QueHacer.wiki

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

Felipe Pérez Martí

February, 2026.

Summary

This document is structured as follows:

First, an alternative explanation that preserves Fr. Michel's credibility and the prophecies related to Popes Benedict and Francis, including the change through prayer.

Then, the issues of the Katechon and the papal ring, two more alleged “prophetic misses.”

Then, an examination of hypothesis testing, showing that even basic secular standards were not met by CDTK.

Finally, I mention that, in my view, CDTK has contributed to a straw man fallacy effect among the lay faithful, disqualifying Fr. Michel, and conclude with reflections on truth, charity, and unity in the Church during these apocalyptic times.

The solution is unity and truth, not division, lies, or fallacies. There is no room for being tepid here (Rev 3:15–16). Let us act fast and effectively. A mediator accepted by both sides is advisable.

1. Introduction

After Pope Benedict XVI's death on December 31, 2022, many prophecy-distributing sites disqualified Fr. Michel Rodrigue, viewing his original prophecy as unfulfilled. Most denounced him as a false prophet without contacting him. As Catholics, we must test private revelations rigorously—but also charitably. Truth sets us free, and charity demands fairness (Mt 18:15–17; CCC 2478). Let us examine a prominent example: Countdown to the Kingdom (CDTK), whose editors (Christine Watkins, Daniel O’Connor, and Mark Mallet) are among the most respected Catholic prophetic analysts.

In their statement (ref 1), CDTK writes (This quote is from a transcription of Fr. Michel's 2019 retreat talk, not a standalone written prophecy):

“Dear readers, With the passing of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, one of Fr. Michel Rodrigue’s prophecies did not occur, which refers to Benedict’s martyrdom following the devastation of Rome:

“The Antichrist is in the hierarchy of the Church right now, and he has always wanted to sit in the Chair of Peter. Pope Francis will be like Peter, the apostle. He will realize his errors and try to gather the Church back under the authority of Christ, but he will not be able to do so. He will be martyred. Pope Emeritus, Benedict XVI, who still wears his papal ring, will step in to convene a council, attempting to save the Church. I saw him, weak and frail, held up on either side by two Swiss guards, fleeing Rome with devastation all around. He went into hiding, but then was found. I saw his martyrdom.” —Fr. Michel Rodrigue

And they conclude stating: “This was a clear “prophetic miss”

They claim outreach: “We did reach out immediately... but received no response... Without a comment by Fr. Michel, we were compelled to remove his prophecies... since it was a significant ‘prophetic miss,’ including some factual errors.”

But three days before Benedict's death, God the Father told Fr. Michel: “Pope Benedict will not go beyond this year.” (Late December 2022, around December 28.) Fr. Michel shared this in a sermon at Mass to his Confraternity and community. Xavier Reyes-Ayral verified it personally in Quebec, interviewing Fr. Michel, friars from the Confraternity of St. Benoit Joseph Labre, and attendees (ref 3 for Xavier's diligence and report).

CDTK and others did not follow the basic requirements in these cases for Catholics, Mt 18:15–17: private correction first, then witnesses, then public if needed. They gave no fair chance to explain.

Fr. Michel receives thousands of emails/letters (filling a room) and is very busy. Why expect priority? He is humble and responds when approached properly (Reyes-Ayral's visit, podcasters). CDTK had better channels (Xavier's public dialogue proposal; Brother Philippe of the Confraternity; Dr. Christine Bacon, friend of CDTK's Christine Watkins). Why not use them charitably? Fr. Michel has explained humbly in podcasts, including Dr. Christine Bacon's (See ref 12). There is no excuse to bypass Jesus' instruction.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) 2478 fully explains the doctrine of the Church on these matters, demanding charity: “To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way...” (St. Ignatius of Loyola).

Even secular standards fail: no due process, no defense. CDTK acted as judge without fairness.

I contacted Mark Mallet several times by email to facilitate a conversation with Fr. Michel and seek agreement. He responded once to convey a revised statement on Fr. Michel, but it did not do justice, as I will show here. I have applied Catholic criteria here as a brother, and I now give CDTK a final opportunity to correct before “telling it to the Church” and going public on the matter. At this stage, I include two additional witnesses: Christine Watkins and Daniel O’Connor, besides Marti McCullough and Xavier Ayral. Since I do not have Christine Bacon’s email address, I kindly ask Christine Watkins to please forward this to her, as I am sure she would be an excellent witness too. I can retract, apologize, or remove this document if proven wrong—the ball is in your court, and this is the final opportunity before I go public. This is a serious matter, by all means, as all of us realize.

In this document, I debunk CDTK's "prophetic miss" claims. I begin with an alternative explanation preserving Fr. Michel's credibility, especially the change via prayer of the faithful. I conclude that Fr. Michel is not only credible—he is Heaven's designated "puzzle solver" for these times, uniquely graced to discern and interpret the messages of other prophets. Because of that, we should regard him not merely as a true prophet, but as the main “apostle of the end times,” as Our Lady has described those called to engage with prophecies in our era—both visionaries who receive direct messages from Heaven and communicators who share them to serve God's Will.

