1. Welcome to Mother of God Forums - A place dedicated to the Mother of God. Please feel free to join us in prayer and sharing. Please Register to start posting.
    Dismiss Notice

Divine Will revisited.

Discussion in 'Consecration to Mary.' started by josephite, Apr 29, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. On Oct 13 1973 Our Lady said "I alone am able to still save you from the calamities which approach. Pray very much the prayers of the rosary. Those who place their confidence in me will be saved." Akita.
    Before She departed, Our Lady told the children at Fatima: "Only I can help you." On October 13, 1917
    Does everyone here wish to be saved? Does anyone here wish to contradict Our Lady? ONLY I
    I of course mean saved with specific regards to the calamities ahead. WE are already saved for God through Christ crucified.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 12, 2016
    little me, Mac and josephite like this.
  2. josephite

    josephite Powers

    Daniel a question regarding your above statement;

    If The Divine Will is the same 'Immaculate way of Mary', that St Louis Mary DeMontford lived and taught,

    Why did Jesus say the following through Lusia Piccaretta' writings?

    Search the lives of the Saints as much as you wish or in books of doctrine and you will not find the wonders of My Will working in the creature and the creature acting in my will. The most you will find will be resignation, abandonment, the
    union of wills, but the divine will working in the creature and the creature in my will, you will not find this in anyone.
    Moreover, even the way I ask you to pray is not found in any other... ."
    Jesus to Luisa, "Book of Heaven," p. xix.
     
    Mac likes this.
  3. Mac

    Mac "To Jesus, through Mary"

    Can you just give the relevant quote please.

    Please Daniel , dont send me searching your blog. It makes me ill.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2016
  4. Mac

    Mac "To Jesus, through Mary"

    At least listen to Aslan :),

    DO NOT TRY TO REMOVE YOUR WILL.




    79ebe60cd1b8eb6564dfb8b719e4686b.jpg
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2016
  5. Mac

    Mac "To Jesus, through Mary"

    even the way I ask you to pray is not found in any other

    oops :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2016
  6. Mac

    Mac "To Jesus, through Mary"

    A response from Emmett O'Regan .....[with permission to post]


    Hi Mac, I am busy atm, trying to get the new version of my book finished. So I don't really have the time to wade into a big discussion on that subject, where many people hold deeply entrenched beliefs. I never said or implied that Fr. Iannuzzi was a deceiver btw. That quote being discussed on the forum wasn't my words, but rather something that I had quoted from another website. I think Fr. Iannuzzi is deeply mistaken, but I don't think that he has deliberately set out to deceive anyone. Anyway, this new version of my book will present the best evidence available that the unbinding of Satan described in Rev 20 is one and the same as Pope Leo's vision of Satan's greater power. I would like to point out that Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich saw the binding of Satan take place during Christ's descent into Hell, which confirms the amillennialism of St. Augustine. Pope Leo himself believed that his vision was related to the period of the unbinding of Satan, as is evidenced by his 1890 "Excorcismus" prayer. He first references the Devil being cast into the abyss by the Archangel Michael, and then goes on to mention his release from his imprisonment described in Rev 20:3, comparing it with the content of his vision described by Cardinal Nasalli: "Behold the ancient enemy and murderer has risen up terribly! Transformed as an angel of light he goes about at large with a whole troop of wicked spirits and attacks the earth, there to blot out the Name of God and of His Christ, and to steal souls destined for a crown of eternal glory, that he might afflict and destroy them in everlasting death".
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2016
    josephite likes this.
  7. Peter B

    Peter B Powers

    The problem with Emmett O'Regan's position is that it simply doesn't square with the Scriptures. Equating the Revelation 20 unbinding of Satan with Leo XIII's vision of 1884 can't work because Rev. 20 comes after the manifestation of Christ in Revelation 19 and the defeat of the beast and false prophet. The logical question for Emmett is therefore 'when did that occur?' Rev. 20:4-5 specifically refers to those who 'had not worshipped the beast or his image and had not receive his mark on their foreheads or their hands'. I'm aware of the amillennialist objection that the Book of Revelation isn't linear, but in this instance the text is crystal-clear.

