Recent Accusations Against The Flame of Love

In a meeting I had with Győző Kindelmann, our Lay Consultant, former International Coordinator, and grandson of Elizabeth Kindelmann, on October 29, 2024, he warned me that there was a small but highly vocal, ultra conservative traditionalist group attacking the Flame of Love in Hungary who think the whole Flame of Love Movement is not holy. They wrote to Cardinal Erdő asking him to rescind the nihil obstat.

Győző related that Cardinal Erdő does not concern himself with this very much however, there are a lot of attacks posted on the Internet that get to other bishops. Thus it is not surprising that we saw an article sent to and published by Rorate Caeli in English which included not only an attack on the Flame of Love but upon Cardinal Erdő himself. I could not find an official statement from them but, judging by the content of their web site, Rorate Caeli are either SSPX or highly sympathetic to them. The Society of Saint Pius X broke away from the Catholic Church and rejects the Second Vatican Council.

Quick Summary

Let me address this article and the objections in case you encounter them in your country. In shortest summary:

#1 Cardinal Erdő does not agree with these “objections”

#2 In essence, the attacks follow a pattern, viz., take a passage of the Diary or Theological Examination and apply the worst possible understanding of it often disregarding the understanding given in the Diary itself. When they are understood in light of the entire Diary and background information, they have no substance.

Let me illustrate how this faulty reasoning works using the Bible and “proving” a preposterous claim.

“Paul, Peter, and Barnabas were unholy men and thus could not be true apostles”.

Proof #1 – Peter and Paul are filled with strife and disagreement: “But when Cephas [Aramaic for Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.” – Galatians 2:11-14

Proof #2 – Paul and Barnabas are filled with strife and disagreement: “And there occurred such a sharp disagreement that they separated from one another, and Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus.” Acts 15:36-40

“God is not the author of strife and division thus these men are not true apostles and their writings should not be accepted as inspired.” Such “proofs” do not take into account that the very same chapter of Galatians shows that Peter and Paul were in accord despite the fact that Paul was involved in the murder of one of Saint Peter’s close friends, Saint Stephen – “James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship” – Galatians 2:9. It does not account that the disagreement between Paul and Barnabas was over the practical matter of how to proceed with the mission after John Mark had abandoned them on their previous journey nor that Mark eventually became a trusted assistant to Paul: “Pick up Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for service. “ II Timothy 4:11

These are the kind of distorted arguments used against the Spiritual Diary by this group from Hungary and the article in Rorate Caeli.

Context

Before directly addressing the objections, we can ask why might someone engage in such faulty logic to discredit the Flame of Love of the Immaculate Heart of Mary? Recall that these are groups who reject the Second Vatican Council and are suspicious of anything and anyone one from after the Council. Recall that the Diary is very supportive of the Second Vatican Council.

This bias is evident from the beginning of the Rorate Caeli article which begins with a most unpleasant attack on Cardinal Erdő insinuating association with the Communists because he was allowed to travel to Rome to study while under the Communist regime. The author then implies that “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.” Quite an accusation to make against one of the most respected bishops in the Church.

In fact, the attack against the Flame of Love of the Immaculate Heart of Mary is used as “proof” of how corrupt the author thinks Cardinal Erdő is: “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 author asserts that the Theological Examination of the Spiritual Diary was not proper and Cardinal Erdő irresponsibly let it slip by: “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.”

Of course, the author also omits that Cardinal Erdő is one of the Church’s great Canon Law scholars and is not likely to let something slip by.

Even more telling is how the article ends. The author states that “the competent diocesan bishop should give the appropriate judgement and withdraw the nihil obstat and imprimatur.”

He then goes on to say: “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.”

That’s correct; Cardinal Erdő does not agree that these are serious issues that call into question the Flame of Love. So, instead of recognizing that one the great scholars of Canon Law, most respected bishops in the Church, and someone who is discussed as being papabile, i.e., a possible candidate for Pope, does not support his arguments and thus retracting them, he once more insults Cardinal Erdő by writing, “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.” Yes, the Cardinal must be wrong and unconverted since he disagrees with the author! Of course, I speak facetiously to demonstrate that this article is not coming from a healthy position of respect for the hierarchy of the Church.