We should judge people by their fruits (Mt 7:16–20: “By their fruits you will know them”). CDTK acknowledges Fr. Michel's abundant good fruits and alignment with "prophetic consensus," yet they make a rash judgment against him in this case and commit grave mistakes in the process—not only procedural, but in conclusions.

It is noteworthy that CDTK attempts a similar role as Fr. Michel—discerning and synthesizing prophetic messages—yet without Heaven's explicit commission for such a task, as far as I know, and with serious judgment errors, as shown here. These errors are particularly grave when applied to the main prophet of these times. We must respect God and His Will in everything, especially regarding designated prophets and prophecies. I insist on the best solution to this impasse: working together, with Fr. Michel as an advisor (the main advisor, it is clear to me) for CDTK to improve their mission, returning it to the right path God wants. Division and lies come from the devil. Union and truth come from God. There is no middle ground in these apocalyptic times (Rev 3:15–16: “I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm... I will vomit you out of my mouth”). CDTK knows this.

2. An Alternative Hypothesis to Interpret the “Prophetic Miss” of Fr. Michel Rodrigue

In order to disprove CDTK's claim of a “prophetic miss,” I offer in this section an alternative view that preserves Fr. Michel's credibility.

As many know, certain cardinals, bishops, and priests have pushed for the Church to adapt to the world—the opposite of Jesus' mission to rescue humanity from paths leading to eternal condemnation. This is the history of salvation—through the cross and resurrection—applied to the world through the Church. We can rightly call those clergy who seek the easy way instead of Jesus' narrow gate Masonic-influenced infiltrators, intent on destroying the plan of salvation (as Fr. Stefano Gobbi warned in To the Priests, Our Lady's Beloved Sons, message #406; see ref 2).

The Synod on Synodality gave this bad side within the Church a great opportunity. Success would have meant the devil's triumph over the Church—contradicting Jesus' promise that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Mt 16:18). The Antichrist, alive and hidden (per credible prophets like Fr. Jim Blount, who has publicly testified that the Antichrist is a living world leader today; see ref 3), leads this side. Yet, as we will see, even the Antichrist with all his power has not prevailed against the Church.

At the Synod's start, Pope Francis—in good intentions to let the Holy Spirit act—appeared open to changes many feared could contradict Gospel, Magisterium, and Tradition. A crucial point is that the bad side wanted to weaken Eucharistic doctrine. During the Synod on Synodality and related processes (especially the German Synodal Way, 2019–2023), there were documented attempts and statements pushing in this direction. For example:

• The German Synodal Way proposed guidelines for Eucharistic sharing/intercommunion with non-Catholic spouses in mixed marriages (2018 draft, approved by German bishops but blocked by Vatican intervention in 2018–2019 for risking doctrinal confusion).
• Ecumenical events in 2021 saw Catholic and Protestant leaders share Communion, sparking legitimate complaints over the real presence of Jesus and true unity.
• Broader Synod discussions included calls for “better-written liturgies” (2024 final report) and greater ecumenical participation, with some theologians and bishops advocating inclusive practices that could dilute Catholic exclusivity (e.g., debates on shared Eucharist in interfaith contexts or rethinking transubstantiation language in favor of “symbolic” or “communal” emphases, as critiqued by Cardinal Müller and Bishop Schneider).

The Eucharist is the heart of the Church. The Body of Christ is the Church, and its heart is the Eucharist. Since the Antichrist wants to kill the Church, it is natural that his minions within the Church would seek to strike at the Eucharist through liturgical changes and false ecumenism, in which all religions (Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.) could “share the bread.” None of those religions accept that the consecrated host is the real Jesus in body, blood, soul, and divinity. The only way they could participate in “partaking of the bread” would be to alter the liturgy—changing Jesus' mandate for real consecration. Even if the Eucharist remains authentic (and non-Catholics receive without proper disposition), such practices promote a lack of faith in the Eucharist among the faithful.

Their objective with this false ecumenism was to strike at the Church's heart: the Eucharist, the core of the Body of Christ. If the heart dies, the body dies ipso facto. Fr. Michel warned about attacks on the Eucharist (e.g., abandonment or doctrinal weakening) as a trigger for the Warning and end-times events (God's Plan for Apocalyptic Times, ref 3).

Satan and his demons, with the Antichrist leading their human army of evil, know that destroying the Church is the main step to destroying humanity. The Church is the bastion Jesus established to save humanity. At the last stages of the “Century of the Devil” (see ref 7), destroying humanity would be easy once the Church is weakened, since the Church is God's instrument to save His most precious creation.

