The Miraculous Medal: Examining an Objection

For the past several years, a rumor has circulated on the Internet about “false” versions of the Miraculous Medal going around. Supposedly, the Freemasons have struck their own version of the medal. This claim has upset a lot of people who are concerned about having authentic medals.

St. Paul Street Evangelization (SPSE) of Warren, Michigan has received numerous inquiries about the claim of “false” miraculous medals. As sellers of the Miraculous Medal, this matter was concerning to the organization. I was asked if I would perform an objective examination of the facts on behalf of the organization. I have done so and present my findings below. Click here for the document in PDF format.

-Kevin J. Symonds
September 14, 2020 A.D.
In Festo Exaltationis S. Crucis

Continue reading

A Reply to Mark Mallett’s Myopic Response

A friend was kind to send to me a recent post entitled “The Greatest Sign of the Times” from Mark Mallett’s personal web site. In this response, Mallett makes a tongue-in-cheek remark about the recent criticism of Fr. Michel Rodrigue:

When I returned to my desk this week, I was faced with numerous controversies and attacks on this ministry and Countdown to the Kingdom and the seers there. It seems, in part, that some bishops and laity feel that any prophecies that speak of purification, chastisement or divine correction are false, simply because they are fearful. If so, then we ought to disavow Jesus Christ for the “doom and gloom” of Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, the Book of Revelation, and so on.

He then goes on to lament a lack of catechesis about prophecy.

While I agree with some of Mallett’s observations about the nature of prophecy (I wrote Refractions of Light for similar reasons), Mallett’s above remark (and indeed his entire post) has a notable omission.

Mallett’s post focuses upon the “prophetic” aspect of Rodrigue’s (et al.) claims. He chalks up all the problems to how such things “frighten the hierarchy.”

The problem, though, is that Bishops Lemay and Bourgon’s respective letters specified as problematic more than just the “prophetic” element in Rodrigue’s alleged messages.

Bishops Lemay and Bourgon have directly stated that Rodrigue has never enjoyed the faculty of exorcist in their territories. The Bishops did not flatly state that Rodrigue has lied or misrepresented himself. Their statements, however, raise red flags in this regard.

Mallett omits this fact.

Let me ask the million-dollar question:
If someone claims to have mystical experiences as Rodrigue claims for himself and yet has publicly lied or misrepresented himself, then why should anyone take seriously his alleged prophecies?

The character of an alleged visionary or mystic precedes any discussion of the content of his or her alleged revelations. Two Bishops have indirectly challenged Rodrigue’s (and his promoters’) assertion to be/have been an exorcist. The burden of proof is now upon Rodrigue to defend his claim. If he does not defend it with irrefutable evidence, then his character is in serious question AND casts a notable shadow upon his alleged prophecies.

All of the above lends itself to another and very much related question:
What examination into Fr. Rodrigue’s background did Christine Watkins do before publishing her book that promoted Fr. Rodrigue in the first place?

Mallett’s omission leads one to the conclusion that his post is a bit myopic, to say nothing of being unfair to Bishops Lemay and Bourgon.

A Short Reply to Countdown to the Kingdom

Countdown to the Kingdom (CTTK) has responded to the news concerning the Bishop of Amos, Québec’s recent letter on Fr. Michel Rodrigue.

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,” [1] 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:

  1. disagrees with Rodrigue’s alleged prophecies;
  2. is now making public the fact of his “absolute” (absolument) disagreement;
  3. is disassociating himself and his Diocese from the alleged messages and prophecies of Fr. Rodrigue;
  4. 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.

-Kevin Symonds

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.