Divine Will revisited.

First principles: Mother Angelica's healing came about through her faith in Her Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the only true healer.

Next: Calling the Ratzinger letter a "corrective" letter is not reasonable or truthful. He nowhere states he has changed his mind and he does not withdraw or amend the Notification in that letter. Nor did his successor, who stated unambigously that the Notification stood.

Also, I read in Wikipedia -- not an official source, I'm not claiming that!-- the following. Are these all lies?

In 2007, Cardinal William Levada confirmed that the 1995 Notification was still in effect; he recommended that Catholics should not join prayer groups organized by Rydén. In 2011, the Greek Orthodox Church officially disapproved of Rydén's teachings, instructing their faithful to disassociate from Rydén. In 2012, the Church of Cyprus said that Rydén's teachings were heretical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vassula_Ryden

 

How can anyone square a future millennial reign of blissful peace on earth with the words of Pope Benedict?: "The Lord told us that the Church would constantly be suffering, in different ways, until the end of the world." (During his pilgrimage to Fatima in 2010). He is obviously referencing Christ's parable of the wheat and tares, which the Lord stated must exist side-by-side until the end of the world (Matt 13). There can be no period before the harvest when only the wheat will prevail.

 

"Though already present in his Church, Christ's reign is nevertheless yet to be fulfilled "with power and great glory" by the King's return to earth. This reign is still under attack by the evil powers, even though they have been defeated definitively by Christ's Passover. Until everything is subject to him, "until there be realized new heavens and a new earth in which justice dwells, the pilgrim Church, in her sacraments and institutions, which belong to this present age, carries the mark of this world which will pass, and she herself takes her place among the creatures which groan and travail yet and await the revelation of the sons of God." (CCC 671)

There is no arguing with this. The Church has spoken. The pilgrim Church on earth must suffer the travails of the present age until the end of the world.

 

Emmett raises a very important point from the parable of the wheat and weeds: where in any of Jesus' words in the Gospels do we get a sense of a spiritual millenium? Nowhere at all. In fact the Lord's admonition to stay awake watching for his return would be totally redundant if we all knew it couldnt happen until this er of peace came first. Ratzinger spelt out the danger years ago when in an essay he dismissed the idea. He said the problem was that the end times would be duplicated, and something that could only happen outside of history would thus interfere with free will which must be given to all without exception.This was also an argument put forward by Pope St. John XXIII as to why suffering would be the lot of the Church and humanity until the last judgment.

 

Seems to be some confusion here about what is and what is not being claimed about the millennial reign. Nobody (at least nobody with any credibility) is saying that there will only be wheat - Revelation 20 speaks of the chaining for a period, then future release of Satan. What it does not say - and this is emphasized by much private revelation that I have seen in various languages - is that fallen human nature magically disappears. And of course free will remains. According to this line of thought, the earth will have been purified, but humans will still be born with original sin and will be deceived once more, as Rev. 20:7-8 makes clear. Secondly, it needs to be stressed that '1000' is a symbolic number whose meaning is qualitative (just as the Scripture about God's mercy extending to a thousand generations) and not necessarily translatable into numerical terms. Some sources, for example Maria Valtorta's notebook entry of October 29, 1943, predict that the Church's 'glittering triumph' will actually be very short.

I frankly have no idea about this question of duration and don't feel the need to take a position on it other than to say that to be credible, any eschatology must nonetheless somehow deal with the plain fact that the Apocalypse refers to the defeat of the Beast/False Prophet (Rev. 19:20) and the Devil (Rev. 20:10) as two distinct events that are separated by the 'thousand years'. Augustine's solution of interpreting Revelation spiritually but strangely predicting the Lord's return after a literal thousand years didn't turn out too well, as twelfth-century Christians would discover!!

 

Peter,
fr Iannuzzi says that the three things causing us to sin -the flesh, satan and the world will loose their power- "extinguished" i think is the word he used in his first book. that sounds incredibly close to nobody sins

 

St. Augustine believed that the unbinding of Satan would take place at the end of the Sabbath Millennium, not circa AD1100. Most of the Early Church Fathers believed that the Sabbath Millennium would end around AD500, due to their reliance on the LXX. However St. Bede the Venerable later recalibrated biblical chronology using the Hebrew Masoretic text of the Old Testament, which was later refined by James Ussher, which perceived that the end of the Sabbath Millennium would take place circa AD2000. This places the unbinding of Satan squarely within the timeframe of Pope Leo's vision of the period of Satan's greater power.

