Responses to my Critics

Usually I will not be responding to the many criticisms written against me online. I will, however, occasionally respond; when I do, the responses will be posted here. Please “refresh” the page if you are interested in seeing if I have responded to the latest criticism.


  1. On the Accusation of the Heresy of Millenarianism
  2. On Fr. Michel
  3. On Dr. Mark Miravalle
  4. The Moratorium on Luisa Piccarreta’s Writings
  5. On my Credentials
  6. Countdown to the Kingdom & Queen of Peace Media
  7. Edson Glauber
  8. Money


One blogger in particular has been obsessed — for years now, but especially for the last few months — with accusing me of being  Millenarian heretic because I believe in, and promote, the Era of Peace (which is promised by countless approved revelations and Magisterial documents — all of whom he is thus implicitly implicating as heretics as well). His accusations are completely refuted in the free eBook, The Crown of Sanctity, Part 3, in which it is proven beyond any shred of doubt that the Kingdom of God is indeed coming on earth more fully than ever before in history (though not as fully as in Heaven!!) in the Imminent Glorious Era of Universal Peace. For those of you who would prefer to have the argument in video form, here it is:

This blogger and the handful of others who incessantly throw this accusation at me repeatedly ignore the fact that the Church’s Magisterium defines Millenarianism as the teaching that Christ will reign visibly on earth. I have always strongly repudiated this teaching. To accuse me of being a heretic on account of this, therefore, is nothing short of grave calumny.

Fr. Michel

As of this writing ( September 12, 2020), Fr. Michel’s messages are not condemned. Furthermore, he remains a priest in good standing as does his Fraternity he founded and of which he remains the superior general. Indeed, two bishops have now publicly but personally “disavowed” his messages. All Catholics are entitled to disagree with this personal opinion of theirs. I happen to be one of them. 

One of my critics wrote:

It seems that nothing will convince Fr. Rodrigue’s true believers that his messages aren’t miraculous short of an explicit condemnation in writing from the pope himself (and likely a second one from the pope emeritus as well, just to be doubly sure).

How ridiculous and childish.

1) If Fr. Michel’s prophecies are proven false by the events themselves, then I will leave his messages aside. Frankly, I hope that this is what happens… as I really would like to have more time to proclaim the Divine Mercy and the Divine Will before the purification begins, and I’d hate for it to be so soon as Fall 2020!

2) If Fr. Michel’s messages are condemned, then I will immediately obey and remove them from my site. Bishops are not stupid. They know how to condemn apparitions/locutions. These two Bishops who have spoken on the matter have very clearly and deliberately chosen not to condemn Fr. Michel’s messages. All they need to do is publish a formal decree saying “I hereby declare that Fr. Michel’s alleged messages are not of supernatural origin.” That has not happened. If it does happen, I will obey. It’s that simple. My critics are the ones playing games here, not me.

As I have always said for so many months now, I am not at all convicted of the authenticity of Fr. Michel’s prophecies, much less am I claiming certainty in them. I just think that he seems to be a good, holy, and orthodox priest, and we should listen to him and take him seriously just in case, instead of just outright rejecting him because of some gossip or because his Bishop — who apparently doesn’t believe in any prophecies of the Chastisements or Era of Peace — has expressed a personal disavowal.

Dr. Mark Miravalle

I greatly respect Dr. Miravalle and I find the vast majority of his work to be an absolute treasure chest. I felt compelled in my conscience, in simple justice, to respond to his 10 points on Fr. Michel — 10 points I did not find fair. Dr. Miravalle is theologically speaking leagues above me — I do not dispute that. Please correct anyone who says that I present myself as a theologian like him or above him. That is not true.

