The Presidential prophecy- An update on Charlie Johnston

A triumphant Trump inaugurated amidst some bold predictions
Update Jan 1, 2018: Concerning Mr. Johnston's alleged prophecies and private revelations, from early on this writer often commented that time and events (or lack of events) will clearly reveal whether Charlie's prophecies are authentic, or not.  In other words, time will tell. 

Well, as of today (January 1, 2018) time has clearly revealed that Mr. Johnston's numerous prophecies have ALL been shown to be completely false, most notably his predictions concerning the Presidential election, the great worldwide "Storm" which he foretold would bring global economic collapse and civil strife, toppling governments throughout the globe, war with political Islam resulting with the mass conversion of most Muslims, then a war with China, and generalized  global chaos resulting in 26 million dead, all culminating with the miraculous "Rescue" apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary to all of humanity, all of which was prophesied by Charlie to occur by the end of 2017. 

In conclusion, since Charlie's prophecies have now all been shown to be completely false, he joins the list of recent failed visionaries whose stories have been highlighted on this site, such as "Locutions to the World" and "Maria Divine Mercy", and together they provide a strong cautionary warning for all of us in regards to purported visionaries and mystics of past and present, urging us to be very cautious and prudent in our discernment concerning such persons,  reaffirming the statement and warning of St Paul of the Cross, the founder of the Passionists and great mystic himself, who once stated that 9 out of 10 purported visionaries are false.  Perhaps this estimation from St Paul of the Cross is a bit high, but then again perhaps not.  -Glenn Dallaire
-------------------------------
UPDATE, January 20, 2017: 
With the successful inauguration of President Donald Trump comes the unfulfilled conclusion to both parts of the alleged angelic “Presidential prophecy” of Charlie Johnston, namely that Obama will not finish his term and the next leader will not come from the political system (ie.-not elected), as detailed in the article below. It was a bold two-part prophecy that has now ended in a double fail.

When one claims to be a prophet of God, one’s life and most especially one’s prophecies are automatically held for scrutiny before the court of public opinion. In this court of public opinion, the preponderance of the evidence is what often initially sways one’s opinion, yet there eventually comes to pass certain very important matters for discernment, such as key prophecies, which depending on their eventual turnout, will considerably authenticate, or invalidate, the purported mission and message of such persons.  And when one compares the alleged angelic ‘Presidential prophecy’ against today’s successful inauguration, the conclusions to be drawn are self-evident.  

With the above being said, one would strongly suspect that today’s inauguration, which by all appearances completely invalidates the first formal public prophecy of Charlie Johnston, will likely be one of these aforementioned key matters for discernment that will have a decisive impact in judging his purported prophetic mission and message for a good many people.  For if a prophet is judged by his prophecies as the saying goes, then today’s failure of the purported angelic ‘Presidential prophecy’,  as detailed in the article below,  will for many persons surely bring with it an unfavorable judgment in what concerns the prophetic mission of Charlie Johnston. 

For in his blog post "The Election...and Other Potential Triggers" Charlie writes:
"...If, next January, Barack Obama peacefully hands over the reins of power to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, I will declare myself unreliable and go away. But it will not happen that way, for God has appointed that this be a sign to you to fortify you to trust Him and choose the ordinary way to follow Him through the most frightening year for the globe in history."

And again, concerning today’s inauguration, for his part Charlie has also declared in his post entitled “Election day” on November 7th that:
 “…If, on January 20, Obama peacefully transfers power to either Trump or Clinton, I will declare myself unreliable and retire into silence.”  

With this pledge, one finds that today’s inauguration will bring with it not only the end of Obama’s term, but also the end of Charlie Johnston’s public blogging, speaking engagements, and future predictions, at least for a time, though the loss of credibility from today’s events will likely be permanent. 

And I say "for a time" simply because of Charlie's recent comments on his blog concerning the possibility of today's failure of his "Presidential prophecy", wherein he recently speaks about the possibility of being "recalled" by God into a silent, private period for some sort of remedial prophetic discernment re-training "for a time".

Nevertheless, for those who in good faith spread amongst their family, friends and coworkers Charlie's prediction concerning "Obama not finishing his term/next leader not coming from the political process", and who are now left feeling much like "the boy who cried wolf", one can only presume that any possible future prophetic predictions from Charlie will be given little or no credence, if not outright opposition by many who have followed his work and message, as is perhaps justifiably merited by today's developments. In the end, it is up to Archbishop Aquila of Denver to make any formal judgments concerning Charlie Johnston's private revelations.

As for this writer, I can say that while I have always been reluctant to highlight purported LIVING mystics and visionaries, I am even more so now after these recent events.

May God bless the United States of America, and all of humanity.
-Glenn Dallaire, January 20, 2017


Charlie Johnston during a recent FOCUS TV interview
The final days for the possible fulfillment of a purported Angelic prophecy 

By: Glenn Dallaire

Jan. 7, 2017 -Vigil of the Epiphany
Many readers of this website are familiar with the original article that I wrote back in January 2015 entitled  "Charlie Johnston -An alleged prophet with a critically important message for humanity".  In it I discussed at length Charlie's purported prophetic mission and message, along with a short biography of his life. And for the past two years it has been one of the most popular articles on this website.

Additionally, when the Archdiocese of Denver came out with a Statement in March 2016 concerning Mr. Johnston I published an article here discussing it.

The Presidential prophecy
In the past week, the comments beneath that original article have exploded (there are now currently a total of 770 comments), as has my email inbox, with most everyone commenting specifically on the angelic prophecy allegedly given to Charlie, which I have named "The Presidential prophecy":

"What I was told in the Spring of 2008 was that Barack Obama would win that year's election, that he would not finish his full term, and that the next stable national leader would not come from the political system."

The obvious reason for all of the recent attention to this specific alleged angelic prophecy is the upcoming scheduled Presidential Inauguration scheduled for this January 20th--just 2 weeks away from this writing. For his part, just yesterday Charlie published an article entitled "A Decisive Conundrum" which addresses this matter, in part.

This particular prophecy is the first of a series of alleged angelic prophesies concerning the world that are to occur mostly this year (2017). And since we are delving into this subject of alleged "Angelic" messages given to Charlie, it should be pointed out that the Angel whom has purportedly visited Charlie from childhood is the Archangel Gabriel, as was specifically revealed to Charlie during one of the "visitations". The other predictions that Charlie insists upon are highlighted in his article entitled "Go Forth". In it Charlie reveals eight worldwide events that are said to occur::

"I only have eight public prophecies that I insist on. Only the visible, miraculous Rescue by Our Lady, the Immaculate Conception in late 2017, is time sensitive. Five things must happen between now and the Rescue, but can happen at any time during that period. They are:

– The continued toppling of governments throughout the world, including that of the U.S. The toppling of a government does not mean the nation shall fall.

– The confrontation with and fall of political Islam.

– The mass conversion of most Muslims

– The confrontation between the Judeo-Christian world and the current government of China.

– The alliance between Russia and the U.S. to lead the Judeo-Christian world to endure the confrontation with China.

-Then, after the 5 things above comes the miraculous "Rescue" through the Immaculate Heart of Mary sometime in late 2017.

Then there are two prophecies that happen shortly after the Rescue. They are the unification of the faithful into one flock under one shepherd and the building and location of the Shrine of thanksgiving for the Rescue on Mount Meeker in Colorado.

Together these predicted events constitute for humanity what Charlie calls "The Storm"--a series of events which he states is already well underway. As of today (January 7, 2017), the most obvious observation concerning the prophesies above is that time is really running out for them to all happen before the miraculous Rescue in late 2017. Thus, from an intellectually reasoned perspective, it is probably readily apparent to many that such predictions are already a failure, given the time-frames involved for such things to occur in "real" time. But then, who really knows just yet? For God is not limited by our human constraints and He is always full of surprises.

It should be noted that the "Presidential prophecy" is NOT part of the eight public prophesies that Charlie insists upon. I don't know what bearing that may have, if any, in the upcoming days and weeks.

"God has appointed that this be a sign to you"
In his article "The Election...and Other Potential Triggers" Charlie writes:
"If, next January, Barack Obama peacefully hands over the reins of power to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, I will declare myself unreliable and go away. But it will not happen that way, for God has appointed that this be a sign to you to fortify you to trust Him and choose the ordinary way to follow Him through the most frightening year for the globe in history."

Of course for now the big question at this point is whether or not the purported angelic prophecy concerning Obama not finishing his term/next leader not coming from the election process will come to pass as foretold in the remaining two weeks before the scheduled Presidential inauguration on January 20th. And the obvious implication in the opinion of many people is that this prophecy is key in determining whether Charlie is truly an authentic prophet, or not. For as the saying goes "A prophet is judged by his prophecies", or as Scripture tells us:

"And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not fear him." (Deuteronomy 18:21-22).

For his part, Charlie has stated numerous times that if this particular prophecy concerning Obama not finishing his term were to fail, with the presidency successfully transitioned to Donald Trump, that he will post one last post on his blog, then go away:
Charlie Johnston during a presentation in July 2016
charliej373 says:
"If there is a peaceful transition of power from Obama to Trump, I will go away. If there is not, be not afraid, God has a plan."

or again:
 charliej373 says:
December 17, 2016 at 2:54 pm
"Now, as I have said, if the inauguration goes on without incident, I will go away. "

or again:
charliej373 says:
"Certainly, if we have a normal inauguration a month from now, I will retire from the field, for that prophecy will have been objectively wrong. I take full responsibility for that. But it won’t change what you are called to do.

Noting that I do and will take responsibility, your standard would require you to dismiss St. Joan of Arc as a false prophet for the times she erred on saying how the battle would go – and many of the Old Testament prophets who were often off on their timing, sometimes by years. I do not say this to try to justify any error on my part. I strongly urge you to examine yourself and consider what God calls you to. But yep, a month from now if we have a normal inauguration, you can give me a big old thumbs down."

charliej373 says:
January 8, 2017 at 9:21 pm
"If the inauguration comes off, I will leave the public scene, because that is what it means to honorably take full responsibility. "

And so, even though this "Presidential prophecy" is not one of the eight public prophecies that Charlie insists upon, according to several statements he has made he does believe that if it fails to come to pass as foretold, this would be significant enough to merit and declare himself "unreliable" and "leaving the scene". Time will soon tell how things turn out. For his part, Charlie has "laid it on the line", so to speak. We need only wait, watch and pray. Events, or the lack thereof, will reveal the truth concerning Charlie's purported private revelations.

Given all of the recent interest in this particular prophecy as of late, along with the popularity of the original article here on this website concerning Charlie Johnston, I thought I would publish this new article so that those interested can comment on this matter freely and directly here. As always, all comments are published immediately on this website, without moderation. I only ask that commentators be charitable and considerate in their comments.

***UPDATE: FEBRUARY 16, 2017: Archdiocese of Denver: "Statement on false claim regarding Charlie Johnston’s messages"

3,140 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   1001 – 1200 of 3140   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Glen,
I'm not one of those that advocated a new article, but a point was made that new viewers who are interested in Catholic mystics. I myself am rather new at this, and I've learned a lot from your site. However I've noticed that in addition to the three articles you have about Charlie, there are a few other places where you have linked to the TNRS website and to articles that Charlie has written, thereby giving the appearance at least of credibility for Charlie. This can be (and was for me) confusing to newbies. At least please consider removing these links so that others don't end up as confused as I have been through all of this.

Anonymous said...

"It's called "Doxing," Snowy, and it is, in fact, legally actionable.

In all cases if you outline the physical location of any individual with intent to harm, shame, stalk, humiliate, endanger, or otherwise compromise the safety and security of ANY individual you have placed that person in a position of risk and you are in violation of ALL State Stalking laws.

Glenn, I suggest you check the applicable laws."

Regarding the above quote, I understand the removal of the post, but if you removed it for these reasons above in addition to Snowy's claim it applies more so for anyone who is a 'private' individual, Joe Crozier fits that bill. As a private individual who is revealing very private information it can place him at risk for "harm, shame, stalk, humiliate, endanger, or otherwise compromise the safety and security of ANY individual you have placed that person in a position of risk and you are in violation of ALL State Stalking laws." Even though Joe writes the comments, do you really know it is Joe Crozier? Did this person take this information from Joe Crozier and post it here and reveal private sensitive information? Joe Crozier on TNRS is an open book anyone can take his information and post it under here as Joe Crozier. As Snowy and the above person say, it is not acceptable and may violate state laws.
When you post generically or with a partial name or anonymous that could mean anyone and stories are impossible to track, but in Joe Crozier's case, he is a real person with an identity that can be tracked, therefore posting sensitive information even if it is the real Joe Crozier violates even more his privacy as pointed out by Snowy and the anonymous above.

Anonymous said...

Here it is folks, the 2008 revisited on TNRS : "If I remember correctly, Charlie’s angel told him that Obama would not finish his term when he took office in 2008. The fullness of the storm was suppose to be 2012, but was mitigated. A term is 4 years and had the fullness come then, he would not have finished his term. In a video I saw I think that Charlie said that’s all his angel told him. He told us about Obama not finishing his term so that we would believe about the rescue. Now, I have never heard him mention anything about the 2nd term of Obama, one can only assume he thought it was part of his 1st term. So was that prophecy, which was for Charlie and not for the world suppose to be cancelled. Charlie says he is told very little and he has to figure things out on his own."

Interesting.

Beckita's response: "Thank you, totustuus. Many are yet pondering in hopes of making sense of all that has transpired. So many details and how they are fulfilled, mitigated, or canceled along with surprises that God may send must be surrendered, in the end, to God’s Providence within His Plan."

I left off the irrelevant sections, you can view at TNRS.

The only thing I'm getting off TNRS now is that it doesn't matter what is said to anyone, God can change anything, we'll find out everything later.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone figured out yet that Charlie is the ONLY PERSON who has claimed a lot of things. Are any of them true? Can any of the things he's been so quick to give HIMSELF credit for be .... wait for it.... true?

Now I don't know about all of you, but given Charlie's track record for .... honesty .... is any of it true? Well, we have Charlie's word for it. (And don't start with the three steps stuff. That isn't his or new. Just new jargon.)

Have any of the three priest he keeps weaving in and out of his blogs stated openly that they believe him. Nope. That they know him? Even stated he's our man, Charlie is. Charlie is the only one who claiming more than spiritual direction.

Charlie has written in his bio bit below his blog entries, before the comments, that he's being "vetted" by his priests.

I'd settle for just ONE of them to say he's vetting Charlie. ONE

In fact, the part about keeping archives....? Well, Charlie says they are. If someone insists on giving you, or mailing you stuff, does that mean that you are "archiving" said material. (I kept my younger sister's stuff in a shoe box.)

And the PDF letter at the end of the Fatima Secret blog..... well, Charlie's letter is there with nary a priest's letter attached to it.

I think Glenn has all but shouted the priests take NO ownership of Charlie or his material. They give him spiritual direction.... That means they have NOTHING to do with what he's written. Charlie telling us so doesn't make it an accurate fact.

And who can verify a SINGLE thing Charlie has claimed. No, Beckita and group don't qualify.

How about any other person from his previous work? Any one? Any at all? Well, Charlie has told us all about them and how clever and wonderful his performance was in all of his many various jobs. (Be honest, that many different jobs might not look good on a resume.)

For that matter, are all those commenting on his blog real people? How do we know? Yup. Thought so. Maybe some; maybe not others. Who really knows?

Being on the internet has taught me quite a few things. One of them is that you don't know if you really know.

I'm waiting for some verifiable proof of any of Charlie's stuff other than his "visions" etc... The visions, prophecies we already know about. For those who are still straining to somehow make it all mesh nicely, January 2018 cometh.

Anonymous said...

Continued from Joe Crozier
Hi Glenn
I am happy to have my full name published here. I have nothing of which to be ashamed in what I have written. I have been slandered elsewhere and seen the type of posts that have been published on this thread. I am well aware of the danger I am in from those who may wish to do me harm.
Since my return from Scotland I have been quite ill and very tired but will try again to finish this.
As I said before Dad was a lawyer. A very good lawyer. His feet were planted firmly on the ground and he stood for little nonsense. Hence he hesitated to tell me the following story. When Dad was on the operating table he found himself viewing his operation then he found himself in the most fantastic place - utterly splendid and peaceful. He had a companion.
Dad said to him -"this place is truly wonderful but it's not heaven is it?"
"You are right, George" was the reply. (Dad never said it was an angel)
"And you are not God," said dad.
"You are right again."
"Am I going to meet God," asked dad.
"No, It's not your time."
"Why am I here?" dad asked.
"We wanted you to know there is nothing to be afraid of in the life to come."
"Will I go back now."
"Yes." And he did to live well and fruitfully for several more years.
In Garabandal, just before he died, Fr Louis Andreu, having been given a preview of the Great Miracle, had said the same words that were given to Dad "There is no reason to fear the supernatural life."
I have personally had several encounters with the mystical/supernatural life. I am not a mystic. I am just an ordinary Joe Blog. One of my favourite quotes from Fr Bob Faricay is "God does not make junk but he does collect it." I am glad he acquired me. I am still very much a work in process.I have met very holy people. I am not one of them. Thursday's child has far to go. I was born on a Thursday.
Charlie and I are friends. From the start we have disagreed. We are still good friends. I have put my point of view he has put his. There has never been rancour or malice.
I have always made it clear I have faith is in the prophesies of Garabandal as traditionally interpreted. In this Charlie and I have divergent opinions. He has even published my viewpoint on his site. There has never been any censure or censor.
Last part to follow

Anonymous said...

I must live in a different reality, I honestly have a hard time understanding the jargon and reasoning behind the answers given by questioning TRNSers. If someone asks a simple question like: now that Charlie's definitive prophecy is now failed how can we trust the rescue will happen? Answer: We do not know the insightful mind of God behind the shadow of the mystical mind layed out in a pretensious manner coupled with God's devine plan, how are we to judge the changes and manifestations of the almighty when it could be a Joan of Arc moment or a Jonas event, only God knows what is to happen, a failed prophecy is not the sign of a failed individual otherwise the Bible would be considered a failure if only for the immense grace of God and his angels in a spirit of communion with an evolving and dynamic universe that we know nothing about - God has decided to impact the moment and only in time after Charlie has left the earth will the discovery of truth be known and proven correct, in the meantime we wait but forge forth in a direction that Charlie would want.

Anonymous said...

The following is a Charismatic word of prophecy. I received it tonight, while taking this whole issue of "Charlie" to God. I believe that it came from the Holy Spirit. I tried to post it on Charlie's site, but I was- I think- blocked from posting. My children, Peace be with you. I am here among you. I will guide you. Do not be afraid. Hearken unto me. Follow my path. Seek after me. I will never let you go. I will never lose sight of you. I am your God and Father. I am your Savior and brother. Place your lives in my hands. I will take care of you. I am the way, the truth, and the life. I am the way, and there is no other. Be still, and know that I am your God. Follow after me... I died for you at Calvary. A death that no one could die, but me, to bring you salvation. Look to my Word,look to your faith, and you will have true guidance. My Mother will guide you- my Mother of purity, beauty, and compassion...my Mother of blessing, love, and humility... Follow after me and my Mother... on the true path to life. I love you- Your God.

Mary H said...

If I were running a Catholic internet ministry, I would not hide myself. All legitimate online ministries have contact information and a list of leaders, often with biographical material.* Real evangelists want to engage with the world. They are not afraid to proclaim the Good News. They also are in contact with their local bishop, and work under his guidance.

Beckita and company are worried about being shut down. They are "all in," as long as they don't get scrutiny. They want to be comfortable and unchallenged in their failed beliefs. Beckita, as others have noted, is already a public figure because she runs an international website. She has made enough of a name for herself in Catholic circles that her contact information is easily available online. The post in question just gave her hometown, which she has talked about online! More important, it also gave contact information for the local bishop.

