| Home >> Directory of sheep and wolves

Correspondance with Mr. Glenn Dallaire (Ex-Army of Mary)

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!

Table of contents

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)

1) Propositions we don't agree on

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.

2) G. Dallaire (2005-August-12)

-----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

3) S. Jetchick (2005-August-14?)

>> (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

4) G. Dallaire (2005-August-14)

>> -----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

5) S. Jetchick (2005-August-16)

>> 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

6) G. Dallaire (2005-August-16)

>> -----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

7) S. Jetchick (2005-August-18)

>> 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."

8) G. Dallaire (2005-August-18)

>> -----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

9) S. Jetchick (2005-August-19)

>> 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

10) G. Dallaire (2005-August-20)

>> -----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

11) S. Jetchick (2005-August-21)

>> -----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

12) G. Dallaire (2005-August-21)

>> -----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?")

13) G. Dallaire (2008-August-21)

-----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".

| Home >> Directory of sheep and wolves