Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => Topic started by: Mat183 on October 19, 2025, 08:10:33 PM
-
One AI's take -- Grok:
Who was Alois Irlmaier and did he make his living in a way that is condemned by the Catholic Church?
Alois Irlmaier (June 8, 1894 – July 26, 1959) was a German well-digger, dowser, and clairvoyant from Bavaria, known for his alleged psychic abilities and prophecies about future global conflicts, including a potential World War III. Born to a farming family in Scharam bei Siegsdorf, he served as a soldier in World War I from 1914 to 1916, during which he reportedly began experiencing visions. In 1920, he married Maria Schieslinger, with whom he raised four children (one a foster child), and took over his family's farm before transitioning to well-building in 1928. He became renowned for using dowsing rods to locate underground water sources and later for clairvoyant feats, such as helping police find missing persons, lost objects, and even murder victims during and after World War II. His prophecies, often apocalyptic, were compiled posthumously from interviews and reportedly influenced figures like U.S. General Lucius D. Clay and German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer. Irlmaier described himself as a devout Catholic and attributed his abilities to divine gifts, though he faced skepticism and legal scrutiny.
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.
-
There's a difference between having visions or dreams (which are uncontrollable), to actively practicing divination, which is like witchcraft. :facepalm: "Prophecy" is a gift of the Holy Ghost, which many saints had, at certain times. Being clairvoyant is a gift; you either have it or you don't. Has nothing to do with the occult.
-
Grok continues:
How plausible or credible are his prophecies and how can we trust their 100% authenticity and accuracy seeing as they were compiled posthumously from interviews?
Alois Irlmaier's prophecies, particularly those concerning a potential World War III, societal collapse, natural disasters, and a period of "three days of darkness," have a mixed level of plausibility and credibility. They are often viewed through lenses of faith, folklore, or skepticism, with no definitive scientific validation. On one hand, his reputation stems from reportedly accurate predictions during his lifetime (e.g., foreseeing bomb impacts and locating missing persons during World War II), which were attested by witnesses in a 1947 fraud trial where he was acquitted, with the court noting his abilities as "almost impossible to explain using the known forces of nature." Supporters, including Catholic enthusiasts and authors like Stephan Berndt, argue that his visions align with other mystical prophecies (e.g., from Fatima or Blessed Anna Maria Taigi) and have partially fulfilled elements, such as references to Cold War tensions or modern geopolitical unrest. However, skeptics criticize them as products of his era's anxieties—particularly post-WWII and Cold War fears of Soviet invasion, nuclear war, and European instability—rather than genuine foresight. Many prophecies are vague, symbolic, or open to interpretation (e.g., "yellow powder" as chemical weapons or "dead zones" as nuclear fallout), allowing for retrofitting to current events, which reduces their predictive rigor. From a Catholic perspective, such private revelations are not dogmatic and should be discerned critically, focusing on spiritual messages like repentance rather than literal forecasts. Overall, while anecdotal evidence supports some short-term accuracy, the long-term apocalyptic visions lack empirical proof and are often seen as folklore or intuition amplified by cultural context.
Regarding trust in their 100% authenticity and accuracy, especially given the posthumous compilation from interviews, it is generally low due to inherent limitations in the sourcing. Irlmaier did not write down his prophecies himself; they were primarily oral, shared during free consultations in his hut or spontaneous visions. Contemporary records include a 1947 newspaper interview by journalist Conrad Adlmaier, a 1957 German government commission interrogation, and articles in periodicals like Neues Europa (1956–1959), based on direct conversations or notes from visitors. After his 1959 death, these were pieced together in books by researchers like Wolfgang Johannes Bekh (e.g., 1976 and 1990 works compiling quotes and conversations) and Stephan Berndt (2009 book organizing visions from original interviews and reports). This second-hand nature introduces risks of distortion, selective memory, embellishment, or conflation with other seers' predictions, as compilers relied on recollections from witnesses, some years later. Irlmaier's 15 prior convictions (including seven for fraud) and trial contradictions noted by some witnesses further fuel doubts about reliability. No strong evidence of outright hoax exists, but the lack of verifiable originals means full trust is unwarranted; they are best approached as historical curiosities rather than infallible truths.
-
:facepalm: It's a prophecy. You only know if it's accurate when all the events are over.
-
Timely bump here ...
please see this post I made, where one commentator who knew Irlmaier says that USA/Russian tensions had been on the rise when there's a meeting scheduled "on short notice" in Bucharest or Budapest, and that at this conference the US President would be αssαssιnαtҽd and the VP would immediately declare war.
https://www.cathinfo.com/world-war-iii-chapter-2/the-prophecies-of-alois-irlmaier/msg1002714/#msg1002714
-
Trump said that it could take place "within two weeks", so this fits the bill of a peace summit called after rising tensions, and arranged on "short notice" ... two weeks' notice?
-
Ladislaus, I agree. These are important developments to watch. Something has to happen soon.
-
:facepalm: It's a prophecy. You only know if it's accurate when all the events are over.
There's no need to wait for the future to unfold to make an assessment on the accuracy of whether a so-called prophecy and or its exactitude (i.e., accuracy) of its details was ever actually made in the first place. That was how the word accuracy was used in the quote I had provided. A so-called prophecy could have been made, but it's retelling to the public after the supposed seer died could always have been distorted or even fabricated. That's the question at issue.
-
There's no need to wait for the future to unfold to make an assessment on the accuracy of whether a so-called prophecy and or its exactitude (i.e., accuracy) of its details was ever actually made in the first place. That was how the word accuracy was used in the quote I had provided. A so-called prophecy could have been made, but it's retelling to the public after the supposed seer died could always have been distorted or even fabricated. That's the question at issue.
Even if this Alois guy never existed, SOMEBODY made these predictions DECADES ago. And they're pretty darn accurate. That's all that matters; I don't care if it Alois or Hitler's cousin.
-
So, the "could have been distorted" thing is typically used to get false prophets "off the hook", as it were, so if something they predict doesn't come to pass, they can just claim their prediction had been altered. People didn't stand all day for years in a 100-person-deep line if there wasn't something to Irlmaier. He's made predictions that were docuмented, like eerily mentioning what sounds like smart phones (colorful cigarette boxes that people keep staring at) and during WW3 a bomb that's droppped off the coast of England that'll submerge a large part of the country (look up Russia's Tsunami bomb), and then he talked about a huge wave of these white unmanned air ships flying by the 10s of thousands over Europe to drop some small payload (before anyone had dreamt of unmanned drones).
BTW, he speaks of these drones that drop the green/yelllow powder as rising up out of the hot sands, and then flying OVER where he lived in Austria, but that people shouldn't be afraid, and they would drop the weapon north of them, starting with Prague and going up to the North Sea. So a line OVER Austria from some Hot Sands could very well be from Tunisia.
(https://www.wdbt.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Map_1_Exploring_Drone_Bases_Africa.webp)
If you look on a map, a straight line between Tunisia and Prague goes right over Austria.
https://www.africanews.com/2020/10/01/tunisia-signs-10-year-military-deal-with-us//
Notice how he was saber rattling against Russia when he made the announcement.