 

Difficult for me to comment without knowing the context, but that's certainly not what I'm saying.

And please let me make it clear that there may well be more common ground between our positions than it may at first appear; for example, I fully agree with your emphasis on the need to prepare for Christ's Second Coming as this is absolutely borne out both by private revelation (as I will show with respect to Itapiranga) and, for example, the scientifically inexplicable hemographic images ('blood writing', as with Natuzza Evolo) of Italian stigmatic Giulio Massa (look at the 'contemporary stigmatics' thread here) which say, in a variety of languages ancient and modern, 'Jesus is coming'.

The interpretive difficulty, as I again hope to demonstrate with reference to Itapiranga, is that the words 'Second Coming' are also accompanied in the case of a whole host of mystics whose material looks impeccably orthodox by references to the Illumination of Conscience, Purification, New Pentecost, time of peace, Kingdom of the Divine Will, Triumph of the Immaculate Heart ... without the relationship of these terms to one another being fully clear. My own sense is that it's probably wisest to accept the ambiguity here without locking oneself into a concrete scenario or timeline, and leave the rest up to God. What is certain from Scripture, however, is that it will be a manifestation of Christ's glory (Rev. 19) that will defeat the Beast and False Prophet, and that this is not synonymous with the end of the world...

 

Someone wrote me and said that there was an interesting dialogue here. But it is indeed the same arguments being rehashed. I think you have nailed it here, Peter, that the epistemology is the crucial factor. In my dialogues with Fr. Iannuzzi, who is a deeply respected theologian at the Vatican, he has stated the same.

I breezed through this thread and have some random thoughts without any particular order....

1. There is an objection to the "gift" of Living in the Divine Will because it is difficult at times to understand. I remember reading JPII's Crossing the Threshold many years ago, and I couldn't get it—at all. But today, it pierces my soul. The point is that there are many factors that go into our understanding of theological matters, from our backgrounds, to vocabulary, to catechesis, theological training or lack thereof, to perhaps most importantly, the light of grace. Remember, the Apostles were with Jesus for THREE years sitting as His feet studying, listening, learning, imitating... and yet, they still could not perceive the importance of the Crucifixion and Resurrection without grace. On the road to Emmaus, after Jesus revealed Himself, the disciples said, "Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?" And then when Jesus appeared to them agin the upper room, it says in Luke 24:44, "Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures." The reason these Scriptures remained closed, but were now being "opened" to the Apostles, is simply that it was time: God was inaugurating a new era, the era of the Redemption.

So too, perhaps, with Luisa's writings: grace is needed to comprehend the deeper revelation of the Divine Will that has always existed. And now it is time, at the inauguration of a new era. Some will understand, some won't... and not everyone has to. "Unless you become like a child." Our Lady often did not understand the words of Jesus. This made her no less a saint. In fact, she is the greatest of saints. What is certain is that the Vatican has given tacit approval to Luisa's writings, and most notably, to Rev. Iannuzzi's dissertation on them, showing their basis in Church teaching.

And I suppose I could add, based on some comments here, that because one does not understand the purpose of an Era of Peace, does not, therefore, make it invalid.

2. I have noticed Vassula's name crop up again. While I am not well-versed in her writings, I did take note of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's (CDF) Notification, which questioned among other things, her prophecies regarding an "era of peace." While stressing the Notification, it's interesting that no one has pointed out that the CDF invited Vassula to make clarifications in this regard. She was invited to respond to questions posed by the CDF. Vassula’s answers, including her response on the “era of peace,” were submitted through Fr. Prospero Grech, renowned professor of Biblical theology at the Pontifical Institute Augustinianum. He was commissioned by Cardinal Ratzinger, then Prefect of the CDF, to put five questions to the alleged seer. On reviewing her answers, Fr. Prospero called them “excellent.” More significantly, Cardinal Ratzinger himself, in a personal exchange with theologian Niels Christian Hvidt, who has carefully documented the followup between the CDF and Vassula and initiated the meetings with her, said to Hvidt after Mass one day: “Ah, Vassula has replied very well!”

