PETITION
AGAINST THE ECCLESIASTICAL RECOGNITION OF
THE "APPARITIONS" AND "MESSAGES"
TO IDA PEERDEMAN IN AMSTERDAM
BY BISHOP PUNT OF THE NETHERLANDS
1. Objections
against Bishop Punt's Methodology
A. According
to the Criterion of the Holy Office (Card. Seper 1978), the facts of any case
have to be examined thoroughly beforehand.
B. This was
done repeatedly by several former bishops of Haarlem, always with a clear,
negative result.
C. This was
always confirmed by Rome. In the text of 25.08.1961 (prot. nr.511/53) the Holy
Office writes: "that the whole matter is closed and there is no room for
further action". See, amongst others, the texts of the Holy Office of 24.05.1972,
25.05.1974 and 26.04.1987).
D. Under the
influence of Bishop Hnilica, who has been involved with the propagation of a
number of non-recognised and even condemned "alleged apparitions,"
i.e., Teresa Lopez, of Denver, also Vassula Ryden, and Medjugorje) and Rev.
Father P. Klos (now suspended by Cardinal Simonis and revoked by his s.s.s.
order), the public devotion to Mary under the title "Lady of all
Nations" was authorised by Bishop Bomers and assistant Bishop Punt on
31.05.1996. At this time a distinction was expressly made between the title and
the "apparitions' and "messages". No judgment was passed about
the supernatural character of the "apparitions" and the contents of
"the messages".
E. On
30.05.1998, Bishop Punt of Haarlem declared that as a baby he was dedicated to
the "Lady of all Nations" by his mother.
F. On
31.05.1998, Bishop Bomers declared that, together with Bishop Punt, he had, in
virtue of the alleged "fruits" of Amsterdam, decided to create a
commission whose task was to amass and study ALL testimonies concerning the
"Lady of all Nations".
G. On
09.09.1998, Bishop Bomers repeated to me orally (3 days before his death) what
he had already written to me on 22.05.1998: "I have NOT recognized any
celestial "apparitions" or "messages".
H. In my
letter of 10.03.1999 to Bishop Punt, at that time apostolic administrator of
Haarlem, I requested that I be heard by the commission of inquiry about
Amsterdam.
I. On
23.05.1999, Bishop Punt declared there will be no inquiry about the
authenticity of the "apparitions". It only is a question of making an
inventory of the "fruits"...
J. In my
letter of 01.10.1999, I expressed my surprise about the fact that Bishop Punt
was not interested in an inquiry concerning the authenticity of the
"apparitions" of Amsterdam. I again proposed that I be heard by his
"fruits-inquiring-commission".
K. On
26.10.1999, Bishop Punt answered that, when his commission would be installed
he would not object in any way to my being heard. He also wrote that the
question about the authenticity could not be answered WITHOUT Rome.
L. On
31.05.2002, Bishop Punt suddenly declared the origin of the
"apparitions" of Amsterdam to be supernatural.
Conclusion.
Bishop Punt has NOT been loyal to the utterances of previous bishops and towards
Rome. He REFUSED to start a commission of inquiry concerning the authenticity.
He did NOT keep his word to let me testify.
2. Objections
against the Required Marian Dogma
A. In his
statement of 31.05.2002, Bishop Punt wrote that a private revelation is never
compulsory. He forgets that the "Lady of all Nations" CLAIMED a fifth
dogma at Amsterdam, that is Mary as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate. A
dogma once accepted and promoted by the Church is a doctrinal point and NOT
something about which Catholics are free to decide.
B. In the
Bible we read that Christ is the ONLY 'intercessor (Jn 14,6; 1 Tim 2,5)
C. In the
second Vatican Council the title Co-Redeemer was NOT used as regards Mary (cf.
Lumen Gentium 62).
D. In august
1996 the 12th International Marian Congress was held in Czestochowa, Poland. At
the request of the Holy See the titles for a possible 5th Marian dogma were
theologically examined. A NEGATIVE conclusion was published in the
"Osservatore Romano" of 04.06.1997.
E. On
18.08.1997, the spokesman for the Holy See, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, declared
that the Pope would NOT be promulgating any new dogma involving Mary as
"Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate."
CONCLUSION.
The humble Virgin Mary of the GOSPEL would never claim new, dubious titles of
honour for herself. So the "Lady of all Nations" must be ANOTHER
entity.
3. Objection
against the PICTURE/PAINTING of the Lady of Amsterdam
The "Lady
of all Nations" is pictured standing on a globe in front of the Cross,
thus taking the place of the God-man Jesus.
CONCLUSION:
The human being Mary can never be put on the same level as her DIVINE Son.
Besides, the Christ on the Cross has disappeared, with the Lady of Amsterdam
taking His place. Theologically such a thing is impossible.
4. Objections
against the Prayer of the "Lady of All Nations."
In this prayer
Mary is called the "Lady of all Nations who.. .once WAS Mary."