There was a moment when Pope Francis changed course, confronting harmful tendencies—for example, his 2023 warnings to the German Synodal Way against schism-like reforms (cautioning that proposals on women's ordination and blessing same-sex unions risked doctrinal confusion and division), and re-emphasizing Eucharistic centrality in Synod documents. The prophecies predicted this realization and his attempt to gather the Church under Christ.

At that moment, the leaders of the bad side likely wanted to kill him (fulfilling martyrdom) to remove this obstacle and install an Antichrist on Peter's Chair, since they had enough worldly power to do so. This would have enabled not only "minor" changes but the huge one: abandonment of the Eucharist in favor of a "big win"—a unified religion with shared spirituality (a Global Church of the elites, really), losing all flavor and salt as Jesus warned about such behavior in His disciples (Mt 5:13).

If Pope Francis' martyrdom had occurred, with Pope Benedict alive and aware of the peril, the rest would have unfolded: Benedict would have left emeritus status, become an active pope (wearing a papal ring), convened a council to block the Antichrist with help from the good side in the spiritual battle within the Church. But as we know, the worldly forces of the bad side are more numerous. Benedict and his followers would not have been enough to confront them with physical strength alone; to protect his life and regroup, he could have fled Rome amid devastation (geopolitical war/invasion as Marie-Julie Jahenny predicted), hidden (held by Swiss guards due to frailty), been found, and martyred.

But none of that occurred. In fact, a good Pope was elected to replace Pope Francis after a natural death: Pope Leo XIV, contrary to predictions based on the superior number of Masonic-influenced forces within the cardinal body that elects the Pope (see ref 5).

From the point of view of political analysis using bilateral bargaining with private (asymmetric) information (ref 6, where I explain this game theory tool in detail), all of this would be unexplainable by worldly forces alone—it was a miracle. In this model, two sides bargain over an outcome (here, the papacy), but each has a private reservation price (the minimum outcome they are willing to accept; anything worse, they walk away) and private beliefs (probability distributions) about the opponent's reservation price. Information is asymmetric/private: one side may have better or more precise knowledge (e.g., hidden alliances, true candidate intentions, secret plans). This asymmetry can be embedded in the distributions—one party's beliefs may be more tightly centered (narrower spread) around the opponent's true reservation price, making their position more predictable and potentially exploitable.

The Nash equilibrium outcome (the stable result where neither side wants to change strategy) typically falls somewhere between the two reservation prices, closer to the side with greater bargaining power (more votes, better information, stronger organization). In simple cases with uniform distributions, it splits the difference roughly in the middle.

Yet the Masonic-influenced cardinals, despite their advantage in numbers, organization, and hidden information, could not force their preferred candidate or fundamental changes—especially on the crucial issue of the Eucharist.

As it becomes necessary to abandon purely natural explanations for the outcome, it is clear that God intervened directly, using spiritual forces to thwart the plan through the faithful's prayers—especially those of Benedict (aiding St. Joseph as Katechon) and Francis (realizing errors and fervently seeking the Holy Spirit).

Over time, in that process of political and spiritual struggle, the Synod lost momentum; no major changes struck at the Church's core doctrines (despite some questionable appointments to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, which oversees private revelations). Pope Francis confronted harmful tendencies but was protected—no martyrdom. Thus, both popes' martyrdoms and the full scenario were avoided or postponed.

Some conservative voices in the Church believe the process caused huge damage and blame the Popes—including Pope Leo XIV. But they do not fully account for the circumstances and the devil's influence: compared to what could have happened—especially regarding the Eucharist—given the relative political forces at the top, the changes against the Gospel, Tradition, and Magisterium have been remarkably minor.

It is true that questionable issues remain from Pope Francis' time (for example, retaining Cardinal Fernández in the key post of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, continued implementation of Fiducia Supplicans despite concerns, tolerance of the German Synodal Way's direction, and appointment of controversial bishops/cardinals). The Synod has lost most of its impulse under Pope Leo XIV; it has become entangled in procedural debates over what to discuss and how to conduct discussions (e.g., ongoing study groups released interim reports in late 2025 with extended deadlines, and 2026 consistories focused on discernment rather than radical implementation; the Ecclesial Assembly planned for 2028 remains affirmed but with limited momentum for sweeping reforms).

Even the naming of problematic bishops and retention of certain cardinals under Pope Leo XIV should be judged in this light: the political (and spiritual) forces of the Masonic side remain superior. They could have achieved far worse results for the Church.

From what I have explained about the forces confronted, what Pope Leo XIV has accomplished—with the help of the good spiritual forces at hand—is an “equilibrium” much closer to the good side than any prediction based on a two-sided private information bargaining process would suggest (ref 6). We are talking about a miracle, since this is not a Nash equilibrium: the only outcome predicted by worldly forces, when the negotiating power of the bad side is much greater than that of the good side. To aspire to an even better result (e.g., removing all problematic bishops and cardinals immediately) is unrealistic and misses the point: the definitive victory, the outcome of the entire war—not just individual battles—can only come through a global exorcism (the Warning and subsequent saving events leading to the Millennium of the Era of Peace).

