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   801 – 1000 of 3140   Newer›   Newest»
Brendan Triffett said...

I didn't mean to sound glib or dismissive, Joe. To me you sound very hurt; you might even be feeling something like spiritual abuse. I acknowledge that. I just hope that you don't continue to give Charlie psychological power over you by revolving around him now in an angry, vengeful way.

Anonymous said...

Can I recommend to everyone Fr Chad Ripperger's talk entitled 'discerning apparitions' which can be found on YouTube. Fr Ripperger is an exorcist, an expert in Thomistic philosophy and psychology and his talks are excellent. This talk really helps with discernment of apparitions and helps to make sense of Charlie.
For all those who feel disheartened and discouraged, please don't lose heart, Jesus warned us in the gospels about all these things and it is He who will save. History teaches us so much about upheaval and trials in the world and Church so Trust in Him first and foremost! And remember you are not alone, firstly you are among friends here and lets not foget the angels, saints and God Himself!
Blessings, Bernadette

L Spinelli said...

Joe, he won't be able to re-emerge if the Archdiocese of Denver puts out a statement against him. Whether that's in the works or not remains to be seen.

Charles Ryder said...

What is a "BOVAC"?

Joe said...

Brendan. I am over it at this point. I am just letting Crazy uncle Charlie know that if he comes back and tries his shenanigans again I will expose him. Sorry if that has gotten you all hot and bothered. Please don't let me have psychological power over you.

Anonymous said...

BOVOC - Burnt Out Victims of Charlie.

Anonymous said...

Anon on Jan 24 at 2:09 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."
That's what I was referring to earlier in saying that unless specific proof is offered, that's slander, to claim he has plagiarized.

Another point: In his book A Still, Small Voice, Fr Groeschel said that St Catherine made some prophecies that turned out to be wrong. She just didn't get it right. Yet she's still a saint.
So Charlie got the presidential prediction wrong. That doesn't make him an evil man.

Fr William Most made the same point too:
"Human action may mingle with the divine action. ST. CATHERINE LABOURE FORETOLD MANY EVENTS CORRECTLY, BUT FAILED ON OTHERS. It is especially easy for this to happen with ideas that appeal to our own desires or fit with preconceived ideas. Benedict XIV (Heroic Virtue III. 14. p. 404) said: ‘The revelations of some holy women canonized by the Apostolic See whose saying and writings in rapture and derived from rapture are filled with errors.’” (emphasis added)

https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryd8.htm

Those commenters here who seem so eager to condemn Charlie might want to consider that he could very well be a holy man who just got something wrong. This could be a purification for him from God, to bring him to holiness. It could be a test of humility and obedience for him, a test that in the long run will prove him true.
Lou

Anonymous said...

Dear Lou: It's nice to see someone who supports Charlie and does not scurry away like a rat when questioned.
So let's start.
The point of that had to do with the surrender novena, it was not authored by Charlie it was already in existence - Charlie never made this prayer and I'm not sure he even identified the source.
TNRS is not of Charlie as well he said he took it from someone else, a saint,I believe.
Another example: Charlie has stolen a lot of my information on Russia, by not allowing my posts and then I find the information on other posts weeks down the road, Charlie says a lot of the things I said.
As to specific proof on the last one, how can I have proof when Charlie scrubs the posts? That is dishonesty. It is difficult to prove anything when he has deleted a lot of the old material. However, I had enough and made sure that a post that I made that was scrubbed was put up here to show the dishonesty of Charlie. Charlie even agreed to the veracity of the information I presented with another poster on the same page! He agreed word for word what I presented by another poster's source. And you are right it's slander if specific proof is not offered - therefore Charlie needs to put back the old posts and all the scrubbed posts so that we can all see the truth! Lou get the TNRS team to put all the scrubbed posts back and the deleted posts to reveal the truth - thank you Lou for bringing this issue up because we don't want to slander Charlie, we all need have it all out in the open.

Lou can you clarify a point for us. Charlie has said numerous times that he has been mostly right on his prophesies about 9 out of 10 correct,as recently as his latest interview. Charlie has stated that it is available on his site numerous times. SteveBC who is running the TNRS site has said that it is essentially not on the site but under lock and key by the diocese. Lou you seem like a guy who likes to get to the proof and the truth - so is Charlie telling the truth or is SteveBC telling the truth? If Charlie said the proof is on his site can you find it? Let's cut to the chase Lou and get to the truth and the proof on this issue.

Let's recap:
Lou is concerned about slandering Charlie.
In order to conduct a fair assessment of slander, Charlie's TNRS team needs to immediately release all his scrubbed posts and put back up his deleted old comments.
The heart of Charlie's message is his prophesies, the TNRS team needs to release all his successful and missed prophecies.
Lou I trust you're the guy to do this as you seem to want to get to the truth. Once all this is released then the specific proof can be offered and the slander and plagiarism issues addressed because the truth lies in Charlie's hands. I know you won't scurry away like the other TNRSers because you want to see Charlie's reputation held intact - so let's get to the truth so that we won't condemn Charlie.

Joe said...

Chalie Johnston, a holy man? The bar must be set at an all time low for holiness.

Helen I said...

January 27-th, 4:04pm. I do not believe that God tests or "purifies" people, in the way you describe, especially Mystics or Prophets that God loves, and supports, and that He has called to a specific mission. I believe if God has a message to give, it is usually clear, and gives true guidance to the Prophet. I think that God would be concentrating on the vital importance of the message He wants to give to His people, not concentrating on perfecting the messenger, at the expense of the prophecy failing. God wants His prophecy spoken to SUCCEED in going out to his people. God wants neither His Prophet, NOR His people receiving the message, to be constantly frustrated and confused by failed prophecy. This is my humble opinion. As far as Charlie, my opinion is, also, that he may very well NOT be well mentally, and THIS is why we see failed prophecies, and very possibly visitations that were not real, and were most likely, part of a chemical imbalance of the brain,(mental illness). Mentally ill people are not bad, or evil, they are not WELL, and they need treatment, and prayers and support. Thank you. God bless.

Jackisback said...

Anonymous aka Lou at 2:04 PM,

No appeal to authority, by citing actual other prophets of the past or citing what other Popes said about prophets of the past is going to fly as an argument for the validity of Charlie's failed Presidential Prophecy or the potential for validity of his other yet to be tested prophecies in relation to the "five fundamentals" or the "crash" or the "rescue." Such an argument is a logical fallacy.

As Joe and others have pointed out, and even Glenn, the Presidential Prophecy is Charlie's only known actual prophecy to date - wherein Charlie makes the firm distinction that this prophecy was not his interpretation, but rather something very specific that he was told (a distinction by the way that in his final interview with Focus TV, the interviewer reneged on by saying this could have just been a misinterpretation and no big deal - hey it happened to the best of saints - and Charlie disingenuously nodded his head in agreement and then said something to the effect of "I keep trying to tell people that this isn't as easy as it looks"). Not only that, but Charlie had always professed it was a "sign from God" and he used his phrase of art "I have told you true." These are Charlie's self proclaimed denotations of him repeating a specific thing he was told and not just something cryptic that he had to figure out - interpret - on his own.

Most of us here, if not all, find it odd that virtually every defender of Charlie that comes on to this site, conflates our arguments for discernment of the truth with personal condemnation of Charlie. The commentators here, of whom more than 95% offer arguments that relate to discernment of the truth of Charlie's prophecies, find Charlie's assertions to be false, and note especially, the fact that Charlie peppers his false prophecies with affirmations of the Church and the magisterium is not a basis for belief in his prophetic messages about the storm and the rescue or anything else that he says will happen before Christmas of this year.

Note also something Charlie claimed in the final interview with Focus TV, that he prayed for the Presidential prophecy not to come true, so as to spare us from a cataclysm. That is very different and very new. The Charlie whom all of us knew prior to that interview had always admonished his followers in very direct terms NOT to pray for aversion of the storm in whatever form it might take. Prior to that interview, Charlie had universally described the storm as a purification, a "cure for the cancer" that ails us, and that praying for mitigation of the storm was the equivalent of a cancer patient praying for God to withhold the cure for the cancer.

Making a bold prophecy which double-fails, that he now admits was not of God (but for which he insisted was from God up until noon January 20, 2017 and from which we should not pray to God for relief) and then turning around and trying to take some portion of credit for the fact that the events that would have been required for it to come true had been averted (due to Charlie praying) is highly bizarre with respect to consistency of thought from even the most generous viewpoint. Citing Catherine of Laboure in defense of Charlie, is therefore highly inappropriate in the extreme. Doing so presumes that Charlie is a prophet as an antecedent condition, which is the very thing all here are trying to discern. That presumption is another logical fallacy - begging the question.

Sorry, but no one is impressed by this.

Anonymous said...

To anonymous who recommended Fr Chad Ripperger's Youtube on Discerning Spirits.

Wow! What a great video and great insights. Thank you for mentioning this. It has totally opened my eyes.

Anonymous said...

When you read prophecies on Islam by Westerners, they are always depicted as the evil ones. But when you read history on what the West has done and continues to do in the Middle East, the Muslims look like the victims, rather than the aggressors, and even do though Islamists do evil, God's justice has too fall on the West too. Facts don't change because you're ignorant of them. Nor does objective morality change because you are a Christian. And I speak this as a Christian.

Fred Keyes said...

To Anon on 1/27/2017 @ $:04 PM:

It could be as you say that Charlie's being wrong on the Presidential prophecies were an anomaly. But what about the problems those of us have discerned about Charlie's worthiness as a mystic? Charlie's spiritual chops are hardly equivalent to those of Catherine Laboure or other canonized mystics. Charlie's writings are filled with political polemics, diatribes against Islam; claims of prophecies that have come true with no evidence supplied, wolf whistles to gun advocates, and on and on. This is hardly the kind of profile that any worthy mystic presents.

I still maintain that Charlie's true believers come primarily from a population who agree more with his politics (including the politics within the Church) than they do with people whose spirituality is steeped in the approved teachings of the Church.

Anonymous said...

I am sorry that I am not on the upper page of the first comments. I know that I will never be able to retract comments made on Charlie's Blog, on his blog. I believed his stuff "hook, line and sinker". It makes me cringe that I was so gullible and so ...I hate to admit it.....stupid.

Let me show you - just plain stupid. Talk about A COMPLETE AND UTTER LACK OF DISCERNMENT!! I have to say first prize is mine.

The following is a section of my comments on Charlie Johnston's Blog, THE NEXT RIGHT STEP

It is utter bilge and with all my being I wish I could erase them. Since I can't I am trying to do the next best thing, err, ah, step: RETRACT THEM HERE.

I blogged as "MM Bev". You have absolutely no idea how ashamed I am of these words. They make me cringe. I don't want them to ever, ever ever assist Charlie (or cohort) in any way.

On the blog "Stay to the Plain Path" I , and it's terrible hard for me to even admit this, I entered:

November 3, 2014.

".....don't try to prove anything. Either one does recognize truth and believes or one doesn't. That has nothing...... Your blog is a "distillation" that God has provided for us through you."

[It's excruciating to believe I actually wrote that -and it gets worse.]

"....Your blog doesn't stand on it's own. It is attached at each end, even if we can't see that. The wisdom of Saint Theres has been poured in, and Mother Theresa and Saint John the Great.... ....Your steps are a distillation of their message, which was written by their lives. God "honed" down the message......"

Yup. worse to come.

"And the other end of the blog? Ah, Charlie, now that's a sight to behold. You are attached to the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart which will pour over the earth."

Dear God forgive me! And Our Lady Mother, and Saint's Therese, Mother Theresa and Pope John Paul, the Great.

I just can't stand that I said that. Being of medication after surgery doesn't qualify as an excuse. That is the most illogical, stupidest thing I think I have ever done in my life....bar none.

Joe, if it is your intent to watch and wait for Charlie's reappearance (and like you, I feel it's a given), please don't ever, ever let him get away with using people's comments to bolster his claim.

That is the first and ONLY mention of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart on his entire blog. I looked.

I stopped going to Charlie's Next Right Step when the economic crash, Islamic Jihad, conversion. all failed to materialize. That was to begin around September/October 2015. Waited. Yes, I did. Waited some more. (And we're all still waiting. So much for the "grand sweep of things!) The only person who could possibly believe that Charlie got the "grand sweep of things" right, has to be Charlie.

I, as many did, argued vociferously with my kids. The eldest began to "predict" the "grand sweep of things" for me, year by year. He was so good at it and Charlie so bad, that I think he should start a blog.

And to the remaining followers? My advice for what it's worth? Buy any property available around Mr., Meeker.

And I have had the most fantastic. OPENLY RELIGIOUS CHRISTMAS SINCE LEAVING!!!! Yes, and I've moved twice since then.

Now I leave for the bathroom, to be sick again.

Anonymous said...

To Anon @6:30 pm: don't be too hard on yourself, you got swept up in the moment, at least you got out earlier than a lot of people, so you did see that something was wrong with Charlie's blog. Charlie conned a lot of people, Mr.O'Brien warned us he said guys from Belleville Illinois were known for their tall tales.
Yes, your son probably had a better prediction rate than Charlie, I thought the same thing about starting my own blog as my rate was way better than Charlie's too.
That's why we're called BOVOCs - Burnt Out Victims of Charlie and you have a place to vent with the rest of us.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, anonymous 6:58. I will wear BOVOC with pride. MMBev

Joe said...

Anon 6:30. At least you can admit where you were wrong. That is a lot better than my parents. They were constantly pushing Charlie's articles and videos on me. Then they would nag me, " have you listened to the talk yet or read the latest article," one of the talks being over 2 hours. I eventually would read the article and listen to the long talk. I tried to have an open mind until I felt that he was evading talking about his prophecies as the inauguration drew nearer. I confronted him and his reaction confirmed to me that he was a fraud. Now when I bring the whole Charlie thing up to them they just try to ignore me and make excuses for why he was wrong. They cannot admit they were deceived. It takes humility and a willingness to be honest with yourself. Something that not a lot of people have anymore.

Anonymous said...

I missed you, MMBev! I worried about you. I'm glad to 'see' you.

Anonymous said...

To all folks coming here after the election prophecy debacle:

Messages people claim to receive from "Heaven" can be from anywhere - including the evil one - UNTIL PROVEN AUTHENTIC BY THE CHURCH. Until then, consider them as nothing more than entertainment. There are many times more false prophets than authentic ones, and some of them can appear convincing.

If you are looking for something to fill a void in your life, pray, go to confession, Mass and pray some more. Try adoration, it will give you more solace than any bogus prophet can.

Sometimes, even false prophets can bear SOME good fruit, however it is temporary - and the bitter fruit of disappointment is always nearby in abundance. Some apparently good fruit is NOT an excuse to follow - OR CONTINUE TO FOLLOW - an UNPROVEN source of messages from Heaven. Satan has deceived many by tempting with fruit that looks good - remember the apple in the Garden of Eden?

Stay as far away from these false mystics as possible. You do NOT need any of them for your salvation. Why play Russian roulette with spiritual forces that potentially can lure you away from your real responsibilities?

We don't know what Charlie is - he could be anywhere on the line from evil to holy. Is he worth the risk? NO!

Anonymous said...

There are so many people I miss that I "virtually" met on Charlie's blog. I tried to get onto Linda Summerfield"s site when I was there so that I could contact and email. My computer illiteracy never manage to allow me.

That is the one, single thing that was positive. People there during 2014 and 2015 really did have a true compassion and caring for each other not found many places. In all honesty, I have not found that since....and I wish I was able to "talk" with some of them.

Unfortunately, most of them might not be able to relate to me now. It isn't that I believe that Charlie is just wrong. I have verified it for myself and will wait to see if (when) he returns.

I don't know if you are still convinced he is right or have learned as I have.

The only thing that bothers me are the parents, brothers and sisters etc. with bridges burned because of Charlie's blog. I count my self lucky. Know that I still carry in prayer those who were there with me. That has to include you. And I miss you.

MMBev

Fred Keyes said...

"...the bitter fruit of disappointment."

Now there's a phrase that hits the nail on the head.

Anonymous said...

Joe: At least your mind wasn't so open that your brains fell out. Just sayin.

MMBev

Anonymous said...

MMBev! I'm glad to see you here. Mick and I would occasionally comment about you after you left wondering how you were. I'm glad you're alright.
I followed Charlie for a long time but mostly only commented on the Prayer Request page because I found many of the people very caring there. I think I was first drawn in because I have long felt that things could go bad. I had the same attitude that Glenn wrote about earlier this week and we were just waiting to see how things would work out. I don't feel angry at all and I don't feel stupid. I met some lovely people there.
No matter what the reason was that Charlie did this, I feel he needs prayer. I do not know his motive and have no way of ever knowing why he did this so I will just pray as I have all along. The world is still a crazy place...
Jesus, I trust in You.

Anonymous said...

I commented outright more than once that I missed mmbev and hoped she was all right and Charlie finally posted that she was fine but taking a needed hiatus from posting or from the computer or something like that. Purposeful misleading? Mmbev did you comment about your misgivings and Charlie did not allow the comment? Or did you lead him to believe you were just taking a break?

Anonymous said...



Anonymous 11:13 pm

I wish I knew who you are! Are you interested in emailing? I, too, don't feel angry. When I left I had gotten off all the meds are had to take following my years of surgery. Last November I decided to move. I'd quit going to the blog. I've had three moves since then, am happy as a pig in mud. I have thought so very often of the people I "met" there and have wondered about their lives.

If you are interested in emailing, perhaps we can arrange something without posting our present emails? I'm open, and still have my brains.

So many, many people there were just fantastic. Rarely does one have the opportunity to connect with those who honestly and truly make Him the centre...... For me, that was the big loss.

A storm is a'brewin and we all are aware. When and how it comes, God alone knows (and I'm sorry, there aren't any messages coming from Charlie about it). Each of us is focused on Him and trust in Him alone.

In that we are like, and single minded. Obviously Glenn, who has allowed this, and others here are the same.

I can't adequately express my gratefulness to Glenn. Now THIS site truly is a labor of love! I intend to spend a lot of time here reading!

Nearly lost Richard twice in January, but God is still leaving him with me.

MMBev


Anonymous said...

I just stopped going there. It is true that there is a "withdrawal".