Luisa Piccarreta and the Moratorium

Unfortunately, much misinformation circulates online regarding the status of Luisa’s writings (including on some big Catholic websites!). While it is true that a “Moratorium” exists limiting the publication of Luisa’s 36 volumes, all claims indicating that Luisa’s writings “may not be circulated” or are “unapproved” are absolutely false. Indeed, there is not yet an explicitly CDF-stamped official English Translation of Luisa’s volumes. One may reasonably respond to this assertion by asking, “So what?Catholics are not required to read only those materials that presently enjoy an explicitly CDF approved official translation. Such lofty ecclesiastical approbations are doubtless imminent for Luisa’s volumes; in the meantime, Catholics are completely free to “privately”  (i.e. not commercially publish, perhaps not directly quote in the public proclamation of the Church, e.g. homilies at public Masses, not directly incorporate into official public Church events) read and share Luisa’s 36 volumes, always maintaining great care to, above all, preserve Catholic orthodoxy in its entirety and always read Luisa’s revelations through the lens of the Magisterium of the Church. Case in point: the very Archbishop from whom the aforementioned “Moratorium” proceeds was (he is now deceased) a zealous supporter of Luisa and ardently desired that her revelations be spread and lived!

For more information, see page 486 of The Crown of Sanctity.

The presently binding norms related to this matter are contained — entirely and only — within the 2012 notification from Arcbishop Pichierri, which is presented in full in the link above. Whoever claims that other restrictions exist is not being honest. Point 7 of the notification contains the Moratorium. My critics point to the fact that the Archbishop said that “any and every” publication of Luisa’s writings is forbidden. They ignore the fact that “any and every” is a modifier on the term “publication,” and cannot be extrapolated to also prohibit “and and every circulation” of Luisa’s writings. Consider Point 9 of the very same notification, which reads “Necessary prudence cannot lessen the ardor of those who feel compelled to spread the knowledge of the sanctity of life of the Servant of God, or of those who recommend the reading of her writings…

Obviously, reading the writings — which is praised here — cannot happen without access to the writings themselves. In order for this very Notification to have any coherence, then, the writings must be capable of being “privately” circulated to those interested in Luisa without infringing upon the proscriptions in this notification.

The burden of proof is on whoever would like to claim that these writings cannot in any way be circulated; for it is they who are striving to place a completely senseless and strange prohibition upon the Faithful which the Church herself has not clearly expressed and which finds neither parallel nor precedent (after the abolition of The Index) in Church mandates. The faithful are not prevented from reading any mystic’s writings just because these writings do not yet have an official CDF stamped translation (and certainly not those of a mystic who is a Servant of God, has received dozens of imprimaturs, was endorsed by multiple canonized saints, enjoys a strongly endorsing official Vatican biography, etc. That entire assertion is a straw man and is frankly ridiculous.

Such people who wish to prevent all circulation of Luisa’s writings are free to present an official document from the competent ecclesiastical authority indicating clearly that all such circulation is absolutely not allowed. In the absence of such a document, I will continue to circulate these writings.

Such people — almost all of whom are harsh critics of Luisa and who claim that her writings contain doctrinal errors; erroneously asserting, for example, that the Reign of the Divine Will her revelations repeatedly promise is the “Millenarian Heresy” or that her spirituality is the Heresy of Quietism or Monothelitism– should also read the entire 2012 Notification linked above, which also admonishes them — in Point 4 — for thus scandalizing the faithful:

I wish to address all those who claim that these writings contain doctrinal errors. This, to date, has never been endorsed by any pronouncement by the Holy See, nor personally by myself. I would like to note that in this way, in addition to anticipate [sic] the legitimate judgment of the Church, these persons cause scandal to the faithful who are spiritually nourished by said writings

My Credentials

Some anonymous commenters online have slanderously accused me of making up being a philosophy professor and a PhD student.

I am a professor of philosophy and religion, and a PhD student.

I have never been at all quiet or secretive about the details of my credentials: I am very proud to be very close to the bottom of the Totem pole of higher education (I like it there!):

I am adjunct faculty  at a community college (HVCC) that itself is part of the State University of New York (SUNY).

(Where I teach, even many full time professors who already have their PhDs are also — along with adjuncts — referred to as “Instructors,” which, in this context, does not mean that the instructor is not also a “professor.” Here, “instructor” is simply a broader category akin to “teacher,” a category that includes “professor” within it. Yes, I am in some HVCC documentation referred to as “Instructor.” This does not mean that I am not a professor!)

