Fractious Eschatology

By Charlie Johnston

Mark Mallett often has profound insights into the human condition – and his work has done much to give many people heart. That is why I was never much bothered by his minority and somewhat dissenting position on eschatology. I figured that, with his good will, it ultimately might provide a new insight into such matters that was valuable to us all.

Our previously warm friendship took on a bit of a chill a few years back when he wrote an article, acknowledging what a nice fellow I am, but went on to explain how my eschatology was completely out of step with the Church Fathers and Church teaching. It condescendingly made me out to be a bit of an ill-informed bumbler. I was not offended that his take differed from mine, but I was downright angry that he failed to note that my bumbling, ill-informed position was the constant, consistent teaching of the Church for the last 1,500 years, a teaching derived from St. Augustine, both a Saint AND a Doctor of the Church – and that it was his position that was a very small, minority take. That was so lacking in candor as to be downright misleading. To his credit, after I publicly complained of it, he conceded that his is a minority position and that my take is consonant with the Church’s take on the matter.

We certainly had a lively private exchange on the matter for a while. But while this was a fundamental disagreement, I still believed he did some very useful work in heartening the faithful, so I left it alone, enjoying some of the links readers here put up to some of his better pieces. I was troubled when, on occasion, he would quote snippets from Pope Benedict or Pope St. John Paul that would leave the impression that their teaching was in agreement with his minority take – when they both were firm advocates of the Augustinian view of eschatology. But I figured it was just a bit of a hobby horse for him in an otherwise good body of work.

Mallett wrote an article a few weeks back, “Re-Thinking the End Times,” which was a response to three critics of his. One of those critics, Desmond Birch, has become a very good friend of mine over the last four years. I did not see the original Facebook argument which inspired this piece and I am glad of it – for my objection has little to do with the substance of whatever the argument was. Mallett suggested that Birch was just trying to defend a book he had written on the subject. Again, what annoyed me was that Mallett did not tell readers that Birch is one of the foremost living eschatologists in the world. He made it sound like the man is a minor crank. Mallett did not note that the little book Birch was supposedly defending, Trial, Tribulation and Triumph, was published over two decades ago and has often been used as a text on eschatology at more than a few seminaries in this country. Well it should be, for it is deeply grounded in his exhaustive knowledge of the Church Fathers. He does not shrink from prominent historical figures whose take diverges from his. Though he has a definitive slant, he acknowledges them candidly and carefully explains why he disagrees. He never cuts a quote from one who disagrees with him to make it seem they support his point. If you want to know what the Church teaches on eschatology – probably the subject most frequently talked about without reference to the Magisterium, this book is indispensable. Later in his article, Mallett asserted the absurd notion that not even St. Augustine was really an advocate of the Augustinian eschatological interpretation that the Church teaches.

Now Birch is no starry-eyed enthusiast for my work. His take is like that of another prominent friend in the Denver Archdiocese: “I’m not sure about Charlie’s prophecies – but he’s not nuts!” He is harshly critical of most modern-day prophetic voices, arguing that most make their bones by peddling the Apocalypse. We first got to know each other when some Church authorities outside my Archdiocese asked him to give an informal assessment on me. He was startled to find that, whatever misgivings he might have on the details of what I said, my eschatology was fundamentally sound – that I was most emphatically NOT in the business of peddling the Apocalypse. We hit it off and became friends, often challenging each other, arguing, refining, and enjoying each other’s company. He is intellectually honest, as am I – which makes for very fruitful discussions and, even, disputes. He has the most exhaustive and deep knowledge of the Church Fathers of anyone I know. Once, at his house, he wanted to quote something from one to me. He could only find a text in the original language – but he found the quote he wanted and translated it on the spot for my edification.

Again, it does not bother me at all when Mallett takes a dissenting minority position on a matter while not venturing into defiance of defined doctrine. Such intellectual ferment, even when mistaken, sometimes leads to a valuable refining of doctrine. I respect and am grateful for the good work of exhortation to hope and fidelity to faith in most of his work. But I resent it when he tries to portray a very serious man, respected throughout the hierarchy, as a minor crank. It is deceptive and beneath the good work Mallett otherwise does.



232 thoughts on “Fractious Eschatology



    1. Thank you for your concern, charliek. I’m aware of the 1995 notification concerning Vassula which you share in the succeeding comment but that was not the final word from the Vatican. Even while I realize she is controversial – in both the Catholic and the Orthodox Church. I share, now, a comment Charlie made – in December of 2015 – regarding his own research into Vassula. God bless you, charliek, and all here.