In perhaps a unique insight into the politics of the Vatican, Hvidt was told by those in the heart of the CDF that “The millstones grind slowly in the Vatican.” Hinting at internal divisions, Cardinal Ratzinger later relayed to Hvidt that He ‘would like to see a new Notification’ but that he had to “obey the cardinals.” It was confirmed in May of 2004 that a new Notification would not be forthcoming and that, rather, the positive response to Vassula’s clarifications would be “kept low-key.” ((cf. http://www.cdf-tlig.org))

I read Vassula's clarification on the era of peace, and it resonates perfectly with the careful theology that Rev. Iannuzzi has developed. That the Vatican is playing politics should surprise no one. Just ask St. Pio!

By the way, Iannuzzi is not the only theologian to espouse an Era of Peace. No less than the papal theologian for Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II said, "Yes, a miracle was promised at Fatima, the greatest miracle in the history of the world, second only to the Resurrection. And that miracle will be an era of peace which has never really been granted before to the world. —Mario Luigi Cardinal Ciappi, , October 9th, 1994, The Apostolate’s Family Catechism, p. 35

3. It was suggested above that Cardinal Ratzinger has condemned the notion of an era of peace. This is patently false, since again, he approved of Vassula's answers. And second, he was posed the question directly. Padre Martino Penasa spoke to Msgr. S. Garofalo (Consultant to the Congregation for the Cause of Saints) on the scriptural foundation of an historic and universal era of peace, as opposed to millenarianism. Msgr. suggested that the matter be posed directly to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Fr. Martino thus posed the question: “È imminente una nuova era di vita cristiana?” (“Is a new era of Christian life imminent?”). Again, the Prefect at that time, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger replied, “La questione è ancora aperta alla libera discussione, giacchè la Santa Sede non si è ancora pronunciata in modo definitive”: "The question is still open to free discussion, as the Holy See has not made any definitive pronouncement in this regard." —Il Segno del Soprannauturale, Udine, Italia, n. 30, p. 10, Ott. 1990; Fr. Martino Penasa presented this question of a “millenary reign” to Cardinal Ratzinger

Continued below...

 

4. The Theological Commission of 1952 was summarized in this document: The Teaching of the Catholic Church: A Summary of Catholic Doctrine, London Burns Oates & Washbourne. I believe this is not in print anymore. Inasmuch as the cited work bears the Church’s seals of approval, i.e., the imprimatur and the nihil obstat, it is an exercise of the Magisterium. When an individual bishop grants the Church’s official imprimatur, and neither the Pope nor the body of bishops oppose the conferral of this seal, it is an exercise of the ordinary Magisterium.

5. Regarding the resurrection of the saints, of course, the most authoritative statement is from St. Justin Martyr, among other Church Fathers. But St. Justin specifically references that, an era where there will be a resurrection before the very end, comes directly from St. John. "I and every other orthodox Christian feel certain that there will be a resurrection of the flesh followed by a thousand years in a rebuilt, embellished, and enlarged city of Jerusalem, as was announced by the Prophets Ezekiel, Isaias and others… A man among us named John, one of Christ’s Apostles, received and foretold that the followers of Christ would dwell in Jerusalem for a thousand years, and that afterwards the universal and, in short, everlasting resurrection and judgment would take place. —St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. 81, The Fathers of the Church, Christian Heritage. (In one of my writings, I have shown why those who question this apostolic link based on Church historian Eusebius' poor theology, is baseless. http://www.markmallett.com/blog/how-the-era-was-lost/).

