Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Directory of sheep and wolves
On 2008-August-21, Mr. Glenn Dallaire sent me this e-mail to say he had left the Army of Mary, and returned to the Catholic Church. Deo Gratias!
1) Propositions we don't agree on
2) G. Dallaire (2005-August-12)
3) S. Jetchick (2005-August-14?)
4) G. Dallaire (2005-August-14)
5) S. Jetchick (2005-August-16)
6) G. Dallaire (2005-August-16)
7) S. Jetchick (2005-August-18)
8) G. Dallaire (2005-August-18)
9) S. Jetchick (2005-August-19)
10) G. Dallaire (2005-August-20)
11) S. Jetchick (2005-August-21)
12) G. Dallaire (2005-August-21)
13) G. Dallaire (2008-August-21)
The following propositions summarize what Mr. Dallaire and I don't agree on. As they are phrased, I claim they are true, and Mr. Dallaire, in my opinion, claims they are false. I also conditionally claim you can get yourself excommunicated for disagreeing with any one of them.
1.1) If Marie-Paule Gigučre disagrees with the Magisterium of the Church, Marie-Paule is always wrong and the Magisterium is always right.
1.2) Revelation, which is the object of Catholic Faith, was terminated with the Apostles.
1.3) Marie-Paule Gigučre cannot be the Co-Redemptrix.
-----Original Message----- From: g dallaire Sent: August 12, 2005 7:42 PM To: stefan jetchick Subject: Some comments on your website Hello Stefan. My name is Glenn Dallaire and I live in Bristol, CT USA. I am happily married husband and father of 6 children. (yes, I've been married only once, and yes all 6 children are with my wife!) and both my wife and I are sincerely devoted Catholics ie.- we give COMPLETE assent and obedience to the Pope and to ALL the teachings of the Church's magisterium. Anyway, enough of the preamble..... I happened across your website while browsing the web for a document on the Army of Mary, and I came across one of your pages on the Army of Mary which sparked my interest, because my wife and I are both longtime members of this Work. And so, I read with much interest your various web pages on the Work of the Army of Mary. Firstly let me state that since you have stated firsthand that you are not very familiar with the Army of Mary, let me simply state that in short the Army of Mary is known for its fidelity to Rome and the Pope and to the Bishops in Communion with him. The Sons of Mary Priests and religious Sisters wear their clerics, do Sacramental (individual) Confessions, they encourage Communion on the tongue, you will find no Extraordinary Eucharistic ministers at the Mass and the members kneel at the altar rail to receive Communion etc...etc.. Now, you are completely free to believe what you like about the Army of Mary. I only hope that you have first informed yourself before passing judgement. Is this not the first rule of discernment? Unfortunately this has not been the case with the Church authorities thus far. Sure you may find a few footnotes at the bottom of the bishops "Doctrinal note" or the Cardinal's note, but you can be assured that they have not read or investigated for themselves, but have based their judgements solely on what they have heard from others, most of which unfortunately is not true. We all know how the "Tale grows taller down the line". One must investigate and inform oneself before one is in a position to pass judgement. Surely you would agree that this the proper way to judge or discern. For example, one can state until one is blue in the face that Mother Paul-Marie has never stated that she is the "reincarnation of the blessed Virgin Mary" and yet how often this is repeated and how the Authorities have incorrectly used this misstatement against her, even though you will never find such a statement in her writings. Anyway the point of my email is simply this. I agree with your assessment of the situation of the Church in Quebec. Why then do you think that for 33 years the Army of Mary is repeatedly being "attacked" by many of the the Priests in Quebec, from the hierarchy on down, but yet the "wolves" that you refer to, ie- the ones who don't wear their clerics, -the general absolution/ gay marriage/anti-celibacy types of whom which you refer to----why are they who publicly attack the Pope and the teachings of the Church----why are they free from condemnations? And yet since 1987 the Army of Mary (who is completely faithful to the Pope and the teachings of the Church) have been publicly and officially attacked and denounced by the Quebec authorities on numerous occasions. And you have obviously noticed these unjust and unbalanced condemnations too because you specifically criticised it in on your web page of the Cardinals condemnation of the Army Mary. How is it that many Priests and religious can openly and publicly oppose the Pope, the Church and its teachings, and nothing is said or done against them, but the other who is in conformity with the Pope and the Church is condemned merely on the basis that those in authority do not agree with the proposed deeper understandings of certain doctrines? You must have noted that every accusation and condemnation against the Army of Mary concern matters of proposed deeper understandings of certain doctrines and NOT a rejection of any Church teachings. The Army of Mary has not been accused of heresy and it absolutely gives complete assent to every single teaching of the Catholic faith. There is no rejection in anything that the Church teaches. The accusations and condemnations of the Canadian authorities have always been concerning proposed deeper understandings of current doctrines. With that in mind Stefan, I ask you this. You certainly believe in the Old Testament prophets. You would therefore believe that God can raise up whomever He chooses at any time, for whatever reason He chooses. The "Spirit blows where He wills", does He not? So, could Mother Paul-Marie be a prophet in our times, and in a place (Quebec) that you will agree really needs it? So, I ask you....when for example Jesus said to his disciples, that they were to "eat My flesh and drink My blood" (John 6), would this have scandalised you also? Would you have walked away at this new teaching like so many of the others did? Would you have said that Jesus was mad? You see, God's revelation is never closed and He can reveal new ways and understandings whenever, however and to whomever He so wills. Who are we to set limits on the One whom is infinite? Are we like the Pharisees who are repulsed at the thought of eating Jesus flesh and blood? Boy, was that ever a new teaching, would you not agree? So we see that God is free to reveal new things.....And you see, that is what the Quebec authorities have done by condemning the Army of Mary because of its "new teachings", which in fact are not new, but developments of current doctrines. If you doubt such a possibility, then I ask you to find the Assumption of Mary anywhere in whole of the Scriptures. And yet it is not only a doctrine, but a dogma of the Catholic Church. "Behold, I make all things new" (Rev 21:5) May God bless you, Sincerely, Glenn Dallaire
>> (yes, I've been >> married only once, and yes all 6 children are with my wife!) :-) You're right, these days, we unfortunately can't just assume these things! Congratulations on being faithful to your wife, and generous for increasing the number of the elect! >> the Army of Mary is known for its fidelity to Rome and the Pope >> and to the Bishops in Communion with him. I sincerely wish it were true. I would join the Army of Mary right away! The problem with the Army of Mary is PRECISELY that they themselves decide who is, and who is not faithful to the Pope and the Magisterium. True Catholics WANT to be faithful to the Pope, but let the Pope and the Bishops united to the Pope have the ultimate say on who is, and who is not Catholic. It is neither you nor I who decides who is, and who is not, a Catholic. It is the Pope, and the Bishops united to the Pope.