At some point Charlie sent an email asking how I was, and to drop an email. Since I had severed without any blog comment, I just stayed silent. At that time I had not yet verified with absolute certainty, and felt it wasn't fair to say anything until I had no doubt and had proof for my self.

I decided it was important to blog a message here since I made the initial ones. I hated to see so many people shipwrecked and hurting.....and it was important for me to sign it.

I couldn't have lived with myself if I had remained silent. I owe that much. I can't really remember how I ended up coming to Glenn's site, but am I ever thankful I did!

I'm a bit overcome that any of you guys missed me as I have missed you!!!!

MMBev

Anonymous said...

I don't ever recall Charlie saying that you (MMBev) were taking an hiatus. He did say when I asked about you one time, that he had emailed you and you had not answered and he was concerned and hoped you were well. I was worried that you were ill or something had happened to you. I remember Mick being concerned also.
I'm trying to figure out a way to contact you without putting my email address on here.
I do feel there is a storm brewing and I think that's why so many people were drawn to Charlie's site. I never talked about it much to others except a few close friends that have been feeling the same way. It did make me face my fears about how the world is going and I do feel like I am learning to trust more in His plan, whatever happens. That's why I don't feel angry...I have learned and grown a lot.

Anonymous said...

anon 12:59

It might be possible to exchange emails via a third party. Let me think. Too late to think now, and I have to be at Mass early tomorrow morning.

I was really sick a year ago December, and it's taken quite a while but I think I have passed the threshold of the tunnel

I too pray for Charlie. Whatever else, there was a lot of joy in interacting with Christ-centred people.

Tomorrow........In Him we live and have our being.....

MMBev

Anonymous said...


Folks,

The last couple of weeks - with yet ANOTHER in a long line of Catholic prophets who failed - a change came over me; I hope once and for all.

This is it for me. I'm tired. I have wasted so much time and energy on this stuff. When it actually dawned on me how wasteful I have been getting caught up in these failed prophecies, time, energy, worry, money, fear, doubt, etc - I felt guilty enough to go to confession about it. That was last Saturday. The reason I confessed it, not that it sounds like a sin, was because I felt like I got caught up in "divination" and wasted SO much time of the last 30 years that could have been spent in so many other worthy ways. I felt like I've been visiting Catholic palm readers with neon signs outside their store front: "Know the future," "know how to prepare," "save your soul."

I tend to get caught up in this stuff, I admit. I see that fact now as a defect in my character. I'm 57 years old, and started following Medjugorje (my first experience regarding "seers") back in 1985, when I first heard about them. Since then, it's been off to the races due to a fascination with "what was coming."

I won't detail all the rest of the ones I got caught up in. Too many. Too much wasted time and effort. For me, it's embarassing. To think that I actually took financial steps (bad ones!) regarding all this stuff!! It is hard to for me to see my in-laws these days because I tried to sell "Conyers" to them. What a disaster. I always have this sense they are laughing at me and my foolishness if I even bring up anything religious. I am scorned in this regard The list of my embarrasments goes on and on and on regarding this stuff.

I have been a fool for 30 years. It is a hard, cold fact that I now face up to. I actually rue the day I ever heard about Medjugorje, the thing that started this juggernaugt in my life snowballing down the hill.

On a side note, and I pray it was my last foray into the prophecy business, I noticed that Daniel O'Connor, who I do not know or follow, just dropped a whole roll of quarters into the jukebox of gloom, doom, and redemption, to keep things going for a while by stating that the phophecies are right, but the timing is off. Oh brother..

I have truly had it with this stuff. Enough for me! What a waste it has been latching on to these so-called "seers." In all of it, I can't think of one thing - ONE THING - that ever came true. It all failer - and miserably.

I ask God to please take what He can from my foolishness and disastrous life from following this stuff, and bring about some good. I have started a nine day novena to the sorrowful heart of Mary to help rid me of these petty desires to "know in advance" what God has in store for us, and to return to a simple life with God.

Lastly I want to thank Glenn for opening up his website for all of us to exchange ideas, stories, experiences, etc. Thanks Glenn ! For I believe it was this forum, and this final "Charlie" stuff that allowed me figure out what a total fool I have been for 30+ years.

God bless all. And I mean that!

Anonymous said...

To all you burned out victims!! Please, please send your stories to the Church so Charlie DOES NOT have a chance to make a comeback as he has threatened! I bet the Archbishop there has no idea of how people were hurt, I bet they do not read blogs as we do!

I copied information on the Archdiocese and beg y'all please to write them or call them or email them what you wrote here. And those Focus TV people need to hear from you too!!


Archbishop Samuel J. Aquila
303-715-3129

Moderator of the Curia
Very. Rev. Randy Dollins, V.G.
303-715-3263

Secretary to the Archbishop
Rev. Scott Bailey
303-715-3210
fax: 303-715-2043
Father.Bailey@archden.org

Chancellor/Special Assistant to the Archbishop
David Uebbing
303-715-3185

Glenn Dallaire said...


Hi MmBev,
It is nice to hear from you again. I remember you very well as "MMBEV" commenting early on on Charlie's site. As for myself, I very rarely commented there over the years, but I often visited the site to monitor things, and I remember well reading some of your comments early on in 2014 or 2015.

And so it's great to have you (and the others here) commenting and sharing your perspective on things.

Best wishes and may God bless you and your loved ones,
Glenn Dallaire


Jackisback said...

To Anonymous at 8:32 AM,

I'm wagering that a lot of people visiting here will benefit from your post, so that's a good fruit - from Glenn.

I've sparred verbally with Daniel O'Connor before. He's a well meaning person, but pays no heed to logical fallacies. The times I debated with him, I patiently explained the "begging the question" fallacy because he would make assertions that always presumed that Charlie had been communicating with supernatural heavenly beings - even though that was the very thing that was being debated. He also, because he held to that presumption so fervently, quite adamantly argued that it was up to skeptics like me to prove Charlie hadn't been speaking with the angel Gabriel - that is the logical fallacy of "shifting the burden of proof."

Oh well, it doesn't surprise me one bit to hear that he is doubling down. I said very early on that when folks figure out that they've been burned that they'll be mostly none the worse for wear (unless they spent a lot of money "prepping" that they could have used in a better way) except for some head scratching embarrassment. For myself, I always end-game these things. The question is: if I embrace this prophecy and nothing happens, then what? Fast forward to the end of 2017. If life is "stormy" then, but not much more or less "stormy" than it is now (and always has been), and there has been no "rescue", then what? Hang on every word that Charlie or Daniel O'Connor utter?

That can't be what God intends for me.

I don't condemn Charlie or Daniel O'Connor. I do pray for them.

Anonymous said...

An idea... IF you happen to use facebook, you could go to Abraham's Journey page, make a comment, and then use private message to connect. If you registered already for the next right step communities, you may find a way to connect there.

In interests of 'full disclosure': I knew immediately who you were, mmbev, when you said you'd gone back to check against printed out copies, because I remember you commenting about making them, back then. And I did miss you when you stopped comments there, but there was a second commenter whom I also missed and I may be confusing the two of you when I remember that I asked and was told so and so was taking a break. And it may very well have been the truth as Charlie knew it.

Laurence D said...

About not despising prophesy. Why not? I hope we can answer that question in the face of so much burnout. Here are my thoughts. Christ appointed first apostles, then prophets, then others. Yet there is no "office" of Prophets in the Church. In some ways the apostle-bishops serve as prophets through the Magisterium, giving their fellow servants the right food at the right time. And saints also do by their gifts, including as (official) intercessors. It remains true that the core four -- Revelation, Sacraments, Commandments, and Prayer -- are together and in principle sufficient for salvation. But in practice many of us nevertheless flounder without additional touches of the Holy Spirit. As a matter of fact, to find and remain in grace, every Christian already depends on the Spirit's ongoing help to discern, trust, and adhere to those four pillars, even if it is simply a matter of accepting them from our parents. Genuine prophecy, even in the limited sense of prediction, can draw out this discernment and trust in many. In fact I want to suggest that it is not always those content with the deposit of Faith who are more trusting. Those whose hunger for the Kingdom drives them to risk tentative human faith in details of God's ongoing reign in history can sometimes be feeling Providence out more fruitfully than if they stayed safe in only what seemed established. Would the Church even come around to canonizing saints, approving apparitions, and defining dogmas if there were not first this "private" groundswell of devotion by the "gullible" ahead of approval? Yes, the Church is right to urge caution in general, but not to a point of quenching the Spirit. We are given some official help in discerning. Do we need a little more, or a little less? Your thoughts?

Anonymous said...

To MMBEV:

Geez, it's great to know you're okay! I have been keeping a low profile reading here, interested in the outcome of Charlie's blog but didn't want to ID myself, but because I want to let you know who it is that's writing this to you, I'll tell you the ID I used on Charlie's site: it's Petra.

When you dropped out, I wondered what happened - if you got sick, or if your creepy neighbors did something to you.... :-) By what you would post I often was concerned you were taking radical steps in your life and maybe even risking your economic security because you seemed to believe Charlie's predictions so wholeheartedly. There's something about you that comes through in your postings - a sort of innocence and trusting nature, a meekness and sincerity in spite of having some very challenging circumstances in your past. I knew you lived alone, and I was really afraid for you. Many times I asked Our Lord, "Oh Lord, please keep an eye on MMBEV, okay?"

I stopped going to Charlie's site sometime in early 2016 I think. I had my doubts about him that grew over time due to the fact that he had suggested strongly in 2014 there would be a dire economic disaster that just never materialized. That, along with his often abrupt and sharp comments to some people, made me think something else was up with him. The one thing that really gave me great pause was a discussion about his son asking if the devil can repent, or be forgiven, and if we should pray for the devil. Charlie waffled on this one. But it was clear to me the Church teaches the devil can never be redeemed due to his angelic character and perfect knowledge. His rejection of God was final. The devil cannot repent. I became sure Charlie was not a prophet because his answer on this question was not strong or definitive. (Forgive me if I don't have the details on what Charlie said about this exact. It's been a while and I can't remember in detail how all this went down.)

Anyway, I resolved at that time that Charlie was misled and misleads. At the same time I was most concerned for those who posted who were nearly terrified about what he said - some delaying surgeries lest they be in the hospital during the "collapse" or the lady who was taking care of her son who was on a ventilator and whom she was caring for round the clock at home and who wondered how they would survive, or the lady taking care of her invalid mother who envisioned running down the street pushing her mom's wheelchair fleeing from the disaster; and you, MMBEV, who I though might be draining all your savings to stock up to give stuff away and help others during the collapse.

I am so glad you are okay. I too valued the many true and sincere people that posted comments there, and my heart often felt full to overflowing with the charity expressed and sincerity of love they felt for others. The prayer request page was one of my favorites for that very reason.

Now that I know you are okay, I am much at peace. May God bless you, my friend, and may we meet one day in Paradise - embracing as sisters in Christ who knew each other on this side of the veil only by way of the written word on the vast internet.. :-)

Pax et Bonum,
Petra

Anonymous said...

MMBev,so glad that you are ok! I have wondered about you, and prayed for you as well. I don't know if you remember me, but I am "Fran" from Charlie's blog. (I was the only Fran there in the beginning,but I think there are others now.)I am travelling right now, so when I get home I can share more, but like you and Petra (glad to hear from you too!), little by little I was figuring out things, and that something just wasn't right. I detached from the blog, and just took a "wait and see" attitude about it all. Every now and then would check back to see what was happening, but I began to be increasingly concerned that some of Charlie's followers would be "burned", as I saw his prophecies were changing, and that things he said just didn't happen, but he had a way of explaining it away. I also wondered like others here if Charlie was really mentally ill. I would post now and then, and have even most recently posted a long response to Yong Duk. I have tried to be very gentle and cautious in my responses for a couple of reasons, but mainly I just wanted to try to reach some people there, because I am concerned about them! Fran

Anonymous said...

I had been watching Charlie's page for about a year after seeing someone talk about it on Catholic Answers. I wish I had not because it was such a waste of time.
I think it appealed to me because the world seems so crazy and few seem to respect others or life. People act in terrible ways toward each other. I was drawn to the idea that the Blessed Virgin would come help us and make things better.
I was confused about how all the things he claimed would happen with only the loss of 26 million and such a short amount of time. I suppose anything is possible with God?
Towards the end I was really starting to get annoyed with the blog. The chatter seemed so inconsequential; fudge recipes, cheery coke and squirrels! The lady who wants to be a music star. I thought the world was supposed to be going through a horrible time, sure try and get famous on tv! What?
By this time though I had been praying for discernment and asking the Holy Spirit to help me. I got an answer that it was false. I wish I had trusted this more. I had never tried to discern anything before. Now I will trust my instincts.
I did buy some extra food and stock diapers and toilet paper, water and medicine for my family. I guess it is not anything I won't use anyway but still annoying. How can someone say the things he said and expect that a mother with young children and babies wouldn't try to do something to ensure that her children are fed? We absolutely should trust God but that doesn't mean He is going to put dinner on my table if I don't have any.
I think my take away from this is that most of us are going to lead very ordinary lives. They are not important or exciting but we are called to serve in that manner. My job is to teach the faith to my children so they can pass it on. I will continue to pray for the Holy Father and the Church. I will help people locally through the food shelf and possibly look to teach Sunday school. That is what most of us should be doing. Not looking for excitement and answers.
Charlie should go away. It makes me angry to see them say all the storm stuff is still true after he has been proven false.

Anonymous said...

Petra!! I'm glad to see you here too!! You were another person I worried about and asked about. I had wondered where you went to. You stated your feelings about MMBev the same way I was thinking. I worried that her crazy neighbors had hurt her also. I share your feelings about Charlie's site. I started doubting more and more as time went on and I did cringe at some of his comments to people. But I've always been taught to give people the benefit of the doubt and I guess I was giving it to him too, knowing that none of us are perfect.
I was concerned about people planning their lives around it but he did say that people should be prudent; that people should not make traveling decisions or such based on his prophecies. And we never did. We did have extra food and such in the house but we've been doing that before Charlie came on the scene. Nothing extravagant; just things that we would eat even if nothing happened. I was afraid of how things were going in our world and country before I read Charlie. I actually benefited from reading his site.
I did feel bad for the people who were so afraid and I did pray for all of the people on Charlie's blog everyday and will continue to do so. Including Charlie.
I had been anonymous in my comments yesterday but for Petra and MMBev, I will say that I went by Barb129 on Charlie's site.
Thank you Glenn, for letting us share with each other here. I fully agree with the comments you made earlier this week about Charlie and his site. It is exactly how my husband and I have felt all along.

L Spinelli said...

To all of the recent posters: I'm glad you all had the sense to break away. My first inkling that something wasn't right with Charlie came way back in January 2015 - his overwrought defense of the failed Christmas prophecy, which I hadn't known about at the time. That nagging feeling that something just wasn't right intensified, then "Whatcha Gonna Do When They Come for You" was the final straw. I didn't think anything was going to come of Jade Helm, and I was right. I'm sure Charlie would have put me on full blast if I voiced that opinion. (It seemed that he and the hardcore followers were suspicious of anyone who didn't share their very far-right worldview.)

As I said before, I found a lot more peace living an ordinary Catholic life than worrying about Charlie's anxiety inducing "prophecies". Some people found comfort in his messages, but for me and many others, they were a distraction.

Anonymous said...

So nobody told me there was a "character"limit! And I was sure I have a pretty good character!

Third try.

Glenn, bless him, has agreed to forward my email address to anyone who contacts him:

gdallaire1@gmail.com


I look fwd to hearing from you all MMBEV

Charles Ryder said...

Charlie has withdrawn from the scene. It's time to move on. I suggest that anyone who spends more time following apparitions (approved or not), prophets, mystics, etc. than they do reading the Scriptures or the Catechism rearrange their priorities. There are some good reading plans available for working through the Scriptures over the course of a year. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is breathtaking.

Peace.

Jackisback said...

Laurence D at 12:34 PM, you wrote:

--begin quoted text--
About not despising prophesy. Why not?
--end quoted text--

Who has written here of despising prophecy? Please make a citation to someone's actual words, lest you commit a straw man fallacy.

You also wrote:

--begin quoted text--
But in practice many of us nevertheless flounder without additional touches of the Holy Spirit.
--end quoted text--

Why on earth would this be the case? Do you not find the Holy Spirit within yourself during prayer, via introspection, and find the Holy Spirit in communion within others around you every day? But even if it is the case for you, why would you presume it to be so for "many?"

You also wrote:

--begin quoted text--
Genuine prophecy, even in the limited sense of prediction, can draw out this discernment and trust in many. In fact I want to suggest that it is not always those content with the deposit of Faith who are more trusting. Those whose hunger for the Kingdom drives them to risk tentative human faith in details of God's ongoing reign in history can sometimes be feeling Providence out more fruitfully than if they stayed safe in only what seemed established.
--end quoted text--

The phrase "can sometimes" is the enormous qualifier here. You don't reference an example. Since this blog is concerned with discernment of Charlie's Presidential Prophecy, it seems way out of place now that the prophecy has completely blown up. That particular "prophecy" has not brought out trust. The phrase "than if they stayed safe in only what seemed established" is obnoxious. The "core four" are established - they don't just "seem established." This entire paragraph of yours is a logically fallacious appeal to emotion, written to make those who chase after the claims of alleged prophets feel better about themselves or even superior to those who do not need anything extra vis-a-vis "details of God's ongoing reign in history." The phrase "feeling Providence out" is odd. If Providence is defined as God directing the universe and the affairs of humankind with wise benevolence, then by definition, those that already trust in the core four cannot, in any circumstance, be said to be less trusting than those that require "signs," apparitions, or locutions, especially when the alleged prophet, as is the case with Charlie, commits a massive double fail.

Next you conflate the Church's practice of canonizing saints and defining dogmas with approving apparitions. Only the latter involves a private groundswell of devotion prior to approval, and the ones that get approved don't involve the gullible, as the approval proves the contrary.

Next you wrote:

--begin quoted text--
Yes, the Church is right to urge caution in general, but not to a point of quenching the Spirit.
--end quoted text--

Another straw man argument: No one here has made a claim that the Church has, or should, strive to quench the Spirit. If you are saying the Church has done so, then make your case, supported by evidence.

