AGAINST THE ECCLESIASTICAL RECOGNITION OF THE "APPARITIONS" AND "MESSAGES"
TO IDA PEERDEMAN IN AMSTERDAM
BY BISHOP PUNT OF THE NETHERLANDS
1. Objections against Bishop Punt's Methodology
A. According to the Criterion of the Holy Office (Card. Seper 1978), the facts of any case have to be examined thoroughly beforehand.
B. This was done repeatedly by several former bishops of Haarlem, always with a clear, negative result.
C. This was always confirmed by Rome. In the text of 25.08.1961 (prot. nr.511/53) the Holy Office writes: "that the whole matter is closed and there is no room for further action". See, amongst others, the texts of the Holy Office of 24.05.1972, 25.05.1974 and 26.04.1987).
D. Under the influence of Bishop Hnilica, who has been involved with the propagation of a number of non-recognised and even condemned "alleged apparitions," i.e., Teresa Lopez, of Denver, also Vassula Ryden, and Medjugorje) and Rev. Father P. Klos (now suspended by Cardinal Simonis and revoked by his s.s.s. order), the public devotion to Mary under the title "Lady of all Nations" was authorised by Bishop Bomers and assistant Bishop Punt on 31.05.1996. At this time a distinction was expressly made between the title and the "apparitions' and "messages". No judgment was passed about the supernatural character of the "apparitions" and the contents of "the messages".
E. On 30.05.1998, Bishop Punt of Haarlem declared that as a baby he was dedicated to the "Lady of all Nations" by his mother.
F. On 31.05.1998, Bishop Bomers declared that, together with Bishop Punt, he had, in virtue of the alleged "fruits" of Amsterdam, decided to create a commission whose task was to amass and study ALL testimonies concerning the "Lady of all Nations".
G. On 09.09.1998, Bishop Bomers repeated to me orally (3 days before his death) what he had already written to me on 22.05.1998: "I have NOT recognized any celestial "apparitions" or "messages".
H. In my letter of 10.03.1999 to Bishop Punt, at that time apostolic administrator of Haarlem, I requested that I be heard by the commission of inquiry about Amsterdam.
I. On 23.05.1999, Bishop Punt declared there will be no inquiry about the authenticity of the "apparitions". It only is a question of making an inventory of the "fruits"...
J. In my letter of 01.10.1999, I expressed my surprise about the fact that Bishop Punt was not interested in an inquiry concerning the authenticity of the "apparitions" of Amsterdam. I again proposed that I be heard by his "fruits-inquiring-commission".
K. On 26.10.1999, Bishop Punt answered that, when his commission would be installed he would not object in any way to my being heard. He also wrote that the question about the authenticity could not be answered WITHOUT Rome.
L. On 31.05.2002, Bishop Punt suddenly declared the origin of the "apparitions" of Amsterdam to be supernatural.
Conclusion. Bishop Punt has NOT been loyal to the utterances of previous bishops and towards Rome. He REFUSED to start a commission of inquiry concerning the authenticity. He did NOT keep his word to let me testify.
2. Objections against the Required Marian Dogma
A. In his statement of 31.05.2002, Bishop Punt wrote that a private revelation is never compulsory. He forgets that the "Lady of all Nations" CLAIMED a fifth dogma at Amsterdam, that is Mary as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate. A dogma once accepted and promoted by the Church is a doctrinal point and NOT something about which Catholics are free to decide.
B. In the Bible we read that Christ is the ONLY 'intercessor (Jn 14,6; 1 Tim 2,5)
C. In the second Vatican Council the title Co-Redeemer was NOT used as regards Mary (cf. Lumen Gentium 62).
D. In august 1996 the 12th International Marian Congress was held in Czestochowa, Poland. At the request of the Holy See the titles for a possible 5th Marian dogma were theologically examined. A NEGATIVE conclusion was published in the "Osservatore Romano" of 04.06.1997.
E. On 18.08.1997, the spokesman for the Holy See, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, declared that the Pope would NOT be promulgating any new dogma involving Mary as "Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate."
CONCLUSION. The humble Virgin Mary of the GOSPEL would never claim new, dubious titles of honour for herself. So the "Lady of all Nations" must be ANOTHER entity.
3. Objection against the PICTURE/PAINTING of the Lady of Amsterdam
The "Lady of all Nations" is pictured standing on a globe in front of the Cross, thus taking the place of the God-man Jesus.
CONCLUSION: The human being Mary can never be put on the same level as her DIVINE Son. Besides, the Christ on the Cross has disappeared, with the Lady of Amsterdam taking His place. Theologically such a thing is impossible.
4. Objections against the Prayer of the "Lady of All Nations."
In this prayer Mary is called the "Lady of all Nations who.. .once WAS Mary."