So let’s now examine these “theological errors” that prove this movement could not possibly come from God.

The “Arguments”

The initial complaints are about the Censor of the Diary, Father Zoltán Kovács and how he removed certain portions of the Diary. The assertion is that these contain serious theological errors and thus Dr. Kovács sanitized the Diary.

There are passages that were removed – specifically eleven in number. In his response to the attacks in Hungary, Tibor Begyik, Our Lady’s Secretary sent to assist Elizabeth and a member of the team who compiled the Hungarian Critical Edition of the Diary from the handwritten Diary, explains these omissions:

“These are either confusing, unnecessary and peculiar sentences, or they could not be published at the special request of Our Lady, or they are essentially true, but still unnecessary, questionable for the modernist theological perspective”

He then shares nine of these passages. Since these were intentionally omitted, I will not publish them here but I have read them and there are no serious theological errors in them. Győző has already shared one about how there would be time when we would not be able to attend Mass in great numbers. No grave theological error but the Diary reads, “The last lines do not need to be made public. (this is the request of Our Lady).”

“False revelations, false prophecies, blasphemy” – not true

The author then begins properly citing different factors for discernment – all fine and good as they are true. Interestingly, even when the author admits that Elizabeth meets these criteria, he dismisses her: “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.” These criteria are not false. The problem is the way in which the author misapplies them. He dismisses Elizabeth’s locutions because “they contain errors of substance, heresies” but, as we will see, this is not true so his dismissal is unfounded.

Here, we see this pattern of attributing the worst possible understanding while disregarding the positive understanding given by the Diary. For example, the author writes: “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.” Notice that the author has stated as fact his unvalidated assumption that Elizabeth suffered humiliations because of her lack of humility.

However, when we read the Diary, we learn that these humiliations were not because Elizabeth lacked humility but to preserve her humility. From the entry March 4-7, 1962, “My little daughter, don’t be alarmed; just remain hidden, in great humility. Apart from a few people, no one needs to know about you. . . Your humility should be so great that goodness and love should be diffused over those with whom you come in contact. My little daughter, we will always be together. Only ask our perpetual Virgin Mother to preserve you in hidden humility.”

Note that our Mother was to help preserve her in humility. And it was true that most people did not know about Elizabeth; she remained hidden in great humility. While I was in Hungary, I spoke with a woman who grew up with Győző and was regularly at Elizabeth’s house. She commented how no one had any idea of the extraordinary life Elizabeth was leading. Later, in the same entry, we read, “Don’t let your constant stumbling depress you, because it will preserve you in humility.” In the entry from April 27, 1962, Elizabeth recounts the encouraging words of a priest to her in Confession: “He reassured me with his gentle, benevolent words, saying that he saw nothing inordinate in it. My humility had brought him to that conclusion.” From August 16, 1962: “We turn your faults and failings to your soul’s benefit; these keep you continually in great humility. Let this be your every care, because (only) a very humble soul may represent our cause.” August 28, 1962: “Let your soul continue to glow with the greatest humility”.

As you can see, we haven’t made it past the middle of 1962 and there is constant testimony to Elizabeth’s humility. Somehow, the author missed these when coming to his conclusion that Elizabeth suffered humiliations because of her lack of humility.

The author goes on to state, “Open heresy can be found in Diary III/134.” That’s a strong statement. What heresy does he see? In the Diary, Elizabeth quotes Jesus as saying, “My daughter, I too was human and because of my human nature I had human qualities. I also have faith, hope and love too.” First, the author points out that Jesus is still human as He is fully human and fully God and not that He was human. This is true and noted by Dr. Kovács in the Theological Examination in section 6.5.6 and he did change it in the Critical Edition – I assume to avoid this kind of debate. However, once again, reading the context, we can see why the past tense is used. Jesus is making reference to His agony in the garden and thus is using the past tense.