      Thank you… About a year ago, I had seriously looked into Vassula. Some of the things she said seemed worthwhile, but I was very put off by her and her supporters’ combative stance of accept her messages or else. That just is not from God, I don’t believe – though when one is under siege, someone might get encouragement from above – then put it in apocalyptic terms. I am very careful not to needlessly drive someone away just because they disagree with or don’t like me, as I am told firmly I will be judged on how effectively I give witness – so if I make a committed enemy of someone who was merely a committed critic, I have utterly failed. That is ever on my mind. I asked a theologian I much respect and whose counsel I value to give me his thoughts, as he told me he had carefully read all she had written – and his first comments to me confirmed that he has done deep, rather than superficial, examination of her. I followed up by specifically asking about her relation to the Church and the Vatican’s disciplinary rulings. In the document you cite, it notes that her writings must be considered on a case by case basis, though Catholics are enjoined not to participate in her prayer meetings. I determined that I would not advocate for Vassula, but I would not routinely reject those who cite her. Following is a copy of the text of the theologian’s second letter about her relationship to the Church to me. I would welcome any comments you might have, as I have come to value your insights greatly. For now, my policy concerning her will remain the same. I would like to see her reconciled with the Vatican – and get angry when some of her supporters say there is a full reconciliation when there is NOT. There is no deception in God, though we sometimes misinterpret Him. And now, the note I received on it from my erudite friend:

      “Regarding Vassula’s relationship to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, it is evident that opinion is sharply divided within both hierarchies. On the Orthodox side it is true there has been a formal condemnation from the Constantinople Patriarchate (against which Vassula is currently appealing on the basis that proper canonical procedure was not followed), but for her Catholic detractors to cite this as evidence against her is not credible as it is precisely the Catholic spirituality within the TLIG messages that has clearly been a major factor in her condemnation! That the Orthodox world is internally seriously divided is no secret, and despite the statements of Constantinople Vassula still enjoys considerable support from representatives of other Patriarchates.

      As for the question of her relationship to the Catholic Church, it seems obvious that there is substantial disagreement within the Magisterium concerning Vassula. The clearest evidence of this is Niels Hvidt’s report of her extensive dialogue with the then Cardinal Ratzinger and the present Cardinal Grech which Hvidt initiated back in 1999. Hvidt must be treated as a reliable source given that his subsequent Oxford University Press book Post-Biblical Prophecy – containing a chapter on Vassula Ryden – was prefaced by Cardinal Ratzinger (Hvidt’s doctoral advisor). According to Hvidt, Ratzinger apologized for the 1995 Notification (not a formal condemnation) against Vassula and stated that he would personally like to have seen a new Notification as a corrective but that he ‘had to obey the cardinals’ within the CDF. Matters were however complicated by an ambiguously-formulated letter sent out in 2007 by Cardinal Levada, Cardinal Ratzinger’s successor at the CDF
      which took a negative stance regarding Catholic participation in TLIG prayer groups while at the same time stating that
      ‘a case by case prudential judgment is required in view of the real possibility of the faithful being able to read the writings’ in the light of the clarifications offered by Vassula in response to a CDF letter dated April 4, 2002.

      Cardinal Levada’s document is confusing as it claims that in the course of those clarifications the TLIG messages were presented as ‘private meditations’ rather than revelations; this notion of such a presentation on the level of ‘private meditations’ is one that Vassula has formally denied ever having made.

      So where does this leave things? No formal developments on the Catholic side have occurred since 2007, but earlier this year Robert Moynihan’s Inside the Vatican magazine published a positive review by Cardinal Grech himself of Vassula Ryden’s autobiography Heaven is Real which concluded as follows:

      ‘Had this book been published earlier, after Vassula’s response to the questions put to her by the CDF, perhaps the decision to accept her and her messages would have been left to the local bishops and parish priests to decide.’

      That it seems to me is diplomatic language for saying that Cardinal Grech feels that the Notification against Vassula was a mistake.

      My sense is that, while I can understand the feeling in some quarters that Vassula Ryden and TLIG ministries have been overly combative in their self-defence and appeals to members of the Magisterium, this does not in itself constitute outright deception.

