QueHacer.wiki

My response to Mélanie’s comments

Felipe Pérez Martí

Seattle, November 17, 2025.  

Dear all. You have seen the attached comments by Melanie regarding my initial document and my following emails.  I respond here with detail. That is why it is long. All the details are so important that I included them in the document.  I even do an Annex, on the  possible connections to Melanie's mission to necromancy and New Era spirituality. It is a strong warning and a call for urgent correction. 

Dear Melanie: 

You have immense potential as a Messenger of God – a potential I have not seen in others. But the devil is playing very serious tricks that harm the mission Heaven intends for you. This is likely because, with your great gifts, you could do tremendous good for people and for God. That is why he attacks you so fiercely. What I have exposed here is so damaging to your mission that it puts it in grave danger – even the risk of extinction, we might say. Is there a remedy? Yes, and it is simple: Follow the rules of the mystics and the Church. Be obedient. Do not fear the devil – and especially, do not try to defeat him on your own.

For example, if a bishop seems, according to some messages you receive, to be a Freemason, do not avoid him to the point of disobeying Church norms, which come from God. The same applies to everything else. You need spiritual directors who can discern whether a message is from God or the devil (e.g., if it contradicts Church norms). Be completely transparent with them, and do not rush to publicize a message before they review it. That impatience has led to major errors, as I have shown before – and I will highlight more today.

I recommend following the saints who are experts in mysticism – including locutions, heavenly visions, and the devil's tricks – and how to face them: St. Teresa of Ávila and St. John of the Cross. I also urge you to apologize to those you have harmed through these errors, including Fr. Michel Rodrigue, Luz de María de Bonilla, and Xavier Ayral.

I respond here directly to the matter at hand, warning that my words may be hard to hear. They mostly relate to the devil's presence in some of Mélanie's received messages, in my humble opinion, as well as the impasse and her response. I have tried my best to serve the Lord and the groups I have led so far, but I apologize for my many faults and ignorances. I especially regret leading those groups to Mélanie without examining the mission more thoroughly before encouraging them to follow her. From now on, I submit myself to my spiritual director and my pastor in this matter of Melanie. I recommend that all of you do the same.

Now I proceed to answer your comments, Mélanie. 

You said after your  introduction: 

“The second matter that concerns me is the situation of the multitude of messages Felipe Perez Marti has sent you over the past few days concerning me and the work of the Triumph of the Two Most Holy Hearts of Jesus Christ and Mary, the Immaculate Conception.

“I wish to clarify that I do not agree with his spreading slander about the messages received, nor about me personally. “

My response:

Slander (known as "calumny" in Catholic teaching) is a grave sin against the Eighth Commandment ("You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"). 

I condemned this  sinful practice in your way of acting. Against me (telling the group leaders that I had chosen the bad side  of the spiritual fight, condemning me for being responsible for a suicide), and the way you have talked about Fr. Michel and Luz de María in her back. 

I even made a special Annex in the  first, long, document related to  this, which includes gossiping:  talking against you in your  back. I said that it violates truth, charity, and justice by spreading lies that harm someone's reputation. Given the importance, I present the main ideas again in another Annex (and the end)  to these responses  that are enlightening for this argument of Melanie, that I am slandering her messages and her person.

To conclude:

You have circulated your comments and accusations through a hidden email list, without including me. I have the right to defend myself, and the recipients have the right to hear both sides, especially when the faults are so numerous and so serious that they place the entire mission at risk of being, not from God, but from the devil (as I explain in detail in the attached Annex). If you refuse to share that list with me so that I may respond directly to those who have received your message, you will be withholding from them the truth and thereby committing calumny, a grave sin against justice and charity (CCC 2477, 2479). I have been completely transparent from the beginning. I now ask you, in the name of the same transparency and charity you preach, to act accordingly and forward this response to everyone who received your earlier communication. May the Holy Spirit grant us all light and peace.  

You continue with your comments: 

“May God have mercy on him (Felipe), as it is not for me to judge his current state of mind.”

My answer: 

With that very sentence you are judging me,  Melanie. The expression “May God have mercy on him” – in the context of everything you have written about me – clearly implies that I am in serious error, in danger, or in need of conversion. I have observed this pattern repeatedly: when you disagree with someone (myself, Fr. Michel, Luz de María, or others), you often say “I will pray for them,” which, in practice, functions as a way of declaring the other person wrong and in need of correction, without offering concrete arguments and without entering into genuine dialogue.This is the classic ad hominem approach: instead of addressing the substance of the objections, the person is indirectly disqualified (“he needs prayers / mercy”). It is a rhetorical device that: avoids the duty of fraternal correction with charity and clarity (Mt 18:15-17), replaces arguments with insinuations, and sows doubt and division among those who hear it.