Finally, you wrote:

--begin quoted text--
We are given some official help in discerning. Do we need a little more, or a little less?
--end quoted text--

One might consider using their God given brain when testing a would-be prophet. When said would-be prophet makes assertions about the future that advances a theory of complete abdication of God's Providence vis-a-vis a "storm" and a "crash," and within that theory are embedded numerous contradictions and logical fallacies, one might then ask whether we need any official help in discerning, in such a case. This does not mean that the Church should never offer official help in discernment, but why should there be a blanket rule concerning the degree of help? Why not consider it a case-by-case question, depending on all facts an circumstances in each case?

Jackisback said...

Charles Ryder, you wrote:

--begin quoted text--
Charlie has withdrawn from the scene. It's time to move on. I suggest that anyone who spends more time following apparitions (approved or not), prophets, mystics, etc. than they do reading the Scriptures or the Catechism rearrange their priorities.
--end quoted text--

I find this a bit odd from you Charles. In Glenn's prior blog thread on Charlie Johnston, you defended Charlie on his goal post moving as not really goal post moving, and accused me of not having my facts straight when making the case for that (even though I did have my facts straight). But now that his prophecy is seen to be false, you want to "move on?" Who is it precisely who spends more time on following apparitions, prophets, mystics, etc, than they do reading Scriptures or the Catechisms? Or is that just a straw man you were referring to?

Boo said...

Actually, I have to say that I myself have spent more time following apparitions and so called 'mystics' than I have reading the scripture or the Catechism, so I found this good advice! Maybe not everyone is as foolish as I am though. : )

I am of the opinion that if the Church approves something I'll believe it, if not, I'll take it with a grain of salt and not hang my hat on it.
Having said that, I am rather interested in mystics. I originally thought Charlie sounded authentic when I came across him in 2015 and started to read his messages a lot then not so much after mid 2016 when I became quite skeptical after a few red flags started to come up.
But, I'd still check in out of curiosity and to re-affirm my opinion. And spend lots of time looking at actual Church approved prophesies and saints/mystics.

So, for me at least, even though I wasn't led astray by believing Charlie, I was foolish in that I wasted so much time and brain space on things that in the end aren't nearly as important as actually conversing with God and learning more about Him!

If I'm allowed to 'advertise' something that might help people re-focus, may I suggest checking out The Institute of Catholic Culture https://instituteofcatholicculture.org/ which has free talks and presentations that will actually flesh out scripture and Church teaching and current societal issues. As well as Fr Chad Ripperger's talks as I've previously mentioned https://sentrad.org/multimedia/ He is an expert on Thomism and is also an exorcist with expertise in psychology. His talks on woundedness and healing might be particularly helpful for those feeling hurt by Charlie's failed prophesies.

First though, the sacraments, scripture and Catechism of course! Ok. I'm off to take this advice!

Peace!






Boo said...

And thanks to that person who replied saying they listened to Fr Ripperger's YouTube talk on discerning apparitions. So glad it helped!

Anthony said...

It is much better for Catholics to live the faith. Go to church and confession and say the rosary daily. And remember the devil sends false prophets often to test our gullibility and our discernment. When our Lady appeared at Lourdes there were a dozen or more false apparitions that tried to mimic Lourdes. So as Catholics let us not despise prophecy but to stick to church approved ones such as FATIMA and AKITA and in particular OUR LADY OF GOOD SUCCESS.

God Bless to all here and keep up the good work Glenn

Charles Ryder said...

Jackisback,

From November 2015 until August 2016 I read both the Bible and the Catechism from cover to cover. Believe me, that is a big chunk of time. Right now, I am re-reading the four Gospels. I attend daily Mass four times a week and Eucharistic Adoration once a week.

I stand by my remarks about Charlie that you alluded to. But let's look at the entirety of these remarks:


Jack Gallagher,

I've been reading Charlie Johnston for about ten months. He's consistently said that an election could take place but that neither one of the candidates would be inaugurated. And he is NOT moving goalposts. He said that if either Trump or Clinton are inaugurated, then he would be a false prophet.

You don't have to believe in Charlie Johnston or even like him. But please, get your facts straight when you make a case against him.

NOVEMBER 1, 2016 AT 6:21 PM

+++++++++++

Charles Ryder said...
When a prophet revises his prediction many months in advance of the prophesied event, it is not proof that the prophet is a false prophet. Nor is it a sign of moving the goalposts. Charlie Johnston has been saying for months that there may well be an election. What he has been saying for months is that neither candidate will be inaugurated. Now If Trump or Clinton are inaugurated, then Charlie's gifts need to be seriously questioned. He says that if he is wrong about the inauguration, then he will not make any revisions -- he admits that he will be absolutely and unequivocally wrong.

NOVEMBER 2, 2016 AT 10:28 AM

++++++++++++

Charlie has left the public stage. It is time to move on. And I reiterate that Scripture, Tradition and the teachings of the Magisterium must be given priority over apparitions (including approved apparitions), prophets, seers and mystics.

I prayed for discernment concerning Charlie Johnston's prophecies. I concluded that whether his prophecies were right or wrong, I would acknowledge God, take the next right step in front of me and be a source of hope to others. Charlie's prophecy about the inauguration was wrong. My spiritual life is not affected.

lilflowerfan said...

For me, my epiphany about Charlie's prophecies being 99% inauthenic came when he posted one of his fictional stories about the Passion. If I can recall, there was a bit of confusion amongst a few of his followers of whether his angel told him this and that in the story....in his true fashion, he was clearly irritated with the confusion. That was my red flag and I never visited his site again.

Fred Keyes said...

Charlie's mantra: "acknowledge God, take the next right step in front of me and be a source of hope to others."

On the first item Charlie is speaking to the choir; it's a fine thing to say but it's the kind of message that we are all called to fulfill. It's kind of a no-brainer.

Taking the next right step is kind of an odd thing to say because there can be many "right steps." Is only one of them right? We have free choice and there are many good things to choose from; all of them can be right. Visit a prisoner or work at a pantry? Visit the sick or volunteer to tutor kids in a poor school district? Teach a CCD class or take positive steps to forgive someone who hurt us? Write or call your political leaders to advocate for the poor, infants in the womb. etc. or join a clean-up crew to clean up a depressed neighborhood? You get the idea—which one of them is "right?" I wondered if using the word "right" in that expression had to do more with Charlie's political bent than it did with his religious convictions.

Being a source of hope is likewise a puzzle. Hope is a theological virtue; i.e.the source of hope is God Himself, not ourselves. It would have made more sense for Charlie to say we should be a sign of hope, not a "source of hope."

Marti Mc said...

Wow, all of you are armchair theologians who truly do not know how Mystical theology wors. There is a difference between a false prophet and a prophet who got it wrong. St Catherine of Sienna and St. John of the Cross had both false apparitions and false Locutions. Every single one has to be decerned on its own.

Glenn, in his previous article he wrote,
"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."

He contradicts himself.
We have to be thrilled it didn't come down like Charlie said he thought it would.
Charlie is humble, obedient and he will keep his word. Have you seen his interview by Char Vance of Focus tv? Excellent.
I hope that none of you are called to say anything publicly regarding your faith or something the Holy Spirit has asked you to speak about. It's brutal. At least God prepared Charlie by asking him to give up everything, even his health and to purify himself through trust. You didn't get that?? You were only paying attention to the prophecies and not the message.

Laurence D said...

Jackisback, on Jan.30 at 1:51AM, referring to the beginning of my post ("About not despising prophecy. Why not?"), you say "Who has written here of despising prophecy? Please make a citation of someone's actual words, lest you commit a straw man fallacy." I'm sorry, I thought we could post things relevant to Charlie and prophecy here which were not rebuttals to anyone. It's true that St. Paul, with his "Do not despise prophecy," did not post here, and so will not be able to answer my question, "Why not?" I just thought we here might reflect together on the VALUE of prophecy (in light of or in spite of failed prophecies). What is its value?

As for the rest of your point-by-point responses, Jack, I might have things to say about them after I see how you take what I am saying above.

Jackisback said...

Charles Ryder,

I don't doubt at all your time spent on Scripture, Tradition or the Magisterium. I asked you an honest question, for you to back up your "suggestion" that those who spend more time on mystics should rearrange their priorities. The question remains: who are you referring to? If you aren't referring to anyone in particular, it's a straw man fallacy. I neither stated nor implied that you were the one spending too much time on mystics.

It truly would be time to move on if Charlie Johnston had promised to stay away for good, but he has not. I appreciate you posting your previous remarks, especially your original rebuke of me that included your assertion: "He said that if either Trump or Clinton are inaugurated, then he would be a false prophet." Actually, Charlie said no such thing. He actually said, in his post title "Election Day" dated November 7, 2016, the following:

--begin quoted text--
If, on January 20, Obama peacefully transfers power to either Trump or Clinton, I will declare myself unreliable and retire into silence, as I wrote in August in this piece. While I will enter into silence, I most certainly will not declare myself a false prophet. I have been right on the big sweep of things. But I will consider myself unreliable at a time when we need solid reliability.
--end quoted text--

Also, Charlie Johnston has stated, in "A Decisive Conundrum," dated January 6, 2017, the following assertions that buttress the point that Charlie still thinks he's prophet of God and is now merely dormant, waiting for an opportunity to rationalize future re-engagement in a public way:

"It amazes me that so many people think I am worried about such a pedestrian matter as being right or not on a particular. I waste no time on such as that: I worry about being true to my promise, for if I am true to that, whatever confirmations or contradictions come, it will facilitate God’s sovereign will."

"A few weeks ago, a few fellows who are not big on mystics asked me to lunch. To my surprise, their initial concern was whether my departure would be irrevocable if the inauguration came off. I laughed and said that, of course if there was a normal inauguration and a coup a few weeks later, I would be right back to work. They were both relieved, one noting that I am the only one who has gotten the unbelievable trajectory of these times right – and with real hope…and that I was already right even if I am wrong on a particular – and my voice would be needed before this is all finished."

"If it please God that I should be rebuked and withdraw, I am good with that. If it should only be for a time, in order that I may be rebuked and purified, I am good with that. It wouldn’t be the first time in the course of my training."

"If I am wrong on this particular and everything smoothes out AND we do re-embrace our Godly heritage, I will give thanks for the bullet I dodged and enjoy my family – but will remain on full alert until my time of service is up. I would only regret that the great Shrine I saw would probably not be built."

That last one is one of my personal favorites. It's comforting to know that, now that the Presidential Prophecy has double failed, if nothing else that he has prophesied comes about, Charlie will take credit for having dodged that bullet for all of us.

Charles Ryder, you didn't need Charlie Johnston to tell you to "acknowledge God, take the next right step and be a source of hope to others." If you're as good a Catholic as you sound, then these are all things you have been doing already. Acknowledging God is a Commandment. Taking the next right step and being a source of hope to others is a combination of themes in the beatitudes and the new Commandment - to love others as the Christ loves us. You never needed Charlie's blog to tell you that.

Anonymous said...

To MartiMc: There's actually no proof that Charlie is actually a prophet. There's no proof that he is actually a mystic. There's actually no proof that he is actually any type of spokesperson for the Catholic faith or God. There's no proof the Holy Spirit has asked him to do anything.
We have 3 spiritual advisers who Charlie and Yong Duk ( the Bishop?) said were responsible for Charlie going public. Charlie has admitted he was deceived on his latest prophecy or non-prophecy. Charlie has said that he has been right on say 9 of 10 prophecies, admitting the Jan 20/17 was a prophecy. He has stated that he was mostly right on his prophecies. He even said they were on his site, no one can find them not even Charlie's followers. To top it off SteveBC who is now co-running his site says that his past successful prophecies are not on his site, but archived with his spiritual advisers at the diocese.
You can not make this stuff up.
I know I'm not an arm chair quarterback on Charlie being a mystic or prophet or anything because I don't consider Charlie to even being a player on the big field, Charlie is playing on the sandlots with people talking about how good a game this guy has. The scouts are making it down to see him and the reviews are mixed, but in an all or nothing game Charlie fell flat, well below what was talked about.

Jackisback said...

Laurence D. at 2:28 PM,

Seeing your response, perhaps I am guilty of inferring something you didn't mean to imply in your first two sentences of your first post. If so, sorry about that chief. Your heavy-handed defense of those who see great value in prophecies in the latter part of your post made me think, perhaps wrongly, that you were implying that those content with the four core must necessarily despise prophecy. And that sounded like a straw man argument to me.

I have no emotional response to Charlie, nor to his prophecies. "I do none harm, I say none harm, I think none harm." But the Presidential Prophecy was dubious from the beginning, as were Charlie's other eight items that he insisted upon.

But, if, as it now seems, your question is straightforward and not an implied accusation, then I'll attempt a partial answer, as one who is quite content with the four core.

Why not despise prophecy? There is the biblical admonition to test, first of all. Second, there is no reason to despise it if it makes no attempt to provide something extra or new for which it is implied one should have faith (that is a basic problem with Charlie's prophecies - promising a "visible to the whole world Marian rescue"). Once a given prophecy does this, it begins to tread onto the ground of preaching something different than the Gospel originally preached - something St. Paul warned us about. Third, though it may contain any number of logical fallacies, that does not necessarily mean that a prophecy is false (however, the indiscriminate use of logical fallacies to both promote and defend prophecy is a strong clue that more intense, and yes skeptical, discernment is due - this was replete in Charlie's writings and talks). Fourth, there is no reason to despise prophecy if it does no per se harm. While that was true for me with respect to my reaction to Charlie's prophecies, because I did not believe him to begin with, others were harmed by taking Charlie's advocacy of the "Refuge Movement" to heart, and this caused some to overspend on "prepping" for the "crash." It was only after much of that damage was done that Charlie reversed course and started telling everyone not to over-prepare (yet never taking back anything he had said earlier about the US dollar becoming worthless, people being persecuted - needing to "flee" in order to evade government officials sent to "round people up"). Fifth, there is no reason to despise prophecy if it doesn't promote obsessions or by its nature serve to cause great fear. Sixth, there is nothing objectionable about prophecy that stands on its own when tested for validity, and makes no excuses or special pleadings when challenged (Charlie had a major problem here). Seventh, there is no reason to despise it if it is reserved to showing links between heaven and earth, to hearten the faithful, so long as it is in concert with the four core (I think of Lourdes here).

So there's an honest attempt at a start to answer your first question, why not to despise prophecy. I'm sure it is not a complete answer.

Anonymous said...

Jackisback at 4:21 PM

This is MMBEV. Would you please get my email address and email me. PLEASE.

Jackisback said...

Give me a moment or two MMBEV.

Anonymous said...

Glenn:

I have finished reading quite a few of your excellent articles. Oh, I do wish I had read them about four years ago!

And I have just begun! My sincere thanks! I guess this is a case of "better late than never".

the MMB

Anonymous said...

Here is two comments from Charlie's blog that were posted just days before the inauguration. They show the mindset of some at that time:
Smithers says:
January 19, 2017 at 6:06 pm
I’ve gone all in with those who I’ve known through the years like someone else did, it appears. If Trump will get power and Obama will happily go, I will receive all the insults that I should not deserve for having tried to tell the truth (by sharing words of someone else). Still I think you will be right and something will go really bad tomorrow, otherwise I wouldn’t believe that after so many pages and years and “it will be so”, all of this will end with a fail (not only for me). Really, I couldn’t believe it.

ROBERT TISOVICH says:
January 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm
Why all this confusion?
Forget about Charlie, he’s only one of us humans, focus on what God has communicated through Charlie.
As I recall reading Charlies comments, many months B/4 the 2008 Election day, Charlie was told Obama would be elected President but would not serve out his full term. This was communicated to Charlie I recall by his Angle. The Angle did not just make that up, it received that information from the Creator. God does not lie.
Remember what Jesus told Charlie when Charlie got Jesus mad at him : “When I act, it is done”; Charlie I think those words are correct.
So……. Obama does not compete his full term in office, something happens, no one knows what, between today and January 20 that causes Obama not to be President on January 20.
Who knows the ways or mind of God? Answer is no one.
God has communicated; that’s it, period.

L Spinelli said...

@Marti McC

Charlie is a false prophet. He admitted that the "Presidential Prophecy" didn't come from God. So if that one wasn't from God, did all the others come from the same source? And once a mystic has one failed prophecy on their record, all the others have to be discarded?

Anonymous said...

An apology will be in order from all when Charlie proves correct. Remember.

Jackisback said...

To Anonymous at 11:02 PM,

Is that what this is about? You desire an "I told you so" moment?

When we get to Christmas of this year and things are pretty much as they are now, how far will you and other Charlie defenders go to dumb down or water down the definition of the "rescue" so as to claim that it actually happened, just not in the way Charlie told us to expect, but we were all too thick to notice? Charlie, to his credit, did not attempt to do this with the Presidential Prophecy after it double failed, but the blog posts of his followers are full of that overreaching rationalization.

But turn the question around. When nothing happens by Christmas, will you come onto this blog and identify yourself as the "Anonymous of January 30 2017; 11:02 PM" and apologize to all of us? Do you think Charlie will?

Jackisback said...

To Marti Mc at 2:03 PM, you wrote:

--begin quoted text--
Wow, all of you are armchair theologians who truly do not know how Mystical theology wors. There is a difference between a false prophet and a prophet who got it wrong.
--end quoted text--

What is the difference between a false prophet and one who has yet to provide evidence of getting even one right?

What is the difference between a false prophet and one who engages in special pleadings (moving the goal posts) on a prophecy? - and then lies about that?

What is the difference between a false prophet and one who doubles down on a prophecy all the way until noon January 20, 2017?

What is the difference between a false prophet and one who admonishes his readers not to pray for mitigation from any part of the "storm," (comparing such prayer as the equivalent of a cancer patient praying for God to withhold the cure for the cancer) and then admits on Focus TV after the failure that he did just that - prayed for mitigation from the stormy parts of the Presidential Prophecy?

What is the difference between a false prophet and one who claims to be a big supporter of the "refuge movement" and offers to serve as a referral source between his readers and a supporter who is looking to sell 50 acre parcels of land in the northeast for the purpose of building "refuges," and then later claims he never told people to or implied that people should "prep" for anything, claiming that he always told his readers just the opposite?

What is the difference between a false prophet and one who now admits his first major prophecy did not come from God (despite his prior assertions that he had "told us true"), claims he was deceived by "the satan" (without evidence) but who refuses to even consider the notion that he may have also been "deceived by the satan" on all the remaining prophecies, especially the one about the "rescue" - the hope for which the faithful were supposed to be heartened with trust in God upon fulfillment of the first, now double failed, prophecy?

