Addendum 2: My response to Mark Mallett
Addendum 2: My response to Mark Mallett
Felipe Pérez Martí
March 21, 2026.
Foreword
Dear Mark,
Hi again. Thank you for your reply.
Unfortunately, I have not been able to bring along Peter Bannister, Mark McLean, and Christine Bacon. I am trusting God that our witnesses so far are enough, and that this will lead to the best possible outcome —which will be the truth, whether you make corrections or not. In that case, I would publish it and let God decide how to promote the truth. As I say at the end, an association of podcasters focused on Catholic prophetic analysis should be formed to ensure protection of the lay faithful who lack the same level of information or analytical capacity. In addition, that would help avoid situations where analysts like the ones mentioned above are unwilling to talk to one another, as has happened in this case. I am not sure the email address I am using for Christine Watkins is the right one, since I found it on the Internet. I asked her to kindly provide the email address of Christine Bacon and she did not respond.
Entering into our topic, after reading your comment, I think I did not explain myself properly, and I appreciate the opportunity to do so. I will address your points directly with some additional explanations, in the spirit of union as Catholics, based on truth and charity.
1. On “non constat de supernaturalitate”
You are right that this is the prudent pastoral judgment CDTK has adopted. However, it is precisely a position of prudence and non-obligation —not a declaration that the prophecies are false, unreliable, or definitively missed. The Church’s own norms (including the 2024 Norms for Discernment) explicitly allow private discernment, study of fruits, convergence with approved sources, and continued reflection even in cases labeled "non constat". That is what I am attempting here: fraternal dialogue, not condemnation.
2. On conditionality as a “catch-all argument”
Invoking conditionality is not an excuse or a dodge; it is a strong and natural Catholic doctrine rooted in Scripture (Jonah 3:10; Jeremiah 18:7-10), Tradition, and the Catechism (CCC 67). Private revelations are warnings and calls to conversion, not deterministic predictions. They are conditional and modifiable by prayer and human response.
Yes, there can be abuse of this principle. Such abuses are often discerned by lack of fruits, contradictions, or self-serving motives. But to doubt conditionality in general —or to dismiss it as invalid for Fr. Michel’s case— is a serious error. Conditionality is intrinsic to creation itself: God establishes fixed laws (gravity, moral order, spiritual consequences), yet He grants free will, allowing human actions to alter outcomes within those laws.
Consider the example of loving parents: they warn their children not to jump from a high building. The law of gravity is unchanging and the consequences deadly —the warning is real, urgent and true. Yet the child has free will, particularly depending on their age. The parents, depending on the children's ages, respect that freedom, even knowing it opens the door to danger —like when they go to college in a different city or country. They teach, plead, explain, stay close, hold their children tight and guide them constantly, especially when circumstances become more complex or threatening. Whether the child ultimately falls or is saved depends on how faithfully he listens and follows their directions. The outcome is conditional on the child's free response, not on any change in the law of gravity or in the parents' love. It is a factor when the children act alone or in groups —an older child might guide the younger ones to safety or lead them astray.
The same principle applies in the moral and spiritual realms —and it is especially intensified in these "last bad times," when the environment is far more turbulent (spiritual warfare, moral confusion, social and political issues, unity or disunity in the Church, better or worse guidance by Church leaders both official and lay faithful, natural upheavals). God, as the perfect Father, holds His children tighter, sends more messengers, multiplies calls to prayer and reparation, and guides them constantly amid changing circumstances. The warnings remain true, the laws of justice and consequence remain fixed, but the final outcome depends on how much His children follow His directions —individually and collectively. Mercy can still intervene, postponing or mitigating what was foreseen, precisely because God desires not death but conversion (Ezek 33:11; 2 Pet 3:9).
This is not a convenient loophole for failed predictions; it is the very structure of how a loving Creator interacts with free creatures. To reject conditionality in principle is to misunderstand both divine love and human freedom.
3. Evidence of divine change in this specific case
There are credible witnesses (including two people in this email list, Brother Philippe directly, and Xavier Reyes-Ayral who interviewed others) that God the Father updated the prophecy: “Pope Benedict will not go beyond this year” (late December 2022). This was fulfilled. To claim the original was a "clear prophetic miss," you must disprove both the conditionality and the subsequent divine clarification. You have not done so; instead, you state an opinion: "what has appeared to us... to be prophecies that cannot be squared with reality." An opinion —even shared by many, including clergy— is not proof. It is subjective discernment.
4. Burden of proof and logical/statistical failure
You state: “This was a clear ‘prophetic miss’.” But you do not prove it. My alternative hypothesis (merciful postponement through prayer during the Synod) is a coherent counterexample that fully accounts for the facts without any failure on Fr. Michel’s part.
In logic, a single valid counterexample invalidates a universal claim of definitive failure. A famous historical example is Euler's sum of powers conjecture: Euler posited that for the equation a⁴ + b⁴ + c⁴ + d⁴ = e⁴, no positive integers existed that satisfied it. This conjecture held for nearly two centuries and seemed solidly supported by extensive checking. Yet in 1988, Noam Elkies found a single counterexample: 2682440⁴ + 15365639⁴ + 18796760⁴ = 20615673⁴. One valid counterexample was enough to disprove it forever.
