Fwd: Defending Luz de Maria
Felipe Pérez Martí
From: Felipe Pérez Martí <felipepe...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Apr 19, 2026 at 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: Defending Luz de Maria<danielsv...@gmail.com>, Mark Mallett
As I promised, I have gone public. I have done so more strongly and comprehensively than I initially planned.
The final document is published here:
https://www.quehacer.wiki/wiki/Count_Down_to_the_Kingdom:_A_Site_of_False_Prophetic_Analysis_Serving_the_Evil_One
I sincerely believe you are in grave danger of being instrumentalized by the evil one in sowing confusion and division. Please read the document with an open heart.I remain available for honest and fraternal dialogue if you wish to respond. Otherwise, I ask you to reflect seriously before God and make the necessary corrections.
Best regards and blessings,
In Jesus and Mary,
Felipe Pérez Martí
Countdown to the Kingdom: A Site of False Prophetic Analysis Serving the Evil One
Felipe Pérez Martí
April 19, 2026
Dear all,
During much of this month of April, I have tried to convince Daniel O’Connor and Mark Mallett, editors of Countdown to the Kingdom (CDTK), to speak directly and fraternally with Luz de María de Bonilla, the well-known messenger from Heaven, whose official website (in several languages) can be found here:
https://www.revelacionesmarianas.com/
My goal was for them to review and correct their negative assessments of several of her prophecies, published here:
https://www.countdowntothekingdom.com/statement-on-luz-de-maria/
In the following document I presented my initial appeal to Daniel and Mark, where I demonstrate that their negative assessments are erroneous:
https://www.quehacer.wiki/wiki/Defensa_de_Luz_de_Mar%C3%ADa_frente_a_Countdown_to_the_Kingdom
Unfortunately, it has not been possible. The letters I sent them are here:
I believe Daniel and Mark are good people. In particular, Daniel has done excellent work, with great analytical rigor and theological depth, on the contributions of Luisa Piccarreta regarding the Kingdom of the Divine Will, as well as on the topic of extraterrestrials and the dangers of Artificial Intelligence. However, according to the thesis I present here, they have allowed themselves to be influenced by the evil one in the way they run the CDTK website. I do not blame them; I understand them, because something similar happened to me.
For almost a year I allowed myself to be influenced by Mélanie Dupuis and her team, until I discovered that it was a work of the devil. Here I document it and publicly apologize:
https://www.quehacer.wiki/wiki/A_Public_Testimony_and_Fraternal_Correction
I dedicated myself to promoting Mélanie’s mission in the groups I lead (religious groups in Seattle, Singapore, and Venezuela, as well as political sites in Venezuela and my social networks). Among the common characteristics I observed are:
The devil stimulates you by making you feel “chosen”.
He manifests with “miraculous revelations” and preternatural phenomena (I myself was a witness to this).
The prayers and teachings appear doctrinally correct (almost 100% were orthodox).
Fortunately, I realized it through the fruits: division, lies, and confusion surrounding the apparitions.
Something almost identical, in another context, I am now observing in CDTK with the unfounded attacks against Fr. Michel Rodrigue and Luz de María.
In the case of Fr. Michel, here I unmasked the falsehoods of CDTK’s attacks:
1. Erroneous Prophetic Analysis: False Prophetic Analysis
As can be seen in the cited document, I show that, unfortunately, all of CDTK’s analyses against Luz de María are wrong. None of the nine main criticisms passes the test of good prophetic discernment.
The criticisms refer to: the “do not travel” message, Hurricane Raphael, the prophecy about Covid, solar emanations, nuclear energy, the name “Alex” for the Antichrist, the live visions and the blessing “in persona Christi”, the blessed grapes and natural remedies, and the website with past associations and the topic of UFOs.
In each case I presented solid counterexamples and alternative explanations. CDTK chose not to refute them nor to dialogue with Luz de María (as I fraternally advised them) to seek the truth together.
