We are grateful to Hungarian reader Zsolt Orbán for sharing the following study with Rorate.
The “Spiritual Diary” of Elisabeth Kindelmann on the Flame of Love contains grave theological errors and cannot be from God
Zsolt Orbán
PART I: Petrus Romanus
Many of you may be familiar with the prophecies of Bishop St Malachy, and many of you have marvelled at the succinct and apt characterizations of the popes given. And as we approach the end of Malachy’s list, perhaps the question needs to be asked: who shall be the last pope, a pope named Peter, whom Bishop Malachy calls “the Roman”? Those who carefully watch or hope for the name of Peter appearing among the cardinals, and search for why the epithet “Roman” might apply to a ‘Cardinal Peter’ might be interested in a potential candidate.
The secret service in communist Hungary gave particular attention to the Catholic Church; its priests and bishops were intimidated, imprisoned and even killed, until they could be effectively controlled and managed by other means. This new, effective method was secret service surveillance, the building of a network of informers and the turning of churchmen into agents. Thus, when the ‘reconciliation’ between the Vatican and the communist Hungarian state took place, in the spirit of Cardinal Casaroli’s ‘Ostpolitik’, the communists became the approvers and, in many cases, the initiators of church appointments. This was the period of ‘communist investiture’ and the behind-the-scenes mover was the communist secret police, which prepared the clerical ‘investiture’ by gathering information and using its influence.
Once this system became very effective, Catholic priests were allowed to continue their studies in Rome without any further hindrance, since they were agents and/or under surveillance themselves, but whatever the case they were deemed loyal to the communist cause, and thus they did not pose a great risk to the regime, and could even be useful as a source of information or as active secret agents.
One of these young priests studying in Rome in the second half of the 1970s was Péter Erdő, now cardinal archbishop and primate of Hungary; one of the possible ‘papabiles’ for those seeking a ‘Peter of Rome’. Probably few people know that Cardinal Péter Erdő could indeed be a very serious candidate for the papacy, at least in the eyes of the believers of the Malachian prophecy, since his Communist secret service network designation was the German “Römmer”, or “Roman”, distorted to suit Hungarian ears.[1]
Whether the secret designation used by the communist ‘investors’ really foreshadows Peter Erdő’s serious chances as a papabile or not, we will obviously only know after the events of another conclave have taken place. But to put into context expectations concerning the person of Peter Erdő, it is worth reading the rest of the prophecy about Peter of Rome given by Bishop Malachy. He says of Petrus Romanus that he “pascet oves in multis tribulationibus”, i.e. “he feeds the sheep in the midst of many tribulations”. This is both an ominous description of the situation and a consolation that gives cause for hope. For it is true that the Church will be in distress, but she will be led by a shepherd who will feed the flock. And what a consolation it will be to have a shepherd who, after the current dialectic pastoralism of abuse, starvation and misguidance, will finally be the good shepherd!
Noteworthy at present is that either Cardinal Erdő is not the Peter who will graze his flock, or if so, he will have to change a lot to become the one ‘to graze his flock in the midst of all the trials and tribulations’. For a true shepherd feeds his flock with real food and guards them from the wrong pasture, from predatory wolves, just as the shepherd of souls must guard his flock from false teachings and false prophets.
Unfortunately, Peter Erdő is currently neither feeding his flock nor properly guarding them. And so that those reading are not left with an unsubstantiated allegation, here is a story that may shed some light on the validity of the allegation: the brief history of the Archbishop’s proceedings concerning the ‘private revelation’ of the ‘Flame of Love’.
The Flame of Love movement was started based on private revelations allegedly given to a Hungarian wife and mother Mrs Elisabeth Kindelmann. For two decades from the 1960s onward, Elizabeth received “communications” from Jesus and the Virgin Mary, which she recorded in four diaries, and which began to spread, without church approval, and found followers abroad and in Hungary. Printed editions containing some of the messages were also given imprimatur by various bishops outside of Hungary, until finally, due to its widespread circulation abroad, the competent Hungarian diocesan bishop, Cardinal Péter Erdő, ordered a theological examination of the diary.
 |
| Fr Zoltán Kovács |
The official censor
The censor, Father Zoltán Kovács, professor of dogmatics at the Faculty of Theology of Pázmány Péter Catholic University in Budapest, carried out the examination and made suggestions for the text of the planned critical edition, which can be read in Hungarian in its entirety in his study, and is also available on the Internet.[2] It is available in English, though rewritten and freed from the most problematic parts.[3]
Professor Kovács’s method of investigation, according to his own words, was “to publish only what is certain to be of spiritual edification to the faithful. For a phenomenon may be authentic though some of its elements are not.” From the visionary’s communications, “we must select what can be said to be good and which can strengthen the community of the Church”, the problematic parts “should certainly be omitted” from the printed text. Thus, the “Diary, purified of theological errors, is worthy of the Church’s recognition” because its message “is not contrary to faith and morals, and can therefore be disseminated and its cult organised”.
To summarise: the theological problems identified and considered serious – several of which Professor Kovács lists and analyses in his study in Hungarian (the English version having fewer serious errors listed) – do not prove any lack of credibility of the private revelation, and therefore the diary can be published without them, and even a cult can be organised about it.
Professor Kovács achieves this feat with reference to the third rule of Antonio Royo Marin OP in judging private revelations: “If a part of a revelation is false, it is not necessary to reject the whole revelation; the rest may be authentic.” (Antonio Royo Marin OP: The Theology of Christian Perfection, p. 584)
The problem with Kovács’s interpretation is that if this is what the third rule really means, it would make it impossible to carry out the test of the first rule, which is that “Any revelation contrary to dogma or morality must be rejected as false. God does not contradict himself.” (ibid.)
The “essential part”, therefore, can in no way be taken to mean that serious theological contradictions are ignored, even on the grounds that “they are few in number” or that they are not relevant to the other messages, because one of them is enough to rule out divine origin. For how can we believe that the messages on the Flame of Love are of divine origin if other messages in the same Spiritual Diary are theologically false?
It is possible that Professor Zoltán Kovács thought that this alleged private revelation was just a kind of pious spiritual literature; what harm could it do if pious souls read it (cleansed of “errors”)? However, in his expert opinion he did more than simply encourage pious reading. In his concluding remarks, he writes: “I find that in many of the messages of the Flame of Love Spiritual Diary there is a recognizable sign of the workings of the supernatural world. The essential parts are therefore ‘constat de supernaturalitate’.”
This qualification would mean that Mrs. Elizabeth Kindelmann had received private revelations from the Blessed Virgin and Jesus, and that the messages are authentic despite the serious theological problems in the diary, which are traditionally considered to discredit all of a given private revelation.
