Quite frankly, I have little wherewithal to respond to CTTK in any great length. I shall, then, keep my post here short.
CTTK’s post is in reply to Dr. Mark Miravalle’s own reproduction of the news over at Mother of All Peoples web site. Notice how CTTK is not actually responding to the Bishop of Amos. It’s responding to Miravalle. This fact is most curious because Miravalle is entirely incidental to the development in Rodrigue’s case with the Bishop’s letter. The letter itself should be CTTK’s focus.
I cannot help but wonder if CTTK is targeting my old college professor? If so, why?
Next, CTTK argues Miravalle (by this point, a straw man?) over the word “disallowance:”
Within the space of this short headline, two errors are being promoted:1) that Fr. Michel’s messages have been “disallowed,”  and 2) That this “disallowance” (which appears nowhere within the body of the letter itself) comes from Fr. Michel’s Bishop.
In the footnote, CTTK says the following:
Despite the Open Letter’s own subject line, the content of the letter itself contains no actual disallowance — i.e. no condemnation — of Fr. Michel’s messages.
In other words, CTTK’s position is this: there is no specific formula of condemnation (“disallowance”) of Fr. Rodrigue’s messages in the Bishop’s letter. Therefore, we can continue as before with Fr. Rodrigue.
Concerning the claim that a “disavowal” is not in the body of the letter, let’s take a closer look at the letter.
The Bishop of Amos does use the word “disavowal” in the body of the text. It is found in the body of the Bishop’s French text (page 2, third paragraph from the bottom). The French word is “désaveu,” denial, rejection, disavowal:
The word was translated differently in the English translation of the letter (“disallowance”/”disavowal”). Here in this paragraph, the Bishop is indicating that there has already been a disavowing in the letter. The question, then, is where can it be found?
Notice that the paragraph with this phrase “To this disavowal…etc.” followed a citation to a previously unpublished letter to Fr. Rodrigue from the Bishop dated to April 21, 2020. In this new letter, the Bishop of Amos unequivocally stated, “I want to make it clear that I absolutely disagree with the prophecies [from] you on the aforementioned site….”
That certainly sounds like a disavowing to me, even if not in forma specifica.
One can therefore safely conclude that, by the present letter of September 3, 2020, the Bishop of Amos:
- disagrees with Rodrigue’s alleged prophecies;
- is now making public the fact of his “absolute” (absolument) disagreement;
- is disassociating himself and his Diocese from the alleged messages and prophecies of Fr. Rodrigue;
- Fr. Rodrigue now has little to do with the Diocese of Amos.
The “disavowal” was given voice in the paragraph cited from the letter of April 21. It was not in forma specifica and it is upon this fact that CTTK wishes to “hang its hat.” Such a claim, however, is beyond sophistry, it’s ludicrous.
If memory serves, during its promotion of Fr. Rodrigue, CTTK played-up the association of Fr. Rodrigue with the Diocese of Amos. Now CTTK wishes to downplay the same Diocese when it makes negative statements about Fr. Rodrigue. Curious.
Correction (9-9-20): O’Connor may not have written the CTTK post. I have updated my post accordingly and revised a few finer points.