-
Here's the flight path from Tunis (Tunisia) to Prague ...
(https://i.ibb.co/tMWfPpzB/Tunisia-to-Prague.jpg)
You'll notice that it makes a direct line over Salzburg (shown here on the map)
(https://i.ibb.co/k6kYm8Sz/Salzburg.jpg)
-
One AI's take -- Grok:
Who was Alois Irlmaier and did he make his living in a way that is condemned by the Catholic Church?
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.
And it is claimed that he was a devout Catholic. Without looking into it, I would not be surprised if a lot of false mystics -- and I am not asserting one way or the other that he was one of them -- in some 2,000 years of Church history have also been considered devout Catholics. I certainly hope he was and that he saved his soul, but this strange and grave divergence remains to be seen as a baffling disconnect of sorts.
-
And it is claimed that he was a devout Catholic. Without looking into it, I would not be surprised if a lot of false mystics -- and I am not asserting one way or the other that he was one of them -- in some 2,000 years of Church history have also been considered devout Catholics. I certainly hope he was and that he saved his soul, but this strange and grave divergence remains to be seen as a baffling disconnect of sorts.
So, yeah, without looking into it, you're content to slander his memory by casting aspersions on whether or not he was a devout Catholic. Maybe you should "look into it" before slandering the man. Meanwhile, you're demanding proof of accusations against Massie being a Mason ... while on this thread you're casting aspersions on Irlmaier's character without any evidence at all, since there isn't any.
Among the many things speaking in favor of Irlmaier is that he never sought either fame or money. He was actually put on trial, accused of being a charlatan, and was acquitted in court of law after thorough examination. There were priests who vouched for him. But, as I said, he never promoted himself, and it was only after he made some accurate predictions that people started coming to HIM in order to ask quetions.
There's no reason to cast aspersions on his being a devout Catholic. Just because you're claim that you're "not asserting one way or ther other", you're absolutely implying something and your Pilate-like attempt to wash your hands of it does not exonerate you. You can make a hollow gesture, lip service, that you don't mean to cast aspersions on his character ... while you're doing precisely that.
If one wants to assert that he's mistaken, that's your right, but that can be done without impugning their character. One can believe that mistakes made it into the works of Emmerich or Agreda, either mistakes in interpreting something they saw or simply a confusion between what was given to them and the active role of their own imagination ... all while recognizing that they were very devout and perhaps even holy individuals.
Since the events that Irlmaier foretold have not come to pass yet, you're not in any position to claim that they're false. And, nobody here is asserting that they're infallibly true, but are adopting a wait and see attitude, whether Irlmaier was mistaken or perhaps he had certain things he saw that were the product of his own imagination ... all without casting aspertions on his character. He could likely have become fabulously wealthy, but he repeatedly said during his life that he had no use for money, nor for fame, and would have preferred to be left alone.
Had Irmaier not had a reputation for accuracy, he would hardly have gotten to the point where so many people consulted him, though. That's due to something more than dumb luck.
So, the odds of Irlmaier having predicted ...
Tensions between US / Russia resulting in a peace conference in Budapest on "short notice" ... these are pretty low for him to have blind-squirreled or broken-clocked his way to that one.
In addition he clearly described what we now know to be cell phones, and also a Tsunami Bomb that we know the Russians do have now, and a bunch of other things that would be very difficult to land upon with dumb luck. Now, he's not one of those guys, like modern psychics, or the one guy who got his 15 minute of fame for predicting the assassination attempt on Trump ... where they make literally 100 predictions per day and if they get 1 right after 10 years of doing this, they become celebrities, even if there are 99,999 provably false ones that came before it, since nobody followed them before they became famous to know otherwise.
-
So, yeah, without looking into it, you're content to slander his memory by casting aspersions on whether or not he was a devout Catholic. Maybe you should "look into it" before slandering the man. Meanwhile, you're demanding proof of accusations against Massie being a Mason ... while on this thread you're casting aspersions on Irlmaier's character without any evidence at all, since there isn't any.
Among the many things speaking in favor of Irlmaier is that he never sought either fame or money. He was actually put on trial, accused of being a charlatan, and was acquitted in court of law after thorough examination. There were priests who vouched for him. But, as I said, he never promoted himself, and it was only after he made some accurate predictions that people started coming to HIM in order to ask quetions.
There's no reason to cast aspersions on his being a devout Catholic. Just because you're claim that you're "not asserting one way or ther other", you're absolutely implying something and your Pilate-like attempt to wash your hands of it does not exonerate you. You can make a hollow gesture, lip service, that you don't mean to cast aspersions on his character ... while you're doing precisely that.
If one wants to assert that he's mistaken, that's your right, but that can be done without impugning their character. One can believe that mistakes made it into the works of Emmerich or Agreda, either mistakes in interpreting something they saw or simply a confusion between what was given to them and the active role of their own imagination ... all while recognizing that they were very devout and perhaps even holy individuals.
Since the events that Irlmaier foretold have not come to pass yet, you're not in any position to claim that they're false. And, nobody here is asserting that they're infallibly true, but are adopting a wait and see attitude, whether Irlmaier was mistaken or perhaps he had certain things he saw that were the product of his own imagination ... all without casting aspertions on his character. He could likely have become fabulously wealthy, but he repeatedly said during his life that he had no use for money, nor for fame, and would have preferred to be left alone.
Had Irmaier not had a reputation for accuracy, he would hardly have gotten to the point where so many people consulted him, though. That's due to something more than dumb luck.
So, the odds of Irlmaier having predicted ...
Tensions between US / Russia resulting in a peace conference in Budapest on "short notice" ... these are pretty low for him to have blind-squirreled or broken-clocked his way to that one.
In addition he clearly described what we now know to be cell phones, and also a Tsunami Bomb that we know the Russians do have now, and a bunch of other things that would be very difficult to land upon with dumb luck. Now, he's not one of those guys, like modern psychics, or the one guy who got his 15 minute of fame for predicting the assassination attempt on Trump ... where they make literally 100 predictions per day and if they get 1 right after 10 years of doing this, they become celebrities, even if there are 99,999 provably false ones that came before it, since nobody followed them before they became famous to know otherwise.
Listen Lad. I realize you are the long time -- no one comes close -- top dog around here with your nearly unbelievable 47 thousand or more posts. Your word count must be an incredible record as well. That said, it is easy to see how someone like you could fall into so much pretentiousness such as that exhibited in this long-winded redundant post of yours.
Your post is a perfect example of how easily and ridiculously triggered you become. There is a difference between casting aspersions on someone and legitimately questioning certain aspects of their life. Nowhere, have I personally denied any claims of personal sanctity in the life of Alois. What I have done is question how it was that he carried out practices throughout his life that are condemned by the Catholic Church, much the same way a "Devil's Advocate" would be expected to do in the case of a Cause for Sainthood. You can't seem to handle that but instead go off on me. Yeah, go figure.