Although, as a newly graduated theologian in the seventies, during his aforementioned stay in Rome, Péter Erdő himself allegedly gave a favourable censorial opinion on the Spiritual Diary at the request of the then competent bishop. Later as archbishop he apparently did not fully share Zoltán Kovács’ assessment of the opinion. For although he granted the imprimatur for the publication of the Spiritual Diary based on the censor’s opinion, he showed a greater degree of caution in one of his speeches, explicitly denying the recognition of supernaturalism. “The [Diary’s] approval does not mean that we are solemnly authenticating the fact of any private revelation. It does mean, however, that the content of the messages which are included in the publication is in accordance with the truths of the Catholic faith.”
And it seems that Péter Erdő’s words are largely justified, since, following the censor’s work, they themselves left out the parts of the Spiritual Diary that were contrary to the faith, at least those they noticed, especially, as Zoltán Kovács wrote, “for they had no moral conclusion”, and so “they could be disseminated and a cult organised”. But why should it be disseminated, and why would anyone ascribe a cult to a supposedly private revelation that has been cleansed of substantive errors by a theological censor? From errors, from contradictions of faith, the occurrence of which in communications has traditionally been taken as proof that they do not come from God?
The final reasoning for Kovács’s positive assessment can be found in section 6.9 “Signs and Fruits”. These two reasons are: “the action and fruits of the Holy Spirit can be traced in the events associated with it” and “the transmission of the Flame of Love has created a movement which has noticeably and widely spread abroad”. The latter, according to Kovács, is no longer just an indication of the popular appeal of the faithful, but of the fact that “the sensus fidei were also moved” by the messages – whatever that means.
 |
| Card. Péter Erdő |
Just like Medjugorje
These arguments can be summarized briefly: the messages are supernatural because they are believed by many, and their fruits can be traced in some related events, and perhaps because it is proper to accept them from an ecclesiastical political perspective.
This twist in the granting of nihil obstat and imprimatur is as infinitely meaningless as the nihil obstat given to the apparitions in Medjugorje. This meaningless procedure is the result of an aberrant conception of truth, a kind of reservatio mentalis on the part of the approvers, or the assumption that an alleged private revelation can bear any good fruit even if it has a false basis, or if errors have to be taken out of it by a censor.
Although the publication of the Spiritual Diary was approved by other bishops outside of Hungary, before granting in Hungary an imprimatur, their experts were only allowed to study translations based on the edition of the Spiritual Diary by a Hungarian-born nun living in Germany, who in turn omitted significant passages from the Diary, including many that were obviously contrary to Catholic teaching. Therefore, licensors outside of Hungary and readers have had no opportunity of learning the real messages unless someone who speaks Hungarian finally takes the trouble to enlighten them: ‘it is a false private revelation, which they have tried to smuggle into Catholicism, don’t follow it!’
Cardinal Péter Erdő’s responsibility is greater because, unlike his colleagues abroad, he has the original Hungarian language Diary at his disposal, and he could have interrogated the witnesses who knew the visionary. But instead, he chose to omit serious theological errors, expecting spiritual fruit from a movement whose messages could not possibly come from God.
With such a procedure, he was years ahead of Cardinal Fernández, and his “procedure” may have been the source of the new Vatican understanding of supernatural apparitions and private revelations published in Norms for proceeding in the discernment of alleged supernatural phenomena.[4] Because just as Cardinal Erdő did not want to deal with the question of the supernatural origin of the Flame of Love messages, more recently the Church does not want to deal with the question of what kind of ‘tree’ alleged visions are, and wants to find the ‘fruit’ not in the conflicting elements of a private revelation, or their absence and in the life of the visionary, but in the number of followers the alleged vision has, as if that was sufficient fruit. For some reason they fail to believe the truth of Jesus’ words: “Make a tree sound and its fruit will be sound; make a tree rotten and its fruit will be rotten. For the tree can be told by its fruit.” (Mt 12:33)
Since all false private revelation is in fact blasphemy, it is especially painful for a Hungarian Catholic when a false private revelation that blasphemes Our Lord Jesus and the Virgin Mary, spreads forth from the Regnum Marianum, the kingdom offered to the Virgin Mary by our first holy king, Saint Stephen, a thousand years ago.
You can read in detail in the next section about the theological problems Professor Kovács found in the Flame of Love Spiritual Diary, what errors and falsehoods he missed, and why the messages of Elizabeth Kindelmann cannot be truly from God.
 |
| Elizabeth Kindelmann |
PART II: False revelations, false prophecies, blasphemy
In the previous part, the reader learnt of the procedure and methodology used by a ‘papabile’ Petrus Romanus”, to authorise the publication of Mrs Charles Kindelmann Erzsébet Szántó’s messages. This section will discuss whether it is reasonable to assume that the messages are supernatural, what conclusions can one draw from the way in which the messages were delivered, and what elements of the messages exclude or cast doubt on their divine origin.
1. How did Elisabeth Kindelmann receive the messages?
Three types of locutions are traditionally distinguished: physical (auricular), imaginative and intellectual. Mrs Elizabeth Kindelmann’s locutions do not belong to the realm of physical auditory perceptions, i.e. they were not acquired through the auditory faculty of the physical body.
St John of the Cross likewise distinguishes three types of intellectual locutions. Each of them shows an apparent affinity with the experiences of Elisabeth Kindelmann, but the affinity is deceptive.
Successive locutions are the most conversational, because they are not a momentary and intuitive enlightenment, but God structuring the soul through successive discourses, ‘reasonings’. ‘Reasoning’ is to be understood as arguments or ‘information’ that is explicitly meaningful and enlightening to the intellect. But since they come from God, there can be no mistake in their substance or principles. Mrs Elizabeth Kindelmann’s locutions are often conversational, but they are not characterised by the presence of intellectual arguments, the transmission of knowledge that illuminates reason, and, as will be shown in more detail later, they contain errors of substance, heresies, and therefore cannot be successive locutions.
The second type of mental locutions is formal, characterised by the definite experience of the recipient that the locution comes from another person, without hearing or seeing them. These messages to Elizabeth, who, according to her own account, perceived the words of the Virgin Mary or Jesus “in the depths of her soul”, are similar to this, but whereas formal locutions from God are brief and lack the ‘colourful’ details that are the province of the imagination, Elizabeth’s are typically emotional conversations. What she heard is ‘colourful’ and full of emotion: the Lord Jesus “began to talk at length, sweetly” (III/183), “comforted me sweetly” (III/196), “flooded me with complaints” (III/218), “answered me sadly” (I/11), etc. An even more striking picture is that of Our Lady, who “complained in a very sad voice. I felt that she was wringing her hands and pleading” (I/65), “I felt her inexpressible sorrow and sad sobs in the depths of my soul” (I/37), “she sobbed so much that I could hardly understand what she was saying.” (I/38), “she wrung her hands and pleaded” and “And pleading, she pleads more” (I/65), etc.[5]
The third type of mental locutions, the substantive locution, can be called performative, because in it the revelator also carries out what He or She communicates in the hearer-visionary. If, for example, He calls for humility, He immediately makes the soul humble. However as concerns this example, we read that Elizabeth Kindelmann received countless calls to humility and then suffered humiliation for her lack of humility, so that in her case there could be no question of a substantive locution. The same is proved by the case of Our Lady’s call to faith in Her revelations, but the doubts in Mrs. Elizabeth Kindelmann’s mind grew: “‘Elizabeth, Elizabeth, believe!’ After this, the anxiety of doubt in my soul did not disappear.” (III/237).
