1. In your document
"Time to Leave" you speak of your having defended the Little Pebble
when the Media made their presentations of lies and hearsay and rash judgments
against him a few years ago. Yes it is true – you did defend the Little
Pebble. Then in the next sentence you defame your own conscience by saying
that your faith was "blind". You then tried to construct a counter
argument by saying that in your faith you overlooked the "obvious"
because you were trying to accept the mystery involved. Thus, your conclusion
-- you derive from these false premises – false because you omitted to make
certain distinctions which would have clarified the issue – your conclusion
being that your faith was without reason. You then tried to underpin your
conclusion by a spurious appeal to the classic concept of Faith and Reason as
the two theological pillars. However, this was only to set up your final jab
at the Little Pebble wherein you write: "Yet reason is absent from all
your actions". Finally, this is not sufficient for you – you further
impose that the Little Pebble uses Catholic Teaching to justify his error!
Then you add – as if a matter of fact – that most of you were the
strongest supporters of the Little Pebble!
My fuller Answer:
This is not about Faith and Reason. The First Vatican Council (1870) defined
the essentials on that relationship. Saint Thomas Aquinas places theology
(which concerns Faith) above Philosophy (which relies upon Reason and first
principles). That Faith/Reason concept is not the issue it is a smoke screen
for the real issue – namely your trying to measure the Little Pebble’s
subjective experience of God’s action in his life and his response through
his acts of faith -- by the yardstick of human reason – your reason and your
yardstick! You are not competent to be his judge because this belongs to the
Church and is governed by Canon Law for contentious issues.
As Sacred Scripture
abundantly testifies – human reason is often at a loss to explain the
mystery of God’s Grace and intervention in a person’s soul. The Pharisees
were experts in their use of reasoning to get around the dictates of the Law
of Moses. Take the example of the man who nullifies the Commandment of
honouring his parents by declaring what ever he would have given them as
"korban" i.e. – dedicated to God! Our Lord himself corrected this
hypocrisy. Secondly, history also shows that Seers were persecuted by
narrow-minded persons who tried to force the Seer/Messages into human
categories for personal gain (cf. Saint Bernadette of Lourdes). When a
tribunal tries to employ only this tool – the results are always skewed. The
Trial of Saint Joan of Arc says it all.
The Little Pebble’s reply
to you (26 March 2002) highlighted the Mystery of the Annunciation to Mary and
Saint Joseph’s trial of faith resulting in his plan to divorce Mary. Yet it
was in a dream that the Angel revealed to Saint Joseph, not to be afraid to
take His wife into his home. Human reason would be powerless to ascertain the
authenticity of such a private revelation – on the contrary, human logic
would not have been able to resolve its conflict with the Law of Moses, which
required that Mary be stoned!
This is not to say that
reason is irrelevant, far from it – reason helps us maintain the credibility
of our faith, so that we do not betray our own conscience. One’s reason can
be easily impaired by emotional upheaval or by fear of danger, real or
imagined. This is particularly the case when our soul is under attack from the
evil one who attempts to sow the seeds of doubt and fear. The purpose of the
devil is to undermine our faith. It is at this moment that our reason can be
our great strength – maintaining us in the truth which our conscience
upholds – or it can undermine our true faith by interposing images of fear
or danger. This is why true virtue is so necessary in times of trials against
faith. It is why Saint Thomas maintained: "The knowledge of what is true
is given by the fervour of love". This applies not only to God but to our
neighbour as well since the First and Second Commandments are inseparable.
Consequently, when you began to loose a true love for your brother – you
also began to lose wisdom -- which is the ability to judge divine things.
This is important, so I labour the point.