CONCLUSION.
After twenty centuries we cannot accept that the Biblical Mary should be
replaced by a substitute.
5. Objections
against the Messages of Amsterdam
A. The
"Lady" said that Pope Pius XII would, before his death, proclaim the
dogma asked for ("message" of 31.05.1954). Yet this did NOT happen.
B. The
"Lady" said that the successor of Pius XII would proclaim the dogma
("message" of 19.02.1958). Pope John XXIII REFUSED to do so.
C. The
"Lady" said Ida Peerdeman's bishop (at that time bishop Huibers)
would give his consent to build the church the "Lady" had shown to
Ida. ("message" of 31.05.1954). This did NOT happen.
D. On
29.03.1946, the "Lady" clenched her FIST. On 10.12.1950 the
"Lady" obliged Ida to clench her FIST and it is as if the
"Lady" herself banged on the table with her fist. (the humble Virgin
as a rebellious feminist?)
E. The
"Lady" says: "In Manchuria a terrible insurrection will break
out ("message" of 10.12.1950)
F. The
"Lady" says: "The Oder is red with blood" (idem)
G. In the new
church to be built, the "Lady" shows Ida the altar of the "Lady
of all Nations," which must be on the SAME height as the main altar
("message" of 20.03.1953).
CONCLUSION.
Those are only a few examples of the so-called "messages" of
Amsterdam which are sensational, and full of absurd things and false
predictions.
6. Objections
against Ida Peerdeman's personality
A. From testimonies
collected during the long period during which she worked for the firm Boldoot
it seems Ida Peerdeman behaved in a rather egocentric and pretentious way
rather than with humility. She demanded to be treated with all respect BECAUSE
she had been chosen by heaven to be a seer. Sometimes she remained absent from
her work because she expected an "apparition" of the
"Lady". Because of her unpredictable and arrogant behaviour she was
finally dismissed. In 1946 Ida's employer died. In Mr. Boldoot's inheritance
was found a first version of the "messages" to Ida, called the
"Boldoot Visions". In a later version - the notorious "Blue
Booklet" - changes had been made. Also some striking out had been used.
Perhaps this was because some of the first visions contained too much nonsense.
Amongst other points, it is said the "Lady of all Nations" made a
movement suggesting she will undress herself (07.10.1945). Also there is the
example of Ida allegedly seeing the bellicose General von Hentsz appear; or
saying that the Dutch Government must keep its power in Dutch India; or that
under the reign of king Leopold, Belgium would split, etc...
B. Ida
Peerdeman had her own contact person in the Vatican, namely the Dutch priest,
Mgr. Van Lierde who, for a long time had officiated as the Pope's sexton. This
Mgr. Van Lierde was well known for his contacts with a number of alleged
"seers." He even entered into a mystical marriage with the Canadian
Marie-Paule Gigučre, who founded "Mary's Army" after she had left
"The Legion of Mary". Her movement was forbidden by the Canadian
Bishops' conference in 1987. At the same time the DEVOTION and the PRAYER of
the "LADY OF ALL NATIONS" WAS FORBIDDEN (cf. Canon 839, par. 2).
In an
enthusiastic letter to Mgr. Van Lierde, Ida Peerdeman wrote about this FALSE
seer Marie-Paule: "Who is this woman? A second Catherine of Siena? A
second Joan of Arc? Does Church history already know someone like her? We think
she is unique. I even go as far as to assert that she is the INCARNATION of the
Holy Virgin Mary. In an extraordinary way she is the Co-Redeemer, the Mediator,
the Advocate, the Lady of all Nations."
So WHO is
Marie-Paule Gigučre in fact? Answer: a divorced woman with five children who
concocted 6.000 pages of "messages". A few examples of her
"Messages of Jesus":
"You are
a Doctor of the Church" (book 7 p.155); "You will be the first person
to be canonized during her life" (book I p.199); "You are another
Mary" (book 14 p.78); "You are Co-Redeemer," (book 13 p.76);
"I will make you a priest" (book II p.227); "Your son Peter will
be the great pope of peace" (book I p.327). In book 13 p. 46, Mgr. Van
Lierde is even offered the papacy, which he "humbly" accepts. And in
book 8, p.39, Jesus says about Marie-Paule: "Whoever kisses your photo
will be instantaneously cured". In book 7, p.348, Marie-Paule say about
herself:" I shall crush the serpent's head"!!! Absolutely mad!
So nobody will
be surprised to hear it is THROUGH Mgr. Van Lierde's intercession that
"Mary's Army" was first officially recognized in 1975 by a canonical
decree of the Archbishop Roy of Quebec. Happily his successor, Bishop Vachon
DISSOLVED and FORBADE this community, but only after a period of twelve years.
CONCLUSION.
What can we say about bishop Punt's strange recognition of Amsterdam? Will it
also take twelve years before common sense gets the upper hand again in our
chaotic Catholic Church?