Mr. Roland Stefani commented on 2007-September-14:
In response to Glenn's points that one should listen to God over the Pope, I would have said that even God pays heed to the Pope. First, Jesus said that what Peter binds on earth will also be bound in heaven. Secondly, a Priest I know who teaches on the Bible extensively, explained that Jesus did not intend to pay the temple tax, but because Peter interjected and said they would, Jesus accepted that. And this happened before the Catholic Church was established, but on the promise of what Peter was to become.
I wish I had thought of that!
>> The Sons of Mary Priests and >> religious Sisters wear their clerics, do Sacramental (individual) >> Confessions, they encourage Communion on the tongue, you will find no >> Extraordinary Eucharistic ministers at the Mass and the members kneel >> at the altar rail to receive Communion etc...etc.. If you carefully read my texts concerning the Army of Mary, you would have seen that I totally agree with you on such things. See "My Comments on the Pastoral Message Concerning The Army Of Mary", point #3. I have claimed, and continue to claim that the Army of Mary does many things right. I also have claimed, and continue to claim that many members of the Army of Mary are sincere. >> Now, you are completely free to believe what you like about the Army >> of Mary. I only hope that you have first informed yourself before >> passing judgement. Yes, very carefully. If you actually took the time to read my texts, you would see this. >> One must investigate and inform >> oneself before one is in a position to pass judgement. Surely you >> would agree that this the proper way to judge or discern. Yes, I agree. But you have not read my texts carefully, so you have not done your investigation properly. >> For example, one can state until one is blue in the face that Mother >> Paul-Marie has never stated that she is the "reincarnation of the >> blessed Virgin Mary" and yet how often this is repeated and how the >> Authorities have incorrectly used this misstatement against her, even >> though you will never find such a statement in her writings. :-) It is amazing that you should mention such an accusation, which appears nowhere in my texts! Have you actually read them? If you had, you would have noticed the one and only accusation I have leveled at the Army of Mary. Can you state it? If not, please go and read it (perhaps for the first time!). You will find it here: "Who is the General of the Army of Mary?", point #3. That accusation can be also leveled at you. All members of the Army of Mary (that I know of) assume that they decide who is, and who is not faithful to the Pope and the Magisterium. But this is a heresy. It is the Pope, and the Bishops in communion with the Pope, who ALONE have this authority. >> I agree with your >> assessment of the situation of the Church in Quebec. Great! >> Why then do you >> think that for 33 years the Army of Mary is repeatedly being >> "attacked" by many of the the Priests in Quebec, from the hierarchy on >> down? Partly because the Army of Mary does many things right (see my point above), something which the wolves can't stand. But also partly because members of the Army of Mary refuse to submit themselves to the authority of the Pope, and Bishops united to the Pope. If you don't believe me, I can send you a nice Profession of Faith, including statements like: - If the Pope asks me to choose between him and Marie-Paule Gigučre, I will choose the Pope. - The Virgin Mary is not co-eternal with God. - Revelation is finished and complete. - There are only three Persons in God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. - Only the Pope, and the Bishops united with the Pope, are infallible in matters of Dogma and Morals when speaking ex cathedra, not Marie-Paule Gigučre. - Etc., etc. You can then sign that Profession of Faith, and I'll post it on my web site, and start claiming that I was wrong, and that members of the Army of Mary ARE faithful to the Pope after all! >> And yet since 1987 the >> Army of Mary (who is completely faithful to the Pope and the teachings >> of the Church) Prove it! As I've said, I can send you a nice Profession of Faith, all ready to be signed! >> How is it >> that many Priests and religious can openly and publicly oppose the >> Pope, the Church and its teachings, and nothing is said or done >> against them As you've said, I clearly condemn this double-standard on my web site. >> those in authority do not >> agree with the proposed deeper understandings of certain doctrines? :-) Unfortunately for that pet theory of the Army of Mary, the current Pope (Benedict XVI) happens to disagree with the "deeper understandings" of the Army of Mary. The doctrinal note is signed by Ratzinger... >> You must have noted that every accusation and condemnation against the >> Army of Mary concern matters of proposed deeper understandings of >> certain doctrines and NOT a rejection of any Church teachings. Great! Then I can send you that Profession of Faith? >> So, could Mother >> Paul-Marie be a prophet in our times, and in a place (Quebec) that you >> will agree really needs it? :-) God cannot contradict Himself. If a so-called "prophet" contradicts the Magisterium, the "prophet" is wrong, and the Magisterium is right. God Himself told the first Pope and the first Bishops in communion with him: "He who hears you, hears me; Thou art Peter, and on this rock I shall build my Church; etc." If Marie-Paule Gigučre doesn't contradict the Magisterium, then I can send you a Profession of Faith, and you can send it back signed! In which case I will dance with joy and join the Sons of Mary (i.e. the Priests for the Army of Mary). >> So, I ask