Divine Will revisited.

Good day Stephen!

Ah, I see, the current version is 1952, but there are previous copyrights. I never zoomed into that.

And so, this says to me that there is an error in Fr. Joseph's citation. Was there a previous Commission that this book is summarizing and citing? Regardless, there seems to be an error in Fr.'s citation. If you think this is bad, you should see his spelling when he fires off a quick email!

I'm not sure about you, Stephen, but for me, the process is to bring this to Fr. Joseph's attention and ask him for a clarification. But to conclude that he is deliberately "misleading and manipulative" is not only unprofessional, but it is calumny if you have not ascertained whether there was an error. Is there not a moment where you pause and wonder if it's possible that he simply made a mistake? Please Stephen, I come here in goodwill... but it's only day two, and I'm ducking those bar brawl jabs.

Regardless, the book contains the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, which means that the idea of a period of triumph in the Church is possible, as Pope Benedict affirmed while still a Cardinal and Prefect of the CDF. I repeat:

"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​

Fr. Kosicki and Fr. Seraphim Michalenko are considered THE experts on Divine Mercy. I couldn't disagree with your comment more.

It is very strange how you essentially dismiss the accredited experts on Divine Mercy—Fr. Kosicki, who was responsible for all the footnotes and dogmatic clarifications of the diaries passages—and Fr. Seraphim, who not only saved the diary from terrible translation that would have sunk it, but was the vice postulator for St. Faustian's canonization... and then immediately defer to someone from her convent as the final authority. I'm sorry, but I highly regard these opinions, as did John Paul II, and as does the Church.

Regarding St. Faustina's sense that the end of the world was near, Pope Benedict corrected this impression of the seer:

If one took this statement in a chronological sense, as an injunction to get ready, as it were, immediately for the Second Coming, it would be false. —POPE BENEDICT, Light of the World, A Conversation with Peter Seewald, p. 180-181​

Jesus said to St. Faustina, "You will prepare the world for My final coming." (Diary, n. 429). This does not mean, again,that it is right around the corner. It simply means that the message of Divine Mercy is preparation for the Day of the Lord, which is not a 24 hour day, but that period of time that prepares the Church for the return of Christ in the flesh at the end of the world.

…this day of ours, which is bounded by the rising and the setting of the sun, is a representation of that great day to which the circuit of a thousand years affixes its limits. —Lactantius, Fathers of the Church: The Divine Institutes, Book VII, Chapter 14, Catholic Encyclopedia; www.newadvent.org​

And another Father wrote,

Behold, the Day of the Lord shall be a thousand years. —Letter of Barnabas, The Fathers of the Church, Ch. 15​

Since judgment is intrinsic to the Day of the Lord, Divine Mercy does indeed prepare us directly for this period of time. For Jesus said to Faustina that whoever does not pass through the door of His mercy, must pass through the door of Justice.

 

Fantastic thread. Im gonna get so much fatter,watchn my comp.

 

Yes, of course it has this meaning too. But just as this interpretation does not annul the Second Coming of Christ in the flesh, neither does it, therefore, exclude the possibility of an intermediate coming in which Christ restores the Church.

The more noteworthy of the prophecies bearing upon “latter times” seem to have one common end, to announce great calamities impending over mankind, the triumph of the Church, and the renovation of the world. —Catholic Encyclopedia, Prophecy, www.newadvent.org​

But here is the point of this "middle coming": it is a coming of Christ in His saints in a new mode of existence. Not a utopia—just as John of the Cross was not in Utopia (ie. without the possibility of sin) because he was in union with God. Referring to this middle coming, Pope Benedict explained it this way:

…Yet he also comes in ways that change the world. The ministry of the two great figures Francis and Dominic…. was one way in which Christ entered anew into history, communicating his word and his love with fresh vigor. It was one way in which he renewed his Church and drew history toward himself. We could say much the same of [other] saints… all opened up new ways for the Lord to enter into the confused history of their century as it was pulling away from him. —POPE BENEDICT XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection, p. 291-292, Ignatius Press​

If anything, this affirms Revelation 20 which says, "Blessed and holy is he who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and they shall reign with him a thousand years." (Rev 20:6)

Well, actually you are peddling your own opinion, Stephen. You are suggesting that Vassula's passages on an era of peace are heresy. But when asked to clarify her messages in this regard, two top theologians, one of them, the Prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Ratzinger, affirmed her answers. Second, she is allowed to speak in Catholic Churches on a case by case basis—something that would not be permitted if her clarifications were considered error.

Furthermore, all of us here are interested in the Truth. I've given my life to serving the Church and fighting for every last letter of Sacred Tradition. I've got scars to prove it. I've asked all the same questions you have, and then went on to study, research them, ask questions, contact authors, question their sources, and all this over thousands of hours, etc. (and I'm going to do it again, by the way.) As Peter said, if we approach this as a dialogue rather than looking for the smoking gun argument to excommunicate the other, then I think this will be very fruitful.