Lies, insinuation, and division are fruits that do not come from the Holy Spirit. If we truly desire love, unity and truth, the path is always the same: transparent dialogue, respect for due process, and obedience to the discernment norms of the Church. I remain open to that dialogue, with charity and clarity, whenever you are ready. But I am giving here the last chance,  as I have said. It is urgent to make a final  decision.  

You continue referring to the groups, not personally for me. After this you said: 

“I am not in the habit of responding when someone slaps me on the right cheek, following Christ's example, but I am writing this letter at his request and at the request of Saint Padre Pio to let you know that I do not share his views. I will explain why.

“Christ spoke to me this morning, asking me to defend Mary's role in this work that He himself asked me to establish by choosing Peace, Love, Trust, Mercy, and Hope. This is the primary objective we have strived to live by since the founding of the Work of the Triumph of the Two Hearts.”

I give my response to this at the end.  

You continue: 

“Here is some information that I consider very important for your reflection, which will support your decision to continue or not with us. For it is in complete freedom that Christ and our Mother Mary call us to serve and love them!

“Know that on several occasions, Christ himself has intervened in Felipe's life since June 2025 to ask him to choose his path.”

My Comments:

As I have said before, Mélanie and her team have described only two paths: that of God (light) and that of the devil (obscurity). Below, she elaborates:

“In June 2025, Christ asked Felipe to choose his boat: the boat of fear, anguish, doubt, turmoil, and agitation, or ‘The Ark of Mary, which is PEACE, LOVE, JOY, SERENITY, COMPASSION, MERCY, LIGHT THROUGH JESUS CHRIST, PHYSICAL AND SPIRITUAL SECURITY…’”

These are beautiful words, but what is really behind them?

For you to understand the real meaning of the two paths:  I have to choose between Melanie and the other prophets. As I have said, I originally believed Melanie when she said that Luz de Maria received her messages from a deity (a demon). I erased all of her messages from my wiki. And I believed that 25% of Fr. Michel's messages did not come from God.  But I did not quote Luz de Maria when talking about “other Marian prophets”,  which was what triggered Melanie and her team to cut ties with me. After this incident,  I revised my view on these other prophets.  I don't find anything wrong with them.  So, according to Mélanie, I am choosing “the boat of fear, anguish, doubt, turmoil and agitation”. As it has been clarified more and more, that is not true. On the contrary. 

Who are we to proclaim that God has only one true prophet for these times and reject the others? The Church has never taught this. On the contrary, throughout salvation history and in the countless approved and not condemned Marian apparitions, God has always used multiple messengers with complementary messages. The correct attitude is to examine all of them, discern, and seek the common thread that forms the complete mosaic. To demand that everyone choose only Mélanie and reject the others is, objectively, to sow division, and division is a fruit of the devil (cf. Jn 10:12; 1 Cor 1:10-13).

I have strived to walk the path of truth, unity, and charity:  speaking openly (never behind backs),  being transparent, giving reasons, offering the opportunity for dialogue, and always submitting myself to the discernment of the Church.

Regarding Melanie’s claim about her good boat, we have seen so far several instances of the fruits of division and questionable messages,  as well as disobedience to  the Church,  both authorities and doctrines and norms. And below we will see more of this in my answers to her comments. That is why I repeat Jesus’ own criterion of discernment:

Matthew 7:15-20

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them. … Every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit. … So by their fruits you will know them.”

You continue: 

“Let me explain:

“Following the emails received by Felipe Perez Marti, at the request of Saint Padre Pio, here is my response to the members of the prayer groups of the Triumph of the Two Holy Holy Hearts of Jesus Christ and Mary, the Immaculate Conception. I have read Felipe's documents and emails in the Light of the Holy Spirit. He mentions completely erroneous information. Let me highlight a few of these points, explaining the context in which Heaven chose to remove him from the leadership of the Triumph of the Two Hearts prayer groups in the English-speaking community, following his choices:

“• In June 2025, Christ asked Felipe to choose his boat: the boat of fear, anguish, doubt, turmoil, and agitation, or The Ark of Mary, which is PEACE, LOVE, JOY, SERENITY, COMPASSION, MERCY, LIGHT THROUGH JESUS CHRIST, PHYSICAL AND SPIRITUAL SECURITY…

“• Christ affirmed to us that the members of the Two Most Holy Hearts prayer groups need physical and spiritual security and that they must not leave the Ark of the Triumphant Heart of Mary through their daily prayers and fasting in order to fulfill His Plan for each of their lives.