Adjunct ProfessorHVCC Twitter

Daniel O'Connor at Hudson Valley Community College _ Coursicle HVCC

Unfortunately, there have apparently been some blurbs about me on some materials — blurbs not written by me — that may not have always been the clearest about my credentials (For example, unfortunately, due to an evident miscommunication, the blurb about me on The Warning book — a blurb I am only really taking note of now — simply says “Professor of Philosophy, State University, New York.” This indeed is confusing and inaccurate — for one, there is no “State University, New York,” and I am a professor of philosophy at a State University of New York college, not at “the” “State University, New York.” I have never described myself to anyone, either in public or in private, as “Professor of Philosophy, State University, New York” so please feel free to correct anyone who refers to me as this and, if you like, direct them to this post.) But I have never contradicted these facts or knowingly cooperated with anyone else contradicting them; and I have always been completely open about the facts themselves: I have long promoted, where I make the details of my credentials clear. I have mentioned in past posts on this very blog that I am an adjunct. My public LinkedIn profile, which I’ve had for my entire time as a professor, makes it very clear that I am an adjunct (and where I am an adjunct) and that I am only a doctoral student (and where I am a doctoral student).

I have never said or implied that I am an assistant, associate, or full professor. I have never said or implied I am tenure or tenure track. I have never said or implied that I have a PhD. I have never said or implied that I am “Dr. O’Connor.” It is worth noting that, despite the fact that I am an adjunct on paper (that is, “part timer”), I nevertheless teach more courses than most “full-time” tenure professors. The courses I teach are in the subject areas of philosophy and religion. I have taught hundreds upon hundreds of students now in these matters and am in my fourth continuous year of doing so:

Yes, I am a professor of philosophy and religion. That is a fact. A community college is a college. An adjunct professor is a professor.

If, in your view, dear busybodies mentioned above, you believe that the word “professor” may only be used for a tenured professor at a 4-year-plus College or University; then you are entitled to that opinion, but I disagree with it and I will not be bound in my speech by your opinion.

[Long, boring remarks on the “PhD Candidate” question!]:  I occasionally allow myself to be referred to as “PhD Candidate.” I am aware that some people use the phrase “PhD Candidate” to refer to a PhD student who is in the ABD (“All But Dissertation”) phase of studies (which I am not yet in, as I still have coursework remaining). But I am not aware of any strict rules only allowing the phrase “PhD Candidate” to be referred to someone in such a position. If any such strict rules exist, please alert me to them and direct me to an authoritative academic source regulating the phrase as such, and moving forward I’ll do my best to try to make sure that websites are not referring to me as “PhD Candidate.” Personally, I generally simply refer to myself as a “PhD Student” if asked. I tolerate the “Candidate” phrase being used, however, as I’m not exactly “just” a PhD student. I already have my Master’s degree (in Philosophical Theology), which I received over 7 years ago, and I am now entering my third year of PhD studies (a program I was explicitly accepted into, with a scholarship, as being solely directed toward a PhD). Notwithstanding the fact that I still have coursework left, I am, in fact — looking at the definitions of the words in question — a candidate for a PhD. A PhD is the expected result of the program that I, 1) Was accepted into, 2) Have been continually active in since, and 3) Now have years behind me in. Therefore I do not see any inaccuracy in referring to me as a “PhD Candidate.” 

In general, however — as anyone who has read this blog knows (feel free to peruse its pages now if you have not) — I don’t like titles and credentials at all. I don’t want people to believe what I say “because a professor says so,” or “because someone with a Master’s in Theology says so,” rather, I want people to believe what I say because of the force of the arguments themselves. I prefer to simply go by “Daniel” (or, if you prefer, “Dan” or “Danny”); although I do not make a fuss if those I collaborate with prefer to refer to me as “Professor” or to add my credentials after my name. I only ask to go by anything other than my simple first name with my students, in class, during which time I go by “Mr. O’Connor.” So, please know that you can simply call me “Daniel,” and, in fact, I’d prefer that!

