Charlie Johnston.

Charlie is not unique in his analysis of what's wrong in the country. Far from it. You've seen what's coming for the past 20 years, right? Charlie's not even unique in his predictions about the 2016 elections. I posted some Protestant prophecies about that earlier; I know a very holy woman who has made the same prediction of problems with the end of Obama's term back in 2010. So even if this comes to pass, you can't give Charlie credit for having heaven-sent information.

You say Charlie doesn't care if anyone believes or not. Nonsense. He shows up at website after website to defend what he sees as challenges to his integrity. He makes snide remarks about his critics: look up his two posts on the National Catholic Register story, back at the end of April/beginning of May. How many mystics brag about winning lawsuits? Not too long ago he posted on his website that his people who criticized his behavior at talks only chose those talks that weren't videotaped. Not true. I went to a talk where he was sharp with people who asked about The Storm and who asked about something he'd answered earlier. It wasn't taped, but there were things to criticize. (I bet he's better behaved at the sessions that are taped, but maybe I'm just a cynic.)

 

Your Reply tells me that you are a cynic AND that you have some, unknown to the rest of us here, "beef" with Charlie about .... ????... why can't YOU just take it or leave it??? ... or explain WHAT your "beef" really is?? ... Eh!!??

GOD SAVE ALL HERE!!

 

Chalie is using his newspaper skills.

 

Harper,
It doesn't sound kind to criticise Charlie on the basis that Charlie has said something your Holy Woman has said. It's great that you think your Holy Woman is Holy and I'm sure she is, but by inference, you are saying Charlie is not.

And by your rules, which you don't explain, none of us can give Charlie credit for his work, because some Protestants said a similar thing.

Afterthewarning.com has hundreds of messages for you to check out if you have the time. Many say the same thing. Some are Protestant.

You might say Charlie's writings aren't for you and give a sound reason, but your comments sound unkind. I maybe wrong? It is hard to get your tone right here.

 

I am sitting on the fence myself with respect to Charlie's prophecies. For my own part, I am placing my trust in Christ and not in any private prophecies, even where Church-approved. But this is not to dismiss them all out of hand. Therefore I continue to keep an eye on Charlie, because he may well be on the money and we are going to know that is so very soon. That the crunch is approaching very rapidly regarding the truth of his prophecies is naturally going to ratchet up the tension and it is surely acceptable and understandable that Charlie himself is likely to become more tetchy and defensive as this time nears. If he is wrong, he may merely have succumbed to wishful thinking and that is something, in the light of the appalling reality in the world at present, that it would be hard to condemn him for. Another reason I remain reading his articles is that, whether his prophecies are true or false, I find him very orthodox and good and containing much sound spiritual and practical advice. That he might reveal some human weaknesses makes him seem more genuine to me. That opinion, if he continues to hold the same orthodox views, is not going to change if it turns out that his prophecies don't materialise.

 

I'm sitting on the fence too but my feet are definitely dangling over Charlie's side of the fence. Yes, he is quite fond of tooting his own trumpet which has given me pause at times but I'm beginning to realise he reminds me a bit of my Dad in that way, and despite that aspect of his personality my Dad was one of the most honest people I ever met. Even if Charlie's prophesy doesn't pan out the way he's told it, he has given some fairly sound spiritual and temporal advice and I can't think of anything he's said that might lead people far astray. The greatest danger, for me, is that if things don't pan out the way he has said a lot of people could lose hope. But if our focus is on God and our personal relationship with him through prayer and the sacraments, and keeping his commandments and the precepts of his Church, then it shouldn't matter much to us if Charlie's prophesy fails. Look to the saints and how they lived, they show us the way. I think Charlie has said as much himself - be a sign of hope to others, that's a hallmark of the Christian.

Having said that, on those points where Charlie differs from Mark Mallett, I think I am more inclined to agree with Mark. Maybe it's the sceptic in me but I don't think the era of peace is quite as close as Charlie makes out. On this point I hope I am wrong.

 

Yes, I view Charlie similar to this post. He comes across to me as a 'spiritually wise' person rather than a 'prophet' though. In fact I don't really know what specific prophecies he has made apart from suggesting that the US elections might not complete normally. I think we can all learn a few things from reading Charlie and Mark.

 

I don't wish the following as a criticism of Charlie and hope that I am completely wrong. All of us here surely wish to see a mass-conversion, with the downfall of mass iniquity. My worry is that it might be too easy. Could there be an element of the Resurrection without The cross about such an event? Might it not be that mankind in general, and (genuine) Christians in particular, must suffer a much longer, more violent period of persecution before things are resolved?