What is the difference between a false prophet and one who promises something extra, beyond Christ's revelation, the Scriptures, Tradition and the Magisterium (as the detailed description of the "rescue" entails)?

What is the difference between a false prophet and one who claims to be "all in" on his first major prophecy (which he touts as a "sign from God") yet later claims to be amazed that anyone would think he would be at all worried "about such a pedestrian matter as being right or not on a particular?"

What is the difference between a false prophet and one who pledges to go silent, without qualification, if his first big prophecy fails, only to later pre-emptively renege and pledge to "go right back to work" after it fails, should life become sufficiently "stormy" - in his sole judgment - in the future?

What is the difference between a false prophet and one who, while claiming to have gotten past prophecies correct "9 out of 10 times", provides no evidence to this claim - a pure, logically fallacious "ipse dixit" (because I say so) form of reasoning?

Tell me Marti, do you even realize that the phrase you use to refer to Charlie - as a "prophet who got it wrong" - contains the logical fallacy known as "begging the question?" No one is impressed by the suggestion that we have failed to discern something, when that something is built upon a logical fallacy. Do you have evidence that Charlie is a prophet? Charlie provides none. That is the question at hand. Instead you are using the "tu quoque" logical fallacy when challenged on that point, attacking the challenger with criticism rather than addressing the substantive questions. So once again, this blog, created for the purpose of discernment, derives no benefit from such input.

Fred Keyes said...

I see the TNRS site has been redone. Quote from the "START HERE" page:

"If you are new to Charlie’s site, we strongly recommend that you get up to snuff on the basics of Charlie’s teaching and of what *may* come. You can do this in several ways."

All righty, then.

Fred Keyes said...

In my 1:25 post yesterday I said Charlie's mantra was "be a source of hope." Not correct.... he does say "sign of hope." My mistake, I'm sorry. I picked up the word "source" from one of his followers who wrote it that way on this blog.

marti, if there is turbulence now, it is being caused by the man--Donald Trump--that Charlie and the rest of you fully support politically. Shame.

Anonymous said...

Fred @ 10:36 : "marti, if there is turbulence now, it is being caused by the man--Donald Trump--that Charlie and the rest of you fully support politically. Shame."

Charlie is not and has not been a supporter of Donald J Trump,I can assure you of that. In fact he was a vocal critic of him until about 2 weeks before the election when it looked like things were real close. A lot of his supporters are not Trump supporters, in truth the die-hard Trump supporters were long gone by 2016 after Charlie insulted most of them. Trump was the choice by default. As Charlie said " I will take a few drinks and cast my ballot for Trump ...haha"

Charlie preferred not to vote and if he did he liked Ted Cruz.

Anonymous said...

There are a lot of Charlie people coming on here, making a statement and then leaving, as Charlie calls them the "hit and runs", although in Charlie's case he deletes their responses, however, in this instance it's the exact opposite,they post and don't want to stick around for fear of answering questions. i have a challenge to any charlie reader who comes here, can you get someone to answer questions, instead of just posting and leaving?

Anonymous said...

As you know it will be a cold day in hell before that happens.

L Spinelli said...

@MartiC

Here is a clear and concise comparison of a canonized saint's "wrong prophecies" vs. Charlie's "failed prophecy".

St. Joan of Arc's prophecies all came true, but she misinterpreted a couple of them.

Charlie's first public prophecy, that we now know wasn't given to him by an angel, was presented to the public without an interpretation. It ended in a double fail.

Lisa said...

Beckita wrote this today on Charlie's blog:

"I continue to claim the end of 2017 as the time of Rescue for several reasons. 1. It was THE time Charlie’s angel showed a demonstration of emphasis that Charlie must tell us and tell us true. 2. Because there was error concerning the inauguration with smooth transition, does not, in any way, affect the veracity, accuracy and good fruit of Charlie’s overall work."

So the thinking must be that Charlie got the timing wrong on his prophecy, but not the prophecy itself? And I thought an error in one part of the prophecy meant that the entire prophecy was suspect? Someone above wrote that St. Joan of Arc prophesied correctly but misinterpreted a couple of prophecies. Is it possible that Charlie has simply misinterpreted the prophecy that he was shown? I thought that he "told us true" on that prophecy, too? And what is the point of Charlie misleading people in this way, if he is?

Fred Keyes said...

Anonymous @1:44 PM. Please refer to Charlie's entry "In praise of Donald Trump," his blog; December 5, 2016. He had really already made his positions on the issues quite clear and while he may have preferred Cruz he was not at all unhappy with Trump. Cruz is a right-wing nut as well, by the way.

(Please note: I did not vote for Hillary either. I was for Mike Maturen of the American Solidarity Party. IMO, faithful Catholics couldn't have found a better candidate.)

Note too that Charlie was prepared to make a "Jericho March" if anyone made a move to remove Trump from office. He was similarly prepared to do a Jericho March if it had turned out that Michael Savage had been taken off the air by the government.

That latter one was truly bizarre; it was merely a change in programming by WABC for a single day to broadcast a presidential debate. But what was interesting was Charlie's knee-jerk response to a fake story pushed by Breitbart among others. Savage is as far to the right as those on the far left are to the other side of the spectrum. Charlie clearly favors Crew Dog, too. A man who also has far right proclivities. These attitudes which run contrary to the social justice positions taken by popes like St. John Paul II and many others, including our current pope whom Charlie said he obeyed but whom he criticized sharply, are simply not part of the profile of a credible prophet.

Anonymous said...

Fred Keyes,

Thank you for reminding everyone of Charlie's marching orders. He didn't always call his plan a "Jericho March." He called it a "10 million man march." Very interesting note:
That term was first used by self-proclaimed patriots who held an anti-government rally in Washington DC in 2014. Don't let anyone tell you Charlie isn't far right, he is!

Anyway, he is the screwy explanation Charlie put out about his march. He really, really suffers from grandiosity, folks. This apparently comes right before Charlie helps implement his Rules of Regency.

If free and open communication is suspended for more than a day, I will set out on foot toward Washington, D.C. It will not be my sole means of transportation (at least I hope not), but will be how I start. I will not broadcast my route, but I will travel in plain sight, unarmed. If the politico-media complex which currently occupies the governing and cultural institutions of this country seeks to take by force what they cannot win by persuasion, let’s see how they handle a 10-million man march. I do not expect to walk alone.

Why, though, only a 10-million man march in a country of nearly 400 million? Most people will have other, vital things to do to begin restoration of a genuinely civil order. Those who walk will mostly be comprised of unattached men.

The bulk of the people, in such a dire crisis, should be occupied in forming little communities to provide mutual support and assistance to each other, giving special attention to the weakest and most vulnerable in the community. The locus of organization must be the local parishes and churches. Sadly, even local governments are heavily infected by cadres of people who think the essence of governing is forcing their imperial will on a reluctant population wanting mainly to be left alone...

Anonymous said...

Who or what is "Crew Dog"? How is Crew Dog related to Charlie Johnston, please?

Fred Keyes said...

"Crew Dog" is (was?) a regular poster on Charlie's blog. Appears to be semi-literate. Comes off like member of a militia someplace, but maybe he's just a retired guy listening to Savage, Hannity and Limbaugh and feeling his cyber oats. (I'm probably guilty of that last part. :) )

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that this thread has been going around in circles lately and that it may be unhelpful for healing and moving forward out of the pain. People need to express emotions after being traumatised however if it continues and is repetitive it can become counter productive. Once feelings and thoughts have been expressed the next healthy option is make goals for the future and put energy into making change using the wisdom gained through the processing of the negative experience. People seem to be saying the same things over and over on the theme of Charlie being inauthentic and what he and his advocates did and are doing. Keeping an eye on him and his followers is a great idea from a public safety perspective but it needs to be done with a focus to the future and avoid getting caught up in rehashing the experience. This re-hashing can occur because anything related to the trauma triggers flashbacks and pain. If this happens it may be better to not do anything in relation to Charlie including coming here so that healing can occur. Just trying to help out of a sense of charity. I think Glenn should close the thread sometime soon as he did with LTTW to help people move on and heal.

Dave said...

I appreciate the comments of the poster directly above about Glenn closing this discussion. However in the case of LTTW, that "seer" went away and the website was taken down.

In the case of Charlie Johnston the prophecies are still up on the blog, the Archdiocese has not ruled against the prophecies, plus Charlie's followers are still trying to prop him up. As noted by a previous poster: "Daniel O'Connor, who I do not know or follow, just dropped a whole roll of quarters into the jukebox of gloom, doom, and redemption, to keep things going for a while by stating that the prophecies are right, but the timing is off."

Anonymous said...

Fred Keyes @ 5:33 pm: I realize he made the blog about Trump, but he was always consistently anti-Trump until he realized he might actually win and then he decided to change direction on Trump - I should know because I called Trump winning the Republican primary and then the election - he never had a good word to say about Trump or me predicting Trump winning or his stance on the issues. His blog in praise of Trump was bizarre after his attacks on Trump, but it was a save face blog because many people had no choice but to vote for Trump on his site. I called it from when he first announced his presidential bid that America had one last chance with Trump - warts and all, there was no other choice, I believe Charlie was trying to associate himself with Trump's successful presidency,like he had something to do with it, or attaching himself to the moment. Some people on his blog even today believe that Charlie predicted Trump would win.
I said it from Day 1 as well that voting for anyone other than Trump was a wasted vote because none of the fringe people had a chance. I believe Trump had the best and only chance to reverse the poor situation in the country - he was not perfect but he was our only chance.

Joe said...

Dave, you beat me to it. As long as Charlie's blog site is open this thread needs to continue to debunk the misinformation being spread over there.

L Spinelli said...

A message to the Archdiocese of Denver would also be productive. They really need to shut the whole operation down before more trusting souls are sucked into deception.

Laurence D said...

Jackisback Jan.30, 2017 at 4:21 PM, you gave seven preliminary reasons NOT to despise prophecy. I am still more interested to see if someone on this blog, interested as it is in visionaries, can articulate (or even give personal witness to) what the POSITIVE VALUE of prophecies is (once they or their utterers can be trusted). About private revelations the Catechism mostly says:
"It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church." (par. 67)
The fact that the private ones do have a role (what I am calling their value) does not mean that the four pillars of the Church are insufficient -- the private ones can help us live more fully by the four. Guided, we know how to discern and welcome those helps. So let us not only discern, but also welcome. And apply them.

Jackisback said...

To Laurence D, at 11:22 PM,

I wasn't being insincere in my reply. You did ask "why not" despise prophecy. Your last paragraph above inspires my reaction of "fair enough."

My issue with Charlie's blog is two-fold. His description of "rescue" is definitely one that attempts to "improve or complete Christ's divine Revelation," though it would not surprise me to hear his followers deny this, ipse dixit. TContrast to what Charlie inordinately describes as his main message (acknowledge God, take tnrs, be a sign of hope to others). While I'm apparently supposed to be awestruck by this, I patiently point out that these prescriptions could easily be touted by one's local deacon during a homily at church on Sunday, in response to any given tribulations of the day. So when Charlie or his followers say, "stop focusing on the prophecies and pay more attention to the message; you're missing the whole point," I say, "ahem, no, you're missing the point; without the prophecies, Charlie's words-to-live-by are not really even blog-worthy. That they are in alignment with the Magisterium, does not provide any credence to the authenticity-of-a-would-be-prophet question. This line of argument from Charlie is designed, in my opinion, with an implicit purpose of avoiding discernment of the truth about his prophecies. He apparently tried that tack with his Archbishop, who made reference to the inherent incongruence in the official statement of caution to the faithful of his diocese. And notice that Charlie's followers refuse to engage on the question of how it is that the "rescue" could be accurately described as solely in the service of affirming the four core, as opposed to it being something exogenous to the four core, something extra, like putting whipped cream on top of filet mignon, which it clearly seems to be by its very nature, at least from my point of view. Note the whole business about the predicted reunification of the Church with Protestants by Christmas. When that fails to materialize within the next ten months, three weeks and four days, then what? Patiently wait for Daniel O'Connor to tell me the new time frame for fulfillment?

As to your question of "what the positive value of prophecies is (once they or their utterers can be trusted)" my initial reply would be that the value would be precisely in reaffirming the four core, but in a way that is new or unexpected. Lourdes is exemplary. Charlie's meme does the opposite - it creates something new, from scratch (out of whole cloth) - a "rescue" - to add to the four core (as if there were a need to append something never before taught), but espouses advice that isn't new at all (it smacks of plagiarizing previously canonized Saints' admonitions to the faithful).

Laurence, isn't what I describe here at least one reason that the Church has consistently never required assent or belief in apparitions as a point of faith? It's clear some of Charlie's fans who comment on this blog don't agree with the Church on this - or they would not write mean-spiritedly about how critics like me will "owe an apology" when Charlie's prophecies turn out to be true between now and Christmas. Why would an apology be owed, when the Church has no requirement of belief in Charlie's claimed mystical experiences?

I had an astute theology professor in college that spent much time discussing the nature of faith. He pointed out how some folks, not wanting to be left out, take an approach of saying "I have a lot of faith!; please just tell me what to believe and I'll believe it!" That might appeal to some (aren't Charlie's followers like this?) because it may make one feel good to get a new answer from a new prophet. While that's understandable, it is not necessarily acceptable; it's not for me.

Fred Keyes said...

Anon @ 9:04. I understand your position. From my own vantage point DJT was as objectionable (and still is) as HRC was. I do appreciate that Trump nominated a justice who will most likely take a pro-life and freedom of religion stand, although to me pro-life must include a lot more than pro-birth. I'm more of a distributist, a la Dorothy Day, on economic issues. Charlie would stand steadfastly against such a position.

Lisa said...

Charlie's site is still up and running and continuing to mislead people. The administrators of the site now still believe in Charlie's prophecies and still believe in a "rescue" occurring later this year. He may have left the public scene, but his "prophecies" haven't.

Anonymous said...

I've read these comments with interest. I have a friend who told me about Charley saying that he was the real thing. With the exception of a few comments, people don't seem to come down to the core of the problem which, to me, is the most important piece of information we need: Did Charley ever have an encounter with the supernatural? I don't care how nice of a guy he is. That doesn't matter. The core issue is: Did Charley ever encounter the divine? He built up quite a cult following. He's good at marketing, especially himself. Personally, I doubt it. When faith is weak we seek consolations so that we might believe that our faith is strong. Charley has a good imagination, but when it came down to it, he lied. He marketed himself very well, but the core fell apart. He conned a lot of people. He lied. This is not a fruit of the Holy Spirit.

Glenn Dallaire said...


There was a couple of earlier comments concerning St Joan of Arc making some false predictions. While I personally don't claim to be an expert on St Joan of Arc, last year I did read two separate books concerning her for an article I wrote The Unique Spiritual Graces in the Life of St Joan of Arc where in it I specifically deal with the matter of how she completely misinterpreted a specific prophecy that was given to her.

In this article I wrote: "Towards the end of her harsh and very unjust imprisonment, a Voice from heaven revealed to St Joan of Arc:
"You will be released on May 30th!"

Oh, how her heart leaped with joy at the revelation of her imminent release from the torturous prison, after having suffered a rigorous imprisonment for one year! She gloriously shared this great news of her forthcoming release with the few people who were allowed to visit and attend to her.

What she didn't know, but soon learned, was that the promised "release" consisted of the terror of her being burned alive at the stake, her soul thus being released from this life, to fly to heaven to be with her Jesus. -How different is the perspective from heaven than that of us here on earth! "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, declares the Lord." (Isaiah 55:8) And so we see how even the greatest Saints can completely misinterpret what would seem to be a very simple and straightforward prophecy."
-------

What is really key to note here, and what distinguishes a MISINTERPRETED prophecy from a FALSE prophecy is that the prophecy given to Joan was precisely and completely TRUE. It simply came to pass in a way that St. Joan had in no way foreseen, yet the eventual reality of the predicted event occurred in a way that precisely fit the prophecy.

Now, in regards to the topic here in this forum, unless everyone is missing some possible unforeseen interpretation, I have not seen any solid justification of Charlie's 'Presidential prophecy' concerning Obama not finishing his term/next leader not coming from the election process actually having come to a reality in either part.

So again, unless everyone is missing some unrecognized, unknown interpretation of the 'Presidential prophecy', then we are not then dealing here with simply a misinterpreted or misunderstood prophecy, but an actual false prophecy.

The other interesting thing is that some have referred to multiple prophecies from St Joan of Arc that supposedly did not come to pass, but in my own limited research I never found any specific PROPHECIES that did not come to pass, but I did find a couple of PREDICTIONS. ("Prophecies" of course meaning a direct message from God, whereas a "prediction" meaning a best assessment from the individual in relation to what has been revealed through private revelations). Obviously there is a big difference between the two, in that while predictions can fail because they are essentially human deductions and calculations, formal prophecies cannot fail because they come directly from God.

In closing, I would be interested if anyone here knows of any specific formal prophecies from St. Joan of Arc that actually failed to come to pass.

-Glenn Dallaire

Glenn Dallaire said...


...In addition to the above, I meant also to mention that while it is *possible* that the "Presidential prophecy" was averted through prayer, I personally do not see this as even a remotely likely scenario, given that the prophecy was very specific and it contained two distinct parts, and did not seem in any way contingent upon the prayers of the faithful. In fact, as was brought forth in the article above, Charlie himself stated how the fulfillment of the Presidential prophecy was meant to be a "sign"

".... 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."

Personally, I'm not seeing any contingency in it, but since others have put forth this option then it is necessary to at least keep in on the table of discussion, perhaps.

-Glenn Dallaire

Laurence D said...

