Problems with the Amsterdam visions and Ida Peerdeman
Peerdeman, the visionary from
Ida goes on to relate how: “She was clad in white and wore a sash. She stood with her arms lowered and the palms of her hands turned outwards toward me. I thought it must be the Blessed Virgin and that it could not be anyone else. I then said: ‘Are you Mary?’ She answered: ‘They will call me the Lady, Mother.’”
By this time she had been joined by the others who heard her repeating what the Vision had said to her, as the priest remarked: “Lady? Well, I never heard that before. The Lady!”
Frehe was right to question such an appellation for Mary, for this title of
“the Lady,” rather than “our Lady,” for the Blessed Virgin, is indeed strange.
Ida then claimed that the Vision indicated with her fingers three numbers,
three, four and five successively, and told her that the five was for the fifth
of May, which was later taken as a prophecy of the date of the end of the war
second vision happened on
While the sentiments of this prayer are admirable, the phrase “who once was Mary,” is not. And even Ida herself was forced to acknowledge this: “I must admit that the words ‘who once was Mary’ were very strange indeed. I said to myself but surely you always are Mary. Afterwards, when I passed on the prayer to Fr. Frehe, he said: ‘What on earth is this ‘who once was Mary?’ She can’t have said this. She is and would always be Mary.’ ”
This was also the view of the ecclesiastical authorities, who refused permission for this phrase when the prayer was first printed. But apparently, “the Lady,” did not approve of this and told Ida, “The words ‘who once was Mary’ must remain. Tell the theologians that I am not satisfied with the change in the prayer.” Later on, the full text of the prayer was approved, and Ida was then told: “Tell your bishop that I am satisfied. The text of the prayer is now correct.”
Closer examination of the picture reveals some further problematic details: the visionary saw the “Lady” standing in the pose of Mary as seen on the Miraculous Medal, that is with her arms down and palms to the front. She alleged that in the middle of each hand she could see wounds or scars, from which three “rays” shone, rays which apparently represented grace, redemption and peace. Ida also reported that Mary said, “in this era the Father and the Son wish to send Mary, the Lady of All Nations, as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate.” She was again instructed to propagate the prayer using “modern methods.”
The first particular, of course, as pointed out above, is that devotion to “Our Lady of the Cross,” is specifically forbidden, so there are problems with having a representation of Mary with wounds in her hands, as if she was crucified. Secondly, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that what we have here is a “rival” to the picture painted for Sr Faustina in the thirties. She had been instructed to have the well-known “Divine Mercy” image of Jesus painted, the one which has Jesus standing with his right hand raised in blessing, while his left touched his breast, from which point emerged two large rays, one red, the other pale, representing blood and water respectively. Thus, instead of this genuine picture and associated devotion of the Divine Mercy chaplet being promoted, we have well-meaning, but regrettably misled, persons distributing pictures of the Lady of All Nations—what better way to muddy the waters and confuse people?
The call for a new Marian dogma was repeated on
new dogma will be the dogma of the Co-Redemptrix. I emphasize ‘
This passage certainly seems to raise some problems: for one thing, is it credible that the Blessed Virgin would refer to the Catholic Church as “the Church of Rome. It makes her sound more like a Protestant. The announcement of the “coming of the Holy Spirit” also seems rather inexact theologically, or at least tending to cause confusion, given that the Holy Spirit “came” to the young Church nearly 2,000 years ago. This exclusive future coming of the Spirit is indicated as follows: “The Lady of All Peoples has now received the power to come and drive out Satan. She comes; and it is to announce the Holy Spirit. It is now, and only now, that the Holy Spirit is to come upon this earth.”
This last statement is pure heresy, and contradicts the whole traditional teaching of the Church that the Holy Spirit “came upon the earth” at the time of Pentecost. But perhaps in the light of the rise of some of the aberrations associated with the “Charismatic” movement, it is not without interest.
there was ecclesiastical opposition to this idea of a new dogma is apparent
from this message to Ida on
Apart from the fact that the tone of “Mary” in this passage is hard to associate with the Mary of the Gospels or of Catholic tradition, it is extraordinarily difficult to believe that she could possibly have said “Tell that to your theologians,” a phrase repeated on a number of occasions. And the following sentence is also replete with theological difficulty: “From my Lord and Master, the Redeemer received his divinity.” This statement is verging on heresy, if it is not actually heretical, and indeed it seems to be more akin to Arianism, the belief that the Son was inferior to the Father, than to orthodox Catholic belief. Jesus, as the Redeemer and Son of God, did not receive his divinity from the Father: he is co-equal with the Father from all eternity.