There is a wonderful but
dramatic example of this in the Poem of the Man-God (Volume 5, #599, page
525). It concerns the moments leading up to the Garden of Gethsemane. Jesus
had been telling his little flock of Apostles that one of them was about to
betray him. He had already told them of His impending death at the hands of
the religious authorities – however, their reason was impaired by their
emotional upheaval from fear and many conflicting voices ringing in their
ears. Because of this, some of the Apostles were trying to be
"reasonable" -- trying to conceive a plan to abduct Jesus and take
him away! Even Saint John was losing his balance when he thought he was going
to lose Jesus forever! Our Lord explained: "’You are not losing
Me, because you will continue to love Me. He is lost who is separated from us
by oblivion on the Earth and from God’s Judgement in the hereafter. But we
shall never be separated. Neither by this one or by that one’. But John will
not listen to reason". Now this says it all. If you, Glenn and the
others want to talk about what is reasonable then you convict yourselves of
being unreasonable!! Because in your moments of temptation over these many
months, when various voices were ringing in your ears, you should have been
reasonable about your own conscience and the certitude you cherished so highly
in all the previous months. So many other happy thoughts and experiences you
had in this Mission with the Little Pebble. But no, you preferred – like the
Apostles of old to listen to the other "voices" singing in your ears
to make you betray yourselves. Thus you allowed the darnel of the evil one to
germinate his evil thoughts in your mind which caused you to doubt yourselves,
your messages, your own experience and the truth. From doubt, there was born
the evil fruit of denial. You betrayed your own faith in God – your own
submission of intellect and will to God as He revealed Himself.
The Holy Father wrote well
on this in his Apostolic Letter on Saint Joseph: "One can say that
what Joseph did united him in an altogether special way to the faith of Mary.
He accepted as a truth coming from God the very thing that She had already
accepted at the Annunciation. The Council teaches: ‘The obedience of faith’
must be given to God as He reveals Himself. By this obedience of faith man
freely commits himself entirely to God, making ‘the full submission of his
intellect and will to God who reveals,’ and willingly assenting to the
revelation given to him. This statement, which touches the very essence of
faith, is perfectly applicable to Joseph of Nazareth" (Redemptoris
Custos,4) . So you can see what happened to Saint Joseph "touches the
very essence of faith". Saint Joseph’s faith was not unreasonable nor
blind. He knew Mary was a holy woman. The Light of God’s Word through the
Angel illuminated his soul – he committed himself to God’s Will. Since the
Holy Father is referring here to a principle – i.e. the "essence"
of faith – it can be applied to any man, woman or child. It is clear from
the long history of God’s dealings with the Little Pebble and the 612+
public Messages given to him since 1983 – that we are dealing with a man who
is singularly blessed by God to share in the faith of the Mother of God. The
Little Pebble’s faith is not unreasonable nor blind. He knows what God has
commanded of him – and like Saint Joseph, he committed himself fully to God’s
Will. Should I go on with the example of Saint Paul’s conversion – was it
unreasonable to believe in the Apparition he received on the road to Damascus?
What about Abraham – was it unreasonable to trust God even when it seemed
"unreasonable" to those who asked why he was going up the mountain?
Saint Thomas Aquinas makes use of these persons in his arguments in defence of
truth. I have already written about this in Message 314(in 1991) and 512(in
1996).
Should I refer again to
Saint Joan of Arc? You, Glenn should know better, after you wrote your defence
of the Little Pebble in comparison with Saint Joan. Why did you not refute
Saint Thomas – at least try to take issue with his principles. What about
the concept of Divine precedent in Sacred Scripture – why did you not take
issue with what God has already done in the past with His Prophets? After all,
Sacred Scripture is inerrant and Saint Thomas is a Doctor of the Church. After
all, you wrote at the top of your letter: "Without Prejudice". Then
why did you not show where the application of the principles of Saint Thomas
to the Little Pebble were misapplied?