“• Saint Padre Pio confirmed to us, based on his emails to members of his groups, that he chose his own path, leaving his members adrift.”

My response: 

1.  The accusation that I “abandoned” the groups is false.

I never abandoned them. The groups existed long before I ever met you; we studied the prophecies of these times (especially Fr. Michel Rodrigue and Luz de María) for a long while. When I introduced you to them, it was as one more messenger, never as the only one.

2.  What really happened was a coup d’état.

While I was still speaking with you in private (first stage of Mt 18:15-17), you and your team contacted the groups behind my back, appointed a new leader, and informed them that I had been removed for two reasons:  1. I had caused a suicide. 2. I followed “false prophets.”

You never gave me the opportunity to speak to the members or defend myself, since I was talking to you in private,  giving an opportunity for you to correct yourself,  to get to  an agreement. While I was doing that, you simply replaced me and took over the prayer gatherings. That is not “leaving them adrift”; it is removing the legitimate coordinator by force and without due process.

3. I explicitly asked you NOT to cut ties with the groups.

On September 20, 2025, you wrote (I have the document):  

“There is no longer any possibility of continuing to work with you. We must cancel all upcoming prayer meetings led by you, since ..., ..., and ... (I omit the names for privacy purposes) are all under your direction.”

I immediately replied, accepting my removal as coordinator but begging you not to abandon the groups:   “Regarding the groups, I am only a coordinator… I would not be in the prayer gatherings if you decide to do them with them… So, let me know if you want the phones. All of them can be contacted by WhatsApp.”

You never answered me. Instead, you contacted the groups directly, held meetings without informing me, and presented your version of events. When the new leader finally called me, it was only to tell me she was cutting ties with me as well (she wanted me to remove her from the Sharing Era  of Peace email group).

That is a coup d’état, pure and simple:  

• Insidious accusations behind the back of the legitimate leader.  
• Imposition of a new leader from above, without election or consultation.  
• Acceptance by the members because they believed the narrative that I was guilty of grave sins.

4.  I was willing to step aside peacefully.

I repeatedly offered, in our private exchanges, to withdraw completely from future gatherings if that facilitated continuity for the groups. You never responded to that offer. The only thing you insisted on was the “one boat” message – meaning total and exclusive adherence to you.

5.  The credibility loop

Your accusations against me rest entirely on the claim that “Christ said” or “Padre Pio said” through you. But that is a circular argument and the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority): something is true simply because you say Heaven told you.

The Church teaches us to judge by the fruits (Mt 7:15-20), not by self-referenced heavenly authority. And the visible fruits here are division, secrecy, rash judgment, calumny and disobedience to the Church’s norms of fraternal correction.

Final Word on this comment:

• I did not abandon the groups.
• I defended them, even when they turned away from me because they believed your narrative.
• I did not choose the wrong boat.
• I chose the boat of truth, unity, obedience to the Church, and charity – the only boat that truly belongs to Jesus and Mary.

May Our Lady, Mother of mercy and unity, heal what has been wounded and bring us all back to the one Ark that is the Church under her legitimate pastors: legitimate authorities and credible prophets (including you if you correct your ways).

You continue: 

• Regarding the other messengers, I am not here to judge them, but I am here to lead you to the One and only Refuge which is the triumphant Heart of Mary.

My comments: 

Dear Mélanie. That sentence is impossible to reconcile with the facts.

If you truly “are not here to judge” other messengers, why have you repeatedly done exactly that (and much more)? You have said to  several  of us that  25 % of Fr. Michel Rodrigue’s messages do not come from Heaven. You have claimed that Luz de María receives messages not from Heaven but from a “deity” (a demon) and that the name used is Yahweh, whom you identified as a false god (which is a blasphemy and a heresy, as I have explained) 

You have repeatedly told us (the team and me) that Luz de María’s messages caused approximately one hundred suicides because of the fear they provoke.

Those are not neutral observations. They are judgments and, in fact, condemnations of two of the most widely followed prophetic voices of our time.

Furthermore, the expression “the One and only Refuge” carries a clear competitive tone. All the major approved and respected messengers of recent decades (Fr. Gobbi, Medjugorje, Fr. Michel, Luz de María, Pedro Regis, etc.) speak of refuges in the Immaculate Heart of Mary and in the Sacred Heart of Jesus. None of them has ever claimed to possess “the One and only Refuge.”

To present yours as the exclusive refuge inevitably places the others in a position of inferiority or falsity. That is not unity; it is rivalry.