you....when for example Jesus said to his disciples, that >> they were to "eat My flesh and drink My blood" (John 6), would this >> have scandalised you also? Would you have walked away at this new >> teaching like so many of the others did? Would you have said that >> Jesus was mad? No, but then I can tell the difference between Jesus talking, and Marie-Paule Gigučre talking! :-) >> You see, God's revelation is never closed Do you agree with Paragraphs #65-67 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Remember, that little book that Pope John Paul II said was a sure guide of the Faith? >> and He can reveal new ways >> and understandings whenever, however and to whomever He so wills. But not contradict Himself! Especially since He teaches by the infallible Magisterium of His Church that the Revelation is closed! >> If you doubt such a possibility, >> then I ask you to find the Assumption of Mary anywhere in whole of the >> Scriptures. And yet it is not only a doctrine, but a dogma of the >> Catholic Church. :-) A Dogma proclaimed by the Pope and the Bishops, not by Marie-Paule Gigučre! Also, the Assumption of Mary doesn't contradict other dogmas... But as I've said, if you are in perfect communion with the Pope, you'll be happy to sign a Profession of Faith, right? Cheers! Stefan Jetchick
>> -----Original Message----- >> From: g dallaire >> Sent: August 14, 2005 12:22 PM >> To: Stefan Jetchick >> Subject: Re: Some comments on your website Hi Stefan, Thank you for your reply. Prior to writing you I did indeed read through your web pages on the Army of Mary. Please be aware that some of my comments were not in response to what you have written on your web pages, but more a general commentary in response to the critisims of certain Diosecan authorites in Quebec. As far as obedience to the Pope, it should be noted that the Pope has NEVER stated or declared anything against the Army of Mary in any way. In fact, it was Pope John Paul II himself who ordained the first Son of Mary Priest in 1982! Also, he acknowledged and specifically blessed the pilgrims of the Army of Mary while on a official pilgrimage in Rome. The fact the the Pope himself ordained the first Son of Mary priest I think speaks for itself. As far as obedience to certain Church authorities, those who have studied the dossier of the Army of Mary would discover that the Work has obeyed the legitamate authorities, in most every circumstance. In the most recent matter, well I direct you to your own words in your webpage "Who is the general of the Army of Mary". You state on that page in the order of obedience that God is the first in order of obedience and the first we are to obey. Then the second in command is the Pope. The third in command is your local Bishop (assuming he's still united to the Pope). So in your own words, we are to obey God even before the Pope? Well, You are indeed right. For in the Acts of the Apostes we read- Acts 4:18-20 " Then they... commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John replied, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard." Acts 5:28-29 "Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man's blood on us!" But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: 'We ought to obey God rather than men.'" So there you have the reply to the rare occasion where the Directors may have not specifically obeyed the local Bishop. But again, it must be stated that the Pope has never declared anything concerning the Army of Mary. May God be with you, Glenn Dallaire >> -----Original Message----- >> From: g dallaire >> Sent: August 14, 2005 1:14 PM >> To: Stefan Jetchick >> Subject: Re: Some comments on your website Hi Stefan, Now, regarding a Profession of Faith. That is very simple....I told you at the very beginning of my first reply. I give COMPLETE assent to ALL the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church. So, my profession of Faith would be exactly that of the Church, That being the Nicene Creed that which we all recite each Sunday during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is this Profession which I submit to, and would gladly sign at any time. That Nicene Creed is the Profession of Faith that the Catholic Church has been using for 1600 years. And I would gladly sign it! I would not sign one written by you or some local Bishop, because the Church has Her Creed, and that is the only one to which obedience is necessary So, in short, I Glenn Dallaire gladly give assent and obedience to the entire Profession of Faith (Nicene Creed) of the Holy Catholic Church. There you have it! May God be with you, Glenn Dallaire
>> Please be aware that some of my comments were not in
>> response to what you have written on your web pages, but more a
>> general commentary in response to the critisims of certain Diocesan
>> authorites in Quebec.
That's what I figured, but I still wanted to tease you! Especially
since you're harping so much on the necessity of making a
careful investigation and sticking to the facts!
:-)
>> As far as obedience to the Pope, it should be noted that the Pope has
>> NEVER stated or declared anything against the Army of Mary in any way.
Here, we are going to have a big argument.
I don't know what Church you are in, but the Catholic Church teaches
that there were 12 Apostles, not just 1 (Peter). The Catholic Church
teaches that the Bishops who are in communion with the Pope
are infallible too [Lumen Gentium, #25].
Just about every single Bishop in Canada has clearly declared all kinds
of negative things against the Army of Mary. I grant I have doubts
about the catholicity of some of those Bishops (like Gervais in Ottawa,
or Turcotte in Montreal), but certainly not the vast majority of them.