It is important to highlight that, methodologically, a single valid counterexample is sufficient to disprove a claim of “prophetic failure”. Instead of analyzing those counterexamples and interacting, CDTK simply maintained its original position.
Following the same analysis I made in the defense of Fr. Michel Rodrigue, in each of the nine points criticized regarding Luz de María, CDTK’s conclusions are based on an unrealistic and excessively rigid standard.
In simple terms: they demand a literal and absolute fulfillment of every prophetic phrase, without allowing any conditionality, without recognizing the power of prayer to mitigate evils, and without accepting a broader spiritual interpretation. In practice, they act as if any minimal deviation completely invalidates the message.
This is equivalent to applying what in statistics is called “alpha = 0”. Normally, when serious discernment is made, a reasonable margin of error is established, such as alpha = 5%. This means that a small degree of uncertainty is accepted to avoid unjustly condemning an innocent person. The important thing is that the bulk of the evidence must be condemnatory (it is not necessary for all proofs to be perfect according to that alpha). Even with that already relatively demanding standard (alpha = 5%), CDTK would be failing, because the counterexamples I present are valid and sufficient to refute their accusation.
However, they go much further and commit an even more serious error: they apply an absurd standard of alpha = 0, demanding absolute certainty and that their single example “clears all possible doubts in the entire universe of samples”. The counterexample I present in each case invalidates, with even more reason, that extremely strict criterion.
In this case, the initial hypothesis (the “innocence”) is that the prophecy is valid. The alternative hypothesis is that the prophecy is false. The burden of proof lies on the one accusing of prophetic failure (in this case, CDTK). However, they do not assume that burden responsibly: they limit themselves to pointing out a supposed example of failure and take it as definitive, without considering alternative examples or counterexamples, as I have done in my defense.
This is exactly the same methodological error they applied to Fr. Michel Rodrigue: an approach so strict and literal that it ends up boxing God in and denying the merciful, conditional, and personalized way in which He usually speaks through His prophets.
When discerning private revelation, one is issuing a real judgment: a contrast of hypotheses, exactly as the Church does when investigating miracles. In that process, the burden of proof lies on the one accusing of failure. CDTK had that burden and did not assume it responsibly. That is why their “proofs” are false: they are based on an implicit and totally restrictive assumption that boxes God in and denies the personalized, conditional, and merciful way in which He speaks through His prophets.
In matters of this gravity we cannot simply “agree to disagree”. It is true that, in general, there are subjective aspects in private revelations and that God can speak to each person according to their vocation and particular circumstances (as I documented in the first section defending Luz de María, when I show that the call “not to travel” adapts to each person’s call). However, here there are objective and general truths at stake: CDTK’s conclusions about both Fr. Michel and Luz de María are not valid opinions worthy of equal respect; they are objectively erroneous, because they are directly contradicted by valid counterexamples and by a proper understanding of how God communicates in private revelation, as I have shown in the respective documents.
2. The Issue of Authority to Judge Prophecies
One issue I want to comment on is the lack of justice toward Luz de María (and previously toward Fr. Michel). I was truly shocked by the mistreatment observed: demanding a written comment from her about one of her prophecies. Only courts (civil or ecclesiastical) have the power to demand responses in that way. If the person does not respond, they are declared in contempt.
The key question is: With what authority does CDTK demand responses from God’s messengers and then judge them?
While the site claims it is not an arbiter, in practice it has acted as an inquisitorial tribunal. They could have gained authority through charity and humility: begging, humbly requesting a meeting with respectful and interactive comments. What happened in practice? Arrogance and disrespect.
They did not even respect the minimum standards of a secular court: presumption of innocence and the right to defense. I myself voluntarily exercised that right of defense in both cases (Fr. Michel and Luz de María), without having been consulted by them.
CDTK not only failed to respect those standards; it adopted the role of prosecuting attorney, not of a fair judge. This was clearly seen in the biased sample against Fr. Michel (a process that lasted more than two years and of which I keep the emails). It was not an impartial analysis.