-
I came across an interesting passage in Jone the other day about the general rules of the Index of Forbidden Books. There are general categories of various types of books that are automatically on the list even without being listed, and one of the categories was "books that publish new apparitions, revelations or devotions".
That pretty much puts an end to all these unapproved "mystics" like this.
-
I came across an interesting passage in Jone the other day about the general rules of the Index of Forbidden Books. There are general categories of various types of books that are automatically on the list even without being listed, and one of the categories was "books that publish new apparitions, revelations or devotions".
What purported apparition, revelation or devotion is involved?
Do you believe the works of men like Yves duPont -- https://www.marianland.com/tan0414/0105.html -- are, therefore, published and disseminated in violation of this rule? Has every single outlet throughout Traddieland been violating this rule all these years?
Is it possible you are misunderstanding and, therefore, incorrectly applying said rule to this topic?
-
Let's see. This is based on Canon 1398 of the 1917 code of canon law. Here is the canon in full (https://cdn.restorethe54.com/media/pdf/1917-code-of-canon-law-english.pdf):
Canon 1398 (NA)
§ 1. The prohibition of books brings it about that the book cannot be published, read, retained,
sold, translated into another language, or in any other way communicated to others without
necessary permission.
§ 2. A book that in any manner is prohibited cannot once again be brought out unless, the
corrections having been made, permission is given by him who prohibited the book, or by his
Superior or successor.
Canon 139916 (NA) Cross-Ref.: 1917 CIC 1400
By the law, [the following] are prohibited:
1.° Original text editions or ancient versions of Catholic sacred Scripture, even of the
Oriental Church, published by any non-Catholic; and likewise versions [of these], in
any language, by these [same sort] prepared or published;
2.° Books of any writers propagating heresy or schism, or attacking in any way the basis
of religion;
3.° Books by design striking against religion and good morals;
4.° Books by any non-Catholics treating purposely of religion, unless it can be shown
that nothing contained in them is contrary to the Catholic faith;
5.° Books mentioned in Canon 1385, § 1, n. 1, and Canon 1391; likewise all those
mentioned in the cited Canon 1385, § 1, n. 2, [and] books and booklets that describe
new apparitions, revelations, visions, prophecies, and miracles, or that lead to new
devotions, even under the pretext of being private, if they have not been published
in accord with the prescriptions of the canons;
6.° Books attacking or deriding any Catholic dogma, or protecting errors proscribed by
the Holy See, or detracting from divine cult, or arguing for the avoidance of
ecclesiastical discipline, or bringing about opprobrium on religion or the clerical
state;
7.° Books that teach or recommend superstition in general, sorcery, divination, magic,
evoking of spirits, and other things of this sort;
8.° Books that argue the liceity of dueling, ѕυιcιdє, or divorce, and those that in
discussing masonic sects and other societies of this sort argue that they are useful
and not pernicious to the Church and civil society;
9.° Books that purposely describe, teach, or treat lascivious or obscene materials;
10.° Editions of liturgical books approved by the Apostolic See in which there have been
any changes so that they are not consistent with the authentic editions approved by
the Holy See;
11.° Books that give out apocryphal indulgences or [ones] proscribed or revoked by the
Holy See;
12.° Any images or impressions of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Virgin Mary, of
the Angels and Saints or other Servants of God, alien to the sense and decrees of the
Church.
The section I am referring to is subsection 5 (emphasis mine):
5.° Books mentioned in Canon 1385, § 1, n. 1, and Canon 1391; likewise all those
mentioned in the cited Canon 1385, § 1, n. 2, [and] books and booklets that describe
new apparitions, revelations, visions, prophecies, and miracles, or that lead to new
devotions, even under the pretext of being private, if they have not been published
in accord with the prescriptions of the canons;
And the effect on such a book is that it:
cannot be published, read, retained, sold, translated into another language, or in any other way communicated to others without necessary permission.
-
What purported apparition, revelation or devotion is involved?
.
Please read the OP in this thread.
Do you believe the works of men like Yves duPont -- https://www.marianland.com/tan0414/0105.html -- are, therefore, published and disseminated in violation of this rule? Has every single outlet throughout Traddieland been violating this rule all these years?
"Traddieland" is a denigratory term for the Catholic Church. You should be ashamed.
And no, most traditional Catholic outlets do not publish unapproved apparitions or revelations.
-
: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:
-
.
Please read the OP in this thread.
"Traddieland" is a denigratory term for the Catholic Church. You should be ashamed.
And no, most traditional Catholic outlets do not publish unapproved apparitions or revelations.
Most of the prophecis in Yves Dupont's book are from Centuries ago...from famous saints/holy persons. Yves Dupont is not a mystic or a seer.
-
: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."
-
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.
-
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?
-
FWIW:
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:
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
-
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.
-
Of course, we know that Irlamaier had friends who were priests and not a one condemned him for anything he was doing.
But the turds here are not content with ingoring Irlmaier, not finding him credible, but they're hell bent on attacking his character ... because like all these types they're really faithless in the practical order, where they deny anything that hasn't been told to them by "mainstream" science or ... evidently ... Grok, which of course they attribute great authority and credibility to, so long as it doesn't disturb whatever mental "safe place" they've constructed for themselves. If their safe place is disturbed, they have to lash out on threads like this. It's rather pathetic to watch.
-
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.
The dumbing down of society continues. Dumb people used to quote Wikipedia as if it was the bible. But at least Wiki had most of its general facts correct; it was just biased on the conclusions (and only for hot topics). If you just searched a random topic, i.e. the origin of chocolate, then Wiki was probably accurate.
Now dumb people are using AI and act like it's research and 100% correct. Even when the programmers of AI have repeatedly said that it can make up facts, as many have already gone to jail by using AI as a "source". But dumb people don't even know the dangers (or care). They plunge right ahead and act like they are a genius on a topic, because of AI.
This new poster doesn't even understand the terms he's debating -- prophecy, clairvoyant, divination - thus he can't distinguish between what's anti-catholic and what's not. :facepalm:
I will be ignoring any and all AI posts from here on out. It's not research, it's not factual and it's not conversation.
-
The dumbing down of society continues. Dumb people used to quote Wikipedia as if it was the bible. But at least Wiki had most of its general facts correct; it was just biased on the conclusions (and only for hot topics). If you just searched a random topic, i.e. the origin of chocolate, then Wiki was probably accurate.
Now dumb people are using AI and act like it's research and 100% correct. Even when the programmers of AI have repeatedly said that it can make up facts, as many have already gone to jail by using AI as a "source". But dumb people don't even know the dangers (or care). They plunge right ahead and act like they are a genius on a topic, because of AI.
This new poster doesn't even understand the terms he's debating -- prophecy, clairvoyant, divination - thus he can't distinguish between what's anti-catholic and what's not. :facepalm:
I will be ignoring any and all AI posts from here on out. It's not research, it's not factual and it's not conversation.