Christ said: "Those who reject you, reject me" [Lk 10:16], not just to
Peter, but to all 12 Apostles (i.e. the Bishops in communion with the Pope).
>> The fact the the Pope himself ordained the first Son of Mary priest I
>> think speaks for itself.
:-)
That was a long time ago. The condemnations are fairly recent, and
getting worse. Ratzinger, who was specifically chosen by the Pope,
signed (i.e. approved) a recent document condemning the Army of Mary.
Ratzinger is now better known by another name, Benedict XVI...
>> As far as obedience to certain Church authorities, those who have
>> studied the dossier of the Army of Mary would discover that the Work
>> has obeyed the legitamate authorities, in most every circumstance.
Would you like us to read together the many official Church documents
giving specific orders to the Army of Mary? We could then go visit
some Army of Mary facilities here in Limoilou, and observe the manifest
acts of disobedience together.
At some point of time, you have to open the door and let reality
in. You can't shut it out forever.
I'm absolutely NOT asking you to take my word for it. Come, and see
for yourself.
>> So in your own words, we are to obey God even before the Pope?
>> Well, You are indeed right. For in the Acts of the Apostes we read:
>> [...] 'We ought to obey God rather than men.'"
:-)
Hilarious! Do you realize just how much you speak like a true Protestant?
All Protestants have the same worn-out argument: "We must obey
God, therefore we can disobey the Pope, and the Bishops united with
the Pope".
God Himself said: "Thou art Peter, and on this stone I shall build
my Church" and "Those who reject you, reject me", etc., etc.
Go and read the "Catechism of the Catholic Church"! It contains
the official Church teachings! Go and read what obedience we are
supposed to have for the Pope and the Bishops united with the Pope!
If we want to hear what God has to say, we have to listen to the
Pope and the Bishops in communion with the Pope! Only Protestants
say: "Ah well, the Pope and Bishops can take a hike, we're cutting
out the middle-man and going straight to God!"
>> So there you have the reply to the rare occasion where the Directors
>> may have not specifically obeyed the local Bishop.
"Rare" occasion? You are living in a dream world!
>> I give COMPLETE assent to ALL the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church.
Great! Now all you need is to prove it!
>> So, my profession of Faith would be exactly that of the Church, That
>> being the Nicene Creed that which we all recite each Sunday during the
>> Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
:-D
I'm practically rolling on the floor laughing! My Protestant friends
believe in the Nicene Creed! Do you have Protestant friends? They would
tell you just how much they agree with that Creed!
Where is the Assumption of Mary in that Creed? Do you reject the Assumption
of Mary?
Where is the Immaculate-Conception of Mary in that Creed? Do you reject
that too?
Where is the Infallibility of the Pope, and the Bishops in communion
with the Pope in that Creed? Do you reject that too?
Please, Glenn, you're not supposed to be a Protestant!
The Nicene Creed is wonderful, but there are litterally dozens of official
Catholic creeds! Pick up the Denzinger and read! There is even a very nice
one by Pope Paul VI ("Sollemnis Professio Fidei").
Not only are there dozens of official, Catholic creeds, but the teachings
of the Catholic Church are best summarized in the "Cathechism of the
Catholic Church".
Do you have a copy of that book at home? Please, for the Love of God,
tell me you have one! If you don't, just send me your address and I'll
mail you one for free! (There not expensive, about 15$).
Do you believe everything Jesus tells us, through the Ministry of His
official Magisterium, in the "Cathechism of the Catholic Church"?
God Bless You,
Stefan Jetchick
>> -----Original Message----- >> From: g dallaire >> Sent: August 16, 2005 7:34 PM >> To: Stefan Jetchick >> Subject: Re: Some comments on your website Dear Stefan, By your responses one can see that you are very knowledgeable concerning the Catholic faith and I can see and appreciate your love and devotion to the Church, which is really a outward manifestation of a love and devotion to God. You question whether I own a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, well in all truthfulness I have 8 copies. Now 6 of them I purchased for my 6 children, but I have 2 for myself----both the original version, and the 2002 Revised version. And I can state truthfully that I read it just about from cover to cover....Awhile back I spent months reading through it, a little each day. So, I am quite familiar with it. But I see now that we are at a impasse in our conversation in the areas of revelation and obedience and it is necessary to address these. Citing the Catechism paragraphs 65-67, you state that Revelation is complete. But that not exactly what the Catechism states. Here in paragraph 66, the Catechism states "Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries." So to quote 66 of the the Catechism, "Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit". Here you being a good theologian perhaps may have heard of the theological term "development of doctrine". -Well, there you have it. So when God reveals something to Mother Paul-Marie or others, it is a matter of a deeper understanding of a revealed truth already contained in Revelation. It is exactly through this "development of doctrine" how the Dogma of the Assumption can be proclaimed after 1950 years, even though you can find it nowhere explicitly in Scripture. And this is exactly how God can develop upon Revelation through Mother Paul-Marie or whomever He so chooses. So you can see that the Church openly allows for this possibility. Now as to obedience, I give you this reflection: Acts 4:18-20 " Then they... commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John replied, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard." Acts 5:28-29 "Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man's blood on us!" But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: 'We ought to obey God rather than men.'" You have stated that in the order of obedience, God is the first to be obeyed. Yet, you don't allow for this as a possibility in rare cases within the Army of Mary. You state it, but indeed you do not allow for it. Of course this way of proceeding is not the norm, as normally one is to follow the Bishops and/or ones spiritual director, and this is what Mother Paul-Marie and the Work has usually done. But you must understand that in certain unique circumstances, one is required to "obey God before men", just as the first Apostles did when they disobeyed the Jewish leaders who were trying to stifle them. So as you can see, such a manner of proceeding on the part of Mother Paul-Marie and the members of the Work is not without precedence. Perhaps at this point you should ask yourself this. What if Mother Paul-Marie is indeed the Co-Redemptrix?...think of all the implications and ask yourself---what if it all is very simply true? It is most certainly possible. With that in mind I will leave you with the words of Gamaliel: "So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!" (Acts 5:38-40). May God be with you, Glenn Dallaire