Jackisback at 4:05 AM, I agree that without his predictions Charlie's pastoral advice is commonplace. (Thankfully he does include such exhortation, not leaving his readers quaking in their boots with only the prophecies.) But I don't agree that the Rescue is something extra, beyond Revelation. The millenium of John's Apocalypse (Ch. 20) still stands. No, we don't say that Christ comes then to reign visibly, but we already know he can reign physically -- in the Blessed Sacrament. Ahead of "the times of universal restoration" Peter speaks of "times of refreshment" (Acts 3:20-21). And sometime there is to be one flock and one shepherd (John 10:16), which would refer not (just) to Protestants, but the Jews. In that regard Paul cites someone (Latin "qui" - he or she) coming out of Zion who "will turn away godlessness from Jacob" (Romans 11:26); Mary could be that deliverer. Among the evils we ask our Father to "deliver us from," surely any unprecedented Storm that might develop this year would be one. Peter shows that God knows how to do this, citing Noah and Sodom (2 Peter 2:9). When Christ says that those days of tribulation will be shortened (Matt. 24:22), that is also translatable as "will be cut short," which sounds enough like a Rescue to me.
Once your bones tell you that we are into very deep do-do, I think you'll be glad to put a little human credence in such a Rescue, which I'm saying is well within the treasures of the Church, though it may be deep down in the treasure chest.

Laurence D said...

Glenn Dallaire at 11:02 AM, you say, "I have not seen any solid justification of Charlie's 'Presidential prophecy' concerning Obama not finishing his term/next leader not coming from the election process actually having come to a reality in either part."
I don't yet see a way for the Obama part to have been fulfilled, but it makes perfect sense to me that we can't identify the next stable (Charlie's original designation) leader as Trump until Trump proves to be stable.

Glenn Dallaire said...


Hi Laurence D,
The thing is, the purported angelic 'Presidential prophecy' from 2008 did not contain anything about a stable transfer of power. Charlie only very recently started talking about that, and as far as I can tell he did not reference this "stable transfer of power" specifically as a direct prophecy, but more of an assessment or conclusion on his part, presumably drawn from private revelations of his "visitors".

As a refresher, the angelic Presidential prophecy stated:
"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."

Thanks for your comments!
Glenn Dallaire

Laurence D said...

Glenn Dallaire at 4:12 PM. Exactly. The actual prophecy says that the next stable leader (after Obama) will not come from the political system. My point is, though Trump did come from the political system, he may prove not to be the next stable leader after Obama. If he proves unstable (deposed or whatever), then the prophecy about the stable leader can still come true.

Glenn Dallaire said...


Laurence D,
Yes, indeed you are right---that is a possible interpretation. "Stable" of course being the key word, and I suppose at the current time one can argue from either side on that one

Glenn Dallaire

carli said...

It has been quoted here a couple of times, but Charlie himself has now said that the Presidential prophecy did not come from God. So why are people still trying to make it something that is going to come true by saying that perhaps Trump is not/will not be a stable leader. The prophecy has failed on both parts, and Charlie has said the message did not come from God. Further more, Charlie had said regarding this prophecy "But it will not happen that way, for God has appointed that this be a sign to you to fortify you" It did not happen, so it wasn't a sign, so it calls everything that Charlie has "prophesied" into question. He is a false prophet.

Laurence D said...

carli at 7:01 PM, when Charlie told Thomas Cavanagh on Jan.21, "This message is not from God," it is not at all clear what "message" he is referring to. After the election he started morphing the Aug.28,2016 report of what he had been told in 2008 over into things about "a peaceful transition" happening or not, which were "messages" that I agree were not from God. Charlie could have gotten himself confused about what would fulfill his predictions or not. It's a mess, but the real "Presidential Prophecies" of 2008 are what should be looked at. When I look at those, I only see the Obama not finishing one as probably failed, and I don't think his other predictions should be painted as failed because of that. Not yet.

carli said...

Laurence D @ 7:51
First of all you are using the terms "prediction" and "prophecy" interchangeably. They are not the same. Prophecy and prediction are not the same, as has been discussed in earlier posts. What we are talking about are Charlie's "prophecy". It is a prophecy (albeit a failed/false one) because Charlie said "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." Because he said that he "was told", this means that he is telling us what his angel told him. It is not a prediction nor an interpretation.

He goes on to say "I have told you two things that are definitive: that after Barack Obama failed to finish his full term the next stable national leader would not come from the political system and that the Rescue will come late in 2017 after all have lost hope." Because Obama did indeed finish his full term, the rest of the prophecy (the next stable national leader would not come from the political system) is actually negated, because it follows directly from the failed prophecy (AFTER Barack Obama failed to finish his full term). In addition, Trump is a (whether one likes it or not) a stable leader who came from the political process.

Because he told us that this presidential prophecy was given as a sign: "If, next January, Barack Obama peacefully hands over the reins of power to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, I will declare myself unreliable and go away. But it will not happen that way, for God has appointed that this be a sign to you to fortify you to trust Him and choose the ordinary way to follow Him through the most frightening year for the globe in history." and this sign has failed, then it was not appointed by God, and as such the rest of his prophecies are suspect at best.

In addition, I do believe that when he told Thomas Cavanagh that "this message is not from God" then he is indeed referring to the Presidential prophecy, given that is the subject being discussed. Also he didn't say "This prediction was not from God"; it was the "message" that was not from God.

In reading through some of your previous posts, I see that you are trying to "reconstruct" the prophecy into something that could end up being true. To what end? If I may quote Glen (Jan 21 6:04pm) "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."

There are others here who are far better at explaining all this and giving sound, logical, Biblical and Catholic reasons why Charlie has proven to be a false prophet. I suggest re-reading their posts if you would like to have a better understanding.

Laurence D said...

carli at 9:04 PM, thank you for trying to clarify things. I may try to read all Charlie's stuff again more carefully. Still, in what people have been calling THE Presidential prophecy there are three parts. In his statement of it "in 2008," which I take as the actual prophecy (not later goalpost statements you quote) the "next stable leader" part is not so dependent on whether the Obama part pans out, because there were still to be "next" leaders after Obama, whether he would finish his term or not.

carli said...

Laurence D @ 10:10
So if I understand, you are saying that there will be leaders (presumably unstable leaders) between Obama and the next "stable" leader (the "stable leader" is the one that will not come from the political process)? No where in Charlie's prophecy does it say that there will be leaders in between. I think to say that is to read more into the prophecy than is actually there. Do you have a source that would say different (that there will be "next" leaders)? The first quote I had in my previous response is the Presidential prophecy and it does not say anything about leaders in between Obama and the next stable leader.

People may or may not like President Trump, but he is a stable person of sound mind and body and is the next leader after Obama.

Even Charlie has admitted that his prophecy was wrong:
charliej373 says:
December 21, 2016 at 2:51 pm
"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 guess I just don't understand trying to turn this failed prophecy into something that it isn't - namely a true one. Charlie was wrong. It was not a true prophecy, and no amount of rewording can make it into a true prophecy.

Anonymous said...

What really puzzles me is the following statement put up on TNRS site by one poster and praised by Beckita and SteveBC: "Charlie has said all along that we cannot rely on him and only on God".

This is something that Charlie has been emphasizing for a while since before and after his failed prophecies.

Now if that statement is correct, which it is and emphasized by Charlie, which it is, why are people following Charlie - it's illogical. Charlie is telling you to rely only on God. If that is the case you don't need Charlie. By extension you should be relying on scriptures, the sacraments, and the Church. Charlie is actually telling people they are not to follow him, but God - so why are they still following Charlie and his messages when Charlie says not to but to "only" follow God, yet people are still promoting him and his TNRS message and he encourages it, but says not to rely on him - you can not make this stuff up!

Anonymous said...

The death of Charlie Johnston's prophesies and work fits into the 5 stages of grief and loss:
denial
anger
bargaining
depression
acceptance.
When you read the bloggers you can see that people are at various stages of this, people on his site ( the allowed posts ) are mostly in the denial stage - they can not accept Charlie was wrong and try to justify it being right;
others on his site are in the anger stage as they attack anyone who suggests Charlie was wrong;
people on this site start coming here during the bargaining state - if only I had seen the prophecies as being wrong, if only I had listened to the other people complaining about Charlie;
at the depression state we regret the time lost in investing in Charlie in either time are goods purchased;
and
finally acceptance of the fact that Charlie was wrong which is most people here, this may never happen to some people on his site, but as the numbers on his site decrease you'll see them going into the different stages. People don't always go through all the stages and may skip some but you generally see the trend with people who have followed Charlie, the ones who got out early went through a mild form of the stages while someone who invested lots of time will have a harder fall and those that were kicked off were actually spared most steps as they went right to acceptance of Charlie's failure.

Anonymous said...

Thus the term BOVOCs - Burnt Out Victims of Charlie.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous at FEBRUARY 2, 2017 AT 12:32 AM...

You ask why are people still following Charlie. I think it's because Charlie offers them tidbits of insight into the future. It's the same reason that some people look at their horoscope, get their palms read, go for tarot card readings, look at their tea leaves, or seek out New Age channelers. But those things are forbidden by our religion and yet we still have a need to divine and hopefully control our future. So people who are religious seek out these so-called "mystics" and "seers" telling themselves this is somehow different than the person who has their tarot cards read. But is it really that different?

Anonymous said...

Not a single negative comment on TNRS site.

It seems that Catholics have a need for the "tele-evangelist" just like the born-againers. The tele-evangelist performs miracles at will and whenever he/she wishes, I guess Catholics feel left out of the loop by God so they look for these types of "miracle-workers" with a Catholic twist - so here comes Charlie and he's accepted because God has blessed us with a "miracle-worker" just like the born-againers.

Laurence D said...

carli Feb1 at 11:33 PM, Yes, I consider that when a person (even God) says, "The next stable leader will..." they put the word stable in for a reason. If they knew that Trump would be that leader, they would have just said, "the next leader." And this also makes sense in view of their having said, "Obama will not finish his term." For instance, if Obama had resigned in December and Biden became President till Jan.20, the prophesy would not have to consider Biden the next stable leader (regardless of his having come from the political process), since he would be brief. And the stability of a leader has less to do with with his character and more to do with his being accepted and his lasting more than a month or two. That Charlie was allowed to misread his own prophecies as time was running out is par for his course -- he admitted that happened to him regularly over the years. He got nervous because he felt the credibility of the Rescue was on the line. As events unfold now, I think the Rescue hope may stand on its own feet. As for Obama not finishing, we think we know that he did finish. If we were wrong to think that, we may be shown yet. (How in the world? A private resignation to give Biden a thrill for a day or two? I have no idea.) Regardless, the other prophecies and the other parts of the Presidential one are still in the offing. Tell me I'm in denial, but who is denying the Storm? Am I mistaken to remember that the Storm was also a prophecy from Charlie, one more related to the Rescue than the Presidential one is?

Fred Keyes said...

Great comment Anon @ 9:33.

From the O.T.:
Let there not be found among you anyone who causes their son or daughter to pass through the fire, or practices divination, or is a soothsayer, augur, or sorcerer,
or who casts spells, consults ghosts and spirits, or seeks oracles from the dead.

Anyone who does such things is an abomination to the LORD, and because of such abominations the LORD, your God, is dispossessing them before you. You must be altogether sincere with the LORD, your God. Although these nations whom you are about to dispossess listen to their soothsayers and diviners, the LORD, your God, will not permit you to do so. (Dt 18:10-14)

carli said...

Laurence D
I disagree with how you are defining the word "stable". I don't think that it has anything to do with length of time that a person holds the office. I believe that it refers to the kind of person. Take for instance the leader of North Korea. Kim Jong-un has been the leader of North Korea since 2011, but he is hardly a stable leader.

And I think it is truly reaching to say that Obama might not have possibly not finished his full term. I'm not even going to address the example of Obama giving Biden a thrill day...

As far as Charlie prophesying the Storm, please see Glenn's article for the specific prophecies regarding the Storm that Charlie has given. But I would caution once again that Charlie himself said that the Presidential Prophecy was given as a sign. The sign did not prove to be true, despite Charlie saying that he "told us true". Charlie has offered no prove, not one bit of the claims he has made of being visited, receiving visions, etc. His message of taking the next right step is not original to him, nor is the idea of a time of tribulation (or storm).

At this point, I've offered up what I can. Work and family commitments are pressing, and while you may wish to hang on to the prophecies, reconstructing them to try to make them true, I cannot, in good faith, find Charlie credible. This is based on his failed prophecy, but also on all the other logical, Biblical and Catholic posts that have been presented here.

May God bless you today and every day.

Anonymous said...

Lawrence @ 10:49 am "Tell me I'm in denial, but who is denying the Storm? Am I mistaken to remember that the Storm was also a prophecy from Charlie.."

The "Storm' was not authored by Charlie, he does not have exclusive rights to it, other people have also talked about it, please refer to the older blog where it was pointed out that other people were talking about the "Storm" and have been for a long time. This is not something that Charlie invented.

Joe said...

There is no way that all the comments are all positive. I think he is scrubbing more comments thAn he is allowing at this point. Which proves even further what a deceptive conman he is.

Anonymous said...


I am going to post a couple of things for people to chew on...especially those from Charlie's blog who may come here seeking some clarity.
First here is a quote from Spirit Daily after an interview with Charlie..."Former Radio Host Describes Prophecy Of What He Says Is Coming 'Great Storm'" :

"The sequence of ever-deepening chaos will continue until mid-October of 2017," he asserts he was told by the Blessed Mother. "Despair will reign throughout the world. Then, between October 13-17 of 2017, the world will be miraculously, utterly, and visibly delivered from the terror by the Intercession of Our Lady the Immaculate Conception. Christianity will be reunified, Satan will be shackled, and the world shall enter a glorious period of peace and harmony under the rule and protection of the one, triune God."

We are on the threshold, he claims, of new miracles. There will be a time of great healing. But before that will be trauma. The coming events, he believes, will take up to six million lives. He claims he was told this too by the Virgin Mary. He points out that as "wars" go, this is not a high number -- that World War One and World War Two took many more lives (and indeed when one considers that there were less than two billion people on earth at the time of World War One, which took 10 million military lives, versus six billion in the world today, the toll of what Johnston is prophesying is dramatically less -- five times lower). The difference, he says, is that this war "will take place all over."

Now later in his blog he said this in response to Janet, "Musings-Denmark" Aug/2014 :
"Thank you so much for that question, Janet! Yes, I did once say (in an interview with Michael Brown on Spirit Daily, I think) the date of October 13, 2017. That specific date WAS an extrapolation – I was so focused on the relation to Fatima it all has. I deeply regret that and try to be more prudent now. However, what I was actually told is nearly as startling: that that rescue will come late in 2017....But my angel was specific on this matter...So on most things, Janet, I offend if I get too specific – lest I make more of my interpretation than what was actually said – and I did overstep when I said October 13, 2017. But in this case, I would also offend if I was too nebulous, for he did say “late in 2017.”
Here is what I am pointing out, that in the interview with Michael Brown, Charlie is quoted as saying he was told by the Virgin Mary when the rescue would be. Then later in his blog he says it was his angel while referring back to the Spirit Daily interview. I didn't think about this while I was following the blog then, but it really stuck out now. With such an important message, wouldn't he remember who gave him the message? I mean if it came from the Blessed Virgin Mary I would think he would be clear on that and exactly what she said, but he waffles about giving a specific date, and then attributes the message to his angel not Mary. But do you see the discrepancy? Now that I am looking back I am seeing more of these. The other discrepancy in this quote is "six million" will die. I would have to find it, but later somewhere in his blog he is quoted as saying 26 million will die...another discrepancy. Fran.

Anonymous said...

Joe: the site is run by Beckita and SteveBC, they may be better comment scrubbers than Charlie!

Joe said...

Charlie is the puppet master when he says dance Beckita and Steve dance. When he says scrub they scrub.

Joe said...

Can someone please ask Beckita why she continues to run a site founded by a con man and his tall tales. I tried to post it but apparently I am still banned.

Bizlep said...

Folks
Now that things have faded away a bit, I would like to post something on the possible near future of the US under Trump. From many comments here, I sensed that people hope or envision that the 'Storm' is but gone or probably fade away... that is a very wrong assumption and I found objective info that supports my assumption and want to share it.

As I stated before (and I know most here don't agree), I don't think Charlie is a fraud, a liar and that has been deceived by Satan under the guise of his guardian angel... I'm not going to argument here because it is outside this post scope, but I'm convinced (because I do follow and study other 'seer' around the world) that God granted a few more month (may be 3 to 6) of a 'peaceful Merciful period'. Also, after 2012, I always try do do some 'reality check' on prophecies and this is exactly what I did and found very important intelligence info that can give us a glimpse of what lies ahead for the US under Trump.
called it a reprieve if you want. From Charlie's point of view, doesn't matter if God had warned him or not on a change of plans, because the end result would be the same for him: being labeled a 'false prophet'.

If the Hillary camp had won, this year war with Russia/Iran/China would have been unavoidable because of Syria... with Trump, the Globalists priority now is to not loose their control grip over the US, that took them almost one century to get (FED Congressional Act could be a official 'starting' date). So, civil unrest and Maidan like color revolution, with a violence on purpose agenda is now what is in the Globalists short term menu for the US. Either one way, or another, the Storm is here, although the catalyst may have changed.

I stop here and leave you with this post from a infiltrated Oath-Keeper, I advise to read the comment section under the main report because it also has a lot of info from the author. I might copy a very informative comment that will show you the the US is now on the verge of a rough ride:
https://www.oathkeepers.org/navyjack-operation-hypo-action-report/

Bizlep said...

---------------------
Comment: "Retired Navy Spook – The protesters on the ground see large crowds and continuous support from the MSM for their protests. They hear former President Obama telling them they need to keep going. They are energized and angry. The people in the middle, the organizers, don’t really know where this is going; they do believe that with all of these angry voices something has to give. The people at the top (Democracy Partners, Soros, globalist and NEOCON interest groups) know this is just the opening salvo of a revolution.

In Egypt all it took was a few hundred thousand protesters to drive out the President. Here that won’t happen. The people at the top know that violence is the only way forward. In the Ukraine they had to put a sniper up on a rooftop shooting in both directions (protesters and police) to start a civil war in order to force the President out. That is the formula that will be followed here if they can get the protests to grow over the next couple of weeks.

If what occurred in Portland last night were to happen again or if it were to happen in a state like Montana, Idaho or Texas, self-defense measures will eventually be used by citizens to defend themselves against the violent protesters. A few violent protesters get shot or seriously wounded by citizens exercising their right to self-defense is all it will take to build the outrage to a level where either the President steps down to save the nation from a civil war (like in the Ukraine) or the shooting starts. Either way, this is a bad situation.

