Jimmy Akin has done a very good podcast on Fr. Michel Rodrigue. I would like to recommend people listen to it:
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 followed a citation to a previously unpublished letter to Fr.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.
I have received via E-mail a message of Bishop Gilles Lemay of Amos, Quebec on Fr. Michel Rodrigue. I produce it below. Other web sites have the same letter, but I can confirm that the copy I received came from the Diocese of Amos, Quebec through an intermediary. It appears to be a “form letter” on the matter.
Peace be with you :
I thank you for your e-mail requesting some information about the teaching and the standing of Father Michel Rodrigue, a priest incardinated in the diocese of Hearst-Moosonee, Ontario, and working in this diocese of Amos, Québec, for a few years. He is the founder of the Fraternité Saint-Benoît-Joseph-Labre, a lay association of the faithful which is not a religious institute.
As you probably did too, I read on the Countdown to the Kingdom website related to Fr Michel and also in the book of Christine Watkins, The Warning. Testimonies and Prophecies the Illumination of Conscience (Note 84, p. 278 and p. 280), that : “ Michel Rodrigue receives the full support of his bishop, and all of his locutions and visions are submitted to his local ordinary for approval. “ This quotation was removed these days from the website after a request I sent to Fr Michel. No mention is made of the reason for the removal, that is to say: because it was untrue. However, the quotation remains in the book mentioned above.
I have to tell you that Fr Michel never submitted to me any of his locutions and visions for discernment or approval. Accordingly, I could not have supported the content of his talks which are not presented in my diocese nor elsewhere in the Province of Québec as far as I now, but mostly in the United States. Moreover, I learnt about his teaching while reading some reports on the website mentioned above. I did not and I do not approve his teaching with regard to his locutions and visions. Consequently, it is untrue that he “receives the full support of his bishop” as it is written in the Countdown to the Kingdom website and in the quoted book.
I thank you for your request. If you wish any further information, I will be pleased to respond as much as possible.
Truly yours in Christ,
+ Gilles Lemay,
Bishop of Amos, Quebec
Our topic was all things private revelation and how the Church discerns individual cases. We primarily talked about Fátima. Click here to listen!
In the meantime, please, everyone, stay safe, alright? Things are not looking so good out there and we need to take care of ourselves and others.
A few months ago, I came across a talk from Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen on The Demonic Today. The talk struck me very much. A friend transcribed the talk for me and I would like to make it available for you here.