 

If I disagree, I must have a personal "beef"? Can't I just call out an internet prophet for suspicious behavior? Charlie's behavior and writings are at odds with his attempt to portray himself as a valiant servant of God. He is focused on Charlie, rather than Jesus. He seems intensely interested in earthly success. He keeps score. Noting this is part of discernment.

Charlie was a wild-eyed prophet not so long ago, stirring up his followers by outlining how they could prepare to avoid being taken to FEMA camps by government agents -- down to the brand of shoes he recommended for those on the run.

He also selects targets and calls his readers to action. First was a little boy in a Texas hospital (write the hospital, demand action!) Then the filmmaker who did the undercover Planned Parenthood, who Charlie urged readers to support. These are fine causes, but organizing responses can be seen as flexing muscle. To my cynic’s mind he’s gathering a little group and teaching them to act. Now Charlie is telling his followers he is following orders from heaven. God has told him to develop a plan to set up a new government for the United States. Charlie tells us he is keenly aware that he may be facing death if he proceeds, but he's ready!

Does this sound like a Catholic mystic--or a budding cult leader?

I began this post in the "Discerning Apparitions" thread. If you go there and listen to Fr. Ripperger, you learn that an examination of the person who is claiming apparitions is at the heart of that process. What kind of person is this? What evidence do we have? There's the evidence of Charlie's writings, which show a person quick to lash out at critics. There's the evidence of his behavior: does he live an upright and moral life? I am well aware many saints were sinners before their conversion. But encountering the ever-living God, the Blessed Mother, the angels, changes a person profoundly.

Metanoia: Saul on the road to Tarsus. Gloria Polo after her near-death experience. St. Thomas Aquinas, who after a mystical encounter wrote, "The end of my labors has come. All that I have written appears to be as so much straw after the things that have been revealed to me."

Compare that with a recent Charlie post: “The problem is in the last few decades, a lot of people have decided they can open a discussion with a public figure by going at them with a pole axe and demanding a servile answer. That never cut any ice with me, when I was in politics, writing for political and cultural journals, or now. If someone comes snarling at me, kicks me in the crotch, and calls it a “question,” I will gladly kick right back and call it an “answer.” Every time. I am not about to change that.”

A kick in the crotch? I must have missed that in the Beatitudes.

Somewhere on the forum, Charlie commented that he’d been an aggressive dater of the full-service variety or words to that effect. He wrote that about a period after his conversion and after decades of alleged angelic visitation. I always thought sin was Kryptonite to angels. Charlie’s story of his angel calling an evil future leader “Menses” immediately struck me as off. Do angels who stand in the presence of God call humans – made in the image and likeness of God – a name that is a derogatory allusion to menstruation? Really?

Would you be surprised to learn Charlie's favorite TV show is "The Mentalist?" I wasn't.

There may be more to discuss, but this is a partial answer to your question.

 

Yes Harper, you come across as a cynic. But as long as you not a meaney with it, you are ok in my book. LOL

I find Charlie's writing very interesting. Preparing us spiritually and physically for hard times should they come our way. His articles are full of practical simple ways to endure hardship if our governments fail economically or legitimately. I believe when Charlie tells us what he believes he needs to, he has done his job. He is not asked to convince us, just inform us. I think he does a good job on that score, and time will tell if God is his source.

I believe Charlie is focused on the practical; up to 'the eye of the Storm.' This would indicate to me there will be a reprieve, followed by more Storm.

I wonder if the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary will be the much longed for moment of reprieve in the eye of the Storm, when we can rejoice for a given time; followed by the remainder of the Storm when Mark Mallet's writings will become much more essential for us to endure the remainder of the Storm.

I think of Poland and the time the Iron Curtain fell back in the late 1980's. Communism fell, but there were some very harsh times that followed while the people adjusted to the new reality. In fact I think those people are still adjusting. It could be the same for the rest of us. And once Our Lady lifts the burden of atheistic materialism or whatever the Triumph of Immaculate Heart brings, it could be very much up to us how soon we come to enjoy the blessings God sends through His blessed Mother. Of course I would love to believe God will make everything ok, and I don't have to lift a finger to help.

I do not expect God to send the solutions signed, sealed and delivered without a good degree of co operation from us here on earth.

Just a thought.

 

I don't see what Harper said as overly critical at all. Some of you act like you are offended that she is questioning Charlie. She points out some legitimate concerns.

