Problems with the Amsterdam visions and Ida Peerdeman da Peerdeman, the visionary from Holland, claimed that she first saw Mary during the Second World War, on 25 March 1945, the feast of the Annunciation, and that these visions continued intermittently until 1984, although the main series of fifty-six visions apparently concluded in 1959. On the first Ioccasion, she was at home, talking with her spiritual director, a certain Fr. J. Frehe, and her sisters, when she said she felt drawn to the next room where: “I suddenly saw a light and said to myself: ‘Where is this light coming from? What a curious light?’ The wall then disappeared before my eyes. There was instead one sea of light in an empty space, and out of it I suddenly saw a figure moving forward, a female figure.” Ida goes on to relate how: “She was clad in white and wore a sash. She stood with her arms lowered and the palms of her hands turned outwards toward me. I thought it must be the Blessed Virgin and that it could not be anyone else. I then said: ‘Are you Mary?’ She answered: ‘They will call me the Lady, Mother.’” By this time she had been joined by the others who heard her repeating what the Vision had said to her, as the priest remarked: “Lady? Well, I never heard that before. The Lady!” Fr. Frehe was right to question such an appellation for Mary, for this title of “the Lady,” rather than “our Lady,” for the Blessed Virgin, is indeed strange. Ida then claimed that the Vision indicated with her fingers three numbers, three, four and five successively, and told her that the five was for the fifth of May, which was later taken as a prophecy of the date of the end of the war in Holland, 5 May 1945.[1] The second vision happened on 21 April 1945, and it is claimed that she saw extensive scenes from the Old Testament, including the events of the Exodus, when the Jews escaped from Egypt. She also appar- ently saw a person, who she believed to be God the Father, above them in the clouds, with “his face in his hands,” as the Lady said, “And Yahweh is ashamed of his people.” Quite why “Yahweh” would be ashamed of his people is not explained, but given that the Exodus was a triumph of God’s power it seems like rather a strange divine cameo. Ida also heard locutions of some sort on other occasions but their content is perplexing: cries of “Babylon!” or “Ishmael,” or a thrice-repeated “Ninevah,” [sic] or even a seven-fold “Hagar.”[2] Sadly, these seem more like reports of a person suffering from mental problems of some sort, than the results of genuine supernatural experiences. On 16 November 1950, a little over two weeks after Pope Pius XII proclaimed the dogma of the Assump- tion, on 1 November, Ida claimed that the title of “Lady or Mother of All Nations” was first mentioned to her by the Vision, who also spoke in terms of Mary as “Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate.” It was claimed this would be the “last and greatest Marian dogma.” On 11 February 1951, the feast day of Our Lady of Lourdes, Ida claimed another vision, and reported that the “Lady” had said: “I am the Lady, Mary, Mother of All Nations. You may say ‘the Lady of All Na- tions’ or ‘Mother of All Nations,’ who once was Mary. I have come precisely on this day to tell you that I wish to be known as this.” She then gave the following prayer to Ida: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Father, -1- send now Your Spirit over the earth. Let the Holy Spirit live in the hearts of all nations, that they may be preserved from degeneration, disaster and war. May the Lady of all Nations, who once was Mary, be our Advocate. Amen.”[3] While the sentiments of this prayer are admirable, the phrase “who once was Mary,” is not. And even Ida herself was forced to acknowledge this: “I must admit that the words ‘who once was Mary’ were very strange indeed. I said to myself but surely you always are Mary. Afterwards, when I passed on the prayer to Fr. Frehe, he said: ‘What on earth is this ‘who once was Mary?’ She can’t have said this. She is and would always be Mary.’ ” This was also the view of the ecclesiastical authorities, who refused permission for this phrase when the prayer was first printed. But apparently, “the Lady,” did not approve of this and told Ida, “The words ‘who once was Mary’ must remain. Tell the theologians that I am not satisfied with the change in the prayer.” Later on, the full text of the prayer was approved, and Ida was then told: “Tell your bishop that I am satis- fied. The text of the prayer is now correct.” On 4 March 1951, there was another alleged apparition, in which Ida related that “the Lady” appeared with the arms of a cross protruding behind her head and shoulders, and then asked that a picture repre- senting this be distributed widely, with the above mentioned, “who once was Mary,” prayer on the back. [4] There is something rather disturbing about this picture, which has a dark-haired “Lady,” dressed in white, standing on a globe; There is also a problem with a picture of Mary standing in front of a cross, in that the devotion to “Our Lady of the Cross” is one of those devotions which has been forbidden by the Vatican—why then would “Mary” encourage such a devotion?[5] Closer examination of the picture reveals some further problematic details: the visionary saw the “Lady” standing in the pose of Mary as seen on the Miraculous Medal, that is with her arms down and palms to the front. She alleged that in the middle of each hand she could see wounds or scars, from which three “rays” shone, rays which apparently represented grace, redemption and peace. Ida also reported that Mary said, “in this era the Father and the Son wish to send Mary, the Lady of All Nations, as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate.” She was again instructed to propagate the prayer using “modern methods.”[6] The first particular, of course, as pointed out above, is that devotion to “Our Lady of the Cross,” is specifi- cally forbidden, so there are problems with having a representation of Mary with wounds in her hands, as if she was crucified. Secondly, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that what we have here is a “rival” to the picture painted for Sr Faustina in the thirties. She had been instructed to have the well-known “Divine Mercy” image of Jesus painted, the one which has Jesus standing with his right hand raised in blessing, while his left touched his breast, from which point emerged two large rays, one red, the other pale, rep- resenting blood and water respectively. Thus, instead of this genuine picture and associated devotion of the Divine Mercy chaplet being promoted, we have well-meaning, but regrettably misled, persons dis- tributing pictures of the Lady of All Nations—what better way to muddy the waters and confuse people? The call for a new Marian dogma was repeated on 29 April 1951: -2- The new dogma will be the dogma of the Co-Redemptrix. I emphasize ‘Co.’ I have already said how much controversy this dogma would arouse. The Church of Rome will have a long struggle over it, will finally proclaim it. ... the Father has sent me in the capacity of Advocate in order to announce the coming of the Holy Spirit. ... The world will be saved by the Spirit. The image and its dissemination—this is the work prerequisite to the dogma. Later, this image would be the emblem of the Co-Redemptrix. The Lady, the Mother, has suffered the sufferings of the Son, both spiritual and corporal.[7] This passage certainly seems to raise some problems: for one thing, is it credible that the Blessed Virgin would refer to the Catholic Church as “the Church of Rome. It makes her sound more like a Protestant. The announcement of the “coming of the Holy Spirit” also seems rather inexact theologically, or at least tending to cause confusion, given that the Holy Spirit “came” to the young Church nearly 2,000 years ago. This exclusive future coming of the Spirit is indicated as follows: “The Lady of All Peoples has now received the power to come and drive out Satan. She comes; and it is to announce the Holy Spirit. It is now, and only now, that the Holy Spirit is to come upon this earth.” This last statement is pure heresy, and contradicts the whole traditional teaching of the Church that the Holy Spirit “came upon the earth” at the time of Pentecost. But perhaps in the light of the rise of some of the aberrations associated with the “Charismatic” movement, it is not without interest. That there was ecclesiastical opposition to this idea of a new dogma is apparent from this message to Ida on 2 July 1951: “Now, look and listen. What I am going to say is an explanation of the new dogma. ... From my Lord and Master, the Redeemer received his divinity. In this way the Lady became Co- Redemptrix by the will of the Father. It was necessary to begin with the dogma of the Assumption.