These statements are recorded in the Zoom sessions we held together (most of which your team recorded), so the record exists.

What the Church asks of us in this regard: 

The Church has never taught that God sends only one prophet or only one refuge for an era. On the contrary, the multiplicity of authentic messengers has always been a sign of God’s abundant mercy.

To demand exclusive allegiance to a single visionary (especially when serious questions remain unanswered) is to sow division, not unity.I therefore renew my respectful but firm request:  

• Acknowledge the judgments made against Fr. Michel Rodrigue and Luz de María.  
• Retract the serious accusations that lack evidence (especially the claim of “one hundred suicides”).  
• Cease presenting the Triumphant Heart of Mary, only represented by your mission,  as the one and only refuge, and instead foster collaboration with the other messengers whom the Church has not condemned.

Only in this way can the mission recover credibility and truly serve the Kingdom of God rather than human interests.

You continue: 

• I have read the documents that Felipe sent to the group, and several of his statements are incorrect, including:

1. Regarding Abba I Am, I, Mélanie Dupuis, affirm that He is our Most Holy Creator and Father. Felipe wrote that I claimed this name is used in black masses, which is false! I have never claimed this, as I reveal it in the videos I produce for His greater Glory.

My comments.  

Mélanie, that accusation is completely untrue. At no point have I ever said that Abba – I Am is used in black masses.

Anyone can verify this by reading my previous messages; the phrase simply does not appear.

What I did say – and what I have documented with the exact text you yourself sent me – is that an alleged message from Padre Pio (dated 11 March 2024) declared the following names to be demonic deities that “feed” in satanic rituals:

“Several deities also feed on this: Yahweh, Elohim, Sabaoth, Jehovah, Sanishslov, Iraguay.

“Elohim is the main one who fed on souls killed in war.”

That message – which you marked confidential but which must now be made known because of its gravity – explicitly lists Yahweh, Elohim, and Sabaoth (biblical names of God used in Scripture and the liturgy) as demons involved in black masses and child sacrifice.

This is objective blasphemy and heresy, as I have explained before,  because it denies the identity of the One True God revealed in Sacred Scripture and Tradition (CCC 206; Ex 3:14; Rom 9:29; Jas 5:4).

By falsely claiming that I accused the name “Abba – I Am” of being used in black masses, you are: 

• attributing to me words I never wrote,  
• evading responsibility for the actual content of the message you circulated, and  
• engaging in the very calumny you accuse others of (CCC 2477, 2479).

Mélanie, the evidence is in writing and in your own files.

As a person presenting yourself as a messenger of Heaven, you bear the burden of truth. The faithful deserve transparency, not evasion.

I renew my call, in charity and clarity:

Retract the blasphemous message of 11 March 2024, correct the public record, and seek the guidance of the Church so that this mission may truly serve God and not mislead souls.

You continue: 

2. He wrote that I don't have any spiritual directors. I have two who don't want me to disclose their names and who are bound by confidentiality by me. Felipe has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of confidentiality. Therefore, I haven't disclosed them to him.

My response: 

Mélanie, I have met both of those priests on Zoom, so the issue is not whether they exist. I appreciate and respect them very much,  by the way. 

The real question is: Have you submitted to them the messages that clearly contradict Catholic doctrine before publishing or acting on them? 

For example:

• The alleged message from Padre Pio (11 March 2024) that declares Yahweh, Elohim, and Sabaoth to be demonic deities.  
• The messages claiming that 25 % of Fr. Michel Rodrigue’s locutions are not from Heaven.  
• The repeated assertion that Luz de María’s messages have caused around 100 suicides.  
• The instruction from “Heaven” to go straight to the Vatican for an imprimatur, bypassing the local bishop (something the Church explicitly forbids – CDF Norms 1978, Art. 3; Canon 823 §1).  
• The sudden request to Xavier Ayral to finance a trip to Rome, which you presented as coming directly from Heaven without prior discernment.

It is my duty to say that if your spiritual directors have seen all of these messages and still approve their publication and the actions taken on them, then they themselves are incurring grave responsibility, because:

• They would be permitting blasphemy and doctrinal error to be spread under the appearance of divine authority.  
• They would be endorsing disobedience to the local ordinary, which is forbidden by Church law.  
• They would be allowing rash judgment and calumny against other messengers whom the Church has not condemned.

The Church is crystal clear as I have learned because of this impasse, and have  presented before to you in my emails and my document:

Every private revelation must be submitted to the competent spiritual director AND to the local bishop BEFORE it is made public (CDF Norms 1978, Art. 2 & 3; DDF Norms 2024).