St. Augustine, who had many varying and opposing opinions on the millennium, suggested that this resurrection would be spiritual in nature. "Therefore, while these thousand years run on, their souls reign with Him, though not as yet in conjunction with their bodies." —The City of God, Book XX, Ch.9

However, I tend to agree with theologian Daniélou that this is still very much a mystery: "The essential affirmation is of an intermediate stage in which the risen saints are still on earth and have not yet entered their final stage, for this is one of the aspects of the mystery of the last days which has yet to be revealed." —Cardinal Jean Daniélou (1905-1974), A History of Early Christian Doctrine Before the Council of Nicea, 1964, p. 377

6. I find it interesting that the one position that St. Augustine actually called his "opinion" is the one that many theologians have somehow taken as dogmatic: that the "thousand years" is merely symbolic from the time of Christ to the end. They ignore, or are ignorant of the fact, that Augustine said the millennium would be acceptable if it were "spiritual" in nature. And he was absolutely right: the carnal aspects of the early heresy of millenarianism were condemned. And the mitigated forms were also condemned. But as Cardinal Ratzinger has said, the idea of a universal era of peace has not been condemned. Clearly, he has left the door open to the "spiritual" sense intended by the Fathers, and explicitly stated by Tertullian: "We do confess that a kingdom is promised to us upon the earth, although before heaven, only in another state of existence; inasmuch as it will be after the resurrection for a thousand years in the divinely-built city of Jerusalem… We say that this city has been provided by God for receiving the saints on their resurrection, and refreshing them with the abundance of all really spiritual blessings, as a recompense for those which we have either despised or lost…" —Nicene Church Father; Adversus Marcion, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Henrickson Publishers, 1995, Vol. 3, pp. 342-343)

7. I deeply respect the various thoughts on our times as well as research of some of the commenters that rightly points toward the world moving into the last phases of expectantly watching and praying for the return of Jesus. However, the rejection of an Era of Peace based on private revelation is on very, very weak grounds. Fr. Iannuzzi's work is a methodical and extensive theological development using various fields of theology and authoritative teaching. Only later in his works does he mention the credible and approved revelations of the likes of Venerable Conchita, Servants of God Martha Robin, Luisa Piccarreta, etc. to confirm what Tradition already holds. It is weak grounds to rely, for instance, upon St. Hildegard, and then reject the above mentioned private revelation that explicitly affirms an era of peace. In fact, a papal "approval" of a certain private revelation seems to guarantee nothing. Maria Valtorata's Poem of the Man God was loved and praised by one pope, and vilified by another. The answer is to go to Sacred Tradition first, and this Fr. Iannuzzi has done faithfully.

8. The question was asked to provide a quote from private revelation that speaks of a spiritual millennium. Again, as Peter and Daniel here have pointed out, this is not to be understood as either a literal "thousand years" nor as a period without sin, struggle, and human weakness. But as St. Louis de Montfort points out, the saints of this era will surpass the saints of old. It is the spiritual equivalent of St. John of the Cross's "Union" after the stages of Illumination and Purgation, but corporately as a body of Christ. After all, Scripture itself testifies that Jesus is preparing for himself a bride "without spot or blemish." (Eph 5) This coming unitive state of the Church is precisely that. And it should also be said that this transformation is not a Disney like grace, where Tinkerbell waves her wand and Christians are suddenly perfected. That said, the pneumatic coming of Christ through the Holy Spirit will be like a "new Pentecost", as the popes have been praying for. Just as Pentecost was a dramatic shift in the budding ecclesial life, so too, we could assume some powerful changes to initiate the Era of Peace.

Anyway, here is but one approved private revelation (the approval from Archbishop Trani):

Ah, my daughter, the creature always races more into evil. How many machinations of ruin they are preparing! They will go so far as to exhaust themselves in evil. But while they occupy themselves in going their way, I will occupy Myself with the completion and fulfillment of My Fiat Voluntas Tua (“Thy will be done”) so that My Will reign on earth—but in an all-new manner. Ah yes, I want to confound man in Love! Therefore, be attentive. I want you with Me to prepare this Era of Celestial and Divine Love… —Jesus to Servant of God, Luisa Piccarreta, Manuscripts, Feb 8th, 1921; excerpt from The Splendor of Creation, Rev. Joseph Iannuzzi, p.80

 

I have been taking a look at this Daniel.
Since I am a little familiar with St Louis method, I can see some problems with this. I will be interested later in comparing the methods of receiving Holy Communion ,which is the Heart of St Louis' method. And I assume is the Heart of Luisas method.
For now , Can you spot the difference?