3. Mark Mallett and the Role of “Puzzle Solver”
It is striking that, after removing Fr. Michel Rodrigue — who by explicit will of Heaven acted as a “puzzle solver”, uniting messages from Garabandal, Medjugorje and other sources — the site has significantly increased the publication of analyses, timelines and reflections of its own by Mark Mallett. Mark has publicly claimed to receive locutions and interior words from the Lord during prayer to confirm his mission.
This gives the impression that an attempt was made to fill the void left by Fr. Michel with human interpretation, instead of maintaining the balance with the strongest prophetic voices. Let us remember that the devil presents himself as an angel of light. As I documented in the case of Mélanie Dupuis, saints such as St. Teresa of Ávila, St. John of the Cross and St. Faustina Kowalska, as well as other saints and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, show that the devil is deceptive with interior locutions and even verifiable public ecstasies. The way to discern their validity is by their fruits. And here what we have is division, lies and lack of charity and adherence to basic principles of justice, even by secular standards.
In this case the evil one attempted, through CDTK, according to my analytical conclusions and publicly verifiable empirical evidence, to undermine the strength of two of the most notable messengers chosen by God for these times. In particular, by echoing and serving as validation for the large number of unfounded criticisms against them. Let us remember that Jesus told us that true prophets would be attacked. Why do we echo and support those criticisms, instead of defending them with firmness, discernment and honesty? For me it is clear that Fr. Michel is the main apostle-prophet of these times in that specific role. The role of Luz de María is also of the highest importance. Our duty is to defend them and dismantle the false criticisms.
4. Conclusion: CDTK Has Become a Site of False Prophetic Analysis Serving the Evil One
In the defense document of Luz de María I wrote:
“Let us remember that the evil one always mixes truth with error in order to confuse and divide. On his hook he places authentic and attractive bait to better catch the unwary. What the fish sees is 100% bait — pure truth — yet hidden beneath it lies the deadly metal hook. That invisible 10% is so grave and lethal that it determines the character of the entire message and can lead to damnation.”
It is true that CDTK disseminates many authentic messages from true prophets. But the treatment they have given to Fr. Michel Rodrigue and Luz de María completely disqualifies them. Their fruits are confusion (erroneous analyses) and division, including mistreatment and disrespect for basic principles such as presumption of innocence and the right to defense.
By their fruits you will know the tree. Those fruits do not come from God, but from the evil one, the king of lies and division.
My conclusion, which I assume with personal responsibility, is the following: We must be extremely careful with the Countdown to the Kingdom website. I recommend not consulting it if we want to stay away from the devil and close to God. Previously it was a good site, in my opinion, when Christine Watkins (author of the famous book The Warning) and Peter Bannister (a renowned English Catholic theologian) were still editors. But at some point, particularly after the removal of Fr. Michel, it became an instrument of confusion and division in the service of the evil one. It has generated confusion and internal conflicts in the prophetic field of the Church, with signs and fruits very similar to those I observed in the case of Mélanie Dupuis.
Hoping that both Daniel O’Connor and Mark Mallett correct their course — because the damage they are doing is great, both to the faithful and to themselves —, I remain at your service, willing to correct any error, especially before the authorities of the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ to whom we owe ourselves.
In Christ and Mary,
Felipe Pérez Martí
Dear Daniel and Mark,
As I promised, I am now proceeding to the second stage of the path indicated by Our Lord in Matthew 18:15-17. I am formally asking you, in the presence of witnesses, to correct the public disqualifications you have made against Luz de María de Bonilla.
Some of the people I invited as witnesses — those who were already involved in the previous situation with Fr. Michel Rodrigue — have declined to participate visibly. I have therefore omitted their names and will simply inform them of this message and of any reply you may give. Several expressed that they believe it is no longer worthwhile and that “everyone has their own opinion and has moved on.”
