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.
Topic: What to make of Alois Irlmaier (Read 126253 times)