Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: What to make of Alois Irlmaier  (Read 124134 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Yeti

  • Supporter
Re: What to make of Alois Irlmaier
« Reply #20 on: October 21, 2025, 06:24:24 PM »
:facepalm:  Alois' prophecies are of a political nature.  Has nothing to do with catholicism, or religion in general.  Take it or leave it.

You guys get bent out of shape if some dude 50 years ago had prophecies about ww3, but you don't bat an eyelash about taking "predictions" from stock brokers or businessman.  There's really no difference.  :facepalm:
.

Okay, so are you saying he wasn't claiming to receive any sort of revelation about the future? I sure didn't get that impression from reading what has been posted about him on this forum. What I've seen sure looks to me like he claimed the gift of prophecy in a supernatural manner.

This is a totally different thing from a statement like, "It looks to me like the Ukraine war is going to be over within two years, based on how it's going now."

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: What to make of Alois Irlmaier
« Reply #21 on: October 21, 2025, 07:40:10 PM »
There's a gaggle of these guys here, mostly SV types, who tend to deny and rationalize away anything that seems extraordinary or unusual.  You'll notice these are the same actors who are constantly agitating against FE and other topics that entail "conspiracy theory".  I'm not sure if it's because they have such a strong programming that they're afflicted with a very high degree of normalcy bias, or it's because they claim these types of things "make Traditional Catholics look bad", etc.

While nobody's forcing them to believe anything, they cross the line when they start uncharitably slandering Irlmaier.  There's no indication whatsoever of malicious intent or deception.  He was taken to court over it and exonerated and was an incredibly simple man.  At worst you could say that he had an active imagination and that these weren't real predictions ... but his success rate, backed up by much testimony, far exceeds that of random chance just happening to match up with the musings of his imagination.

Those who don't care, they're free to just depart from this thread ... but they can't resist coming here because they have some animus against it.

There's a lot of stuff clearly copyrighted and traceable to many decades ago, such as his description of what clearly appear to be smart phones, long before even dumb cell phones existed.  And one of the episodes he describes taking place in WW3 involves a weapon that sounds preposterous ... and yet we now know the Russians have exactly that type of weapon.  If you were trying to deceive, you're going to speak in generalities, the typical tactic of deceivers, and not specifics that look crazy ... and he often says things like, "I see this, but don't know what it means."  If you were making stuff up, there would be a lot less of that than there actually is.

He also talked about thousands of unmanned drones flying out of the hot sands and heading up OVER Salzburg, where they could see them blanketing the skies, but then dropping their payload north of them in Czech Republic.  I produced a map of US drone bases around the world, including one in Tunisia, where you have desert hot sands, and if you draw a line from there to Prague in Czech Republic, it goes DIRECTLY over Salzburg.  What are the odds of that?  Now there was a prediction of a Russia/US peace accord after "Shalom! ... with everyone crying peace." (Trump's "Eternal Peace"), taking place on short notice, in Budapest ... during which the US President is αssαssιnαtҽd.  OK, one or another of those things could be guesses, but putting them all together?  I wish I would have placed a bet.  Having a peace summit on "two weeks' notice" certainly qualifies as "short notice" for such a thing, and it's in Budapest, and it's between US/Russia (with the US President personally attending, and not just sending a delegate like Rubio), and shortly after some monumental peace deal involving Israel (his choice of the word "Shalom").  What are the odds of all those things coming together at the same time?  Incredibly slim, to say the least.


Re: What to make of Alois Irlmaier
« Reply #22 on: October 22, 2025, 06:06:37 AM »
Irlmaier primarily earned his living as a professional well-digger and dowser, charging for services to locate and build wells using dowsing techniques. He also provided clairvoyant consultations, such as finding missing people or offering prophecies, for which he was accused in 1947 of illegal clairvoyance for profit; however, he was acquitted after witnesses attested to his accuracy and goodwill, with no evidence of fraud. Some sources claim he had prior convictions for fraud, though this is unverified and may stem from mistranslations or unconfirmed reports. Yes, these methods of earning a living—dowsing and clairvoyance (fortune-telling or prophecy via visions)—are condemned by the Catholic Church as forms of divination, which involves seeking hidden or future knowledge through improper, supernatural means outside of divine revelation. The Church views such practices as sinful superstitions that usurp God's prerogative over the future, potentially involving demonic influence, and explicitly forbids them under the First Commandment, citing Scriptures like Deuteronomy 18:9-12 (prohibiting diviners and charmers) and Hosea 4:12 (condemning divining rods). This aligns with the Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraphs 2115-2117), which rejects all divination as contrary to trust in God's providence. Despite this, Irlmaier maintained his Catholic faith and did not see his abilities as conflicting with it.
*******************************************************************************************************
What of the above is held in dispute?  Is it wrong to point these facts out?  Are they an inconvenient truth?