CONCLUSION. After twenty centuries we cannot accept that the Biblical Mary should be replaced by a substitute.
5. Objections against the Messages of Amsterdam
A. The "Lady" said that Pope Pius XII would, before his death, proclaim the dogma asked for ("message" of 31.05.1954). Yet this did NOT happen.
B. The "Lady" said that the successor of Pius XII would proclaim the dogma ("message" of 19.02.1958). Pope John XXIII REFUSED to do so.
C. The "Lady" said Ida Peerdeman's bishop (at that time bishop Huibers) would give his consent to build the church the "Lady" had shown to Ida. ("message" of 31.05.1954). This did NOT happen.
D. On 29.03.1946, the "Lady" clenched her FIST. On 10.12.1950 the "Lady" obliged Ida to clench her FIST and it is as if the "Lady" herself banged on the table with her fist. (the humble Virgin as a rebellious feminist?)
E. The "Lady" says: "In Manchuria a terrible insurrection will break out ("message" of 10.12.1950)
F. The "Lady" says: "The Oder is red with blood" (idem)
G. In the new church to be built, the "Lady" shows Ida the altar of the "Lady of all Nations," which must be on the SAME height as the main altar ("message" of 20.03.1953).
CONCLUSION. Those are only a few examples of the so-called "messages" of Amsterdam which are sensational, and full of absurd things and false predictions.
6. Objections against Ida Peerdeman's personality
A. From testimonies collected during the long period during which she worked for the firm Boldoot it seems Ida Peerdeman behaved in a rather egocentric and pretentious way rather than with humility. She demanded to be treated with all respect BECAUSE she had been chosen by heaven to be a seer. Sometimes she remained absent from her work because she expected an "apparition" of the "Lady". Because of her unpredictable and arrogant behaviour she was finally dismissed. In 1946 Ida's employer died. In Mr. Boldoot's inheritance was found a first version of the "messages" to Ida, called the "Boldoot Visions". In a later version - the notorious "Blue Booklet" - changes had been made. Also some striking out had been used. Perhaps this was because some of the first visions contained too much nonsense. Amongst other points, it is said the "Lady of all Nations" made a movement suggesting she will undress herself (07.10.1945). Also there is the example of Ida allegedly seeing the bellicose General von Hentsz appear; or saying that the Dutch Government must keep its power in Dutch India; or that under the reign of king Leopold, Belgium would split, etc...
B. Ida Peerdeman had her own contact person in the Vatican, namely the Dutch priest, Mgr. Van Lierde who, for a long time had officiated as the Pope's sexton. This Mgr. Van Lierde was well known for his contacts with a number of alleged "seers." He even entered into a mystical marriage with the Canadian Marie-Paule Gigučre, who founded "Mary's Army" after she had left "The Legion of Mary". Her movement was forbidden by the Canadian Bishops' conference in 1987. At the same time the DEVOTION and the PRAYER of the "LADY OF ALL NATIONS" WAS FORBIDDEN (cf. Canon 839, par. 2).
In an enthusiastic letter to Mgr. Van Lierde, Ida Peerdeman wrote about this FALSE seer Marie-Paule: "Who is this woman? A second Catherine of Siena? A second Joan of Arc? Does Church history already know someone like her? We think she is unique. I even go as far as to assert that she is the INCARNATION of the Holy Virgin Mary. In an extraordinary way she is the Co-Redeemer, the Mediator, the Advocate, the Lady of all Nations."
So WHO is Marie-Paule Gigučre in fact? Answer: a divorced woman with five children who concocted 6.000 pages of "messages". A few examples of her "Messages of Jesus":
"You are a Doctor of the Church" (book 7 p.155); "You will be the first person to be canonized during her life" (book I p.199); "You are another Mary" (book 14 p.78); "You are Co-Redeemer," (book 13 p.76); "I will make you a priest" (book II p.227); "Your son Peter will be the great pope of peace" (book I p.327). In book 13 p. 46, Mgr. Van Lierde is even offered the papacy, which he "humbly" accepts. And in book 8, p.39, Jesus says about Marie-Paule: "Whoever kisses your photo will be instantaneously cured". In book 7, p.348, Marie-Paule say about herself:" I shall crush the serpent's head"!!! Absolutely mad!
So nobody will be surprised to hear it is THROUGH Mgr. Van Lierde's intercession that "Mary's Army" was first officially recognized in 1975 by a canonical decree of the Archbishop Roy of Quebec. Happily his successor, Bishop Vachon DISSOLVED and FORBADE this community, but only after a period of twelve years.
CONCLUSION. What can we say about bishop Punt's strange recognition of Amsterdam? Will it also take twelve years before common sense gets the upper hand again in our chaotic Catholic Church?