It is obvious from the examples that in this case these phenomena are not intellectual but imaginative locutions. The same is confirmed by Elizabeth’s periods of doubt. This is also a telling sign, because in the case of mental locutions, there is no doubt in the mind of the recipient, either during or afterwards, that the phenomenon did not originate with themselves, so that they cannot accuse themselves, rightly or wrongly, of ‘authorship’ or even of lying.
Elizabeth Kindelmann, on the other hand, often suffered fits of “temptation”, calling herself a liar who has imagined and invented the messages: “I cannot have peace of mind until I retract my terrible lies, but I cannot. I walk the path of pride. I am accused by every word I have spoken or written. I cannot retract them. I am deprived of my will.” (II/53), “I am possessed by the devil. I cannot renounce the lie.” (II/55); “What if it is a lie that I have written down and passed on?” (II/58); “I admit my falsehood, the lie (II/59), etc.
2. What messages did she receive?
The classification of the locutions is important because it helps to identify the author or relevator, and thus to judge authenticity: the source of the intellectual locutions cannot be an evil spirit, because it cannot directly influence the intellect. The giver of imaginative locutions, on the other hand, could be a demon or the seer themself, in addition to God, and it is therefore important to examine the messages that Elisabeth Kindelmann received.
God is truth itself, who neither errs nor deceives, who never contradicts Himself, so that contradiction to truths already revealed is a sure sign that an imaginary locution does not come from Him. Therefore, an essential part of the examination of private revelations is to detect possible contradictions concerning faith and morals. There are many such contradictions in Elizabeth Kindelmann’s locutions.
Open heresy can be found in Diary III/134. In the foreign translations, this part is missing from the text because the editor of the earlier Hungarian edition on which the translations were based (Sister Anna Roth or the papal prelate István Mester) noticed it and omitted it from the text. But the approved official edition with the text cleaned of major errors is included because Professor Father Zoltán Kovács did not consider it a serious enough problem. The text reads. “My daughter, I too was human and because of my human nature I had human qualities. I also have faith, hope and love too.”
There are “only” three problems with this statement: faith, hope and love are not qualities of human nature, but are supernatural infused theological virtues; Christ did not lose His human nature, so he still has it; nor did he have the theological virtue of faith and hope as a man before his crucifixion, only perfect love. For from the moment of Christ’s conception He lived seeing God through hypostatic unity; He did not believe and hope but saw. Just as men who see God “face to face” will not have faith and hope but will enjoy the essential vision of God in perfect love.
3. Revelations containing suspected or implied heresy
a/ The transubstantiation of the first bite of ordinary bread
Such a suspicious revelation was contained in the part of the Diary which was deleted from the official edition on the suggestion of the censor Zoltán Kovács, and which we can only learn about from the censor himself – however only in the Hungarian version, in section 6.6.2, because in the English translation of the censor’s examination this section contains the analysis of the “Flame of Love prayer”.
When Elizabeth Kindelmann was unable to go to Mass for a long time, the alleged voice of Jesus told her that He himself would change the first piece of bread she ate: “the right of transubstantiation is reserved to me by my Divinity [...] I shall be transubstantiated in the first piece of bread which you eat”. Although this passage was omitted from the official edition on the recommendation of the censor (“In my opinion, the words of IV/22-26 should in any case be omitted from any publication”), he does not rule out the possibility that “Christ is able, or in certain cases willing, to make the order of the institution and administration of the sacraments’ ‘independent of the cooperation of those ordained to the sacerdotal office’“.
But to ‘disconnect’ the sacraments from ordained priests would probably be a superfluous miracle, since Christ could confer graces without the sacraments. Therefore, such a miracle could in fact be a questioning of the divinely ordained order of grace and sacraments, and thus a cause for suspicion as to the identity of the revelator.
This suspicion can be confirmed by the effect of the ‘revelation’ on Elizabeth Kindelmann; she too found the message very strange and did not dare to eat bread until she realised that sooner or later, she would have to eat bread anyway, so she could not avoid the first ‘transfigured’ bite.
b/ Changing the Ave Maria
In part IV/36 of the Diary, and daring to write only two decades after the revelation, Elizabeth Kindelmann claims Our Lady asked her to add to the Hail Mary prayer, and that following the words “Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners” it should interrupt the request “now and at the hour of our death” and add the words “spread the effect of grace of thy Flame of Love over all of humanity”. And so, the new Hail Mary prayer is:
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with Thee, blessed are Thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of Thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, spread the effect of grace of Thy Flame of Love over all of humanity, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
This insertion, as Professor Kovács also recognized, gives rise to the “a prayer independent of the original Ave Maria prayer” (see Theological Examination 6.6.3). However, the censor, in making this clear, saw no problem with this revelation. But the acceptance of such a revelation could have serious consequences, since the recitation of the new prayer would no longer allow for any indulgence, for which the Ave Maria is required, and would therefore deprive the person of an instrument of grace.
c/ The effect of grace
Besides the fact that the Hail Mary was changed, the content of the change itself is suspect.
The “effect of grace” is a specific concept of the Diary. However, the notions of this effect of grace and the concept itself are completely confused. The theologically problematic nature of the “effect of grace” is reinforced by the tendency, also observed in the English translation of Kovács’s theological study, to largely omit the concept and simply call it grace. But the effect of grace is not clearly grace, according to the Diary, nor even simply a means of grace, and accordingly the Hungarian version of the examination is explicitly ‘not grace, but the effect of grace, power’ (Examination 6.4.6). Apparently, the professor himself could not interpret the meaning of ‘grace’, because it is ‘something’ described in the Diary itself with contradictory statements.
There are two possible explanations for the confusion: either Mrs Kindelmann ignorantly misused a theological term she did not know the exact meaning of, or she consciously used it to express a wrong theological concept. Whichever version is true, it denies divine origin. Because God does not imply an incorrect concept that becomes central to private revelation, or because a false theological concept cannot derive from him.
Grace is a free gift from God that has multiple and very wide-ranging effects. It usually works in us, that is, it becomes effective, when we accept and cooperate with it. Asking for an effect of grace instead of grace is therefore a nonsensical phrase in a prayer and contrary to traditional Catholic prayers, and so asking for the ‘effect of grace’ (singular!) to be ‘spread ‘is also a very difficult request to understand. It is possible Mrs Elizabeth did in fact see through the mechanism of grace and was aware that the efficacy of grace may require the contribution of the human will cooperating with it. But, as a person struggling with her own corrupt will, she was so distrustful of its efficacy, and so afraid of the damnation of souls that she did not ask for grace itself, that is, for the divine gift of repentance for the dying, which, if accepted, would bring sinners into a state of sanctifying grace, even at the moment of death. Instead, she wished the effect of grace even for the most unrepentant sinner. And since the unrepentant sinner is a person who does not want to renounce sin, does not want to accept God’s mercy of his own free will even while dying, asking for the effect of grace to be poured out on such people would mean the suspension or evasion of free will while dying.