It's not about Beckita's privacy -- she gave that up earlier, in a quest to draw followers to other failed visionaries -- it's about bringing authorities in to oversee what remains of Charlie's "ministry."

Having seen the viciousness with which Charlie and his followers dealt with questioners on his own website and elsewhere, it's understandable that they don't want the tables turned. Yet the question remains: Why not be accountable? What does "all in" mean?

*Charlie met this criteria half-way: He listed some of the things he did, but got very angry and nasty if anyone asked questions about his past.

Joe said...

I see Charlie and his cult followers have been busy in here lately. I have two very simple questions for you, first what we're the 9 of 10 prophecies Charie got right, secondly why does Beckita continue to promote Charlie on the blog site when he himself said if he was wrong on Jan 20th he would declare himself not credible and go away. Beckita quotes Charlie like she is quoting the bible or the catechism it is absurd. Charlie is using Beckita as a proxy to continue his self promotion and propaganda while minimizing the damage of his double failed prophecy until he finds an excuse to return. I believe the people trying to get Glen to shut down the comment section are Charlie followers or Charlie himself. They do not like being held accountable for what they say, with Glen's site bringing truth to the table it is really hurting thier objective for these failed prophecies to be buried and information to be twisted.

Anonymous said...

I agree with you Joe - Beckita is a proxy, even Joe C above hints he's in touch with Charlie: "Charlie quite rightly will not tolerate ongoing abuse."

Also, have you been to the TNRS site, without the prophecies it's the same humdrum, at least when there were colorful figures like ourselves on-line there was action - why do you think the TNRSers are coming here, it's more exciting here with free thought and expression, TNRS is hanging on to 2 dates - the Rescue in late 2017 and Charlie's retirement date of around June , 2018 to keep the troops interested. Expect there to be outlandish claims to try and break the humdrum at TNRS.

Joe said...

I was reading over the NRS blog comments. Someone challenged Beckita on Charlie's supposed prophecy's he got right. Beckita said she didn't know and that it was between Charlie and his priests. That proves that Charlie out and out lied to me when I asked them what they were. He said he didn't have time to do my bloody homework for me and if I wanted to know I needed to read through his blogs to find them. So I have caught him in a major lie regarding his prophecies. When are people going to stop taking this joker and his blog site serious?

Joe said...

The comment I am referring to is Tony Feb 7 at 4:02

Joe said...

The cult followers are still bringing up comet seekers whenever someone question Charlie about his nonsense. Like any perfectly rational challenge to Charlie is equivalent in absurdity to a time when a guy questioning him at one of his seminars about comet predictions he made.

Anonymous said...

I do remember Charlie telling you that he didn't have time to do your homework ( to find them on his site ). Charlie and everyone from TNRS have been quizzed on this to no avail. Now the new mantra is that they are with his spiritual directors and locked up somewhere at the diocese - I believe, not to be released until Charlie's work has been completed and his documents reviewed - this may be wishful thinking on their part - quite frankly I don't think there's a need. I think there is a cover-up on this issue by them but it is a core pillar of his messages or whatever you call them.

Don't fret too much about the TNRS site Joe, it is actually quite boring except for the odd "comet seeker". If it wasn't for the "comet seekers" that site would be in the toilet. When people were questioning things, it was interesting, as I said and called the term "catholic feel good stuff" - that's all its about. They're going to have to replace that with some outlandish claims to keep things going. At this point that may not even work.

Joe said...

Good points anon 8:29, it seems there is less people commenting with each post and even some more challengingly questions are starting to trickle through. I think that Glen's blog site has a lot to do with opening people's eyes to falsehoods promoted over there. One blogger even said it seems like there is s major elephant in the room that nobody is addressing. I think we are slowly squeezing the throat on Charlie's blog site with the weapon of truth. I am not fretting, I have throughly enjoyed exposing this fraud for who he is. I love debating when I have the truth on my side. I have dealt with BSers my whole life, they are masters at beating around the bush and avoid answering directly at all costs. I find the only way to deal with them is to stay on point and not let them take you off of it, which they will use every tactic in thier arsenal to do so.
You are right that site is very boring with their feel good stories, butt kissing parade and one sided controlled comment section. If Charlie hadn't been so nasty to so many, when he was wrong I think everyone would have probably let it go, but we all know that the reason he got so hateful was because he didn't like us trying to uncover his lies.

Anonymous said...

Has no one noticed that YongDuk is back and seems to be berating them as "comet seekers," or something.

Anonymous said...

That just might be the most malicious and cynical thing you've said yet, Joe.

For the rest of you who don't seem content to limit the commentary to the discernment of Charlie's alleged prophecies, what's the obsession with folks on that other blog, what they may or may not be doing, and saying? Meh.

L Spinelli said...

@Anon @ 12:31

It's because the TNRS people are keeping the site and the messages going, which seems preposterous in light of the "Presidential Prophecy" double failing!

The general rule is once a specific prophecy fails - just like when LttW did back in September 2015 - all the other prophecies have to be thrown out.

L Spinelli said...

In other words, none of Charlie's "eight public prophecies" and the "Rescue" itself are likely to happen because of his first major public prophecy failing like it did.

I really don't understand why these people are clinging to the idea of this "Rescue" happening. So what if it doesn't happen when Charlie says it will? Mary said it would happen, and it will. We don't know when or how, but regardless, IT WILL. Why would they lose faith so easily?

Psalms 146:3 Put not your trust in princes, in the children of men, in whom there is no salvation.

Joe said...

Anonymous 12:31, I guess the truth is malicious and cynical to you. Charlie, go back into hiding behind the scenes as you manipulate Beckita and the other guy to do your dirty work. You are not relevant, please pull the plug on your unreliable blog site which is a complete joke and an embarrassment the Catholic Church. Once you take this action, I will declare God reliable and go away.

Joe said...

Anon 11:13, that is all Bishop duckhunt has is that stupid comet seeker reference, he uses it anytime anyone dare challenge the Great, mighty and all powerful Charlie. It is an effort to discredit any challenge since it can't be done with facts. It is the equivalent to calling somone a racist or a homophobe because you can't beat them in a sound logical and factual debate, so you resort to name calling.

Anonymous said...

Joe I thought your comments were rather restrained, concise, well thought out and to the point - I don't see anyone actually answering your questions, all they can do is name call and try and demean you - it won't work we've figured it out - no one can seem to challenge Joe and I wonder why - maybe they just don't have a rebuttal, which they don't and it shows.

Anonymous said...

"Seer" followers remind me of UFO followers. There is a fascination in it. They investigate and gather at each new "sighting." They tune into Spirit Daily each day waiting for the headline: Medjugorje Seers Issue First Secret.
I fell into this trap. It was like setting up lawn chairs at 2:00 am with my fellow seekers, and watching the sky while the rest of the world was asleep.
I see now my error and what a waste of time it was.
I hope others do, too.
Charlie was nothing more than a UFO sighting. And everybody is waiting for it to return.
What a waste.
In my opinion only.

God bless.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 6:59,

It's more like a cargo cult. They keep the website up and await the return of the Sherpa who is going to lead them to the Promised Land. From Wikipedia:

A cargo cult is a millenarian movement first described in Melanesia which encompasses a range of practices and occurs in the wake of contact with more technologically advanced societies. The name derives from the belief which began among Melanesians in the late 19th and early 20th century that various ritualistic acts such as the building of an airplane runway will result in the appearance of material wealth, particularly highly desirable Western goods (i.e., "cargo"), via Western airplanes.[1][2]

Cargo cults often develop during a combination of crises. Under conditions of social stress, such a movement may form under the leadership of a charismatic figure. This leader may have a "vision" (or "myth-dream") of the future, often linked to an ancestral efficacy ("mana") thought to be recoverable by a return to traditional morality.[1][3] This leader may characterize the present state as a dismantling of the old social order, meaning that social hierarchy and ego boundaries have been broken down.[4]<

Contact with colonizing groups brought about a considerable transformation in the way indigenous peoples of Melanesia have thought about other societies. Early theories of cargo cults began from the assumption that practitioners simply failed to understand technology, colonization, or capitalist reform; in this model, cargo cults are a misunderstanding of the systems involved in resource distribution and an attempt to acquire such goods in the wake of interrupted trade. However, many of these practitioners actually focus on the importance of sustaining and creating new social relationships, with material relations being secondary.[5]


Glenn Dallaire said...

For the record, someone recently emailed me privately essentially asking why I am keeping this comment section open, given what this particular person felt are some "malicious" comments here.

I thought I would post some of my reply, for what it is worth, for those who may be interested:

"...As for the comment section beneath the "Presidential prophecy" article, yes, I agree with you---its become more of a "wild west" lately and has not been very productive. Initially, early on quite a few of the comments were worthy of consideration, but lately not so much.

Nevertheless, for now I figure I will leave it open for commenting, since the TNRS blog remains open. But we shall see what the future brings....

...The thing is, as I have written in the "Presidential prophecy" article, Charlie chose to go public with his purported prophecies, which opened him up to public scrutiny--that is simply the way it works when one goes public with private revelations. Most of the time on his blog he has often chosen to scrub (not post) many opposing comments. On my website, I don't [scrub comments].

If a purported visionary/mystic/prophet like Charlie chooses (or agrees) to go public, then they will be publicly scrutinized, and inevitably some folks will publicly oppose them. As I wrote in my [Presidential prophecy] article "When one claims to be a prophet of God, one’s life and most especially one’s prophecies are automatically held for scrutiny before the court of public opinion."

So, while I personally may not agree with the harsh opposition to Charlie as one sees in some of the comments, nevertheless that's simply the way it works when one goes public. And so long as one does not blatantly cross the line in regards to charity, then I leave the comments up. I have repeatedly asked for charity and consideration when posting comments, and each person has to answer for their own remarks."

-Glenn Dallaire

Anonymous said...

I am coming to the conclusion that Charlie concocted his "prophecies" using factors from other approved revelations. Take for example the secret given to Maximin one of the seers of the approved apparition at La Salette. Do not some aspects echo Charlie's "predictions" but in a far more authentic manner?
On September 19, 1846, we saw a beautiful Lady. We never said that this lady was the Blessed Virgin but we always said that it was a beautiful Lady. I do not know if it is the Blessed Virgin or another person. As for me, I believe today that it is the Blessed Virgin. Here is what this Lady said to me:

"If my people continue, what I will say to you will arrive earlier, if it changes a little, it will be a little later. France has corrupted the universe, one day it will be punished. The faith will die out in France: three quarters of France will not practice religion anymore, or almost no more, the other part will practice it without really practicing it. Then, after [that], nations will convert, the faith will be rekindled everywhere.

A great country in the north of Europe, now Protestant, will be converted; by the support of this country all the other nations of the world will be converted. Before all that arrives, great disorders will arrive, in the Church, and everywhere. Then, after [that], our Holy Father the Pope will be persecuted. His successor will be a pontiff that nobody expects.

Then, after [that], a great peace will come, but it will not last a long time. A monster will come to disturb it. All that I tell you here will arrive in the other century, at the latest in the year two thousand."

Maximin Giraud (She told me to say it some time before.)

My Most Holy Father, your holy blessing to one of your sheep.

Grenoble, July 3, 1851.

Joe said...

Glen, that is why the founding fathers were so adamant about freedom of speech. There is something very evil about controlling speech and expression. To control speech is to attack and muzzle the truth, it is often a tactic of a tyrannical government. That is why we know Charlie is false. No humble messenger of God would try to shut up anyone who dare question him by mocking and intimidation tactics then refuse to answer honest questions directly. To me, these actions even more than the double failed prophecy were a dead give away that this man's messages were not from God. Thanks Glen, for allowing free speech and not caving to Charlie's followers.

Anonymous said...

I am a very mild person. I don't like meanness. I do value honesty. I have been reading these comments for some of the more exacting, precise expose of the numerous contradictions found in the tnrs writings, prophecies , etc. I was a skeptical reader of that blog, but allowed that it may be true, so went with a wait and see attitude. I did not change my behavior or finances based on his writings, however.

I want to add here that it was Charlie's prideful outbursts of nasty surliness to some commenters on his blog that made the greatest negative impact on me, followed by the growing blind allegiance to him and defense of him even when these outbursts were clearly inappropriate and mean spirited. It is an important detail that has been noted repeatedly. There is also an element of dishonesty in deleting some less positive comments, or worse, if it is true, editing the original posts.

I appreciate Glenn keeping this commentary open as is his usual custom. If some would prefer not to see the comments that they find offensive, they can simply refuse to return to read them, as is the repeated suggestion to the same on the tnrs blog by beckita and friends. No harm done.

Anonymous said...

I feel that we are sticking to the topic and asking appropriate questions, the people on here who are the most disruptive are the TNRS people and that's where a lot of 'malicious' comments develop. Let's take for example Mr. MP who was accusing us of being uncharitable to Charlie and slandering MP as being a TNRSer among other things. Well it turns out they know him by name at TNRS and was praising Charlie for deleting uncharitable comments by posters when he had never seen the scrubbed comments. Once he was discovered he disappeared.

Anonymous said...

Hi, Glenn:

Regarding your 2/7 10:20 comment, I was the one that suggested the 'after action report.' The reason I suggested closing this thread was only because I am concerned about having an alternative perspective readily available for new folks stumbling into a still active TNRS site. We 'veterans' will dig through many comments to come here and post, but I think most newbies to prophecy will not look through 1000+ comments or even jump to the newest, because it appears overwhelming.

It doesn't matter to me what you keep open or closed - I am only trying to find a way to politely but effectively make people think twice about TNRS. Maybe there is a better way? Just my 0.02

Thanks

Fred Keyes said...

I find Yong Duc to be a fascinating personality. My first thought was that it was Charlie himself, but his writing style differs from Charlie's about the same way as scholars believe the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews varies from the letters that their analysis shows St. Paul himself wrote. If he's not a bishop he certainly knows much more than the average scholar about Sacred Scripture.

From I've seen of his remarks, his concerns are not prediction-focused. His approach, IMO, follows Christ's approach in Mt 12: "A bruised reed he will not break, a smoldering wick he will not quench, until he brings justice to victory." For instance, he gently disagreed with Charlie on his Islamic rant. Maybe others have seen a mean-spirited approach in him, but I haven't.

Should Yong Duc go after Charlie? I don't think so—that's a job for the Archbishop of Denver. He serves as a kind of firewall (a fence around the sheepfold?) for the less-than-skeptical believers there.

(BTW, Glenn please do keep this thread going--for all the good reasons given above. There are a lot of good posters here. And it does serve as a kind wailing wall for the hoodwinked. Good job, young man! )

Anonymous said...

Glenn-I have mixed feelings as to whether you should keep this section open for people to make comments. Keeping it open, only draws attention to Charlie, but at the same time, we Christians need to speak up concerning something that we believe is false. For God can, I feel, work through us. I also feel that if we no longer make comments, here, that regardless, Charlie's site will eventually deteriorate and burn itself out, for God is not mocked, and God can certainly take care of Charlie's site on his own. God wants His will to be done, and it does not appear that, in my opinion, Charlie's site is following this. I believe that at the "Warning," or the "Illumination of Conscience," Charlie, Beckita, and all TNRS followers will come to know not only the state of their own souls, (as ALL of us will), but they will come to know, I believe, how God sees TNRS in an unfavorable light. And if God makes it clear to TNRS, that He does not see them in a favorable light, then this movement will of, course not continue. TNRS site can stand against Mystics of the Church posters,in wiping out their comments, but they CANNOT stand against God. Again, God will not be mocked. Glenn, again, I have mixed feelings about whether or not we should continue with comments on your blog or not. But, regardless, I DO believe that as far as Charlie, and TNRS,are concerned, God is worthy of our full trust to take care of stopping something that in my opinion, does not appear to be in His divine will. All praise and glory be to you, Lord God- King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Anonymous said...

I really appreciate the post by Anonymous on 2/10/17 @ 10:19 a.m. who said: "I am coming to the conclusion that Charlie concocted his "prophecies" using factors from other approved revelations..." and citing a prophecy from Maximim from La Sallete.

Back in the 1990's I read some books on Catholic visions and prophecy: Michael Brown's "The Final Hour," and "The Thunder of Justice" by Ted and Maureen Flynn. After I had followed Charlie's blog for about a year, just by chance I picked those books up again, and began to notice the similarities between what has already been said at approved apparition sites and what Charlie had been saying. It did not seem to me Charlie was having visions that verified what had been said before. Rather, I came to the conclusion that Charlie was a "copycat" prophet: someone without any new information, but who is retelling what they had read somewhere. I do not know if this was conscious on Charlie's part, or something unconscious, but after that I stopped taking what he had to say as coming from any source other than himself.

I also was incredulous at his answer when someone asked him about when his angel began appearing to him, and I recall him saying something on the order of not knowing, because it's was like being asked when you first saw your mother or father: they just were there from the beginning. That bothered me. Charlie had admitted in couched terms on his blog that he had lived some years of his adult life in mortal sin. But one of the key aspects of the children of Fatima, and of Bernadette, (and even St. Faustina, for that matter) was the deep and authentic conversion they underwent after their visions. How could one have authentic mystical experiences and not be radically changed, avoiding sin at all costs?

I don't know whether Charlie is a fraud, or deluded, or if he had some other agenda behind what he did (which I can't speculate on, not knowing enough of the behind the scenes of his life).

One time I heard someone say a way for the devil to draw people away from real apparitions is to create a thousand fake apparitions. That way it becomes hard to tell the real from the fake. We've had three fake doozies in the last several years; Maria Divine Mercy, LttW, and now TNRS.

I could tell right off Maria Divine Mercy was a scam, and I thought LttW was fake after I followed it about 2 weeks. It took longer for me to discern Charlie but eventually he tipped his hand as well. I wonder who will appear next!

Steve said...

This is from the Morning Prayer of today's Liturgy of the Hours:

Hebrews 13:7-9a
Remember your leaders who spoke the word of God to you; consider how their lives ended, and imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teaching.


Let's see...The rise of Menses, Mount Meeker, renaming Our Lady of Guadalupe as Our Lady of Tepeyac, a world that will resemble Mayberry, and our course, squirrels. Is it just me or does this sound like strange teaching?

Fred Keyes said...

About Charlie's mantra: 1. Acknowledge God. Well yes, but just "acknowledge?" Acknowledgement can be like this: "Yeah, the Giants exist but I'm not a big fan." Christians have to do a lot more than just "acknowledge."

2. The the next right step. This isn't as easy as it appears; how do we know the choice we are making is the "right" one? Thomas Aquinas says a person does anything and everything only because that thing at least "appears" to be good. So in a way choosing the right step is a lifelong struggle in identifying the good. Reducing it to a glib expression kind of trivializes the crosses we carry, the moral struggle we work at our entire lives.

3. Be a sign of hope. Again fine. But would TNRS folks admit that a far better thing to be is "a sign of love?" St. Paul: "So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love. 1Cor 13:13

Anonymous said...

Why people still follow Charlie and his "message" is beyond me. Charlie has even told everyone numerous times that if you're putting your faith in Charlie you are sadly mistaken, put your faith in Christ - period. What more can he say to deter people from him? So why don't they listen to him and move on? Wouldn't that be the next right step? He's gone, everyone else should be. Everyone seems to want to hang on, even Charlie - none of this makes logical sense.

Joseph J. said...


Personally I have not visited his website in 2 weeks. It is no longer interesting without Charlie's fireworks, and now that Obama finished his term and Trump is president it is no longer relevant either.

Anonymous said...

Steve, February 14-th, 8:05am- When it comes to Charlie, Science Fiction, itself, could not POSSIBLY be any stranger than all of the things you list. I love especially the Scripture from Hebrews that you presented,and the part that says, "Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teaching." Such wise advice from the Scriptures- (which of course is the wise advice from God Himself). Thank you.