fiftieth apparition to Ida took place on
Quite apart from the above points, the whole tone of many of the messages, as well as their general “visionary” content, is very suspect. We are presented with a “Mary” who seems totally at odds with the figure who has revealed herself in her approved apparitions. Fifty-six visions were claimed by Ida between 1945 and 1959, a period of fourteen years, and both of these figures are contrary to what we would expect, since, most approved apparitions have been in single figures, and over quite a short space of time, days, weeks or possibly months, but certainly not years.
This series of visions have a repetitive and even bizarre quality, which can only be fully appreciated by reading them in their entirety, but the following excerpts and explanations of them will surely make this point clear. There is a disjointed quality about them, as though they were the ramblings of someone with mental problems, which clearly differentiates them from the messages given during the approved apparitions. Again and again, the “Lady” keeps coming back to the necessity of propagating the picture and the prayer, in a way which smacks more of desperation and intimidation than of a genuine heavenly intervention.
first thing to note about many of these alleged visions, is how closely they
correspond to Msgr Farges’ outline of a false apparition. The idea of the
Vision appearing out of a very bright light is a constantly recurring theme. An
instance of this is the beginning of the twenty-seventh vision which says: “A
bright, a dazzling light preceded the Lady.” The twenty-eighth vision is even
more explicit in this respect: “There was a bright light. From the centre of
the light the Voice was heard. ‘Here I am once more.’ And I saw the Lady
standing in the light.” Similarly, the same pattern is found in the
twenty-ninth vision, (
this is very suspicious, and this view is definitely confirmed by the following
further examples, the first from the thirty-first vision, (
There is a degree of what might be described as a “liberal” streak in the utterances of the Lady, as for example in the following quote from the fourth vision (29 August 1945), in which Ida saw the Pope, as she heard: “Broad views, more socialized. That must be the goal. Different trends of opinion incline toward a good socialism. That is good, but on the condition that what is done be done under the direction of the Church.”
Given the teachings of the various Popes on the dangers associated with “socialism” it is hard to see how a “good socialism” could possibly be encouraged by Our Lady.
about this complaint from the message of the twenty-fourth vision, (
Surely it is hard to imagine Mary complaining about priests sacrificing themselves to go to the missions? On the other hand, it is easy to conceive of the devil having such a grievance.
disturbing aspect of these visions concerns the Lady’s repeated appeals that
the messages be related directly to the Pope, something which is prominent in
the history of false visions and seers. During the forty-first vision, (
again, during the forty-third vision, (
there is the image presented of the Lady as rather an aggressive individual, as
the following passages make clear. For instance, the twentieth vision, (
are not the only examples of this sort of thing. The twenty-fifth vision, (
Thus we have a “Lady” who acts more like a boxer than the Mother of God.
these messages, though, are merely grotesque, as this example, from the
twenty-third vision, (
Lady putting her foot on
is also the question of those parts of the messages which it is claimed are
“prophetic.” The first thing to say about these is that we have no proof that
they were genuine prophecies in the first place, that is we don’t know how
accurately they were set down and at what times. But apart from that, on
examination, these “prophecies” are not so marvelous after all. For example, on
This seems like a valid prophesy of Vatican II and its aftermath. But it is clear that this could be little better than an educated guess, or a conjecture of the devil.
Similarly, in the message of 18-19 February 1958, the Lady apparently informed Ida of the death of Pope Pius XII, which was to take place in the month of October that year. This actually took place on 9 October, but the Pope had been ailing for some time and this prophecy can be quite easily unexplained as another satanic conjecture. In any case, the next “prophecy” from the Lady, which follows on from this was clearly wrong. After telling Ida not to be perturbed by this news, she went on to say: “his successor will promulgate the dogma.” This is a clear case of a false prophecy, since John XIII did not do this, thus clearly indicating that the messages of the Lady of All Nations are false.