    The appeal to Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich (as interpreted above) for the idea that Satan was bound during Christ's descent into Hell doesn't work either. He certainly lost his authority over humanity because of Christ's redeeming work, but not his power in the world: the New Testament is clear that even after the Resurrection, the Devil 'prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour' (1 Peter 5:8).

    If someone's interpretation of private revelation, however venerable in terms of Church Tradition, leads to conflict with the Scriptures, then it ought to be obvious that there is a logical missed step somewhere. In this case the problem is a baseline commitment to the mistaken view that St Augustine absolutely nailed eschatology with his amillennial position. It's true that Augustine's view became the default position of the Church for many centuries, but it was never dogmatized; as Fr Iannuzzi has demonstrated at length, many of the post-Apostolic Fathers did not take an amillennial stance, and by the twelfth century - by which time according to Augustine the Lord should have returned - his eschatology had essentially failed.
     
  8. josephite

    josephite Powers

    The Catholic Church teaches that the image of Satan chained symbolizes the reality that he is much less active in the world and that while he can still undermine the good through temptation and influence, he does not have the direct authority and power he once had prior to Christs crucifixion, death, resurrection, and establishment of the Church.

    Not that he and his cohorts are without influence during his chaining!?


    The preaching of the Gospel, the gift of the Holy Spirit, the Sacraments of the Church and all the Church is have radically diminished the power of Satan.

    The unleasing of Satan means that, he will have one last opportunity to reek havoc upon faithful Christians in a last attempt to drag down as many souls into eternal damnation as possible. A sign that the end is near would be the increase of the active presence of evil in the world, especially against the Church and Christians.

    Isn't this correct Peter?
     
  9. Daniel O'Connor

    Daniel O'Connor Jesus, I Trust in You. Thy Will be Done.

    It's a direct link to a PDF; evidently you've never even bothered clicking it. (Formatting never works right when I try to copy/paste from a PDF). I am sorry my blog "makes you ill." Maybe you should see a doctor. Or maybe you should just start acting your age.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2016
    Fatima and PotatoSack like this.
  10. Daniel O'Connor

    Daniel O'Connor Jesus, I Trust in You. Thy Will be Done.

    Quite simply, because the total fulfillment of the Immaculate way of Mary was not yet fully revealed to St. Louis, although much of it was.
     
  11. Daniel O'Connor

    Daniel O'Connor Jesus, I Trust in You. Thy Will be Done.

    Well said, Peter. Not to mention it is simply illogical for people today to pretend that certain anti-Era of Peace quotes of Augustine somehow settle the matter when he himself said:

    "Elias the Tishbite shall come; the Jews shall believe; Antichrist
    shall persecute; Christ shall judge; the dead shall rise;
    the good and the wicked shall be separated; the world
    shall be burned and renewed. All these things, we
    believe, shall come to pass; but how, or in what order,
    human understanding cannot perfectly teach us
    , but
    only the experience of the events themselves.”
    (City of God, Book 20, Chapter 30)

    He is saying that our theological studies of Scripture cannot figure this out. In a word: we need Private Revelation, a sufficient amount of which had not been given in his time. Now that we have it -- valid private revelation time and time again insisting upon an Era of Peace -- how ridiculous is it to continue to insist upon Augustine's opinion? Obviously the perfect understanding of them will only be reveled once we experience them, but private revelation does advance us beyond the conclusions available to mere human understanding.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2016
    Serena, lynnfiat and kathy k like this.
  12. stephen