Yes, this Mat183 repeatedly cites Grok as if it were some kind of authority. We see it all the time even in human-generated content about the Catholic Church, where they never actually understand the Catholic principles involved and typically misfire on their analysis of the situation. Here, we have the atheistic bias of a Grok classifying any kind of (potentially) mystical abilities as "clairvoyance" and "divination" ... for activities that even many approved mystics engaged in, those like Marie Julie Jahenny, Catherine Emmerich, Mary of Agreda, and Anna Maria Taigi. ALL of them would be guilty of condemned "clairvoyance" and "divination" of the same variety that's condemned by the Church, per Grok, and this mindless buffoon who keeps citing it ... except of course there was no such condemnation and some of these have been beatified.
-
So, the reason that God gives these types of gifts sometimes is primarily so that the faithful, His elect, can be prepared for what's to come and also to be comforted that it's all part of God's plan, and that "God wins in the end", that it'll turn out fine. If you're in the middle of some Three Days of Darkness scenario or some horrible Third World War, one might be tempted to despair if it were not for the fact that it had been foretold, and the information about it leaked to some extent.
In this case, if Trump does get taken out in Budapest ... that'll certainly establish Irlmaier's credibility, and then we have just a bit of time left to "duck and cover", and try to make some preparations before all hell breaks loose.
Now, I personally have always felt that 2029 would be the start of the war and physical chastisement (with V2 being the spiritual chastisement, far worse), based on Our Lady's request to consecrate Russia in 1929 (June 13) and then Our Lord likening the delay to that of the Kings of France, who 100 years TO THE DAY of Our Lord having requested that they consecrate Frances to His Sacred Heart were effectively deposed (made subordinate to the Third Estate).
But perhaps this comes before whatever events transpire in 2029. Irlmaier said that he saw something that lasted 3 (units of measure). He didn't think it would be long, but then from eternity 3 Years may not be long. So perhaps another alternative timeline is that the war goes on for about 3 years, which would take us into 2029, at which point a Holy Pope would somehow be elected, who would then consecrate Russia, and crown three kings, one of them being the Great Monarch. That could be possible.
Now, it could also be that the assassination event doesn't actually take place until 2029. Yet, to have two situations after some great Israeli-involved Peace Deal where there's a short-notice summit in Budapest between the US and Russia ... that would be uncanny.
I would have doubted the blog post about this detail regarding the Budapest summit and assassination of the US President, except that this had been written many years ago, and I quoted it on one of these Irlmaier threads two years ago. So it wasn't something that someone has faked when news of the Budapest summit came out and then tried to claim this prediction had been made years ago.
Too many of Irlmaier's predictions have come true to write it off as blind squirrel or broken clock luck, and, as mentioned, what are the odds of these things all coming together in a short window of time, where everyone's crying peace, Shalom! (the great "Eternal Peace" deal that the entire world hailed), and then a short-notice summit (two weeks' notice -- how often do things like that get arranged on such short notice?), then it's in Budapest (as predicted, the Bucharest alternative notwithstanding), and it's between US and Russia, and the actual US President is attending (most of them time it's some delegate, Secretary of State, ambassador, or some such)? I mean, if Irlmaier was just making up random things, what are odds of these all coming together? Likely astronomical. Now, if you wanted to claim he was under diabolical influence ... apart from the fact that it would be a slander against his character for which there's no evidence, that might at least explain it, but dumb luck? As mentioned, I cited these predictions two years ago here on CI, and the blog itself came from years before that, so its existence prior to the events is well established. Odds are astronomical that things would line up this way.
-
I hear the meeting in Budapest was called off. Maybe Trump's team saw our thread and believed Alois. :laugh1:
-
Other things speaking to Irlmaier's credibility ...
1) he was a devout Catholic and says he saw Our Lady
2) he was a very simple and uneducated man (God and Our Lady like to use such for their instruments)
3) predictions of what cannot be anything other than smart phones
4) the weapon he describes in WW3, where people's flesh was blackened, and falling off the bone, and yet things like equipment, houses, etc. were unscathed ... sure sounds like a neutron bomb, which wasn't produced until 1974 (and development started in 1962) ... he died in 1959, and despite his attributing what he saw to the green/yellow powder (fits the description of some chemical weapons the US has had), it could be a combination even where there was a neutron bomb and some chemical agent dispersed creating a combined effect
5) he describes another weapon, a bomb dropped off the coast of England that would cause much of the island to be submerged. Why would he make up something that sounds like complete nonsense if he's making things up ... except that the Russians have developed precisely this type of weapon and during the Ukraine conflict, some Russian media talking heads actually were calling for England to be submerged by such a bomb. There's other prophecy out there about England being partially submerged. Perhaps, then, for instance, if Trump does get taken out, our Traditional Catholic friends in the UK could move away from the coasts for a bit, or be prepared too when some of the other events take place.
Just a series of dumb luck guesses, right?
https://thebulletin.org/2023/06/one-nuclear-armed-poseidon-torpedo-could-decimate-a-coastal-city-russia-wants-30-of-them/
In January 2023, the Russian news agency TASS reported that Russia had produced the first set of nuclear-powered, very long range, nuclear-armed torpedoes known as “Poseidon.” Strategic experts are warning that the Poseidon torpedo would have the potential to devastate a coastal city, cause radioactive floods, and result in millions of deaths. Over the past few years, tabloid news outlets have painted a hauntingly vivid picture of a towering, 1,000-foot-tall radioactive tsunami violently crashing onto British shores, pulverizing everything in its path, and transforming whole cities into barren, lifeless lands.
Elsewhere:
In May 2022, prominent Russian state television host Dmitry Kiselyov discussed on-air the possibility of Russia wiping out the UK with a nuclear-armed underwater drone. During the segment on the weekly current affairs show Vesti Nedeli, Kiselyov suggested that using Russia's "unstoppable" Poseidon underwater drone could create a giant tsunami, annihilating the UK.
Irlmaier:
Then a single aircraft comes from the East and throws an object into the great water—by England. Then the water rises in one piece, as high as a tower, and falls back down. There is an earthquake, and everything is flooded—almost all of England and the European coasts as far as Berlin.
-
Of course, looks like the Budapest Summit is off, but worth keeping an eye on ... since Trump has a history of on-again/off-again types of impulsive moves ... such as with the tariffs. Tariff on, tariff off, tariff on, tariff off. So the current status quo could be different by mid-morning or this afternoon.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/budapest-summit-postponed-as-putin-rejects-trumps-ceasefire-proposal/
-
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.
Yes, I think it's a combination of all 3 reasons above, plus a 4th - their fantasy-land idea of how they *think* the Church operated pre-V2, under an actual pope. Some of these dogmatic SV'ers think that in pre-V2 times, an 'imprimatur' on a book meant that it was 100% error free. Or they think that the 'true pope' could never do x, y or z (some minor mistake). Or a 'true pope' could never appoint some lying scoundrel to some official post (as if the pope could read hearts and be an oracle). Or that a 'true church' would approve/deny apparitions within 1 day of hearing of them, and/or respond to every single questionable person, place, idea, book, etc. In other words, a 'true pope' would provide some time of 'orthodox utopia' where there was no error anywhere, no heretics (or if there were, they would be punished immediately), no scandals (or if so, they would be reprimanded immediately), etc.