is also a strong apocalyptic streak to the messages: for example, the Lady is
reported as saying, during the tenth vision, on
this reaches something of a climax in the forty-sixth vision, (
theme of the necessity of the proclamation of the “dogma” recurs frequently,
and culminates in the following statement, given during the fifty-first vision,
all very well, but unfortunately, it flatly contradicts the messages genuinely
given by Our Lady at Fatima, and particularly the principle that peace for the
world will only come following the Triumph of Mary’s Immaculate Heart, as she
made clear on 13 July 1917, when, amongst other things, she told the children
that: “In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will
was no mention of the necessity of any “dogma” being promulgated at
A later series of alleged visions involving Ida are claimed for the period from the late 1950s until the 1980s, the so-called “Eucharistic experiences.” They seem to follow the same basic pattern as the earlier visions, but they do also have some strange elements and so it is worth looking at them in more detail. Certainly, she seems to have seen a very “bright light” around the altar on a number of occasions while she was in church, and also reported that the Sacred Host seemed to have become bigger, whilst it was on her tongue, and even come alive, such that, “it resembled a living fish in its movements.”
And other times she claimed that “living water” seem to be flowing in her mouth. On the 31 May 1964, while receiving Holy Communion, she was allegedly told to: “Go and speak with you Bishop,” and exactly a year later, on 31 May 1965 she claimed that a voice said to her: “Go to Pope Paul and tell him in the name of the Lady of all Nations: This is the last warning before the end of the Council. The Church of Rome is in danger of a schism. … Warn your priests. Let them put a stop to those false theories about the Eucharist, sacraments, doctrine, marriage and family-planning. They are being led astray by the spirit of untruth—by Satan—and confused by the ideas of modernism. … Do what the Lord has demanded of you—in sending Me, the Lady or Mother of all Nations. You are the Pope who has been selected for this work. Let the Nations say the prayer before my picture and the Holy Spirit will come!”
Once again we are seeing a characteristic of false apparitions in this direct appeal to the Pope, to say nothing of the gross incongruity of our Lady speaking of “family-planning.” In fact the whole tone of the message, with its talk of the “Church of Rome,” is satanic rather than divine.
it is extremely difficult to believe that this “robotic” type of message can
possibly be genuine, and in general, accepting the
 Courtenay Bartholomew, A
Scientist Researches Mary Mother of All Nations, Queenship Publishing
 Bartholomew, A Scientist Researches Mary Mother of All Nations, pp. 176-77.
 Ibid., pp. 176-77.
 Ibid., pp. 178-79.
 Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary, s.v. “Devotions Forbidden.”
 Bartholomew, A Scientist Researches Mary Mother of All Nations, pp. 179-80.
 Bartholomew, A Scientist Researches Mary Mother of All Nations, p. 181. Emphasis in original. This text, as given in The Messages of the Lady of All Nations, ed. Josef Künzli, (Miriam-Verlag, Jestetten, 1987), p. 80, also uses the phrase “Church of Rome.” Unfortunately, the English translation is not very clear in other respects.
 Bartholomew, A Scientist Researches Mary Mother of All Nations, p. 182; Raoul Auclair, The Lady of All Peoples, trans. E. Massecar, (L’Armée de Marie, Inc., Quebec, 1978), pp. 194-95.
 Bartholomew, A Scientist Researches Mary Mother of All Nations, pp. 183-84.
 Auclair, The Lady of All Peoples, pp. 113, 119, 121, 127, 131.
 Auclair, The Lady of All Peoples, p. 48. Regarding this mention of “good socialism,” the alternative translation in, Künzli The Messages of the Lady of All Nations, p. 16, has, “There are various movements showing a trend to socialism, which is good, ...”
 Auclair, The Lady of All Peoples, pp. 160, 165, 168.
 Ibid., pp. 88, 109.
 Ibid., p. 100.
 Ibid., p. 158.
 Ibid., p. 221.
 Ibid., pp. 66, 89, 116, 178. No doubt if there are any followers of the Lady of all Nations still around in 2053, then of course they will claim that she was actually referring to that year!
 Ibid., p. 196.
 Kondor, Fatima in Lucia's own words, p. 162; see also Martins & Fox, Documents on Fatima, p. 402.
 Josef Künzli, Eucharistic Experiences, (Miriam-Verlag, Jestetten, 1987), pp. 150-59.
 Künzli, Eucharistic Experiences, pp. 161-62.