With the MSM fueling the riots and protests, I am not sure how this can be turned off. The President is not being listened to by the left at all. They just don’t want to hear the truth about any of these issues. It is all AstroTurf, but it doesn’t matter. Don’t think for a minute that the President can go on national TV and calm everyone down. No matter what he says the situation will be made worse by the MSM and social media.

Our only real hope is that the protesters become exhausted and their violence starts to slow down before any of them get hurt or killed. Pray for that and prepare for the worst.

If the protests were to slow and the anger subsides, the globalists only have two cards left to play;
1. The Kennedy solution, or
2. Economic collapse.

Both are tough cards to play because you can only use them once. I don’t know the answer. If I had to guess, I think they will attempt #1 because the President has shown ZERO willingness to compromise on his campaign promises. If they fail and the President continues to unwind the United States from the control of the globalists for even another year, they will play card #2. The alternative would be that there would be no way for them to ever regain control. I do not think they will let that happen.

L Spinelli said...

Joe: Beckita is an apparition chaser. This is far from her first go-round with visionaries. She ran a "Direction for Our Times" prayer group, associated with the discredited "Anne A Lay Apostle", up until 2015. Before that, she was part of a committee that went to the Vatican to defend Gianna Talone Sullivan and the messages of "Our Lady of Emmitsburg", another discredited seer and apparition site.

I have no doubt that she considers herself a good Catholic and attends Mass, goes to Adoration, etc. But the fact is, she could have put her time to better use instead of taking leadership roles in the "missions" of questionable visionaries.

Fred Keyes said...

Bizlep, you won't agree, but your kind of thinking is like Charlie's in its sweep and certainty of predicted outcomes. You probably don't understand why that approach is incredible to people who know their limits.

Bizlep said...

J.Keys, I wasn't going to answer, because my post was about providing 'profane' intelligence that points to a planned outburst of VIOLENCE in the US still this year, has never seen before, NOT Charlie itself... but than I realized something that is not clear in any of my comments in this Blog:
1-I'm not a Charlie follower... actually he never allowed any comment from mine in his website; and I have always been at odds by the 'light' version/description he gave for the Tribulation, while every other case I know is about years or even decades probably... so, in the Occam Razor method, I would concede that Charlie was given a very small piece of the puzzle. So for me Charlie was 'accidental' not 'substantial', one of the many I read in my methodology, and again, I wasn't really a follower (BTW I don't follow anyone, I READ everything and sift that info until I detect 'patterns'); I'm a Taxonomist by profession and training (Butterfly and Diptera Systematics)
2 - I forgot to leave clear that what led me to see a change in plans was not Charlie itself, but the work I do of sifting private prophecy, for more than 25 years by now; I have seen other changes of course before so I kind of can sense its pattern when it happens (Garabandal is also an interesting case for this). My conclusion that what we are seeing is almost sure a reprieve (short one in my opinion) was based on other sources of data. In other words, what I did was to apply a previous conclusion to Charlie's personal situation
3 - Again, I have worked more today on profane sources and here are more two examples enough for me to warn Charlie related people that unprecedented turmoil is coming to the US and may be the world later, and this is not prophecy, for God sake. The first one is a leak showing a nasty plot by David Brock to wipe out alternate media and impeach Trump (it is a plan not a fact!): http://www.jimstone.is/mediawar/3.html

and this is one of the many interviews by a insider and former CIA official Robert David Steele: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkse6CLLJFM
If after those 'natural' sources you still think if have a rosy year ahead because Charlie failed... what can I say whiteout insulting someone here??
This is my last post form me anywhere concerning Charlie.

Anonymous said...

Bizlep: I do not agree with you in regard to Charlie. The world's situation has been tenuous for awhile. Charlie doesn't have a lock or a crystal ball on the future. Charlie has been terrible at predicting world events. I actually think his predictions or prophecies are based on his own perspective of the world, not devine origins.

As a Trump supporter (as are a lot of other supporters) I am very concerned about his recent aggressive stance against Russia, China, and Iran. This is not indicative of a peaceful situation - it is very disconcerting.

Anonymous said...

I guess Beckita is going to get one right eventually? I guess she thinks she has another winner in Charlie.

Anonymous said...

L Spinelli, February 3-rd,'17, 9:01am. The info you presented about Beckita is very interesting. Can I ask you where you found this info, or how you were able to find out about all of this?

L Spinelli said...

@Anon, here are the links.

https://www.directionforourtimes.com/prayer-groups/ (She is Beckie from Montana.)

http://motheofgod.com/threads/the-two-suns.6095/page-2#post-77887

Glenn Dallaire said...

Joe,
I deleted that last comment because it really something that is best left unsaid, I think.
-Glenn

Anonymous said...

In Beckita's letter to Bishop O'Brien, she asks the Bishop to point out any theological errors in the supposed "messages" from Our Lady of Emmitsburg. She assumes that since there are no theological errors then the "messages" must be true, or at a minimum, are worthy of belief.

This reasoning is nuts.

What if I told you that the BVM appeared to me last night and told me to tell the world to follow the Ten Commandments. In addition, the BVM also told me that the earth would soon by attacked by aliens from outer space as punishment for our sins. The fact is there is NOTHING in these "messages" that have theological errors. Certainly exhorting people to follow the Ten Commandments is sound theology. But what about the alien attack? Well the Bible and Sacred Tradition don't speak to aliens, so there is no theological errors in such my "messages" from the BVM.

Anonymous said...

Beckita has also posted on the TNRS site about her association with OLoEmittsburg numerous times and going to the Vatican to plead the case, use the search bar at TNRS to find the information. I've read it so it should be there unless she scrubbed that as well.

Anonymous said...

It's funny how Beckita demands answers from the Bishop and talks about truth yet on Charlie's site she doesn't answer the tough questions and has become a master post scrubber.

If Charlie were to read Beckita's letter to the Bishop and not knowing who she was, he would have said that's "poppycock", "100% unaltered poppycock".

Glenn you should have let Joe's comment stand,it might not be far from the truth.

Anonymous said...

I hate to say this, but OLoEmmittsburg as presneted by Beckie has far more credible evidence ( I'm in no way backing the apparition ) than Charlie has and will ever have, she should stick to that one if she wants to pursue something, Charlie actually takes her last bit of credibility.

Anonymous said...

If you go to TNRS you will see that the failed prophecy did not have an effect on a lot of them ( excepting post scrubbing ). The big event now is the end of 2017! To these people it doesn't really matter what was predicted or really anything in between it's the final event of 2017. So once again they struggle through with feel good Catholic stuff, that's about the extent of the content, what else can be said? So now the new goal post is the end of 2017.

Once again people on their site complain of slander against Charlie and others, but where are all these people answering our questions. According to SteveBC the reams of information dating back to the 1990s are archived and will only be revealed once a thorough investigation is completed. So his prophecies go back that far? Charlie has even stated that the prophecies are on his site, how come SteveBC can not find them, he actually admits they aren't there. One guy on Charlie's site said he was ok with people taking apart Charlie's prophecies with fact, but not about people slandering Charlie which got a thumbs up from Beckie. So where is the slander? Even Beckie agrees we should be questioning Charlie. Even Charlie agrees we should be questioning Charlie, in fact Charlie and his followers have said your faith should be in God, not Charlie - so why are they still waiting for his ending 2017 message?

I also bring this up again his prediction of Obama not finishing his term was done in 2008, he stated that Obama will not finish his full term in 2008 and prior years. His full term expired in 2008. He was re-elected in 2008 to a 2nd full term, this was already a failed prophecy that morphed into his next term because he was wrong on the first full term.

Anonymous said...

In reply to Annoymous (February 5, 2017 at 3:04 pm),

The "one guy" you referred to was me. I said as much because I think that individual discerning is a good thing, however I think it's not going to be very fruitful when it lacks charity. I came on here a couple of times to share, the crux of the message (in my mind) being an exhortation to be more charitable. Based on Jack's rebuttal and assessment of my words as a critique, I probably didn't communicate that effectively.

To your point on slander, here's an example:

Anonymous (January 9, 2017 at 2:33 am) said...

"Let us pray fervently for the healing of Charlie Johnston who is obviously extremely unwell and in need of mental health treatment and perhaps an exorcist also."

To claim that a person is obviously unwell and in need of mental health treatment without proof of such is slander in my book.

There are many other examples as well, however overt or subtle. You're free to agree or disagree.

I appreciate that Glenn has also exhorted others to be charitable on his blog. Honestly, I am a bit curious as to why he allows uncharitable comments (or uncharitable bits of comments) to slide through, but of course it's his blog and he can do what he sees fit with it. Am I to think he's being disingenuous? No, that's a conclusion that I simply won't jump to. I see the good will in Glenn every bit as much as I see it in Jack and others, and of course a certain openness and freeness to share ideas on a Catholic blog without fear of getting bashed is certainly a good thing too. We're human, so it's also going to be a bit of a messy process.

I'm just a Catholic guy that is genuinely muddling through my ongoing conversion with honest intent. My personal efforts at discernment are a part of it, but certainly not my main focus. It's messy sometimes. Probably others can say the same, and I certainly give everyone the benefit of a doubt that they are authentic about it as well. Forgive me if I see some messiness there too and make an honest effort to build up, even if there's a correction or two in there.

At any rate, I don't think Our Lord will judge me nearly as harshly for discerning wrong, as He will for me failing in charity, to whatever degree I'm responsible.

God Bless,
MP

Anonymous said...

I absolutely agree that we should be charitable - I for one have been the scorn and uncharitableness of one Mr. Charlie Johnston to which I will swear on a stack of bibles. You may not be aware that Charlie played games with my posts. He would not allow a lot of my posts, even nice ones, however, that's mild compared to his classic charity of calling me names, not allowing my posts and then then allowing a post where I complained to wit he would say that's why I don't allow your posts - is that charitable? Charlie did this to lot of people and you wonder why people don't have charity to Charlie, when Charlie doesn't show charity to others?

I personally have never claimed Charlie is need of mental health treatment, but his actions are definitely a cause for concern, besides if his extensive notes from the 1990s and onward are scrutinized by the Church he will have to go through an examination. As for an exorcism , all good priests in the past conducted such exercises on people who claimed visions, etc. because this would be the only way to tell if they are authentic, sadly this is not done anymore.

L Spinelli said...

@MP

The main goal for most of us here is to find out the truth. That took some harsh turns, but I state that my goal certainly wasn't slandering Charlie.

People accused me of just that when I posted the information about Charlie's "aggressive full-service dating" period here and at another forum. When I originally found that blurb, I wasn't well versed with the Vatican's norms. Rather, the context just seemed off to me. Here was a guy who supposedly was communicating with angels his whole life, and he received his most important prophecies (the "three great visions") AND consecrated himself to Mary...all while enjoying "friends with benefits" with more than a few women. I remember thinking, that doesn't add up.

As for the "mental health" comment being slander, we don't know whether Charlie was tricked by the devil (which to me and most here is the most likely case), if he was hallucinating, if these visions were the byproduct of his birth trauma, or if he made the whole thing up. At this point in time, only he and God know the truth. And it's not unreasonable to ask just where these prophecies were coming from when they were supposedly going to have such a drastic effect on all of our lives.

Glenn Dallaire said...


Hi MP,
Thanks for your comments.

I completely and wholeheartedly agree with your assessment concerning the importance of charity towards others when making comments.

As for myself, of the 930 comments on this post, there has been a few that have definitely caused me no little disappointment, in that I personally found them to be uncharitable towards certain individuals.

The thing is though as I have said before, I'm really a strong proponent of open discussion, and am very reluctant to delete any comments, and I only do so on rare occasions. I understand that there are matters where people have strong opinions or feelings, so I generally tend to let what I might deem an uncharitable remark slide, so long as the person is making a greater point in their commentary as a whole. I simply hope that through the "open" forum here, folks will feel free to comment regardless of their position on the matter, doing so frankly and sincerely, but also (hopefully!) charitably, for often in my own research I have often learned more from the comments beneath an article, than in the article itself, and this is why I personally support and encourage comment sections on the internet.

Thanks again MP for your comments!
Glenn Dallaire

Anonymous said...

Anynonymous (February 5, 2017 at 4:49 pm)

You're absolutely right. Not knowing your situation or who you are, I am not aware of the particulars of your experience with Charlie's blog. No need to swear on a stack of Bibles or give details. You're aware of the need to be charitable, apparently in no small part by the way you felt you were treated by Charlie. I can only say that I strive to defend charity, lest I make a mess of misreading a situation. Sometimes it's clear. Sometimes it's not so clear. I'll give you an example of the latter (not meant to offend and certainly not directed at you):

I once had a Priest (a potential Spiritual Director I was meeting with) listen to me patiently then tell me that, "it sounds like you just need to get your head out of your a**." I can tell you that once I got over the seemingly harsh words that packed some shock value, I found myself challenged to find the Charity that wasn't readily apparent in those words. Eventually I was able to recognize Charity there too, and did in fact eventually comply.

I can defend that. I can't defend an obvious lack of charity. Like I said, sometimes it's obvious, sometimes not. It's obvious when someone goes on the attack in a frontal assault. Not so obvious when someone just subtlely picks and prods at someone else's shortcomings and thorns in the side. Kinda like dredging up past mistakes that God has already forgiven, and broadcasting those instances for fresh scrutiny and assault. God doesn't revisit, so I think I should endeavor to take that lead. Also, I admit to being a sometimes harsh judge in the past... until I really took Jesus' words to heart. I would even admit that it starts with a certain fear of being judged by my own standards... then it just becomes a joy to try to be obedient to His words for the sake of others. I'm still working on that.

Praying for ALL here,
MP

Anonymous said...

Spinelli,

I like the honesty of your first paragraph as it relates to this blog.

I stand by my opinion on the slander matter and the example I provided. I said, "To claim a person is obviously unwell and in need of mental health treatment without proof of such is slander in my book." You'll notice that I didn't include "...and perhaps an exorcist also." That latter part seemed like more of a suggestion than an accusation. To avoid redundancy, you can see my earlier comment to Anonymous on this topic. Maybe there's something of use there.

Spinelli, I think you've got passion. In fact, there's a lot of passion here. Maybe I'm just saying how about we expand the goal to The Truth. I tell myself this first of all. Praying for all here.

God Bless,
MP

Anonymous said...

Glenn, It was a small act of charity that you didn't expose the word I just made up: "freeness." What the heck is that?! I meant "freedom." Oh, well. I"m thankful that God will reward you for the smallest act of charity, while I'm able to laugh at myself. God bless you in your continued work here. -- MP

Anonymous said...

I have posted a couple of things here, and I agree that I think all should be charitable. I have said that I wondered about Charlie's mental state, and that it is something to consider. I don't think it is slander to wonder and comment about it. And I am wondering because of one of his own comments:

charliej373 says:
August 20, 2014 at 12:40 pm
"Thank you for joining us, Amolynick. I have people close to me who have suffered extended periods of depression. I, myself, have mild manic symptoms – sometimes up and a ball of fire and others struggling to get through the day. When still a teen, a therapist suggested certain medications to blunt the valleys. I pondered it – then asked him if it would take away the peaks, as well. He said it would. So I declined. I can be amazingly productive, insightful and inspirational during my peak periods. I did not want to lose that…and figured I could discipline myself to do the basics during the bad periods even if I didn’t feel it until I would pull out of the downsides naturally."

I will just mention that if you know anything about manic/depression (bipolar disorder) this *seems* like what he is alluding to, and you can look up symptoms of it, but it can definitely include delusions among other things. Note that he also says that he had seen a therapist at least in his younger years, so I think these things and the fact that he also talked about a neurological condition make his mental state a valid question. If you followed his blog, sometimes Charlie would comment that he wasn't feeling himself, and needed some time before he could get back to it. Maybe he was just sick with a virus or something, but maybe it was something else ... at any rate, if *anyone* claims to be a visionary, with messages for others especially, shouldn't their mental condition always be a valid question? And if he does have this condition then I truly feel bad for him.

Anonymous said...

Dear MP as you say about charity - " I can't defend an obvious lack of charity" - exactly and who is the one who is being uncharitable - Charlie - I've mentioned a few times on his site that I've forgiven him and what happens - the post is scrubbed - that's charity on my part willing to forget and move forward, but not Charlie, he won't allow the posts why? I don't know, I've forgiven him, but he can not move forward and his action of not accepting is an obvious lack of charity, but his lack of charity continued, his other lack of charity is still being banned from his site over telling the truth and I made sure I documented it to prove his disingenuous, if Charlie was charitable he would have re-instated me. At this point I hate to say it but Charlie has used his position of power to be abusive to some people. Charlie's lack of charity and continuous lack of charity shows an obvious lack of charity which you can not defend.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous (February 5, 2017),

Regarding your post and the scenario you outlined, I don't think anyone said that is uncharitable. You acknowledge that wasn't your intent, and that should be good enough for anyone.

Rather than draw out a lengthy discussion about a person's state of mental health (which I don't find myself in a position to undertake), maybe I just find it sufficient to throw the appropriate prompt out there such as, "4. Study the person himself," and leave it at that. Why do I say that?

Say you and I were walking down the street and came across someone that seemed foolish. Maybe we're both thinking it, but we each check ourselves upon recalling Jesus words: "... but whosoever shall say, 'Thou fool,' shall be in danger of hell fire." O.K., there's certainly quite a bit to unpack and ponder in that passage.

So we ponder for a bit, until I finally break the silence with this: "Does that person seem foolish to you?" Hm. According the the 'Letter of the Law,' seems like I didn't overstep. How about the 'Spirit of the Law?' For the sake of argument, let's assume that there are also a bunch of other people with us on the street within earshot. And they heard me. It also goes without saying that our Guardian Angels heard as well. And God.

Just something I'm pondering out loud. Honestly, that just makes me want ponder prayerfully, and quietly, even more.

God Bless,
MP

Anonymous said...

Yes we have to be charitable to Charlie - after all we really don't know what the effects of manic and head trauma have had on him as Charlie himself has pointed out numerous times.

However, Anon @ 7:00 pm don't get a big head or something like that, but that was definitely a TKO if not a KO.

Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous (from Feb 5 at 7:16pm),

I understand. I think I even connected the dots now, but will be respectful of your anonymity. Yes, I did say that "I can't defend an obvious lack of charity," but that wasn't all I said. Maybe I should have added more, or at least made some prompts a bit more obvious. So what can we do? We can forgive those who offended (or we think offended) us, as you pointed out. We can pray for them. We can love them. I know, maybe that all sounds too trite, but hey... I can't improve on one word in the Gospels. I can only remind myself and try to put it into practice.

