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 followed a citation to a previously unpublished letter to Fr.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.

He Who Defines the Terms Wins the Debate: A Response to John Gehring

On September 2, Commonweal published an article by Gehring entitled Who’s a ‘Fake’ Catholic?[1] The article itself discusses the “faith” of the Democrat Presidential nominee, Joseph R. Biden. Gehring’s central point is that recent (and, by extension, not so recent) questions surrounding the “faith” of Joe Biden are not “fair.” The tagline for the article is explicit: “It’s fair to challenge Biden on his positions, but not to question his faith.”

While reading the article, I noticed a glaring omission: there is no definition of the word “faith.” An old adage states that “he who defines the terms wins the debate.” Thus, for Gehring to omit the definition of “faith” is a glaring oversight as it is a necessary component to the discussion.

Continue reading

Christine Watkins Imprimatur

Hello Everyone!

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.


  1. Does Christine Watkins live in the Philippines?
  2. Is her book published in the Philippines?
  3. Has the Holy See designated Archbishop Argüellas to grant the Imprimatur on its behalf?
  4. 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.


Click here for a direct link to Malmquist’s image.

Response to Archbishop Viganò: Life Site News Interview

Hello Everyone!

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.


Continue reading

Response to Archbishop Viganò: Dies Irae Interview

Hello Everyone!

Back in April, Archbishop Viganò gave an interview with the Portuguese internet publication Dies Irae. During the interview, several statements were made about Fátima and the third part of the secret that were incorrect or at least questionable.

I have composed a formal essay that is due to be published later this summer. Upon this essay, I then composed a video that presents in visual terms why +Viganò’s interview with Dies Irae was questionable.

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. A transcript will be provided after the publication of the essay. The video was made differently than the essay. This was done in accordance with what is more suitable for a video vs. a written theological composition. Be sure to check out my other video on Viganò’s interview with Life Site News.