In particular, the worst scenario in the war, by far, was avoided: "killing" the Eucharist, the Church's heart. After the Synod faded, Benedict's role shifted—God called him home peacefully (December 31, 2022). The bad side was thwarted or delayed. Let us not blame Pope Leo XIV, and continue praying for the Church and for the Warning.

Notice that with this interpretation, the revelations of the Third Secret of Fatima—which are very similar to Fr. Michel's original prophecy and implied martyrdom of a pope—would also have been avoided or postponed because of the prayers of the faithful (including Pope Benedict, Pope Francis, and Pope Leo XIV).

Now, let us remember that another prophecy revealed to Fr. Michel states that the abandonment of the Eucharist would be a trigger for the Warning. In order to avoid the killing of the Church (when the killing of the Eucharist would be imminent), God would intervene to rescue humanity, since Christ's coming guaranteed the rescuing of humanity through the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, after He died and defeated death by His Resurrection, keeping the Eucharist as the heart of the Church.

In this context, avoiding this trigger shifts the alternative—contemplated in Fr. Michel’s prophecy too—to the first nuclear bomb within a world war (see ref 1 for explanation). Under this interpretation, the abandonment of the Eucharist would come anyway, but after the Warning—and only partially: not for the faithful remnant.

In fact, after the Amnesty (the Reprieve), when the Great Tribulation begins and the Antichrist makes his public appearance (see ref 2). The religious Antichrist would sit on Peter's seat as a false pope, but just at that moment—when the Refuges are in place to protect the faithful remnant, as Arks of Noah for the deluge of fire coming with the Great Tribulation. The true pope (probably Pope Leo XIV) would be protected there, in the Refuges. But it is also possible that the true pope would be martyred, fulfilling the revelations of the Third Secret of Fatima. If the pope is saved, it would not mean the Third Secret is a failed prophecy—of course, just as in the case of Fr. Michel's prophecy discussed here: it would be changed by prayers to spare Pope Leo XIV from martyrdom. He would die a natural death, to be succeeded by the “Angelic Pope” mentioned by Marie-Julie Jahenny, helped by Henry V of the Cross, the Catholic Monarch.

In any case, Fr. Michel speaks of the Church being “dead” for three years (the duration of the Great Tribulation), like Jesus was dead for three days. It is important to note that, even if a true pope is not in place, the Eucharist would survive: within the churches at the Refuges, many priests would celebrate Mass and consecrate the host for that period of time.

As a concluding remark: even the election of Pope Leo XIV and what has happened so far with his papacy has been a defeat for the Masonic side. Some conservative analysts are disappointed with Pope Leo XIV and call him a sort of Pope Francis II, but they don’t contemplate the complexities of the papacy, which can be perceived with a political analysis using the “de facto” game described in the references for his election. The devil has a thousand ways to influence Vatican decisions, and we are still under the “Century of the Devil”: the Immaculate Heart of Mary has not completely triumphed—its definitive triumph will start at the Warning. Blaming the Pope for not triumphing over the devil assumes too much de facto power in the Pope and his side at the Vatican: only Our Holy Mother, with the help of the Katechon, St. Joseph, St. Michael, and all the army God the Father has given her, has such power, as it should be. And the tides of change have not yet begun: it is again with the Warning that the inflection point toward the defeat of the devil will start.

Let us put this again in perspective: as I have said, the Masons (with more cardinals and organizational strength, led by a single powerful force: the Antichrist himself) had more relative force—not only for the papal election but also for confrontation on issues of the Synod, hiding things from the Pope, etc. During Pope Francis, in the election of Pope Leo XIV, and after: they have a "bigger car" in the Game Theory example in the reference. The Pope would have been key to their desired changes. Yet they were unable to accomplish their goal, despite being well organized. What remains as the only reasonable interpretation? Christ defeated the Antichrist in this given instance through a miracle, a supernatural intervention to thwart the natural forces at play—supported by the prayers of the faithful. And for that outcome, the Katechon is key here—which leads us to our next topic, where CDTK also failed due to a narrow and false interpretation of the prophecies involved.

But please let us not judge Pope Leo XIV as if he has the power of our Holy Mother Mary to completely defeat the Antichrist and Satan and its devilish forces, both spiritual and human. He is maintaining the line as well as he can. Let us pray and trust in the Plan of God and His resources for enacting the inflection point, the Warning, and all the rest of what is coming.

3. The Katechon and St. Joseph

CDTK claims Fr. Michel errs in identifying St. Joseph as the Katechon (the “restrainer” in 2 Thessalonians 2:6–7). Their statement reads:

“Fr. Michel Rodrigue has claimed that St. Joseph is the Katechon (the restrainer in 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7). This is a theological interpretation that has no basis in Scripture, Tradition, or the Magisterium. The identity of the Katechon has been debated for centuries among Church Fathers and theologians, but it has never been definitively identified as St. Joseph. Presenting this as a revealed truth from Heaven exceeds the scope of private revelation and introduces a novel doctrine. This is another prophetic miss, further calling into question the reliability of Fr. Michel's messages.”