This is why the use of the term “all of humanity” in the new Hail Mary is problematic. If the “effect of grace” is to be understood as a divine ‘touch’ that overrides or bypasses the human will, the outpouring of which is the “greatest miracle” of the Blessed Mother (II/18), the subject of which is “all of humanity” as indicated in the prayer, this would imply a kind of hidden but meaningless universalism. For it is a meaningless request that cannot be granted: we know that not all Christians will be saved (DS.1362), so how can all humanity be saved? And if it is not possible to hear this request, and if it would be heresy to claim it, how could Our Lady suggest it?
d/ Quantified promises
The revelator promised greater and greater effects with decreasing conditions over time: this is true of fasting, where requests were relaxed over time, but it is also true of prayer. The revelator promised Elizabeth that by saying three Hail Mary’s a soul would be released from purgatory. Saying one Hail Mary in November will release souls in purgatory en masse (II-15-16). The souls of deceased priests will be released within the octave of their death if atonement is made for them (I/114-115). Elizabeth Kindelmann’s atonement was particularly seen as effective, because if she said three Hail Marys, ten souls were released from purgatory (II/116), and, in addition, from Pentecost 1964, one priestly soul per hour was released by her prayer (III/170), or so the ‘revelation’ said.
The promise of ever greater impact though fewer and fewer required prayers were asked for is unusual in church tradition, especially when quantified in this way. Even more so because these promises were made while urging Mrs. Kindelmann to engage in saving souls, to spread the message and especially to make extraordinary bodily mortifications. And because they were associated with a failure to perform her duties of state, and even disobedience to her spiritual director. Thus, we may consider them to be demonic manipulations under false pretences, arrogance and vanity, and lies that feed one’s sense of self-importance, rather than actual divine promises.
e/ Promise of disproportionate effects
By a promise of disproportionate effect, we mean phenomena such as the increasing grace that comes with less and less prayer, as mentioned in the previous point. The disproportionate impact attributed or promised to Elizabeth’s personal prayer and action is characteristic of the Diary as a whole. This is more striking because, from what we can learn of her life, these are not commensurate with her personal virtues. This assertion will be illustrated by example later.
The same can be said of the Flame of Love as an instrument of grace (?), a grace (?), a “power” of grace (?), that is, the ‘something’ of which the revelator says that there has never been a miracle comparable to. That is to say this will be the “greatest miracle” of Our Lady (II/18) “since the Word was made flesh, such a great movement has never been taken on my [Blessed Virgin Mary] part” (I/84), and even “the completion of the journey of salvation” (III/199), as if the means of grace necessary for the journey of salvation had not been complete for two thousand years without this now. For which reason, then, the question may justly be asked: if it is indeed such a serious means of salvation, why did God not give it earlier, and why did He do so through a woman of no particular virtue? Professor Kovács must have noticed this problem, because he deleted the statement referring to the completion of the way of salvation from the official edition.
The disproportionate impact of the prayer of Elizabeth Kindelmann, who was also concerned with the “search for souls”, is also due to the fact that the revelator says that she is “given” the power to “redeem souls” (IV/19). Which again provokes legitimate questions: were we not redeemed until then? And did it take Elizabeth Kindelmann for this to finally happen?
But if one accepts the messages, one can receive this power oneself, and through this, according to the alleged Jesus, everyone has the power to “make God happy” (III/189).
It is perhaps clear from these that such disproportionate impact is a promise more in the realm of arrogance and stupidity than of credible private revelation.
f/ “Unity prayer”
On page I/63 of the Diary (3-11 May 1962) is the prayer that Jesus himself supposedly dictated to Elizabeth:
“May our feet journey together. May our hands gather in unity. May our hearts beat in unison. May our souls be in harmony. May our thoughts be as one. May our ears listen to the silence together. May our glances profoundly penetrate each other. May our lips pray together to gain mercy from the Eternal Father.”
The feet walking together and the hands gathering together mentioned in the “prayer” probably come from a favourite religious folk song, a song that is very striking in its sentimentality (In the Silent Depths of the Church), together with the basic idea of the theology of redemption together. The following “thoughts” of the prayer of unity, such as hearts beating at once, looking at one another, listening to silence, on the other hand, may come from Hungarian popular music hits played on the radio in 1962-1963, since there is a high degree of similarity and coincidence in time with the arrangement of their “messages” forming in the diary.
Some examples of lyrics:
“Two hearts beat happily together. We run together, on we go, it will stay like this forever” (János Koós: Free)
“It’s beautiful with you, it’s good with you, the heart beats(...) What I saw on my sweet honeymoon, I don’t know, because I only saw you. For I saw only you, for I saw only you, for I saw only you...” (Éva Mikes: Our train is coming home)
“Learn to be alone for an hour or two. In such times silence is enough to cheer us. To leave sadness far behind, and how your hand goes to my hand Is the most beautiful, longest road. We’ll listen to what the other says, no need to talk either. Now from beat to beat the silence speaks, the eye. At such a time, silence is enough to cheer us, to leave the sadness far behind, and how your hand goes to my hand is the most beautiful, longest road.” (Margit László: The most beautiful road)
This “prayer” does not follow the teachings of Our Lord Jesus and listening to His words and keeping them, but rather the unity of two people on the same level, which is very much in line with the doctrine of redeeming each other. Yet Christ required of His disciples the following of Him and the listening to His words, not the silence of listening with Him. The latter, alongside the sentimental pop hits, is more a characteristic of Eastern religions and the new age: self-emptying for the sake of liberation, listening to silence as a method and result of this, unity with the world, ‘embracing’ all humanity. It is not, therefore, a Christian characteristic, and Elizabeth’s reflections on it are no more so than the hidden universalism that is implicit in the additional line of the Hail Mary.
