Father Michel Rodrigue Facebook Post about the Warning.

And the Warning comes within the year, not in the same year as the miracle.

 

Tom, Is it Fr Michel's timeline that is at odds with scripture or is it Mark Mallett's end times' timeline that is at odds with scripture or are they one in the same?

I really have not read enough of what Father Michel has stated to be sure about this but I am wondering if you would know the answer off hand and if you could elaborate on what you are referring to because I agree that the end times' timeline that Mark Mallett has presented does not appear to coincide with what most scholars of theology and doctors of the Church have stated about the order of the end times' events.

Byron, I hope that you mean that Mari Loli stated, in so many words, that the Warning is not necessarily in the same year as the Miracle. Mari Loli stated that the Warning is within 12 months of the Miracle. So the Warning might be the year before or the same year as the Miracle.

 

Carol, I take it you mean the timeline posted on the countdown site ... it's portrayed as a picture, easy to grasp. But I took the trouble of reading all the transcripts of Fr. Michel's retreat talks, and listened to most of them on youtube. I'm pretty confident in telling you that the picture of the timeline exactly matches Fr. Michel's description.

 

Glad to meet you, Tom! Welcome to the Forum.

O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!

 

Byron, your post sums up entirely what Father Michaels talks say to me.

@Tom Jelinek, when you speak of Fatima as nothing more than a thing of the past, you have lost my interest in everything else you surmised. No disrespect to you, on the contrary I believe you need to look into Fatima far more deeply than you already have. I don't think you understand Fatima.

 

I know Glen thinks when pressed she (Loli) states it is within the same year as the warning. But I do not see that in the interviews. If she once stated they are within the same year I would like to see that video. Certainly the video Byron posted supports within one year (12 months) of the warning comes the miricle. She is somewhat pressed in that video. If that is what Glen refers to, I do not see it supporting his opinion that she said in no uncertain terms they come in the same calender year.

 

Thank you Tom. I have not done that yet and I'm not sure that I will. I really do appreciate your input.

The big problem that I see with that "timeline" is that it does appear that Mark Mallett (and Father Michel) has the antichrist's destruction is in the wrong place and if a big part of the world becomes confused about who the final Antichrist (the beast from Revelation which we refer to as the AC) is it could make it a bit easier for the actual AC to fool the world into believing that he is Jesus in the Second Coming or for those who don't believe that Christ has come already it is quite possible that they could mistake the AC for their messiah.

I am referring to the latter part of Mallett's timeline here:



I am not a theologian but I have listened to those who are and their interpretation of the time of the Second Coming is the time when Jesus destroys the final AC (the beast from Mallett's timeline) and that this occurs at the end of the AC's tyrannical reign which lasts 1290 days and then the proceeding 45 days would consist of the time of the last judgement and then God's kingdom will have come, a new heaven and a new earth and peace for all eternity for those who have not taken the mark of the beast. I may not be phrasing this all properly but that is my layman's way of explaining it. +

nsd, I believe that there may be another interview of Mari Loli in which she states that the Warning may be either 3 months or 3 weeks before the Miracle but she was a little uncertain about this, if I remember correctly.

 

I love Glenn, but there is nothing wrong about him making mistakes. It’s a difficult job to do what he does. I have great respect for him. But I’ve been involved in Garabandal since I was 9 years old. I am no expert, but I know what I’ve read and watched.

 

Julia thank you so much. It’s not that I feel 100% sure of Fr Michel, but why not owe him the respect he deserves. I mean he may very well be a prophet. We should be happy about this. It tells us this in Rev 1:3. And if he ends up not being correct, well then, we move on. I’m just so surprised by the vitriol. So sad.

 

I respect him a great deal as well.

Truthfully it doesn't matter to me.

There could be an error in how the see-er remembers. There could be an error in translation. And there could be an error in how we hear the see-er. Even with no error, God is free to change prophecied events...and our prayers help to do so.

The important thing is to convert and always be ready.

 

I believe I have seen and read all of the Garabandal interviews over the last 25 years. I have not read that one. If you have a link I am allways eager to be proven incorect.