I respect their decision, but I cannot do the same. This is not a matter on which we can simply “agree to disagree.” We are dealing with the credibility of two of the most important prophetic voices that Heaven has raised up in these decisive times. The responsibility involved is immense.
When a platform that has done so much good in spreading prophetic messages publicly removes or disqualifies two of the most significant messengers without first engaging in a proper, fraternal, and private conversation, it causes serious confusion and division among the faithful.
As far as I know (and I may be mistaken), both Christine Watkins and Peter Bannister distanced themselves from CDTK for reasons closely related to this kind of approach.
I also wish to point out something quite extraordinary — and, to my knowledge, unique in the history of private revelations. As explained publicly by Xavier Ayral:This mutual confirmation between two major prophetic voices is highly unusual. While there have been some cases in the Middle Ages and the modern era in which mystics spoke positively of one another, I am not aware of such clear and explicit mutual affirmations of authenticity. In contemporary times this is even rarer. Most visionaries operate in parallel — often by explicit request from God — without directly referring to each other, and tensions sometimes arise between groups of their followers. Furthermore, Fr. Michel is the only one, by Heaven’s explicit will, who has served as a “puzzle solver,” speaking with messengers from Garabandal, Medjugorje, and others, helping to bring greater coherence to the overall prophetic picture of our times. In my opinion, he is the principal apostle-prophet of these end times.
- Fr. Michel Rodrigue has received messages from Heaven affirming that Luz de María is an authentic messenger.
- Luz de María has likewise received confirmation from Heaven regarding the authenticity of Fr. Michel’s mission.
When such a strong mutual confirmation occurs, it should be seen as a special grace from God to strengthen His instruments during times of intense spiritual attack and division. It is as if Heaven were saying: “These are Mine — and I confirm one through the other.”
In my opinion, this is powerful additional evidence that Fr. Michel and Luz de María are not only authentic, but among the main prophets God has raised up for these end times. They provide some of the strongest and most detailed messages about the Warning, the Tribulation, the Refuges, and the coming Era of Peace.
True prophets have always been heavily attacked, just as Jesus foretold: “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you…” (Mt 5:11). These attacks come both from outside the Church and from within.
Again, In matters of this gravity, we cannot simply “agree to disagree.” What is needed is real dialogue and an honest exchange of ideas. In fact, some form of conflict-resolution mechanism is necessary to minimize the divisions that will inevitably arise among the faithful and within the Church as a whole in these times of confusion and lies instigated by the evil one.
That is why I am proceeding to the second stage with witnesses. I have already informed them of all my previous messages to you. I will wait one or two more days for your reply.
All I am asking is that you speak directly and privately with Luz de María (and, if possible, also with Fr. Michel, so that I may withdraw my public statements regarding his case as well). The rest I leave in the hands of God. I am convinced that this simple act of fraternal dialogue can bring about the unity and clarity we so urgently need in these times.
I remain fully available for that conversation.
Best regards and blessings,
in Jesus and Mary,Felipe Pérez MartíOn Tue, Apr 14, 2026 at 11:11 AM Felipe Pérez Martí <felipepe...@gmail.com> wrote:Dear Daniel and Mark,
I have not received any response from you.
My request remains simple and direct: please speak personally with Luz de María de Bonilla to clarify the issues raised in your statement.
Are you willing to do this? It is a basic step of fraternal charity and the path clearly indicated by Our Lord in Matthew 18:15-17.
Please remember that we are speaking about two of the most important prophetic voices of these times: Fr. Michel Rodrigue and Luz de María de Bonilla. Your decision to publicly disqualify them, without first engaging in a direct and private conversation, gives the impression that you are positioning yourselves above them — almost as if you were competing with the very messengers God has sent.
Recall what happened when the mother of James and John asked Jesus for the first places for her sons (Mt 20:20-28). The other apostles became indignant, and Jesus had to correct them all: “Whoever wants to be first must be your slave — just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve” (Mt 20:27-28).