Re: What to make of Alois Irlmaier
« Reply #23 on: October 22, 2025, 06:41:05 AM »
FWIW:


Quote
The divining-rod, if used only for metals of water, may perhaps be explained naturally; if used for detecting guilty persons, or things lost or stolen as such (which may be metals), it is certainly a tacit* method.

Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913
*"tacit" referring to contact with demons 

This is apparently from the Holy Office:

Quote
The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has given serious consideration to the troubles which to the detriment of religious and true piety arise from the investigation by clerics of Radiaesthesia for divining facts and events. In view of the directives of canon 138 and 139.1 of the Code of Canon Law protecting clerics and religious from those matters which are such as to dishonour their office or dignity or to do possible harm to their authority, (the Congregation) makes the following findings. However the Congregation has no wish by this decree to touch upon scientific investigation of Radiaesthesia:
The Most Excellent Ordinaries of places and Religious Superiors are ordered to prohibit their clerics or religious by stern directive from ever proceeding with those exercises in Radiaesthesia, which are involved in the above mentioned investigation.
It will be for these Ordinaries or Religious Superiors, if they consider it necessary or appropriate, to attach a threat of penal sanction to forbidden action of this kind.
But if any cleric or religious should repeatedly transgress this ban or if he (she) should provide an opportunity for serious harm or scandal, the Ordinaries or Superiors should report this fact to this Sacred Supreme Tribunal.
Given in Rome, at the chambers of the Holy Office, on 26 March 1942
Giovanni Pepe, Notary of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office. #9629


Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: What to make of Alois Irlmaier
« Reply #24 on: October 22, 2025, 07:41:38 AM »
Irlmaier primarily earned his living as a professional well-digger and dowser, charging for services to locate and build wells using dowsing techniques. He also provided clairvoyant consultations, such as finding missing people or offering prophecies, for which he was accused in 1947 of illegal clairvoyance for profit; however, he was acquitted after witnesses attested to his accuracy and goodwill, with no evidence of fraud. Some sources claim he had prior convictions for fraud, though this is unverified and may stem from mistranslations or unconfirmed reports. Yes, these methods of earning a living—dowsing and clairvoyance (fortune-telling or prophecy via visions)—are condemned by the Catholic Church as forms of divination, which involves seeking hidden or future knowledge through improper, supernatural means outside of divine revelation. The Church views such practices as sinful superstitions that usurp God's prerogative over the future, potentially involving demonic influence, and explicitly forbids them under the First Commandment, citing Scriptures like Deuteronomy 18:9-12 (prohibiting diviners and charmers) and Hosea 4:12 (condemning divining rods). This aligns with the Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraphs 2115-2117), which rejects all divination as contrary to trust in God's providence. Despite this, Irlmaier maintained his Catholic faith and did not see his abilities as conflicting with it.
*******************************************************************************************************
What of the above is held in dispute?  Is it wrong to point these facts out?  Are they an inconvenient truth?

Your Grok-driven nonsense is debunked by the post right after yours.  Grok of course injects terms like "clairvoyant", which is the secular perpsective on any kind of preternatural ability.  There have been many mystics that had preternatural abilities, and this Grok-post conflates divination / clairvoyance with legitimate mystical abilities, which the atheistic Grok has for a premise.  Indeed the Church condemns "divination", but legitimate gifts from mystics are not in that category.  Seems like this faithless wonder Mat183 appears to prefer Grok to actual Catholic theology.  That's incredibly pathetic.

Have you once yet quoted an actual Catholic source for any of your assertions?  Since you've been called out on this before, seems like you're too ashamed to mention that you got this from Grok.