>> By your responses one can see that you are very knowledgeable >> concerning the Catholic faith Thanks for the compliment! But it's only partially true, and the "partially true" part is not the fruit of my labors, but the luck I had studying under good teachers like Fathers Benoît Garneau and Joffre Galarneau, Robert Labrie, Yvan Pelletier and Warren Murray, etc. [1Co4:7]. >> You question whether I own a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic >> Church, well in all truthfulness I have 8 copies. Now 6 of them I >> purchased for my 6 children, but I have 2 for myself----both the >> original version, and the 2002 Revised version. And I can state >> truthfully that I read it just about from cover to cover. HURRAY! I wish all Quebecers were like that! >> But I see now that we are at a impasse in our conversation in the >> areas of revelation and obedience and it is necessary to address >> these. Yes. >> Citing the Catechism paragraphs 65-67, you state that Revelation is >> complete. But that not exactly what the Catechism states. >> Here in paragraph 66, the Catechism states "Yet even if Revelation is >> already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains >> for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the >> course of the centuries." Amen! As you say, we're entering deeper theological waters here. About all I can say is that there is such a thing as being an expert on the development of dogma, and I'm not such an expert. Offhand, the best I can do is fall back on Dear Old Ludwig (Ott, not van Beethoven. See reference in "Some Good Books"), pages 6-8: "The development of dogma". We can probably assume that the correct notion of "development of dogma" is somewhere in a Golden Mean. If dogma is too rigid, then for example we can't believe in the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, since the Gospels don't show Jesus teaching it explicitely (even though Saint John the Evangelist likely saw with his own eyes the Virin Mary being assumed into Heaven, and he's one of the 12 Apostles, i.e. the guys who started this whole "Tradition" thing). If dogma is too flexible, then all bets are off. God could be One Nature and Three Persons one day (Trinity), and One Nature and Five Persons the next (Quinternity). Or the Virgin Mary could be a creature one day, and Co-Eternal with God the next. "The Liberal Protestant concept of dogma as well as Modernism assumes a substantial development of dogmas, so that the content of dogmas changes radically in the course of time." [p. 6] "The ground for the immutability of dogmas lies in the Divin origin of the Truths which they express. Divin Truth is as immutable as God Himself." [p. 6] If you claim that "Revelation, which is the object of Catholic Faith, was not terminated with the Apostles", you're a heretic. [Pius X, Denzinger #3421] You can send an e-mail to the Pope anytime to confirm this. Dogma can progress (not be altered) accidentally. Ott mentions: 1) Truths which formerly were only implicitely believed are expressely proposed for belief; 2) Material dogmas are raised to the status of formal dogmas; 3) Old truths which were always believed are formulated in new, sharply defined concepts; 4) Questions formerly disputed are decided, and heretical propositions are condemned. It is important to notice the difference between "accidental development" and "essential development". If somebody claims to be a "prophet" and to transmit to us newly-revealed "dogmas", that person is a heretic. There is no such thing in the Catholic Church. Go talk to any Bishop in communion with the Pope, or the Pope himself, and they will confirm. >> So when God reveals something to Mother Paul-Marie or others, it is a >> matter of a deeper understanding of a revealed truth already contained >> in Revelation. :-) You are sincere, and wrong, but also very funny in a way! Your preceding sentence is almost Catholic! Just change "is" for "could be (if the Magisterium says so)". You say that if someone claims to have been in contact with God, then what they will say is necessarily an accidental development of dogma, and hence something totally Catholic and OK. You're missing a link. If somebody claims that God has spoken to them, then IF the Magisterium (which was instituted by God for this purpose) agrees, then what that person says is true because it is not a new material dogma, but just an accidental development of the existing, and terminated, Revelation. I'm willing to go right up to the Pope with that one. You're missing a link, and a crucial link. Think about it! If some weirdo claims tomorrow morning that God has spoken to him, and that God has "revealed" that Jesus is a lawnmower, according to your theory, what he says is Catholic and perfectly good dogma! If you remove the "Magisterial approval" link, all bloody dogmatic bets are off! >> It is exactly through this "development of doctrine" how the Dogma of >> the Assumption can be proclaimed after 1950 years, even though you can >> find it nowhere explicitly in Scripture. No! One of the Apostles saw the Virgin Mary be assumed into Heaven! That is Tradition! There are historical traces of the Feast of "The Dormition" of the Virgin Mary dating from about 500 A.D.! The belief in the Assuption of Mary didn't "pop out of the blue" because of some yahoo who claimed to have a newly-revealed dogma! >> And this is exactly how God can develop upon Revelation through Mother >> Paul-Marie or whomever He so chooses. No! That is exactly