You misuse the expression
"Blind Faith" in your argument against the Little Pebble. Your faith
was not "blind". Your argument implies the Protestant conception of
this phrase. On the contrary, Saint Ignatius of Loyola writing in his Rule for
the Jesuit Order – about "Blind Obedience" – I would like to
express his same principle to the concept "Obedience of Faith"
referred to above. Saint Ignatius: "Let us direct all our powers and
our intentions in the Lord to this point, that among us holy obedience be
always and in every detail perfect as well in execution as in will and
judgment; performing with great speed, spiritual joy and perseverance
whatsoever shall be enjoined us; persuading ourselves that all things are
just; denying with a certain kind of blind obedience any contrary opinion or
judgment of our own" (Constitutions, p6,c.1,n.1). The Commentator (Vermeersch)
explains the meaning: "…obedience makes itself blind in order to
guard itself against what might turn it from its true path. Far from fleeing
the light, obedience throws all the light possible on the road before her and
refuses consideration only to the bypaths, impractical for her, which run in
the other direction or off on a tangent. If there are reasons which obedience
fails to see, there are others which she sees all the more clearly. And her
choice cannot be questioned; in fact obedience has chosen the best" (Miles
Christ Jesu, Veermersch, S.J., Xavier Press, 1960, page 430). So, from
what has been said by the Pope in his writings on Saint Joseph (above), the
principle is the same for the obedience of faith which maintains the
submission of ones intellect and will to God as He reveals Himself. So, I ask
you Glenn and all the others what does blind faith fail to see? It is blind to
every argument of reason which is contrary to the truth it professes. It fails
to see arguments of reason which are purely negative which only impede, hamper
and weaken the act of faith. It is blind to prejudices which are kept alive by
self-love. Shall we speak about the dogma of the Real Presence – what the
senses fail to fathom – faith gives full consent! Thus "blind
faith" throws all of the light possible upon the road set-out before her
and refuses consideration to every form of doubt, suspicion and loss of
charity. Glenn, this is what you and the others should have done in the face
of your doubts and suspicions. If there were things your understanding failed
to fathom – your graces and comprehension of other aspects of the Mission
given to the Little Pebble would have strengthened your reason and faith. But,
no – you preferred to entertain thoughts, ideas and prejudices –
especially from others -- which would take you away from the path your own
conscience had chosen.
2. You now introduce
the reader to your coined phrase: "Shift of Prophecy" and attempt to
explain this new concept. But first you interject that because of this
"shift" – you write that we are a "cult". Sadly you
offer no explanation for this terminology – but you write: "we mean to
say we strongly believe Heaven has taken away from you all that has been given
to you". That’s it! There is no definition or concept – simply the
statement of your personal "strong belief". Well, it is obvious that
you are referring to your own subjective belief. That is fine, you and
everybody are free to believe or not believe. However, you proceed to imply
from this that the Little Pebble is not leading a life in keeping with the
Catholic Faith and the 10 Commandments!! You have no facts, and you have no
explanation – you simply offer this idea to the people and ask all mystics
and "alleged Seers" to join you in order to make reparation, etc.
You have only the testimony of those who have lost faith through their own
experience of weakness. I also know most of these souls and the situations
surrounding their betrayal of their own conscience. I also know the
extenuating circumstances surrounding many of them at the time they left years
ago.
My Answer: Saint
Thomas Aquinas writes in his Summa Theologica – his tract on
"Suspicion" that we are not permitted to rashly judge anyone based
upon a suspicion which causes us to label them with a grave offence. Saint
Thomas clearly writes that to do so is a Mortal Sin!! He explains the reasons
– that it is a grave offence against Charity to do so because it is better
to think well of a man under threat of suspicion than to think evil of him.
The first is virtuous as it is charitable, the latter is gravely sinful. I
have written extensively on this already (on the Little Pebble Website). Would
you want people to treat you that way? No, then why do you treat the Little
Pebble that way?
Secondly, it is against the
8th Commandment to detract against your neighbour. If you do so in
a grave matter that sin is mortal. Remember, the Catechism -- detraction is
the sin of using the truth about a person to cause them injury. First of all
the Little Pebble is not in the state of sin nor scandal. This is abundantly
proven by himself – in his words and deeds. He has upheld God’s Commands
upon him over these years against all sorts of attacks upon his credibility.