Luisa ....
The soul to the Virgin: Here I am again, on the Maternal knees of my dear Celestial Mama. My heart beats so very strongly. I am restless with love for the desire to hear Your Beautiful Lessons; therefore, give me Your hand and take me in Your arms. In Your arms I spend moments of Paradise—I feel Happy. Oh, how I yearn to hear Your voice—a New Life descends into my heart. Therefore, speak to me, and I promise to put Your Holy Teachings into practice.



St Louis prayer
As for my part here below, I wish for no other than that which was thine: to believe sincerely without spiritual pleasures; to suffer joyfully without human consolation; to die continually to myself without respite; and to work zealously and unselfishly for thee until death as the humblest of thy servants. The only grace I beg thee to obtain for me is that every day and every moment of my life I may say: Amen, So be it--to all that thou didst do while on earth; Amen, so be it--to all that thou art now doing in Heaven; Amen, so be it--to all that thou art doing in my soul, so that thou alone mayest fully glorify Jesus in me for time and eternity. Amen.






That is quite a long file actually Daniel , can someone familiar with it please just give me the page number where Holy Communion through the Intercession of the BVM is covered?

 

Thanks to all for the wonderful contributions this morning. What a joy to awaken and read such beautiful reflections with so much food for thought! Mark Mallett wrote:

It is the spiritual equivalent of St. John of the Cross's "Union" after the stages of Illumination and Purgation, but corporately as a body of Christ. After all, Scripture itself testifies that Jesus is preparing for himself a bride "without spot or blemish." (Eph 5) This coming unitive state of the Church is precisely that.

This phrase Mark used is so beautiful that it jumped out of the page at me. It reminds me of Jesus's words in the Our Father:

Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

What Jesus prays for will happen. Because the Logos is the Word and the Word is Truth.

The problem is we limited human beings 'looking through a glass dimly' can never really fathom the majesty of what God intends for us.

As Peter so wonderfully articulated the phrase 'second coming' encompasses so much more than the immediate return of Christ in glory:

The interpretive difficulty, as I again hope to demonstrate with reference to Itapiranga, is that the words 'Second Coming' are also accompanied in the case of a whole host of mystics whose material looks impeccably orthodox by references to the Illumination of Conscience, Purification, New Pentecost, time of peace, Kingdom of the Divine Will, Triumph of the Immaculate Heart ... without the relationship of these terms to one another being fully clear. My own sense is that it's probably wisest to accept the ambiguity here without locking oneself into a concrete scenario or timeline, and leave the rest up to God. What is certain from Scripture, however, is that it will be a manifestation of Christ's glory (Rev. 19) that will defeat the Beast and False Prophet, and that this is not synonymous with the end of the world...

 

Mark,
There was no theological commission i am afraid. As I have already explained (and shown on this thread with the book itself), the writing Fr Iannuzzi claims came from this "commission" was actually from a single priest; an Abbott named Anscar Vonier. The commission was in 1952? Yoo may be interested to know that Abbott vonier died in 1938! You may want to ask Fr Iannuzzi why he was claiming that. And therefore, you should stop using this claim because I have exposed it as totally false. The cat is out of the bag, and you have a duty to tell the truth from now on.
Concerning the Vassula document your evidence is laughable. the words "excellent" and "she has replied very well" mean absolutely nothing. Why? Because the CDF confirmed through Cardinal Levada in 2007 (when Ratzinger was now pope with ultimate power to do as he pleased- so much so that the CDF came out with this letter) that the document retains its full force. the era of peace theory was a doctrinal error in 1995 and remains so today. Cardinal Prosper Grech was one of the cardinals I spoke with who rubbished the theory.
Sacred Tradition Mark is alive today, not confined to a few early Fathers who got it wrong, As Jesus said the Holy Spirit will guide us to the complete truth, in this fact he has because the Church clearly moved to the position it has today-that evil will remain with us constantly until the end of the world. St Hildegard of Bingen's revelations with full approval of the Popes reveal several things that completely demolish your thesis:
1)All the dead will rise together at the very end of the world-no first bodily resurrection of the saints
2) We are already living in the seventh day. God the Father explained this himself in several texts. It is the era of the church just as st. Augustine taught hindreds of years before
3) The binding of Satan occured through the death of Jesus, not at some point in the near future
4) No temporal era of peace
5)Antichrist comes at the end of the world
6)No final coming of Satan
Just in case you didnt read a post from yesterday, Pope Benedict XVI praised Hildegard's writings for being "eminent both for its depth, the correctness of its interpretation",(cf. Apostolic Letter proclaiming her a Doctor of the Church).
stephen Walford
http://www.amazon.com/Heralds-Secon.../ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

