Yesterday, Bishop Robert Bourgon joined Bishop Gilles Lemay in publishing his own personal “disavowal” of Fr. Michel’s messages. However, yet again, no formal condemnation has been issued, and these statements remain the personal opinions of the prelates themselves — opinions which they are of course entitled to express, but which are not binding upon the faithful in accordance with how these Bishops, themselves, have chosen to word them and promulgate them. (If, on the other hand, a formal condemnation were to be issued, we would immediately obey by removing Fr. Michel’s material from this website.) We note that Bishop Robert phrased his own “disavowal” as being “in union with Bishop Lemay,” who, in turn, has phrased his disavowal of Fr. Michel’s messages in relation to his own “absolute” rejection of prophecies of the Warning, the Chastisements, World War III, the Three Days of Darkness, and the Era of Peace (all of which we have extensively documented, on this website, as being contained in countless approved revelations).
Were a bishop to issue a formal condemnation of Fr. Michel Rodrigue’s messages, and were the prophecies of the Warning, the Chastisements, World War III, the Three Days of Darkness, and the Era of Peace to then occur, such a condemnation would reflect poorly on said bishop and on the Catholic Church as a whole. An erroneous condemnation would put into question the sanctity and surety of any bishop’s official statement, which is presumed utterly correct and to come from a thorough investigation.
For readers who may be confused as to what exactly a formal condemnation is and why the various existing statements pertaining to Fr. Michel do not amount to one, we are including here an example of such a condemnation of a recent alleged apparition.