Anonymous said...

ARCHDIOCESE OF DENVER NEW STATEMENT ON CHARLIE JOHNSTON

PRESS RELEASE:
Feb. 15, 2017

Contact: Karna Swanson
Executive Director of Communications
303-945-9136
Karna.Swanson@ArchDen.org

Statement on false claim regarding Charlie Johnston's messages

Mrs. Beckie Hesse, using the online profile “Beckita,” stated in a Feb. 7, 2017 blog post titled “The RESCUE Has Begun” that the messages of the alleged visionary Mr. Charlie Johnston, who resides in the Archdiocese of Denver, “have been fully approved by the Church.” In order to ensure that the faithful are correctly informed, it is necessary to publicly state that Mrs. Hesse’s claim is false.

In fact, Mr. Johnston’s alleged messages were reviewed by an archdiocesan theological commission and Archbishop Samuel J. Aquila determined that the faithful should be warned to be prudent and cautious about Mr. Johnston’s predictions. In addition, Mr. Johnston is not permitted to speak in Church-owned venues in the Archdiocese of Denver. Read Archbishop Aquila’s message, here.

The events of 2016/17 have shown that Mr. Johnston’s alleged visions were not accurate and the Archdiocese urges the faithful not to condone or support further attempts to reinterpret them as valid.

Read: Statement on the alleged visionary Charlie Johnston
http://archden.org/statement-on-the-alleged-visionary-mr-charlie-johnston/#.WKWvvxCRFE6


This release has been provided by the Archdiocese of Denver.

Glenn Dallaire said...


February 16, 2017
For those interested in the latest developments, I just published an article: Archdiocese of Denver: "Statement on false claim concerning Charlie Johnston's messages"

-Glenn Dallaire

Anonymous said...

When B Hesse first wrote that I thought it was an intentional unintentional mistake.

Anonymous said...

The Archdiocese of Denver has now made a new statement. What more do we, or others, need to hear. God is obviously making His will known. I have been asking God to intervene in Charlie Johnston, and TNRS, and it looks as if He, has, with this statement that the Archdiocese of Denver just made. The Archdiocese is not showing approval. Thank you, Father. May your will be done.

Anonymous said...

I have looked over a lot of the comments here and the latest kerfuffle over at nrs.

First of all, the comments posted by nrs people or those who favor Charlie involve an emotional aspect or an appeal to a higher authority, rarely do they actually address any issues. Their arguments are confined to accusing the other side of slander, making fun - comet seeker, or you don't understand the mind of God. In their case because they can not engage in proper dialogue they resort to name calling, insults, appeal to emotionalism, demeaning, or some sort of spiritual unknown or attachment to existing apparitions.

Now to the latest issue with nrs, a lot of posters are blaming it on this site and some are blaming other sites too. In reality, who is to blame, who wrote the blog? The blog writer even admits that it was a misunderstanding and wants to let it go. But, it's typical of nrs people to always placate the blame. She wrote it, the diocese made a statement, deal with it.

The biggest s... disturbers on this site are the nrs people and then they accuse this site of being malicious, it's like the Trump rallies where the media said they were violent, but the disturbers were the ones who shouldn't have been there. They're here because it is boring over there. This latest issue with the diocese was actually good for the site, it livened things up.

Anonymous said...

How do you revive a dead TNRS site, you bring up an obscure issue that was mentioned a while ago and dredge up a side point:

Julia: "Just read the latest comments over on Mystics of the Church. SIGH ! Some even claim you write your own comments. My grammar should be proof of at least one other poster."

Even Steve BC chimes in with his 2cents: "Julia, we will carry on. Oh, and by the way, Beckita *does* write her own comments.She just doesn’t write anyone else’s! - all in fun of course.

But wait it's ok to bring up an old issue from the past on here but the recent major Kerfuffle with Beckita, this is what he has to say; "Dan, and indeed everyone reading this comment who may be concerned that Beckita has been treated unfairly, I can assure you that she is fully reconciled with it and will now move on. I urge everyone here to do the same. In the rear view mirror of our lives, the event itself will soon fade away, though the good fruit and care will remain."

What was that - "move on", SteveBC wants to move on with a major issue that happened a day ago, but yet he's ok with dredging up and making fun of an old issue on this site.

You can not make this stuff up.

It gets better, SteveBC essentially acknowledges the hand of god - I mean Charlie, is still on that site: "However, it is extremely important for all of us to realize that even though Beckita is the one now posting, this site’s material remains mostly Charlie’s. Further, although Charlie is no longer going to post independently, he has said he may send articles to Beckita for posting through her. Because of this, the Archdiocese of Denver continues to have a genuine responsibility to monitor this site and make absolutely certain that what Beckita writes is clear not just to you and me on this kind of issue but also to others who may be more prone to being confused or upset."

Enter the Highwaymen - "I'll always be around and around and around and around...."

Is this the WWE or what?

Anonymous said...

We have to give Steve BC some credit though. SteveBC directly contradicted Charlie. Charlie said that his correct prophecies were on his site and that I'm not going to do your bloody homework for you. SteveBC has admitted that they are not on his site, they're with his 3 advisors somewhere in the diocese.

And of course the question is how can you follow the teachings of Sir Charles when you don't know the answer to basic questions - they're a mystery - move along folks nothing to see here - um.... secrecy....

I've always wondered why Charlie used the term "bloody" - its not typically American.

Anonymous said...

Did anyone notice that Yongduc did not say a word during the Beckita dust-up?

David said...

Glenn,

It is too bad that you closed down comments for the most current Charlie Johnston blog. I think Charlie's people deliberately posted threats of lawsuits to silence his critics, and it looks like they prevailed. While I agree most of "Joe's" posts were a rehash of things he previously said, I think it would have been better had you simply turned on Moderation.

Glenn Dallaire said...


Yes David-I was really loathing having to close commenting on that particular article, as I much prefer to always leave all articles open for commenting, but as you know it was really going "wild west". However I can always reopen it again later....
Thanks for your comment Dave.
Glenn Dallaire

Anonymous said...

I tend to agree that there were some members of TNRS that made it a mission to silence comments on this website in regards to Charlie. They turned it into "the wild west" and succeeded in their mission. Too bad really.

From TNRS:
"Joe Crozier says:
February 24, 2017 at 3:39 pm
Snowy – thank you for rallying the heavenly troops.

Snowy Owl says:
February 25, 2017 at 12:41 am
JoeCro, there was nothing left to do but pray. Someone came and talked about cyber-bullying and I guess that did it. It’s being closed."

Glenn, it make me really sad to see you give in to this.

Anonymous said...

Glenn, You must be aware Charlie's followers have attempted to shut down other bloggers, and succeeded with Kevin O'Brien of Theater of the Word. They attacked the original article in National Catholic Register, as did Charlie himself in two separate blog posts. Now they appear at your site, threatening you personally and posting exorcism prayers. I understand your frustration. In the event Charlie attempts a comeback -- and I bet he is planning one from what SteveBC posted about him continuing his mission -- please do note it publicly and allow those of us who have "fought the good fight" to gather and work out a communal response. Blessings.

Another BOVOC

Joe said...

Glen you kowtowed to The cultists and gave the exactly what the wanted. Looks like evil prevails again.

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:21

There is more to the exchange between Snowy and Joey. They see their participation here as a battle.

Glenn, please shut down all the Charlie threads so this stops, finally... although I hate to see their end-zone victory dance...

Snowy Owl says:
February 25, 2017 at 2:39 pm

JoeCro, i had to come back and say that in case you have misunderstood my comment, I posted what Pope Francis said to you to sooth your battle-weary heart and bring you a little joy and a smile �� . I know how much you love him. I was praying for you throughout that whole battle. God bless you, JoeCro!

Like
Reply

Snowy Owl says:
February 25, 2017 at 2:42 pm

Oh I forgot, I know how much you love Charlie too! �� heehee. So absentminded these days!

Glenn Dallaire said...


Yes, if in the future there ever comes any new truly *significant* developments in what concerns Charlie, then of course I will cover them here on this website. As of today, Charlie's left the public arena for over a month now, so I personally am of the opinion that at this point this matter can be put to rest.

As for the TNRS blog, I personally have no issue with it continuing under Beckita, though I suspect as time goes on its readership will likely continue to significantly decrease in the absence of the prophetic element coming from Charlie. Yes, gone are the days (presumably for good) of the public conferences, videos, blog posts with weighty predictions for the world etc....now at TNRS there is just your average blog, amongst a virtual sea of blogs on the Web. With the failure of the prophetic, there is really nothing worth garnering any real attention at this point, or as they say in law enforcement "nothing to see here folks, time to move along"...

Anonymous said...

Glen,
You say that Charlie has left the public arena, and while he may not be directly posting on the TNRS website, he is certainly still active. Steven BC has said so:

"SteveBC says:
February 23, 2017 at 5:46 pm
Charles, you are correct that the site is not the same without Charlie. You are not correct that Charlie has had his 15 minutes of fame and has ended his mission. He is very much still active in many ways, but he is not posting any more unless circumstances change, and then he will do it through Beckita. Charlie will not retire until July 5, 2018, and continues to advance his mission until then. He is working as hard as before but on different activities, ones that are not public in nature.

I know a lot of people think he has simply stopped all activity and retired, but that is a misunderstanding of his decision not to post publicly for a while. He definitely did *not* end his mission."


Charlie is still very much active and involved, so I really don't think the matter is put to rest, as you say.

Anonymous said...

Darn, I missed the other blog about the Archdiocese new message, I thought people stopped posting, I just read the other blog, I have to say Joe and few others held the fort quite well, I wish I had been there especially about the legal jargon, at least I had a week and got lots of work completed.

Anonymous said...

Glenn, just my opinion, but I think the bickering, accusations, and threats of lawsuits that continued over days on the other thread were possibly keeping others who may have had beneficial or insightful things to say from commenting. "A Quiet Person" posted what I thought was a really important comment, and it sort of got lost in the midst of all that. I posted something (with Charlie's own words) about how he had seen a therapist in the past, and suffered from "periods of depression" and "manic symptoms", and had declined treatment from a comment he made in August 2014. Those were his words, so the person from Charlie's site who said that he was being falsely accused should go read that for himself. I was not judging Charlie or diagnosing him. I was simply presenting a fact, his own statement, to be considered. And this is following the guidelines of the Vatican regarding visionaries, by the way, so no one should have a problem with that.
I also posted that in Charlie's initial interview with Spirit Daily that he says that the Blessed Mother gave him the message and time of the "Rescue", then he later attributes it to "my angel", and also retracts the specific date he gave, saying he overstepped. My point was...with such an important message as this, how could he not get it all of it right in the first place, including who gave him the message?? Doesn't make sense to me. I was hoping for some discussion on it. I may have a couple of other things to share that I would like to hear others opinions about. I understand that Joe, and maybe a couple of others are angry, and want to speak freely, and that others from Charlie's site are upset at what they see as attacks, etc.but perhaps we can all step back a little, and try to help keep the discussion open and fruitful for everyone. There are people who may still have legitimate things to say who have felt afraid to speak, or tried to and it got lost in the infighting. And they may not like the message, but I hope followers from TNRS will not try to stifle anyone's opinions, or the truth for that matter whatever it may be. No one should be afraid of the truth. Jesus is the Way, and the Truth, and the Light. So, if it can be done in a charitable, non accusatory manner by all, then perhaps the discussion can continue. Your thoughts? Fran

Anonymous said...

I didn't see your previous comment, Glenn, before I posted mine, and I also meant to type "Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the LIFE." F

Anonymous said...

Depending on which side you took about the latest dust-up - a lot of people ran for cover or took it at face value as gospel what Mr. Lynch said. When Dan Lynch said that he was a former lawyer and judge, they felt threatened or secure in his words. However, if you actually look at his words he used the words "I believe..." "perhaps" " I think" many times in his letter. "I believe" is a code word for CYA. If he was very certain he would have said "I definitively" or "I know as a fact", but he didn't because he would have not have had an out if he was wrong. It was not a very strong letter in my opinion, it could have been stronger.

These words provide legalize "outs". I know Charlie did the same thing with words to CYA, I brought it up prior so I won't bring it up again.

Now, the legal side works the other way too which has been glossed over because they put people here on the defensive. With Charlie's incorrect prophesy, people did things and spent money to prepare for his prophecies, is someone going to sue over those claims? Then there are the nasty things Charlie said to people on his site with no proof, what action do they take?

These words provide legalize "outs". I know Charlie did the same thing with words to CYA, I brought it up prior so I won't bring it up again.

Anonymous said...

I think that we should close all threads, concerning Charlie and TNRS, at this point. I do not like the fact they are still there, and running, but I think at this, point, we need to TRUST GOD to take care of this. God is obviously very capable of shutting down something that is not in line with his divine will. And it is obvious that the Archdiocese of Denver is not happy with things that have come forth, by Charlie, from his site. I think that we should pray, let go, and LET GOD. Let's have faith in GOD, to take care of this. If it is not in accordance with God's will,it will deteriorate. Things that are not in God's will, will not last. Our prayers are what we should be putting our energy into, regarding all of this. God bless you all.

Anonymous said...

Some aids for discernment taken from EWTN Library:

https://www.ewtn.com/library/SPIRIT/MYSTICS.TXT

MYSTICS PROPHETS AND SEERS - Father Felix Bourdier TODC - Some excerpts:

2. The five causes of a false message
(a) It can happen that the person who says he has received revelations is a liar and in bad faith.

(b) A person can invent things in good faith, either as a result of
an illusion, or arising from a certain disorder of the memory which
consists in believing and recalling certain facts, although they have
never existed.

(c) A person can be deceived by his own imagination or by his own
spirit, if they are too lively.

(d) The devil can give false revelations or visions, as in the case
of Nicholas of Rheims in the 17th century. The devil can also produce
an alienation of the person's senses, in an attempt to produce a counterfeit of divine ecstasy. But this case is extremely rare, and almost no known and certain examples can be cited.

(e) A revelation can be the invention of forgers. Political prophecies have often been their work, being motivated by political or pecuniary interest, or by the desire to fool the public. Such prophecies abound in times of great political or religious trouble. One suspicious characteristic, which is noteworthy in modern political prophecies, is that they never urge people to take up the struggle against the wicked, and do not indicate any serious means of resisting them; they maintain that the world will change suddenly, by a miracle, without a prior conversion of hearts and morals.

Joe said...

Anonymous 2:15 Reason E for false message was the most interesting for me regarding Charlie. A desire to fool the public, motivated by political interest. This is done to suspend any efforts of an uprising against the Government, basically the way I am reading it. The fact that Charlie worked in politics most of his life makes this very compelling. Maybe Charlie was working more for politicians then he was the church or God. Maybe Charlie did not believe the stuff he was writing, but targeting a more conservative audience while the most left leaning president ever occupied the White House. Stifling any possible revolt, believing God will take care of it shortly. It also would make sense that once Obama successfully completed his presidency, then Charlie's job was complete, which explains why he made his prophecy the way he did. This is mere speculation, but also brings something new to the table that has not been discussed as an explanation for the failed prophecies.

Jackisback said...

I vote for either B or C.

Anonymous said...

I think we've worn this subject into the ground. Let's give all of this to God, and let Him take care of it. Prayer is a very powerful thing. Let's use it. I won't be returning to this site, but I will be praying.

Anonymous said...

Joe, with all due respect, please refrain from personal tit-for-tat arguments regarding CJ. The reason for open discussion is to enlighten, inform and help to discern the subject matter of private revelations. This is an opportunity for Catholics to grow in Wisdom, Understanding, Counsel, Fortitude, Knowledge, Piety and Fear of the Lord. It is in this HOLY SPIRIT of unity and love that comments
should be posted in search of the Truth in Love.

Here is a link for the Vatican Norms of Discerning such matters:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19780225_norme-apparizioni_en.html

The whole document should be read along with the following excerpt:

I. CRITERIA FOR JUDGING, AT LEAST WITH PROBABILITY,
THE CHARACTER
OF THE PRESUMED APPARITIONS OR REVELATIONS

A) Positive Criteria:

a) Moral certitude, or at least great probability of the existence of the fact, acquired by means of a serious investigation;

b) Particular circumstances relative to the existence and to the nature of the fact, that is to say:

1. Personal qualities of the subject or of the subjects (in particular, psychological equilibrium, honesty and rectitude of moral life, sincerity and habitual docility towards Ecclesiastical Authority, the capacity to return to a normal regimen of a life of faith, etc.);

2. As regards revelation: true theological and spiritual doctrine and immune from error;

3. Healthy devotion and abundant and constant spiritual fruit (for example, spirit of prayer, conversion, testimonies of charity, etc.).

B) Negative Criteria:

a) Manifest error concerning the fact.

b) Doctrinal errors attributed to God himself, or to the Blessed Virgin Mary, or to some saint in their manifestations, taking into account however the possibility that the subject might have added, even unconsciously, purely human elements or some error of the natural order to an authentic supernatural revelation (cf. Saint Ignatius, Exercises, no. 336).

c) Evidence of a search for profit or gain strictly connected to the fact.

d) Gravely immoral acts committed by the subject or his or her followers when the fact occurred or in connection with it.

e) Psychological disorder or psychopathic tendencies in the subject, that with certainty influenced on the presumed supernatural fact, or psychosis, collective hysteria or other things of this kind.

It is to be noted that these criteria, be they positive or negative, are not peremptory but rather indicative, and they should be applied cumulatively or with some mutual convergence.

Since the Archbishop as already spoken given a "Caution" Warning in March and the most recent admonition not to "condone" CJ's alleged prophetic role, it is wise to note:

II. INTERVENTION
OF THE COMPETENT ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY

1. If, on the occasion of a presumed supernatural fact, there arises in a spontaneous way among the faithful a certain cult or some devotion, the competent Ecclesiastical Authority has the serious duty of looking into it without delay and of diligently watching over it.

Peace in Christ.


Anonymous said...

The criteria above has been followed in the case of Gianna-Talone Sullivan and yet Beckita most recently commented on the TNRS site that she still believes in Our Lady of Emmitsburg apparitions. Which is clearly in disobedience to the Church:

http://www.archbalt.org/news-events/press-releases/upload/Gianna-Talone-Sullivan-Decree.pdf

I am not sure if these facts are known by those who still try to justify following TNRS blog. So prayer is indeed needed. But there is also need for the facts surrounding TNRS and its continuation under Beckita's authority.

Glenn Dallaire said...


Hey "Jackisback",
Haven't heard from you lately!--I'm glad to see that "Jack is back" (and hopefully better than ever, ha ha!)
-Glenn

Glenn Dallaire said...


For those interested, I just published a new article entitled "Men and Woman messiah's? Outlandish visionaries and the strange cults that surrounded them".

While it has NOTHING to do with Charlie Johnston specifically, it does address the matter of visionaries who have made some pretty extraordinary claims, and the "cult of personality" and followers surrounding such persons, along with the eventual outcomes revealing that "cult" like movements that surround such persons are always of a limited time frame.

Glenn Dallaire

Jackisback said...

To Anonymous at 1:12 AM,

Presumably you won't respond to this post of mine, since you are pledging to not return to this site. But if you are still indulging in reading this blog, I'd like to request that you (in the slight chance that you might change your mind about commenting in the future), and all like minded commentators, refrain in the future from making the repeated requests that this blog be closed by Glenn or that we who are interested in discernment and relevant discussion cease our own commentary. Such requests for closing of the blog by Glenn smack of requests of censorship (and when made anonymously are suspicious of coming from "friends of Charlie" at TNRS - who would like nothing more than to see the one venue which raises both spiritual and logical arguments against the notion that Charlie is a prophet - shut down). Such requests that we cease all future commentary voluntarily are, simply, lacking in charity by definition as a request for self-censorship - and include an inherent irony when the request for that self-censorship is described as the "charitable thing to do."