I had human characteristics as well. I too have faith, hope and love.1 With what great faith, hope and love I made the greatest sacrifice for you all! I believed and hoped that I would have followers who would reciprocate my sacrifices which I made in My boundless love. The consolation My Father extended in My mortal agony, during which I sweated blood, gave Me the strength to empty completely the cup of sufferings. And I suffered as a man, completely setting aside all My divine power, so that My Heart would feel with you. I tasted every suffering, and went on the road of suffering with hope in you all. I saw all the infidelity and, on the other hand, your compassion as well. This is what moved me to mercy and compassion, and still moves Me now.

The entire beautiful passage is in the past tense referring to a past event. Somehow, the author missed this clear context in the Diary.

The author complains that “faith, hope and love are not qualities of human nature, but are supernatural infused theological virtues”. Firstly, note that this is not about faith and hope in God but faith and hope in what would be accomplished in us: “I believed and hoped that I would have followers who would reciprocate my sacrifices” and “I tasted every suffering, and went on the road of suffering with hope in you all.” Furthermore, neither Dr. Kovács nor Cardinal Erdő see a problem with this: “Jesus Christ is both real God and man, the human attributes (except for sin) can be found in him. So, there is no problem with living the theological virtues in the earthly life.” (Theological Examination). We can believe this author who we see making numerous error by omitting context or Cardinal Erdő and Dr. Kovács. I know which choice has more credibility for me.

Transubstantiation Issue

The author references a passage omitted from the Critical Edition about Jesus transubstantiating bread. There is indeed such a passage omitted from the handwritten Diary not because there is anything wrong with it but precisely to avoid the need for debate.

Here is the omission and the notes on the omission:

IV/22-23-24.: On the one hand, the omission here was due to family reasons, on the other hand, this text deals with the irregularity in which Ms. Erzsébet, partly due to her illness and partly due to serious family problems, was unable to go to Mass every day and she really missed Holy Communion! Then the Lord told him to relieve your tormenting desire during your illness, you can take every first bite of bread as My Holy Body, because “the right of transmigration has been reserved once and for all by my deity”.

Editor’s note: The consecration of bread and wine is exclusively the grace privilege of priests ordained by the Holy Mother Church (not even angels can do this)!

However, Jesus Christ reserved the right to do so even after his death on the cross and resurrection, as he did in the case of the Disciples of Emmaus (Lk 24:30-33) ! In other respects, for Erzsébet, this emergency only applied to the time of the obstruction! Page IV/23 was omitted to avoid unnecessary theological debates!

IV/25.: Due to a slippage in the page numbering, the omission marked at the end of IV/25 has been moved to IV/26! (There is no escape in 25!)

IV/26.: The omission on this page repeats the matter of Jesus’ transformation on page 23, but also serves as an explanation: »…when I was preparing for breakfast, the Lord Jesus flooded me with the presence of a moment and asked me to “don’t oppose!” I am in the first bite of bread you eat. I was very surprised by this, I suddenly had a big thought: I will not eat bread, during a lot of opposition, I decided that I would eat scones instead of bread. I told this to a friend of mine. She knew the affairs of my soul and after that she answered, do you think that the Lord Jesus will then suspend his divine desire. after that, she told me that a priest I knew was changing household biscuits and taking them to souls in prison who were longing for God, so I was trying to reason in vain, the Lord Jesus arranged this, so I couldn’t do otherwise because eating the first bite of bread was inevitable.«

IV/23.: (emphasized once more!) This page was completely omitted from the diary publication, because although it describes an event that is not impossible, it can be a subject of debate in its theological approach, and in any case it does not add to or take away from the teaching of the Spiritual Diary! (It was already mentioned in IV/ 22.23-24 above!)

Again note that this has been explained fully by Dr. Kovács. The author just doesn’t like the explanation and writes: “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.” That is strictly a statement of opinion in contradiction to the opinions of Dr. Kovács and Cardinal Erdő. We do not need to reject the Flame of Love because of the author’s personal opinion in contradiction to scholars of the Church.