    stephen Angels

    Daniel,
    If you want private revelation to confirm the sequence of events and what theory is the correct one, then look no further that St. Hildegard of Bingen, Doctor of the Church whose revelation were approved by Pope Eugene III therefore having the highest level of approval. In these revelations (and I am not talking about the cutting and pasting distortions that crop up time and time again), but in the complete works (Liber vitae meritorum, Liber divinorum operum and Scivias), God the Father explicitly states that we live now in the 7th day of rest (the era of the Church) (Scivias bk III vision 11.17), that all the dead good or bad will rise together only at the end of the world (Liber vitae meritorum p.32) and that there is no temporal era of peace after the Antichrist and before the end of the world. This confirms the teaching of the popes that there is to be no true peace until Jesus returns at the end of the world to make all things new and transform the universe definitively.
    On the point about Fr Iannuzzi, I am afraid there are several issues that need addressing. Firstly, he has maintained that there was a 1952 theological commission that talked positively of this millenuim theory. Unfortunately, that is not true. The writings come from a book of individual theologians writing about many different subjects The book is only a compilation edited by a priest Canon George Smith), there is absolutely no mention of a theological commission. The writer he quotes was from Abbot Anscar Vonier. I am not judging fr Iannuzzi's intentions but the truth is the truth. For confirmation please go to page 1140 of the book in which fr Vonier, far from approving this theory actually does the opposite and places any resurgance of Christianity firmly down to the operation of the Sacramental life of the Church. the book is here: https://archive.org/stream/teachingofthecat010346mbp#page/n501/mode/2up/search/vonier
    Also fr Iannuzzi in his book Antichrist and the End times uses the term "imminent return"quoting from the Diary of St Faustina. Of course the phrase is never used once in the Diary only "final coming" or "second coming"
    When he quotes Lactantius as the greatest exponent of the millenum theory, he quietly avoids chapter 19 in which Lactantius clearly sees a physical presence of Jesus on earth: "But other princes also and tyrants who have harassed the world, together with him [the Antichrist], shall be led in chains to the king; and he shall rebuke them, and reprove them, and upbraid them with their crimes, and condemn them, and consign them to deserved tortures."
    No matter how much we try to convince ourselves, the popes have ruled out an era of peace based on Rev 20 as does true private revelation of the highest order. The CDF in 1995 confirmed the idea of an era of peace within history is a "doctrinal error"
    Stephen Walford
    http://www.amazon.com/Heralds-Secon.../ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
     
    josephite and Mac like this.
  13. Daniel O'Connor

    Daniel O'Connor Jesus, I Trust in You. Thy Will be Done.


    Could you provide a link to this alleged 1995 CDF document condemning an Era of Peace? Because I know of a 1992 CDF document on the same issue which most definitely does not condemn an Era of Peace (which I discuss in on page 66). I can almost guarantee that there is no such Document that you speak of.

    We had this debate a long time ago on Emmet's blog, Stephen, and it eventually had to stop because you simply categorically refused to accept that the countless Papal references to an Era of Peace were actually that. You simply dismissed them all by saying "oh, those were just ordinary things for Popes to say in their Periodic peace messages."
     
  14. stephen

    stephen Angels

    Daniel,
    Would you like to reply concerning st Hildegard's revelations?
     
  15. stephen

    stephen Angels

    Notification concerning Vassula ryden's messages in which it states: "it is necessary to underscore several doctrinal errors they contain"..."In millenarian style, it is prophesied that God is going to make a final, glorious intervention which will initiate on earth, even before Christ's definitive coming, an era of peace and universal prosperity." Notice Daniel the document doesnt specify any tye of era, just the simple fact no era of peace before the second (final)coming of Jesus. I would also mention that in the CDF part of the vatican website, it is in the doctrinal documents -not disciplinary documents. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...ents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19951006_ryden_en.html
    What part of this official document that condemns the theory do you not accept?
     
  16. Daniel O'Connor

    Daniel O'Connor Jesus, I Trust in You. Thy Will be Done.

    Stephen - this is nothing new, we all already know that millenarianism is a heresy. That's all that document is saying. I know next to nothing about Vassula or her writings, but it is abundantly clear that this document is condemning a millenarianist bent to Ryden's notion of an Era of Peace and universal prosperity, not an Era of Peace itself.

    I haven't had time to read Hildegard yet. Even if she does dispute an Era of Peace (which, please don't take offense, but I certainly wouldn't take your word for knowing where you're coming from), that would just be one opinion of one doctor.
     