      Vassula is certainly not ‘approved’ in the formal sense and it would be wrong for anyone to conclude otherwise, but it should be remembered that NO visionaries are given full Vatican approval while still living (or indeed posthumously, as even canonization in famous cases such as that of St Bridget does not imply a definitive pronouncement on individual messages), even if there are living visionaries associated with approved apparitions, such as Gilberte Degeimbre (Beauraing 1933) or Edson Glauber/Maria do Carmo (Itapiranga 1994-1998). What is the case, however, is that a remarkable number of representatives of the Magisterium have been publicly associated with Vassula Ryden – including Cardinals Napier, Toppo, Sfeir (Maronite Patriarch), Belgian Primate Abp Léonard and Mgr Jozef Punt of Amsterdam-Haarlem, who gave formal approval to the Our Lady of Amsterdam apparitions in 2002. I cannot think of another alleged seer alive today who has received this level of support, and given that she is not even a Catholic the phenomenon is extremely thought-provoking. On the level of doctrinal orthodoxy, it should also be noted that a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur were given to the TLIG messages in November 2005 by Bishop Felix Toppo and Abp Ramon Arguelles (much to the chagrin of her opponents who have bitterly contested the decision).

      Liked by 4 people

      1. I will add, charliek, that Charlie J also added the following comment in response to another commenter’s protest that Vassula should have become Catholic by now. It really is a challenging situation but I have listened to the discernment of several priests on Vassula. There is so much to be discovered as God’s Plan unfolds. Sooner, rather than later, all will be revealed as definitively false or true. Until then, charliek, you’re right that discernment is important and I know legitimate authority in the Church deserves obedience.

        “… This is perhaps the most troublesome case I sometimes am called to speak to. It deeply troubles me that her followers seem to disdain obedience and candor. Obedience is an absolute key to everything. Even if those in legitimate authority over us err on a disciplinary matter, in Christianity, obedience is a means of opening up channels of grace. To fail to obedient to lawful authority in what they have legitimate authority over is not merely to be disobedient to them, but to fail to trust Christ. The same God who allowed Job to suffer innocently, St Paul to persecute early, and other such mysteries has a purpose for all He allows. To be His willing instrument, we have to follow when it is easy and when it is hard.

        You have given me food for thought on the matter of Vassula knowing, through mystical experiences, that the Catholic Church is what God intends – yet remains Orthodox. I was never told where to go until I found it. I have been grateful for that, for it allowed me to learn many of the real and deep virtues and faith so many of our separated brethren live. I did not sin by being apart from the church in those times. But if I were to leave now – or to defy the lawful authority of the Pope or my Archbishop, that would be terrible sin, indeed. I think I have errantly imputed some of my own experience on to Vassula. But part of me still wonders if her experience is a unique one ultimately calibrated to unity among the faithful. Ha! This is one of the rare things I am wishy-washy about.”

        Liked by 1 person

        1. “But part of me still wonders if her experience is a unique one ultimately calibrated to unity among the faithful”

          My thoughts exactly…

          Liked by 3 people

          1. Amen, Sean. God is always doing something new. In reading the volumes (I actually have, in the early nineties, with opportunities to discuss and ask questions of several priests – faithful to the teaching Magisterium – who have years of training and study far and beyond what I would ever be able to accomplish.) and, then, observing how Vassula’s work has evolved, I see good fruit, a criterion used by the Catholic Church when conducting a formal investigation of private revelation. Of course, as noted, that has never been done in the case of Vassula… yet. For me, in discerning the work of Heaven through, with and in Charlie, one of many aha moments came when I read that he had been shown we will be blessed with Christian Unity as this Storm is resolved in the Triumph of our Mother’s Immaculate Heart. In the midst of the concerns about Pope Francis which have been expressed here, I am delighted to see, again and again, how the Holy Spirit has overshadowed this papacy for the works of building Christian Unity through Pope Francis’ tireless efforts to heal old wounds and connect with people of all faiths as well as his efforts in reaching out to agnostics and atheists. Should anyone wish to read more about VAssula’s work, the website is here.