 

Continued ...
Mark, several days ago I asked some questions about Fr Ianuzzi's research and nobody has been able to answer them. I know you know him and back up everything he says, so perhaps you can clarify.
1)why in his Antichrist end times book did he claim that St Faustina used the phrase "imminent return" when it is never used once.? Only final or second coming are used. Why did he also claim that "those who are authorized to speak on the writings of st Faustina say that the use of "imminent return" doesnt mean end of the world, but the beginning of a new era in the life of the Church"? two issues here, who are the "authorized" that is ridiculous and secondly why tell a porky about a phrase never used once in the diary?
2) Why in his praise of Lactantius as the greatest exponent of this theory did he quietly leave out ch 19 where Lactantius clearly sees the antichrist dragged before a physical Jesus on earth, and also claim Lactantius is talking about a presence of Jesus in the Eucharist even though he doesnt anywhere state such a thing.
Mark these are massive issues of trust in research and beg the question: Do you have to make things up in order to try and prove a theory. I think everyone here who rationally analyses the evidence will come to only one conclusion.
Stephen Walford

 

MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS
POPE JOHN PAUL II
FOR THE CELEBRATION OF THE
WORLD DAY OF PEACE

1 JANUARY 2000
At the dawn of the new Millennium, we wish to propose once more the message of hope which comes from the stable of Bethlehem: God loves all men and women on earth and gives them the hope of a new era, an era of peace.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If Pope John Paul II meant the second coming of Christ why didn't he just say so? Why is there a full stop at the end of the phrase era of peace? It would read differently -- if ---

God loves all men and women on earth and gives them the hope of a new era, an era of peace when Christ returns.

This is my problem with the language that is used. To say that an era of peace equates to Christ's second coming (only) is a real stretch of linguistic interpretation.

 

Sorry Stephen to interject but are you calling Mark a liar?

 

Mark,

Concerning Vassula, you say internal politics played a part in a Vatican decision not to revise the 1995 Notification on Vassula. The only link I see is one to Vassula's own website.

Apparently her own Orthodox Church was conducting an investigation of Vassula. Both the Greek Orthodox Church and the Church of Cyprus ruled negatively on her several years later. (The Cyrpus ruling used the word "heretic.") Isn't it likely the Vatican was aware of the investigations of the Orthodox bishops and did not want to interfere with their probe into the work of someone who is not Roman Catholic?

Something that bothered me a great deal in the original Notification were the points Ratzinger raised about her personal behavior, especially her taking Holy Communion in Roman Catholic churches. That is not a small matter. That alone gives me pause.

Just as important, Vassula and her followers continue spreading her messages despite standing negative rulings from Catholic and Orthodox alike. Would Padre Pio have done that? Is she under obedience to anyone?

 

Surveying this thread so far, I would strongly suggest that we try to move all this in a somewhat different direction. There has frankly been a lot of aggression, insinuation and the search for a 'knock-out punch' by appeal to Church documents whose weight, definitive status and interpretation are all disputed. One side, admittedly acting out of zeal for what it perceives as the unequivocal truth, considers the other to be guilty of heresy. The second side, also motivated by a concern for the truth as it sees it, is conversely convinced that the way in which the first views both Scripture and Church Tradition is fundamentally flawed. The discussion inevitably becomes bogged down when posts become louder and angrier as the poster's opponent(s) refuse to capitulate.

There is no way that a genuine advance in theological understanding can come about when the debate is conducted like this, I'm afraid.

What I'm proposing is, I think, different in terms of rules of engagement. I would like to examine carefully and dispassionately the written material connected with an apparition officially approved as supernatural in origin (while not of course being considered infallible), i.e. Itapiranga 1994-1998, bracketing out any pre-conceived eschatological scenarios. In other words, as an experiment, let's try to build this 'from the ground up' with as little interpretive interference as possible and see how far we get, without trying to prove a point, as that is a surefire way for inconvenient details to be screened out and erroneous conclusions drawn. If it turns out at the end of the exercise that there are issues that remain unsolved, we should simply take that as a good lesson in intellectual humility - not always the prime virtue of theologians down through history, alas!