This judgment is narrow-minded and mistaken. On the contrary, St. Joseph is the most fitting candidate for the Katechon. And these are the times to give this truth through private revelation, in order to illuminate public revelations and the Tradition and Doctrine of the Church.

It is true that the restrainer’s identity has long been debated (e.g., the Roman Empire by some Church Fathers like St. Augustine, the Church itself, or divine grace by others). But none of these interpretations exclude St. Joseph—rather, they point toward him.

It is true that private revelation does not introduce new doctrines or contradict Tradition; its role is to illuminate public Revelation and help us live it more fully in our time (CCC 67). Fr. Michel’s message—received from the Archangel Gabriel—does exactly that: it lifts the veil on an obvious but long-overlooked truth. St. Gabriel, the messenger par excellence, removes the incredible veil that had blinded us. What is surprising is not the revelation itself, but why it took so long for us to see it clearly.

The Church itself has long been seen as one possible Katechon in Tradition, because it is the Mystical Body of Christ (CCC 787–796; CCC 792: “Christ ‘is the head of the body, the Church’” [quoting Col 1:18]). St. Joseph, as a key member of that Body, protected the physical Body of Jesus and the Holy Family from evil on earth. It is therefore fitting that he now protects the Mystical Body of Jesus—the Church—from Heaven. In a broader devotional sense, we can also see the Church as the mystical body of the Holy Family, since Christ is the Head, Mary is the Mother of all members, and St. Joseph is the universal protector and patron of the Church (Leo XIII, Quamquam Pluries). Just as St. Joseph guarded the Child Jesus and His Mother Mary from Herod's wrath, he now guards the Church—his extended family—from the forces of evil in these final times. In this light, the Katechon (2 Thess 2:6–7) can be understood as the protective action of the Holy Family, especially through St. Joseph, restraining the mystery of iniquity until God's appointed hour.

Church teaching confirms this guardianship:

• Pope Francis – Apostolic Letter Patris Corde (8 December 2020):
• “In the Gospels, Joseph is consistently presented as the guardian of the Virgin Mary and the Child Jesus… Thus, the fact that Joseph’s task is to protect Jesus and Mary stands out. He is their principal guardian… In this sense, Saint Joseph could not be other than the Guardian of the Church, for the Church is the continuation of the Body of Christ in history, even as Mary’s motherhood is reflected in the motherhood of the Church… Just as Joseph protected the Holy Family, so too he continues to love and protect the Body of Christ, which is the Church.”
• Pope St. John Paul II – Apostolic Exhortation Redemptoris Custos (15 August 1989):
• Joseph “took loving care of Mary and gladly dedicated himself to Jesus Christ's upbringing, he likewise watches over and protects Christ's Mystical Body, the Church” (n. 1).

These statements show Joseph’s role extends from the earthly Holy Family to the Church today. No further proof is needed to see that CDTK’s dismissal is incorrect, but additional points, which are useful for all of the faithful, make the fit even clearer:

St. Joseph died before Jesus began His public ministry and before the Crucifixion. He was already in Heaven when the Church was born at Pentecost. In a way, this was his first “Katechon” role: he defended Jesus and Mary from the devil before that time. After his death, Jesus, Mary, the Apostles, and the angels took up the fight against the devil and his minions (small antichrists). Jesus Himself died at the end because of the devil’s forces, remained dead three days, and then rose—triumphing over evil.

Similarly, St. Joseph’s role as Katechon in these end times would cease before the “death” of the Church during the three years of the Great Tribulation—under the reign of the false pope (Antipope) outside the Refuges (see ref 2). At the end, the Church would triumph with the “Resurrection” of humanity in the Era of Peace. Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart would play a key role during the time the Katechon is not active, aided by St. Michael the Archangel and human helpers (the Angel of Peace and Henry V of the Cross, the Great Monarch, according to Marie-Julie Jahenny).

In the Refuges, the Antichrist and Satan would be completely restrained; outside, they would act openly. The forces of good—Our Lady, St. Michael and the angels, the Great Monarch Henry V of the Cross and his armies—would fight and ultimately defeat them, especially during the Three Days of Darkness. St. Joseph would continue assisting Mary in the Refuges, helping restrain evil in protected areas, even after his primary restraining role ends.

This subtle timing avoids rigid literalism. CDTK’s interpretation is too narrow. As far as I know, CDTK accepts that the Antichrist is already present but hidden (per Fr. Jim Blount and Luz de María, who says he assumed private control on October 2, 2025). The Katechon's role would end when the Antichrist goes public—after the Warning, before the Angel of Peace appears openly (per Luz de María). The prophecy fits Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium.