The Flame of Love Hail Mary and the effect of grace

The author takes issue with the Flame of Love Hail Mary. He acknowledges Dr. Kovács’ assertion that this creates a new prayer but then dismissed the Flame of Love because it “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.” Assuming it is not honored by our Lord as a Hail Mary for purposes of indulgence, that does not dismiss the entire Flame of Love especially when considering the graces added to the Flame of Love Hail Mary. Again, it is the author’s opinion and not fact by which he is dismissing the Flame of Love.

The author then objects to the terms “effect of grace” because, according to him, “Grace is a free gift from God that has multiple and very wide-ranging effects” and “Asking for an effect of grace instead of grace is therefore a nonsensical phrase” and “asking for the ‘effect of grace’ (singular!) to be ‘spread ‘is also a very difficult request to understand.” However, once we read the catechism of the Catholic Church and seek to understand why our Blessed Mother phrased it this way, we can see the beauty and genius of it.

Yes, grace can take many forms with many intermediate effects but it is ultimately leading us to one effect – to make us one with Jesus, partakers of the Divine Nature (II Peter 1:4). From the Catechism of the Catholic Church on Grace:

1996 . . . Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

1997 Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life . . .

1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification

2000 Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God, to act by his love.

Why “the effect of grace” and not simply “grace” or “graces”? Because grace is a means and not an end in itself. What we are truly after is the effect grace has. It is that effect which we desire to spread over all of humanity as it is that transforming effect of grace that will change the world and break Satan’s influence.

The author then objects to that phrase, i.e., “over all of humanity.” “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 . . . 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?”

This logic is quite the house of cards because the premise is false. “If the ‘effect of grace’ is to be understood as a divine ‘touch’ that overrides or bypasses the human will” is the premise but it is false. The effect of grace does not override or bypass the human will. Like any grace, there must be a response for it to have its effect. Our prayer and our desire that all of humanity experience the effect of grace does not imply that all humanity will receive the effect of grace. It is our fervent desire and the prayer is a valid expression of that fervent desire. By the author’s logic, God Himself must be a liar because “This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (I Timoth 2:3-4) but we know all men will not be saved. Of course, it is not true that God is a liar and neither is the author’s objection to the Flame of Love.

From here, the article severely degrades and begins to invoke personal attacks against Elizabeth. “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.” These accusations of her failure to perform her duties of state and disobedience to her spiritual director are false as we shall see and from these false assertions the author leaps to conclude that she is demonically manipulated, arrogant, vain, and self-important in contradiction of all those who knew her.

The author then objects to what our Blessed Mother says is the scope of what she will accomplish through the Flame of Love of her Immaculate Heart: “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?” The flaws in this section are so numerous and intertwined as to be difficult to address.

If the author objects to our participating in the journey of salvation, what shall he do with Saint Paul’s statement in Colossians 1:24: “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions”?

The fact that our Blessed Mother is working a miracle for the advancement of salvation does not imply that we have not had the meas of grace necessary for salvation all along. Does the fact that she intervened powerfully at Guadalupe for the conversion of millions mean that the means of salvation was not available before then? If she converted and strengthened thousands at Fatima and Lourdes, did that imply the means of salvation was not available before then. The miracle of the Flame of Love of the Immaculate Heart of Mary is not a new means of salvation withheld until now. It is a strengthening of the means of salvation we have always had but the author completely missed this in his zeal to discredit Cardinal Erdő and the Flame of Love.

Why did God not give it earlier? Why did He not give Guadalupe, Lourdes, or Fatima earlier? He gives each in its time. There are answers to all the objections the author raises if only he wanted to hear them. And he certainly does not need to add insult to this faulty reasoning by calling Elizabeth a woman of no particular virtue. That is nothing more than a libelous opinion.

