PETITION AGAINST THE ECCLESIASTICAL RECOGNITION
OF THE "APPARITIONS" AND "MESSAGES" TO IDA PEERDEMAN
IN AMSTERDAM BY BISHOP PUNT OF THE NETHERLANDS

  1. Objection against Bishop Punt's METHODOLOGY

    1. According to the Criterion of the Holy Office (Cardinal Seper, 1978), FACTS have to be examined thoroughly beforehand.

    2. This was done repeatedly by several former bishops of Haarlem, always with a clear, negative result.

    3. This was always confirmed by Rome. In the text of August 25, 1961 (prot. nr. 511/53) the Holy Office writes: "that the whole matter is CLOSED and there is NO MORE room for further action". See, among others, the texts of the Holy Office of May 24, 1972, May 25, 1974 and April 26, 1987).

    4. Under the influence of the propaganda of, among others, Bishop Hnilica (specialized in propagating NON-RECOGNIZED AND CONDEMNED "APPARITIONS" including Teresa Lopez of Denver, Vassula Ryden, Medjugorje, etc.) and Rev. Fr. P. KIos (now suspended by Cardinal Simonis and revoked of his S.S.S. Order), the public devotion to Mary under the title "Lady of All Nations" was released by Bishop Bomers and assistant-Bishop Punt on May 31, 1996.

      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".

    5. On May 30, 1998, Bishop Punt of Haarlem declared that as a baby he was dedicated to the "Lady of All Nations" by his mother.

    6. On May 31, 1998, Bishop Bomers declared that he, TOGETHER WITH BISHOP PUNT, has, in virtue of the "fruits", decided to create a commission whose task was to amass and study ALL testimonies concerning the "Lady of All Nations".

    7. On September 9, 1998 Bishop Bomers repeated to me orally (3 days before his death) what he had already written me on May 22, 1998: "I have NOT recognized any celestial "apparitions" or "messages".

    8. In my letter of March 10, 1999 to Bishop Punt, at that time apostolic administrator of Haarlem, I requested to be heard first by the commission of inquiry about Amsterdam.

    9. On May 23, 1999 Bishop Punt declared there will be no inquiry about the authenticity of the "apparition". It only is a question of making an inventory of the "fruits"....

    10. In my letter of October 1, 1999 I expressed my amazement about the fact that Bishop Punt is not interested in an inquiry concerning the authenticity of the "apparitions" of Amsterdam. I again proposed to be heard by his "fruits-inquiring-commission".

    11. On October 10, 1999 Bishop Punt answered that, when his commission will be installed he DOES NOT OBJECT IN ANY WAY TO MY BEING HEARD. He also wrote that the question about authenticity CANNOT BE ANSWERED WITHOUT ROME.

    12. On May 31, 2002 Bishop Punt suddenly declared the origin of the "apparitions" of Amsterdam is supernatural!!!

    CONCLUSION. Bishop Punt was NOT loyal towards the former utterances of his predecessor bishops and towards Rome. He REFUSES to start a commission of inquiry concerning the authenticity. He DID NOT KEEP his word to let me testify.

  2. Objection against the REQUIRED Marian DOGMA.

    1. In his statement of May 31, 2002 Bishop Punt wrote that a private revelation is never compulsory. He forgets the "Lady of All Nations" CLAIMS a fifth dogma in Amsterdam. Mary as Co-Reideemer, Intercessor and Mediator. A dogma is a doctrinal point and NOT something free.

    2. In the Bible one can read Christ is the ONLY intercessor (Jn.l4,6; 1. Tim. 2,5.)

    3. In the Second Vatican Council the title Co-Redeemer is NOT used (cf. Lumen Gentium, nr.62).

    4. In August 1996 the 12th International Marian Congress was held in Czestochova, Poland. On request of the Holy See the titles for a possible 5th Marian dogma were theologically examined. The NEGATIVE conclusion was published in the "Osservatore Romano" of June 4, 1997.

    5. On August 18, 1997 the spokesman of the Holy See, Joaquin Navarro Valls, declared that the Pope does NOT intend to raise Mary's titles of Co-Redeemer, Intercessor and Mediator to the rank of dogma.

    CONCLUSION. The humble Virgin Mary of the GOSPEL would never claim new, dubious titles of honour for herself. So the "Lady of All Nations" is ANOTHER entity....

  3. Objection against the PICTURE/PAINTING of the "Lady of All Nations."

    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 the DIVINE Son. Besides, the Christ on the Cross has disappeared. With pretension the Lady of Amsterdam takes His place. Theologically such a thing is impossible.

  4. Objection 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 do NOT accept the Biblical Mary to be replaced by a substitute.

  5. Objection against the MESSAGES of Amsterdam.

    1. The "Lady" said Pope Pius XII would, before his death, proclaim the asked for dogma. ("Message" of May 31, 1954). Yet this did NOT happen.

    2. The "Lady" said that the successor of Pius XII will proclaim the dogma ("Message" of February 2, 1958). Pope John XXIII REFUSED to do so.

    3. 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 May 31, 1954). This did NOT happen.

    4. On March 29, 1946 the "Lady" clenched her FIST. On December 10, 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?)

    5. The "Lady" said: "In Manchuria a terrible insurrection will break out. ("Message" of December 10, 1950)??

    6. The "Lady" said: "The Oder is red with blood" (idem)??

    7. In the new church to be built, the "Lady" showed Ida the altar of the "Lady of All Nations", which must be on the SAME height as the main altar, ("Message" of March 20, 1953)

    CONCLUSION. Those are only a few examples of the so-called "Messages" of Amsterdam - full of absurd things, sensation and false predictions.

