QueHacer.wiki

A Defense of Fr. Michel Rodrigue: Calling for Truth and Unity in Discernment

Addendum

Felipe Pérez Martí

March 2026.

Foreword

I added this to the list of witnesses in my step before going  public,  applying Mt 18:15-17: 

Hi again, everybody.

I did not know that Christine Watkins is no longer part of CDTK, nor that she and Peter Bannister left the site. If you don’t mind, I would love to have his email in order to add him as a witness.

Since you have not responded, I now wonder if Mark and Daniel maintain the same opinion that Mark gave me at the beginning of this conversation, on July 24, 2023, when I started to apply Mt 18:15-17. I gave him the game theoretical interpretation for a change of prophecies. Then he answered:

“Dear Felipe,

Warm greetings. Thanks for your hypothesis. But really, it is just that. It is speculation. One can just as easily speculate that Fr. Michel simply produced thoughts or imaginings of his own accord, or was influenced demonically without him knowing. These two are possibilities, especially since there were other more minute technical details that were completely wrong. For instance, Benedict was not wearing the shepherd’s ring as Fr. Michel claimed. Did God the Father not know that?

The only thing one can really do with such a prophecy is set it aside. Since it can’t come about, it’s impossible to verify, and your hypothesis will always remain as such until we find out the truth in heaven.

There were other questions we had surrounding this good priest, and all things combined led us to have to exclude him from the website. It does not make him a false prophet, but does make him an uncertain one, and when you’re running a website like ours, it opens a can of worms to continue keeping a prophet with a failed prophecy of that significance on the website.

I have said before that it would’ve been much better, if not more prudent, in my opinion, to have kept such a prophecy in private, and not exposed it to any public groups. Because such specific predictions, like that, if they do not come to pass, tend to cast a shadow upon the entire body of work. It truly is very unfortunate.

Finally, Saint Paul commands us to test prophecy. The most basic test is whether it can come about or not. If every time a prophecy fails and we simply pardon it as God’s ‘game’, then we can pretty much argue away every failed prophecy from here on in, and testing prophecy becomes a moot exercise.

God bless you!”

So, if some of you consider the reasoning in Section 2 to be mere “speculation” or an ad hoc excuse, I address the key points raised in this email directly, in the context of my document, in the spirit of truth, charity, and rigorous discernment.

1. “It is just speculation” vs. Coherent Counterexample and Theological Precedent

It is a basic principle in mathematics and formal logic: if someone claims to have proven a universal proposition (“This prophecy failed definitively”), a single coherent counterexample is sufficient to invalidate the claim. The burden of proof then shifts back to the original claimant. This is precisely the situation with Countdown to the Kingdom’s statement. And that is why I offered the alternative explanation of the prophecy and its change: a counterexample which, using pure logic, invalidates the alleged “proof.” It demonstrates that the proposition is false. Notice again: only one valid example is enough. No more “speculation” is needed.

CDTK’s implicit proposition is:

“The 2019 prophecy of Fr. Michel Rodrigue regarding the martyrdom of Pope Francis, the subsequent intervention and martyrdom of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI (still wearing his papal ring), and the convening of a council did not occur as described; therefore it constitutes a clear and final ‘prophetic miss’ that discredits the seer.”

My alternative hypothesis functions as a rigorous counterexample that fully accounts for all observed facts without requiring any failure on Fr. Michel’s part:

The prophecy, as received from Heaven, was conditional and contingent upon human free will, the intensity of sin within the Church hierarchy, and the response of the faithful in prayer and reparation. God the Father Himself explicitly told Fr. Michel three days before Benedict’s death (late December 2022): “Pope Benedict will not go beyond this year.” This was not a contradiction, but the merciful update of the original message — exactly as occurred with Jonah and Nineveh (Jonah 3:10) and as the Lord Himself explains in Jeremiah 18:7-10:

“If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation… turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it.” The same principle applies to the Third Secret of Fatima (a vision of a pope being martyred that was mitigated through prayer and the consecration of Russia). Private revelations are not usually absolute predictions of the future; they are warnings and calls to conversion (CCC 67). When the faithful pray, Heaven can — and often does — change the timeline or the modality of fulfillment.