Praying? Absolutlely, but in addition to discussion, not solely in substitution for discussion. Why? Quite simply, because despite the multiple statements by the Denver Archdiocese, the "friends of Charlie" crowd at TNRS continues to double down.

One example: we here at this blog argued at length about the meaning of the original warning from the Archbishop of Denver about a year ago. Charlie's defenders, and even Glenn, argued that the statement was a "Gamaliel option" statement, and was in no way a negative statement about Charlie. I, along with others here, pointed out the prohibition of speaking engagements at Denver Archdiocesan venues was a negative statement. Glenn and others argued that it was not - for the dubious reason that all outside speakers are "not approved" until they become "approved", and so Charlie was simply in the same situation as any other "unapproved" third party speaker. But that argument doesn't really fly given the Archdiocesan spokesperson's most recent statement on the matter:

--begin quoted text--
In fact, Mr. Johnston’s alleged messages were reviewed by an archdiocesan theological commission and Archbishop Samuel J. Aquila determined that the faithful should be warned to be prudent and cautious about Mr. Johnston’s predictions. In addition, Mr. Johnston is not permitted to speak in Church-owned venues in the Archdiocese of Denver. Read Archbishop Aquila’s message, here.
--end quoted text--

The implications of this statement, to the extent one doesn't bury one's head in the sand when reading it, very clearly put the lie to the assertion that the Archdiocese of Denver is simply sticking with a "Gamaliel option." They are not. They are just being polite and "charitable."

Yet, the folks still at the TNRS site clearly write as if their heads are buried in the sand, and so they continue to publish defenses of Charlie (whether in a post itself or in the comments section) like the one that resulted in the writtten rebuke from the Archdiocese, or they continue to publish defenses of Charlie here on this site anonymously.

Telling us here that there is "nothing to see here" and that we should "move on" out of charity is a mild form of gaslighting because the tone of the request has the inherent notion that everyone else has moved on and the Archdiocese has given the final word. The continued existence of the TNRS site proves otherwise.

Jackisback said...

Nice to be "back" Glenn.

Glad you haven't closed the thread.

Glenn Dallaire said...

Jackisback,
Well, as you know I definitely do NOT like having to close any comment sections, but as you probably noticed the "Statement on false claim regarding Charlie Johnston’s messages" comment thread was just getting too out of hand with ad-hominem character attacks along with ongoing threats of lawsuits. I thought a "cooling off" period was in order, as folks on both side were getting quite feisty!

-Glenn

Joe said...

Jackisback, good points. I agree I have thought that these comments to shut down the thread were coming from the NRSers as well.

Joe said...

Anonymous 8:50 , respectfully I will comment however I would like, Thankyou for your concern.

Jackisback said...

Hey Glenn, please don't infer criticism from me on your decision to close the other thread. I was being sincere, not snarky, in saying thanks for keeping this one open. I wasn't reading or posting on the other one very much. And as always, I have respect for the fact that it's your blog - or - it's your party, as they say. ;-)

Glenn Dallaire said...


Hi Jackisback,
No worries! I didn't take your comment to be criticism at all--I knew that you were being sincere.

As the weeks and months pass I strongly suspect that the readership and followers over at TNRS blog will continue to plummet, as reality sets in and people lose interest. It was all quite a intense prophetic drama for awhile, but now the party is over.

-Glenn

steve said...

I've been wondering about Jackisback...are you the same person who sometimes posts as Jack Galleger? I appreciate your insights and the sanity you bring to the conversation.

And on another topic, or rather off-topic, did anyone catch this posting about Medjugorje where the Bishop says it is a hoax:

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/02/for-record-local-bishop-confirms.html

Jackisback said...

Steve (at 1:00 PM),

Yes, that's me. I had mentioned that in a past thread. I'm not trying to be sly in any way. It depends upon which computer I log into when I make a comment. I'm too lazy to change it to say Jack Gallagher when the computer I'm logged into displays me as "Jackisback."

Sorry again for any confusion. And, thanks for the compliment. I wonder at times how many readers feel alienated by my insistence on (and persistence in) the use of logic, and the avoidance of logical fallacies, as opposed to those who appreciate it.

The great Catholic scholars sought to express the notion that faith and reason are compatible.

I don't have a dog in the hunt vis-a-vis Medjugorje. Even if approved, the Church does not require my belief as a measure of faith. As long as you have pointed to one negative view, I'd like to ask, as one who genuinely doesn't know much about it, what is the record of miracles occurring at Medjugorje? - in comparison to Lourdes, for example?

steve said...

Thanks Jack, no clue about miracles at Medjugorje. The phenomenon always struck me as odd.

Fred Keyes said...

I see this site has gone silent for a while.

I'm wondering for those of you more familiar: Are all the old Charlie posts still available at the TNRS blog, including the ones about the Presidential prophecies?

They seem to have gone plain vanilla, with a slant toward the more conservative prelates like Cardinal Burke. It's all good. The Church has always had differences on theological matters, back to the beginning; e.g., like the Judaizers vs. Paul's more liberal view of salvation for Jew and Gentile alike.

Jackisback said...

Hey Fred,

As far as I can tell, the TNRS archive is intact. Be aware that the archive is one source among multiple sources of the Presidential Prophecy. Others include the Mother of God blog and videos of Charlie's talks in various venues around the country.

Jack

Anonymous said...

Geopolitics and power structure explained at this Catholic blog: https://catholicconspiracy.blogspot.ca/2015/04/if-you-dont-like-reading-check-out-this.html

Joe said...

As time has passed I have had time to reflect on what got me so mad about Charlie. I think what it boils down to is that Charlie became the evil that he promised God would rescue us from. We live in a world increasingly filled with lies and deception, We have a Government that is out of control, families are breaking apart left and right, the economy is collapsing, young people are narcissists obsessed with getting attention on social media, feminism has destroyed the family unit, having an opinion outside of what the media pushes down your throat is a hate crime, lawsuits are everywhere, the church is about as lively as a funeral home and false prophets, false pastors and false Christians have taken control of any type of Faith in this country. It seems like God is nowhere to be found. Then someone came along and offered us hope, that God really does have a plan, he disappointed many, but instead of showing any humility he lashed out at everyone who questioned him, then he made up more lies to cover up his old lies. It doesn't matter, I am over it at this point, he is the first and only so called prophet I will ever put any stock into.

Anonymous said...

Joe, God goes have a plan, however it looks like that plan is not a world wide civil war, the collapse of all monetary systems, world war with China, 26 million dead, and the rise of Menses, to be followed by Mayberry RFD.

Glenn Dallaire said...


-Don't forget also the "end of political Islam", which was/is also on the list.

Joe:
Thanks for sharing your perspective here frankly and sincerely. I think quite a few folks held similar hopes and views, and had a similar approach concerning all this.

Glenn Dallaire

Anonymous said...

At Charlie Johnston's website, his followers skirt dangerously close to condoning and promoting his false messages. Beckita says Charlie foresaw his failed presidential prophecy, and the failure is part of God's plan:

"One caution we’ve been taking into the pondering and processing of the failed inaugural prophecy is the Archdiocese of Denver’s exhortation to refrain from reinterpreting the prophecy. Perhaps a reminder about something Charlie shared right after the election may help in your contemplation of events: In his major post, “Reality Check,” Charlie conveyed he had been forewarned that he would be incorrect on something this year. He said: “Sometime in the next year, I will be significantly wrong about something. It won’t be the Rescue, but it will be something. When it comes, it will not be a test of me, for I already know that God is good and seeks our reclamation. It will be a test for some of you, to see whether you have put your faith in me or your faith in God. If it is in me, your faith was always ill-placed. God is good, all the time, whatever the circumstances – and works to call us all back to Him. When I am wrong, I will accept the correction with gratitude and more wisdom. I will not leave the scene unless it is one of the fundamentals, and then, in full obedience to Holy Church, I will wait on the Lord, knowing that He will strengthen my heart and that it serves His purpose to call all His children back to Him.”

SteveBC hasn't given up the fight either. Charlie is waiting in the wings, Steve says:

"Bob from Dearborn, you have got a good picture of things as they stand. However, I do want to make certain you understand that Charlie has not “taken himself out of his mission …” Yes, he has retired from his *public* activities, but he has many other duties falling within his mission and is still quite active in pursuing those. In fact, the necessity to withdraw and discern has also been an opportunity to pursue needed tasks previously left fallow due to the time required to handle those public duties. He’s happy and productive, still pursuing his mission, and glad we are all pursuing what is now our part in that mission. Sometimes, what appears to be a loss is actually a gain, though that can take some time to become clear. Be at peace. Charlie – and we – are fine. 🙂

Joe said...

Anonymous 9:40
I saw that to yesterday and thought the same thing. In fact I remember someone asking Charlie if the inauguration would be the thing he got wrong and he said no. Now it looks like they are implying that it was. Can anyone not see how dishonest these people are?

Anonymous said...

Beckita's claim Charlie predicted his mistake about Trump's win, and SteveBC's claim "what appears to be a loss is actually a gain" are both reinterpretations of Charlie's failed prediction. Exactly what the archdiocese told them not to do!!

Joe said...

When you cut a persons tongue out you don't prove that you are right, you prove you fear what the other might say. A quote I read today which reminded me of how controlling Charlie was with comments on his blog and Beckita and Steve continue to be. It has proven to be ineffective for them as the number of TNRSers is now dwindling down to nothing. I wonder if deep down in places where Charlie don't talk about if he deeply regrets what he has done and the damage to his own reputation and legacy.

Anonymous said...

As predicted their site is nose diving. I had called it a catholic feel good site, which some made fun of, and rightly so, but in reality it's one of a 1,000 or 10,000 such sites around with a failed prophecy tied around it's neck like cement blocks - that spells doom to me.
Besides, if you want to know about the collapse who do follow Gerald Celente ( or others )or Charlie Johnston?

Anonymous said...

Well, I am not so sure now that Charlie was wrong. Obama is still a deep state leader- and the deep state is operating as a parallel government. So has Obama left in practical reality? No he has not. His vision may be valid. We have to pray, wait and allow God to reveal all.

Anonymous said...

Like I said Gerald Celente and others have been saying the same thing, the issue that Charlie alone has inside information is not true. Besides, he made a very specific prophecy and it failed, I believe it failed in 2012. As I said before, he is right on certain aspects but his timing and facts are convoluted. It appears the people who have made fun of the comet seekers have now become the comet seekers.
Political analyst Charles R Smith in Washington says it is the same old thing, nothing has changed in Washington.
As for Trump according to former CIA guy - Steele - Trump needs to do a few things to consolidate power otherwise he will not last - election reform, consolidation of CIA & NSA, and some other things.
According David John Oates with reverse speech his reverse speech which was congruent before is now off. something has changed.

Unknown said...

Oh Lordy, anonymous at 2:07. You guys are incorrigible. If anyone is an expert on running a deep state, it's Steve Bannon. He's been doing that for years now. And now that he's succeeded in getting power, he figures his opponents are doing the same. You will holler, like Charlie did, "normalcy bias!" Come on now. Please stop trying to find a way to make Charlie right.

Fred Keyes said...

I meant anonymous at 11:40 AM, NOT @ 2:07 PM. My bad.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous at 11:40 AM, you stated: "Well, I am not so sure now that Charlie was wrong."

Perhaps God's plan all along was this...have the Archangels train Charlie for 50 years, give him all these spectacular prophecies, and then tell Charlie that the proof he could give the world that his prophecies are true would be the failed US election. And then God pulls the rug from under Charlie's feet and allows the election anyway. Seriously?

Jackisback said...

Well, there's that. And on top of that, we also have his own diocese on the record admonishing Catholics "...that Mr. Johnston’s alleged visions were not accurate and the Archdiocese urges the faithful not to condone or support further attempts to reinterpret them as valid."

After all of the debunking that has been done on this blog, I'm a little surprised that anyone would still purport to be gullible enough to continue this "reinterpretation meme."

L Spinelli said...

It always bothered me how casually Charlie tossed the word "training" around. That never sat right with me. I'd think, was he put through dog obedience classes?, because that's what I pictured whenever he used it!

He was, if not suffering from delusions, "trained well" by Satan. Let's give messages to this guy that will take focus off the anniversary of Fatima. I remember reading somewhere on TNRS (it might have been scrubbed because I never re-found it) that the Storm would "center around Charlie". How were people not tipped off by that and the whole "I have a new blueprint for government given to me by God and I'm going to lead this country into a glorious state" nonsense?

Charlie's Alexa rating plummeted since the curiosity surrounding what was going to happen with his messages died off. Let's keep it going that way by abiding what the Denver archdiocese asked us to do.

Anonymous said...

Beckita is at it again. Today--snow day!--she's reprinted one of Charlie's articles, this one on the Blessed Mother.It's a toe-in-the-water move to see if anyone complains. Didn't his archdiocese tell her not to condone Charlie Johnston's messages, as well as not to spin them to make them into something true? Isn't reprinting "condoning"? Charlie's Number One Fan apparently wants to make sure he is not forgotten.

Ironically, in the previous post, The Lady of All Nations, Beckita lambasted a series of comments in which a member of Charlie's loving community had the temerity to doubt Beckita's take on church approval of another messenger. Beckita lashed out at Mary Ann Parks for doubting and notes "The Church has officially spoken." As if that mattered to Charlie's fans, who wanted to sue his archdiocese for libel just last month!

Joe said...

Beckita acts like she is such a holy and devout Catholic yet she cannot even follow a simple instruction by the Denver Archdiocese. Hearts are being revealed? What does that even mean? I suspect they are saying that anyone who doubts Charlie they are being revealed as a false Believer or some such nonsense.

L Spinelli said...

Whenever Charlie trotted out the "hearts will be revealed" or my personal "favorite", "you will be held to account", I thought, please quit gaslighting people already.

Like I posted before, I started to suspect that something was very off with him after his Christmas prophecy failed and he went on a post long scream-a-thon to the doubters.

Then came "God is far right wing" (Jade Helm), great will be the fall, I proclaim the Rescue, and oh, I was called to redesign the government. Any time anyone doubted any of this craziness, those two well worn phrases came right out.

As much as it irritates me, I keep the TNRS stragglers in my prayers. Beckita is leading them off a cliff with her misinformed pronouncements on unapproved apparitions.

Anonymous said...

Wondering if Charlie sold his website to Beckita.

Joseph J. said...


And so it is that Charlie Johnston shamefully now joins the long list of failed visionaries and prophets. One has to give some credit to the other recent failed visionaries "Maria Divine Mercy" and "Locutions to the World" who at least wisely sought to hide their real identity through pseudo-names. Charlie Johnston is not so fortunate however, and his grandiose prophecy fails will forever be attributed to his name and person, and in the future he will be used as a primary example and warning against being quick to follow and believe in such persons who boldly claim to be visionaries.

As for his "The Next Right Step" blog, it has very predictably lost the vast majority of its followers, and is quickly ending up being an embarrassing record of failed prophecies from a failed prophet who made some bold predictions that were a complete fail. Personally I would not be surprised if the TNRS blog gets 'mysteriously' deleted at some point but hopefully this mystics blog will keep these articles about Charlie up for the record, as a warning against imprudently accepting the claims of such persons.

Joe said...

Anonymous 3:23, if Beckita bought Charlie's website she is a complete fool. That would be equivalent to buying a failed business that owes money all over town.

Joe said...

In Beckita's latest blog, A sign of hope, Beckita says it will always be important to honor the archdiocese statement. Then in the very next sentence she talks about the storm and the broad sweep of things, two key phrases that Charlie used when discussing his prophecies. Who does she think she is fooling? In an era of fake news, fake people with all kinds of plastic surgeries and phony Facebook pages, fake preachers and fake Christains the last thing the Catholic Church needs is a sect promoting all of these fake prophets with false teaching, Charlie and anybody still associating themselves with him at this point ought to be ashamed. Anyone still promoting Charlie needs to stop or be excommunicated in my opinion.

Fred Keyes said...

First a little fraternal something....I'm not saying there are no fools in the world; the Book of Proverbs attests otherwise. But we should be very careful calling someone else a fool--the gospel has some strong advice about that.

Anyway, I see Beckita has a post up today in which she talks about the Storm and the "broad sweep of events," which arguably a temporary fall-back position until something occurs that the TNRSers deem to be a fulfillment of Charlie's predictions.

About that though, the whole idea of the "Storm" is something I would say Charlie was a day late and a dollar short on. A storm has been happening since, well, since Christ died. But in our own day (I'm 72..), that storm intensified beginning in the 60s, certainly not when some event in North Korea in recent years set it off. Even there, things had gone sideways in North Korea a long time before that. The "broad sweep" likewise is a co-opting of events that were plain long before Charlie came along. TNRSers would say that the storm is far worse than that but I would challenge them to point to any event in the past ten years that is worse than events I can point to in the last 50 years that were just as bad and in a couple of cases (e.g. Roe v. Wade) worse. My view gets a charge of normalcy bias, but that's a hollow charge; the first thing conspiracy theorists always say.

There is a reason the Church does not require belief in private revelations--even ones like Fatima and Lourdes. The deposit of the faith is available without those events and what the Magisterium teaches is already sufficient to lead us to salvation. It is prideful to put so much faith in private revelation that we fail to develop the faith given to us through the sacraments. Our charge is to live the sacraments with the same fervor that we sometimes chase apparitions and dubious prophets.

Anonymous said...

Fred Keyes, your comment contains wisdom at every turn ... especially the last paragraph. May all readers of this blog post, myself most of all, remember and live it. Thanks for the gentle reminder.

Little Bee

L Spinelli said...

Spirit Daily mentions Charlie today in this piece: http://spiritdaily.org/blog/uncategorized/a-little-alleged-seer-update

Michael Brown hints (just like Beckita did) that Charlie "got the broad sweep right" about North Korea and the Storm itself.

One must admit: Charlie’s statements many years ago warning about North Korea are currently very resonant.

Brown also wrote about Nancy Fowler and Christina Gallagher, two also controversial and long denounced by their respective Archdioceses.

Fred is absolutely right - putting any stock in anything these people have to say is an enormous distraction.

Anonymous said...

Charlie has begun his comeback by making a statement to Michael Brown on his website. It is a well known site, known throughout the world, and the very fact that he has done so indicates that Charlie has no intention of doing what he said he would do. I also think that, as much as I have respected Michael Brown in the past, having Charlie make a statement on his website is going against the spirit of the statement from the Archdiocese of Denver. I will have to reconsider whether or not I will continue to visit his website if he continues to promote these false prophets.

Jackisback said...

Responding to Fred's post at 12:20 PM,

Great points as always, Fred Keyes. Stormy in North Korea prior to 2008? Well, yes; so let's review with a partial timeline of some stormy highlights.

Dec 1991: North Korea signs the Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Penninsula on December 31.

Sept 1992: The IAEA discovers "discrepancies" on the very first NK disclosure on its then existing "nuclear program" (that wasn't supposed exist - they had signed on to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1985) generateing questions that go unanswered. The inspectors couldn't figure out how the "program" disclosed by NK only produced 90 grams of plutonium.


1993: the CIA figures out that NK really has 12 kilograms of separated plutonium - enough for one or two nuclear bombs.

Jan 1994: CIA director James Wolsey estimates that NK probably has already produced one or two nuclear weapons.

Oct 1994: the US and NK sign the "Agreed Framework," stating that NK will freeze and eventually eliminate its nuclear facilities, allow the IAEA unfettered special inspections, and send 8,000 spent nuclear reactor fuel elements to a third country. The IAEA declares victory, claiming that construction-in-progress of "bad" nuclear plants were halted and that the facilities are not operational.

May 1996: the US discovers that NK had been engaging in transactions with Iran for missile technology (oops, there's Charlie's NK-Iran connection that he claimed was so important in May 2009 - the purported "beginning of the storm") way back in 1996.