            Liked by 3 people

        2. Thank you so much Beckita for your commentary on Vassula. Very interesting.

          I must admit that I was attracted to this lady’s writings with much reservation. I came across her book “True Life In God” a couple of years ago and in my limited situation, I tried researching her as best as I could. Despite misgivings and questions, I eventually decided to leave myself open to discernment in her case and read the book. If she is “for real”, you don’t want to turn your back on the Lord’s messages. If she is found to be a fraud later, well then you offer up your disappointments to the Lord and step away from her writings. I must admit I had a lot of misgivings on the auto writing part of it but I figured that God can use whatever method He wants. (Who am I to tell God that He can’t do it that way?) Even though she is of the Orthodox faith, I don’t feel uncomfortable as a Catholic reading the messages. I often wondered why she didn’t turn Catholic but then why didn’t Reverend Billy Graham turn Catholic? We can’t second guess God’s reason for doing things. St. Anthony of Padua wanted to be a martyr in the Holy Land but God had other ideas for him. St. Leopold wanted to be a missionary in uniting the Catholic and Orthodox peoples but God placed him in the Confessional in Padua until his death. Our ways and thoughts are not God’s.

          I appreciate the link to her website and I will have a look at it. We are certainly living in special and extraordinary times where God is touching each and every one of us in the hopes of bringiing us home to Him. Everyone is different. So … what draws one person won’t interest another. God is certainly being creative in getting our attention, isn’t He? Of course we have to be careful not to be deceived by “hairy legs” but we have wonderful priests and learned experts to guide us. Thank God for that! If in doubt, the Holy Spirit is a very reliable God.

          God bless you Beckita and thank you for your compassion, guidance and wisdom that you bestow on all of us here.

          God bless everyone here!


          Liked by 4 people

          1. Many great points made here, Catherine. Thank you. Your saint examples bring to mind the holy one of this day: St. Phillip Neri, a man of joy, a man yearning to go to India and then surrendering that desire to God’s Will: caring for those people in his very midst. In St. Phillip’s honor, here are two clips from the miniseries about his life. I so identify with the ragamuffins, Montana hillbilly style. 😉

            Liked by 1 person

      2. If Vassula HAD to be a catholic to be a true visionary that would be like asking why Charlie didn’t become catholic after his first angelic vision?
        God uses who He wills despite their position, even the enemy. Great suffering was given to the children at Fatima….by their own family because of secrets! The secrets Jesus told the apostles to keep were not a deception but a way to keep the enemy off balance. The enemy is cunning and powerful but ignorant of the ways of God and by these secrets he is thwarted from ruining the real plan. Being omnipresent God does not formulate plans, they have always existed and are always according to His plan.
        Mystery they are and mystery they will remain…until they have accomplished His will and the plan fully revealed.

        Liked by 5 people

        1. Yes, with the understanding that you’re opening sentence is referencing two instances of alleged mystical experiences and ongoing discernment processes. Of course it’s fine if individuals discern for themselves, but obedience is key.

          I hear John 10:27-28 often repeated/quoted as “My sheep know my voice…”

          Here’s the typical verbiage:

          “My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me.” or alternately the word “hear” in some translations.

          Who want’s to be the one who insists that they know on these matters? I can only say that I don’t know squat, but I endeavor to listen… and listening for the authentic prophetic Word is but a sliver of that effort.

          Today I’m listening to the babe cry and there is likewise a prophetic sliver in that… but how much contained in that cry! Oh, nothing to be said about it so much as just getting up and following Him.

          Liked by 6 people

          1. Ah, the old hold on us is at it again:
            -Then Jesus told them, “This very night you will all fall away on account of me, for it is written: “‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’
            Who is our Shepherd in these times?
            Who do we hold in great esteem?
            What do we hold in too?
            I think every time God allows us to be “sifted” we fall somewhat until we gain a better grip on things. Each time we sin, or see its effect on those among us, we slip a little. Now God told St Paul that despite Paul’s “thorn” He granted him sufficiency for salvation. That crag Paul clung too was thorny and dire but sufficient as it allowed him to separate his insufficiencies from God’s suffiniency of grace upon which he was totally dependent.
            Once we cling to people or things insufficient to bear us we get a “let down” and it is only natural for us to look for another toehold. God is always pointing us to His Son, the great “Cornerstone”-
            The Rock upon who we may all alight with security. And although we still carry thorny baggage, the Rock is sufficient to handle that too.

            Liked by 3 people

      3. HI BECKITA, THANKS FOR YOUR HUMBLE COMMENTS.I KNOW AND HELPED TO PROMOTE VASSULA IN UK.I KNOW HER VIEWS ON MEDJUGORJE,ON THE POPE’S POSITION WHEN THE CHURCH IS ONE AND UNITED. (I deleted the rest of this comment, for it is a series of personal, unsourced accusations. Remember, friends, we can have very candid, blunt discussions here. But my comments policy forbids lurid accusations against anyone without specific, independently verifiable evidence – whether friend or enemy. We also prefer NOT to go all caps – as that is the equivalent of yelling. You are certainly free to have any opinion on Vassula or anyone else here, but have to support particular accusations with reasonably verifiable evidence. Thanks for keeping these comment boards from becoming that food fight that is all too common in comments sections. – CJ)

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Indeed, charlieik, let’s move on, respecting each other and trusting that all will be clearly revealed in God’s Good Time. Peace be with you, charlieik, now and always.