The Unity Prayer

The author’s treatment of this sublime prayer is particularly sad as his objections strike at the heart of what Christianity is and what Jesus desires. To imply that this prayer was cobbled together from a variety of popular songs simply because these songs echo different lines of the prayer is downright silly. Shall we say that Jesus’ talk of love in the scriptures was based upon songs about love He might have heard as a child!

The author writes: “Christ required of His disciples the following of Him and the listening to His words, not the silence of listening with Him.” Then why is silence so important to the Carmelites? In fact, the Secular Carmelites are required to keep 30 minutes of silence with our Lord each day. I suppose the Carmelite order must be heretical. And the same for Padre Saint Pio who felt that silent prayer was the most important prayer.

The author writes: “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.” While, in his mind, the author connects the Unity Prayer to pop songs and Eastern religions, it appears he never made the connection to the scriptures which speak of this deep intimacy and union desired by Jesus, desired by God:

“I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.”John 17:23

“Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.” John 15:4-6

“I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me” Galatian 2:20

“For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.” Ephesians 5:31-32

Unfulfilled Prophecies

The author then goes on to discuss “unfulfilled prophecies” made in the Diary to prove that the messages must be false. He writes: “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.” Again, this implies that Dr. Kovács is hiding something. As we showed at the beginning of this article, those passages are few and, in fact, one that explicitly states that it does not need to be made public was the prophecy that a time would come when we would not be able to gather in large numbers in our churches. It seems to me that prophecy was rather dramatically fulfilled recently. Let’s look at the two specific prophecies the author references.

He mentions Jesus’ promise that Elizabeth would die on her 52^nd birthday. Most of this except the conclusion is not in the portions of the Diary smuggled out of Hungary by Sister Anna Roth which because our Blue Diary but they are in the Critical Edition and in the new translations made from the Critical Edition. It is an important part of the Diary. Once again, the author concludes that it is unfulfilled without reading what the Diary itself says.

Jesus told Elizabeth she would die on her 52 birthday. There are several passages where we see she was eagerly looking forward to this event on June 6, 1965. The day came and passed; she did not die, and she was terribly disappointed. On June 9, Jesus explains to her what has happened:

“Don’t think these were deceptive spiritual illusions in your soul. No! My divine words always have a purpose and are meritorious, no matter how dark that is for you. I see what suffering was caused by your death not taking place. I will ask you, are you living now the same way as before?You’re not, are you? You have completely died to the world.”

Despite this clear explanation in the Diary, the author insists that it depicts Jesus lying and thus cannot be from God. I suppose Jesus was also lying when He said, Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” (John 2:19) Cardinal Erdő and Dr. Kovács agree with Jesus. Unfortunately, the author does not.

The other unfulfilled prophecy the author mentions is a statement that the little house where Elizabeth lived, which has since been demolished, would become the largest shrine in the world after Lourdes. Let us not be so fast to dismiss this statement. Recall that our Lady explicitly said she did not want a shrine. Yet people often do what they want to do. Recall that our Lord said on August 4, 1963: “I must tell you, My daughter, that My Mother will not have been as venerated ever since the Word became Flesh, as she will be once she spreads the effect of grace of her Flame of Love in hearts and souls. . . humanity will prostrate at the feet of the Mother of God to give her thanks for her unlimited maternal love.” When this happens as a result of the Flame of Love of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I would not be surprised to see many flocking to the site of the little house.

Blasphemy

Next, the author turns to blasphemies which he claims are numerous. Alas, the only way he can find these numerous blasphemies in the Diary is to distort the Diary and ignore its own explanations as we have already seen. Let’s take a look at these “blasphemies”.

The author objects to the passage where, “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).”

Didn’t Saint Teresa of Avila see the demons around the neck of a corrupt priest while receiving Holy Communion? Didn’t Saint Joseph of Cupertino literally fly into ecstasy at the elevation of the Eucharist? I suppose any eucharistic miracles occurring during Mass should be dismissed as distractions. Is it unreasonable to think that our Lord or Lady might engage someone during the Mass? Did not Saint Teresa of Avila advise us that, when God wishes to speak to us, we drop whatever else we are doing whether it is Rosary, mental prayer, or the Office?