So they look at a guy like Alois, from the 40s/50s, and since they don't see/can't find any church "approval" (in their minds, the church would approve/disapprove of any and all manner of people like Alois), then we have to ignore Alois. But the foundational error is that the Church has the TIME and MANPOWER to even investigate a guy like Alois. In reality, unless Alois was causing some kind of scandal, it was the job of his bishop to do something. And that didn't happen. Which means that Alois is neither approved or disapproved. But to many people with a fantasy-like outlook on how the 'true church' worked, this is unfathomable.
-
I hear the meeting in Budapest was called off.
Hungarian official's response: https://www.rt.com/news/626791-hungary-putin-trump-budapest/
-
"Traddieland" is a denigratory term for the Catholic Church. You should be ashamed.
Thank you for your perspective on my choice of terms, but I respectfully and completely disagree. Traddieland is, IMO, a sadly-accurate term for the present landscape.
-
Hungarian official's response: https://www.rt.com/news/626791-hungary-putin-trump-budapest/
Several outlets reported on Tuesday, citing unnamed White House officials, that plans for the meeting in the Hungarian capital had been put “on hold.”
Responding to the claims, Szijjarto took to X to warn that from the moment the meeting was announced following a phone call between Putin and Trump last week, “it was obvious that many would do everything possible to stop it from happening.”
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov had earlier called the claims “infodumps,” intended to disrupt diplomatic progress on settling the Ukraine conflict. “EU and NATO countries are seeking to torpedo everything,” he said.
EU officials have publicly claimed that they would welcome another Putin-Trump meeting. However, El Pais has reported that behind closed doors, Brussels – which continues to support Ukraine and urge increased pressure on Russia – views the summit as a “political nightmare.”
-----
Ok, so the statements above show that there is plenty of opposition to this meeting. It almost sounds like the opposition is desperate to stop it. Desperate enough to knock off some major players...
-
It almost sounds like the opposition is desperate to stop it. Desperate enough to knock off some major players...
Agreed. While there may very well be some genuine concern or opposition, it could also just be part of the overall theater, as whatever comes to pass may have already been scripted long ago. The desire for a wider conflict seems real and widespread, but we will see what we will see. Godspeed to all in the days ahead.
-
Yes, I think it's a combination of all 3 reasons above, plus a 4th - their fantasy-land idea of how they *think* the Church operated pre-V2, under an actual pope. Some of these dogmatic SV'ers think that in pre-V2 times, an 'imprimatur' on a book meant that it was 100% error free. Or they think that the 'true pope' could never do x, y or z (some minor mistake). Or a 'true pope' could never appoint some lying scoundrel to some official post (as if the pope could read hearts and be an oracle). Or that a 'true church' would approve/deny apparitions within 1 day of hearing of them, and/or respond to every single questionable person, place, idea, book, etc. In other words, a 'true pope' would provide some time of 'orthodox utopia' where there was no error anywhere, no heretics (or if there were, they would be punished immediately), no scandals (or if so, they would be reprimanded immediately), etc.
So they look at a guy like Alois, from the 40s/50s, and since they don't see/can't find any church "approval" (in their minds, the church would approve/disapprove of any and all manner of people like Alois), then we have to ignore Alois. But the foundational error is that the Church has the TIME and MANPOWER to even investigate a guy like Alois. In reality, unless Alois was causing some kind of scandal, it was the job of his bishop to do something. And that didn't happen. Which means that Alois is neither approved or disapproved. But to many people with a fantasy-like outlook on how the 'true church' worked, this is unfathomable.
I think that makes some sense. Unfortunately because many SVs mis-analyze the problem because in reacting to R&R they end up exaggerating the scope of infallibility, where, ironically, despite dogmatizing the 1950s, including things like "Suprema Haec", they stretch infallibility to the extent that NO APPROVED CATHOLIC THEOLOGIAN EVER DID PRIOR TO VATICAN II. I've repeatedly asked them to cite where infallibility "in the strict sense" stretches as far as they claim. They're involved in this back-and-forth with R&R, who go in the opposite extreme where they hold that apart from the once- or twice- per-century solemn definition, nothing else is infallible, and 99% of the Magisterium could turn to garbage outside of those narrow limits. So they counter by exaggerating the scope of infallibility. While they dogmatize pre-V2 theologians (per the phenomenon I've termed "Cekadism"), they ironically exaggerate infallibility to an extent that absolutely NO pre-V2 theologian ever did. Both sides would do well to read Msgr. Fenton's incredibly balanced treatment of infallibility "in the strict sense" vs. infallible safety and the overall indefectibility of the Church.
But, you're not wrong that, in the extreme case, I've actually locked horns with some SVs here who did in fact hold that anything with an imprimatur on it had to be accepted as being infallible for all intents and purposes, that's how far they ended up stretching it.
MANY mystics went years and years before they got formal approval. In some cases, the Church will intervene to shut them down, since it can be harmful, but in others they just rule the old "non constat de supernalitate", meaning ... there's no evidence that it's supernatural, without necessariliy condemning it. It was not forbidden to consider such things prudently barring some condemnation by the Church. Irlmaier was a practicing Catholic, in touch with priests ... and nobody every shut him down, even if a few criticized him (generally people who didn't know him, and in one case a critic was "converted" after he actually met Irlmaier and conducted an investigation).
-
Hungarian official's response: https://www.rt.com/news/626791-hungary-putin-trump-budapest/
Interesting ...
and, could also be some gamesmanship from Trump himself, as that's been his track record, causing chaos by on-again/off-again plans. Hungarian Foreign Minister, BTW, shares my last name, though with a slight spelling variation (are are about 3 main variants that have arisen over time ... original was ijgya, then simplified to ijja, and then one more time to ija.
So the Russian Presidential aid says preparations are continuing, but the "White House" said something about it being on hold, likely due to Trump tyring to exert pressure on the parties involved.
-
Weird behavior for adult traditional Catholics. Running in circles chasing prophecies. Acting like a bunch of hyped up school girls running head over heels around some new found rock star and using detraction/name calling against those who would question in any way them or their new found hero. When it comes to Church doctrine they position themselves as some sort of all knowing de facto magisterium and ready to censor anyone by way of slurs/smears who opposes them. One more reason why trads come across as a bunch of loons even to other trads.
-
If you keep associating with us, you're gonna be called a "loon" too. You'd better run along, before your feelings get hurt. :jester:
-
You'd better run along, before your feelings get hurt. :jester:
Don't you wish. More projection.
-
Weird behavior for adult traditional Catholics.
Your weird behavior for a (supposed) man:
1. Acting like a 'Karen' and policing a thread.
2. Acting like an obsessive compulsive teenage girl, over some German guy who's been dead for 50 years.
3. Acting like a child, who complains if someone calls them a "loon".
4. Acting like a teenager, who cares about "status" and what other people think.
You are seriously immature.
