Jimmy Akin has done a very good podcast on Fr. Michel Rodrigue. I would like to recommend people listen to it:
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
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.
The other day, Christine Watkins’ book The Warning came up in the recent kerfuffle over Fr. Michel Rodrigue. It was said that this book was given the Imprimatur. There are some people who are checking out the facts.
One such person, a Becky Malmquist, posted on Facebook a picture of the legal page from The Warning. It seems as though the Warning was granted the Imprimatur by the retired Archbishop of Lipa, Ramón C. Argüellas, STL.
Catholic Canon Law states (canon 824 §1) that there are two authorities in the Church who can grant the Imprimatur:
- The local Ordinary of the author;
- The local Ordinary of the publisher/where the books are to be published.
Of course, the Holy See may also grant the Imprimatur in virtue of its universal jurisdiction.
- Does Christine Watkins live in the Philippines?
- Is her book published in the Philippines?
- Has the Holy See designated Archbishop Argüellas to grant the Imprimatur on its behalf?
- Does a retired Archbishop enjoy the legal authority to grant an Imprimatur?
Also, there is no mention of who served as Censor Librorum for the Archbishop (cf. canon 830 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law).
- Who was the Censor for Archbishop Argüellas?
Thank you, Becky Malmquist, for bringing this fact to the public’s attention. Let us hope there is a reasonable explanation.
In early June, Archbishop Viganò gave an interview with the publication Life Site News. During the interview, the topic of the alleged private revelations in Civitavecchia, Italy were discussed in relation to Fátima and the third part of the secret.
I am not an expert on Civitavecchia and leave the details of this case to competent scholars. For my part, however, I have some critical questions about the presentation of Fátima in relation to the claims of Civitavecchia.
I make this video available to the public after attempts to contact Archbishop Viganò privately did not bear fruit. I wish to reiterate what I said a few weeks ago to Paul and Kris over at The Angry Catholic (38:10 – 41:20): I do not write with an animus towards the Archbishop. I write out of concern for him.
Below is the video, followed by a transcript. Be sure to check out my other video on Viganò’s interview with Dies Irae.