4. Unfulfilled prophecies
Unfulfilled prophecies have traditionally been taken as a sign that a “private revelation” is not from God. There were several of these in Mrs Elizabeth’s diary. As a result of Zoltán Kovács’s censorship, these are now only present in the official edition of the Diary in the form of gaps, and we can only obtain information about them from additional sources.
a/ Date of death
For example, one unfulfilled prophecy removed from the official edition of the Diary is the one that reports Jesus giving the day of Elizabeth’s death. We learn of this from Professor Zoltán Kovács’s expert opinion on the matter. Apparently, Jesus promised her that she would die on her 52nd birthday, and ‘Jesus’ confirmed this several times, talking to Elizabeth about it (III/128, 219). But Elizabeth died at the age of 72, not on her birthday, so the revelators’ words and prophecy were false, the explanation of which was that the lie was necessary for Elizabeth Kindelmann’s spiritual development. Such explanations only reinforce suspicions about the identity of the revelator. Jesus does not lie, not even for the spiritual development of Elizabeth.
 |
| A hitherto unpublished page of the original diary, where it is falsely predicted that "this place will be the largest shrine in the world after Lourdes" - omitted from the official edition. |
b/ The “second largest pilgrimage site in the world after Lourdes”
Another unfulfilled prophecy concerns a small shack built in the suburban garden of Elizabeth Kindelmann, which she built herself with some helpers. This prophecy was originally in part III/199, but was removed from the official edition of the Diary at the suggestion of Father Kovács. This passage, according to the account of Elisabeth Kindelmann’s secretary, originally read. “This place will be the largest shrine in the world after Lourdes. Write it down and give it to your confessor”. This was confirmed verbally by Elizabeth: “You see, dear secretary! This place is promised by Our Lady to be one of the greatest shrines in the world, as I wrote in my diary!” But the “dear secretary” also reports that after the death of Mrs. Elizabeth Kindelmann, her children demolished the small garden house and cleared away the remains; it can hardly now become the second largest pilgrimage site in the world after Lourdes… yet another a unfulfilled prophecy.
The censor himself mentions this prophecy in his examination, but in the English version (Examination 6.5.6) he connects the prophecy to the church of the Virgin Mary in Máriaremete, in the hills above Budapest – though he does so despite the original message, without any basis.
5. Blasphemy
The claims of imperfection about God or the Virgin, the lies attributed to them, the incitement to sin, are blatant blasphemy, and there are plenty of passages in the Diary that support this:
a/ Jesus and Our Lady encouraging the failure to do one’s duties
According to Elizabeth, she was distracted from the most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass by the Blessed Virgin: “Even at Mass she complained without ceasing, in a very sad voice. I felt that she was wringing her hands and pleading” (I/65).
According to Mrs. Elizabeth Kindelmann, the Virgin Mary asked her to do the excessive mortification that made her ill:
“Increase your sacrifice! Don’t ask how, be resourceful!’ I responded to her request by taking only bread, water and a little fruit for nine days. When she asked a second time, I denied myself water for several days. This was very difficult for me in the terrible heat.” (July 30, 1962) (I/82). Then, because of the excessive fasting, which was completely devoid of reason: “I was ill. I could not keep vigil for days, I was so weak, and the intense summer heat added to this. I hardly had the strength to walk.” (1 August 1962) (I/82)
On one occasion, Our Lady kept talking to her and kept Elizabeth so preoccupied that she was unable to take the necessary food to her children, causing her to fail in her duties of state:
“That day I was in such a state of mind that I hardly knew who I was. I wrote the communications of the Blessed Virgin. It was a Saturday, and it was not until about ten o’clock in the evening that I woke up to what was happening to me. I realized then that I had brought neither the bread nor eggs, with which my children had entrusted me.” (II/38)
On another occasion, Jesus Himself kept her from fulfilling her responsibilites, by keeping her there for the second morning mass after having been to the first one:
“One time at the seven o’clock Mass I wanted to say goodbye to Him. He said: ‘Why are you saying goodbye? Don’t we walk together?’ And he said to me in a gentle, comforting voice: ‘Don’t go! Why are you in such a hurry?’ / I was going to weed my garden, because the weather was good. / He said again, ‘Hey, don’t you want to take part in the next Holy Sacrifice of the Mass?’”
b/ Our Lady of Disobedience
The alleged Virgin Mary also caused Elizabeth to disregard the confessor’s explicit instructions:
“While I was working, Our Lady urged me to go and press her holy cause. I was so embarrassed, I began to feel a resistance I had never felt before, wondering if this was the voice of the Blessed Virgin? Was I not a victim of my imagination? This question arose because, after my confession two days ago, when I had given my spiritual director another request of the Blessed Virgin, which was again urgent, he replied that I should not go to the bishop, but that he would take responsibility before the Blessed Virgin. If it is urgent for the Blessed Mother, she will take care of it. I should wait for the Bishop to come to this district and then tell him. I said to my pastor, yes, I will submit completely to everything he says and I will do nothing without his command and permission.... meanwhile Our Lady urged me further: ‘Go urgently’... This was an unexpected order. But I still could not bring myself to make up my mind. ... But the urge was much stronger than I could resist. I left my chores and hurried to the father dean.” (II/120)
c/ Jesus and Our Lady without gravitas and virtue
Elizabeth Kindelmann’s messages present a sentimental, spinsterly Mary, that is the exact opposite of the gravitas expected, one might even go so far as to say a Virgin Mary devoid of virtues: “I felt the inexpressible sorrow and sad sobs of the Sorrowful Virgin in the depths of my soul” (I/37), “And she sobbed so much that I could hardly understand what she was saying.” (I/38), “Wringing her hands and pleading” and “And pleading, she continued to plead” (I/65), the “Our Lady also complained very much. She poured out the sorrow of her heart upon me, not by her words, but by her sobs.” (II/90), “I felt Our Lady’s sobs in my soul.” (III/209), “Our Lady told me, she did not tell me, oh, I did not say it right, she complained sobbing, sorrowful” (IV/27), “I heard her immense, heart-rending sobs, not for a moment or two, but for a quarter of an hour. Her voice was drowned in sobs” (IV/28), “I felt as if Our Lady was relieved by the sobs which she was pouring into me” (IV/28).
c/ Ridiculous
Ridiculous and superfluous revelations are not signs of divine origin.
On one occasion of excessive fasting, one totally devoid of reason: “Jesus, seeing my anguished efforts, praised me for my sweet words, ‘You know, since we are both very tired, let us eat something warm.’ I cooked some simple soup. After the warm soup I really felt better. As we ate, he gushed kindly, in few words but a lot of emotion, ‘We’ve both got some strength now, haven’t we?’” (III/147)
From Elizabeth we learn that Jesus is a very sentimental soul: as to her favourite church song, Mrs Elizabeth quotes Jesus as saying that it is His favourite too (“This is our favourite song” I/75). Moreover, on several occasions apparently Jesus himself arranged for the rarely played sentimental song to be played, and the passage quoted says that Jesus played it himself on the harmonium: “Was it a good hymn? I played it today on the harmonium” (I/75). And the alleged Jesus, of course, says all this in a gushing, almost babbling way, preventing the post-communion thanksgiving: “When I returned to my place [after the Holy Communion], I wanted to express my gratitude to Him for the union with Him. He would not let me speak, He began poured forth words to me” (I/75).
c/ Jesus and Our Lady intentionally misleading her
God and the saints do not deceive, but the supposed Jesus and the Virgin Mary of the Diary deliberately mislead Elizabeth on several occasions.