 

nsd, I believe that others have stated this. I have not been able to find this interview either, to my recollection.

 

I think you are exactly right and so is Byron.

 

Let's just say the Bishop believes that there will be an era of peace in the future; he just does not believe in the locutions/visions of Fr. Michel to be of divine origin.

 

Well, how do you know the Bishop believes in the era of peace given by Fatima, and St Faustina? Did he tell you? Is there a letter telling us he does? Cause Fr Michel has a letter saying he doesn’t.

 

Yes Fr. Michel has a letter that says the Bishop does not believe in Fr. Michel's locutions/revelations and that includes Fr. Michel's own revelation of Era of Peace but the Bishop did not say that he does not believe in Fatima's prophecies. He just questions Fr. Michel's revelations as of human origin only

 

It's not clear to me what you mean by looking into Fatima. I've been looking into it for thirty years, easily. I've seen Lucia declare that JPII's final consecration was valid, but late. I've seen the Cold War come to an end, and the extremely evil Soviet Union dissolve. I've seen an initially materialistic/hedonistic independent Russia embrace its Christian roots openly and unashamedly, to where today, birth rates are way up, and abortion rates way down. This all came with a period of 30 years where we had relative peace, on a worldwide scale. Yes, there were wars, massacres, and other awful events, but not on a worldwide scale, like WWI and II, and the threat of global nuclear annihilation posed by the Cold War, and her messages started in the context of the unparalleled violence of WWI and II. I can't dismiss this as nothing; can't ignore the obvious fact that Russia was converted, and that we have enjoyed a relative period of peace, fulfilling her promise, even though the consecration wasn't ideal, and was late. Beyond that, what can I say? I don't have an authorized copy of the narrative component of the third secret, but I believe it to be similar to Akita, as confirmed by Cardinal Ratziner. Neither spoke of the Warning, the Miracle, nor even Jesus' second coming. I don't consider any of Our Lady's messages as nothing more than a thing of the past. That's not an accurate representation of my intent, and if it came across that way it was in error. More like, her message at Akita is an update on what she said at Fatima, and the chastisement, also hinted at in Fatima, may be upon us.

 

Yes, Carol, that's it, and you too see the problem with it. Fr. Michel puts three generations between the destruction of the antichrist by three days of darkness, with Jesus doing the work, and Jesus' second coming. It's just a mess trying to match it to scripture. The other thing I had a problem with is using the sixth seal in Rev 6 as a description of the Warning. Scripture speaks of the wrath of the Lamb, but we're told clearly the Warning is supposed to be His mercy, in advance of His wrath. It doesn't match, and poses more timeline problems.
It's not that there's nothing in scripture that could be consistent with a Warning. Rev 1:7 has some of what could constitute a Warning. But there are other ways to interpret it.

 

Tom, You are obviously interested in the alleged messages of Our Lady or you probably wouldn't be here and you do appear to know a lot about them.

You also stated the following about scripture, "fuzzy language from 2,000 years ago" which I agree and others here will say that the Church has said very little about the end times and I believe this to be true also.

Like I said, I am not a theologian and I feel that I know very little about something that is very complex but I still believe what many others have stated that are far more learned than I am about the last 1335 days.

The main thing that got my attention in regard to Father Michel was when he stated that the Antichrist is alive today and that he is in the hierarchy of the Church. I simply think that this is very dangerous. Some people on MOG thought that he was not speaking of the final Antichrist but if you are correct and his statements match up with Mark Mallett's timeline then I believe that this is wrong. In addition, I decided that I did not really want to look into this priest any further because awhile ago after listening to a Sensus Fidelum priest speak of the end times he stated that we should not try and figure out who the Antichrist is. This advice made a big impression on me and I sort of had my own mini-revelation.

I mainly want to focus on prayer now. I do still struggle to stay focused when I am praying the Rosary but I am truly thankful for Our Lady and the messages that she has given us which mainly remind us to repent and pray the Rosary and try to be the best Catholics that we possibly can be. +

I agree that there can be other ways to interpret it.