The author says that “the Virgin Mary asked her to do the excessive mortification that made her ill” yet illustrates it by a passage where our Blessed Mother explicitly says she’s not telling Elizabeth what to do. Elizabeth is taking these initiatives herself and would not be the first saintly person to push the limits as they try to serve God. Picture Saint Ignatius of Loyola leaving himself unwashed and his finger nails untrimmed.

The author erroneously connects Elizabeth’s entry on July 31 where she records our Blessed Mother’s request to increase her sacrifices and her resolution fast on fruit, bread, and water for nine days and then later to deprive herself of water with the entry on August first where she is very sick. However, if she had fasted for nine days and then later went without some water, how is the illness on August 1 connected to the entry one day earlier?

The author then accuses Elizabeth of blasphemy because our Lady’s actions cause her to neglect her duties of state, i.e., taking care of her family. Once again, the author shows either an ignorance of the Diary or an unwillingness to accept it when it does not suit his attack on Cardinal Erdő and the Flame of Love. He bases this upon the entry on December 1, 1962 where she states that she had forgotten to buy bread and eggs for the family.

The author neglects to consider that this happened once in her life as attested in the Diary itself in her conversation with the priest during confession on December 16, 1962: “First he asked whether I was a widow, how many children I had, with whom do I live? And do I sin against charity at other times too? Because in the lines I had handed over I also described how one day the Virgin Mother had spoken much with me, (and) thereby withdrew my soul from the world so much, for hours, (that) I was totally detached, and that I remembered only late in the evening that I had to buy bread and eggs for my children. That’s why he asked whether this happened frequently, because neglect of charitable service would be a great fault. I told him this happened only now for the first time”

He also neglects the account from February 14, 1965 where Jesus specifically reminds her to get bread for the family and says, “The time you spend with Me should not harm your family.” Nor does he take into account those who bear witness to her life. Győző Kindelmann, her grandson reared as her own son recounts that people would come to the house to speak to her and have to wait hours while she took care of feeding and bathing him and his brothers and putting them to bed. He recounts how he and his brothers were taken out of the house and placed in an orphanage because the state did not think that a Catholic Grandmother was an acceptable guardian of the children who should be reared atheist. Elizabeth sat in the orphanage until they released the children. She was deeply committed to her family and did not neglect her state in life. That is a grave insult to woman who sacrificed greatly for her family. Recall she gave up all the rooms in her house to members of the family to meet their needs for housing. None of this seemed to be known or to matter to the author.

In fact, the author grasps to make this point to the point of absurdity asserting that Jesus kept her from fulfilling her responsibilities because He asked her to stay in Adoration when she wanted to do the gardening. That hardly seems to be a dereliction of duties.

Disobedience to Elizabeth’s Confessor’s

The author asserts that “The alleged Virgin Mary also caused Elizabeth to disregard the confessor’s explicit instructions”. To “prove” this, he incompletely quotes a passage of the Diary from September 14, 1963 where Elizabeth goes to her Confessor who replies that she should not go to the bishop and should wait for the bishop to come to the district and then speak to him. Elizabeth says she will obey. The author then skips a section and quotes our Blessed Mother as saying “Go urgently” implying that our Blessed Mother is telling Elizabeth to disobey her confessor.

The saddest part of this abuse of the Diary is that all the information is right there in the passage and is not at all about disobeying the Confessor by telling Elizabeth to go straight to the bishop. Our Blessed Mother is telling Elizabeth to ask the priest when the bishop is coming because he is coming at an unexpected time. Here is the passage with the context – no call to disobedience anywhere:

after my confession two days ago, when I handed over the Blessed Virgin’s most recent request to my spiritual director, which once again was urgent, he replied that I should not go to the Bishop; he would take responsibility for this before the Blessed Virgin. If it’s urgent for the Blessed Virgin, let her take care of it. I should wait until the Bishop came to Kertváros, and I should tell him then.