the main, obvious, horrible heresy of the Army of Mary! Don't take my word for it! Go see the Pope, or a Bishop in communion with the Pope, and ask him whether the following proposition is Catholic or heretical: "If someone claims to have received from God a newly-revealed statement, after the last of the 12 Apostles has died, then that statement is Catholic and true, regardless of what the Pope and/or the Bishops in communion with the Pope say about the catholicity of that statement." I guarantee they will say: "heretic". >> You have stated that in the order of obedience, God is the first to be >> obeyed. Yet, you don't allow for this as a possibility in rare cases >> within the Army of Mary. At some point of time, we have to define "obedience to God". If "obedience to God" means "obedience to anybody who claims to have spoken with God", then obviously all bets are off. Any weirdo can claim any stupidity, and just add: "Oh, by the way, God told me this stuff", and Bingo! We would have to obey them! God is not stupid. God saw this possibility before Time existed, and prepared the solution to this problem: the Pope, and the Bishops in communion with the Pope! God's will is not vague. God's will is not some kind of silly-putty in the hands of anybody claiming to be a "prophet"! God's will is excruciatingly clearly stated in His Ten Commandments, in His Bible, in His Apostolic Tradition, in His Magisterium, and in the Government of His Church by the Pope and the Bishops in communion with the Pope. >> You state it, but indeed you do not allow for Let's take a real example: my Superior, Monsignor Maurice Couture (a Bishop!) told me (and all other faithful of the Quebec Diocese) that general absolution in ordinary circumstances was a fine thing, through a Pastoral Letter. Normally, because of the Duty of obedience, I should have obeyed, but what he was saying was against the explicit teachings of the Pope, and the Bishops in communion with the Pope. So I disobeyed my Bishop, because I had to obey God and not him, a man. I not only allow for such disobedience, but I practice it myself, and diligently! >> But you must understand that in certain unique circumstances, one is >> required to "obey God before men", just as the first Apostles did >> when they disobeyed the Jewish leaders who were trying to stifle them. That's about the dumbest example you could have chosen! "Jewish leaders" are not the Pope, and the Bishops in communion with the Pope! They are not the Governement of the Church of Jesus Christ! >> So as you can see, such a manner of proceeding on the part of Mother >> Paul-Marie and the members of the Work is not without precedence. Amen! It is not without precedence, among Protestants and other heretics! >> What if Mother Paul-Marie is indeed the Co-Redemptrix?... Ouch! OUCH! Please Glenn, please tell me you didn't fall for that bullshit? >> With that in mind I will leave you with the words of Gamaliel: >> "So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let >> them alone; for if this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will >> fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You >> might even be found opposing God!" (Acts 5:38-40). There you go again with "Jewish Leaders" unrelated to the hierarchy of the Catholic Church! I'll take my chances with the Pope, and the Bishops in communion with the Pope. Anytime. If I may quote myself in closing: "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us poor sinners. Pray that Jesus Christ may grant us humility, especially the humility to obey our legitimate Pastors, which is the best protection against sad gullibility."
>> -----Original Message----- >> From: g dallaire >> Sent: August 18, 2005 8:38 PM >> To: Stefan Jetchick >> Subject: Re: Some comments on your website Hi Stefan, I said: >> So when God reveals something to Mother Paul-Marie or others, it is a >> matter of a deeper understanding of a revealed truth already contained >> in Revelation. You said: >Your preceding sentence is almost Catholic! Just change "is" for "could >be (if the Magisterium says so)". >You're missing a link. If somebody claims that God has spoken to them, >then IF the Magisterium (which was instituted by God for this purpose) >agrees, then what that person says is true because it is not a new >material dogma, but just an accidental development of the existing, and >terminated, Revelation. And you are right, under "normal" conditions. But, ultimately God is free to work outside of the established "Church norms" for the salvation of souls, if He so wills. For example, in the Old Testament we see that for 3000+ years the Israelites were the chosen people of God, but when the time came for God to reveal Himself in the Redemption and the New Covenant, what happened? The Jewish leaders (ie- the Jewish Church) not only rejected Jesus (God!) but also His Redemption through the New Covenant! So, firstly we see that God can reveal something "new" (such as THE NEW COVENANT ie-eating His flesh and drinking His blood) whenever He so wills, knowing in advance His chosen people will reject it. And this rejection of God and his new covenant resulted in the separation of the Christians from the Jews, and the foundation of a new church, the Catholic church. I said: >> But you must understand that in certain unique circumstances, one is >> required to "obey God before men", just as the first Apostles did >> when they disobeyed the Jewish leaders who were trying to stifle them. You said: >That's about the dumbest example you could have chosen! "Jewish leaders" >are not the Pope, and the Bishops in communion with the Pope! They >are not the Government of the Church of Jesus Christ! But they were the government and the Church of God at that time!!! . Have you forgotten that the Jewish religion was founded and directed by God, and was the ONE and ONLY true religion for well over 3000 years! The Jews were the "chosen people of God"!!! Then, Jesus came revealing a "New covenant"..... In the Acts of the Apostles we see what happens to the Apostles when, inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Apostles try to reveal this "new teaching" to the Jews? The Apostles were Jewish themselves. And they and "their" new teaching was rejected by "the Church". In the Acts of the Apostles we see Peter and John brought before the "Council" for spreading the "new teaching". So I ask you. Being Jews themselves, who