 

All valid points, but not conclusive. Regarding being put in camps by government agents, I thought his advice was practical and excellent. Nor do I consider such an eventuality wild or far-fetched at all. Are there not attempts by the Obama administration to disarm the American populace and bring policing under increasing federal control and even reports of international bodies being adopted to enforce 'order'? And helping a little sick boy and supporting David Daleiden-you're dead right, Charlie must be a right cad!

Your main charges are that Charlie admits to being a sinner-at least he hasn't covered it up or made excuses-and that his main problems are not being St. Paul or St. Thomas Aquinas and watching a particular television programme (I have a vague idea of it and remember it as cheap dross, but I wouldn't have been concentrating). If I recall correctly, to give just one example, God didn't give up on King David although he was no saint for much of his life.

I take what you say on board, but, for me, the jury is still out.

 

Thank you, Harper for bringing up your concerns. Whether people accept them or not, you are very good to include them in the discussion and take grief from the adherents. People who claim to have visions and then are later determined to be bearing false witness do harm the faithful. In my twenties, I followed along with prayer meetings and 'messages' of the 'visionary' Teresa Lopez, (also operating out of the Archdiocese of Denver, Colorado). She ultimately divided a whole parish of people and more by her contrived and copied messages from other mystics hundreds of years ago. It took real sleuthing and prayers for one holy Indian priest to show that her messages were copied. Archbishop Stafford shut down the whole operation. It hurt, but the clergy acted perfectly in shepherding us confused people away from the wolf. Charlie is too worldly and too political to be a real mystic.

 

How sad to read all these negative remarks. Pray and discern and God will answer you as to whether any prophet is true or not. Remember that: "The Lord God doth nothing without revealing His secret to His servants the prophets.". Amos 3:7
Pray and discern. We would do well to heed all messages that are not against the true faith.

 

Jax,

The woman I'm referring to is an Auschwitz survivor. As a child she knew St. John Paul II. She was a friend of Mother Angelica, and had an early show on EWTN. She gives retreats but does not have a website or allow her insights to be posted on the internet, which is why I do not mention her name. She is not particularly interested in garnering publicity or a following. She is a spiritual director of priests. She has the full backing of her bishop to give retreats.
(Vs. Charlie's archdiocese issued a ruling forbidding him to speak at Catholic venues. The Denver archbishop strongly advised the faith to exercise prudence and caution in regards to his alleged divine visions and messages.)

Charlie claims credit in his recent blog post for the startling accuracy of his predictions of political and social strife. I pointed out many others had predicted the same or very similar things. That means Charlie doesn't have unique insights in this regard. If he sees things many other people see too, should he be quick to claim credit for himself? It undercuts the notion that heaven necessarily supplied his insights, doesn't it?

Am I a cynic? You bet. I do not believe every person who claims to be a prophet is one! Am I unkind? Not as unkind as Charlie, I would say.

 

If Charlie's mission is from God then it will last. If not it will fade away.

You seem to have a personal vendetta against the man & you worry too much about him.

As I say it it is not of God it will fade away.

As we say in Ireland you need to take a 'chill pill'.

 

Attacking a messenger keeps you from having to address an argument. As we say in America.

 

Harper,
There are many, many messengers out there which is why I mentioned afterthewarning.com as a place to go to.

Time is too short to argue who is more right than some one else.

Let's hope some of us are thinking about what should happen after the Storm because I don't think we have any idea really about what is coming.

We will need people to step forward.

 

I stopped reading Charlie's blog after he made several heavy handed "Woe to you...." statements.

"Woe to you who don't believe that Russia was adequately consecrated."

"Woe to you who don't believe in the use of GM golden rice." (something like that).

There were other similar statements that I can't specifically recall.

These statements are of course his opinion, but he made it sound like we would suffer in hell (and, no, he didn't actually say that, but it is implied with the "woe to you" statement) if we didn't believe.

There were other things that he said and did that factored into my decision to stop reading his stuff. The above comments were just the tipping point for me.

 

Using that defense is ironic in light of your posting multiple, uncorroborated personal attacks upon another individual. You assert you are less 'unkind' than Charlie. I have followed the latter's writings for quite a while and unkindness is something of which I never felt the need to accuse him. Not remotely. Whatever, the truth of his insights, I don't sense deliberate deception in the man.

The lady you describe has obviously won the approval of her bishop, and her credentials sound impeccable. However, the restrictions placed on Charlie by his own bishop are quite standard and perfectly correct. It would be foolish and imprudent of any pastor to grant immediate approval of an individual such as Charlie Johnson and such approval often takes many years, even decades, if it is granted at all. It is not a judgement passed on him. This is what he explains himself, and rather than excusing himself, he is telling it as it is.