7. Objections
against the Propagandists of Amsterdam
Many
supporters of the "Lady of all Nations" also run after all kinds of
other unrecognized "apparitions". Apparently they are NOT necessarily
interested in the contents, but rather are victims of a sadly typical attitude
of mind: a sense of frustration caused by the widespread modernism found in the
Church; an aversion to the changes which have taken place since the second
Vatican Council, combined with nostalgia for the pre-conciliar period. They can
also be said to exhibit a desire for the sensational, in which they accept
without any discernment all sorts of contradictory messages, in ignorance of
warnings from great saints, such as the Doctor of the Church, St. John of the
Cross, who warned against FALSE "apparitions", and excessive naivety
in these matters
The background
of some of the promoters of Amsterdam is questionable:
A. Father
Klos, s.s.s. In 1994 he started a new magazine "Queen of Prophets",
which was allied with the foundation "Vox Populi". Therein he
propagated amongst other things, Amsterdam and the fifth Marian dogma, even
going against the will of Ida Peerdeman herself. He also supported Medjugorje,
Vassula Ryden, etc. Later on he clashed with Cardinal Simonis and was
eventually suspended and dismissed from his order (s.s.s.)
B. Bishop
Hnilica. In 1993 he was condemned by a Roman Court to 3.5 years of imprisonment
regarding the Banco Ambrosiano affair, and the murder of one of its directors,
Calvi. Later on he was acquitted of these charges . He travels all over the
world to stimulate many types of alleged "apparitions". In 1997 he
started a new magazine, the luxuriously edited "Triumph of the
Heart", which especially propagated Amsterdam. Together with his
community, "The Family of Mary" and his associate Father P. Sigl, he
even succeeded in infiltrating the house and chapel of Ida Peerdeman.
CONCLUSION.
There are serious questions about some of the people supporting the "Lady
of all Nations" movement.
8. Objections
against the manipulations involving Amsterdam.
A. In 1997
Bishop Hnilica, with the consent of both Bishop Bomers and Bishop Punt,
organized the first international conference in Amsterdam There he maintained
that the "messages" of Amsterdam contained the third secret of
Fatima. His assistant Fr. Sigl declared the "messages" of Amsterdam
to be authentic, but at the same time said he did not want to anticipate the
judgment of the Church...
B. During the
second Amsterdam meeting in 1998 a letter, signed by the Prioress of the
Coimbra Carmel, was read, in which she joined with the prayers in Amsterdam.
This was applauded. It was interpreted as Sister Lucia of Fatima's approval of
the "apparitions" in Amsterdam Yet later on (on 21.12.1998) the same
Prioress wrote "that somebody from Amsterdam had begged her to send such a
letter and that Sister Lucia was NOT making any statements about Amsterdam, about
which she scarcely knew anything.
C. During the
third meeting in Adam in 1999 a group which PRETENDED to be members of the
Austrian "Blue Army" of Fatima handed over two statues of the
Amsterdam "Lady" (having similar features as Our Lady of Fatima) to
Bishop Punt with the request that he crown them with a little crown
"blessed" by the Pope. Apparently the Pope did not actually bless
these crowns for that specific purpose. The International Secretariat of the
World Apostolate of Fatima let me know later on that they had NO section of the
Blue Army in Austria, and that their so-called leader, Fernando Andreotta was
unknown to them. Before this, the management of the Fatima Apostolate in the
Netherlands had expressly asked bishop Punt NOT to misuse the name of Fatima
during the Amsterdam manifestation.
D. After the
fourth Amsterdam conference in 2000, it was said that a fifth one would NOT be
organized. Yet in 2001, the international conferences were replaced by a
multiple national Amsterdam meetings in many separate countries, thus allowing
people to be further manipulated.
CONCLUSION.
Even before 31.05.2002, the impression was given that the NON-recognized
Amsterdam "apparitions" had the same standard as the recognized, real
apparitions in Fatima. It appears that the various "fruits"
Amsterdam, which were promoted by Bishop Hnilica, were WRONGLY understood by
Bishop Punt.
FINAL
CONCLUSION. Bishop Punt made a serious error in recognizing the Amsterdam
"apparitions". He has ignored the well-founded negative judgments of
all his predecessors and Rome. In doing this it can be argued that he has
created much future trouble for the Church, and also that he has acted in a
subjective, imprudent, and even irresponsible way.
In the name of
those many faithful Catholics of common sense and a still healthy Biblical
Marian devotion, I urgently ask for:
1) the
ANNULMENT of Bishop Punt's recognition (31.05.2002) of the
"apparitions" in Amsterdam.
2) the
ANNULMENT of the recognition (31.05.1996) of the public devotion (title,
picture, painting, prayer).
My only aim is
to serve the truth and the Catholic Church.
Mark
Waterinckx
Feast of Mary,
Queen - 22.08.2002