de Dieu' (Falsifiers of God) is a study of hundreds of false apparitions during 2000 years of church history. Joachim Bouflet
wrote an excellent book. Sad to say that even such a book can be outdated in a little as two years. What are some years in
eternity? Or in two millennia of History? Well, as little or as much as it accounts for. As considered to be the French specialist
in the apparitions of Mary, Bouflet did not foresee in his 2000 Edition, that the apparitions of the Holy Virgin in Amsterdam
just after the release of his study were official ecclesiastic approved.
we don’t count a many apparitions to be of official supernatural character. The Roman Catholic Church recognized a very
few only. Two centuries ago Lourdes in France. Last century Fatima in Portugal, Syracuse in Italy or Akita in Japan. And,
as the first in the new millennium the apparitions of Amsterdam.
happened, on May 31, 2002, when the therefore responsible Roman Catholic authority declared that the apparitions of the Lady
of All Nations in Amsterdam consist of a supernatural origin.
the extended study of Bouflet “Amsterdam” is little more than a footnote. But what a footnote! One that fired the faithful to protest against the Archbishop
of Paris, who gave his Imprimatur to this book.
He gave what?
Church has the obligation to preserve Her sheep from deviations from the Truth and to to guarantee them the "objective possibility
of professing the true faith without error" (Catechism, No. 890). Because of this, the Bishops will look at books published
by Catholics on Catholic matters in their dioceses, giving them their "okay" if nothing therein is found to be contrary to
when Joachim Bouflet writes a book on apparitions and wants it to be recognized by the official church, he must submit his manuscript to his diocese's Censor. If the Censor finds no problem with it, he will give it
his stamp, which reads "Nihil Obstat," or "nothing stands in the way." The R.C. Censor then sends it to the Bishop or in this
case the Archbishop for his review. Jean-Marie Lustiger found nothing objectionable, so the Archbishop of gave on the First
of May 2000 'Faussaires de Dieu' his "Imprimatur" which means, "let it be printed."
its was not an International riot because of a footnote, but on the internet the faithful were asked in a rather vulgar way
to send petitions and letters of protest to the responsible provider of the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, Paris Cardinal Jean-Marie
Bouflet hardly mentioned the apparitions of Mary in Amsterdam, what he wrote was, according the internet protest “complete
rubbish!”, as Bouflet quotes “a fake letter, never written” by the visionary of Amsterdam. The letter Bouflet
quoted was “completely made up by Marie Paule Giguere from Canada”.
Peerdeman held Marie-Paul always on a distance. That this letter never could have been written by Ida Peerdeman might be true.
not so because miss Peerdeman, a humble ordinary woman with little educations, was not able “to write in French.”
letter (if existing) had to be written in Dutch to the Dutch Vatican dignitary Mgr. Van Lierde. So that’s not the problem.
Problem is that the only source to this letter is Marie Paule Giguere. This Canadian, proclaiming to be the incarnation of
the Holy Virgin self, tried very hard to include the visions of the Amsterdam Mother of All Nations to use for her own plans.
The only evidence of this letter is the autobiography of this self proclaimed Holy Virgin Marie Paule Giguere
this “letter” Ida Peerdeman not only speaks out that she believes that Miss Giguere is nothing less that the reincarnation
of the Mother of Jesus, but in one line compares Miss Giguere with Catharina of Siena. Hard to believe that Ida had any idea
who this Catharina of Siena was.
a serious scholar as Joachim Bouflet did not show the slightest suspicion about this now infamous letter. Did Bouflet see
the original letter? Or is Miss Giguere ‘s “Bible” his source?
in Japan they were astonished. Kami Saburo, editor of a Roman Catholic Magazine in Yokohama: “How such a letter could
slip into a book of an authority as Joachim Bouflet?
letter the protesters on internet were quite angry about: “Bouflet got this ridicule letter presented as a genuine one
in his book, assuming that the apparition of Mary in Amsterdam, who presented herself as the Lady of all Nations, are false.
were right in a way, but Bouflet published his study two years before the apparitions of Amsterdam were officially recognized.
By canonical Decree of the bishop of Haarlem, the Netherlands.”
is sad that some people misuse the good name of Bouflet to set up the faithful against their very own bishop. Presenting the absence of the Canonical Decree as one of the “facts” against Amsterdam.
Thanks to poor knowledge of the French language in Holland is Bouflets study presented as an accusation against the joyful
apparition of the Mother of All Nations.
lists in his book all the earlier condemnations of the apparitions of Amsterdam.
But the Big Thing is not there! The officially ecclesiastic approval came two years after Bouflet published his 'Faussaires
can hardly blame Bouflet for that it took the church over 50 years before they gave Mary of Mokum (Mokum is the old Jiddish
name of Amsterdam) official approval.
- Submitted by Jane Turner