-
Your weird behavior for a (supposed) man:
1. Acting like a 'Karen' and policing a thread.
2. Acting like an obsessive compulsive teenage girl, over some German guy who's been dead for 50 years.
3. Acting like a child, who complains if someone calls them a "loon".
4. Acting like a teenager, who cares about "status" and what other people think.
You are seriously immature.
Why so overly defensive? Why so hyped up? Why all the name calling? Why all the projection? Ha, you are proving my post.
-
Why so overly defensive? Why so hyped up? Why all the name calling? Why all the projection? Ha, you are proving my post.
He's proved nothing of the sort, but has in fact just now seconded my having called you a turd, since that's precisely what you are.
-
Weird behavior for adult traditional Catholics. Running in circles chasing prophecies. Acting like a bunch of hyped up school girls running head over heels around some new found rock star and using detraction/name calling against those who would question in any way them or their new found hero. When it comes to Church doctrine they position themselves as some sort of all knowing de facto magisterium and ready to censor anyone by way of slurs/smears who opposes them. One more reason why trads come across as a bunch of loons even to other trads.
Pathetic shit-posting here, turd. Nobody's "running in any circles" other than as reaction to your own shit-stirring. So you open by gaslighting the "weird behavior for adult traditional Catholics", and you're the one who keeps churning this thread around. We're merely posting about said prophecies. Then you bookend that with some more personal attacks about "hyped up school girls" and a "rock star". That pathetic Karenish meltdown in that post is what's juvenile and effeminate.
Again, this thread would have been half as long, just a matter-of-fact posting, oh, interesting here what's happening since it lines up with what Irlmaier said. It'll be interesting to see how it turns out. You and a couple of the other guys were the ones who came in here shit-stirring and shit-posting. Nobody here has formed some cult-group following of Irlmaier as you tried to smear us with. We simply know about the guy, heard about his prophecies, consider him to be generally credible, and are open to his gifts having been genuine.
What we're doing is no different than if we saw something said by Marie-Julie Jahenny or Catherine Emmerich and tried to line it up with the events taking palce today. There's no school-girl hype nor running in circles chasing anything. You're an abject liar and a slanderer.
-
You're an abject liar and a slanderer.
Typical Ladislaus gone into overdrive when he gets upset.
Ha, are you morally certain or absolutely certain of your assertion? I assume you know what a lie is. You are notorious for calling people on this forum liars. It's not particularly surprising coming from the MEGA POSTER BOY of CathInfo with over 47 thousand plus posts. (No one even comes close to that count.)
So go ahead and present your best evidence that I am a liar and, in the process, please remind us of all of the elements necessary to constitute a lie according to Catholic doctrine.
-
Typical Ladislaus gone into overdrive when he gets upset.
Sure, buddy. See the other thread where I cite the evidence for you being a liar and slanderer. You come in here and unleash a stream of insults, without a lick of substance, all of it lies and distortions, and therefore slanders in that you impute them to us. I merely speak the truth, and I cite the evidence for it. It's YOU who are clearly "upset". It's absurd that WITHIN that post of yours that literally was one smear(aka slander) and insult after another, with you hardly taking a moment to come up for air and take a breadth, in the middle of to you snowflake and complain about insults, with your hurt feewing since people are not being "nithe" to you, evidently unable to take 10% of what have been dishing out agains the rest of us. What a jerk.
We were just going along minding our own business, and then you jump in out of nowhere with this shit-post, which in complaining about smears and insults, was in the middle of a litany of NOTHING BUT smears and insults ...
Weird behavior for adult traditional Catholics. Running in circles chasing prophecies. Acting like a bunch of hyped up school girls running head over heels around some new found rock star and using detraction/name calling against those who would question in any way them or their new found hero. When it comes to Church doctrine they position themselves as some sort of all knowing de facto magisterium and ready to censor anyone by way of slurs/smears who opposes them. One more reason why trads come across as a bunch of loons even to other trads.
So you unload this garbage, a litany of smears (lies/slanders) and insults and name-calling, while complaining about ... "name calling" :laugh1:
I mean, are you even for real? I have no idea how you can even take yourself seriously.
-
From about the middle of Page 2 of this thread to about the middle of Page 3, this thread was nothing more than Gladius, Pax, and I discussing current events to see whether or not they might line up with what Irlmaier said, very calmly, not even close resembling your slanderous characterization of us, and that's when out of nowhere you just slam in that shit-post stream of slanders, insults, and playing victim ... crying out in pain even in the midsts of striking us. "Oh, look, they hurt my fist with their face after I punched them."
Get lost.
-
I believe in Irlmaier prophecies and vision, maybe not 100 % as we shouldn't because even approved apparitions and private revelations are not necessary for salvation. But also it wrong to ignore tears of Our Lady. I agree with late bishop Williamson, but I don't believe in Garabandal apparitions. Nevertheless, Irlmeier was a unique man with a very rare gift. He didn't make money of it like those in Medjugorje. There is a prophetic consensus for chastitesments and timeline of events, at least generally speaking. He just told more details, like stigmatist Marie Julie Jahenny. They both said that there will be a WWIII during which will happen three days of darkness. And she was approved by the local bishop, never condemned until today. When will it happen, soon but only God knows for sure. Something geeat around 2029. or 2030. will happen, maybe The Great Reset, digital currency, universal basic income, it will last for a short time.
There is a blog about angellic pontiff and great monarch prophecies, with a lot of information. Some of the same prophecies go back to the 4th or 5th century, burning plague is mentioned in the Old Testament, I belive it was prophet Isaiah.
Watch and pray and do the 5 first Satrudays devotion, also 9 first Fridays devotion if possible. Have blessed 100 % beeswax candles just in case, check windows. If only I could know what kind of paper or foil should I buy and where...I need to change at least one window...
-
I believe in Irlmaier prophecies and vision, maybe not 100 % as we shouldn't because even approved apparitions and private revelations are not necessary for salvation. But also it wrong to ignore tears of Our Lady. I agree with late bishop Williamson, but I don't believe in Garabandal apparitions. Nevertheless, Irlmeier was a unique man with a very rare gift. He didn't make money of it like those in Medjugorje. There is a prophetic consensus for chastitesments and timeline of events, at least generally speaking. He just told more details, like stigmatist Marie Julie Jahenny. They both said that there will be a WWIII during which will happen three days of darkness. And she was approved by the local bishop, never condemned until today. When will it happen, soon but only God knows for sure. Something geeat around 2029. or 2030. will happen, maybe The Great Reset, digital currency, universal basic income, it will last for a short time.
There is a blog about angellic pontiff and great monarch prophecies, with a lot of information. Some of the same prophecies go back to the 4th or 5th century, burning plague is mentioned in the Old Testament, I belive it was prophet Isaiah.
Watch and pray and do the 5 first Satrudays devotion, also 9 first Fridays devotion if possible. Have blessed 100 % beeswax candles just in case, check windows. If only I could know what kind of paper or foil should I buy and where...I need to change at least one window...