were the Apostles to obey? God, or the Jewish authority? You know, it is easy to sit in our easy chairs after 2000 years of Christianity and to overlook what the Apostles did by DISOBEYING their own Jewish leaders who rejected them, and embracing these "new teachings" of Jesus. After all, they were Jews themselves! You may think this is a "dumb example" as you say, but I can assure you that the Apostles didn't feel that way. How do you think they felt having to disobey the Jewish authority? It was a martyrdom in itself. I said: >>>>> What if Mother Paul-Marie is indeed the Co-Redemptrix?... You said: >>>Ouch! OUCH! Please Glenn, please tell me you didn't fall for that bull----? YES! I do believe that she is the Co-Redemtrix. And, I hope in it with all my heart! And what happened with the Apostles 2000 years ago is happening again today. For the salvation of souls, God has chosen Mother Paul-Marie as an "instrument", to live out and complete in herself the Co-redemption through the power and grace of God, and also to reveal through her new lights and deeper understandings of God and the Immaculate. All of this is for the salvation of souls, to prepare the way for "the Kingdom". And, being that it is God's will, it will happen whether you, or I or the "leaders" of the Church approve of it or not. May God enlighten and guide us and make us humble and docile to His will! Union in the hearts of Jesus and Mary, Glenn Dallaire
>> And you are right, under "normal" conditions. But, ultimately God is >> free to work outside of the established "Church norms" for the >> salvation of souls, if He so wills. In other words, you disagree with Proposition #1.1 here above, if I understand correctly. >> The Jewish leaders >> (ie- the Jewish Church) not only rejected Jesus (God!) but also His >> Redemption through the New Covenant! SOME Jews, not all. First inaccuracy. Second inaccuracy: the prophets of the Old Testament PREDICT that the Kindom will be taken away from Israel, and the New Testament PREDICTS that the Pope, as Pope, will never fall into error (CCC, #869). That is important! >> we see that God can >> reveal something "new" whenever He so wills, knowing in advance His >> chosen people will reject it. So you seem to disagree with Proposition #1.2 above. >> But they were the government and the Church of God at that time!!! No! By the time the events you allude to occured, the People of God was no longer Israel, but the Church founded by Jesus Christ! Remember, Jesus Christ founded a Church, the Catholic Church! >> The Apostles were Jewish themselves. Yes, but they were members of the Catholic Church! Not the "Jewish Church"! >> And they and "their" new teaching was rejected by "the Church". Yes, the "Jewish Church"! But not rejected by the Catholic Church! >> So I ask you. Being Jews themselves, who were the Apostles to obey? >> God, or the Jewish authority? They had no reason to obey another authority than the Authority which had founded the Eternal Church of God, i.e. the Catholic Church. They had to obey Jesus, true God and true Man, Jesus who had already founded a new, different Church of which the Apostles were the visible leaders, Peter at their head. >> You know, it is easy to sit in our easy chairs after 2000 years of >> Christianity and to overlook what the Apostles did by DISOBEYING their >> own Jewish leaders and obeying Jesus, True Man and True God, and not some pseudo-prophet. I'm absolutely amazed at how you can use the conflict between Jewish leaders and the Apostles, to justify the conflict between the Army of Mary and the Pope and Bishops in communion with the Pope! As they say, you're comparing apples with oranges (or Poutine with organic alfalfa salad!) I'll try to take a more obvious example (even though the example you give seems obvious enough to me!). Imagine if Saddam Hussein ordered US soldiers to do something, and the US soldiers disobeyed Saddam's orders. Those US soldiers would get a medal or some other reward for disobeying Saddam, right? What if other US soldiers, seeing this, decided to disobey a direct order from the US President? Don't you see that would be a totally different case? Saddam Hussein is NOT the leader of the US Army, but the President IS the Commander-in-Chief of the US Army. It's the same thing with the Apostles and the Jewish authorities: the Apostles are not in the same Church as those Jewish authorities, so they must disobey. But people like you are supposed to be in the same Church as the Bishops united to the Pope, so you must obey those Bishops! (But not the screwy Bishops who are precisely not in communion with the Pope, of course!) >> YES! I do believe that she is the Co-Redemptrix. And, I hope in it with >> all my heart! So you seem to disagree with Proposition #1.3 above. >> And what happened with the Apostles 2000 years ago is happening again >> today. No, the Apostles were the leaders of the Catholic Church; they had no business obeying the leaders of the Jewish Church. Today, the members of the Army of Mary must submit themselves to the Pope, and the Bishops united with the Pope, unless they want to be excommunicated. Cheers! Stefan
>> -----Original Message----- >> From: g dallaire >> Sent: August 20, 2005 12:02 PM >> To: Stefan Jetchick >> Subject: Re: Some comments on your website Hi Stefan, We are almost in agreement. Please see my suggestions below: 1.1) If Marie-Paule Gigučre disagrees with the Magisterium of the Church (i.e. the Pope and/or a Bishop in communion with the Pope, when he speaks with the authority that the Redeemer wanted to provide to His Church when She defines or defends doctrine on faith or morals), Marie-Paule is always wrong and the Magisterium is always right. My reply: It must be stated that ultimately God is the supreme authority of all, and it is to He whom we owe our first obedience. Therefore, since God is the supreme authority, "right" and "wrong" is ultimately in the hands of God. Yes, we are to give assent and obedience to the Pope, Bishops (ie the Church), but there always remains the possibility of being called "to obey God rather than man" as we see Peter and the Apostles doing in Acts 4:18-20 and also Acts 5:28-29. ============================ 1.2) Revelation, which is the object of Catholic Faith, was terminated with the Apostles. Yes, but the Catechism of the Catholic church states, and I will quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church from the Vatican's official website (Paragraph 66): 66Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries. Therefore, the above statement would need to be added to statement 1.2 to make it more in line with official Church teaching. ========================= 1.3) Marie-Paule Gigučre cannot be the Co-Redemptrix. I propose this statement read: 1.3 At this moment, Marie-Paule Giguere (Mother Paule-Marie) *COULD* be the Co-Redemptrix, because the Church has not made an official pronouncement precisely on the matter. To refute this you will need to provide an official Church statement (ie- from the Pope, Magesterium, Sacred Congregation or local Bishop) *naming her precisely* and stating that she is not the Co-Redemptrix. If you can produce such an official document, naming her precisely, and stating that she is not the Co-Redemptrix, then I will agree with statement 1.3 as you have presented it. May God be with you! Glenn Dallaire