Notice that in this narrative, St. Joseph works alongside his wife, Our Lady, just as he did 2000 years ago. Her Immaculate Heart’s Triumph (see ref 1) needs helpers: St. Michael and the heavenly hosts, and St. Joseph in a natural role in the spiritual battle. In the final years of the “Century of the Devil,” it is entirely fitting that the one who once contained the devil to protect the Child Jesus now protects Christ’s Body, the Church, from Heaven—using resources like Pope Benedict (Joseph Ratzinger), Pope Francis, and even Pope Leo XIV and the rest of us.

We should not be overly rigid or schematic with private revelations. Prophets are often the best interpreters, though experts may differ. The revelation Fr. Michel received from the Archangel Gabriel has every reason to be authentic. Even if he later made a minor interpretive mistake (e.g., over-emphasizing Benedict’s role), that is a theological opinion—not a doctrinal error or prophetic failure. It is natural to think, within this interpretation, that Pope Benedict was key through his prayers to prevent the Church from abandoning the Eucharist, leading to the change in the original prophecy about the martyrdoms of Popes Francis and Benedict, and even the miraculous election of Pope Leo XIV.

The reason is that, given the change of the original prophecy, which remains true unless proven otherwise (and I am showing in this document that CDTK has not done so), God would include the main aspect of the change in the miracle connected to prayers. The issue of the Eucharist is more important, in particular, than the martyrdom of Pope Benedict, as all of us can imagine, since it implies the death of the Church. In this context, it is clear that God wanted to postpone the Warning a little more, since the main miracle which would avoid the killing of the Eucharist is the Warning itself. The chosen trigger for the Warning would be the first nuclear bomb, the other alternative Fr. Michel talked about. And notice something important: St Joseph is the natural patron saint of Pope Benedict, because of his name at baptism. This contributes to the providential role of St Joseph using Pope Benedict as a key aide in his role as the main Katechon.

On the issue of the Katechon, then, CDTK bears the burden of proof to show otherwise with rigor. Their claim of contradiction with Tradition or doctrine does not hold; no other evidence is presented. Once again, this is another “prophetic analysis miss.”

To conclude: the prophecy of St. Joseph as the Katechon in 2 Thessalonians fits perfectly with the Gospel, Tradition, and Magisterium. But it is also mind-blowing—because ordinary faithful and even many Church experts are so caught up in complexity that they need Heaven’s guidance to see the obvious (including me, who did not realize this before). That is why Fr. Michel received this revelation: it was true and timely.

As Jesus said:

“I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children” (Mt 11:25).

The meek and humble, like Fr. Michel, understand; the learned (like me and others) and powerful (those with large audiences) often do not.

4. Is the Issue of the Papal Ring a “Prophetic Miss”?

CDTK appears to judge Fr. Michel’s prophetic capacity, not possible human errors unrelated to that role, such as using human discernment to analyze a received prophecy. They cite three alleged "prophetic misses": the martyrdoms of Pope Francis and Pope Benedict; St. Joseph as Katechon; and the issue of the papal ring. I already gave reasons to show their arguments faulty on the first two issues. Now I address the last one.

Regarding the papal ring possible miss, I watched the video where Fr. Michel addressed it, and it was clear to me that the ring issue was not part of the prophecy itself. I tried to find the video again to have the reference, since the quote of the prophecy comes from a transcription of Fr. Michel's 2019 retreat talk, not a standalone written prophecy. But at the moment I noticed immediately that it was like a comment, not part of the prophecy. His tone suggested an intention to reinforce the prophecy’s plausibility with an argument like: “God’s prophecy makes sense because Pope Benedict can still act as pope, evidenced by his wearing of the papal ring.”

It would be true that Fr. Michel was mistaken about the ring—Pope Benedict wore a bishop’s ring, not a papal one. But does this invalidate the prophecy? No—the ring issue was not core to the prophecy; it was a supporting historical detail offered by the prophet himself as a human analyst. People experienced in prophecies know the huge difference this makes. Confusing core revelation with ancillary commentary raises doubts about the critic’s expertise on this fundamental topic, especially given how many false prophets invent prophecies from imagination. My take on this matter is that the papal ring issue was, if any, a minor factual/analytical error by the prophet, not a "prophetic miss." In absence of a written prophecy from an official source of Fr. Michel, to call it a prophetic miss is a category error, confusing divine revelation with human interpretation of historical detail.

From a judiciary process perspective, this accusation of “prophetic miss” fails the burden of proof test, since the fact is not even an acceptable evidence on the matter: they are separate issues. It is like adding a failure to pass a college test as an argument for condemning a person of murder: the failure of the test shows that the person should not advance in his academic career, not that his lack of intelligence or knowledge is an evidence (not even circumstantial) that the person is guilty of murder.