In this case, intense prayer (especially by Benedict, Francis, and many souls) during the Synod on Synodality thwarted the worst scenario: the deliberate attack on the Eucharist by false ecumenism and doctrinal dilution. The “bad side” (Masonic-influenced forces and the hidden Antichrist) had the numerical and organizational advantage, yet a “good Pope” (Leo XIV) was elected and the core of the Faith was preserved. This outcome is humanly inexplicable — it required divine intervention, precisely the kind of miracle that private revelations often describe as possible through prayer.

Thus, the original prophecy was not “false”; it was mercifully modified or postponed by the very mechanism Fr. Michel has always emphasized: the power of prayer and reparation. The martyrdoms did not occur because God, in His mercy, heard the cries of His people and granted a reprieve — just as He did with Nineveh.

This single coherent counterexample completely invalidates CDTK’s claim of a “prophetic miss.” Their conclusion fails the most basic test of logic: they assumed an unconditional, literal, and non-contingent interpretation that private revelations never possess. Once the conditionality and the power of prayer are taken into account (as Fr. Michel himself clarified in multiple interviews), every element of the original message finds its place in the new providential scenario.

2. Natural and social sciences approach: beyond pure logic

Even if we leave pure logic aside and apply the standards of the natural and social sciences (which CDTK implicitly claims to follow when they speak of “testing” prophecies), their conclusion collapses entirely.

In scientific hypothesis testing, the null hypothesis (H₀: “The prophecy is credible and consistent with the data”) can only be rejected when the evidence against it exceeds a pre-established significance level — usually α = 0.05 (5 % probability of Type I error, i.e., falsely rejecting a true prophecy). This requires:

• a sufficiently large and representative sample,
• clear operational criteria,
• controls for confounding variables (especially the conditional nature of private revelations), and
• explicit acknowledgment of the margin of error.

Countdown to the Kingdom’s “test” meets none of these requirements. They examine a single event (Pope Benedict’s peaceful death), apply an absolutist and non-conditional interpretation, set α = 0 % (zero tolerance for any divergence), and declare the entire prophetic corpus on this topic invalid. This is not science; it is not even rigorous amateur analysis. It is the statistical equivalent of rejecting a medical treatment after one patient recovers differently than predicted, without any control group or confidence interval.

Their “proof” of a prophetic miss therefore fails both logical standards (one valid counterexample suffices) and basic scientific standards (no sample, no α, no controls). The burden of proof remains entirely on them — and they have provided nothing that would survive peer review in any academic journal.

Since we have the privilege of members in the prophetic community who maintain direct contact with Heaven, we should do far better than secular academic journals, which rely solely on human reason without the light of infused knowledge. Don’t you think so? The true keys are Love and Humility: when rivalry, pride, or competition enter the picture, we fail and end up performing worse than ordinary human scholarship alone.

It turns out that setting α = 0 % effectively abandons statistical inference and reverts the argument to a deterministic, mathematical-style proof. The reason is that it treats the single observed event as if it represented the entire population of possible evidence. In such a deterministic framework —where the accuser claims to have considered all relevant facts and still finds the accused guilty— there is no room for error or doubt. Therefore, the same logical principle applies here as in pure mathematics: a single coherent counterexample (such as the one offered in Section 2) is sufficient to invalidate the universal proposition that Fr. Michel’s prophecy is definitively false.

3. Conclusions and further details

The alternative interpretation is, then, a coherent counterexample to CDTK's universal claim of failure (as detailed in Section 2). It rests on established Catholic teaching: private revelations are conditional (CCC 67), often modified by prayer (Jonah 3:10; Jeremiah 18:7-10), and can be mitigated through intercession (as with the Third Secret of Fatima, where martyrdom was averted or postponed). This is not "God's game"; it is God's mercy responding to human response — a principle explicitly taught in Scripture and Tradition. Dismissing it as "speculation" ignores these precedents and shifts the burden unfairly.

3.1 Alternative Explanations (Imagination or Demonic Influence)

Mr. Mallett rightly notes these as logical possibilities — but they apply equally to any private revelation, including those CDTK continues to publish. The proper response is discernment by fruits (Mt 7:16–20), alignment with Church teaching, and verification through witnesses (as Xavier Reyes-Ayral has done repeatedly). Fr. Michel's fruits — conversions, deepened prayer life, preparation for the Warning — remain abundant. To invoke demonic influence without evidence risks rash judgment (CCC 2478).