This is not optional; it is the safeguard instituted by the Church to protect the faithful from deception.

Mélanie, transparency and obedience are not negotiable for anyone who claims to speak in the name of Heaven.

The fact that these gravely problematic messages were circulated without prior ecclesiastical discernment is, in itself, a decisive red flag.

I renew my fraternal call, in charity and truth:

Submit all the messages – especially the most serious ones – to legitimate Church authority, retract those that contradict doctrine, and walk the path of full obedience.

Only then can the mission truly serve God and His Church.

You continue: 

3. At Felipe's request, I prayed and fasted constantly for a prayer intention he had held in his heart for several years: to recover these funds from Spain so that he could financially assist his friends in Venezuela who are living in extreme poverty. Felipe received the money and emphasized to me that it was nothing short of a miracle, a fact he affirmed several times, attributing it to the Grace of the Two Most Holy Hearts of Jesus Christ and Mary, the Immaculate Conception. This funding allows them to feed themselves and obtain appropriate medicine. He sent us several videos and photos about it.

My comments: 

Mélanie, let me set the record straight with complete transparency.

1. The origin of the intention

Long before I ever met you, I had been praying to St. Joseph (and to the newly canonized Venezuelan saint, St. José Gregorio Hernández) to recover savings I had left in a Spanish bank when I emigrated. The money was blocked for years by anti-terrorism banking regulations linked to Venezuela. I had promised St. Joseph that, if the funds were released, the majority would go to the poorest families in Venezuela (elderly, children, and the gravely ill who are literally dying of hunger and lack of medicine).

2. The actual process

The final step (proof of address through a power-of-attorney) was completed about two weeks before the money finally arrived. I was simply waiting for the bank’s final approval,  but the director of the local agency had already told my friend with the power-of-attorney (who did not charge a cent, by the way),  that  the last request by the bank was fulfilled correctly,  and approval was guaranteed. When it came, I was overjoyed and, in my enthusiasm and gratitude for your prayers, I told you it felt like a miracle and attributed part of it to your intercession. That was my mistake, and I sincerely apologize for any confusion it caused.

3.  The real miracle worker and a miscalculation of mine. 

The true artisan of this grace was St. Joseph, to whom I had made the promise years earlier. I should have given him the primary credit from the beginning. Additionally, I made a mistake myself: I was expecting fewer dollars because I hadn’t taken into account the substantial gain I was actually going to receive, since the U.S. dollar is worth less than the euro, which was the currency in which my savings were deposited.  So I misled you making you believe that there was a miracle of multiplication of sorts, of the total amount  of money I received 

4. The donation

In those moments of gratitude, sent you a total of  $5,000 for your personal expenses, believing at the time that it was part of a common mission. At this moment  I feel I have  the duty to inform the  groups of that, including the amount. In fact, today, with the serious doubts I now have about it (division, doctrinal errors, disobedience to Church norms, and the grave issues I have documented), I feel regret for not having sent that entire amount directly to the poor in Venezuela. That amount would have covered two additional months of food and medicine for the 22 families we are currently assisting (mostly elderly, children, and the gravely ill). The aid is distributed through a team of volunteers under the mission named “San José Gregorio Hernández”, after Venezuela’s first saint, universally known as the Doctor of the Poor.

I nevertheless remain grateful for your prayers and good intentions, Mélanie, and for those of your team. But gratitude for a favour received (however real) does not oblige me to remain silent when I see practices that contradict Catholic doctrine and risk leading souls astray. The Church is clear: truth and the protection of the faithful come first (CCC 2477–2479; Mt 18:15-17).That is why I continue, in charity and clarity, to ask for the necessary corrections.

Next,  you said: 

4. Furthermore, Felipe recognized a very important Sign in most of the videos where Christ gives us live Messages. We have several recordings on this subject. He affirmed that it was an extraordinary Grace from Our Lord Jesus Christ.

My comments. 

Melanie. At this point I am doubting everything.  But even if they come from heaven, I can not hide the wrongs I have exposed here.  

What convinced me of the messages allegedly from heaven when we were  present, was mostly the  light,  which was visible.  But after doing some research,  even this might not come from heaven,  but from the devil. 

Our Catholic Church teaches that the devil has the power to produce phenomena like illuminating a room during a vision to deceive the visionary and the people present or recording a  video, and mimic that way of heavenly messages. This is a classic form of demonic imitation, limited by God's permission but real enough to test discernment, designed to foster false belief, pride or attachment. The saints emphasize that such "lights" are illusions or natural manipulations, not true divine glory, and must be rejected through obedience and humility.