If only blessed candles will burn at the event of the Three Days of Darkness, how does one light those candles? With blessed matches? Blessed BICS lighters? And does the prophecy really state 100% beeswax?
-
He just told more details, like stigmatist Marie Julie Jahenny. They both said that there will be a WWIII during which will happen three days of darkness. And she was approved by the local bishop, never condemned until today.
I notice that some of those who disregard the stigmatist Marie Julie Jahenny (whose writings were approved by her local bishop, the Bishop of Nantes in 1875) are on board with a Catholic layman who was not a stigmatist, not approved by his local bishop and not known for his holiness.
-
If only I could know what kind of paper or foil should I buy and where...I need to change at least one window...
You could use aluminum foil to black out the window. There will be advance warnings.
-
I notice that some of those who disregard the stigmatist Marie Julie Jahenny (whose writings were approved by her local bishop, the Bishop of Nantes in 1875) are on board with a Catholic layman who was not a stigmatist, not approved by his local bishop and not known for his holiness.
I'm not sure who you're talking about, but I find Marie Julie Jahenny quite credible also. Of course, despite what might appear to be preternatural endorsement of Marie Julie Jahenny, even then there really are only two categories: approved by the Church and not approved by the Church. I'm told that Clemente Dominguez manifested stigmata at some point, and you may recall the case of that possessed nun from the Middle Ages who exhibited not only stigmata but may other remarkable abilities, including a Virgin Birth that nobody could debunk. She too had a major reputation for holiness. So absent official and formal approval by and recognition from the Church, it's all just a matter of private prudent judgment. Nobody's required to believe in either one of them, and the default attitude of the Church has always been one of extreme skepticism ... but that's mostly because the Church's approval would influence millions, while my opinion or that of some other individual will likely persuade ... no one at all. So it's not forbidden to consider them credible either if there's been no condemnation by the Church or at least some credible (informal) authorities. Indeed, some of the earliest canonizations, until the Church formalize the process, were indeed "grass-roots" types of movements.
I saw one obnoxious writeup that smeared Marie Julie Jahenny that someone was pushing here, and I debunked it completely, where this individual was alleging that she had proposed heresies and a couple other nonsensical objections ... you know, from the same types that declared Pius IX and St. Pius X heretical AntiPopes as well.
-
I believe in Irlmaier prophecies and vision, maybe not 100 % as we shouldn't because even approved apparitions and private revelations are not necessary for salvation. But also it wrong to ignore tears of Our Lady. I agree with late bishop Williamson, but I don't believe in Garabandal apparitions. Nevertheless, Irlmeier was a unique man with a very rare gift. He didn't make money of it like those in Medjugorje. There is a prophetic consensus for chastitesments and timeline of events, at least generally speaking. He just told more details, like stigmatist Marie Julie Jahenny. They both said that there will be a WWIII during which will happen three days of darkness. And she was approved by the local bishop, never condemned until today. When will it happen, soon but only God knows for sure. Something geeat around 2029. or 2030. will happen, maybe The Great Reset, digital currency, universal basic income, it will last for a short time.
There is a blog about angellic pontiff and great monarch prophecies, with a lot of information. Some of the same prophecies go back to the 4th or 5th century, burning plague is mentioned in the Old Testament, I belive it was prophet Isaiah.
Watch and pray and do the 5 first Satrudays devotion, also 9 first Fridays devotion if possible. Have blessed 100 % beeswax candles just in case, check windows. If only I could know what kind of paper or foil should I buy and where...I need to change at least one window...
See, this is certainly a more balanced approach. Nobody would find fault with anyone who did NOT find Irlmaier credible, and yet it's not forbidden to find him credible either. If someone has legitimate reason to doubt him, that's fine, but this bizarre hostility and ranting and streams of insults against those of us who consider him credible.
I find Irlmaier credible for the following reasons:
1) he was well known to and associated with priests, and was not condemned, nor were people forbidden to consult with him
2) he was an extremely simple man, a one "in whom there is no guile", poorly educated, humble, even a bit strange-looking -- those are always the types God uses to manifest his gifts, lest people attribute whatever He wants to share to the natural abilities of the individual
3) he did not profit from it financially ... and it did become a burden for him, having to spend hours each day dealing with the public who came to see him
4) I've not seen any harm he's done, either by theological error (in fact, no theological statements whatsoever) or morally
5) there's a ton of "I don't now" and "I'm not sure what I see" in his statements, where if he were a charlatan you'd expect a lot less of that
6) he made some predictions that would have seemed bizarre in his day, but today we know exactly what he's talking about, such as people staring at and even talking to these colorful little handheld devices. It would take some strange imagination to just invent something like that, and why would you if you think it might put people off due to the strangeness of it ... if you were a charlatan
Now, even the most credible ones such as Mary of Agreda, Catherine Emmerich ... while being possessed of great virtue and being entirely sincere, there can always be some blur between what's objectively transmitted and the individual's reception and interpretation of it. Could be that they're describing something and taking some (speculative) guesses and engaging in all manner of interpretation. Recall how a picture is worth a thousand words. They could have watched a scene that took 4-5 seconds, but so much happened in it that it might take pages of description to get it all, and that's where there's room for some error, misinterpretation, etc. I'm sure you've all read novelists who have taken 3-4 pages to describe something that undoubtedly would have taken less than 30 seconds to transpire.
-
It's very likely universal basic income (UBI) will involve at least a type of the mark of the beast. All the more reason for Trads to become close knit, self sufficient, and low tech in regular every day life, so that we may be better prepared to endure what is to come.
-
See, this is certainly a more balanced approach. Nobody would find fault with anyone who did NOT find Irlmaier credible, and yet it's not forbidden to find him credible either. If someone has legitimate reason to doubt him, that's fine, but this bizarre hostility and ranting and streams of insults against those of us who consider him credible.
I find Irlmaier credible for the following reasons:
1) he was well known to and associated with priests, and was not condemned, nor were people forbidden to consult with him
2) he was an extremely simple man, a one "in whom there is no guile", poorly educated, humble, even a bit strange-looking -- those are always the types God uses to manifest his gifts, lest people attribute whatever He wants to share to the natural abilities of the individual
3) he did not profit from it financially ... and it did become a burden for him, having to spend hours each day dealing with the public who came to see him
4) I've not seen any harm he's done, either by theological error (in fact, no theological statements whatsoever) or morally
5) there's a ton of "I don't now" and "I'm not sure what I see" in his statements, where if he were a charlatan you'd expect a lot less of that
6) he made some predictions that would have seemed bizarre in his day, but today we know exactly what he's talking about, such as people staring at and even talking to these colorful little handheld devices. It would take some strange imagination to just invent something like that, and why would you if you think it might put people off due to the strangeness of it ... if you were a charlatan
Now, even the most credible ones such as Mary of Agreda, Catherine Emmerich ... while being possessed of great virtue and being entirely sincere, there can always be some blur between what's objectively transmitted and the individual's reception and interpretation of it. Could be that they're describing something and taking some (speculative) guesses and engaging in all manner of interpretation. Recall how a picture is worth a thousand words. They could have watched a scene that took 4-5 seconds, but so much happened in it that it might take pages of description to get it all, and that's where there's room for some error, misinterpretation, etc. I'm sure you've all read novelists who have taken 3-4 pages to describe something that undoubtedly would have taken less than 30 seconds to transpire.