In your case, it is even more serious. It is not simply wanting to be first; it is effectively excluding two of the main prophetic voices while keeping others. Of the Twelve Apostles, it would be as if you decided to stay and to set aside all the rest of them and only keep the seventy lesser disciples.
You have your own timeline of the end times. Fr. Michel and Luz de María also have theirs. Does this mean you consider your discernment superior to theirs? Did God the Father assign you this role instead of them?
As we all know, this impasse is only one example of the much larger spiritual battle unfolding in these apocalyptic times — the battle between God and the evil one. By refusing to speak directly with Luz de María and by publicly removing or disqualifying two of the most significant messengers Heaven has sent, you risk placing yourselves on the wrong side of that conflict.
Let me repeat what I wrote in the document:“Let us remember that the evil one always mixes truth with error in order to confuse and divide: he uses the greater part of his hook with authentic bait, in order to better catch the unwary. The 90% of what he says may be true, but that remaining 10% is so serious that it determines the character of the entire message and can lead to damnation.Precisely for this reason, when a site that has disseminated many authentic messages decides to remove or disqualify two of the most significant messengers of these times — Luz de María de Bonilla and Fr. Michel Rodrigue — a serious concern arises. My warning is fraternal: that Countdown to the Kingdom does not unwittingly become an instrument that favors the division and confusion the evil one seeks. On the contrary, I invite you to return to the path of humble and balanced discernment, so that you may continue to be a useful instrument of God in the dissemination of prophecies for these apocalyptic times.”
This is my final fraternal call before proceeding to the next step with witnesses, as indicated by Our Lord.
I remain available for a direct and charitable conversation.
Best regards and blessings,
in Jesus and Mary,Felipe Pérez MartíOn Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 6:00 PM Felipe Pérez Martí <felipepe...@gmail.com> wrote:Dear Daniel and Mark.Regarding accusations against Luz de Maria which are not in your document, I wrote this in response:Best and blessings,In Jesus and Mary,FelipeOn Sat, Apr 11, 2026 at 12:46 PM Felipe Pérez Martí <felipepe...@gmail.com> wrote:Dear Daniel O’Connor and Mark Mallett, editors of Countdown to the Kingdom (CDTK):
Just as I made a fraternal call to correct errors of prophetic analysis in the case of Fr. Michel Rodrigue, I now do the same regarding Luz de María de Bonilla. On that occasion, since I did not receive the necessary corrections, I was obliged to publish the detected flaws, following the final step outlined in the Gospel: public correction (Mt 18:15-17). The result of that effort can be read here (in English; I am pending its translation into Spanish):
https://www.quehacer.wiki/wiki/Defending_Fr._Michel_Rodrigue_from_Countdown_to_the_Kingdom%E2%80%99s_Disqualifications
In the case of Luz de María, you have published a statement criticizing some of her prophecies and personal attitudes, without having fully complied with the evangelical requirement of speaking with her first. That statement can be read here:
https://www.countdowntothekingdom.com/statement-on-luz-de-maria/
After carefully analyzing your arguments, I do not find sufficient grounds to condemn any of the prophecies mentioned, nor do I consider the personal issues raised to be reason to question her character as a true prophetess.
That is why I have decided to respond in a detailed and fraternal manner. I begin this call privately, as corresponds to the spirit of Mt 18:15-17. If there is no correction, I will proceed according to the steps prescribed by Our Lord: first with witnesses and, in the final instance, publicly.
My intention is to support God’s work in relation to His prophetic messages in these decisive times, and the prophets He has chosen for this purpose. In particular, I wish to help resolve problems of interpretation among the faithful and among those who spread prophecies, which generate division and confusion — something typical of the evil one’s attacks against God’s work.