>> -----Original Message----- >> From: Stefan Jetchick >> Sent: August 21, 2005 10:19 AM >> To: g dallaire >> Subject: RE: Some comments on your website Yes, I think we have reached some kind of agreement, if only to agree on what we disagree. >> we are to give assent and >> obedience to the Pope, Bishops (ie the Church), but there always >> remains the possibility of being called "to obey God rather than man" >> as we see Peter and the Apostles doing in Acts 4:18-20 and also Acts >> 5:28-29. We've discussed this at length. See my e-mail for August-19. By the way, #1.1 is just a reformulation of the Dogma of Papal Infallibility, so you're simply saying (very sweetly and politely), that the Pope is not infallible ex cathedra. >> Therefore, the above statement would need to be added to statement >> 1.2 to make it more in line with official Church teaching. We've discussed this at length. See my e-mail for August-18. >> If you can produce such an official document, naming her precisely, >> and stating that she is not the Co-Redemptrix, then I will agree with >> statement 1.3 as you have presented it. :-) Since you reject #1.1, I could bring truckloads of official declarations of the Magisterium, and you would just claim that "this is a special case where we must disobey the Magisterium"! In fact, truckloads of Bishops in communion with the Pope already have said the equivalent of #1.3. Just go read the official letters of Prendergast, Ouellet, practically the whole Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Ratzinger. God Bless You! Stefan Jetchick
>> -----Original Message----- >> From: g dallaire >> Sent: August 21, 2005 11:11 AM >> To: Stefan Jetchick >> Subject: Re: Some comments on your website Hi Stefan, Well, I think we have pretty much defined our different perspectives on the subject at this point. So I think we will just have to wait and see what comes next. If Mother Paul Marie (Marie-Paule Giguere) is the Co-Redemptrix, and if the Army of Mary is a work of God, as I believe them both to be, then God will surely defend His handmaid and His Work. Mother Paul Marie herself wrote a few months ago in the "Le Royaume" that we are at the end. So, it simply remains for us to wait and see. It has been a pleasure conversing with you Stefan. I sincerely appreciate your love and zeal for God and His Church. I think I have said all there is for me to say on this subject, so I'll leave it to you to have the last word in our conversation, if you so desire, but I trust that God will have the last word in the end. Your brother in Christ, Glenn Dallaire
Standard End-of-debate Disclaimer ("Why don't you always have the last word in e-mail debates?")
-----Original Message----- From: G. Dallaire Sent: 21 aoűt 2008 21:50 To: Stefan Jetchick Subject: A addendum to our discussion Dear Stefan, You may recall a email "debate" we participated in on your website back in 2005. As an update to our 2005 discussion, I would like to state that in May of 2007 I left the Army of Mary out of obedience to the Catholic Church, which has officially and repeatedly exhorted the members of the Army of Mary to "take no further part in any activities of this group, whether these involve its publications or participation in prayer meetings and liturgical celebrations..." (see footnotes 1 and 2 below). As you are most certainly aware, the example of the Saints throughout history has always been one of obedience to Rome, the Pope, and the Bishops, that is, the legitimate Church authority. "He who hears you hears Me" Jesus said to the Apostles (cf Luke 10:16). Well, I am certainly not a saint, however as you know we are all called to follow in their example of faith and holiness. Hence my decision to obey the Church in this matter, and therefore leave the Army of Mary. I would therefore sincerely appreciate it if you would add this as an addendum to our 2005 discussion on your website, as a personal witness and testimony of faith in the One, Holy, catholic and Apostolic Church, and in obedience to Rome and the Pope, and the Bishops in communion with the Catholic Church. Sincerely, Glenn Dallaire August 21, 2008 1) DOCTRINAL NOTE of the Catholic Bishops of Canada concerning the Army of Mary www.cccb.ca/site/Files/armyofmary.html "Some of the teaching it propagates about redemption, the Virgin Mary and reincarnation are profoundly at variance with the teaching and profession of the faith of the Catholic Church. Because this constitutes for the faithful a danger to the faith, we, the Bishops of Canada, hereby exhort the members and sympathizers of the Army of Mary to take no further part in any activities of this group, whether these involve its publications or participation in prayer meetings and liturgical celebrations, including those notably at its Centre Spiri-Maria, located in Quebec." 2) Declaration of Excommunication of the Army of Mary and associated works by the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith www.cccb.ca/site/images/stories/pdf/decl_excomm_english.pdf "The Ordinary has declared that "those responsible for the "The Army of Mary" have excluded themselves from the communion of the Catholic Church... The Army of Mary has clearly and publicly become a schismatic community and, as such, a non-Catholic association. Its particular teachings are false and its activities are not able to be frequented nor supported by Catholics".
Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Directory of sheep and wolves