Jesus lies in order to make it “easier for Elizabeth to bear the burden of earth” (III/128). Although the prophecy itself was omitted from the Diary at the suggestion of the censor, the ‘Jesus-like’ statement concerning the time of his death, i.e. the false confirmation of the unfulfilled prophecy, remained in the official edition of the Diary:
“But I have told you the time of your death, so that it may be easier for you to bear the burden of the earth” (III/128)
Jesus shows Elizabeth who is to be her confessor, the priest then immediately and completely refuses, which means that Jesus was either wrong or just lying to humiliate Elizabeth:
“the Lord Jesus said: ‘You may choose any one of the twelve priests to be your confessor.’ I was reluctant to make this choice, and I asked the Lord Jesus to point me to one of the twelve priests, and I would gladly accept him. The Lord Jesus did point to a person, his name was F.K. (Ferenc Keszthelyi) (...) But after I asked Him, I received the answer that He does not now have time to answer me, (...) After a few weeks I repeated my request by letter. However, he completely ignored this and did not reply. I made no further attempt, because in the meantime Our Lady had said: ‘My daughter, my Holy Son has meant this too as a humiliation, and you are to remain in meekness and humility and be patient’“ (IV/25).
On one occasion, it seems, Our Lady sent Elisabeth Kindelmann to a priest with the promise that he will be one of the priestly souls chosen to spread the Flame of Love, but the recruitment attempt proved fruitless (II/29).
6. Overriding Church customs and authority
a/ Fasting and vigils
Through Elizabeth, a special practice of self-denial and mortification has been proclaimed, supposedly through divine intervention, something which falls within the competence of the Church (fasting discipline), and therefore seemingly Jesus Himself does not respect the “authority” He has ordained, in addition these are contrary to the Church’s tradition of penitential and atonement practices.
These requests are not comparable to the call to repentance of other private revelations authenticated by the Church: repentance has always been for everyone everywhere, but the general injunction of particular self-denials is contrary to the virtue of prudence. For even the ordinary practice of fasting is a matter of prudence: sick people, travellers, children, the elderly, and those engaged in hard manual labour are traditionally exempt from it, but extra abstinence above and beyond the ordinary is especially determined by prudence.
“Every Thursday and Friday fast on bread and water (...) On both days spend four hours before my holy presence (...) On Friday from twelve o’clock to three o’clock adore my Holy Body and my Holy Blood (...) Keep the fast on Friday until the time of the deposition of my Holy Body from the cross (...) Do this, my daughter. /And so he beseeched me./ Take it upon yourself for twelve weeks” (I/24) (4-7 March 1962).
This is the particular twelve-week fast that first Elizabeth and then the chosen souls had to perform: in addition to the twelve priests, “Twelve souls must be recruited” from “lay men and twelve teachers who undertake to pray and make atonement on Thursday and Friday.” (I/25) Eventually, all would have to do it.
In the case of this request, we can see the realization of the impossible request among the factors discrediting private revelations, since what lay worker could keep these practices for twelve weeks without disturbing his or her given responsibilities?
b/ The concept of strict fasting and the subsequent modification of the fasts previously requested
The revelator does not merely ask everyone to observe specific fasts and yet another day of fasting, all in a way that is alien and contrary to Church tradition, but also redefines the concept of strict fasting:
“He asked that the clergy, the consecrated and the laity throughout the world observe a strict fast of bread and water on Monday. They may eat several times a day”, but “whoever observes fasting regularly, it is enough to keep it until six o’clock in the evening” (IV/27).
A year later, the concept of strict fasting is again modified: “Concerning fasting, Our Lady (further) tells us and warns us: do not diet, but eat plenty of bread and water” (IV/28).
The announcement of a relaxation of the fast came too late: Elizabeth’s stomach had been destroyed, and an elderly biblical professor who had become a follower of her because of a false miracle had died as a result of the fast, according to his relatives.
7. Who received the revelations and how did they affect her?
Royo Marín OP writes about the distinction to be made for imaginary locutions:
“The best rule of discernment are the effects produced in the soul. If they are from God, they cause humility, fervour, desire for self-denial, obedience, desire to perform perfectly one’s duties of state. If they proceed from the devil, they cause dryness, inquietude, insubordination, etc. The locutions that proceed from the individual himself do not usually produce any noteworthy effects.”[6]
This is explained in more detail by Tanquerey, who says that apparitions of divine origin provoke “ at first a sense of wonderment and of fear”[7], which gives way to “a sense of deep and lasting peace, of joy and of security”, thus a sure sign of divine origin. Revelations of diabolical origin, on the other hand, have the opposite effect: they start with joy, followed by confusion, sadness, discouragement, anxiety, doubt and resistance. Man’s self-inflicted phenomena have no effect on the soul.
8. Signs of demonic influence
a/ Instinctive resistance to the revelator
In the case of Elisabeth Kindelmann, the demonic nature of the revelator is revealed by the recurrent element which, contrary to the whole Catholic spiritual tradition, says that the resistance of the soul to revelation is a sign of divine revelation:
“Be humble and accept with all your mind the doing of My will. Know that if I say something and it provokes opposition in your soul, you will know that it is My Will” (II/8).
“The Lord Jesus even said, ‘Your strong objections are because I want to assure you that the matter comes from Us.’ Now, after hearing these words, my sufferings really did rise to a much greater degree than before.” (II/72)
Elizabeth is often confused after the revelations, she does not believe them, she has doubts about the identity of the revelator, she feels an inexplicable resistance:
“And again I heard this voice: ‘You must accept the miraculous power of my Mother’s Flame of Love not only with your lips, but also with your whole mind.’ And I feel that despite all my efforts, my mind resists accepting the words.” (I/111)
“Later that day, just after lunch, the Lord Jesus spoke in a very kind, reassuring voice: ‘My daughter, take the communications to the sister who has been assigned to you, and she will give them to a priest.’ I asked to whom? I was told, ‘To whoever’s name I give, give it.’ Then again there was a great resistance within me, I found it hard to believe these strange words, and I waited for days for the Lord to give me new strength to start.” (II/48)
b/ Prolonged confusion, doubt
From the very beginning of the revelations, Mrs Elizabeth is plagued by doubts, often suffering fits of “temptation”, during which she calls herself a liar who has imagined and invented the messages: “I cannot have peace of mind until I retract my terrible lies, but I cannot. I walk the path of pride. I am accused by every word I have spoken or written. I cannot retract them. I am deprived of my will.” (II/53), “I am possessed by the devil. I cannot renounce the lie.” (II/55); “And if it is a lie that I have written down and passed on?” (II/58); “I admit my falsehood and lie (II/59); “I am more and more overcome by the knowledge that my life up to now has been a pack of delusions and lies” (III/208), “I have the constant feeling that he (her current confessor) is weak towards me and leaves me to my lying delusions” (ibid.); “He does not notice my lies” (III/209); “My lies are proven facts” (III/210); “For this constant lying leads me to damnation.” (III/232) “In my brooding I have the same insight, that I must give up all my lies and destroy them” (III/232); “I offend the Lord Jesus by my lies and imaginations” (III/235).