He has explained himself in Message 314 quite well. It is common sense to any
well informed Catholic that it would not be possible for a person in Mortal
Sin to "fake" a Catholic and holy life for all these years!! Our Lord
said that a "bad tree cannot bear good fruit". Yet, look around you
– you have known the truth – and even more so, many people from around the
world – know the truth -- of all walks of life follow the Little Pebble’s
Mission. If he were not sent from God in this Mission he would not be able to
bear heroic witness to the truth. Is that not what the blind man in the Gospel
said to the Pharisees after his cure by Jesus – when he was brought to the
Temple. The Pharisees said to him: "’Give glory to God! For our
part, we know that this man is a sinner.’ The man answered, ‘I do not know
if he is a sinner; I only know that I was blind and now I can see’ … they
[Pharisees] said ‘we are disciples of Moses: we know that God spoke to
Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he comes from’. The man
replied, ‘Now here is an astonishing thing! He has opened my eyes, and you
do not know where he comes from! We know that God does not listen to sinners,
but God does listen to men who are devout and do His Will. Ever since the
world began it is unheard of for anyone to open the eyes of a man who was born
blind; if this man were not from God, he could not do a thing.’ ‘Are you
trying to teach us,’ they [Pharisees] replied ‘and you a sinner through
and through, since you were born!’ And they drove him away." (John
9:24-26,29-34) Glenn, you and the others are acting in a similar way
towards the Little Pebble. Is that the way reason works – like the Pharisees
reasoned above? Is it not rather how the blind man reasoned after his
experience of Divine Mercy – he was just and honest. There are too many
souls, Glenn, far more than you realise who have had the same experience as
this blind man – the Divine Mercy healing their soul through the
instrumentality of the Little Pebble. This is because he is God chosen
instrument – similar to Saint Paul – of whom Jesus said to Ananias: "…
this man is my chosen instrument to bring my name before pagans and pagan
kings and before the people of Israel; I myself will show him how much he
himself must suffer for my name" (Acts 9:15). Was it unreasonable for
Saint Paul to believe in the Apparition? Was it unreasonable for him to
believe Ananias? Was it unreasonable for Ananias to believe his own private
revelation about Saul? Glenn, the Little Pebble is not in the state of sin
like you believe.
If you presume something is
true based upon your suspicion or even if you know something is true – you
are not permitted to inflict that truth upon a soul to cause them injury. Have
you not read (Poem of the Man-God) what Jesus told Saint Peter when he
proceeded to insult Mary Magdalene in public because of the scandal she had
just caused in a certain house? He reprimanded Peter and told him that "I
do not insult, and you must not either". So, Glenn and all -- lets take
an imaginary example – suppose you had committed this terrible sin in your
past. Further, suppose your "friend" finds out that you did this
sin. Then suppose your "friend" decides to tell everybody what you
did in order to discredit you. Well, my dear souls, that is a Mortal Sin when
the harm caused is serious causing others to hold you in a bad light. Now, as
has been said and proven so many times in the past – the Little Pebble is
not in sin. God has commanded certain things of him at great personal cost to
himself – requiring heroic faith and the loss of many "friends".
All of this has been explained in Message 314 (in 1991). Therefore, you have
no right to detract against your brother based upon your personal opinions nor
based upon suspicion which others have fed into your ears.
3. You now refer to
"those" persons who came to you in order to persecute the Little
Pebble! This is amazing – what else could one expect from those persons.
They were simply the means to further cement your doubts for you to later
justify your denial of truth. However, what is more amazing is that you refer
to the Little Pebble as having the potential to be a great Saint. You omit the
facts which make you draw that conclusion – because you have another purpose
– you write that the Little Pebble was "ruined" because of his
personal actions and that the Order is in "shambles" because of his
actions. This argument is pathetic. This is clearly a rash judgment based upon
your doubts and suspicion. Again please read again what I have written above
from Saint Thomas Aquinas who has written clearly on the evil of rash judgment
– yet "good" Catholics claiming these high moral standards --
justify their departure – really, your virtue shines clearly in this
contradiction.