          Liked by 2 people

  2. I know a lot of commenters here question whether this particular post of Charlie’s brings hope or “builds up”. Having grown up in a large family, the back and forth in this particular post brings me back to what would be classed as “a lively debate at suppertime” in my parent’s home. All of us are growing, and this back and forth,with differences of opinion and even the name calling, is not an unhealthy way to grow if it brings correction and a greater understanding of what is true, what should be kept, what should be thrown away (and this will be different for all of us depending where we are in our lives)
    I agree with MP that that the comments section can be the most illuminating and fruitful part of Charlie’s posts. So any who feel upset by certain comments or may feel tired by the divison (Lord knows my mother would understand you fully!) don’t lose heart, this is how we grow (and sometimes it’s painful but God always creates good things from it)

    On the lighter side, in honour (that’s how we spell it in Canada) of CrewDog’s sign-off “God save all here” and PD’s “Uffda” I’ve decided to start using a sign-off as well !

    “♫ You could be better than you are, or would you rather be a fish…”

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Indeed, Andy. Very well said. With five boys and five girls in my clan of origin, I can relate to that sprawling family divergent thinking process that sometimes gets messy. I will add, it’s ever important to phrase thoughts and observations in “I feel… I think… I believe…” terms rather than accusing or directing others in what they should or should not do.

      I love what the Holy Father expressed when the Jubilee Year of Mercy ended. From an article in the Catholic Herald: “In his homily during Sunday morning Mass in St. Peter’s Square, Francis said that while the year of special prayers and gatherings has ended, people should never close ‘the doors of reconciliation and pardon.’

      He says what’s important is to know ‘how to go beyond evil and differences.'”

      May we ever be such a people as this.
      PS What an apropos sign off to accompany your fish Gravatar, Andy!

      Liked by 2 people

  3. I tend often to be led to the bottom line both by my naturally analytic mind and I pray, the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It seems to me that the primary purpose of private revelation to ourselves and to other’s we are privileged to share with is to help us form a right mind in proper preparation for the present leading into the future. All revelation is subject to mitigation based on our response that is often called for in the revelation itself. Its prime purpose is not to give us certainty as to future events as It often retains a certain amount of mystery in order to try us and require us to maintain a TRUST in God in trying to ascertain the next right step, God is the source of all truth. The prime purpose of seeking for truth in all things is to know God better not to enable US to be RIGHT in our own declarations. We are all called upon with charity to help all others as we can. Humility always requires us to have proper respect for our own gifts as we strive to use them for the greater glory of God and also to be open to the gifts of others in recognition of both their and our own failures to always use them perfectly. We are all in this boat together and the storm increases. Watch and pray, pray and watch. TRUST in the Lord.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. So beautifully expressed, just a sojourner! I think, too, it’s important to take a peek at what the Magisterial teaching is on the purpose of private revelation. Here’s the excerpt from the CCC on this topic:


      God has said everything in his Word

      65 “In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son.”26 Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:

      In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word – and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.

      There will be no further Revelation

      66 “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.”28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

      67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

      Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

      IN BRIEF

      68 By love, God has revealed himself and given himself to man. He has thus provided the definitive, superabundant answer to the questions that man asks himself about the meaning and purpose of his life.

      69 God has revealed himself to man by gradually communicating his own mystery in deeds and in words.

      70 Beyond the witness to himself that God gives in created things, he manifested himself to our first parents, spoke to them and, after the fall, promised them salvation (cf. Gen 3:15) and offered them his covenant.

      71 God made an everlasting covenant with Noah and with all living beings (cf. Gen 9:16). It will remain in force as long as the world lasts.

      72 God chose Abraham and made a covenant with him and his descendants. By the covenant God formed his people and revealed his law to them through Moses. Through the prophets, he prepared them to accept the salvation destined for all humanity.

      73 God has revealed himself fully by sending his own Son, in whom he has established his covenant for ever. The Son is his Father’s definitive Word; so there will be no further Revelation after him.

