Monday, May 18, 2015

Not important enough for American Loons ...

Investigating mystics.

I was reading some material on Monsignor Esseff and new messages from Mary supposedly dictated to a locutionist under his direction.  I was trying to find out who the unnamed mystic is, apparently she is a cloistered nun.  The messages strike me as too political and a bit pro-American.  For me I find nothing edifying in them - much like Medjugorje.  Obviously it isn't meant to be - for me.

That said, I came across an American theologian, Ronald L. Conte, Jr. who discredits the Esseff locutions as well - so he must be right, since it accords with my intuitions on the subject.  Just kidding - I only say that because when we want to be right we can usually find someone who agrees with us - even a theologian.  However, I don't care about being 'right' on this - I was simply looking to find out more about the Essef messages - as they seem to be well received in my part of the Church.  I should point out Conte also accepts the following revelations as 'trustworthy':
Fr. Stefano Gobbi
Me, not so much.

Ranking #205 in his list of false revelations, he states:
205. "Locutions to the World" - Anonymous visionary at, whose messages are announced through a retired priest, Msgr. John Esseff. Messages claim that Russia was never consecrated as requested at Fatima, even though Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzginer (now Pope Benedict XVI) and sister Lucy, the visionary of Fatima, all said that Russia has been properly consecrated. The messages are similar to the other false messages of the above false visionaries, including profane commentary on politics, economics, and current events. - Conte
Works for me.  The Esseff locutions are also pro-Medjugorje - an irony because Conte accepts Medj as true.  It isn't a contradiction however, since they all accept Catholic teaching and remain Catholic.

Investigating the investigators.

Interestingly, Conte rejects Mark Mallet, a charismatic who supposedly misinterpreted a word of knowledge he received and speculated upon the three days darkness.  That's all such iffy stuff as it is - so who can judge?  I've noted some bloggers seem to follow Mark Mallet, but I know very little about him or his prophecies.  Remember John of the Cross has much to say on these things and I've often referred to his writings, especially when people interpret locutions in a literal sense.

I cited the extensive list of false revelations simply to demonstrate how popular spiritual prophecies and warnings and predictions are today - it goes hand in hand with the popularity of the occult I think.  That in itself should be a warning for devout souls.

When I googled Conte, his name came up on a fun site called American Loons - which pretty much diminished his credibility right away, for me at least.  I searched the site for other Catholic bloggers such as Barnhardt, Mckinley, Fernandez, Jeffie, Skovran, Verrechio, Zuhlsdorf, Poodles, and so on, but they weren't listed.  (Neither was I - but I'm not important enough.)  I did see Ann Coulter and Pam Geller - which is what prompted me to seriously look up Ann Barnhardt - but I didn't find any other personality I've met online ... except for this guy:
Dec 08, 2014
Michael Voris is a hysterically fanatic, militant religious (Catholic) fundamentalist. He is the president and founder of St. Michael's Media, which creates short videos and full length programs for the website ...


  1. Did you write this just for me, 'cause this post is right in my wheelhouse! Ron Conte is interesting because he was one of the early pioneers of the Catholic internet. Back in the day (as recently as 5-6 years ago), his "catholic planet" site was always one of the first sites listed in search engines if you googled any kind of recent apparition/mystic. His star has flamed out, in part because he gave a hard, fast date several years back about a tribulation/chastisement or some such. Obviously nothing happened. He's also a self-taught theologian with no actual credentials, and is boorishly self-important. I actually found his site useful many years ago when I wanted to see if some self-proclaimed mystic was a kook (as almost all of them are). He did the legwork to parse their writings and find the heterodox content, warnings from the local ordinary, etc.

    I actually like Mark Mallett and would be happy to buy him a beer or have his family over for dinner (all good looking women in that family!). With a little less prudence I would be another Mark Mallett, just as you could have been another Joseph Sciambra with a little less wisdom. Know what I mean? So how could I dislike the guy? He writes a lot of commentary on the week's mass readings and is orthodox and has more insight than most priests I've listened to. But he's now run afoul of three of the bishops in Alberta because he's been reading the signs of the times and has been constantly warning that dark days are ahead. Oddly enough, unlike some people (me--LOL!), he doesn't base this on any vision or clear locution but on what you might call spiritual intuition ("I felt the Lord say to my heart..."). He also flirts with some very dubious apparitions/mystics, and is convinced there will soon be a literal 1,000 years of peace (Christ's kingdom made present on earth) after a chastisement/global illumination of conscience. I read him as a guilty pleasure. He's also spent a lot of time trying to convince his readership that Pope Francis is not the bogeyman.

    Ann Barnhardt is just some hot chick who likes bacon, guns and cleaning toilets. Right?

    1. See - we are all crack pots. Haha!

      I just discovered Conte today and discovered he indeed set some dates and timelines - sure fire sign something is off.