My Answer:
You betray your subconscious realisation that the Little Pebble is a holy man
of God. He is not "ruined" anymore than Saint Alphonsus Ligouri when
his own Religious Order betrayed him. He is not anymore "ruined"
than Saint John Bosco when the Hierarchy refused to give him faculties for
hearing Confessions. He is not "ruined" anymore than Saint Francis
of Assisi when they thought his ideals on poverty were extreme. Shall I go on,
the lists of Saints who suffered from the hands of narrow-minded people gets
only larger. You are completely in error to say that the Order is in
"shambles". Nothing could be further from the truth. You rate
yourselves too highly. You were not the strong ones who have long been
faithful to God’s Word and this Mission.
4. You impose the
idea that you have done all in your power to "alert" the Little
Pebble of his "errors" and "weaknesses" and that he
remained "obstinate" and always "hiding in the shadow of what
you call justice, righteousness and the laws that govern the Church".
Now, this statement is also amazing because it upholds the Little Pebble
without your realising it – indeed it is very true that the Little Pebble
lives by the Teachings and Canon Law of the Church. This is abundantly clear
from the large amount of information on the Little Pebble Website which
highlight this fact. It is further brought into relief in the two Volume Book
on his life. The virtue of the Little Pebble has shone brightly over the years
because of the persecution from the Media and instances like your document
which feeds their journalism so hungry for sensationalism. The injustice to
him is undeniable and recognised by many around the world. The fact that the
Little Pebble requested the opening of the Ecclesiastical Investigation is
proof enough of the absurdity of your argument. However, the main purpose of
your paragraph is to put in the idea that you and other Seers and groups have
pointed all of this out to the Little Pebble. You write that many of these
persons have advised that the Messages of the Little Pebble and those around
him are "false" and that he is "not Catholic".
My Answer:
It is self-evident that the principle of unity is "one", not many.
It is clear from many Messages given to the Little Pebble and other Seers
around the world that one aspect of his Mission is to unite the Seers around
the world into a "Team of Light" (cf Message 499 – November 1,
1995). Our Lady says: "It is now time for Our children who have been
chosen to recognise the truth of God’s Plan – even if you do not
understand them by your logical thinking, for logic must be placed aside;
human understanding must be placed aside. Pray to understand, sweet children.
The time of the Antichrist is near; the time of the fulfilment of the
Apocalypse is near. Stand together now …" (Message 499). You cannot
have a multiple principle of unity. In the Catholic Church, it is the Pope who
is this principle – as the Vicar of Christ with a jurisdiction of Primacy
over the entire Church. God has placed under Pope John Paul II a person who
has been given the charism of uniting the "Mystic Church" (cf
Messages 497, 499 and 512) with and under the Little Pebble and with and under
the Pope. The fragmentation that occurs among the Seers is not from God as the
Holy Ghost is the author of unity in the Church – not division. Your action,
Glen with the others is contrary to this principle as well. The Holy Ghost
cannot inspire Messages and Seers to betray His own principle of unity!!
5. You call all
members to leave the Little Pebble and to join your group – the Apostolate
of God’s Victory – a "mission" you have adopted "under the
spiritual direction of the Church".
My Answer:
This is naive at best. What is the Apostolate of God’s Victory? Your
"mission" has no meaning apart from the principle of unity which is
a fruit of God’s Work and proof of His Presence. Fragmentation is not a
proof of God’s Presence. Consider your roots in the true light of God’s
Plan and not what you have created to catch all of the people you think will
leave with you.
6. You impose the
idea that the 10 Commandments have been broken and that this has caused scandal. You
refer to the Little Pebble to "cease" his "attempt" to
become a Priest; and to myself (Fr. Malcolm Broussard) regarding my becoming a
Bishop under Bishop Schneider. You have also sent your documentation to the
authorities of the Church in order to "expose" the
"hypocrisy". You justify your argument about the Little Pebble’s
future ordination as "potentially dangerous because of the desecration of
the Holy Mass of which is really what you would be doing".