What the church and the saints recommend is what I have said: discernment, confesor, the norms of the church. So, even in the presence of illumination in a room, the Church urges caution.

Official Teaching of the church on this matter:  

The devil's power is limited but real – he can "transform himself into an angel of light" (2 Corinthians 11:14) to counterfeit supernatural signs.

CCC 395: The devil's power is "not infinite" but can "cause grave injuries" through deception, including sensory illusions.

Discernment: How to Spot Deception:

The Church provides clear criteria (CDF Norms, 1978/2024) to distinguish true from false visions: 

1. Fruits: True visions produce humility, obedience, conversion, and conformity to doctrine (Mt 7:15-20: "By their fruits you will know them"). Demonic ones lead to division, pride, or sensuality.

2.  Obedience: A true visionary submits to the Church/Bishop (CCC 67). The devil hates this.

3. Doctrine: Messages must align with Scripture and Tradition – no new "truths" (CCC 66).

4.  Phenomena like lights: Can be imitated (e.g., St. John of the Cross warns in Ascent of Mount Carmel that demons use "false lights" to dazzle).

Examples:  

1.  St. John of the Cross (Ascent of Mount Carmel, Book II, Chapter 24) "The devil likewise can produce these visions, by means of a certain natural light, whereby he brings things clearly before the mind, through spiritual senses... He can also cause representations of light and brightness in the imagination, so that the soul thinks it sees something supernaturally. But these are not true lights of the understanding, but rather deceptions that leave the soul in dryness, unrest, and pride." 

(He warns that such "lights" are inferior to true divine illumination and serve to tempt the soul away from faith.)

2.  St. Teresa of Ávila (The Interior Castle, Sixth Mansion, Chapter 9, No. 10–11)St. Teresa describes demonic deceptions using false lights and visible phenomena to imitate consolations, often external to the senses:

"The devil... can represent lights and sounds, and even make them seem visible to the outward senses... He can cause a great brightness and splendor to appear, so that the soul thinks it is a vision from God. But this light is not the light of the understanding; it is a false light that leaves the soul confused and attached to sensible consolations, rather than to the will of God." 

(She adds in the same chapter: "I have experienced this myself, and it is a great trial to discern; the soul must cling to obedience and humility, for the devil flees these.")

3. St. Teresa of Ávila (Way of Perfection, Ch. 40): Demons produce false ecstasies with lights to fool souls into pride.

4.  St. Ignatius Loyola (Spiritual Exercises, Rule 13): Demons use "false lights" to dazzle; true divine light brings peace and conformity to the Church.

Advice If experiencing visions, consult a spiritual director immediately (required by Canon Law). The devil's goal is deception – but God's grace always wins through humility and Church guidance (CCC 67).   

Next, you said: 

Please know that Saint Padre Pio revealed to me yesterday that if Felipe does not immediately cease harming the Triumph of the Blessed Virgin Mary, he and his followers who acquiesce to Felipe's unfounded statements will face a very difficult Purgatory. 

My comments: 

Your statement attributing a threat of "very difficult Purgatory" to St. Padre Pio for me and my "followers" if I continue "harming" your mission  is directly contrary to Catholic teaching. It borders on spiritual abuse, using a saint's name to intimidate and manipulate, which the Church condemns as contrary to charity, truth, and proper discernment of private revelations. 

No saint from heaven would issue such a judgmental, punitive "revelation" against living persons without Church authority – that's God's prerogative alone (CCC 1861). Below, I'll explain why, with official Church sources. This isn't just an opinion; it's rooted in Scripture, Catechism, and norms for private revelations, as you will see.  

Saints Don't Threaten Like This: Saints in heaven intercede with mercy and love (CCC 956: "Their intercession is their most exalted service to God's plan"). They don't act as "enforcers" predicting specific punishments for the living – that's fear-mongering, not heavenly guidance. St. Padre Pio himself emphasized obedience and humility, not threats (his letters warn against pride and false mysticism).

Purgatory Isn't a Tool for Coercion: Purgatory is for purification after death (CCC 1031), not a pre-judgment "scare tactic." No private revelation can dictate its details for us, the living – only God knows (According to CCC 1022).

"Followers" Accusation: Labeling probable critics, as in this case,  as "followers" of harm sows division, not unity – the opposite of Christ's call (Jn 17:21).

Violations of Catholic Norms: 

Here's I summarizing how this contradicts key teachings, contrasting the official teaching  with  how it is broken by the message:

1. Private Revelations Must Align with Doctrine, but here,  you claim a saint "reveals" future Purgatory punishment – a new "truth" about judgment, usurping God's role (CCC 1861: "Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom... only God can judge it").

