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.
Topic: What to make of Alois Irlmaier (Read 101880 times)