But I might be mistaken: the issue of the ring might have been part of the prophecy, but rephrased: “Pope Emeritus, Benedict XVI, who would wear his papal ring by then, will step in to convene a council”. (See ref 10). And in this case there would not be an error: if the original prophecy held, Pope Benedict would not be an Emeritus Pope at the time he had to act, with a Bishops ring, but a legitimate Pope, with a Pope’s ring. The “proof” to term "prophetic miss” on this issue, presented by CDTK, would be false: Pope Benedict was buried with his Bishop ring. But that was in the event that the prophecy was changed. This does not prove anything related to the contingency of the real papacy of Pope Benedict after an eventual martyrdom of Pope Francis.

So, under reasonable assumptions, there would not be a prophetic miss in the case of the ring either. In the worst case scenario presented, that there was a human error here, a non-prophetic factual mistake does not disprove prophetic authenticity. In signaling games (a concept from game theory), this is a "noise" error: random or unintentional inaccuracy (like background interference in a signal), not a deliberate or deceptive false signal. It does not discredit the core message or the reliability of the sender.

5. Standard Hypothesis Testing and Conclusion

CDTK rightly stresses the need—and the obligation—to test prophecies, but we must use a good test, not a flawed one.

I have shown the plausibility of Fr. Michel’s prophecies on Popes Benedict and Francis, with the updated message (“Pope Benedict will not go beyond this year”) as the new status quo—verified by witnesses and Xavier Reyes-Ayral. The original was conditional, altered by prayer/mercy (Jonah 3:10). Clarifications appear in John-Henry Westen's program and Dr. Christine Bacon's interviews (friend of CDTK's Christine Watkins), among other sites, including Crux Ave, led by Xavier Ayral and Monique Tardif.

Given that, including the issues of the Katechon and the papal ring, we have no option but to treat Fr. Michel's prophecies in question as credible in our discernment process. They are the “null hypothesis (H₀),” to be proven false as in the most standard tests accepted in science and judiciary processes, which are not Catholic. Catholics should accept this approach with even more reason, since we have harder testing criteria (being charitable, etc.). So any tester, in particular CDTK, issuing an alternative hypothesis (H₁: failure) carries the burden of proof. But their evidence fails rigorous rejection.

In actual hypothesis testing, the requirement for rigorous rejection means the evidence contrary to innocence must be overwhelming. It is similar to the judiciary process, where the prosecutor must present so much evidence of guilt that no reasonable doubt remains. No such threshold has been met here—so far from it that not a single piece of condemnatory evidence has been provided. The conclusion is opinion-based, and a wrong opinion at that. The process risks a Type I error (falsely condemning the innocent, like a wrongful conviction).

I stress again in this concluding section that Fr. Michel deserves due process. CDTK acted not only as prosecutor, but also as judge (issuing condemnation) and jury (executing punishment by removing him from the platform and casting doubts on his credibility). This violates CCC 2478 and Canon 220 of the Catholic Church. No fair hearing was allowed, despite Fr. Michel’s consistency and the presence of credible witnesses.

Declaring a “miss” without proof is not only wrong—it is uncharitable and risks division, favoring lies and disunity. This is especially serious since CDTK has significant credibility among many lay people due to their presumed rigor in judging prophecies and prophets. Many condemned Fr. Michel based on CDTK's statements alone, without arguments, and thus spread error.

In my opinion, CDTK also has contributed to a straw man effect, even if not intended (because they lead a credible platform for the lay faithful): by focusing heavily on isolated "misses" (ring/Katechon) while acknowledging Fr. Michel's abundant fruits and alignment with prophetic consensus in other contexts. In the eyes of many lay faithful, this emphasis has disqualified a distorted version of him, not the real man—ignoring his Heaven-given role as "puzzle solver" and the overall good fruits of his ministry.

In conclusion, CDTK's disqualification is flawed: no proven misses, charity/process failures (Mt 18/CCC 2478 ignored), inadequate testing (even secular standards unmet), straw man reasoning implications for the lay faithful. Fr. Michel is Heaven's main guide for these times.

Now, let us look at my case: why do I defend Fr. Michel? I have not been appointed as a defense lawyer. But let us place this in context: lay apostolates with a considerable platform, like CDTK, act as agents serving the faithful (the principal; see ref 11). When they judge interpretations of prophecies as “errors” without valid proof and without proper authority, they risk bias and overreach. Only the Church has the authority to judge binding doctrine. If the Church does not judge, it is permissible for us as lay people to discern—indeed, it is often an obligation when public judgments are made, as in CDTK's case. What I do is to act as a simple lay person pointing out to a lay agent of the faithful (CDTK) ways to improve their role, to the best of my ability.

Before finishing my defense of Fr. Michel, just in case some criticize him because he mentions many miracles (among them visiting several prophets and Pope St. John Paul II), I offer a defense in his favor: he is not postulated to be a saint. He mentioned those things in private, in a casual manner, not with the purpose of demonstrating that he is saintly or worthy of belief regarding the messages he receives. As a consequence: if someone doubts him, it is ok. But if a platform wants to state that he is a liar, the editors have the burden of proof. I have not seen any of the required evidence in many statements I have seen elsewhere, which, by the way, don't even bother to be charitable, following Jesus and the CCC. My personal opinion is that he is a living saint, and I give thanks to God for having him among us in these troublesome times full of confusion.