Oct 2000: Madeline Albright infamously gives Kim Jong Il a basketball signed by Michael Jordan; she is happily propagandized by Kim; she declares victory, claiming NK has made a commitment to stop tests of the Taepo Dong-1 missile, a commitment to "nuclear transparency" and a commitment to normalizing relations with the US. But things hit a snag during the next month's round of bi-lateral missile talks.

Jan 2001: a NK company gets slapped with sanctions for violation of the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000. Oops, there's Iran again... For his part, GW Bush begins his own two-step dance with NK.

Oct 2002: it is exposed that every positive step in NK since 1991 has been a lie. One of our undersecretaries of state visits NK and confronts them with the discovery of their active and long-standing secret program to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. NK responds by kicking out all IAEA inspectors by year end. A month later, NK announces "withdrawal" from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, confirming to the whole world that they had never been abiding by it in the first place.

Apr 2003: NK, the US and China hold trilateral talks; NK tells the US delegation that it possesses nuclear weapons, proving that they had never stopped any nuclear programs at any time in the past. In November, NK's ambassador to the UK tells Reuters that NK has a workable nuclear device.

Sept 2005: NK signs a joint statement pursuant to the "six-party talks" committing to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs, return to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (and to IAEA safeguards/inspections) and to abide by the 1992 Joint Declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean Penninsula. Shortly thereafter, eight state-run NK companies are once again caught in nuclear weapon-related proliferation transactions.

Apr 2006: NK says they will return to the six-party talks if the US lifts the freeze on $25 million in funds siezed related to the prior weapons related proliferation.

July 2006, NK tests seven ballistic missiles.

Oct 2006: NK conducts its first underground nuclear test.

Yeah, pretty stormy.

L Spinelli said...

I really have to wonder why Michael Brown gave Charlie another platform via that article. I took the statement of February 16 to mean that we shouldn't be going back over any of his writings, even the "musings" and short stories. (I found them pretty boring, IMO). Frankly, I wouldn't want to buy a book of his "non-prophetic" writings. I'd much rather read Chesterton or the Church Fathers. Charlie doesn't compare.

Anonymous said...

The alleged bishop "YongDuk" who may--or may not--exist opines in the latest article on Charlie's website, "My heart is telling me that we have hit a junction that Charlie has spoken of before which the Bible speaks of time and again..."So much for obedience to the archdiocese statement by Beckita, again.

As for Michael Brown, I think that by giving a statement Charlie Johnston has clearly showed he doesn't really intend to retire. Somewhere in the morass that is still Charlie's website, there is discussion of Charlie coming back if there is a hard coup (as opposed to a soft coup). I think Steve BC said that. I would very much like to see Denver lay down the law once and for all, even though that is unlikely.

Steve said...

I wonder why Bishop YongDuk chooses to be anonymous. If the rescue by the BVM is less than 10 months away, and by this time next year we will be living in Mayberry RFD, why is he anonymous?

Fred Keyes said...

Steve, just a gut feeling, but I don't read Yong Duc as being "all in." Whoever he is, the man has more than ordinary insight into church politics. He's an admirer of the ultra-conservative Cardinal Burke, and those curch politics may be why he was attracted to Charlie. Nothing wrong with that. It seems to me he's gently opposed many of Charlie's strongest attempts to move public opinion, such as his war on the Muslim world. He also knows scripture like theologians do.

Another of Charlie's puzzling themes was his whole prophecy concerning U.S. cooperation with the Russians to defeat China militarily. His sly pro-gun stance, his don't-take-my-word-for-it but prepare "in case" advice, and winking use of "Crew Dog" surely helped stir up ardor for the coming fight. It makes me wonder if Charlie is part of the misguided Trumpian attempt at detente with Putin——which is now under investigation by the Justice department.

Or could it be Charlie was somehow successfully targeted with Putin's now-exposed attempt to manipulate our elections? I remember reading stories early last summer about how pro-life and pro-family old eastern block countries had become. I'd like to see someone document those reports; everything I had heard previously was that, if anything, the old eastern block countries were getting more and more materialistic. But what better way to influence Catholics into becoming pro-Russian than to plant stories that make it appear the Russians are "all-in" on key Catholic concerns? What better way to convince a very large number of faithful Catholics that their beliefs about Our Lady of Fatima were about to come true?

The more the days go by, the more bizarre things are getting in Washington, and perforce, the more bizarre are Charlie's hair-raising predictions.

Jackisback said...

Fred,

I found Yong Duk's latest contribution odd - especially in light of Charlie's predictions concerning the Pope. While YD is pointing an accusatory finger at those whom he deems "modern day Pharaisees" for the current schism and now apparent conference of mostly (if not all) lay Catholic academics in France, the first thought that crossed my mind was: wait, isn't this possibly just the "fruit" borne from Pope Francis' actions and failures to act vis-a-vis the divergent interpretations by Cardinals and Bishops of Amoris Laetitia?

Charlie predicted a "blunder" by Francis, and intimated that the division fostered by Amoris Laetitia might be that "blunder" in his post of September 13, 2016 titled "New Winds, New Waves, Same Barque of Safety":

--begin quoted text--

I have seen the letter from Pope Francis suggesting that there are circumstances in which some divorced and remarried people can be admitted to communion. For what it’s worth, this is his interpretive conclusion, but has not been explicitly stated in any Magisterial fashion. I don’t agree with his interpretation on this, I don’t understand this, but I do trust in Christ’s promise that He will not allow His Church to fall into definitive error.

It doesn’t come as a particular surprise to me that, as chaos and confusion rises in every aspect of everyday life and in every nook of the globe, it should rise in the debate in the Church, as well. Some have suggested that this may be the “blunder” I foresaw. I don’t know, though I will concede it is the best candidate I have seen so far.

--end quoted text--

So I guess I agree that YD's most recent post via Beckita is definitely not in line with Charlie - which again, strikes me as odd, because it was exceedingly rare to see YD disagree with Charlie on anything. I also note that none of Charlie's followers take the approach that Charlie always seemed to take on such matters - "these things must come" - and, as well, they constantly pray for mitigation from these stormy moments, which Charlie also recommended against doing (at least he did so up until a few weeks before innauguration day).

Anonymous said...

"CrewDog" as a Russian plant? That's a funny idea, Fred K., but CrewDog predates Charlie as an internet alt-right keyboard warrior. I used to lurk at the Mother of God forum. CrewDog and Joe Crozier are members there. They pushed Charlie J. all the time, maybe still do. CrewDog and another member, "Fatima Pilgrim," cyber-bullied anyone who tried to make the case against Charlie. Really really nasty, just like Charlie was nasty to anyone who tried to ask questions.

I don't believe YongDuk is a real bishop. What real bishop would continue to back Charlie even after his public failure and the statement by a fellow (arch) bishop saying Charlie's visions are false? If there is a plant at Charlie's website, I think it is Yong Duk. I wouldn't be surprised if Charlie himself wrote those comments from YD. He always bragged about his important friends. Maybe all he has left are make-believe important friends.

Fred Keyes said...

My history following Charlie is about a year old or maybe less. So I don't have the same feel that most of you here do about the Charlie universe.

Not a plant, Anon 9:04AM, but perhaps an unaware tool who was deliberately fed fake news that he passed along. Crew Dog frequently posted articles that came from highly dubious websites. But whether Charlie, Crew Dog and others were letting their opinions be shaped by outside influences is a question in my mind. Certainly the result of the Presidential Prophecies proves that Charlie was influenced into believing fantastic outcomes. But by whom? The devil, or merely the devilish?

Anonymous said...

Fred Keyes, it is the devil. This whole Charlie thing is a deception to draw people away from proper focus on the Church, prayer and sacraments, and also spur them to disobedience to proper authority. Charlie was always more interested in the political world than the spiritual. He saw himself as a major player in the new government after the "Storm."

The whole transfer of duties to Beckita is a fabrication. Beckita does not follow the letter or spirit of the archdiocese of Denver's statement. Beckita still claims Charlie's visions are true. Beckita states as a fact Charlie spoke to an angel.

Beckita says:
March 22, 2017 at 10:06 am


...YDs reflection connects to God revealing hearts as He is in events right now. We’ve often discussed here one of Archangel Gabriel’s sobering statements made to Charlie, “They must choose or perish.” And so we must in these days, choose for or against God, just as millions before us have done throughout salvation history...

Another piece of evidence Charlie is running things behind the scenes is this statement from SteveBC.

SteveBC says:
March 19, 2017 at 7:51 pm


Indeed, Charlie is proud of Beckita. He and Beckita are in regular contact. Be assured. Charlie did not “retire” and go away. He retired from being public via this blog and his talks. He is still very busy and doing much good in the world, just not publicly. I agree with you that he chose wisely when he chose Beckita. 🙂

L Spinelli said...

Just a thought. It's already been shown that Beckita is a credulous apparition chaser who was a major player in promoting and defending discredited seers. Do you people really think that Charlie would have picked someone like Fred K or Jack to run his site? This is no slam on either of them. Charlie wouldn't choose anyone who questioned, challenged or logically picked out the problems with his mission and message to keep his Titanic of a site going.

L Spinelli said...

I just visited TNRS after a long break. These people are carrying on as if January 20 never happened. They're still doing what the Archdiocese asked them not to. Charlie's spell clearly hasn't broken with the remaining sherpas - yep, they're still calling themselves that! It's pure insanity.

Anonymous said...

What always seemed odd to me was this business of CJ referring to Satan as "THE" Satan.

Also not referring to the Blessed Mother's appearances as Our Lady of Guadalupe but rather as Our Lady of Tepeyac. And the notion that this is the Blessed Mother's preferred name. It may well be but it seems strange that Popes and Bishops have gotten her title wrong for over 500 years, and only now the correct title has been revealed.

Nuttier-than-a-squirrel-turd! said...


I always thought it odd at the Next Right Step blog how their was all this talk and bantering about their strange attraction and devotion to squirrels---I see now that it was all nuttier than a squirrel turd!

Anonymous said...

The only use of TNRS blog is narcissistic supply.

Anonymous said...

More Beckita, from "Our Lady of Tepeyac" post:

Beckita says:
March 25, 2017 at 11:55 am


Yes, sojourner. Your comments with the excellent closing exhortation fits any and every thread. And I would add that Charlie came amidst many already Church approved messages, such as Divine Mercy. Fatima, Maria Esperanza, Akita, Amsterdam, etc. to highlight the core message: Acknowledge God, take that next right step and be a sign of hope, that we would have concrete action to take when the chaos, confusion and division would be at its height, accompanied by all manner of crumbling, collapsing events. Charlie always exhorted that the broad sweep of things to come could be dismissed for through a glass darkly we continue to see what Heaven forewarned and now continues to unfold. It is precisely our core message, synonymous with St. Therese’s Little Way, which will enable us to be of help to those around us when purification seems nearly overwhelming, both now in our personal storms and in the near future when all seems lost.

Liked by 8 people
Reply

Or cribbed by Charlie from St. Therese? Like many of his political insights, gleaned from a close reading of conservative websites, rewritten with Charlie's branded folksy touch.

Fred Keyes said...

Time marches on and still no evidence that the "broad sweep of events" will include the most serious and spectacular of Charlie's predictions.

I have to say though that the more I hear about what the Russians did by contributing in a major way to unsettling American politics the more I wonder if Charlie was encouraged either knowingly or unwittingly into spreading political propaganda designed to inflame passions in last year's elections.

And from what I read, those efforts continue. What's pernicious about them is that they don't pursue any particular agenda. They post to comment pages and blogs that aim to increase division and inflame passions. I used to wonder how in the comments, say in the Washington Post or the LA Times, there could be *so many* people whose opinions were inflammatory and often profane--from both political extremes. Many of them no doubt come from genuine American posters. But how many are taking the bait thrown out by a Russian operative in a boiler room in Moscow? Can you imagine the havoc they create posting to an outlet like either Breitbart News or Slate to unsettle their readers and get them to react and move more and more toward extreme positions?

And how many came from posters who spotted Charlie's blog and then supported him or doubted him just to get people like us all riled up? What better way to sow hate and discontent than to attach baited comments to religious sites, a subject about which many of us have strong beliefs?

Jackisback said...

Hey Fred,

Your last sentence hits the nail on the head, perhaps. But Charlie's politics were always irrelevant to me, except as a tell-tale sign of inauthenticity.

Recall that Charlie, when criticisizing the downfall of other "locution" websites, made mention of the notion that, when one observes that an alleged "seer" maintains a website that is "running commentary on current events," that is a sign of inauthenticity. Yet that is what Charlie's blog always seemed to be (in my view).

It never mattered to me if Charlie had chosen to spout clickbait for Breitbart or Slate, or rather, for Media Matters or the Center for American Progress. The strong beliefs of blog readers would have been stirred in either case.

One of the possibilities has always been that Charlie was knowingly attempting to deceive (the Latin term of "scienter" comes to mind). I'm not able to come to a conclusion about that yet, but if (and it's still a big "if" at this point) fraud were the source of all this, then it makes sense for Charlie to have put so much emphasis on the so-called "storm" - for that allowed him an easy excuse to harp on the same political theories from his consulting days. Much of his professional life was in Illinois - where politics is dominated by a Democratic Party-controlled legislature - a place where Charlie could cast himself as fighting against a foe, which, in Charlie's eyes, was running the state "into the ground" - into financial bankruptcy, etc., etc.

That plenty of folks in Illinois disagree with that meme is not important. "Fighting" against Illinois Democrats gave Charlie plenty of work for the other side, so it served his purposes. Once that part of his life ended, he simply picked up where he left off when creating his blog, but this time complaining about progressives at the federal level. Inventing a "storm" - whether from whole cloth or from co-opting it from the Fatima's "Warning" - served a purpose. It allowed Charlie a rationalization to conflate his political views with his brand of spirituality (partly co-opted from Fatima and, as others have noted, St. Therese of Lisieux).

I am not sure it matters whether Charlie may have been a "pawn" of Russian political theater. The role of foil played by the progressives - being in charge of the federal government - served his purposes quite well prior to the Trump victory.

In thinking about it, Trump's victory left Charlie with far fewer concrete examples of "imminent collapse/crash" (from Charlie's perspective) to rail against. It had to be confusing for him, because all the while he had expected Clinton to win as part of the fulfillment of the "storm" meme ("these things must come") - to the point where he described future calamities as things from which his followers should most definitely NOT pray for mitigation (because that would be praying for God to "withhold the cure for our societal cancer").

The irony now is palpable. His followers continue to blog and openly pray for mitigation from stormy outcomes related to the "five fundamentals". They also have the temerity to take credit for having prayed for mitigation from the "cataclysm" Charlie had said was the "most likely" scenario for the "Presidential Prophecy's" fulfillment. They claim that Charlie advised them just a few weeks before the inauguration that it was OK to pray for mitigation from that "cataclysm". Apparently, no one thought to ask Charlie why God felt it would be OK to answer those prayers and refuse to begin the necessary "surgery" to remove our societal "tumor."

Glenn Dallaire said...


Thanks Fred and Jackisback for your insightful comments.

-Glenn

Fred Keyes said...

Excellent points, Jack.

However the saga of Charlie Johnston finally turns out, it will be a classic in the annals of exciting seers and colorful prophets. People I know were enamored by his "oh, shucks" country charm, including squirrels and an idyllic Mayberry. It's always been possible to get people going, using an understanding of what they believe and what they fear the most, and a promise of an elixir that will cure everything. This won't be the last time.

One of the problems they create though is that we become so wary of fake prophets that when a true prophet comes along we're liable to miss the boat.

Glenn Dallaire said...


Good point about the Mayberry "country charm" Fred, and another interesting thing about Charlie is that on a number of occasions he wrote about the differences between authentic prophets and false ones, how he himself strongly suspected that "Locutions to the World" was a false prophet, and how the vast majority of alleged visionaries are false. All of this likely lended him some additional credence with many folks, I suspect.

In the future I am sure that the story of Charlie Johnston will often be used as a cautionary tale against believing too quickly in such persons who "tickle one's ear" with pleasing predictions and outcomes. So this is at least one good thing that will come out of all this, I suppose. And then too who knows? Maybe all the prepper food in many folks basements may actually come in handy at some point, given the fragility of current events.

-Glenn Dallaire

Jackisback said...

Thanks Fred. I wouldn't worry about missing a real one. If one comes along, I'm sure he or she won't be doing an online/virtual Elmer Gantry revival tent routine. And I'm sure they won't engage in magical thinking or require us to do so.

Anonymous said...

Denial is not a river. Twists and turns in reasoning to deny the clear meaning of the Denver statement...

Ed says:
April 6, 2017 at 8:08 pm


Beckita,
I am trying to reconcile a statement in this post with our duty to be obedient to the Archdiocese of Denver. You say:
“I know there will be great suffering when the Storm breaks in its fullness”
Should we still be referencing a Storm breaking in its fullness? That was Charlie’s prediction. The Archbishop said:
“The events of 2016/17 have shown that Mr. Johnston’s alleged visions were not accurate and the Archdiocese urges the faithful not to condone or support further attempts to reinterpret them as valid.”
Isn’t the continued preaching about an upcoming Storm an attempt to cast Charlie’s alleged visions as valid?
God Bless,
A former follower of Charlie and this blog



Beckita says:
April 6, 2017 at 11:04 pm


Ed, we know the inaugural prophecy failed in the way Charlie believed it would occur. I repeat for you that Charlie shared with us at TNRS: throughout his life, he sometimes miscalculated when applying his prophetic input (visions and so much more). Often, his angel would correct him. Shortly after the election, in his piece, “A Reality Check,” he said:
Sometime in the next year, I will be significantly wrong about something. It won’t be the Rescue, but it will be something. When it comes, it will not be a test of me, for I already know that God is good and seeks our reclamation. It will be a test for some of you, to see whether you have put your faith in me or your faith in God. If it is in me, your faith was always ill-placed. God is good, all the time, whatever the circumstances – and works to call us all back to Him. When I am wrong, I will accept the correction with gratitude and more wisdom. I will not leave the scene unless it is one of the fundamentals, and then, in full obedience to Holy Church, I will wait on the Lord, knowing that He will strengthen my heart and that it serves His purpose to call all His children back to Him.

We respect the Archdiocesan statement which acknowledged the prophetic error and we are not here to reinterpret it. Keep in mind that the latest statement from the Archdiocese also referred to their original March 1, 2016 statement in which prudence and caution were advised. Embracing the caution to place our security in Jesus, we move forward in these days of the intensifying Storm. Please remember of what the Storm consists: A worldwide civil war fought on cultural and societal norms. We’re living it, Ed. Have you had the opportunity to read this piece written in January?

We remain to support one another in living the core message fostered here. How often Charlie remarked we can dismiss his prophetic utterances and simply focus on the core message. At the same time, respectfully, can you not see the increasing chaos, confusion and division in our country and around the world? If the word, “Storm” is a bother, please take a look at the fully Church approved messages of Our Lady of Fatima, The Lady of All Nations, the Diary of St. Faustina and Our Lady of Akita. You will see these Church approved messages are consonant with the idea that we are living in, what Charlie called, the Storm. God bless you.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone else noticed the specific wording Beckita used in her response to Ed:

"Ed, we know the inaugural prophecy failed in the way Charlie believed it would occur.

Instead of simply stating that Charlie's prophecy failed PERIOD, she says the prophecy failed in the way Charlie believed it world occur.

I wonder whether Charlie's prophecies about war with China, the complete economic collapse, 26 million dead, the appointment of a Regent to rule the USA, the rise of Menses, the rescue, the Mount Meeker shrine, and a return to Mayberry RFD, will also only fail in the way Charlie believed they would occur.

Is this what the Roman Catholic faith has become? And endless chasing after mystics, seers and sages? What happened to walking by the light of faith? What about reading the Bible for a change instead of the latest tidbit from some seer who will tickle your ears with special knowledge and insight into the future?