To this I replied to my spiritual director that yes, I totally submit myself to all he says, and will do nothing without his command and permission. In my soul I left it all up to God, with great humility. Through this reliance on Him, grace increased in my soul to such an extent that it actually inflated it. On account of the effect of graces, I was on the verge of fainting, and the Virgin Mother continued to hurry me: “Go quickly!” I asked: “My Mother, where should I go? To whom?”

She gave a definite answer: “Go to the Pastor and ask him whether he knows when the Bishop is coming.” When I heard these words, I was so bewildered that I didn’t know what to do. This was an unexpected order. But I still couldn’t get myself to make a decision. I already considered the consequence of what seemed impossible to me: the Bishop doesn’t as a rule come at this time, and what will the Pastor say when I come before him with this question? But the urging was much stronger than I could resist. I stopped my housework and hurriedly went to the Pastor. I asked him, did he know when the Bishop was coming?

He wasn’t surprised. He answered that yes, he expected the Bishop on Monday, for a tombstone blessing

The author’s abuse of the Diary continues. He writes, “Ridiculous and superfluous revelations are not signs of divine origin.” and then says, “On one occasion of excessive fasting, one totally devoid of reason” and proceeds to relate the case where Jesus told Elizabeth to not keep the Thursday fast but rather have some soup. This was not a case of excessive fasting. If only the author had read the passage he would have seen that:

Over the past several days I developed an ear and throat infection, with a fever. I managed to overcome the fever with the help of some fever-reducing pills without going to bed but I was tormented by an earache, and even more so by a sore throat. I couldn’t swallow any solid food. Thursday happened to be my day of the strict fast, on bread and water. Jesus, seeing my painful efforts, honored me with His sweet words: “You know, since both of us are very exhausted, let’s eat something warm.” I cooked a little caraway seed soup (a traditional home remedy. Trans.) I actually felt better after the warm soup. As I was eating, He spoke kindly and effusively, expressed in few words but much feeling . .

And then, just as sadly, the author dismisses the Flame of Love because if depicts Jesus as sentimental for saying such things. I guess the Jesus who wept with Martha over Lazarus’ death was also too sentimental to be the Son of God. I shouldn’t be snide but the author is so off base here in his accusations against the Diary.

Jesus and Mary misleading Elizabeth

The author then claims that the Diary shows Jesus and Mary misleading Elizabeth. He goes back to Jesus telling her she would die on her 52^nd birthday. We’ve already discussed this and shown how this is made clear in the Diary itself.

He then recounts an incident where Jesus sends her to a confessor who does not immediately accept and how our Blessed Mother said Jesus intends this for humiliation. The author assumes this is Jesus either wrong or lying to humiliate her as if these are the only possibilities. They are just the worst possibilities. Jesus wasn’t wrong and our Blessed Mother in the passage tells Elizabeth to be patient. If it was wrong for Jesus to allow this temporary situation to enhance Elizabeth’s humility, I suppose it was also wrong for Him to send a thorn in the flesh to Saint Paul to aid his humility after receiving so many spiritual gifts – II Corinthians 12:7-9.

Overriding Church customs and authority

The author then takes issue with the fasts in the Dairy. He says these self-denials are contrary to the virtue of prudence and that some are traditionally exempt from fasting. Yet, he does not recognize the instance he referenced earlier where Jesus Himself has Elizabeth not keep a fast day for the sake of prudence because she had been sick.

The author writes: “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?” Well, actually, I do as do others. The fasting requested is actually quite light. It is not a fast of not eating or drinking at all but as much bread and water as one wants until six o’clock in the evening.

The author talks about twelve week fasts as if Elizabeth was not eating at all for all the days of those twelve weeks. Tibor Begyik is clear that these twelve week fasts were only fasting on Thursdays and Fridays and even then with bread and water and only until 6PM.