Countdown to the Kingdom & Queen of Peace Media

I am one of 4 contributors to the (CTTK) website. I heartily endorse this website and its mission. All 4 of us contributors are deeply united on what really matters in proclaiming the prophetic consensus. That being said, please bear in mind that no two people on this planet are identical, and we four are no exception to that rule. I kindly ask that no one assume that something on CTTK was written by me just because it is on that site, and that no one assume that I am standing 100% behind something just because it is posted on that site.

While I am indeed a contributor to CTTK, I am not formally associated with Queen of Peace Media (other than the fact that some of my videos appear on their YouTube page), so it is also important that my readers not assume I am 100% standing behind QPM’s videos or other materials.

In particular, please know that I have nothing to do with any claims pertaining to alternative medicine, medicinal plants, naturopathy in general, alleged Coronavirus treatments/preventative measures, essential oils, “blessed grapes,” “mind control” vaccine conspiracy theories (and other conspiracy theories promoted in some videos on QPM’s YouTube that I did not make)

Edson Glauber

Edson Glauber’s apparitions were approved by his Bishop. Later, the CDF said it could not determine that the apparitions were supernatural in origin (that is, the CDF gave the apparitions a “non constat.”) Unfortunately, many of my critics — evidently unaware of the three categories of Church responses to apparitions (non constat de supernaturalitate, constat de non de supernaturalitate, and constat de supernaturalitate) — are saying that the CDF “condemned” this apparition and that I am thereby guilty of disobedience/ promoting a condemend apparition. That assertion is false. The CDF did not declare the apparitions to be not supernatural in origin (i.e. the CDF did not declare them “constat de non de supernaturalitate”). Catholics are free to continue to believe in and even promote an apparition that has been given a “non constat,” for this is not a full blown condemnation, so long as they remain obedient to whatever particular restrictions are given along with the decree.

In Edson’s case, the CDF has issued a number of norms in its decree. Both I and CTTK remain in full compliance with these norms, which only prohibit Edson’s messages from being promoted within the Prelature of Itacoatiara or from being given a “wider dissemination” by Edson himself or by his “Association” in Itapiranga.

That being said, I admit that the language barrier and other difficulties are indeed making finding out the whole story here very difficult. If anyone is aware of a formal Church decree condemning Glauber’s apparitions as false and requiring that no Catholics anywhere promote them, then please alert me to this document (i.e. provide the document itself, not just hearsay), and I will immediately obey its norms.


Recently more people have been accusing me of being in this apostolate for the money. Now this accusation really is absurd and could very easily be disputed by my bank account.

I have been pouring myself out like a libation for a decade now, promoting what Heaven is saying, all while expecting nothing in return. I have traveled all around the continent to promote it (I utterly hate flying) and I do not charge a speaker fee. The donations I get (which I very rarely even ask for) go right back into promoting the Divine Mercy and the Divine Will. The Crown of Sanctity, which took an enormous amount of time and effort to write, is completely free as an eBook and always has been (and I make not one penny of royalty off of the paperback sales of it). An Audiobook of the Crown of History is completely free. I make mere pennies off of the sale of each copy of the paperback of the Crown of History (and that money I too put right back into promoting the Divine Mercy and the Divine Will); which should be unsurprising being that it currently costs only $4.40 on Amazon (I would gladly make the eBook way less than the $3 it now is, but Amazon punishes publishers for charging less than $2.99 for an eBook). I make no money off of bulk orders of the Crown of History — I have only ever asked for people to give me the cost of placing those bulk orders. I receive no income from CTTK (are people forgetting that CTTK itself is an entirely free service — without even an option to so much as subscribe to some ‘premium membership’ and without any advertisements?). This is all not to mention that I am a dirt poor adjunct with a family who sure could use the extra money. But I don’t want it. I just want to get the message of the Divine Mercy and the Divine Will out there to the world.

Yes, I am a miserable and unworthy sinner. However, promoting Heaven’s messages for the sake of money is not one of my many sins.