In this case, as with Fr. Michel, I am convinced that the most appropriate course is for you to speak personally with Luz de María to clarify the doubts and resolve the issues. She does not speak English, but translators are available who can facilitate mutual and fraternal understanding. I am confident that Xavier Ayral, who works with Luz de María to spread her messages, can carry out this task. Since Spanish is my native language (I am from Venezuela), I also offer to be present to help with mediation if necessary.
To encourage this dialogue, I find it necessary to point out that the CDTK document contains several significant weaknesses in its discernment: an excessively literal reading of the messages, a uniform application of criteria that ignores that God speaks to each soul according to its vocation and spiritual moment, and a clear double standard when comparing the treatment given to Luz de María with that applied to other visionaries.
In the following sections I analyze in detail your main objections: the call not to travel, the case of Hurricane Raphael, the message about the contagious respiratory illness, the warnings about solar emanations, the condemnation of nuclear energy, the alleged live visions, the blessed grapes, and the concerns about her website and possible past associations.
My intention is not to declare that all of Luz de María’s messages are of supernatural origin — that decision belongs exclusively to the Church. What I do defend is a more humble, broad, and faithful discernment in keeping with Catholic tradition: one that recognizes the personalized action of the Holy Spirit, the mitigating power of collective prayer, the conditionality of many prophecies, and the real apocalyptic context in which we live.
May the Holy Spirit enlighten us all to seek the truth with charity and the fear of God. I now proceed to consider each of the points addressed.I attach the whole document.In God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit,
through Our Mother Mary Most Holy,--Felipe--Felipe--Felipe--Felipe
Felipe Pérez Martí
4. The Disqualifications of Fr. Michel Rodrigue and Luz de María Reveal the Strategy of the Evil One
It is highly revealing that both Melanie Dupuis and Countdown to the Kingdom (CDTK) have launched strong disqualifications against two of the most important prophetic voices of our time: Fr. Michel Rodrigue and Luz de María.
In my public testimony and fraternal correction addressed to Melanie Dupuis (published November 25, 2025), I already documented her serious statements. She told me personally that approximately 25% of Fr. Michel Rodrigue’s prophecies do not come from God. Regarding Luz de María, she essentially casts doubt on almost all her messages, claiming that what Luz de María attributes to God actually comes from a “deity” (a demon) she calls Yahweh — which in itself constitutes a blasphemy, since Yahweh is one of the legitimate and sacred names of God — and she has linked Luz de María’s prophecies to numerous cases of fear, including approximately one hundred suicides.
The position of Countdown to the Kingdom is equally troubling, though with a nuanced difference. Their statement on Luz de María is devastating: it rejects not only the main content of her prophecies but also questions her personal credibility and doctrinal soundness (citing past website associations and the topic of UFOs). In the case of Fr. Michel Rodrigue, the disqualification is only partial — they recognize some alignment with their self-defined “prophetic consensus” and acknowledge positive fruits in his life and ministry.
The parallel between both disqualifications is striking. Even before including this section in the April 22, 2026 edition, I had already concluded that CDTK has become, at this moment, a site of false prophetic analysis serving the interests of the evil one by sowing confusion and division among the faithful.
This new evidence adds a powerful confirmation and an important twist: the messengers that the devil attacks most fiercely and systematically are precisely Fr. Michel Rodrigue and Luz de María — the ones many of us consider the most significant and complete heavenly voices for these decisive times. The fact that the enemy has not been able to disqualify Fr. Michel as thoroughly as Luz de María (thanks, I believe, to a special and unique divine protection) only reinforces what I stated in the previous edition: Fr. Michel appears to be the main prophetic apostle for this hour.
These coordinated attacks constitute a form of spiritual bullying against two humble prophets. They harm not only them personally, but also the faithful and the Church herself, placing a serious obstacle in the way of God’s messages reaching humanity at the precise moment when they are most urgently needed. It is the devil — and not Melanie Dupuis, Daniel O’Connor or Mark Mallett, who are themselves victims — who is trying to silence and discredit the very voices that Heaven is using to warn and protect us. This generates fear instead of holy preparation and conversion, which is so urgently needed in these times.