2. No Predicting or Judging the Living, but here you through St Padre Pio threaten specific damnation-like suffering for me and unnamed "followers" – rash judgment (CCC 2477) and scandal (CCC 2284: "Leads another to do evil").

3. Charitable Correction, Not Threats,  but here there is a public threat to intimidate silence, not invite dialogue – contrary to mercy (CCC 1829) and fosters fear, not peace (CCC 2305).

4. Abuse of Saints' Names,  but here you use St. Padre Pio as a "threatenner" – profanes his intercessory role (CCC 956), risking blasphemy (CCC 2148).

5. Need to  follow norms for Revelations (CDF 1978/2024). This includes that the Bishop should investigate first the messages before publishing them, otherwise there is disobedience. But here you bypass official discernment; promotes fear over obedience to Church (DDF Norms 2024, Art. 15: "Psychological manipulation" is a red flag).

What should I do in this case according to church teachings and norms? 

1. Since this is spiritual manipulation, I should report to my bishop or spiritual director (Vos estis lux mundi, 2019: Mandates addressing abuse of authority in revelations).   2. Discern fruits: True messages produce humility/unity (Mt 7:16); this sows fear/division.

3. My exposure: As long as it's charitable and per Mt 18 (private first, opportunity to respond), what I am doing it's fraternal correction, not sin (CCC 2478).

God calls us to truth in love (Eph 4:15).  That means I am on the right path by questioning. All of us in this case would seek peace in Christ! Since it is ongoing, a priest,  spiritual advisor, and the pastor, can help navigate through it.

In conclusion, this statement by you, Melanie, is utterly preposterous. How could heaven punish someone for fulfilling their duty? To me, there is no doubt this message comes from the devil, not from Padre Pio. It seeks to manipulate behavior through fear – the very opposite of what you preach: that heaven's messages, through you, operate in love and trust. By contrast, in this case, the message not only does it aim to intimidate me into shirking my responsibilities, but it also intends to frighten you, the readers, from engaging with my comments and discerning truth from falsehood. Our pastors must be informed of this message, as the Church is called to defend us from such demonic aggression. Indeed, we need to recall the Church's doctrine and authority on this matter.

Regarding you, Melanie, on your end, I don’t want to badmouth you with your Bishop in this matter. I will let you do it herself. That is the solution to this whole impasse, in order to correct the course for the Mission. But if you don’t promise to  do it, I will go to my next step in following Jesus (Mt. 18:  15-17): go public, which implies probably your Bishop will know about it. 

You continue: 

According to Saint Padre Pio, Felipe's statements are inaccurate.

My response: 

Well, Melanie. Given what I have said before, I am sure Padre Pio agrees with me. Which implies this message does not come from him either.  It comes  from the devil, whe prince of lies and division. 

Before ending my comments, I want all of you to notice something interesting in your response,  Melanie: out of the many questions and remarks, you only focus on very few of them to comment on them. But what happened to  the rest? You are clearly using the  selective sampling fallacy  (or cherry picking):  out of sample, you only select the information that seem to confirm your  theory.  And what is the theory here? That I am to blame, and you and your  team are innocent; that I chose the bad path, that of the devil, instead of the path of you: that of God. The objective of that fallacy is to proceed, without going to all the  arguments, to justify condemnation. That is why that fallacy is called “selection bias” when judging a person or an issue. A bias, or a fallacy, is a kind of lie, of course. You, Melanie,  are not being an unbiased,  or just, judge of my character, or my alleged sins. 

Or course, as  I have shown here, not a single argument,  within the biased sample of arguments, is damaging to my case. On the contrary. They confirm my case. I have tried to  cover in my comments the rest of the missing sample points. Except the one of Donald Trump and the need to respect freedom of expression  in a democracy (cancelling freedom of expression can nod come  from God: it comes from the devil).   

It is also interesting to  notice that you, Melanie, are using yet another fallacy related to  this one: that of “straw man”: you only see the negative aspects of a person in order to attack the resulting construction of the original person: a very weak version of the real model. That way, when you attack the straw man, you succeed easily. Attaching, disqualifying the real man would be difficult. Especially if the man is innocent, or has a strong point.  But what have we noticed at the end? That not even the strawman is weak, vulnerable. That means that the true man is quite strong. In other  words,  and again: my case is confirmed, and very solid.  

I end with what you said in your response: “Christ spoke to me this morning, asking me to defend Mary's role in this work that He himself asked me to establish by choosing Peace, Love, Trust, Mercy, and Hope”. 