L Spinelli said...

Hey folks, even though the following fact was brought up a few times on this post, it bears repeating.

The Presidential Prophecy did not come from God or an angel.

Where did it come from? We don't know, but most likely, it was a deception carried out by Satan himself or a fallen angel.

So why is Beckita carrying on as if these other prophecies are from God? Doesn't she realize (and I believe she doesn't want to face the cold hard truth) that all the others likely came from the same deceptive source?

This is madness. The few remaining hardcore TNRS supporters were so taken in by Charlie's corny charm that they remain in denial about the whole phenomenon.

It's been brought up a few times that Charlie may be a narcissist. Last year, I heard of a few instances where people met Charlie and that corny likeable charm was nowhere to be found. I heard adjectives like stiff, stilted personality, brusque, rude, defensive, etc. Was it a fake persona he used? Was it hard for him to maintain this false front over a long period of time? Who really knows?

L Spinelli said...

The inaugural prophecy failed in the way Charlie believed it would occur.

Hold on. This was given to Charlie straight from the "angel" without any need for interpretation. It ended up in a double fail, again without any need for interpretation...

These people are still in denial that not only is Charlie a flawed messenger, his messages came from somewhere else! That's the main reason why Denver doesn't want the messages spread any more. What does Beckita do? She dismisses it by saying, Charlie made a oopsie, but not with the big picture!

As I said back in January...all this gives me a headache. Pass the Motrin!

Fred Keyes said...

With respect to The "broad sweep" that included greater cooperation between the U.S. and Russia, the last couple of days indicate that the opposite is happening. Russia has been put on notice about its activities in Syria and NATO is no longer "obsolete" as Trump once declared. And far right nationalists are screaming "foul!" Sorry, Charlie, but things as of today are going opposite what you predicted, with no end in sight.

So much of the apparition/locutions/bleeding statues etc. scene is permeated with political rhetoric. Much of it continues to rail against the failed system of Communism or against the U.N. and the perception that dark forces are building a "One World Order." And contrary to Vatican II's "Nostra Aetate," anti-Muslim rhetoric has boiled over beyond reason among many right-leaning Christians.

Anonymous said...

Charlie has popped back up as a political writer! This time at Breitbart, in the comments section. Will he try to ease his way back onto the public square? Try to win points with his "good friend" David Daleiden, who he latched onto a while back? (Charlie claimed to be Daleiden's "advisor" and attended at least one event as his guest, back in the glory days before his archdiocese wrote about the false visions.)

Note the nasty tone at the end. Experience has not humbled him, it seems...


Discussion on Breitbart News Network 6465 comments

Center for Medical Progress Video Investigation — Planned Parenthood Abortionist: ‘Pay Attention to Who’s in the Room’ When Verifying Signs of Life
Charlie Johnston
Charlie Johnston to Preston Holder 16 days ago

Remarkable. If you read the Congressional Record from the decade of the 1850's you will frequently see Southern legislators taunting Northerners that, "If you don't like slavery, don't buy one." Sophistry designed to avoid the central issue - the humanity of the person enslaved or, now, executed. Are you proud to be citing a slogan that has its origins in defense of slavery?

Jackisback said...

Hey Joe,

Can I request that you be charitable toward Fred Keyes? I just don't see how what Fred wrote would give you the idea that he thinks communism is a good thing or that Muslims are not a threat, on a per se basis. I'd say you are making an inference that is a bridge too far.

Personally, I think Fred has a good point that one way to discern that the so-called prophecies of Charlie Johnston were at all times suspect (or should have been always considered suspect) was that Charlie always seemed to conflate his personal political opinions into the "visions" and other communications he had with his "angel." Charlie's political opinions are decidedly to the right, but Fred has never intimated that Charlie's predictions would have had more credence had his political opinions been to the left instead.

Fred doesn't need me to defend him, of course.

However, one reason I still read this blog is because those that continue to write here have been charitable toward each other. You had been so, until this most recent post. I may be, in fact, much farther to the right, politically than you, or even Charlie. But Fred's posts which offer critique of Charlie's use of right-of-center politics have never offended me. And so, I just don't see how Fred's most recent post crossed a line there.

Joe said...

Jack
The time for being charitable and walking on eggshells as if not to offend anyone is over. We are collapsing as a society because of liberals and their mentally sick way of thinking.

Anonymous said...

Dear Joe,

The day for charity is never over - according to Jesus.

Matthew 5:43-48New International Version (NIV)

Love for Enemies
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

And also as we have heard in recent Good Friday services:

And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And they cast lots to divide his garments.

Pray to God for the grace to be charitable, He will not disappoint.
You are obviously in a great deal of emotional and spiritual pain. Have you considered speaking to your priest? Don't let Charlie and his questionable influencers win over you. God bless.

Anonymous said...

Just for the record, Beckita and company are opening promoting and reinterpreting Charlie's messages, without regard for the public request of Catholic authorities.


Lyle Metsker says:
April 14, 2017 at 10:18 am

CHARLEY GAVE THIS WORD TO SPIRIT DAILY:
“You’ll know for certain that the storm has broken in its fullness when it comes through North Korea. For almost a decade now I have shuddered with an unknown and supernatural dread at the mere mention of North Korea.”
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-may-launch-strike-if-north-korea-reaches-nuclear-n746366

Liked by 8 people
Reply


Beckita says:
April 14, 2017 at 12:11 pm

We were just discussing this last evening in a previous comment, Lyle. Uniting with all who are praying for ourselves, our families, our Church, our country and our world. God DOES have a Plan… to reclaim each and every one of His children.

L Spinelli said...

What part of Denver's statement about Charlie's messages weren't correct and shouldn't be reinterpreted are these people not getting? Just because all this is happening now is no reason to revisit them? And PLEASE keep the door slammed shut so he can't re-emerge as Sherp Doggy Dog?

L Spinelli said...

Oh yes, about David Daeliden. Charlie got into a $2500 per person conference FOR FREE last summer under the guise of being DD's adviser.

Fred Keyes said...

Joe,

My conservative friends call me liberal and my liberal friends call me conservative. It's a position a lot of very faithful Catholics find themselves in. If you follow the advice given by the popes and the consensus of our American bishops (the USCCB), particularly in the last two centuries, it's impossible to buy in completely to the platforms of any of the parties in this country that have appreciable support.

I'm with Charlie, frankly, on Delaiden and abortion. Ditto on family issues and religious freedom. Likewise I fully concur with Paul VI's Humanae Vitae--a difficult but totally rational teaching.

And by the way, I love Pope Francis (the Great?). Amoris Latitia was a beautiful Apostolic Exhortation. It's too bad some folks have focused on a single small section of that writing.

Thanks, Jack....I appreciate the understanding.

But on other issues I identify with the more liberal positions--immigration, health care, taxation, gun control--things like that. I believe in subsidiarity wherever it makes sense. Sometimes it doesn't though--social security, defense for example.

Hate conservatives? No. I do the best I can to follow Jesus' commands on that. Love the sinner hate the sin, no?

L Spinelli said...

I wanted to clarify what I said yesterday @ 1:10. It came off as snarky, which really wasn't my intent.

This is the link to the conference he attended. http://napa-institute.org/

If you click on "Main Conference", then "Registration", you'll find the $2500 registration fee.

He also wrote about attending this conference on his blog back in late July of 2016 (I blocked his site on all my devices, so I can't link it). He made a point of not taking advantage because he got into this expensive conference for free - then made a joke about eating some delicious pastry (with a patented Charlie "oops, but it was good!" zinger at the end).

I don't know what Charlie's motives were for attending this event. It's been shown that he has a pattern of reaching out to influential Catholics and cultivating "friendships" with them, which he then plastered all over his blog. Again, no one knows what his real reason is for doing these things, but it just doesn't look right. Can anyone even imagine any of the truly great mystics doing things like this?

Anonymous said...

Wondering when we are going to have something fresh and new about an authentic mystic on this web site. Maybe something about Elizabeth of the Trinity? Charlie and other dubious mystics have had quite their share of the air time.

Anonymous said...

To anonymous (above),

I don't know about you but I for one have mystic fatigue. Most of these mystics, seers and sages are either mentally ill, full of BS, and even the 1 in 10,000 of these people who are truly communicating with heavenly beings often misinterpret what they are given. We have the Bible, we have the Catechism and we have the teachings of the Church Fathers and Tradition. Why indulge in fairy tales?

Anonymous said...

I haven't been on Charlie's site for such a long time that it's not even in my browser anymore.
Here's another main reason why Charlie is not authentic. After Trump got elected he should have stuck to his guns and claimed which he always did that it wouldn't matter who got elected. Instead he said it was a good sign that Trump got elected - fast forward to today and what do we have: a flip-flopping Trump and a President who is looking to start wars. Nothing has really changed, Charlie was right all along that nothing would change but he panicked when Trump got elected and went with the Trump train - big mistake - if he was authentic he would have known we would be deceived again.

Fred Keyes said...

Anon at 11:34, Charlie's motives for pushing his predictions remain the biggest mystery in my mind. I doubt very much that his "angel" was of the fallen variety. That's why it's seemed to me that his strong far-right political positions were the driving force behind his efforts. Another explanation could be that he was a victim of a psychotic imagination. Maybe a bipolar on a prolonged imaginary journey.

Whatever the explanation though, the time frame for the fulfillment of his most extraordinary predictions shrinks daily. And if you look over those particular predictions given the current state of the world, it seems more and more unlikely that those things can come to pass in less than 8 months. The world is indeed a very dangerous place and anything can happen, but not Charlie's predictions. How for instance can "most Muslims" be converted en masse by December?

Fred Keyes said...

I have to say too, that Charlie's attitude toward Muslims has been a dead giveaway as to the falsity of his prophecies. I have been shocked by many politically right-leaning Catholics who have taken strong positions opposing Muslims. Many of them must be unhappy with Pope Francis's talks with Muslim clerics in Egypt over the weekend. I take it they also do not agree with what Vatican II said about Muslims in the Conciliar document "Nostra Aetate." That document could not be clearer about how Catholics should view Muslims. Islamaphobia is currently at a peak in this country and in the West generally. It's simply wrong-headed.

Anonymous said...

Charlie's predictions aside may I suggest that all things are possible with God (taken from a more reliable source than Charlie ha ha), that a thousand years can be a day to God (taken from the same more reliable source)and thinking of the conversions of St Paul and the good thief it could all happen in an instant if the correct response is made to the Warning foretold at Garabandal. I think of the written words of Padre Pio to the seers of Garabandal, "They do not believe in your conversations with the Lady in White but they will believe."

Fred Keyes said...

6:46. Yes, of course. But skepticism is still in order. Reading the signs of the times is to a certain extent obvious. As in other ages, there is evil in the world. Salvation history teaches us that God steps in, usually in unexpected ways. Private revelation when it is most authentic, IMO, reminds us of the gospel. Fear not. Keep your lamps trimmed.

Anonymous said...

"Divine strength is not usually given to us until we are fully aware of our weakness,"
Thomas Merton

Jackisback said...

That all things are possible with God is axiomatic, but tells us nothing in the discernment process vis-a-vis the so-called "private revelations" of Charlie Johnston (or anyone else). So the phrase "Charlie's predictions aside..." is itself exhibitive of logical fallacy (a combination of special pleading and appeal to authority in this case) - for two reasons.

First, as I have pointed out in the past, when attempting to discern the veracity of Charlie's private revelation about the Presidential prophecy - and doing so prior to the moment of truth - it paid dividends to have remembered back then that all things are not possible with men. Yet even with one week to go before inauguration day, there were plenty of folks still making the case that it was "possible" for Obama to refuse to hand over power to Trump at noon on that day, January 20, 2017, and therefore still be "in office" - a so called "extension of his term in office" - and then for Obama to later resign "before the extension was up," thereby making the Presidential prophecy "come true." Because, hey, all things are possible with God. I demonstrated then, at great lenghth, the folly of that thought process, which I won't repeat here, by describing all the things that common men would have to accomplish to make that all come to pass - which amounted to quite a dramatic, mountainous, to-do list, and some of those items involved decisions that would be ruinous to their own careers/livelihoods. It's been my experience that people generally, when the chips are down, are self-preservationists, not martyrs, when their careers are on the line.

Second, the items that Fred Keyes is raising here, that would have to occur in less than eight months, are not "Charlie's predictions" which can be put "aside." They are the "five fundamentals" as Charlie describes them. He refers to them that way because they are the central points in his asserted "private revelation." They are inextricably bound up in the "Rescue" prophecy and are themselves items that Charlie claims he "was told will happen" prior to "Rescue" which he "was told will happen" prior to the end of 2017.

They are not "Charlie's predictions" according to Charlie; they are alleged prophecies/private revelations - things that Charlie asserts were revealed to Charlie by his "angel." They're not "Charlie's predictions"; he asserts that he is just the messenger, and that the messages came from God.

Fred Keyes rightly puts these things to the test of questioning: is it reasonable to think that all of those five things can possibly occur before 01-01-2018, given the limitations of men? I happen to take this a step farther and ask, was it ever reasonable, from the very beginning of Charlie's public announcements of these prophecies, to think that those things could happen in three year time frame?

So, pardon me, Anonymous (May 1st at 6:46 p.m.) if I don't put much stock in the assertion that "it could all happen in an instant if..."

Because of the logically fallacious nature of your post, it isn't readily apparent what the "it" is to which you refer. Perhaps you are referring to the "Rescue"? rather than the "five fundamentals?" But if so, I ask, absent the occurrence of the "five fundamentals," rescue from what?

Anonymous said...

Pray, hope and don't worry." (also not sourced from Charlie) My scant knowledge of The Rescue follows the via negativa. It leads me to set it aside in favour of The Warning in which we will be made fully aware of our weakness. In it we will be rescued from the lies that have separated us from God. It will happen outside our normal experience of time. We will still be free to accept or reject what we are shown but will no longer have the excuse of ignorance. The entire history of the world - including Charlie's failed prediction - may be set aside in an instant when we give our yes or our no to conversion. Peace be with you.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous (May 4, 9:17)

With the emphasis on Garabandal and your insistence on equating the Rescue with the Warning, you sound an awful lot like Joe Crozier from Charlie's site. Yes or no?

Anonymous said...

What ya talkin about - Read my post again I do not equate the Warning with anything. It's a stand alone event. As the world may shortly see. Over and out.

Anonymous said...

A friend of mine who has contacts in the Vatican has stated that Pope Francis is very seriously considering the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary on May 13. I checked the web and there are articles on it as well.

Jackisback said...

And this has a bearing on discerning Charlie's so-called private revelations, how, precisely?

Anonymous said...

Relax Jack my anonymous post about the Consecration of Russia has nothing to do with the other anonymous post. I just thought it would be a good time to throw it into the mix before Charlies Angels got a hold of it and started taking credit for knowledge whether devine or not about this.

Anonymous said...

Charlie has used my information before, so I figured I better release it before he uses it and claims it as his own.

steve said...

Here's a snippet from a reponse Beckita made to a poster:

May 7, 2017 at 6:39 pm
"Jeff, not sure how much of what’s here that you’ve had a chance to read and investigate but in light of miracles and the difficulties of these times, you won’t want to miss the Prayer of Miraculous Trust which was given to Charlie by Archangel Gabriel."


How can Beckita say with such certitude that the Archangel Gabriel dictated this prayer to Charlie? She should have said that Charlie "claims" the Archangel Gabriel gave him this prayer.

Now consider this...you're the Archangel Gabriel. And you give a prayer to a human with the intention that this prayer be circulated and said by other humans. And yet you give that same human a false prediction, or allowed that human to misunderstand the prediction and fail to correct them (presidential prophecy). And you tell that human being that it is that very (presidential) prophecy will be proof that his prophecies are true all the while knowing that the prophecy will not come to pass.

It doesn't make any sense.

I tried posting this question to Beckita but she didn't clear my question.

Fred Keyes said...

Today's news has the matter of Trump's troops and Russia in the limelight again.

I've always wondered how it was that right-side conservatives managed to be on the same page all the time about certain issues. Obamacare is a good example. It was uniformly opposed by rightist conservatives as though some star chamber of conservatives decided at some point that it must be opposed at all costs and then the radio right, FOX, and the print/web media took it to heart and ran hard with it. Until it didn't. Suddenly there's opposition to it even within the Republican party and among many Trump voters who may now lose coverage.

Don't get me wrong. Leftist liberals do the same thing. They fall behind a position and push it come hell or high water. The way they back Planned Parenthood and abortion rights is a good example of them marching in lock step. And we all know many other similar examples. If you're paying attention and examining what they say, neither the liberal nor the conservative media is that hard to figure out. But their sheep somehow fail to analyze logically what they say. And those folks are sitting ducks for purveyors of slanted views of the type Charlie champions. Hooking his political views up to religious prophecy was a stroke of, well, not genius, but maybe cynical hucksterism.

Same thing I believe happened with the Russia thing. At some point the Bannon-type ultra conservatives decided that siding with Russia was the way to go. Why? Beats the heck out of me. But here's my point: Charlie picked up the "order" and ran with it, making it one of the five absolutely certain parts of his prophecies; i.e., the U.S. and Russia would beat China together like BFF nations.

Ummmm. No, I don't think so. But Charlie was a good soldier for the right wing in pushing that line. Sorry, Charlie. It leaves a bad taste.

Unknown said...

I would like to add some of my own insight to visions, having a little personal experience in this area. Now this is just my opinion from my experiences. let me use an example. If I have a vision which shows me Obama will not leave office when his term is up and has his eyes set on the UN as the leader of the NWO. and that they will never let Trump in office. Now we know this did not happen. Although we do know that Obama did not want to leave office, and we do know that a very powerful elite did not want Trump in. So let us analyze this. The first thing that comes to mind is how did I know that their would be a problem with Obama not leaving ( before it was in the news). The second thing is how did I know there was going to be a problem with Trump being in office. Something has to be said for the knowing of a problem but yet the outcome was different. How is this we ask?. Am I a false profit? a fake? is the Devil leading me?. I will try to explain this in a simple way, and then I will give you a few examples. The simple truth is this. If I expose something that is going to happen, I then put into motion a series of events, that can change a possible outcome, just by saying it. A simple example would be this. If I tell you that you have a red car and you like it very much, but beware of accidents in the next coming weeks. In the next coming weeks you do not really believe but you are still more cautious. and then you do not have an accident. You would say I am wrong.. But if I tell you the same story about a friend and you do not tell them. then they have the accident, you woulds say I was correct in my vision. Sorry to make it so simple ,, but simple is better. Now I will give you just 2 example from the Bible. Jonah .. Jonah warned them, but it did not come true.. Was he a false Prophet ? No he warned the people and the King took it seriously, so they were spared. They did what needed to be done to avoid the punishment. In a nutshell Jonah told them the vision and it changed. Now lets look at Lot and Sodom, we know he went there to warn them, he only needed to find 10 people to believe him and change it. but he found no one, and the vision came true. By telling a vision to the right people, and having expose the event it can be changed. God does this all the time. Look at Fatima secrets. If man kind changes, if we pray the Rosary, go to Mass, wear the Brown Scapular. We will advert the punishment. It is simple, yet it is complicated. This is one of the reasons we should not mess with visions. Sometimes God is insistent like with Jonah, But unlike him we know that God can do as he wishes and do not let it take us down in spirit, if a vision does not come true. I think that explains how it works, if you have any questions ask me. God Bless. and peace.

Anonymous said...

Tony: if you are equating your scenario to Charlie, this has already been addressed and soundly refuted.

Anonymous said...

steve @ 5:03 PM May 8, 2017 - those logical comments of yours will never see the light of day on that site, they have to keep charlies angels in line ( or whats left of them ) lest they begin to develop some critical independent thinking and detach themselves from that site
we have been trying to get appropriate answers for years, they flee like rats when put on the spot

Anonymous said...