Regarding CDTK, a lay agent of the faithful should correct errors when shown them by others, in a way congruent with Jesus’ teaching, since all of us are brothers and sisters—as I have tried to do privately twice (first personally to Mark Mallett, then with key witnesses). This time I include more witnesses as a last attempt at private correction, following Mt 18:15–17, since the mistakes have not been corrected and a lot of time—one year—has elapsed since my last contact. I can retract, apologize, or remove this if proven wrong.

I value CDTK's analysts—let us seek truth together. Fr. Michel deserves dialogue. A mediator accepted by both parties is advised. I predict friendship in Christ if it occurs. I even think CDTK can take Fr. Michel's advice on prophetic consensus. All of us, and the Church if we are part of it, would greatly benefit.

Only truth sets us free. Prayers for unity, discernment, and God's plan—in Jesus and Mary.

Blessings,

Felipe Pérez Martí

References

1. CDTK Statement on Fr. Michel: https://www.countdowntothekingdom.com/a-statement-on-fr-michel/

2. Fr. Gobbi message #406: https://mmp-usa.net/the-messages/ (full quote in text)

3. Fr. Jim Blount testimony (Antichrist alive): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aU35HOqyGJ8

4. Xavier Reyes-Ayral verification/report on updated message: His book The Warning: Testimonies and Prophecies of the Illumination of Conscience (discusses Fr. Michel); video interviews, e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tbHmDDx1yM

5. Pope Leo XIV as "good Pope". I personally believe that Pope Leo XVI is very good to lead the Church in these times. In particular, he  has not conceded on the main topic at hand, the abandonment of the Eucharist. We also have to take into account that a ferocious spiritual fight is still going on. Let us focus on prayers, unity and understanding, taking into account that we are a family. The body of Jesus, nothing less.

6. Bilateral bargaining model with private information:

In game theory, this model analyzes negotiations between two parties over dividing something valuable (here, influence over the papacy and Church direction). Each party has a private reservation price (the minimum outcome they accept; anything worse, they walk away) and private beliefs (probability distributions) about the opponent's reservation price. Information is asymmetric/private: one side may have better knowledge (hidden alliances, true intentions, secret plans). This can be embedded in the distributions—one party's beliefs may be more tightly centered (narrower spread) around the opponent's true reservation price, making their position more predictable and potentially exploitable. The Nash equilibrium outcome (stable result of strategy profiles played where neither side changes strategy) typically lies between the two reservation prices, closer to the side with greater bargaining power (more votes, better information, stronger organization). In uniform distributions, it splits the difference roughly in the middle. The stronger, better-informed side usually gains more surplus. When the outcome strongly deviates (e.g., the weaker side prevails on key issues like the papacy and Eucharist), natural-rational explanations fail—pointing to external intervention (here, divine action via prayer and spiritual help). For a more extended explanation in a different context, see https://www.quehacer.wiki/wiki/Oslo.

7. The Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Is Very Near: https://www.quehacer.wiki/wiki/The_Triumph_of_the_Immaculate_Heart_of_Mary_Is_Very_Near

8. CCC 67: https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5.HTM

9. God's Plan for Apocalyptic Times: https://www.quehacer.wiki/wiki/God%27s_Plan_for_Apocalyptic_Times

10. Regarding this possible rephrasing of the prophecy (“Pope Emeritus, Benedict XVI, who would wear his papal ring by then, will step in to convene a council”), I have not been able to contact Fr. Michel for clarification. I am not an important person to call for his attention given his busy agenda, but this would be one of the points to clarify with Fr. Michel if you meet.

11. Principal-Agent theory: Principal-Agent theory (from economics/game theory) describes relationships where one party (principal) delegates work to another (agent), but the agent may have different interests or more information, leading to conflicts (agency problems like bias, overreach, or inefficiency). Example with Elected Officials: The people (principals) elect politicians (agents) to represent them. But agents may prioritize personal gain (lobbyists, re-election) over public good, hiding information (asymmetric info) or making biased decisions. Voters use mechanisms like elections or transparency to align interests. Application to this case: The faithful (principals) rely on lay apostolates like CDTK (agents) to discern prophecies. When agents judge without authority (e.g., calling "errors" without proof), they risk agency problems—bias (favoring their "consensus"), overreach (usurping Heaven's role for Fr. Michel). Only the Church has final authority; agents should correct errors charitably and defer to divine designations to avoid misleading principals.

12. Dr. Christine Bacon interviews: https://www.youtube.com/@DrChristineBacon (e.g., Fr. Michel on Antichrist/refuges: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H0zMvDTjxA)