My Answer:
Why are you worried now? Why are you worried at all? The Messages have for a
long time indicated the Ordination of the Little Pebble at the proper time.
The Little Pebble could have been ordained years ago and on several different
occasions when the offer was made to him – he always refused! That is
because he knows that when this time comes all will be proper and in place
because it is for God’s Glory not his. He does not seek this – he only
seeks God’s Will to be accomplished in his life. Your argument about
potential danger to the Holy Mass is pathetic also. There would be no
desecration because there will be an authentic and valid ordination with all
of the necessary protocols in place. We are not a "cult" even though
you try to portray this. If we were these ordinations would have taken place
long ago. To the contrary, the Little Pebble has consistently demonstrated
that everything must go through the Line of Grace in the Church.
As for me, I have never
sought to be a Bishop to this very day. Yet, I have known for many years that
I will be consecrated a Bishop one day. The Seer "Thornbush" also
received this Message about me years ago. Like the Little Pebble, I too only
want to make God happy, and I know that God will bring this about at its
proper time. I do not want to make crosses for myself from myself – I prefer
to carry the one’s that God fashions for me then I can rely upon His help.
7. You further impose
your idea that "Heaven leaves you because of your doing" and that
"Heaven has called many Seers to turn away from the errors" to join
your Apostolate. You write that the Little Pebble "is no longer a true
Seer of God" and that "God’s favour is no longer upon you".
You appeal to all the Communities to leave the Little Pebble. You write:
"Those who still know what it means to be righteous …" to come to
join you.
My Answer:
Again, this is pure fiction – you have no reason for existence, because you
broke away from the principle of your existence as a Community of the Order of
Saint Charbel. You have no mandate from the Church to form your apostolate.
Even if you receive some sort of mandate in the future – there is a great
difference between an apostolate and a Religious Order. You have cut
yourselves off from the singular Graces accorded by God to the Order of Saint
Charbel. You have abandoned your own public Promises made to God in joining
the Order of Saint Charbel in the first place.
8. Your quotation of
Blessed Mary of Agreda (Book of the Transfixion) is a poor attempt to pin this
label upon the Little Pebble. This same text can be applied to these same
persons who signed this document – having been so blessed by God, to then
later deny the Gift of God. Why did you not quote the part left out which
refers to – lukewarmness; want of fervour and diligence; absence of zeal and
devotion. And how Our Lady says in this great Book: "ardent hope
overcomes many difficulties, strengthens and vivifies weak human creatures to
undertake great works" (page 599).
My Answer:
You have pinned this label on the wrong person – it should be pinned to
yourselves for all of the reasons cited above. There are so many counter
quotations that it would be useless to pursue this line. I will only quote Our
Lord in the Gospel (John 8:51-59) for Thursday of the Fifth Week of Lent when
the Pharisees rudely asked Our Lord "Are you greater than our father
Abraham, who is dead? The Prophets are dead too? Who are you claiming to
be?" Our Lord’s answer is very good. The Little Pebble can make
these words his own in this context: "If I were to seek my own glory
that would be no glory at all; my glory is conferred by the Father, by the One
of whom you say, ‘He is our God’ although you do not know Him. But I know
Him, and if I were to say: I do not know Him, I should be a liar, as you are
liars yourselves. But I do know Him, and I faithfully keep His Word."
(John 8:51-59). If Saint Therese of Lisieux can apply almost the whole of
John 17 to herself as coming from her lips and heart (cf Autobiography, Story
of a Soul) when she was but 23 years old – then I know well that the Little
Pebble can make these words of Chapter 8 his own too. If Saint Paul can say
(in his letter to the Galatians) – "It is no longer I who live, it is
Christ who lives in me" (Gal. 2:19-20) then I know as well that all of us
– especially the Little Pebble – can say these sacred words with Saint
Paul and all the Saints -- as coming from our own hearts.