7. Objections against the Propagandists of Amsterdam
Many supporters of the "Lady of all Nations" also run after all kinds of other unrecognized "apparitions". Apparently they are NOT necessarily interested in the contents, but rather are victims of a sadly typical attitude of mind: a sense of frustration caused by the widespread modernism found in the Church; an aversion to the changes which have taken place since the second Vatican Council, combined with nostalgia for the pre-conciliar period. They can also be said to exhibit a desire for the sensational, in which they accept without any discernment all sorts of contradictory messages, in ignorance of warnings from great saints, such as the Doctor of the Church, St. John of the Cross, who warned against FALSE "apparitions", and excessive naivety in these matters
The background of some of the promoters of Amsterdam is questionable:
A. Father Klos, s.s.s. In 1994 he started a new magazine "Queen of Prophets", which was allied with the foundation "Vox Populi". Therein he propagated amongst other things, Amsterdam and the fifth Marian dogma, even going against the will of Ida Peerdeman herself. He also supported Medjugorje, Vassula Ryden, etc. Later on he clashed with Cardinal Simonis and was eventually suspended and dismissed from his order (s.s.s.)
B. Bishop Hnilica. In 1993 he was condemned by a Roman Court to 3.5 years of imprisonment regarding the Banco Ambrosiano affair, and the murder of one of its directors, Calvi. Later on he was acquitted of these charges . He travels all over the world to stimulate many types of alleged "apparitions". In 1997 he started a new magazine, the luxuriously edited "Triumph of the Heart", which especially propagated Amsterdam. Together with his community, "The Family of Mary" and his associate Father P. Sigl, he even succeeded in infiltrating the house and chapel of Ida Peerdeman.
CONCLUSION. There are serious questions about some of the people supporting the "Lady of all Nations" movement.
8. Objections against the manipulations involving Amsterdam.
A. In 1997 Bishop Hnilica, with the consent of both Bishop Bomers and Bishop Punt, organized the first international conference in Amsterdam There he maintained that the "messages" of Amsterdam contained the third secret of Fatima. His assistant Fr. Sigl declared the "messages" of Amsterdam to be authentic, but at the same time said he did not want to anticipate the judgment of the Church...
B. During the second Amsterdam meeting in 1998 a letter, signed by the Prioress of the Coimbra Carmel, was read, in which she joined with the prayers in Amsterdam. This was applauded. It was interpreted as Sister Lucia of Fatima's approval of the "apparitions" in Amsterdam Yet later on (on 21.12.1998) the same Prioress wrote "that somebody from Amsterdam had begged her to send such a letter and that Sister Lucia was NOT making any statements about Amsterdam, about which she scarcely knew anything.
C. During the third meeting in Adam in 1999 a group which PRETENDED to be members of the Austrian "Blue Army" of Fatima handed over two statues of the Amsterdam "Lady" (having similar features as Our Lady of Fatima) to Bishop Punt with the request that he crown them with a little crown "blessed" by the Pope. Apparently the Pope did not actually bless these crowns for that specific purpose. The International Secretariat of the World Apostolate of Fatima let me know later on that they had NO section of the Blue Army in Austria, and that their so-called leader, Fernando Andreotta was unknown to them. Before this, the management of the Fatima Apostolate in the Netherlands had expressly asked bishop Punt NOT to misuse the name of Fatima during the Amsterdam manifestation.
D. After the fourth Amsterdam conference in 2000, it was said that a fifth one would NOT be organized. Yet in 2001, the international conferences were replaced by a multiple national Amsterdam meetings in many separate countries, thus allowing people to be further manipulated.
CONCLUSION. Even before 31.05.2002, the impression was given that the NON-recognized Amsterdam "apparitions" had the same standard as the recognized, real apparitions in Fatima. It appears that the various "fruits" Amsterdam, which were promoted by Bishop Hnilica, were WRONGLY understood by Bishop Punt.
FINAL CONCLUSION. Bishop Punt made a serious error in recognizing the Amsterdam "apparitions". He has ignored the well-founded negative judgments of all his predecessors and Rome. In doing this it can be argued that he has created much future trouble for the Church, and also that he has acted in a subjective, imprudent, and even irresponsible way.
In the name of those many faithful Catholics of common sense and a still healthy Biblical Marian devotion, I urgently ask for:
1) the ANNULMENT of Bishop Punt's recognition (31.05.2002) of the "apparitions" in Amsterdam.
2) the ANNULMENT of the recognition (31.05.1996) of the public devotion (title, picture, painting, prayer).
My only aim is to serve the truth and the Catholic Church.
Feast of Mary, Queen - 22.08.2002