Her struggle with the lies led her to seek external reassurance, which is why she sent her messages to many priests, and when she found this insufficient, she hoped for clarification and absolution from the local bishop, and finally from the Pope himself: “For my part, I am absolutely convinced that the only person who can reassure me, after having examined my case, is the Holy Father. For if he does not find it true, he will give me absolution for my intricate lies.” (III/233) Her demand for papal clarification on a matter – one that could be decided by a spiritual director – was perhaps not a sign of humility.
9. Person and status of the visionary
Another important element in examining the effects of private revelations concerns the examination of the personal life, morals, faith life and, above all, virtues of the person who receives the revelation. Such special graces, according to traditional teaching, do not necessarily require a state of sanctifying grace in the person who receives them, because God can grant them even to a person in a state of mortal sin, although this is very rarely found in the relevant literature. A more certain view is that these graces usually occur only in persons of higher virtues or are signs that the person receiving them is called to attain higher perfection and is thus assisted in this by extraordinary grace itself.[8] This is why it is also necessary to examine the relation of the person concerned to the virtues. More so because natural reason dictates that, since an inspired vision is an event that cannot be empirically verified, and therefore the account of the apparition must be credible (sober, credible, moral). Otherwise, on what basis would we believe it?
This is covered by the sixth rule of discernment according to Royo Marin OP:
“The person who receives the revelation should be examined carefully, especially as to temperament and character. If the person is humble, well-balanced, discreet, evidently advanced in virtue, and enjoys good mental and physical health, there is good reason to proceed further and to examine the revelation itself. But if the individual is exhausted with excessive mortifications, suffers nervous affliction, is subject to periods of great exhaustion or great depression, or is eager to divulge the revelation, there is cause for serious doubt.” [9]
Any examination is to be done for the existence of the cardinal virtues and their sub-virtues. In particular, prudence, humility and obedience, as well as the way in which the seer handles the apparition, the zeal with which they try to make others aware of it, and the extent to which they may be exhausted by excessive self-denial, as stated in the sixth rule of Royo Marín.
a/ The fervent dissemination of messages
Elizabeth tried to make her messages known to many priests and even lay believers (e.g. I/98), and they began to spread even before the first nihil obstat was given, obviously thanks to in part Elizabeth’s activities.
She sought out many priests – not primarily as confessors or for the purpose of instruction and ecclesiastical examination of the origin of the messages – to recruit them into the “twelve priestly souls”, that is, specifically to spread the message and not to examine them ecclesiastically. Sometimes, in quick succession, two priests were given the Diary or some kind of summary of the messages (‘Our Lady’s communications’) (e.g. two in November-December 1962). In her case, therefore, there was a serious suspicion concerning character.
b/ Physical and mental exhaustion
“Excessive austerities, which lead to exhaustion of the body and a weakening of the sensitive faculties, may produce all kinds of illusions that are mistakenly attributed to a supernatural cause. Long periods of fasting or corporal penances carried to extremes will so sharpen the activity of the imagination and the memory that the individual readily reaches a point at which the world of dreams and illusions is taken for reality. It should be noted that moderate fasting is a boon to the functioning of the imagination and memory and the activity of the intellect, but once the body and its organic powers have been weakened, the sense faculties of cognition escape from the control of reason and cast the individual into the world of dream images.” [10]
The above seems to relate to Elizabeth Kindelmann: one of the strangest events in the Diary happened just after such an exaggerated self-abuse during an illness, after the Thursday fast. On that occasion, “Jesus, seeing my embarrassing effort, said to me in his sweet words: ‘You know, since we are both very tired, let us have something warm to eat.’ I cooked some soup. After the warm soup I really felt better. As we ate, he kindly spilled his words, in few words but with much emotion: ‘We’ve both got strength now, haven’t we?’ (III/147) It’s crazy what a little warm soup can do to make Jesus so sweetly effusive, so full of chattering emotions...
c/ The lack of virtues
When examining the virtues, it is perhaps sufficient to mention the most striking virtue deficiencies that affect the cardinal virtues, including the lack of the virtue of prudence and the lack of the virtues of obedience and humility.
Elizabeth lacked the virtue of prudence, which in turn means a proportionate lack of all other moral virtues. Whether this changed during her lifetime is easily ascertainable from three cases taken from three periods of her visionary life.
The first case occurred in Máriaremete, a famous Hungarian pilgrimage site near Budapest, when Elisabeth tried to convince another priest about the messages (II/29).
The father’s procedure with the visionary and her messages showed the wisdom and understanding that Tanquerey sets forth as a rule for confessors who are approached concerning such apparitions: “he should carefully refrain from j showing any admiration, for this would lead the seer at i once to consider these visions as true, and perhaps to take pride in them” (Tanquerey 1511), and since it is precisely this admiration and confirmation that the seers desire in false revelations, “He must rather explain that such things are of far less importance than the practice of virtue” – as is true in any case. The father tells Elizabeth why one must be cautious about such phenomena, and shows no curiosity, wonder or enthusiasm for reading the Diary: “He even said in an indifferent tone, ‘If you want to bring it, I’ll read it, but it doesn’t mean anything.’” He reminded Elizabeth of the importance of the cardinal virtue of prudence. Although he had not read the diary at the time, the Father rightly judged that the visionary lacked the virtue of prudence, which made the extraordinary phenomena he had discovered suspicious, because of the prophet’s insensitive assertiveness (she revealed her apparitions to the father during a confession time on a feast day, making those waiting for confession wait even longer).
That the father acted appropriately, and that his restraint and his words provoked Mrs Kindelmann is amply proved by the Diary itself: the following passages (II/30 to II/33) after the part describing the event (II/29) show the spiritual storms that raged in the wake of the father’s words in a way that is highly revealing: “Then I thought of the cardinal virtues. Is prudence one of the greatest virtues? ‘My beloved Jesus, I go to Your school, and if I don’t know something, it’s Your business whether I know it or not. In the transmission of the Flame of Love, there is no need for the cardinal virtues, because then You would have lectured me on them. I find peace in this, it is for other people.’“
But Elizabeth was most disturbed by the words that suggested the messages were of her own origin or possibly of diabolical origin. “I suffered a great deal because of this, for weeks I was tormented by the thought that I was the origin of everything.” (II/30)
Elizabeth visits the confessor in Máriaremete twice more: once to take the diary to him, and then to return to hear the father’s opinion of the messages. This last occasion shows how the priest assessed what he had read: he highlights the case of the alleged neglect of duties because of the Virgin, calling it a serious offence against charity – because this excludes the messages from being truly from God.