3.2. The "Minute Technical Detail" of the Papal Ring

As addressed in Section 4, the most logical assumption is that the issue of the papal ring was not core to the prophecy; it was a human commentary by Fr. Michel intended to underscore the plausibility of Benedict stepping back into an active role ("Benedict still wears his papal ring"). Even if factually incorrect —Benedict wore a bishop’s ring after his resignation— this is a peripheral error, not a prophetic failure. Prophets are not infallible in ancillary details (e.g., Jonah’s anger after Nineveh’s repentance did not invalidate God’s word through him). God the Father “knew” the detail, but the message focused on spiritual realities, not forensic accuracy.

It is odd that I have been unable to locate the original video containing this comment. If it has been removed or suppressed across platforms, it may explain why so many concluded there was a clear “prophetic miss” here. This would lend support to my theory that a straw man fallacy has been used—intentionally or not—to discredit Fr. Michel. In this case, with Fr. Michel potentially serving as Heaven’s main prophet and “puzzle solver” for these times, such a tactic would be truly devilish, as it risks silencing or obstructing the principal messages from Heaven to us in these urgent days.

Just imagine the tremendous responsibility we all bear regarding possible “prophetic analysis misses.” When we rush to judgment on peripheral details or fail to account for conditionality and mercy, we may unwittingly become instruments of division rather than unity. This calls for greater humility, charity, and prayerful discernment from all of us.

3.3. "Set it aside" Because It "Can't Come About" and Is Unverifiable

The prophecy could have come about — and nearly did, given the Synod's trajectory toward potential Eucharistic dilution. Its non-fulfillment in literal form is evidence of divine mercy, not impossibility. Verification is not only eschatological; it occurs through convergence with other prophecies (Fátima, Garabandal, etc.) and ongoing fruits. Setting it aside entirely ignores St. Paul's fuller command: "Test everything; hold fast what is good" (1 Thess 5:21) — which includes positive discernment, not just elimination.

3.4. The Risk of "Arguing Away Every Failed Prophecy"

This is a valid concern — but the safeguard is rigorous criteria: fruits, Church alignment, witness testimony, and avoidance of rash judgment. CDTK's approach (zero tolerance after one divergence) risks the opposite extreme: dismissing authentic voices prematurely. If every conditional prophecy modified by mercy is labeled "failed," we risk rejecting Jonah-like warnings that Heaven intends precisely to avert disaster.

3.5 In summary

The hypothesis in Section 2 is not speculation; it is a theologically grounded, logically valid explanation consistent with Catholic doctrine on private revelation. Dismissing it without engaging its merits — while acknowledging Fr. Michel as a "good priest" with positive fruits — appears inconsistent. As Catholics, we are called to test prophecy charitably and rigorously (1 Thess 5:19–21; CCC 67), not to exclude voices based on a single interpretive lens.

4. What is the way to proceed?

To look for the truth and for union, with love, not competition or rivalries dictating our behavior. Saint Paul teaches us exactly this when he describes the Church as the Body of Christ:

“For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. […] If the foot should say, ‘Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,’ that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, ‘Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,’ that would not make it any less a part of the body. […] The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you,’ nor again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you.’ […] If one member suffers, all suffer together with it; if one member is honored, all rejoice together with it. Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.” (1 Corinthians 12:12-27)

Each one of us has a different role — the brain, the arms, the legs, the heart — but we all belong to the same Body. Only in this unity of truth and charity can we fulfill God’s plan in these urgent times.

I remain open to dialogue. In particular, I stand ready and willing to be corrected if I have failed, in full or in part. If this addendum prompts reconsideration, or if further clarification on my part is desired, I am available and willing to make corrections.

But I don’t have to appear in the picture anymore if you contact Fr. Michel directly to settle this matter — which was the original intent of this attempt at mediation on my part. May the Holy Spirit guide us all toward truth, unity, and charity in these urgent times.

Felipe Pérez Martí

March 16, 2026