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...
Topic: What to make of Alois Irlmaier (Read 126175 times)