My sense as I have reviewed this material is that what emerges is something which certainly does not resolve all ambiguities, but which contains elements both of what Fr Iannuzzi and Stephen Walford are saying (inasfar as possible, I'm advocating a 'both-and', not an 'either-or' approach) in a way that is actually far more spiritually rich, multi-dimensional and interesting than the slanging-match that has taken place so far on this thread. But before I begin, I would like to quote some lines reportedly given to Edson Glauber (the visionary of Itapiranga together with his mother Maria do Carmo) on September 15, 1997 by Our Lady which I regard as actually far more important than 'winning' an argument, and which I would invite all participants (and readers) to meditate not only with their intellect but with the eyes of their heart illuminated by imploring the Holy Spirit's assistance. It is Pentecost, after all!!

My children, once again I invite you to unity: if you are disunited you will never be able to understand my love.
I ask you never to judge or critique anyone, as when you do so, you are not pleasing to my Immaculate Heart.
Do not look at the defects of your brothers, but try to improve in your own, for today there are many who only know how to repair the defects of others.

Meus filhos, mais uma vez eu os convido à união: se vocês forem desunidos jamais
poderão compreender o meu amor.
Peço-lhes que nunca julguem a ninguém ou critiquem, pois quando assim o fazem, não
estão agradando o meu Coração Imaculado.
Nunca olhem para os defeitos dos seus irmãos, mas procurem melhorar nos seus,
porque hoje, são muitos aqueles que só reparam os defeitos dos outros.

 

Levada was remiss in not including the extenuating circumstances of what had been allowed the Bishops since that original Notification. He then gave only a personal recommendation which was simply then a cautionary advisory....or else he could say that such meetings should be forbidden to the faithful by the local bishops. Again, though, in the reality of the moment, it is left up to the local Bishops to grant such places for meetings or not....and they may attend themselves (as is witnessed in many places of the world) which would actually seem prudent to do since then they could better advise their own faithful. And it is not untruthful to call such a letter to those Bishops who wished for any correction re: the stance of the Church about Vassula especially since Vassula in her answers to specific questions given to her by Church authorities certainly corrected the pre-held misunderstandings or questions that had stood before her explanations...which were considered to be so clarifying that both priests and Bishops were suggested to read them....not to avoid them out of some fear for their misguidance. To use wiggle words to get out of a true consideration for the whole of what has taken place since 1995 with the Church's permission is being rather disingenuous I would say.

The Orthodox Churches realize Vassula's mission is also one of unity of the Churches. They don't enjoy the fact that one of their own is also promoting the Roman Church. And if JPII bent over backwards towards more opportunities for cooperation with or even openings towards this unity and was still for the most part rebuffed one can certainly understand the repercussions for a "little one" to accept such a mission. And it only goes to show the acceptance of that reality when she says that she was told that it would have to be the Roman Church (one of the three stiff rods that she was shown) that would have to do the most bending. Again, a lot will be sorted out by the Warning and those within the Churches' authorities will also be shown their own roles in the continuation of this disunity....the scandal to the the Body of Christ when His explicit intention given to us was for all to be one.

 

Earth,

Again: "In 2007, Cardinal William Levada confirmed that the 1995 Notification was still in effect; he recommended that Catholics should not join prayer groups organized by Rydén. In 2011, the Greek Orthodox Church officially disapproved of Rydén's teachings, instructing their faithful to disassociate from Rydén. In 2012, the Church of Cyprus said that Rydén's teachings were heretical."

Cardinal Levada was "remiss" in the execution of his official duties? "Personal recommendations" are not printed in that form on the Vatican website; he was speaking in his official capacity. Saying it "certainly corrected...pre-held misunderstandings" is going way, way beyond the plain text of the Ratzinger letter.

You do not accept the plain text of decrees by Orthodox churches either. How much wiggle room is there when the Cyrpus Church uses the term "heretic"? Not much, I think.

I won't comment more on Vassula, and will let this thread move on.