But what I have shown is that you are  acting in a different way, producing the fruits of lies and division, through fear. The opposite of what you claim. The reasons I was separated from  the coordination of the groups. That does not come from Christ. But from the devil, the prince of lies and division. 

In view of all of this is why I recommend to you what I said in the introduction: Correction and save the mission,  which has a lot of potential. Please keep us posted about it,  since that way we might come back to the mission, and help you promote it. 

Annex.  About calumny and how Melanie is using it. 

Official Teaching from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)CCC 2477:   

Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. The sinner  becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
• of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;
• of calumny [slander] who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

CCC 2479

Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.

Degrees of Sin: 

Grave (mortal) if deliberate and harms seriously (full knowledge, consent, grave matter). Venial if minor or thoughtless. Detraction (revealing true faults unnecessarily) is also sinful but distinct from slander (false accusations).

The Church urges reparation (CCC 2487) – e.g., public correction if harm was public – and charitable discernment (CCC 2478: interpret favorably before judging). 

So, all what I am doing is following Jesus’ recommendations for this case (Mt 18: 15-17), exposing those acts of calumny and warning the groups of the practices that I consider harmful for them and for the church. The teachings of the church on these things are the following: 

Following Matthew 18:15-17 to expose wrongdoing (such as calumny, false messages from heaven, or breaking Church norms) is not calumny. It is fraternal correction, a positive duty in Catholic teaching. In particular if some other people are hurt, including the prayer groups I used to coordinate, and the mentioned prophets, Fr. Michel and Luz de María, as in this case. 

The norms also say that this must be done charitably, privately at first, and with the intent to heal, not harm. If mishandled (e.g., public from the start or with malice), it could cross into detraction or calumny.

I did this step of talking privately to you and your team (especially Melanie herself)  for about a month and a half, as you know, and as I have informed here in this email group.  

Let's break it down with Church teaching. It is good to make this key Distinction, to contrast our ways of proceeding so see if it is Correction or Calumny: 

1. Correction. Purpose: Restore the person to truth and unity (charity, justice).
2. Calumny. Purpose: Harm reputation through lies (malice, injustice).
3. Correction. Process: Private first, then witnesses, then community – always seeking response (CCC 2478).
4. Calumny. Process: Public or hidden, no opportunity for defense (CCC 2477).
5. Correction. Content: Truthful, based on facts, for the common good (e.g., exposing false doctrine to protect souls).
6. Calumny. Content: False accusations, even if "well-intentioned" (CCC 2479).
7. Correction. Outcome: Builds up the Church (unity, repentance).
8. Calumny. Outcome: Destroys reputation and community (division, scandal).

As far as I understand,  that is exactly what I have tried to do: correction. Contrary to your way of proceeding, Melanie, as I described it. In particular I always gave you a chance to respond. You are doing it now, and I am commenting. It is good, then, that you give me a chance to respond to  the other people in your hidden email list to whom you send your message against me.  

As you will see, It is good continue with the official Church Teaching on this matter: 

CCC 2478 (on avoiding rash judgment and favoring correction):  "To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

'Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.'"

That is what I tried to do in private, for a month and a half. Including apologizing when I did not have a reason to do so. I have all the receipts on this ilf needed here.  In public, I have tried to be nice too,  but maybe I did not succeed in that (in part for my frustration at not receiving answers). For which I apologize if that is the case: if it was  perceived  that  way by Melanie and her team. 

CCC 1829 (charity as correction): 

"The first, the most important, and the most perfect of all virtues is charity... Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God."

Let us recall now Mt 18:15-17 itself (Jesus' mandate, the one I am using):  "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you... If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church."

When It Becomes Calumny: 

1. If you skip private steps and go public immediately (CCC 2477: "discloses another's faults... without objectively valid reason").

2. If motivated by anger/revenge, not love (CCC 2487: requires reparation if harm is done).

3. If exaggerating or falsifying facts (CCC 2479: "remarks contrary to the truth").

Conclusion for my way of acting, according to the CCC:

Since I am following Mt 18:15-17 (private first, opportunity to respond), my intent seems corrective – that's virtuous, not sinful. The Church praises this as mercy in truth (e.g., St. John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor, no. 99). Document your steps, pray for charity (CCC 2478), and involve a spiritual director to ensure humility. If it's about unapproved revelations or norms, consult your Bishop – that's the path to truth. God bless your efforts!

I have not consulted yet with my spiritual director, the pastor, or the Bishop. Because I don’t want to put Melanie in a very bad spot, regarding the Mission, which I think is good, but it has to  be urgently rescued, before she is given a last chance to correct course.