of Denver banned Charlie from speaking at Catholic venues in its territory and cited as a reason that it did not allow dissemination of messages unless it was certain they came from God. Given the gravity and imminence of the predicted events, I firmly believe Charlie should have been referred for medical and psych evaluation before he was permitted to embark on his career.

Anonymous said...

Glen,

You said,
"Yes, thanks to an earlier commenter here I am aware of that comment from "Yongduk". My point is not so much as to whether they (his spiritual directors) were ultimately right or wrong in allowing Charlie to go public, but that one should not be quick to blame them for doing so."

I find it truly ironic though that one of Charlie's staunchest and most ardent supporters, Yong Duk, started blaming Charlie's spiritual directors almost immediately after the prophecy proved false. And the comment has been allowed to remain, giving tacit approval to the idea that Charlie is not really responsible.

I would hope that the Archdiocese of Denver will now make a statement clarifying the issue for the faithful since Charlie's prophecy had a double fail.

Glenn Dallaire said...


Hi Anonymous @7:55 AM,
Firstly, the Archdiocesan decision did not come until March of last year, that is a full two years AFTER the spiritual directors decision to allow Charlie to go public.

As for the March decision of the Archdiocese, your wording of "banned Charlie from speaking at Catholic venues in its territory" is framing it falsely. Those words were not used. What the Statement said was "For these reasons, Mr. Johnston will also not be approved as a speaker in the Archdiocese of Denver."

As I have written, what the "...not be approved as a speaker" statement means is that Charlie had not sought, or received, official approval to speak within the Archdiocese, and that there is currently no intention to grant approval. In most, if not all, Dioceses across the country, one must apply—and receive- official approval as a speaker before one is permitted to give speaking engagements or conferences in any of the Catholic churches within the Diocese, particularly if one is to be speaking on matters of faith or morals. This prior approval measure is to protect the faithful from unqualified or disingenuous speakers. If the Archbishop was to grant approval for Charlie to speak within the Archdiocese, it would be interpreted as a implicit approval of his private revelations, and such is not in keeping with the cautionary approach related in today's Statement from the Archdiocese.

It is important to note here also that Archbishop Aquila did not restrict Charlie in any way, most especially from speaking publicly about his purported private revelations and prophetic messages, either in conferences or on his blog. He therefore remains free to speak publicly in public venues on private property within the Archdiocese of Denver and abroad--just not in Catholic churches within the Archdiocese.

So, to frame the Archdiocesan statement as some sort of "speaking "ban" is inaccurate, since there were no sanctions whatsoever issued on his public writings and content, and by default all persons are not permitted to speak in the Archdiocese without prior permission, and so also would be using the Statement as reason that Charlie should not have been given permission to go public, when it came out a full two years AFTER. Even so, while the Statement strongly advised caution, it was not condemnatory in any way, as you seem to be framing it.

Those interested in the Archdiocesan statement, its meanings and ramifications should really consider reading this article and the subsequent commentsto get a grasp on this particular subject, because it is easily misrepresented and misunderstood. While quite a bit of this subject is essentially moot at this point its still nevertheless informational.

Glenn Dallaire

Glenn Dallaire said...


Hi Anonymous @4:45AM AND ALSO Anonymous @9:03AM
Thanks for providing that quote--in fact over the past couple of years Charlie had made a few statements to this very same effect, basically stating how it is gravely serious and dangerous to speak in God's name, that one should only do so if one has authentically be called to, and that one will be held strictly accountable by God when doing so.

So, given such statements from Charlie one can see that he at least understood the gravity of it all in relation to God's judgments.

----
To Anonymous @9:03AM:

Yes, I would have to at least partially disagree with "Yongduk" in that Charlie's prophecies and revelations are solely his own, and that first and foremost he is the one primarily responsible for them. And to his credit at least he has acknowledged this responsibility, and has left the public arena. I simply don't think that shifting the primary blame to his spiritual directors after a failed prophecy is fair or just.