Praying for You,
MP

Anonymous said...

Would someone please comment as to what TKO or KO means?

Joe said...

Knockout or Technical Knockout

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 8:48 you're example is off, it was Charlie himself who revealed his manic state and his head trauma and stroke, it's Charlie himself who has said that he is getting messages and he himself has gone public - of course he is going to be under scrutiny. He's telling us that one of the most important events in the history of the world next to the birth and resurrection of Our Lord is going to happen, this isn't something small this is huge and of course we're going to be critical, we don't want to be led astray - TNRS is still active, Charlie is waiting in the wings, we need to be on guard least we and others are led astray. I think its our duty to expose fraud and fakes and true apparitions. When Charlie went public he was under scrutiny that was his choice.

Joe said...

Anonymous 9:22
Exactly right, when you make such proposterous claims as Charlie has you open yourself to all types of scrutiny and speculation. Charlie was proven indisputably wrong on Jan 20 on claims that he has been professing for years. Since he was proven wrong on these outlandish prophecies, everything is on the table when discussing how he arrived there.. As bad as it may sound, mental illness is a valid possibility to explain Charlie's prophecies among other things some might find offensive. I don't buy that it is in any way uncharitable to discuss all avenues of how Charlie came up with this stuff, but in no way can you call speculation that it could be mental illness slander, that is ridiculous. This uncharitable nonsense just sounds like to me a way to silence Charlie's critics.

L Spinelli said...

Kinda like dredging up past mistakes that God has already forgiven, and broadcasting those instances for fresh scrutiny and assault. God doesn't revisit, so I think I should endeavor to take that lead. Also, I admit to being a sometimes harsh judge in the past... until I really took Jesus' words to heart.

Once again, MP, the only reason the issue of Charlie's past dating history was brought up wasn't to condemn him over past sins. The Vatican's norms clearly state that if someone was committing grave sin at the time of their alleged message, it invalidates that message. That's all. It's a matter of discernment only and has nothing to do with "stoning" Charlie.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous (feb 5, 9:22)

I still think my example was valid and relevant, regardless of what you choose to focus on. In fact, maybe you just proved my point.

Joe,

I think you missed the point too, maybe because you're typically so combative and angry if you think someone is against you. I'm not. To my knowledge, I did not say that mental illness is not a possibility. I just caution people to be charitable and tackle what they're called to –– and capable of. If you think you're in a position to scrutinize and speculate about Charlie's health to good avail, have at it. As I said, I'm not.

I stand by the example of slander I provided earlier. If the leveler of that comment lacks proof to back it up, it was.

I can understand that people really don't want to be led astray. I don't either. All things considered though, what kind of faith is in danger of being led astray by some alleged prophet/mystic?

Praying for you,

MP

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Spinelli. I'll try to ponder that tonight in prayer and charity... but there's no guarantee I'll see things your way come tomorrow morning as I can sometimes chew on things for a long, long time.

God Bless,
MP

Joe said...

MP, are you slandering me? I really think you need to be more charitable.

Anonymous said...

Ahh, Joe, I'm just going to chalk that one up to your sense of humor... even if you insist otherwise.

Thanks Glenn and All for letting me share.

Prayers for you all, and God bless,
MP

Joe said...

The outright denial of reality that is going on at Charlie's site is really bizarre. It is almost like the twilight zone, these people are truly brainwashed. If anyone doubts me go to the site and make one comment that authentically challenges Charlie. If you're comment does not get scrubbed, you will have about 6 Charlie apologists telling you how screwed up you are. I see there was another Joe over there yesterday that raised some good, reasonable points. He was basically shamed by the cult following for daring to raise any red flags. I wonder what if there is some Protestant or nonbeliever and thier only exposure to to the Catholic Church was the cult-like group of Charlie and his followers. What a terrible example of the church they are getting. The Catholic Church really needs to step In and disassociate itself with Charlie and his blog site. Charlie said he would step away, yet Beckita remains promoting Charlie's prophecies like he was a great prophet who had just passed away. What a joke!

Anonymous said...

MP: "I can understand that people really don't want to be led astray. I don't either. All things considered though, what kind of faith is in danger of being led astray by some alleged prophet/mystic?"
That's actually quite easy - it's called a cult. The leader is supreme. One example - name changes - Our Lady of Guadeloupe is now Tepeyac.
Another example: you don't have freedom of speech, remember Charlie's own words, "this is my site", " you have no right to comment on my site".
Charlie has become the supreme dictator on his site. You fall in line or you're outed - that's for real.

Charlie has also stated that he has been mostly correct on his prophecies, in fact in his last interview he said 9 out of 10 - I don't take that literally. Charlie has emphatically stated that his prophecies are on his site. If you ask him what they are he gets angry and says find them yourself or something similar or worse get booted from his site. This does not sound like someone of sound mind to me. Seems no one can find them, everyone who has come on this board has left when we asked that question. However, SteveBC admits they aren't there, in fact he says they're locked up somewhere in the diocese by his spiritual directors.
There's a big problem with this picture, this guy claims all these correct prophecies and says they're on his site, but his webmasters disagree. Sounds fishy to me. Don't forget too that one of his webmaster is a known prophecy seeker - Beckita - her batting average is 0.000.
Here's another major issue. Charlie and his followers all claim that we should not be trusting in Charlie, but God. Sounds good so far. So why are people on his site still trusting Charlie's prophecies and trying to justify the result, you don't need Charlie, even Charlie said so, trust in God. But go to his new TNRS site and all the talk is either about Catholic feel good stuff or Charlie's messages, prophecies, goodness, etc. How long do you think the site will have any interest left if they don't talk about Charlie - very little. TNRS is Charlie and if Charlie is gone, there goes the site, so it really is about Charlie not 100% God.

MP you seem to like give Charlie the benefit of the doubt, it would be nice if you could actually get the prophecies Charlie has stated he has been correct on - I wouldn't worry about being banned as in the past, it seems that the new webbies want to be forthright - good luck. I think they allowed Joe back in, but they haven't given him anything tangible. You might have better luck with your gentle approach.


Anonymous said...

I went to a talk charlie gave last year not really knowing who he was and his message was pretty clear: acknowledge god, take the next right step and be a sign of hope.

He didn't really talk about prophecy much, mostly just trust God and be a good person and to help and love your neighbor. I never did and still don't put much stock in his prophecy but for me at least, being aware of those 3 things and acting on them have helped me look at life a bit different and focus on doing little things for others I never did before.

Just my experience with it.

Also cool site.

Anonymous said...

Joe I thought they allowed you back in, but you said it was another Joe - darn. Where is Charlie's charity in allowing you back in, that's not very charitable of him, Charlie just isn't being very charitable like we were - in fact I even forgave Charlie and his troupe on Good Friday last year and you know what he didn't post my forgiveness or any type of acknowledgment - imagine that on Good Friday I was seeking peace with him and his followers and was willing to put everything aside for the sake of Our Lord who died on the Cross for us and Charlie's response - nothing, I couldn't believe it - that's when I knew there was something odd about Charlie and his TNRSers, not acknowledging my forgiveness on Good Friday! This is actually the first time I posted about this, it just shows the state of Charlie because his followers wouldn't have known I posted about forgiveness.

Anonymous said...

To Anon @ 12:40 pm, that's how I started out too, but if you ask too many questions watch out that will be the end of you! You'll be taking the Next Right Step off his site!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous (February 6, 12:20 am),

No, I don't see the same phantoms behind every corner and under every rock, maybe because I keep my eyes fixed on Jesus as much as I am able.

As for Our Lady of Tepeyac, do you really think someone just popped that title change out one day? Do a google search. I just did a quick google search on Our Lady of Tepeyac and came up with over 200,000 results, including many a Catholic parish. Is everybody suspect?

Catholic feel good stuff? What? What do you expect any group of Catholics to be talking about? Feel bad stuff? I don't ask this to be flip, but seriously. There are people of good will here, seriously going about some discernment in a spirit of charity, but I'm hard pressed not to also note the folks who seem perfectly content to wallow in anti-charity with anger, insults and the like.

So you want answers and proof of stuff? Pray, ask God, and pray some more... and read some Scripture.

Helen I said...

Anonymous February 5-th,7:00pm- More than once in the past couple of weeks, I have stated my opinion that Charlie might possibly have a mood disorder combined with psychosis. Another name for this, can be called, Schizoaffective disorder. I worked most of my career in mental health, in a clinical setting. And reading these posts for about a year, I got the impression from the description of his behaviors, that he might very well have mental illness. Tonight I read Charlie's post that you provided, about he himself admitting to having mania, as well as valleys of depression, and it confirmed to me even more that the negative behaviors we dislike and complain about, may very well be due to this. If Charlie has mania, (which in his post, he indictated that he has, and appears to like), it gives him high energy and creativity, but mania can also produces a GREAT DEAL of irritability. If Charlie chose not to be treated for this possible disorder, he may have had the irritability of mania, that could have caused him to be very unkind to those who post on his site that don't agree with him, and he may have had the lows of depression, that make him suffer. And depression, also, (the valleys Charlie called them), can also cause irritability-as well as anxiety. And the schizo part of Schizoaffective disorder, can cause one to have hallucinations and delusions. And I wonder about this in terms of Charlie's supposed visitations, and claimed prophecies. Were they real, or part of an illness? If Charlie does have a chemical imbalance of the brain,(another term for mental illness), he will be doing himself and others a favor, by getting treatment. His highs of mania, (that he likes), are not worth all the damage that the irritability of mania, and the lows of depression, may cause,in negatively affecting, and hurting, those who are in contact with him. In my opinion, it is actually CHARITABLE to be telling Charlie such. The uncharitable thing is to ignore. Charlie very possibly needs to be brought to a state of mental "wellness." And this can be said in Christian love. Thank you.

Fred Keyes said...

Bizlep, you said, yesterday: " I READ everything and sift that info until I detect 'patterns...'" Hm. You have seen "A Beautiful Mind," right?

Also your kind of theorizing is of the type that Art Bell liked on his old "Coast to Coast" radio program.

Anonymous said...

Anon or MP @ 1:13 a Charlie follower always shows his true colors after a while, I thought you would eventually take the bait, which you did, you are in the anger mode of the stages of death disguising it as passive aggressive behaviour previously which is what I thought initially.

BTW it's not up to me to prove anything it's up to Charlie, so far I haven't seen anything tangible, I think I said before Gerald Celente has a better track record than Charlie and I think someone on this site said their child was predicting better than Charlie.

Fred Keyes said...

In regard to the theological error that Beckita was asking about for the alleged Emmitsburg apparitions: I was living in Maryland in the 90s and attenede one of the events there and followed it with interest.

IIRC there was one issue that the investigation there brought up that was a key point in the decision by the Diocese of Baltimore to give a negative judgment. Gianna Sullivan Talone claimed that she had been told that when Christ comes again, He will come as a babe in the arms of his mother. Big red flag. That Christ would return in the same way he ascended is basic doctrine. I wonder why the Emmitsburg believers dispute the official Diocese of Baltimore judgement?

Anonymous said...

Anon (Feb 6, 9:52 am)

Angry? No. If anything, I'm saddened that some Catholics and maybe other Christians here can't seem to anchor themselves in charity first on this blog. Be careful that you're not simply misreading and imputing your own motives to me. You accuse me of being angry, passive aggressive, and a Charlie follower which is bearing false witness. You follow that up by misrepresenting and twisting my words. I did not say that you have to prove anything. I said if you want answers and proof (and I add –– of anything and in the largest sense –– to clarify), then pray, ask God, and pray some more... and read some Scripture. Finally, you feel it necessary to close with a couple of not-so-subtle jibes at Charlie, once again. In the end, I regret if I said or anyone perceived that I said anything uncharitable, but I'm am at peace standing by my words and answering for them. I sincerely hope that you are too. Whatever the case, I pray for all here.

God Bless,
MP

Fred Keyes said...

I had not followed Charlie long enough to have known about his admission to manic symptoms (re Anon at 7pm last evening). I am bipolar myself. I know what Charlie means about the manic episodes--how you can feel this enormous (but false) ability to understand events and people and even manipulate them. In addition, it's easy to convince yourself that you have been instructed to believe certain things and do certain things. These things hit me in my late teens and early twenties and then again in my late twenties. There's more history than that, but those periods were the worst of it for me. I got excellent care, and after some EST and counseling, I settled down. It still took several years to discover that the cause of my problems was bipolar, and when that diagnosis was made, I went on meds and have stayed on them religiously since then (depakote, and now lamotrogine).

Charlie if you are reading here, do yourself a favor. Find a good shrink. Be honest with him/her. They will likely get you on some good meds. Normal life is not nearly as exhilarating as the highs you get when you're a bipolar, but ultimately having normal emotions is far, far more rewarding than what you appear to be going through now. The damage you are doing by claiming to be other than what you are can't be a good thing.

I'm a bit amazed that the three Opus Dei spiritual advisors haven't insisted that Charlie get this kind of care. If you are reading advisors, please work harder to get a diagnosis and if bipolar isn't his problem, at least rule it out as what the problem is. Get a second opinion as well. Remember --"mens sana in corpore sano."

Anonymous said...

I can not answer for them specifically, but generally when people follow a specific person and a comradery develops, the seer or mystic is seen as "all knowing" and can do no wrong, so its very hard for the followers to break away and accept something contrary to his/her beliefs because of this friendship that develops. Even when the seer or mystic is wrong because of their comradery they tend to stick with the person.

The prime example is Charlie. Joe Crozier, a follower, posted here saying that he was all in with Charlie and any negative talk was dismissed because Charlie was his friend. Even after the failed prophecy Joe Crozier still believed in Charlie because he was his good friend, he even said so, even Charlie was appreciative of his friendship. To this day, Joe Crozier is back on the TNRS site, he still believes in Charlie.

Ironically, Charlie has been telling people to not trust him but God, but people still trust Charlie even after he tells them to trust God - I guess Charlie is a piece of heaven to them that they can not let go even after he tells them to that's the control Charlie has on his followers. One person left and said that it was becoming a cult.

L Spinelli said...

Going off tangent somewhat:

The "Our Lady of Tepeyac" issue only became an issue because of the way Charlie presented it. That's her proper title, the one she wishes to be called by, and this was specifically revealed to him.

http://motheofgod.com/threads/charlie-johnston.6328/#post-65228

I know that she wants to be called by what she says is her proper title, Our Lady of Tepeyac, because she told me so. She is the Mother of Conversion and her work is not finished. Through her guidance, the Church will be renewed, the Old World will be re-evangelized from the New World, and; taking root in the heart of the women, Islam will be converted to Christianity. (Sadly, the latter will not be completed until we have met Islam in a great and bloody clash). This was a prophecy given to me 15 or 16 years ago – and I regarded the election of Francis, the first pope from the Americas, the New World, as the beginning of the fulfillment of that prophecy. She has instructed me to spread devotion to her under that proper title. I have done so privately and some miracles have been attached to it. I now do so publicly. I urge you, when you seek relief from some great illness, sorrow or calamity, go to Our Lady of Tepeyac and ask her to speak to her Son on your behalf.

This same insistence on a title change appeared in the condemned "Holy Love" apparition to Maureen Sweeney Kyle.

http://www.catholiclane.com/apparitions-at-holy-love-ministries-revisited/

The ministry was formed around 1986, meeting in homes of followers or a few welcoming churches. Then came a time of upheaval. Sweeney insisted that the Virgin Mary’s messages demanded that she be given a new title, one recognized by the Catholic Church, that of “Our Lady Protectress of the Faith.” The Cleveland Catholic Diocese turned down this request.

Note that the same phenomenon happened with two false visionaries. That's not a coincidence.

Anonymous said...

MP : Yes it is sad that people lack charity, but its worse when someone who claims they are getting messages from God and lack charity, the focus is on Charlie, Charlie Johnston - Charlie lacks charity - not accepting an olive branch on Good Friday? Stick to the subject - Charlie - not me - Charlie is the focus of our blog and his behaviour, besides Charlie kicked me off and told me to go and spew my 'poppycock" elsewhere, so he's actually sanctioned it - we have an agreement I'll stay off his site and I can say what I want on other sites. To date, I have been rather restrained.

Fred Keyes said...

I wonder if the Tepeyac thing is more of a wolf-whistle kind of claim. I know that Trumpista anti-immigrationists have a special dislike for the immigrants that come across our borders from the south. What better way to dis them than to say, "You think you know the title of the Lady you revere, but I know better. Neener."

Anonymous said...

Fred, I think it's "dog whistle." But I take your point, Charlie often aims at a particular audience. He loves to pretend to have insider status whether it's politics, as in his friends in high places political posturing, or in religion, where his "friends" come from the highest place!

L.Spinelli, that's an interesting observation. Any other particular parallels to other false visionaries?

Fred Keyes said...

:) Right you are. I need to save "wolf whistle" for a pretty girl.. (Just kidding!!)

Fred Keyes said...

I can't help but think that Charlie and his followers feel especially persecuted by all the negative things we've said about him and them. But despite the claims of a lack of charity toward Charlie and his followers here, IMO, the overall spirit here is one of brotherly correction.

It is ironic that any of them or us who feel dissed by Charlie, should ever feel all that persecuted by this insignificant tempest. Especially on a day like today, the feast of St. Paul Miki and Companions. Now if you want to talk about what real persecution is all about, look up that story.

Charles Ryder said...

Mr. Dallaire,

I think it's time to close this thread. If people find Charlie annoying, they should avoid his site.


Anonymous said...

MP: " ...and a Charlie follower which is bearing false witness"

Feb 4, 2017 - Beckita says: "Thank you, MP, for your forthright assessment and wisdom. Praying with you for ALL."

Anonymous said...

MPs quote from TNRS: "Yes, we invite and cultivate charity here, and clearly the critics and detractors get rankled by that when their uncharitable comments don’t get posted."
So you can judge my posts without seeing them?
How judgemental is that?
How do you know the comments are uncharitable if you've never seen them?

L Spinelli said...