  6. Objection against Ida Peerdeman's PERSONALITY

    1. From testimonies of the long period during which she worked for the firm Boldoot it seems Ida Peerdeman behaved in a rather egocentric and pretentious rather than humble way. 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 finally was dismissed. In 1946 Ida's employer died. In Mr. Boldoot's inheritance one could find 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 striking out had been used; perhaps because some of the first visions contained too much nonsense. Among other things, it is said the "Lady of All Nations" made a movement suggesting she would undress herself (October 7, 1945). Also Ida "sees" the bellicose General von Hentsz appear. The Dutch Government must see to it to keep its power in Dutch India. Under the reign of King Leopold, Belgium would split etc...

    2. Ida Peerdeman had her own contact person in the Vatican, namely the Dutch Mgr. Van Lierde who, for a long time had officiated as the Pope's sexton. This Mgr. Van Lierde was notorious because of his intense contacts with many FALSE "seers". So he even entered into a mystical marriage with the Canadian Marie-Paule Gigučre, founder of "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 Catharina of Sienna? A second Joan of Arc? Does our 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 Intercessor: 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 "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 13 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 says 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 Archbishop Roy of Quebec. Happily his successor, Bishop Vachon has DISSOLVED and FORBIDDEN this community, but only twelve years later!!

    CONCLUSION. How about bishop Punt's absurd recognition? Will it also take twelve years before common sense will get the upper hand again in our chaotic Roman Catholic Church?

  7. Objection against the PROPAGANDISTS OF Amsterdam

    Most fans of the "Lady of all Nations" also run after all kinds of other NON-recognized "apparitions". Apparently they are NOT really interested in the contents, but are victims of a typical attitude of mind: frustration caused by the modernism of the present Church, aversion from the changes since the Second Vatican Council, nostalgia for the pre-council period, longing for sensation, accepting without any criticism all sorts of contradictory messages, ignorance of the warning texts of, for instance, Doctor of the Church, St. John of the Cross against FALSE "apparitions", excessive naivety ....

    The real great promoters of Amsterdam are of a very dubious quality:



    1. Father Klos, S.S.S.. In 1994 he started a new magazine "Queen of Prophets", for the foundation "Vox Populi". Therein he propagated, among others, Amsterdam and the fifth Marian dogma, even against the will of Ida Peerdeman herself and this because he also defends Medjugorje, Vassula and others. Later on he clashed with Cardinal Simonis and he even was suspended and revoked from his order (S.S.S.)

    2. 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 its director, Calvi. Later on there followed an acquittal. He travels all over the world to stimulate all kinds of non-recognized "apparitions". In 1997 he started a new magazine, the luxuriously edited "Triumph of the Heart", which especially propagates Amsterdam. Together with his community "Family of Mary the CO-REDEEMER" and his right-hand Father P. Sigl, he even succeeded in infiltrating the house and chapel of Ida Peerdeman.

    CONCLUSION. The quality of the propagandists is as dubious as the "Lady of All Nations" herself.

  8. Objection against the MANIPULATIONS in Amsterdam

    1. In 1997 Bishop Hnilica, with the consent of both Bishop Bomers and Bishop Punt, organized the first international conference in Amsterdam. There he maintained, without batting an eyelid, that the "messages" of Amsterdam contain 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...

    2. During the second Amsterdam meeting in 1998 a letter was read signed by the Prioress of the Coďmbra Carmel, in which she joined the prayer in Amsterdam. This was treated to a stormy applause. It was interpreted as Sister Lucy of Fatima's approval of the "apparitions" in Amsterdam... Yet, later on (on December 21, 1998) the same Prioress wrote "that somebody from Amsterdam had begged her to send such a letter and that Sister Lucy does NOT make any statement about Amsterdam which she scarcely knows."

    3. During the third meeting in Amsterdam 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 to crown them with a little crown "blessed" by the Pope. The Pope IGNORED the small crowns were meant for Amsterdam. The International Secretariat of the World Apostolate of Fatima let us 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 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.

    4. After the fourth Amsterdam conference in 2000, it was said the fifth one would NOT be organized any more. Yet in 2001 the international conferences were replaced by a multiple of national Amsterdam meetings in many separate countries, thus manipulating people still more.

    CONCLUSION. Already before May 31, 2002 manipulations were made to give the impression that the NON-recognized "apparitions" of Amsterdam had the same standard as the recognized, real apparitions in Fatima. Bishop Hnilica's propaganda, lobbying and manipulations have given their "fruits" which were WRONGLY understood by Bishop Punt.

FINAL CONCLUSION. Bishop Punt made a catastrophic error by recognizing the Amsterdam "apparitions". He ignored the negative judgments of all his predecessors and Rome. He got the whole Roman Catholic into a corner. He acts in a subjective, pushy, imprudent, stubborn and irresponsible way.

In the name of many faithful with common sense and a still healthy Biblical Marian devotion, at the end of this short petition I urgently ask for

  1. the ANNULMENT of Bishop Punt's recognition (May 31, 2002) of the "apparitions" in Amsterdam.

  2. the ANNULMENT of the recognition (May 31, 1996) of the public devotion (title, picture, painting, prayer).

My only aim is to serve the truth and the R.C. Church.

Feast of Mary, Queen
22.08.2002

Waterinckx Mark
Weinebruggelaan 49
B 8200 Brugge (Sint-Michiels)
Belgium
Tel.: 0032(0)50.38.50.29



False Apparitions, Visions, Locutions

Click here for Sean Ó Lachtnáin's Home Page