"What you desire most is most effective against you. Desire God and all will be added to you."

L Spinelli said...

Here we are almost four months past the implosion of the Presidential Prophecy, and these people still believe that Charlie spoke to one of the three Archangels.

If TNRS people still come to this site, please use some logic.

The Presidential Prophecy didn't come from the Archangel Gabriel.

Ergo, Charlie's other prophecies and the Prayer of Miraculous Trust didn't come from the Archangel Gabriel.

Just where they came from is still up for debate, but do you really want to chance being in contact with Screwtape and his cohorts?

L Spinelli said...

Steve, a big part of Charlie's appeal was to people's emotions. That site was/is all about what makes people feel good. Even his dire prophecies had a feel good outcome, Mayberry RFD.

Logic played no part in any of it. As we know, Charlie deep sixed most comments that poked holes in his scenario, unless he wanted to put one up for him or his baying pack of followers to attack. Beckita is simply continuing the pattern her Dear Leader set. None of them want to question what really happened, or their little community (cult?) will completely fall apart.

Steve said...

Any speculation on how things may play out after December 31? Will the Archdiocese finally tell Charlie to close down the blog? Do you think Beckita and company will continue on, perhaps saying that Charlie was still correct in the grand sweep of things even though his prophecies have failed?

L Spinelli said...

I think the Archdiocese's February 16 statement was their final say in the matter. I doubt they're going to welcome a Charlie comeback, if there is one. I also think if he tries that, the Archdiocese will shut him and his little troupe down completely.

Right now, the site is kind of flying under the radar with the main player gone. And let's be honest - Denver has more important issues to take care of than Charlie and his hangers-on,

Jackisback said...

To Tony Bertani (at May 8th 9:08 p.m.):

I'm going to address your comment charitably and assume that you clearly have not been on this site very much during its history. As Anonymous (May 8th, 9:23 p.m.) stated, your "discussion points" such as they are, have all been debated in this thread in the past and in its three predecessor/related threads:


"Charlie Johnston -An alleged prophet with a critically important message for humanity"
"Archbishop of Denver ruling on Charlie Johnston"
"Statement on false claim regarding Charlie Johnston’s messages"

Do yourself a favor and catch up on your reading in your spare time by reading ALL four of these inter-related posts by Glenn in their entirety and ALL of the comment threads from all four posts before commenting here again. I recommend paying special attention to the comments made by Glenn Dallaire himself, L. Spinelli, Steve, Joe, Fred Keyes, Helen I, carli, several of the more astute "Anonymous" commentators, and me (sometimes I am shown by screen name "Jackisback" and sometimes by my actual name "Jack Gallagher" - like you, I have chosen not to remain anonymous - however, there is of course nothing wrong with remaining anonymous). Sorry to any other serious commentators that I may have left off this list.

Also pay special attention to some of the commentators who have been regular defenders of Charlie, such as Laurence D., but also consider our responses/rebuttals to his assertions. Pay particular focus on the commentary from just before election day November 8, 2016 through the end of February 2017 - as these will provide virtually all the context and all the points and counterpoints that have been already debated at great length.

After you finish the reading, then by all means proceed to comment here again all you wish. As it stands, your initial post here does not, as you claim, "explain how it works" and you will find that virtually none of the serious folks here will feel any need to "ask you questions."

Keep in mind that the purpose of this blog of Glenn's is discernment - and in this thread in particular - discernment of Charlie as a prophet and of his "Presidential prophecy." I'll say it as charitably as I can: while I don't think you had any ill intent in your commentary, your assertions do not add much, if any, value to the discernment process vis-a-vis Charlie Johnston's prophecies or his claims to actually be a genuine prophet, and many here may feel, quite justifiably, that your comment is an attempt to insult their intelligence.

Others in the past have tried to make the claim that "all prophecies are conditional, therefore..." but repeating such an assertion on this thread, yet again, is exceedingly problematic because, for one reason (among many), the "prophet" in question, Charlie Johnston understood the distinction, and yet, always held to the contrary. As well, your assertion in this vein is itself exhibitive of certain logical fallacies, to which no serious discerner will likely be impressed. I won't bore you, and everyone else, with a repeat-discussion of those logical fallacies until after you have had a chance to catch up on your reading (unless you choose to make a counter argument without doing the suggested reading - and then all bets are off).

God bless you too, Tony.

Jackisback said...

To Anonymoust May 7, 2017 (at 10:58 and 11:04 a.m.), you said:

--begin quoted text--
Anonymous said...
Relax Jack my anonymous post about the Consecration of Russia has nothing to do with the other anonymous post. I just thought it would be a good time to throw it into the mix before Charlies Angels got a hold of it and started taking credit for knowledge whether devine or not about this.

May 7, 2017 at 10:58 AM

Anonymous said...
Charlie has used my information before, so I figured I better release it before he uses it and claims it as his own.

May 7, 2017 at 11:04 AM

--end quoted text--

So sorry, dude. I did not mean to be heavy handed. Your intent was not clear from your initial post at 12:32 AM. There have been so many anonymous folks who have thrown out nonsequiturs, and almost always in defense of Charlie, that I made an incorrect inference about the intent of your comment. I appreciate you calling me out and clarifying. Peace.

Jackisback said...

Steve and L. Spinelli, (May 9, 2017 at 10:13 and 10:20 AM) you said:

--begin quoted text--
Steve said...
Any speculation on how things may play out after December 31? Will the Archdiocese finally tell Charlie to close down the blog? Do you think Beckita and company will continue on, perhaps saying that Charlie was still correct in the grand sweep of things even though his prophecies have failed?

May 9, 2017 at 10:13 AM

L Spinelli said...
I think the Archdiocese's February 16 statement was their final say in the matter. I doubt they're going to welcome a Charlie comeback, if there is one. I also think if he tries that, the Archdiocese will shut him and his little troupe down completely.

Right now, the site is kind of flying under the radar with the main player gone. And let's be honest - Denver has more important issues to take care of than Charlie and his hangers-on,

May 9, 2017 at 10:20 AM

--end quoted text--

I'd like to think you are right, L., about the archdiocese making a clear statement to shut down an attempted Charlie-comeback. If Charlie were to be trusted, they wouldn't need to do a formal shut-down in a public way. Since Charlie has always pledged obedience to the Denver archdiocese's authority, the Bishop or one of his minions would merely need to quietly communicate with Charlie to terminate his blog and his prophetic activities as of January 1, 2018. And it would wither away (so long as Charlie holds to his commitment to obedience).

What would be ideal from my point of view, and addressing Steve's point about the chaos of Charlie's followers continuing on, is for Charlie to make a formal announcement on January 1, 2018, saying that he now admits that he could not possibly be, or every have been, a prophet of God, that he is no longer certain of the source of the Presidential prophecy or any of the other "...eight public prophecies that I insist on..." And it would also be ideal to discover that his priest-advisors recommended this course of action.

The worst outcome from my perspective would be for the Bishop of Denver to say nothing, the priest-advisors to say nothing, and have Charlie & company claim that that is another form of the "Gamaliel option" and thereby rationalize the start of a whole new set of prophecies. The Bishop of Denver, at that point, really ought to consider his duty to protect the next innocent, gullible, Catholic who may be easily influenced to spend money on prepping or purchasing 50 acre parcels on which to build a refuge in the northeast.

L Spinelli said...

Hey Jack,

The February 16 statement was only the second one put out about Charlie, and it came close to a year after the first one. It also, as we know, came in the wake of Beckita's intentional/unintentional POV about Charlie's prophecies. That was no gaffe on her part. The proof is right there in what she wrote on May 7.

The Archdiocese bluntly told Charlie's followers to stop re-interpreting his prophecies. His first public one that he presented with no interpretation imploded so spectacularly that they feel no need to warn the faithful about the others. This is not from God. Stay away.

I doubt they're monitoring the blog any more, probably hoping the thing will wither away sometime this year. His Alexa ratings tanked, leading one to guess that no one besides what I call his "core nutters" even bother to go over there. There's no need for Charlie to make some grandiose statement on 1/1/2018. His LttW moment, and the end of his credibility as a prophet, was 1/20/2017.

Fred Keyes said...

Jack Gallagher has addressed this I'm sure re: Tony Bertani's post above. But I like to characterize his reasoning as the "Elephant Gun Fallacy."

The story is that a man was warned there was a mad elephant on the rampage, so he bought and carried an elephant gun everywhere he went for protection. Someone tried telling him that the elephant warning was a hoax. Undeterred the man said, "See, it worked."

Fred Keyes said...

Although the ongoing meltdown of the Trump administration was not a part of Charlie's prophecies, it certainly doesn't fit his overall view of how things would go. By election time he was pretty much "all in" for Trump. Before leaving he intimated that if anything were to happen to Trump he would begin his "march" on Washington. If Trump gets impeached and convicted, it may be a very lonely march. As support for Trump erodes, even among those who were "in the tank for him," it's becoming more likely that a change is coming at the White House.

The only thing that sort of fits Charlie's prophecies is the unusual turmoil that Trump has caused. Trouble is, prophecies are not like horseshoes. You can't get points for getting the overall turbulence of the times right. I've been predicting that without talking to anyone outside our normal experience.

I'm one who is happy with Trump's USSC selection. But with that done, it's time to move on to a more politically experienced leader.

Jackisback said...

Apparently I get the honor of being the first to point out that Charlie has come out of his fox hole, in a bid to write about non prophetic issues, and then he spends nearly the entire blog post talking about and analyzing prophetic issues. I guess we're supposed to be grateful that the prophecies he discusses don't include any new claims.

Especially irksome is the entire 2nd paragraph, which I won't quote in it's entirety, but just the first sentences:

-- begin quoted text--
Whether I was deceived or I badly misinterpreted, I made a terrible blunder in how I interpreted that Obama would not finish his full term. I get many people asking how that affects the rest of what I wrote, hopeful that the rest is true. One of the frustrations I often had was that people constantly had the wrong idea about all of this. It is not simple. I am not a seer, given simple messages to pass on verbatim.
--end quoted text--

This is classic use of the logical fallacy of ambiguity. This is egregious because it is clearly done to set up a later defense that these statements are not outright falsehoods. But they are outright falsehoods. Charlie cannot now claim to have misinterpreted the words of his "angel," whom he quoted, quite directly and in detail, originally. He did tell us that this particular revelation was a message that he was passing on verbatim.

How do I know? Charlie told us so. Not only did he quote his "angel" regarding Obama not finishing his term (using the phrase "I was told") he claimed that his angel doubled down on this as a "sign" from God to give us faith in the "Rescue", that his "angel" had "told us true." We have debunked this "interpretation card" nonsense before when raised by Charlie's defenders.

Charlie stated on his blog that when he uses the phrase-of-art "I have told you true," he is relating a direct communication from God or his "angel" - NOT SOMETHING HE INFERRED OR INTERPRETED. To now claim that he made an error of interpretation of a key point that he claimed to have come from on high - not from himself - is to now bear false witness regarding a purported direct communication from God via his "angel."

I've said this before, what Charlie says about his own actual prophecies, matters. In the present case, Charlie tells a direct lie. This lie concerns the purported words spoken to him in direct, private revelation. In polite Catholic parlance, we have a word to describe this sort of thing. It's called blasphemy - because it shows contempt for the source of the message which he claimed had "told him/us true."

The blasphemy in this case shows malice aforethought, because Charlie is making the case that the object of the "sign" - the "Rescue" - is still going to come true by virtue of a sign that never occurred (now implying that the communication of the sign was just "misinterpreted" by Charlie). He is, after the fact, trying to convince the reader that it's still possible that the message came from God - despite his blanket admission to the contrary on January 20, 2017 (on his blog in response to a reader in the comments section).

The remaining question is whether Charlie has committed blasphemy against the Son of Man or against the Holy Spirit. I hope for Charlie's sake it is the former, not the latter. For as Paul reminds us, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is problematic: "For there is no longer any sacrifice that will take away sins if we purposely go on sinning after the truth has been made known to us" (Hebrews 10:26).

The truth was made known at noon on January 20th. I didn't think Charlie would stoop so low as to deny that truth just four months later.

Perhaps this blasphemous moment is what Charlie had been referring to, late in 2016, when he predicted he would make a spectacular blunder this year.

Anonymous said...

Did you see this one Jack?

https://kevinsymonds.com/2017/01/21/charlie-johnston/

This Symonds guy also went after Charles back in January. Today he wrote another post about the 7th apparition of Fatima. Funny how that came out just after Charles wrote about this apparition

https://kevinsymonds.com/2017/05/24/lucia-seventh-apparition/

Glenn Dallaire said...


Thanks for passing along the latest info Jack.

As for myself, I think the Denver Archdiocese's most recent Statement concerning Charlie from thus past February sums things up quite well as to what the position of the faithful should now be concerning this matter:

"...The events of 2016/17 have shown that Mr. Johnston’s alleged visions were not accurate and the Archdiocese urges the faithful not to condone or support further attempts to reinterpret them as valid." -Excerpt from the Feb. 15, 2017 Archdiocesan Statement.

And judging by the lack of comments over on Charlie's site for the past few months, along with the almost complete lack of interest as of late to what has been published here on this site concerning Charlie, I assume that at this point most folks have probably concluded that Charlie was obviously mistaken, and have since moved on. For as the saying goes "A prophet is judged by his prophecies", and Charlie's prophecies obviously have not been accurate up to this point. And so I suppose at this point most folks have simply moved on, and for good reason.

Thanks again Jack and may God bless you my friend!
Glenn Dallaire

Anonymous said...

Charlie Johnston, Rebecca Hesse and others continue to ignore the Denver statement you cite above, Glenn. They continue to post articles and comments that reinterpret Johnston's predictions to make them fit the ongoing events in disobedience to lawful authority of Johnston's archbishop. Even if few are drawn in to Johnston's deceit, the website presents a clear and present danger to souls.

Fred Keyes said...

Ah, yes. He's b-a-a-a-a-ck!

And predictably, he gives his true self away, railing against the "anti-God left." In this long missive he spends at least 80% of his words on "the events of the day." There is a "coup," nay, a "putsch," going on now--nothing less. All along Charlie has been using his facile interpretations of religious imagery to grease the skids for his political Mein Kamph.

And of course, should Trump be impeached for his so far careless and possibly criminal presidency, no doubt he will be leading a "Jericho March" on Washington, for which he won't be surprised if many come armed with their second amendment rights in hand (hint, hint).

"Be you therefore not deceived, God is not mocked..." (Gal 6:7)

Jackisback said...

Glenn, you wrote:

--begin quoted text--
"...The events of 2016/17 have shown that Mr. Johnston’s alleged visions were not accurate and the Archdiocese urges the faithful not to condone or support further attempts to reinterpret them as valid." -Excerpt from the Feb. 15, 2017 Archdiocesan Statement.
--end quoted text--

Thanks for bringing that to my attention again, Glenn, for that buttresses another egregious point. Up until yesterday, it was only Charlie's defenders that were disobeying the Archbishop of Denver by continuing to reinterpret the Presidential Prophecy as valid. Now, it is Charlie who is trying to reinterpret it as valid (by now claiming that it may not have been that he was deceived, but rather, only that he "badly misinterpreted" a revelation that came from God). That is disobeying his own Bishop, something Charlie has pledged throughout that he would never do.

So there's that.

It's also interesting that Charlie encourages readers to go back to his post "Through a Glass Darkly" (January 8, 2016) in order to delve deeper into what he means when he claims that the private revelation business is "not simple."

I re-read "Through a Glass Darkly." Here is the money paragraph that is on point and utterly in proper context:

--begin quoted text--
I constantly go back to what I call “first things,” what I was told specifically or the larger, immutable principles that have been embedded in me, to re-examine my interpretations. I have often said there will be no presidential election this year. Actually, there are some narrow circumstances in which there could be, but the results would be irrelevant. What I was told was that President Obama would not finish his term and that our next stable national leader will not come from the election process. You could have an explosion of events after an election and before an inauguration. You could have Obama declare a national emergency, cancel elections, extend his term and then depart before the extension was up. The most likely scenario is that everything will be up in the air before election, but there are narrow circumstances where that may not be.
--end quoted text--

This paragraph is designed to draw a distinction between an "interpretation" made by Charlie (his prior "no elections" predictions) and a "first thing" - what Charlie "was told specifically" (that "President Obama would not finish his term..." - a statement which is not an interpretation, but rather a direct recounting of a claimed private revelatory prophecy).

And yet now, in his post from yesterday, Charlie disavows this distinction when he says:

--begin quoted text--
Whether I was deceived or I badly misinterpreted, I made a terrible blunder in how I interpreted that Obama would not finish his full term.
--end quoted text--

It is amazing that Charlie wrote this yesterday - while referring readers to "Through a Glass Darkly" - because that reference exposes this new statement as a lie. I submit that it is a lie with intent to deceive the reader (the legal term for this is "scienter").

I agree that this part of the Charlie saga should be put to rest, Glenn. If only Charlie would remain silent on these issues, we all could move on.

Jackisback said...

Fred, you're right to point out the right wing political overload and the conflation of that with his peculiar ideas of a proper exercise of Catholic faith (take the next right step...) while omitting how some of the politically-to-the-right issues (a border wall) wouldn't fit neatly into Church teaching. The use of the phrase "anti-God left" is overly broad (or should I say "sweeping") - as if it were axiomatic that being to the left politically in any respect necessarily means that you are anti-God.

My personal favorite nugget of hyper-hyperbole in this latter section of his post is this:

--begin quoted text--
The rule of law is already dead...
--end quoted text--

That's interesting. My wife and I were recently involved in an arbitration of a civil suit, which came out in our favor - and the lawyer-arbitrator (serving as the judge) paid strict attention to not only the statutes and regulations involved, but the intent of the legislature when enacting the law at issue. He applied the law to the factual evidence presented in a logical fashion, showing no favoritism to the either party. Because we prevailed, and partly because the other party turned down our good-faith offer to settle in advance (where we would have actually paid them to go away rather than hire an attorney) we were awarded a nice portion of our attorney's fees and court costs. It didn't matter that they had lots more resources and could have appealed the decision for a full trial. Because the arbitrator did his job straight up, the other party realized that they would likely lose a full trial in court and then have to incur more fees and be required to pay us even more attorney's fees. I found no evidence that the rule of law was dead in our case.

Perhaps Charlie was only referring to laws applied where political hotbutton issues are at stake?

If so, then why fail to consider the Senate and House Republicans use of the "Congressional Review Act," which repealed 14 different sets of Obama era regulations across a whole spectrum of political hot topics. If the rule of law were dead, how were the Republicans able to succeed in that move? People may yawn at that, but it is a bigger deal than people think. Those repealed regs (or similar new regs) cannot be reissued (or newly issued) by a future President; substanitally similar regs are forever barred unless Congress were to specifically authorize them anew by statute (and only in a statute enacted after the date of the Republican CRA repeal). Those results look like the rule of law, talk like the rule of law, and walk like the rule of law.

The absurdity of these rants is obnoxious.

Jackisback said...

Anonymous (at 8:55 A.M.)

Thanks for that second Symonds link. I didn't know about that one, but the first one I was well acquainted with. Kevin Symonds is no fool.

Can't wait to see Charlie come up with a reason to tell us how the Carmelite nuns have it all wrong.

Anonymous said...