  17. stephen

    stephen Angels

    Daniel,
    Sure I wont take offense. No need to; go and read for yourself . then come back and tell me that God the Father can contradict himself. And just to clarify, they are the Eternal Father's words, not St. Hildegar'ds.
     
  18. Daniel O'Connor

    Daniel O'Connor Jesus, I Trust in You. Thy Will be Done.

    I will indeed do as you advise, but I cannot promise when I will get to it. But your words here bring up an important question: are you under the impression that St. Hildegard's private revelations are somehow inerrant? It is precisely because God cannot contradict Himself that I am convinced of a coming Era of Peace: because that is the clear consensus of valid private revelation, encouraged by Popes, agreed upon the the Fathers (except Augustine)
     
  19. Richard67

    Richard67 Powers

    But, Stephen, what do you make of the following paragraph found on page 1140 in Volume II of the 1952 work, The Teachings of the Catholic Church: A Summary of Catholic Doctrine:


    "Another form of illusion in this great matter of Christ's second advent has been much more universal, much more persistent, and is, in a way, more easily forgivable. This form of religious dreaming is even older than the Gospels; it is man's hope of the millennium. It has always been the faith of certain pious people, whom the iniquities of the world have afflicted in their souls, that there would be on this earth some day a very magnificent kingdom of God. With the advent of Christianity it was, of course, Christ who would be the King of that happy era of human sanctity. It is not easy to contradict people and prove them to be wrong if they profess a hope in some mighty triumph of Christ here on earth before the final consummation of all things. Such an occurrence is not excluded, is not impossible, it is not at all certain that there may not be a prolonged period of triumphant Christianity before the end. The point of division between the legitimate aspirations of devout souls and the aberrations of false millenarism is this: the Chiliasts - as believers in the millennium are called, from the Greek word for thousand - seem to expect a coming of Christ and a presence of him in glory and majesty on this earth which would not be the consummation of all tings but would still be a portion of the history of mankind. This is not consonant with Catholic dogma. The coming of Christ int he second Advent - the Parousia, as it is is called technically - in orthodox Christianity is the consummation of all things, the end of human history. If before that final end there is to be a period, more or less prolonged, of triumphant sanctity, such a result will be brought about, not by the apparition of the Person of Christ in Majesty but by the operation of those powers of sanctification which are now at work, the Holy Ghost and the Sacraments of the Church. The Chiliasts of all times and shades of opinion, and there are many to be found even today, seem to despair, not only of the world, but even of that dispensation of grace which was inaugurated at Pentecost; they expect from the visible presence of Christ a complete conversion of the world, as if such a happy result could not be otherwise brought about. They have still to learn the meaning of Christ's words to the Apostles: 'It is expedient to you that I go. For if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you: but if I go, I will send him to you.'

    The Catholic Church has full confidence in the present order of supernatural life, and if she sighs for the return of her Christ it is not because she despairs of the work he has done, but because she desires to see that work made manifest to all men, that it may appear what wondrous things Christ accomplished for man before his Ascension into heaven."



    Vonier, O.S.B, Abbot Anscar. "Death and Judgement." The Teaching of the Catholic Church: A Summary of Catholic Doctrine. Ed. Canon George D. Smith, D.D., Ph.D. Vol. 2. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1952. Print
     
    Jeanne likes this.
  20. stephen

    stephen Angels

    Richard,
    The key point is that he stresses it doesnt come about through some extra divine intervention (and chaliasm is but one form of millenarianism) but through the "operation of those powers of sanctification which are now at work, the Holy Ghost and the Sacraments of the Church. Nowhere does Abbot Vonier conclude that the hope comes from the expectation of some miraculous transformation. He is clearly saying the means are her now and have been since Pentecost. This is why st John Paul stated: "As long as this world endures, history will always be the theatre of the clash between God and Satan, between good and evil, between grace and sin, between life and death."
    Daniel,
    Show me one example of approved revelation that states Revelation 20 refers to a millenium to come before the end of the world in which the saints will rise first and that sin will be abolished for a symbolic 1000 years
     
    Emmett O'Regan, josephite and Mac like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page