      Liked by 4 people

  4. I used to follow Charlie’s writings and prophecies, up until the Trump election. I just now googled him to see what he was up to these days and I’m surprised to see him still writing publicly. Would it not be true to say that Charlie’s prophecies were proved incorrect? What account does he give for these failed prophecies? I genuinely ask this not disrespectfully, but in curiosity.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Ronandoherty, the understanding you seek is all over the pages of this new site, ASOH. Please, begin at the beginning with Charlie’s first post here. It was also the last post at TNRS site.

      I will also include, for you, a reply Charlie recently made to another person recently making inquiry about Charlie’s current presence at this, his new site:

      Well, no, Joe. The “arbitrary” definition you speak of after the Inauguration was, indeed, vague with some wiggle room. But there was one specific criteria I stated that would bring me back – and that was if there was a coup attempt. Lo and behold, here we are in the midst of the only serious coup attempt in American history. The bureaucratic and judicial coup attempt is unraveling, but it is not over.

      I said I would publicly announce no new prophecies. I did not say I would completely repudiate my whole life. I candidly acknowledge my two serious misinterpretations, but I never said I would not reference what has gone before. I think a difficulty some folks have is that while I candidly acknowledge my errors, they cannot candidly acknowledge that on the large sweep of things my interpretation has been almost dead on.

      Back before I went public, some of the predictions I made were based on “inside” information. I just didn’t tell people that. In fact, I went to some effort to embed plausible normal possibilities for how accurate I was. It surprised me after I went public that many who had known me for a long time told me that that explained a lot of things. My interior life has not changed. I remain under obedience to my Archbishop and under the guidance of my Director Priests. I am back to what I consider my default setting. I speak boldly about how I see things, take full responsibility, and let the chips fall where they may. That is comfortable for me. The only difference is that now the general public knows something about the interior “thought process” by which I come to my conclusions. I did not know nor was I told that there would be a massive coup attempt supported by the largest conspiracy of high government officials ever – but I DID know that that unprecedented situation could explain, internally, how badly I misinterpreted. So I listed that specifically. I was not told that Rudy Giuliani’s Sean Hannity interview marked the beginning of the serious counter-attack by the administration against this witch hunt. I recognized that purely from my political experience – and I have already been proved right on that while almost every media outlet and commentator at the time proved wrong.

      I recognize that the ambiguity of the situation proves uncomfortable for some. People (including me) would rather it be all right all the time or dismiss it as all wrong. But that is not how it is. So, if you find some value here, I am glad to have you here. But my internal process is my internal process – and so I shall continue along the same path, barring intervention by legitimate authority. Perhaps the Lord intends all of us to know that, while His Word is always altogether true, our correct interpretation is not guaranteed. If, looking at my startlingly accurate depiction of the big sweep including many of the details – combined with two huge errant misinterpretations – persuades people to look with more skepticism at their own absolute certainties of how they have interpreted, then, in the grand scheme of things, my errors will have proven to be a great boon to many as we enter the most difficult times.

      Liked by 6 people

  5. This video has nothing to do and everything to do with our state of life. It happens everywhere and usually unnoticed… except after the incident deescalates and captured on film.

    My question: How would you react upon the cessation of the video? Would you ask nicely or…


    PS Great driving!
    PPS a cocobolo would have been singing…

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It reminds me of a time so many decades ago, of driving through Naples trying to get to the airport on time. I copied the Italians ahead of me in a traffic jam, and drove on the sidewalk! Not at high speed of course! Love the Italians!
      We always need humor in our lives!

      Liked by 2 people

  6. I think Mark Mallet is right. We are likely to see the rise of the antichrist soon. There are plans to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. The US announced plans to move the embassy there. The technology exists for the mark of the beast (RFID) and the image of the beast (TV or hologram) as described in Revelation. A worldwide banking crisis might be the excuse to implement a one world electronic currency and tracking system. It’s pretty clear that we are not currently living in the period of peace promised at Fatima. Russia has shown no sign of conversion.


    1. From earliest childhood, one of the prime emphases to me has been that this is NOT the end. I do not believe the mark of the beast is an RFID – for that would deny free will. You have to choose the mark. The image of the beast being a hologram or some such trivializes the rich and historic symbolism of the Bible. Russia has shown many signs of conversion – it is the rest of the world that is deconverting. The minor chastisement, which the Church teaches, precedes the period of the period of peace – and it is second only to the actual end in the tribulation involved. So yes, you and I disagree about almost every point here.

      Liked by 3 people

Comments are closed.