Thanks to you and everyone for your comments!
Glenn Dallaire

Glenn Dallaire said...


For those interested, here is another example concerning the discussion above:
From "On Prophecy--and LTTW":

"You don’t know what a kindness it is that God does not speak directly to most people. In the first place, it is a deeply intense, fiery thing. But the discipline involved to bear it is even more so. People love to say “God told me this” or “God told me that,” almost always invoking God’s authority to second what they already believe anyway. If He actually spoke to you, directly or through one of His messengers, you would find He told you many things you don’t want to hear and most assuredly don’t want to say. Even worse, if He actually spoke to you directly, you would be held to a strict account for everything you attributed to Him that He did not command you or give you leave for – and everything you omitted that He did command you to speak. As long as He does not speak directly to you, He can just roll His eyes at the petulant vanity of such statements."

------

So I think that it is quite fair to say that Charlie knew (and knows) the gravity of his prophecies, at least in relation to God's judgments.

Glenn Dallaire

An observer said...


For those over on Charlies blog, little by little the reality of the prophesy failure is sinking in, and those who were once "all in" are now becoming "all out". Can't blame them! Even for ardent followers reality and truth eventually takes hold due to failed predictions. Eventually Charlie supporters will become as rare as Clinton supporters. The truth of reality always sinks in eventually. BTW, its funny how the Clinton foundation is falling to pieces. Where did all those donors go?

Anonymous said...

Glen you said that no limits had been placed on Charlie's ability to speak by the diocese as he was not allowed to speak on Catholic property without permission like everyone else. However unlike everyone else the diocese made clear that Charlie would not be welcome to speak on Catholic property should he ask to be allowed to. Charlie did have limits placed on him as he could and can not get permission to speak on Catholic property in his diocese. Everyone else can request permission to speak but unlike Charlie are not pre-excluded and have a chance of being approved to speak. Limits were placed on Charlie's ability to speak.

Charlie is still selling "Charlie" products on the Full of Grace store. Whilst it states on his website that he does not receive any funds from this given his track record concerning dishonesty I would take this with a grain of salt. It is quite concerning.

Fred Keyes said...

Readers here may be interested in the description of Mystical Theology at the Catholic Encyclopedia's New Advent site:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14621a.htm

There's a lot to it if you really want to delve into the topic.

Anonymous said...

The moderators over at Charlie's site are not posting or releasing any comments until Jan. 31st "for a period of silence". Probably way too many negative comments coming in due to the inauguration fail and fallout. So its time to take a long pause, kinda like when your cable bill shoots up $40 and you call the cable company only to be put on hold for 45 minutes to take the angry edge off you. Call it a cooling off period.

Anonymous said...

What idea did Charlie take from someone else and not acknowledge the source? Unless you can back that up with evidence, you are slandering him.

Joe said...

Charlie. I know you scour the Internet looking for anything that is written about you. I have seen you respond on many different sites to critics, as the narcissist you are, you can't resist. I would bet money you have commented on this site as anonymous multiple times. Charlie, I know what you are doing, you are waiting for this whole thing to blow over, for tempers and frustrations to simmer than you will slowly ease back on the scene. You will begin to tweak facts of things you said in the past to regain a following. You will set back your doomsday clock and you will repeat the cycle of fooling so many. Charlie, I want to let you know that if you pop back on the scene I will relentlessly expose you for what you are.
I want to make a call to action to all BOVACS, When Charlie decides to emerge from under his rock. Anyone on here that has been burnt by Charlie, make a commitment to expose him for the fraud he is. Thanks to Glenn there has been a place to question, expose and critique Charlie and his propaganda without being muzzled. Charlie was great at manipulating his blog comments so that any outsider thought he was a living Saint, adored by everyone. Charlie will pop back up, it may be a year or two from now, but when he does I will do my best to not let him pull this crap again. I ask that all the great BOVACS here do the same.

Brendan Triffett said...

Joe. Let it go.

«Oldest ‹Older   601 – 800 of 3140   Newer› Newest»

ShareThis