      Mallett seems to be respected by a great many but I've only read one or two things from him - nothing seems problematic to me - I just don't follow stuff like that.

      Ann Barnhardt has my sympathy - not my pity - but it is too bad she's taken such a dive. I don't want to be uncharitable, but I think something is wrong with her.

    2. Isn't being a kook a pre-requisite for being a self-proclaimed mystic?

      Ter, love your list of Catholic bloggers!

    3. I have to remove one - he threatened to have his lawyer contact me.

    4. I have to remove one - he threatened to have his lawyer contact me.

    5. Don't bother. If he blogs and all you do is say so, there's nothing he can do; fact is fact.

  2. Never heard of these people and that is okay by me. I do agree with Mr. Mallet on this one important matter though...

    "Pope Francis is not the bogeyman"

  3. I get so confused and wary of all the more recent private revelationists. It all gets a bit Art Bell for me.

    1. Tinfoil scapular territory?

  4. Lol! Yes! I have certain relatives who never met an apocalyptic revelation they didn't embrace. To me, it's distracting and distressing.

  5. I also have a fascination with Locutions to the World, mainly because I never knew Mary was a neo-con. Either that or she reads the Drudge Report for her news. (Maybe she doesn't "read" it, but knows what it will contain before it's published...hmmmm...that's a puzzler.) I used to browse it once a month or so, but not so much anymore. What I found so interesting was the talk during the sede vacante. How Mary has held this pope in her heart and he will reveal the "true" Fatima secrets and perform a "true" consecration of Russia. Now, I can't remember if the locutionist specifically said this was about the next pope, but it sure seemed that way. And Francis doesn't seem to be the type. (For the record, I believe the Church regarding Fatima and it's secrets and consecrations.) Honestly, judging by the politics of it all, I would assume Francis would not be too beloved, despite Mary's impressive intro.

    Re: Conte, that reminds me of a post on my favorite Catholic blog ever (sorry're #2!):
    If you've never come across Not a Goblin but a Troll, know two things: 1) it's satire. (Some of the best satire I've read) and 2) you're in for a treat. Seriously, go to the archives and start at the beginning. The blog is a work of art. Unfortunately, Troll stopped blogging last year. I was heartbroken.

  6. Also, regarding Not a Goblin but a Troll, make sure to hover your cursor over the pics. The pop-up captions are the best.

    1. That is a cool site - I think I was lampooned there once - which is how I found it. When I go to the site my computer crashes - not sure why.

    2. I got threw to the site - yep - he got me - linked to me for using "what" and called me out in another instance, writing:

      6. of course, not everyone is piling on the frothing anger train. the always lame and lamely compassionate Terry at “abbey roads” has leapt to Groeschel’s defense, - etc..

      I never found what he actually wrote until today. He has the same opinion of me as I do of myself. Very insightful blogger! Too bad he's still not blogging.

      I do love the captions on his photos.

    3. "Lamely compassionate" is high praise from Troll. High praise, indeed.

      This has become an occasion to revisit that blog. I think you'd particularly appreciate this one: It even includes a "what?"

  7. Today's mystics don't know their St. John of the Cross. They make cottage industries out of things that may well be from you-know-who.

    It never fails to amaze how how little discernment is used when it comes to this stuff. All someone has to do is say Jesus, Mary or an angel told me something, and people run with it. It's cult-like. And best to avoid.

  8. Prefect summation of the whole darn issue, from Bishop Peter Sartrain of the Diocese of Joilet, IL. (From 2009)

    “From time to time we are approached by parishioners who would like to invite speakers representing various alleged apparitions of the Blessed Virgin, private revelations or locutions, or others claiming to possess extraordinary spiritual gifts. My purpose in bringing this to your attention is to ask that you not issue such invitations. Whether the speakers would make presentations on well-known alleged apparitions, such as Medjugorje, or lesser known private revelations, we must be extremely cautious about inviting or promoting them.

    “As you know the Church takes great time and care before declaring that an apparition is worthy of belief, and even then it never says that a Catholic must accept the apparition as a matter of faith. We must avoid giving the impression that alleged apparitions about which the Church has not made a judgment are somehow already approved.

    “It is our responsibility to see that our parishioners are not led down the wrong path. That is not to say that those who ask us to promote these matters are doing so out of bad faith, but we must be extremely careful not to confuse our parishioners.

    “Our greatest spiritual treasures are the Word of God, the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist, and the teaching of the Church, and our focus should always be there. Needless to say, these comments do not refer to apparitions such as Fatima, Lourdes or Guadalupe which enjoy the approval of the Church.”

    My comment: This is a very common position held by the US bishops about unapproved seers, but that doesn't stop most of them from touring around the country with their messages. Why do they feel the need to do this when they know how most bishops feel?


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.