@Anon @ 12:35, another red flag is China, Russia or North Korea mentioned in an apparition or locution. So many past false visionaries named these three countries in their messages that red flags went up for me right away. Examples: Bayside, Conyers GA, Our Lady of All Nations, "Words from Jesus", and a few others that I can't think of at the moment. In fact, Charlie's "Be Not Afraid, God Has a Plan", specifically mentioning those three countries, was an early red flag when I first read his blog.

Anonymous said...

MP: seems like Beckie knows you by name and you claim it's slander to say you are a follower of Charlie?

You claim some people here are uncharitable, you've never addressed the uncharitableness of Charlie Johnston? Why? Is Charlie special, does he get some sort of dispensation for being uncharitable? Why?

Why don't you take your own advise: "The Pinnacle of Prophets is Jesus Christ. Those lacking Charity would do well to start there, taking in ALL that the Word gives us, rather than simply cherry picking what suits them at the moment. If one is going to properly discern, how can that possibly succeed when one is lacking in charity. Discern without charity, and you’re simply going to impute your own motives to other children in the Family of God… revealing yourself for what you are: hasty, imprudent, uncharitable, and unjust… to whatever degree."

Anonymous said...

Hi Glenn

Just dropping in to say that I feel privileged to know that Charlie, Becks and Steve regard me as their friend. They are wonderful people and full of courage and wisdom and humility. I utterly fail to recognize them in many of the recent hostile comments here. No doubt that will be seen as lack of discernment on my part.

These three fine Catholics work so hard for The Faith and to help people prepare for what lies ahead according to their perspectives not just by Charlie's angel but by their own studies of saints and scholars and through their ordinary and extra-ordinary experience. Many others on TRNS have offered much stronger and longer support than I have been able to show. I am a relative new comer.

Despite the repeated charge that we are focused on Charlie, we at TNRS are focused on, and ALL IN for Christ, not Charlie. Christ is our only boast. No doubt I will suffer the same fate here as Charlie did and will be happy to do so. It will be included in my morning offering. I know that may sound a bit sanctimonious and even disingenuous to some but I can't put it any other way. At the risk of the same ridicule and rejection my last good wished received on Mystics I wish all here God's blessings and Mary's protection.

Joe Crozier

Joe said...

Joe Crozier, isn't nice to just drop in and make comments without getting banned for daring to challenge others with a differing opinions. Sadly Charlie, Beckita and Steve want to control the dialogue to much to allow the same open discussion. Also, yes you do sound sanctimonious which is par for the course of Charlie's followers, seems real fake to me, real people don't act like that.

Unknown said...

Hi Joe
Nine years ago today my brother George died. I flew home to Scotland to see to him seem before the end. I stayed as long as I could.
When I was young I worked alongside him and another brother in my grandmothers's pub in the rough and dangerous south side of Glasgow. The pub was called "The wall of death" by the locals. Very little sanctimonious talk went on between us the razor gangs when they stepped out of line. Often they had to be separated from the blades and broken bottles they wielded in a fight. The local were hardened dock workers who often stepped in to help us.They were poor and uneducated with large families living in one room in the slums of the Gorbals. Often several families shared one toilet and had to go through another family's room to get to it. You could smell the slums before you saw them.
I on the other hand was brought up in a comfortable middle class home where Dad was a lawyer and Mum had a help to raise us 8 kids. For his services to the Pro Life Community and Catholic education dad was knighted twice by Pope John Paul II. Dad lost out on a professional pension because of his high Catholic profile. So mum suffered too.
There was a more hidden side to Dad's good work that I found out from elsewhere. He knew how much poor families would suffer if the father was convicted and fined. Using his discretion he organized it so they their fines were paid out of his own pocket. I believe it is that sort of discretion that I have inherited in my discernment.
I have to stop now as my lunch break is over. I will get to the point later. To be continued.
Joe Crozier

Anonymous said...

When Charlie said that there would be no election, I didn't listen, when Charlie then said the election might happen but be irrelevant I didn't listen. When Charlie made fun of Trump, I didn't listen. When Charlie praised Trump I didn't listen.
When Charlie said that Russia would be our best friend, I didn't listen.
As we stand today, the USA has threatened China with war over the Spratly islands.
The USA has threatened North Korea.
The USA has threatened Iran over its nuclear ambitions.
The USA has threatened Russia over the Ukraine, the USA have not removed the sanctions against the Russians, the USA has not removed its troops from the border with Russia but has put more in.
Russia, Iran and China have a non-aggression and mutual aid pact with each other.
Unless something changes real fast this does not look good.
I hope Charlie is right about Russia, but I believe he is wrong again.

Anonymous said...

Part of long Post by MP on February 5, 2017 @ 2:15 pm, the person who claims it's slander to say he is a follower of Charlie, the person who even signs off as MP:
"Godspeed in that process. Yep, we’re scattered all over the mountain, but feel free to join me or any other here in that worthy trek. Just be forewarned that I happen to like the long scenic route sometimes to pause and gain strength for the arduous stretches. I try to temper that with grinning and lightheartedness though… so there is that.
God Bless,
MP"

Anonymous said...

continued from 7.18
I am tired after a hard days work but will try to finish before Our Parish Rosary of the Seven Sorrows before the statue of Our Lady of Akita.
In our family Dad was known as Big George and my brother as wee George. Six months before wee George died my dad had died. I also flew back to Scotland from New Zealand to see him for the last time. As with wee George, no one had told me his death was imminent. Dad used the words of St Thomas More awaiting execution in the Tower of London to his daughter to me "Son we will not meet again in this world but we will meet merrily in heaven." As with wee George I waited as long as I could and within a week of my return to NZ he died.
Just before he died his old friend Fr Eustace gave him the last rites. After he had been absolved Dad looked around the room and said "Now I am ready for the road." These last words were reported in the Catholic press so extraordinary was his passing.
Big George had a large and very grand funeral con celebrated mass by many bishops and priests. His body was escorted out of the Church to the Battle Hymn of the Republic. ALL verses were belted out.The hearse was escorted through the street by the fire service. The crowds overflowed into the street.
Wee George had an even larger funeral over 1500 people. Both men had spent their lives helping others, Dad though his legal skills and power of argument. Wee George through sharing his experience strength and hope with thousands of struggling alcoholics and addicts. George was a publican and only 19 when he realized he had a problem. He had three pubs and a hotel by he time he died. He never drank again after his first AA meeting.George too was fortified the last rites. He had no fear.
He honored me by asking me to accompany him on his steps of recovery. Just before he died he said to me "Joe, you gave me my life back." He told me he loved me, that he was heading straight to heaven and would never be far from me. to be continued.
Joe Crozier

Anonymous said...

Glenn or other MotC site administrator:

I suggest that you write an 'after action report' on this debacle and post it to your site as a new article, so people can read a concise summary and warning about Charlie's double failure. Be sure to include terms in the title that will make it appear in searches for Charlie Johnston.

This is not for us that have gone through this unfortunate episode, rather it is for new viewers who are interested in Catholic mystics. If they find your site, they are probably going to find the TNRS site as well. Since TNRS is leaving their site open and keeping Charlie's archive, we owe a warning to those that come after us. TNRS appears prepared to suck in a whole new wave of people searching for answers - especially if things continue to deteriorate in our world.

Also, at nearly 1000 comments, I think this thread has served its usefulness, and should be closed. Let a new one that summarizes this whole episode combined with the great deal of wisdom shared by many different contributors take over the coverage of the next chapterin the TNRS saga. This is a natural break point in the narrative. Please do this soon. I believe we owe a counter to TNRS since they are keeping it alive.

Thank you

Helen I said...

Fred Keyes, February 6-th,'17, 10:47am- Fred, I highly respect you for so candidly sharing about your history and experience with bi-polarity. It takes guts, and a great deal of charity, to open up here, about your own experience. Thank you for doing that. If Charlie reads your account, perhaps he'll be encouraged to know that he's not alone. You were able to get help for your diagnosis, and you courageously stepped out and did so. God can use you, and perhaps others who have struggled with mental illness, but have overcome it, to help others as well. THANK YOU for letting God use you, to make a difference. There are many, many, people all over the world who come to this site, and read. And all of those who come to this site, who suffer from bipolarity, or know someone who they suspect have it, now know that treatment is possible. You have told them your victory story, and if they choose, they too can get help. And so can Charlie, if he so chooses. I am so impressed with your openness to help others. WHAT an unbelievably inspiring sharing. God bless you, Fred. Again, with great respect- Helen

Anonymous said...

Glenn I agree with Anon @ February 7, 2017 at 12:41 AM - this thread I believe has concluded, I like the post-Charlie report thing.

Anonymous said...

The new thread should include an analysis of the 2008 prophesy, is full term 4 years or 8 years?

Anonymous said...

The latest post on Charlie's website is amazing. Not in a good way!! Sure is getting to be a cult there. No way are those people going to give in to reality. Beckita writes:

In recent comments, the topic of all of Charlie’s prophecies continues to be raised. For some, in discernment, there is a belief that the error in the inaugural prophetic piece puts belief in all of his prophecies at risk. Not so fast, please, Fellow Discerners. There is a distinct difference between a failed prophetic element as we experienced at the inauguration and a false prophet which, I firmly believe, Charlie is not. I emphasize that great care must be taken to gather indispensible information and facts into your discernment as you ponder where we are in this Storm.

A primary, stand alone fact is this: but for all our contemplating and conjecturing about why the inaugural prophecy failed, not one of us definitively knows exactly why God allowed this. Not one of us knows. I repeat: “Was it a Jonah moment? Was it a Joan moment? Was it further deception of the satan? Only the Lord knows! “

ONLY God knows, Dear Friends. Only GOD knows. Only God KNOWS. In His Perfection, the Source of Wisdom, has not revealed this to us for His Own Perfect Purpose(s). We are left, in our contemplation, to draw ever closer to Him in prayers and deeds, to wait upon Him and to completely surrender to His Plan.


Anonymous said...

That's why the 2008 interpretation is critical at this time.

Anonymous said...

The latest blog, written by Beckita, on The Next Right Step is entitled: The Rescue has Begun, dated February 7, 2017.

In paragraph six, Beckita has said, "The messages which have been fully approved by the Church, ..." which is absolutely incorrect. I believe the Archbishop's statement said allowed, not approved.

The difference in meaning between these two words is staggering.

Anonymous said...

I pray that everyone here understands that God not only knows every hair on our collective heads, but certainly hears and sees the words we say and type into blogs.

Please take God's Word to Adoration and ask Him what He thinks of how we are living His will: 1 Corinthians, chapter 13

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 3:42 pm

I went back and re-read the paragraphs. On my initial reading I took her to mean Charlie's messages of the final rescue in late 2017. However, it is possible that my conclusion is not correct and your's is. I find it ambiguous, but that could just be me.

Thanks for pointing it out.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, anon. I mean your comment February 7, at 2:23

Mary H said...

Anon. 342, it is very important to remember the damage done by false prophets. Remember the stories above, of people who spent too much, who became very anxious, who were humiliated when the messages they spread to family and friends proved false. Charlie himself said his prediction was wrong and he had proved unreliable.

Don't forget, either, Charlie felt free to denounce people who questioned him, telling them they would face judgment, treating their objections with contempt. Examples of that have already been posted in this thread.

Matthew 24:24 “For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.”

Luke 6:26 “Woe to you, when all people speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.”

First John 4:1 “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”

Jeremiah 23:16 “This is what the LORD Almighty says: “Do not listen to what the prophets are prophesying to you; they fill you with false hopes. They speak visions from their own minds, not from the mouth of the LORD.”

Matthew 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”

Ezekiel 13:9 “My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and who give lying divinations. They shall not be in the council of my people, nor be enrolled in the register of the house of Israel, nor shall they enter the land of Israel. And you shall know that I am the Lord God.”

Anonymous said...

cont from feb 7 12.36 Joe Crozier
On the day of my brothers anniversary two days ago I received a txt from my oldest friend of 60 years+ who was also a good friend of my brother George. It said "One day (just after George had died) about 11a.m. as I was sitting in the kitchen having a coffee I heard wee George starting to laugh!! (George had a very distinctive laugh) I was not amused at all as it was so real and asked him how he had managed to get to heaven so quickly!! He just laughed at me more!!" My friend went into the lounge and it happened again. My friend was a little scared but it never happened again. He was sure George was in heaven. The devil does not laugh. My friend had waited 9 years to tell me this story but at the time he did tell my sister who kept it to herself as far as I can remember.
Around the same time of George's visit to my friend I was at mass in Tauranga when my gaze was drawn up high above the altar. There suspended in the air I saw a large veil with a light behind it. I did not see him but I knew George was behind that veil in heaven. George reminded me of his promise to stay close to me. My tears flowed freely as I said goodbye again and the veil melted away.
Neither my friend nor I are mystics but we both had this mystical experience. My friend had kept his story to himself for fear of ridicule as my Dad did with his story about his experience.
to be continued
Joe Crozier

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

Relax Snowy, Beckita has made her name and address public, everyone knows where she lives, its on all sorts of sites, she has made herself a public figure, I've seen the letter to her Bishop where she signs it and gives he address and phone number too - it's all over the net and she's the one who published it. If she wanted privacy she would have redacted her address, phone number, etc., but she hasn't so its public knowledge.

Now on the other hand, I've seen a rather bad poster on Charlie's site that should not have been allowed to post, but Charlie allowed it and told us that he tracked the person's name, where he generally lived, his age, where he went to school and other information, plus Charlie told us that through his IP address he was able to gleam all this and that he could get more. Charlie revealed a lot of the personal details of the individual - I was shocked as this person was using an avatar to remain anonymous - the next day the post was redacted, even the bad poster, I believe.

Anonymous said...

Snowy Owl,
That information was published on the Mother Of God website over a year ago in an open letter to Archbishop O'Brien from Beckita/Beckie, with permission from Beckita herself. Because she chose to make it public, there shouldn't be an issue with it here, I would think.

Anonymous said...

It's called "Doxing," Snowy, and it is, in fact, legally actionable.

In all cases if you outline the physical location of any individual with intent to harm, shame, stalk, humiliate, endanger, or otherwise compromise the safety and security of ANY individual you have placed that person in a position of risk and you are in violation of ALL State Stalking laws.

Glenn, I suggest you check the applicable laws.

Joe said...

I am really disturbed by the Utter delusion of Charlie's cult followers at this point.

Anonymous said...

Snowy: I'm a long time poster on TNRS, only her name and the town where she lives is on the page, I don't see her complete address, Becks has told everyone where she lives many times and so has Charles, it's no secret, in fact I'm looking at her address as I speak, it's readily available as Becks has not hidden where she lives - Becks has been involved with many Catholic groups throughout the years and is well known in a lot of circles and is not afraid to put her name and address out there for the catholic faithful - give Becks some credit she's not afraid to reveal her identity.
Becks is well known in her diocese, I'm sure the diocese is quite aware of her catholic activities. She is a Catholic in good standing with the Church.
Snowy your time would be better spend in practicing Charles's message - acknowledge God, take the next right step and be a sign of hope to others, picking on Becks' town doesn't advance our message.

Anonymous said...

Doxing is used by everyone to find information on someone. I don't see Beckita's address or phone number on the page. However, Beckita has made herself a public figure by in fact running the TNRS website, supporting other people in their "mystic" quests with letters that she has publicly displayed with her address and phone number for everyone to see, in fact she has not hidden her private information and has thus made it public. Charlie has allowed Beckita to be a "team organizer" and has himself revealed a lot of her identity as has Beckita. Donald Trump is a public figure and everyone knows where he lives. As a public figure you are not afforded the same luxury as someone who wishes to remain private because you are in the spotlight and Beckita is in the spotlight.

Glenn Dallaire said...


I removed the recent comment above containing Beckita's info because I agree that it is not appropriate to post it here.

Glenn Dallaire

Anonymous said...

Glenn by your act of removal of the address for the diocese that was mentioned in relation to Beckita, you would have to remove all posts for a one Joe Crozier unfortunately because he too needs privacy now because all his information is readily available on the TNRS site. Everyone knows who Joe Crozier is and where he lives.
All the people who post on here are either anonymous or have a name that is not linked to an identifiable individual. Joe Crozier is the only one that I know of that can be linked to any identifiable person, his posts should be removed too because they contain information that would also contribute to the exact reason why you removed the posts related to the Diocese. There is too much personal information gleamed from Joe Crozier's posts - you can not go public like that if you are worrying about protecting Beckita's privacy without protecting Joe Crozier's.

L Spinelli said...

Glenn, I understand your decision to remove the post. That information was already publicly available for quite some time and was certainly not posted to "doxx" Beckita. It was to show that she was heavily involved with other eventually discredited seers.

Glenn Dallaire said...


As for the possibility of creating a new article as a "follow up" to this one as has been suggested by a couple of recent commenters here , well, given the recent double failure of the "Presidential prophecy", I am more than a little reluctant to post anything new on this particular subject, as this present article is actually the third article concerning Charlie on this website. And having thus presumably lost much of his credibility at this point, and seeing that Charlie himself has retired into the obscurity of private life, it seems to me there really is no significant developments at this point which can't simply be discussed in this comment section here for those interested in doing so.

At the same time I have also noted in recent comments above how a couple of people have suggested that this particular comment thread be closed, since its been several weeks since the double failure of the "Presidential prophecy". The thing is, I don't normally ever close comments on any articles here---in fact, the only article I have ever closed comments on is the one concerning "Locutions to the World". In that case, the owners of that website had actually shutdown their website within hours of the prophecy fail concerning the Pope in America. And those who read the comments on that article will see how there was a need to close the comments in that case. Along similar lines for example, one can see that as for the article on "Maria Divine Mercy", I have actually left the comment section open to this day (again, just as a similar example). In short, I don't normally close comments on articles, and have only done so in one case.

And so, in the present case here concerning Charlie, since we see that his "Next Right Step" blog is still very much up and running, I personally see no reason to close comments here, since comments here are not moderated and everyone is free to comment openly regardless of their position.

So those who feel inclined to comment can certainly continue do so if they wish. As always, I only ask that everyone please be considerate and charitable in their comments.

And may God bless all who visit here.
-Glenn Dallaire

Glenn Dallaire said...


My apologies to a couple of folks who commented just recently---there were 2 comments from earlier this evening that I just released from the automatic "spam filter". -Glenn

«Oldest ‹Older   801 – 1000 of 3140   Newer› Newest»

ShareThis