The same principle applies to flawed proofs. A published "proof" can stand for years until a counterexample reveals the error. For instance, Alfred Kempe's 1879 “proof” of the Four Color Theorem was accepted by the mathematical community for 11 years —until Percy Heawood's 1890 counterexample map exposed a subtle flaw in Kempe's chain-reduction method.
Your position mirrors this: you present it as a proof (“since we did not see the original prophecy fulfilled but contradicted, it is a failed prophecy”), but it is really an opinion, as you yourself acknowledge here ("what has appeared to us..."). Strictly speaking, it is a conjecture —not a demonstrated theorem. And, as such, it is disproven by my coherent counterexample.
In statistical terms, your approach sets α = 0% (zero tolerance for any divergence), treating one event as the entire population —reverting to deterministic/mathematical reasoning. The same principle applies: a single counterexample disproves the "theorem" (your claim of clear failure). So far, CDTK did not approach Fr. Michel directly (despite having clear means to do so: Brother Philippe or Xavier Reyes-Ayral as possible mediators, who are here in this email list). This omission is surprising in light of Matthew 18:15–17, and I am confident it would resolve all misunderstandings if pursued. Why not take this step? Here again, you could speak with Brother Philippe to facilitate a direct conversation or interview with Fr. Michel.
The right of defense is fundamental even in secular justice. How much more so in Catholic environments, where it is not merely a legal principle but a requirement commanded by Jesus Himself? If we fail to follow this basic procedure, we fall short of the fundamental justice our Lord demands. Can we still claim to be authentic discerners of Catholic prophecy if we do not adhere to the very instructions our Boss —our Lord— mandates, especially in situations like this?
5. Summary and final remarks
Your conclusion of a "clear prophetic miss" remains an unproven opinion, not a demonstrated fact — neither by Catholic standards (fruits, convergence, conditionality) nor by secular ones (logic, hypothesis testing). I have shown a counterexample that squares perfectly with reality. Therefore, your discernment on this point is, respectfully, incorrect.
After careful examination, and with the help of sound reasoning and Catholic teaching, I conclude that there is no viable alternative to accepting the explanation outlined in Section 2: the original prophecy was conditionally given and was mercifully updated by God Himself, as confirmed by credible witnesses and the fulfillment of the new message. This change encompasses the whole scenario —not merely Pope Benedict’s peaceful passing, but the avoidance of martyrdom for Pope Francis, the preservation of Eucharistic doctrine during the Synod, and the providential election of Pope Leo XIV. To deny this without disproving the witnesses or the conditionality itself would require rejecting both evidence and doctrine. Thus, the assertion of a “clear prophetic miss” is not only unproven —it is untenable.
It is clear that the podcasters, as Agents, have the responsibility of testing prophecies having as minimum minimorum the standard scientific hypothesis testing (used by the Church, by the way, to test miracles and to discern on sanctity of a candidate). Such podcasters are bound to seek the truth that sets us free (Jn 8:32). That is why the idea of conforming a group that revises those standards in the people doing Catholic discernment of prophecies for these times is a must. In favor of the lay Catholics who have less information and/or analytical capacity.
Misguiding the lay people is a grave sin. As a reminder, we should be aware that during the Warning all of us will see the truth on this matter. Moreover, during the second half of the Reprieve, when our bad habits come back, we would have to purify them at a certain minimum level required by God, for otherwise we will not be chosen to be saved: we will not get the Mark of God in our foreheads, to go to the Ark of Noah of these times (the Refuges of our Holy Mother Mary).
I remark that I say all of this not to condemn you or CDTK, but to seek truth and unity. As Catholics, we are called to test prophecy charitably and rigorously (1 Thess 5:19–21; CCC 67). When we rush to judgment without proof —or fail to engage directly— we risk becoming instruments of division rather than unity. And this is a fight between truth and love, on the one hand, and lies and sin, on the other. And no middle ground should be adopted in these times, as we know quite well (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”).
I propose to remain open to dialogue. If you wish to discuss further (with witnesses), I am available, but, as Daniel says, we have very little more time. Both by personal requirements, and by the acceleration of prophetic fulfilment regarding the imminence of the Warning and the need for conversion in us and the lay Catholics, let alone the rest of humanity. May the Holy Spirit guide us all toward truth, charity, and the fulfillment of God’s plan in these urgent times.
In Christ, God the Father and the Holy Spirit, through Mary,
Felipe Pérez Martí
PD: Later I will respond to Daniel.
* Mark Mallett response to my main document and my Addendum 1, on March 16, 2026:
I have already addressed these issues, Felipe, and have nothing more to add than what has already been said:
We have given a public response to the missed or altered prophecies of Fr. Michel and Luz de Maria. We did not condemn either seer, but have chosen to step back from what has appeared to us (and to throngs of other people, including clergy) to be prophecies that cannot be squared with reality. Invoking "conditional prophecy" as a catch-all argument for problematic prophecies is not the final litmus test of the Church, otherwise, the process of discernment falls apart — or simply demands setting it aside until hindsight speaks as the last discerner. That's exactly where we are at. The pastoral definition of such a position is non constat de supernaturalitate. Visitors to our website are always greeted by the passage from 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21: "Do not despise the words of prophets, but test everything; hold fast to what is good..." We really meant those words. Best regards,
Mark Mallett