The offence against charity is a serious sign, and this can be confirmed by an examination of the other virtues. Among the virtues examined, humility and gentleness stand out. These, precisely because Christ himself makes them a key virtue for teachers, including those who communicate private revelation. Our Lord explicitly states meekness and humility as reasons for learning from him (“Learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart”), are also called summary virtues by St Francis de Sales, because “humility makes us perfect in our relations with God, and meekness in those which concern human society” (Philothea VIII). Meekness has a threefold content: self-control, which restrains the impulses of anger, patience in bearing with the faults of others, and goodwill towards all. “The great benefit meekness brings us is the reign of peace in the soul, peace with God, peace with ourselves (Tanquerey, 1158)
A related event in the life of Elisabeth was the death of one of her confessors, Professor Father István Kosztolányi, who accompanied her on her first trip to Rome, which is described in the account by her secretary. According to this account, the professor died unexpectedly after a twelve-week fast and the diary was in the priest’s apartment as he was reading it. Mrs Kindelmann immediately wanted to get it back. She went to the professor’s apartment and, despite knowing that the professor’s sister was right to object, she broke into the apartment and forcibly took the diary: “I took no notice of what they spoke to me, I simply burst into the room and grabbed the diaries on his desk and ran out of the apartment. By the time the family had a chance to speak, I was already long gone!”[11]
If she had not done so, it would most probably have been returned to her anyway, since Father Kosztolányi had left all his papers and books to the Church, but the forced recovery of the diaries showed a lack of many virtues in the then 64-year-old Mrs Kindelmann, in 1977, including the virtue of meekness.
Among the degrees of humility, St. Benedict lists obedience to superiors and patient obedience. St Benedict wrote this firstly for monks, but in fact it also obliges lay people, especially if they must make private revelations to their superiors, or at least should do so. Of patient obedience, Tanquerey writes that it perseveres “even in the most difficult things, bearing injuries without murmur, even and above all, when humiliation comes from Superiors” (Tanquerey, 1131)
There is then the third story, also reported by Elizabeth Kindelmann’s secretary, in addition to another unfulfilled prophecy not mentioned in the Diary, which directly refutes the authenticity of the revelations, the failures of virtue against the church leadership, pastoral leaders and helpers.
During her so-called “apostolic journeys”(!) in Hungary in the eighties, Elizabeth became aware of various other visions and messages, afterwhich she also “transmitted” a prophecy about an expected great calamity, and that the Church should announce a “large-scale food stockpiling”: “The Church must collect wine, wheat and oil in quantities equal to the inner space of the largest church of Mary in the country, because severe hardships are expected!”
As her spiritual director at the time was more prudent than the one he was leading, he avoided following the procedure demanded by the message. Elizabeth did not take this well and immediately dismissed her spiritual director. “Elizabeth did not appreciate father Antaloczi’s wisdom and expressed her disappointment in him. The great and intimate relationship suddenly ‘fell flat’ and Elizabeth looked for a new spiritual director.” (The prophesied retribution did not come to pass).[12]
Elizabeth Kindelmann’s secretary also wrote about what happened during the April 1981, visit to the diocesan bishop responsible for approving the message, which Elizabeth herself briefly reports in her diary. This is how her secretary assesses it: “The meeting in Székesfehérvár went very badly, partly because of the bishop’s accusatory tone, but mainly because of Elizabeth’s irritability. As the author of these lines can testify, the conversation was much more tense than that, especially because of Elizabeth’s unusually harsh tone, which I had never heard before. Although the farewell was cordial, on the way home Elizabeth blamed Father Mersey and myself for the embarrassment of ‘putting her on the rack’ before the Bishop!”[13]
Elizabeth, who unjustly blamed her companions (lack of justice) for her lack of humility, gentleness and reasonableness, and who, after the incident, dumped the new spiritual director and alienated herself from the secretary, who, as a young husband and father, selflessly served the cause and the visionary he believed to be right. And although her secretary tried to make excuses for her in his writings, these examples show that Elizabeth was seriously lacking in important virtues even at the end of her life, and thus lacking the credibility that a virtuous life would have given to the authenticity of her supposed private revelations.
The three examples come from three different periods of Mrs Kindelmann’s life as a seer. As to these being a dynamic development in virtue… this can only be a misappraisal on the part of the censor; in fact, these events prove the opposite.
Summary
If the Diary and other available sources had been examined in a prudent manner, the Spiritual Diary of Mrs. Elizabeth Kindelmann could hardly have obtained a nihil obstat. But since the mutilated Diary did attain this status, and is spreading worldwide, creating a ‘spiritual movement’ based on the false revelation that is the Flame of Love, the competent diocesan bishop should give the appropriate judgement and withdraw the nihil obstat and imprimatur.
However, Cardinal Péter Erdő does not seem to want to do remove these declarations: although the author of this article sent him the details of the analyses, published several times previously and in several forums, and at his request a summary of the problematic parts that were left in the official edition with imprimatur. The author of this article did not receive any substantive reply from His Eminence and so His Grace can hardly be accused of being overly concerned about the spread of false revelation and the supporters who are deceived by it.
How this attitude can characterise a cardinal who is regarded as conservative is not for the author of this article to explain. But perhaps every reader can draw his or her own conclusion: “Cursed is the man who trusts in man” (Jer 17:5) or he can pray for the cardinal’s conversion.
Because maybe this bishop could become the ‘Peter’ who will “feed his flock in the midst of much distress”.
NOTES
[1] http://beszelo.c3.hu/cikkek/%E2%80%9Eismereteimet-soha-senkinek-nem-fedhetem-fel%E2%80%9D-0
[2] https://epa.oszk.hu/01300/01397/00006/pdf/MSion_2009_02.pdf
[3] https://flameoflove.ie/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/TheTheologicalExaminationOfTheSpiritualDiaryOfTheFlameOfLoveEdit.pdf
[4] https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20240517_norme-fenomeni-soprannaturali_en.html
[5] (To indicate the places quoted, we follow the system of the official edition of the Diary, where the Roman numeral indicates one of the four booklets of the Diary and the numeral the page number of the booklet.)
[6] Antonio Royo Marin, O.P. and Jordan Aumann, O.P.: THE THEOLOGY OF CHRISTIAN PERFECTION, p.580
[7] Adolphe Tanquerey: The spiritual life a treatise on ascetical and mystical theology, 1503
[8] Royo Marín-Aumann, 566
[9] Royo Marín-Aumann, 584
[10] RoyoMarín-Aumann, 574
[11] https://szeretetlang.blog.hu/2023/05/14/kindelmann_karolyne_szanto_erzsebet_elete_57_resz
[12] A SZERETETLÁNG ÜZENETE (64. fejezet) Erzsébet asszony gyakran váltogatta a lelkivezetőket? 8 - A Hajnal Szép Sugara
[13] https://szeretetlang.blog.hu/2023/06/02/kindelmann_karolyne_szanto_erzsebet_elete_105_resz