Attacking Elizabeth personally

Sadly, the author then proceeds to attack Elizabeth personally. Rather than recognizing how Elizabeth’s frequent doubts about what was happening with her were a sign of Elizabeth’s prudence and desire for careful discernment, he attributes them to demonic influence.

The author accuses her of fervently spreading her messages yet Tibor recounts that she could not type and any spreading was done by priests and confidants who spread the messages. He tells how even her own children did not know she was keeping a Diary until her eldest daughter stumbled upon it. Elizabeth writes in her own Diary about how the fact that the messages were being spread before approval caught her off guard:

April 6, 1981

We went to see the Bishop, Father, T. (a secretary the Blessed Mother had arranged to help Elizabeth. Trans.) and I. This visit had been previously arranged. The conversation had barely begun when the Bishop turned to me with great firmness. He accused me, asking me how did I dare to have the Virgin Mother’s Flame of Love published abroad? Who had given me permission? I was astounded that he called me to account, but the Virgin Mother immediately gave me the words, and I replied: I had a spiritual director, who had arranged it. I didn’t even know about it, until later. He had given me a summary of the material, but not that it was going abroad.

I happen to have one of these booklets circulated in English in the United States in 1978. It does not even mention Elizabeth by name but only calls her a “chosen person.” She was not self-promoting.

The author accuses Elizabeth of seeking out many priests. Tibor Begyik, who was there, clarifies the situation:

Many people forget that after the Kádár regime in 1956, priests were beaten to death and freedom fighters were hanged in series! Even after 1961, countless civil believers and priests were arrested for religious activities! It was very easy for anyone to become an “enemy of the system”, especially if someone was “organizing an international clerical conspiracy”! The supplicant “spread the gracious influence of your Flame of Love on all humanity” was “internationalist” enough to earn the jealousy of the internationalist-communist system! To organize all of this in such a way that no mass communication could be used, even typing 10 copies was considered a punishable act!

So Mrs. Károlyné Erzsébet Kindelmann was particularly brave!

The clergy were intimidated and, in addition to the above, many fathers did not dare to undertake Elizabeth’s spiritual guidance, because they were afraid that someone would just “taste” them about their attitude! Therefore, the most orderly thing was if one sent it to the other! That’s why it spread that “Elizabeth changes her spiritual leaders”! But even the brave priests were powerless to help the Cause, as they had no means to do so! There were only a few priests who would have handled Elizabeth’s spiritual struggles as a professional!

The author then regurgitates this idea of Elizabeth undertaking excessive austerities. “The above seems to relate to Elizabeth Kindelmann: one of the strangest events in the Diary happened just after such an exaggerated self-abuse” and he then cites the passage we already covered where Jesus tells her not not keep the Thursday fast (ironically, the author cites this caution against excess as evidence of excess!) but not because she has been excessive but because she has been sick! We’ve already covered this.

He then regurgitates this idea of Elizabeth sinning against her state in life citing the passage where this is brought up in the confessional. We have addressed this above too pointing out that this happened once in Elizabeth’s life in a life otherwise characterized by loyalty to her state in life.

The author mentions that the above mentioned meeting with the bishop who accused her of circulating the messages did not go well. He cites an article written by Tibor Begyik where he relates that the meeting was tense and partly due to Elizabeth’s unusually harsh tone. But he glosses over that Tibor states this was unusual for Elizabeth and neglects the part of the article where Tibor writes: “The fact is that the onset of the disease [cancer] and the suffering it caused were beginning to wear on her patience”

Finally, at long last, this tirade of abuse of the Diary ends with an acknowledgment that Cardinal Erdő has been apprised of these supposed problems and is not concerned about them but rather than yielding to the discernment of the Cardinal, the author once again insults him and suggests we need to pray for the Cardinal’s conversion.

My apologies for consuming so much of your time to read this long article which could have all been avoided if the critical author had simply read the Diary and thought through the issues rather than seeking to make a case against Cardinal Erdő and the Flame of Love of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. May our Blessed Mother light the heart of this misguided author and his supporters.