It is also interesting that, in Mélanie’s case, she insisted that I should not follow other prophets if I was following her. The reason? To “keep the message pure and not contaminate it with things of evil.” When I mentioned that I also followed Fr. Michel Rodrigue and Luz de María — and in some articles commented on points they shared in common with her — she told me, with increasing emphasis, that I could not mix things in that manner. “You should not navigate in two boats: one of light and another of darkness.” In practice, she presented herself as the only true messenger from Heaven. Those were the words, more or less. I later came to realize this with greater clarity.
I see something very similar occurring with Countdown to the Kingdom. Mark Mallett claims to receive locutions that confirm him in his mission (he is “chosen,” as noted earlier), yet he attacks — baselessly, as I have demonstrated — the leading prophets of our time. There is a clear spirit of rivalry and exclusivity at play. Were it not so intense, it would not be nearly so dangerous.
The Apostles themselves fell into similar rivalry, which angered Jesus. He told them they had to radically change their mindset: instead of striving to be first, they must become the servants of all. When incidents like those described in this article occur, the situation becomes truly demonic. It is as if James and John had tried to purge the other Apostles from the group entirely, believing only they could accompany Jesus. Yet what Jesus wanted was a united team, each disciple using his unique gifts as parts of one body — some as the hand, others as the heart, others as the feet. A body that consists only of a head, lacking heart and feet, dies.
This is precisely what the devil seeks to achieve here: to kill the prophetic dimension of the Church by exploiting selfishness and pride. Hence the “red alert” I am issuing to Daniel O’Connor and Mark Mallett — individuals whom I continue to believe are good people at heart.
Once again, I assume full moral and legal responsibility for this discernment. I place myself, this work, and all those involved under the powerful protection of Our Lady of Guadalupe — who crushes the head of the serpent — together with St. Michael the Archangel, my guardian angel, the guardian angels of all persons involved in this matter, and my patron saints. In particular, I entrust this to St. Teresa of Jesus, St. John of the Cross, St. Thérèse of the Child Jesus, St. Faustina Kowalska, St. Mary Magdalene, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Thomas More, St. Joan of Arc, St. José Gregorio Hernández, St. Martin de Porres, the Servants of God María Esperanza and Queen Isabel the Catholic.
5. Final Discernment and Call to Prayer
After examining the fruits — division, fear, confusion, and the systematic disqualification of the most important heavenly voices of our time — it becomes clear that Countdown to the Kingdom, despite its past contributions, has at this moment become an instrument that, consciously or unconsciously, serves the interests of the evil one.
This is reinforced by a spirit of rivalry and exclusivity that seeks to position one particular discernment as the only valid one, while marginalizing other authentic prophetic voices. Such an attitude is not from God.
I urge the faithful to pray for Daniel O’Connor, Mark Mallett, Mélanie Dupuis, and all involved, that they may receive the light to correct this path. At the same time, I recommend great caution when consulting CDTK regarding Fr. Michel Rodrigue and Luz de María, so as not to fall into confusion or fear.
Felipe Pérez Martí
Thank you very much for your kind and fraternal reply. I deeply appreciate your wisdom and your call to charity, grace, and silence when necessary. You are right: we must not damage anyone’s reputation, and the best thing is always to focus on announcing Jesus Christ.However, allow me to explain with clarity and honesty why I wrote that document.1. The only serious problem with Luz de MaríaAs you know, the only issue I found when defending Luz de María was her threat to sue those who questioned her (especially regarding the Bongiovanni matter). In the final section of my defense I clearly stated:
https://www.quehacer.wiki/wiki/Defense_of_Luz_de_Mar%C3%ADa_against_Countdown_to_the_Kingdom#3._Analysis
Prophets must expect persecution. Jesus warned us: “If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you” (Jn 15:20). Bearing it patiently is often a sign of authenticity. That is why I regard the position of Fr. Michel to be the best in this case. 2. My position as a simple lay personNow, in my case, I am not a prophet or a leader of the sheep. I am simply one of the sheep — a lay person who needs good shepherds in these confusing times. When I saw the unjust, one-sided and uncharitable treatment that Countdown to the Kingdom (CDTK) was giving to Fr. Michel Rodrigue and Luz de María, I decided to apply the fraternal correction that Jesus Himself taught us in Matthew 18:15-17.