Dear Glenn and co - no surprise to see you continue to refuse to acknowledge that the timing and context and content of the Archdiocesan caveat on Charlie make it quite clear that it is targeted only at the inaccurate visions relating to the presidential election.The continuing attacks on Charlie reveal a malicious agenda which ignores the humility and restraint Charlie has shown in the face of false witness and his obedience which goes beyond both the spirit and the letter of the directions of the Church in his compliance. As he says, the content of his current post is not prophesy. As such there is absolutely no restriction on his freedom of expression by the church. I write as a friend of Charlie. My opinion about his writings are secondary to my concerns about the abuse my friend has suffered here. Your accusations of harm caused by Charlie are blatantly false because it is clear he never advised people to sell up and buy up. They cannot justifiably blame him for their foolish mistakes and for their inattentiveness to the actual content of his commentary with regard to prudent reserves. He always told people to trust in God, not him. The evidence for this is overwhelming but I am sure that will not stop your calumny. Again - just to be clear - I am not "all in for Charlie" and none of his true friends are. We are only "all in for God:" or at least try to be. Charlie and I are at variance in some of our opinions but at one in our faith. Charlie is my friend. He is not my God and neither is his angel.
Joe Crozier

Anonymous said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Charlie Johnston, Rebecca Hesse and others continue to ignore the Denver statement you cite above, Glenn. They continue to post articles and comments that reinterpret Johnston's predictions to make them fit the ongoing events in disobedience to lawful authority of Johnston's archbishop. Even if few are drawn in to Johnston's deceit, the website presents a clear and present danger to souls.

May 24, 2017 at 4:43 PM
Please give examples of these articles of re-interpretation.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous Above,

How are they reinterpreting? Examples are sprinkled throughout this post and others of Glenn's after the inauguration. Here's ONE:

Anonymous said...

Denial is not a river. Twists and turns in reasoning to deny the clear meaning of the Denver statement...

Ed says:
April 6, 2017 at 8:08 pm

Beckita,
I am trying to reconcile a statement in this post with our duty to be obedient to the Archdiocese of Denver. You say:
“I know there will be great suffering when the Storm breaks in its fullness”
Should we still be referencing a Storm breaking in its fullness? That was Charlie’s prediction. The Archbishop said:
“The events of 2016/17 have shown that Mr. Johnston’s alleged visions were not accurate and the Archdiocese urges the faithful not to condone or support further attempts to reinterpret them as valid.”
Isn’t the continued preaching about an upcoming Storm an attempt to cast Charlie’s alleged visions as valid?
God Bless,
A former follower of Charlie and this blog


Beckita says:
April 6, 2017 at 11:04 pm

Ed, we know the inaugural prophecy failed in the way Charlie believed it would occur. I repeat for you that Charlie shared with us at TNRS: throughout his life, he sometimes miscalculated when applying his prophetic input (visions and so much more). Often, his angel would correct him. Shortly after the election, in his piece, “A Reality Check,” he said:
Sometime in the next year, I will be significantly wrong about something. It won’t be the Rescue, but it will be something. When it comes, it will not be a test of me, for I already know that God is good and seeks our reclamation. It will be a test for some of you, to see whether you have put your faith in me or your faith in God.
If it is in me, your faith was always ill-placed. God is good, all the time, whatever the circumstances – and works to call us all back to Him. When I am wrong, I will accept the correction with gratitude and more wisdom. I will not leave the scene unless it is one of the fundamentals, and then, in full obedience to Holy Church, I will wait on the Lord, knowing that He will strengthen my heart and that it serves His purpose to call all His children back to Him.

We respect the Archdiocesan statement which acknowledged the prophetic error and we are not here to reinterpret it. [HA!] Keep in mind that the latest statement from the Archdiocese also referred to their original March 1, 2016 statement in which prudence and caution were advised. Embracing the caution to place our security in Jesus, we move forward in these days of the intensifying Storm. Please remember of what the Storm consists: A worldwide civil war fought on cultural and societal norms. We’re living it, Ed. Have you had the opportunity to read this piece written in January?

We remain to support one another in living the core message fostered here. How often Charlie remarked we can dismiss his prophetic utterances and simply focus on the core message. At the same time, respectfully, can you not see the increasing chaos, confusion and division in our country and around the world? If the word, “Storm” is a bother, please take a look at the fully Church approved messages of Our Lady of Fatima, The Lady of All Nations, the Diary of St. Faustina and Our Lady of Akita. You will see these Church approved messages are consonant with the idea that we are living in, what Charlie called, the Storm. God bless you.

April 7, 2017 at 9:57 AM

Anonymous said...

Please, how is this a reinterpretation of the failed prophesies?

Anonymous said...

I always said Charlie will come back and he has, he is testing the waters. Although, I do believe the wind has been taken out of his sail. It will be very hard for him to regain any credibility.

Once again Joe Crozier makes Charlie out to be the victim of this whole Charlie Johnston fiasco. You would think from Joe's comments that Charlie was an innocent bystander. Joe talks about the "abuse" Charlie has taken - what "abuse"? Pointing out quotes from Charlie's own words and his followers is "abuse"? I thought that was good reporting! Now it's considered " abuse"? Joe Crozier continues to ignore the "abused" victims from Charlie's site - why? I don't know - only Joe knows the answer.

Anonymous said...

I would imagine that the last thing Charlie wants is for people to believe in him. His promotion has always been belief in God.

Anonymous said...

Hi Anonymous 12.09
I see you are still stuck in the rut. No matter how hell bent you are on victimizing him I am certainly pleased to agree and confirm that Charlie is not a victim. I doubt very much that he would see himself in the role of victim. Target, yes. Victim, no. It seems to me that there is a huge lack of discernment on this site. Is it even Christian? The accusers all seem to be guilty of the very charges that they level at Charlie. You ask somewhat ingenuously what abuse has Charlie suffered here. As you well know, with no credible evidence, he has been falsely accused of being a liar and a deceiver and judged to be an ego maniac. It has been suggested that he is insane and irresponsible having caused great harm and suffering. He never even hinted that people should sell their homes or hoard for the future or try to make their lives future proof. Instead he promoted the way of the cross and the hope for resurrection. Once again there are no facts to back up the false accusations. Even the failed presidential prophesies do not support this. Charlie simply got it wrong, apologized to those who felt let down and moved on as he promised. He never promised not to return. He was never asked to detract any of his other prophesies. The accusers have twisted and stretched the words of the diocesan caveat to give it scope and meaning never intended by the authors. The Church has never ordered silence on Charlie. They have never questioned his other prophesies nor put any other restrictions on his discussing them should he so wish (apart from not being allowed to speak of them on church property - the bad feeling you have engendered here should make it clear why the Church made this ruling.) When quotes from Charlie and his friends are used to pervert the truth and as weapons of character assassination, as as happened here, it is not good reporting. He did not abuse people on his site but fought his own corner. Yes I do know the answer - There are no victims of Charlie - they are victims of their own making and blamed Charlie for their foolish and dangerous mistakes. Charlie has stood up the abuse when it became unreasonable and unacceptable. Quite understandable he refused to participate in the abuse of his own flogging such as dealt out here. Thankfully Charlie is perfectly capable of dealing with you on his own. I am just a mate standing at his side. This exchange just goes around in the same rut you have created. Every now and then I jump in defend my friend. Thankfully I am free to jump out at any time. Enjoy your rut.
Joe Crozier

Anonymous said...

Look at the latest wonderful post Beckita has placed on TNRS - you should follow her example and that of Charlie and fight for the life of the unborn child. Stop wasting your time on your petty hate campaign.

Anonymous said...

"Charlie Johnston, Rebecca Hesse and others continue to ignore the Denver statement you cite above, Glenn. They continue to post articles and comments that reinterpret Johnston's predictions to make them fit the ongoing events in disobedience to lawful authority of Johnston's archbishop. Even if few are drawn in to Johnston's deceit, the website presents a clear and present danger to souls."

The above statement is simply not true. And you and Glenn know it.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 2:43,

From earlier in the comments:

steve said...

Here's a snippet from a reponse Beckita made to a poster:

May 7, 2017 at 6:39 pm
"Jeff, not sure how much of what’s here that you’ve had a chance to read and investigate but in light of miracles and the difficulties of these times, you won’t want to miss the Prayer of Miraculous Trust which was given to Charlie by Archangel Gabriel."

How can Beckita say with such certitude that the Archangel Gabriel dictated this prayer to Charlie? She should have said that Charlie "claims" the Archangel Gabriel gave him this prayer.

Now consider this...you're the Archangel Gabriel. And you give a prayer to a human with the intention that this prayer be circulated and said by other humans. And yet you give that same human a false prediction, or allowed that human to misunderstand the prediction and fail to correct them (presidential prophecy). And you tell that human being that it is that very (presidential) prophecy will be proof that his prophecies are true all the while knowing that the prophecy will not come to pass.


It doesn't make any sense.

I tried posting this question to Beckita but she didn't clear my question.
May 8, 2017 at 5:03 PM

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

This was an interesting exchange:

David says:
February 16, 2017 at 6:43 pm
Dan, you state that “…Charlie’s messages have not been fully approved by the Church.”. I think that is just a wee bit misleading. By saying his messages have not been “fully” approved you are implying that his messages are partially approved. Charlie’s messages are not approved whatsoever by the Church.

And the reply was:

Phillip Frank says:
February 17, 2017 at 8:30 am
David,
By the church not condemning Charlie’s writings they were “approved” for discernment by the faithful. I think it is important to remember that the laity are part of the “system” the magesterium uses to descern whether a particular devotion, message, etc, is from God or not.

So I guess the spin is that by not condemning Charlie's messages, they are "approved" for discernment, and the laity now decide whether they are true or not.

Does God really operate in this fashion? This is getting way too confusing for my pay grade.

February 17, 2017 at 4:16 PM
Joe said...

Anonymous 4:16, if God does operate in that fashion then count me out!
February 17, 2017 at 4:24 PM
Anonymous said...

Anon at 4:16pm
Wow, that really troubles me. And when I went to the website to read the exchange, what I found troubles me incredibly!


David,
By the church not condemning Charlie’s writings they were “approved” for discernment by the faithful.
I think it is important to remember that the laity are part of the “system” the magesterium uses to descern whether a particular devotion, message, etc, is from God or not.
The “fruits” of these devotions must be given time for fruition which have taken centuries in some cases.
The important issue is that they have been “cleared” of error by the church and “allowed” to be followed with prudence (caution). But there was no condemnation or haulting to our freedom to follow them.
A second caution was administered about Charlie’s innacurate assessment of the election turmoil, but still no condemnation.
As far as being totally accurate and fruitful, only time will tell but the church knows that God has to be given His time to work out our salvation as we are truly a stiff-necked people.

Beckita says:
February 17, 2017 at 9:52 am
Amen, Phillip. Only time will tell.




Surely that is NOT what the Archdiocese has meant, that the messages have been cleared of error? I saw NOTHING in their statement to indicate that.

Apparently Charlie's followers are of the opinion, that until the messages are explicitly CONDEMNED, then they are error free and approved!

February 17, 2017 at 4:28 PM

Anonymous said...

Beckita even now posts comments directly violating the spirit and letter of the archdiocese statement of February. Yesterday evening:

Joseph R Harper says:
May 24, 2017 at 10:14 pm

Charlie, just this morning I was thinking of you, and I thought about commenting on the website, to encourage you to come back to us. Commenting is something I have never done before.

Please know that shortly after you took your break, and subsequent to the presidential election, I was certain that you were absolutely right all along, and I continue to think so. I realized that Trump did, indeed, win the office of the President, together with those powers incident and particular to that office; however, it was clearly that, there was no evidence of a smooth tranfer of power, flowing toward him. He was opposed by the Democrats, the liberals, the Main Stream Media, the Republican Party, the #Never Trumpers, and the Deep State. Immediately, Trump was bogged down by the last (48) years of appointed anti-God Leftist and infernal initiates, all of whom had been strategically placed in the depths of the Intelligence Agencies and the Justice Department; thereby constituting the sludge of the Swamp.

In short, the Light of God, is now exposing both good and evil, as there is no place to hide. Evil has arrogantly stepped out into the light to take is victory lap, confident that its time has come. The Children of God have also awakened from their slumber, and they now understand their numbers and they recognize that narrow road of the Cross that leads to Salvation. The Deep and Dark State and its minions of Darkness (Goliath), will be no match for the Children of God and the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Our Mother.

All and all, several of my Friends in Christ, agreed that you were right all along, and we never lost faith. We chose to walk with you in trust and confidence. We beseech your continued leadership, as we sojourn into the mostly unknown; for we feel that there is no one but you, who could be our Sherpa.

As the Lord walks with us to the top of the mountain.

God Bless you Charlie…… and everyone with you. Stay with us!

Liked by 1 person
Reply

Anonymous said...

As for mental illness, Charlie himself has acknowledged the diagnosis. From his website:

charliej373 says:

August 20, 2014 at 12:40 pm

Thank you for joining us, Amolynick. I have people close to me who have suffered extended periods of depression. I, myself, have mild manic symptoms – sometimes up and a ball of fire and others struggling to get through the day. When still a teen, a therapist suggested certain medications to blunt the valleys. I pondered it – then asked him if it would take away the peaks, as well. He said it would. So I declined. I can be amazingly productive, insightful and inspirational during my peak periods. I did not want to lose that…and figured I could discipline myself to do the basics during the bad periods even if I didn’t feel it until I would pull out of the downsides naturally...





Anonymous said...

As for the assertion that Charlie Johnston has unfairly been called a liar, there are these statements from him, which strain credulity:

Johnston spins entertaining stories but there is a lot about him that ought to give any reasonable person doubt. He asks his followers to believe in his extraordinary claims without offering any proof. I look at some of the things he wrote and wonder if he is mentally ill.

Johnston claims he stopped a bank robbery and rescued a family from a burning car:

http://motheofgod.com/threads/charlie-johnston.6342/page-2#post-65484



...I have never served in the military and have thankfully never killed anyone. I have on several occasions dealt with immediate seriously threatening situations and twice, rushed into serious danger to help people. Once, I stopped an attempted bank robbery in progress in central Illinois where a teller and a young woman vice-president were being held (Perhaps I'll tell the narrative sometime, but not now) and once, in Kentucky, rescued a young family from a car whose gas tank burst into flames near a McDonalds and got everyone inside safely covered. I thank God I have not had to kill anyone as some here have had to deal with.



Johnston insists God miraculously saved him before climbing Mt. Meeker, the end point of a pilgrimage that allegedly delayed cataclysmic chastisement.

http://motheofgod.com/threads/charlie-johnston.6342/page-13#post-70398



…While I was camped in my mountain for the Novena at the end of my pilgrimage, I was found by two national park rangers at one point - who detained me for a while (wanting to assure themselves I was not a drug dealer hiding a stash deep in the mountain, I suspect). When they found I drank from the streams, they warned me of the prevalence of a deadly bacteria and asked how I purified my drinking water. I said I prayed and trusted God to purify it for me. With a fearful look, one ranger said it could take a week or two for symptoms to show and asked how long I had been doing it that way. When I replied a little over a year, he looked flummoxed and said, "Well, maybe you have developed an immunity." Smiling, I replied, "If I have, isn't that from God, too?" Grudgingly, he agreed it was.



Johnston often engages in "humblebrag" on his website, telling stories in which he's the hero, as in a recent exchange.

https://charliej373.wordpress.com/2016/12/14/musings-kitty-cleveland-russians-and-christmas-fudge/comment-page-1/#comments



Mary Ann Parks asked:

December 15, 2016 at 4:43 pm


Raise your hand how many here worked as waiters, waitresses, maitre’d’s, fry cooks, or busboys.

charliej373 says:

December 15, 2016 at 9:09 pm

Me – and every one of those jobs (except waitress) I worked at a sit-down restaurant with a buffet at a mall when I was a teen. Maybe the busiest night of my life was when I showed up at work and everyone else called in sick. At first I wondered what to do…then I set my jaw. I put out the buffet, was the short order cook, waited the tables, bussed the tables, ran the register and washed the dishes. Fortunately, it was a fairly slow night…only about 35 customers. I was cheery as ever…and just before closing the customers who were still there gave me a big round of applause. (Most of them worked in the Mall and liked to be able to sit down on their lunch hour – so most knew me as a good kid).


January 9, 2017 at 11:40 AM

Anonymous said...

It seems to me there's something not quite right with this fellow. Hard to put my finger on it but when I read his "stories" my antennae goes up. I do see a bit of the humblebrag another poster was referring to.

L Spinelli said...

I can't add anything to Jack's outstanding summary of Charlie's "comeback", so I'll just repeat what I said last week about Charlie's latest offering:

The Archdiocese bluntly told Charlie's followers to stop re-interpreting his prophecies. His first public one that he presented with no interpretation imploded so spectacularly that they felt no need to warn the faithful about the others. This is not from God. Stay away.

Fred Keyes said...

Anon @8:12, your post from the entry by Joseph Harper illustrates the danger inherent in becoming a Charlie follower. Especially this pledge of loyalty—

"All and all, several of my Friends in Christ, agreed that you were right all along, and we never lost faith. We chose to walk with you in trust and confidence. We beseech your continued leadership, as we sojourn into the mostly unknown; for we feel that there is no one but you, who could be our Sherpa."

The gospel deals with this thus: "[Jesus] said in reply, 'Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. Let them alone; they are blind guides [of the blind]. If a blind person leads a blind person, both will fall into a pit.'”

Fred Keyes said...

To repeat what Anon posted at 8:26 above:

charliej373 says:

August 20, 2014 at 12:40 pm

Thank you for joining us, Amolynick. I have people close to me who have suffered extended periods of depression. I, myself, have mild manic symptoms – sometimes up and a ball of fire and others struggling to get through the day. When still a teen, a therapist suggested certain medications to blunt the valleys. I pondered it – then asked him if it would take away the peaks, as well. He said it would. So I declined. I can be amazingly productive, insightful and inspirational during my peak periods. I did not want to lose that…and figured I could discipline myself to do the basics during the bad periods even if I didn’t feel it until I would pull out of the downsides naturally...

Those are not "mild manic symptoms." Bipolar disease has been a scourge in my family--my parents, siblings, children--even myself. What Charlie describes are classic bipolar symptoms--not at all a mild case. Even his refusal to take medications is a classic response from one who is seriously impacted by bipolar disease. Meds have been for me a magic bullet; without them I'd be fighting dragons and enduring periods of emotional flatness.

This self-revelation by Charlie explains a great deal about his personality and the amazing(!) stories he's made up.

Anonymous said...

I've read the comments by Joe Crozier and others who have stated in general terms that the focus is on God, not Charlie and I wholeheartly agree! Here are those quotes: "He always told people to trust in God, not him" - Joe Crozier; and a mystery person: "I would imagine that the last thing Charlie wants is for people to believe in him. His promotion has always been belief in God". We all agree with that. We really don't need Charlie to tell us that, it's common sense, so yes why are we wasting our time on Charlie and his site, we don't need them, even Joe Crozier and other people who follow Charlie agree. So the question becomes this, if what these people say is true that they should only be following God why are they still following Charlie? Even Charlie himself says don't follow him and all his followers agree yet they still follow Charlie's word?

Even Joe Crazier and Charlie and his followers agree that "There are no victims of Charlie - they are victims of their own making and blamed Charlie for their foolish and dangerous mistakes", so followers you need to wake up, they are actually telling you that if you believe in Charlie it will be your fault, not Charlie's, Charlie and Joe Crozier and his followers ( the ones in the know ) are warning you to stay away from Charlie - it's very clear. If you follow Charlie you do so at your own peril!: another quote from Joe Crozier to back this point up: "They cannot justifiably blame him for their foolish mistakes and for their inattentiveness to the actual content of his commentary with regard to prudent reserves. He always told people to trust in God, not him. The evidence for this is overwhelming but I am sure that will not stop your calumny. Again - just to be clear - I am not "all in for Charlie" and none of his true friends are. We are only "all in for God"

There you go people - Charlie and Joe say to stay away from Charlie, God is the focus, if you follow Charlie you will be fooled! Read their comments it's as clear as day - you have been warned!

«Oldest ‹Older   1001 – 1200 of 3140   Newer› Newest»

ShareThis