I agree with you Ladislaus, you really wrote all logical reasons for him being credible and a man who did and tried to do good to other people.
I also didn't find anywhere that some priests or bishops had condemned him. And of course we can't hope from this synodal church that they investigate it.
Many countries are preparing for war, spending much more money on weapons. In my country they introduced obligatory army service, it will last for two months. I'm against for waging wars for other countries, we are not united in faith like it was during the war with Ottoman Empire.
On the other hand, we should be prepared, younger generations (myself included) don't know about survival or weapons. We have strict law against weapon ownership, sadly many older people returned their weapons to police.
In Bosnia is intense situation like in Serbia where are protest for months against president Vučić and his party that has majority in government. He got too close to EU, and they have big problem with oil because of Trump's sanctions.
President Dodik of Republic of Serbia which is still formally part of the Bosnia and Herzegovina, wants to rejoin to Serbia. Maybe there will be an assassination here in this Balkan region. And Serbia received powerful weapons, rockets, airplanes, they are preparing to start another war if Russia backs them. They still praise their war criminals, like Serbian schismatic church.
Only time will tell...
-
even in the midsts of striking us.
Oh, poor little 47 thousand plus CI Mega Poster Boy, how dare anyone strike you. :facepalm:
-
Being clairvoyant is a gift; you either have it or you don't. Has nothing to do with the occult.
A gift from who?! Certainly, not from the Holy Ghost.
The term clairvoyance originates from occult and spiritualist traditions, not Christian revelation. It literally means “clear-seeing” in French — implying a human power to perceive invisible realities (e.g., through psychic energy, spirits, or vibrations). The Church rejects such practices.
-
Even if this Alois guy never existed, SOMEBODY made these predictions DECADES ago. And they're pretty darn accurate. That's all that matters; I don't care if it Alois or Hitler's cousin.
I see -- so now you are referring to them as predictions as opposed to prophecy.
I see -- so now you "don't care if it Alois or Hitler's cousin" who made the "predictions" since "they're pretty darn accurate." Did it ever occur to you (since you say you "don't care if it Alois or Hitler's cousin" made them that they could have been made by the devil? Do you deny that possibility and if so on what grounds do you deny that possibility?
-
So, the "could have been distorted" thing is typically used to get false prophets "off the hook", as it were, so if something they predict doesn't come to pass, they can just claim their prediction had been altered. People didn't stand all day for years in a 100-person-deep line if there wasn't something to Irlmaier. He's made predictions that were docuмented, like eerily mentioning what sounds like smart phones (colorful cigarette boxes that people keep staring at) and during WW3 a bomb that's droppped off the coast of England that'll submerge a large part of the country (look up Russia's Tsunami bomb), and then he talked about a huge wave of these white unmanned air ships flying by the 10s of thousands over Europe to drop some small payload (before anyone had dreamt of unmanned drones).
BTW, he speaks of these drones that drop the green/yelllow powder as rising up out of the hot sands, and then flying OVER where he lived in Austria, but that people shouldn't be afraid, and they would drop the weapon north of them, starting with Prague and going up to the North Sea. So a line OVER Austria from some Hot Sands could very well be from Tunisia.
Do you deny the deny the possibility even for one instant that the devil could have made every single one of these predictions that you speak of and if so on what grounds do you deny that possibility?
-
He was actually put on trial, accused of being a charlatan, and was acquitted in court of law after thorough examination.
There's no reason to cast aspersions on his being a devout Catholic.
You have conveniently ignored the fact (if you even knew it in the first place) that he was convicted in a court of law for the crime of fraud at least 6 separated times. Crimes of fraud are universally considered crimes of moral turpitude. It is also a matter of record that he served time in jail as part of the consequence of the aforesaid. Remember, we are talking about actual convictions, not speculations about how many times in toto he may have been guilty of such crimes.
I will spare you and others any description of the ugly and despicable nature of moral turpitude and why fraud fits the definition of moral turpitude perfectly. I suggest you check out what St. Thomas Aquinas says about the subject as a good starting point if you want to know more in that regard.
As for casting aspersions, it's not a question of casting aspersions, it's a question of trying to reach an objective (non-emotive) understanding of Alois Irmaier per the title of the OP: What to make of Alois Irimaier. (Contrary to any opinions you may have formed, I have no problem whatsoever with people saying positive things about Alois; I would hope they don't have a problem with me presenting negative things. Let the truth be our witness wherever it takes us.)
-
Russia said today that it's wrong to speak about a "cancellation" ... so still worth keeping an eye on this one.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/kremlin-wrong-talk-about-cancellation-putin-trump-summit-agencies-report-2025-10-26/
That might be sublte diplo-speak signalling that they migh be open to some concessions that would allow the discussiosn to move forward/
-
:facepalm: It's a prophecy. You only know if it's accurate when all the events are over.
In Germany, those who knew Alois claimed he was never wrong.
Concerning AI searches, met a friend who has a son in an engineering program at Benedictine college.
The son and some classmates interviewed a chat agent using audio and asked it if:
"The Catholic Faith was the one true religion? "
They instructed the agent to answer one of three ways:
1. Yes
2. No
3 Orange
Orange = I have been instructed not to answer.
The search agent answered " Orange"
Immediately, the engineering students burst
out laughing.
The chat agent responded: " I'm glad I was able to humor you".
-
In Germany, those who knew Alois claimed he was never wrong.
Yes, many direct witnesses have been interviewed, since it wasn't ALL that long ago when he was still live, and some of his predicitions have been docuмented as having been made beforehand, since they had been published somewhere and could be dated. There's one controversial docuмent out there that appears to have mentioned something about 9/11, but since it came out after 9/11 (by some years), there's controversy about whether it was genuine, or even if genuine, the part about 9/11 interpolated into it. But despite one or two cases like that, many of them can be verified.
I find this one about the short-notice peace conference in Budapest coming after everyone calling out "Shalom!" (Trump's so-called "Eternal Peace"), since it was obtained by a direct witness to Irlmaier and published many years ago -- very intriguing. There's a discrepancy where one individual who interviewed this same "witness to Irlmaier" said "Bucharest", and the other "Budapest", but that actually speaks to the veracity of this source more than if they had been consistent, since you can't accuse one of just copying from the other.
To me this clearly suggests someone having relied on a hand-written note, a primary source, since all you have to do to transform Budapest into Bucharest is, in cursive script, leave the "d" slightly open (unclosed at the top), and then leave your "p" slightly open without a strong dip beneath the line for the vertical stroke, which I could probably replicate right now ... so that some slightly-sloppy cursive script could easily account for that discrepancy.
-
N/A
-
Message was posted to the wrong thread.