I have updated and strengthened the key section here:
https://www.quehacer.wiki/wiki/Count_Down_to_the_Kingdom:_A_Site_of_False_Prophetic_Analysis_Serving_the_Evil_One#2._The_Question_of_Authority_to_Judge_Prophecies
It is not to justify myself, but It turns out that even If I was entitled to do so by Mt 18:15-17, I never attacked them as persons. I even stated several times that they themselves are victims of the devil’s deception. For more than two years I tried privately to correct the situation (you were a witness to that).
In economics, business administration, and political science, the Principal-Agent model (developed by Michael Jensen and William Meckling) analyzes situations of asymmetric information: when one party (the Principal) depends on another party (the Agent) who has more information, authority, or influence.
- The Principal = the People of God, the sheep, for whom Jesus shed His Blood.
- The Agents = prophets, priests, and influential prophetic websites that millions of souls trust.
- 1 John 4:1 — “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God.”
- 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21 — “Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good.”
- Lumen Gentium 12 and CIC 92-93 — The sensus fidelium gives the faithful the capacity and the duty to discern.
The same principle applies in the realm of prophecy. The sheep are the ones who must discern and, when necessary, warn the rest of the flock. This is not pride, but an act of charity and responsibility.
That is why, by the way, freedom of expression is so important in a democracy: citizens have the right to criticize not only the agenda of the candidates, but also their personal character. When a candidate discredits another, they can be sued for defamation. But when an ordinary citizen criticizes candidates or public officials, they are generally protected by the principle of freedom of speech.
In the spiritual realm it is analogous. Jesus Himself warned us strongly about false shepherds (see Jn 10:1-18 and Ezek 34), and the Apostle Paul urged the elders:
“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock… savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock” (Acts 20:28-31).
It is clear that sheep who become aware of serious problems have not only the right but the duty to criticize the bad shepherds and warn the other sheep.
In this case, those of us who notice serious problems in the “product” (the prophetic analysis offered by CDTK) have the obligation — out of love for the weaker sheep — to speak up and warn our brothers and sisters.
Precisely because of this trust, the harm they cause is much greater. They are selling “cat for hare” — they mix many authentic messages with serious errors, unjust disqualifications and lack of charity. In doing so, they discredit the two most important prophetic voices of our times: Fr. Michel Rodrigue and Luz de María.
This is not a minor problem for Marian prophecies worldwide. It is an abuse against the sheep of the whole Church of Jesus and against God Himself, who wants to transmit urgent messages to all of us in these decisive times. By discrediting the main voices of God, with flawed analysis, CDTK generates confusion, division, and distrust basically everywhere — exactly the typical works of the evil one.
As I wrote in the defense of Luz de María:
By their fruits you will know the tree. Those fruits do not come from God, but from the evil one, the king of lies and division.That is why, after more than two years of ignored calls for dialogue, I concluded with full personal responsibility that it is better for souls to stay away from that site.Final words
I am sorry if my words seemed like a personal attack. You have the right perspective regarding the role of the prophets in this regard.
However, as a leader of a small community of sheep, I feel a serious obligation before God to warn and protect the weaker brothers and sisters who are being confused. I bear full moral and legal responsibility for what I wrote.
Thank you again for your charity and your fraternal correction.
My deepest intention remains to prepare my soul, heart, and mind for the Lord and for the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
In the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary,
Felipe