 

Dear Emmett,

Hello sir! How lovely to make your acquaintance too! I likewise appreciate your hard work and dedication as a watchman in these times. I quoted you on the "www" as "666". Thought that was a brilliant find, and one that seems to become more true by the minute. And yes, I too hope for constructive dialogue.

Now, I followed very carefully all of your comments, and I believe I understand why you reject what you perceive to be Fr. Iannuzzi's theology of the millennium. And let me say from the start, when we speak of "millennium," no one is referring to a literal thousand years. As St. Justin Martyr taught:

Now… we understand that a period of one thousand years is indicated in symbolic language. —St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. 81, The Fathers of the Church, Christian Heritage​

You probably know that, but it's worth repeating.

Now, you are asserting, if I am not mistaken, that Fr. Joseph is promoting a utopian spiritual reign. And if this were so, I would agree with you that this would be a mitigated or modified form of millenarianism. But this is not what he, or rather, what the Church Fathers were promoting. They were speaking of a "sabbath rest" for the Church, not the "eighth" and eternal day of the beatific vision and complete perfection. Often quoting the Old Testament prophets and the allegorical language they used (eg. a land "flowing with milk and honey" did not mean that literally), they anticipated a triumphant period of "peace and justice" after the death of the "beast and false prophet".

…when His Son will come and destroy the time of the lawless one and judge the godless, and change the sun and the moon and the stars—then He shall indeed rest on the seventh day… after giving rest to all things, I will make the beginning of the eighth day, that is, the beginning of another world. —Letter of Barnabas (70-79 A.D.), written by a second century Apostolic Father​

St. Augustine said that this sabbath rest would be acceptable precisely if it were "spiritual" in nature:

...as if it were a fit thing that the saints should thus enjoy a kind of Sabbath-rest during that period, a holy leisure after the labors of six thousand years since man was created… (and) there should follow on the completion of six thousand years, as of six days, a kind of seventh-day Sabbath in the succeeding thousand years… And this opinion would not be objectionable, if it were believed that the joys of the saints, in that Sabbath, shall be spiritual, and consequent on the presence of God… —St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.; Church Doctor), De Civitate Dei, Bk. XX, Ch. 7, Catholic University of America Press​

The Catholic Church teaches that the Sacraments will remain until the end of time. Therefore, it is the light of the Eucharistic presence of Christ that will spread throughout the nations, accompanied by a "new Pentecost".

The Catholic Church, which is the kingdom of Christ on earth, [is] destined to be spread among all men and all nations… —POPE PIUS XI, Quas Primas, Encyclical, n. 12, Dec. 11th, 1925; cf. Matt 24:14​

Pope Leo XIII said,

"It will at length be possible that our many wounds be healed and all justice spring forth again with the hope of restored authority; that the splendors of peace be renewed, and the swords and arms drop from the hand and when all men shall acknowledge the empire of Christ and willingly obey His word, and every tongue shall confess that the Lord Jesus is in the Glory of the Father. —Consecration to the Sacred Heart, May 1899​

Now, in case one thinks this is a reference to heaven, it is not. The Popes, including John Paul II and Benedict XVI, are referring to a "new age" and "new millennium" (cf. The Popes, and the Dawning Era). They are speaking of a powerful restoration and coming of Christ in the saints, that will transform the temporal order "as a witness to all nations. And then the end will come." (Matt 2:24) As Pius XII said (quoted in Stephen's book, actually):

But even this night in the world shows clear signs of a dawn that will come, of a new day receiving the kiss of a new and more resplendent sun… A new resurrection of Jesus is necessary: a true resurrection, which admits no more lordship of death… In individuals, Christ must destroy the night of mortal sin with the dawn of grace regained. In families, the night of indifference and coolness must give way to the sun of love. In factories, in cities, in nations, in lands of misunderstanding and hatred the night must grow bright as the day, nox sicut dies illuminabitur, and strife will cease and there will be peace. —The Tablet, April 27th, 1957 as cited in Heralds of the Second Coming by Stephen Walford, p. 218-219​

Now, I don't know about you, but I suspect there won't be factories in heaven. That is, Pius XII is speaking of a radical "dawn of grace" in the world where, obviously, Christ's will is done on earth "as it is in heaven." This is precisely the kind of language used by modern mystics such as Venerable Conchita, St. Hannibal, Luisa Piccarreta, etc. Even Pope Francis anticipates this day of peace:

What a great day it will be, when the weapons will be dismantled in order to be transformed into instruments of work! And this is possible! We bet on hope, on the hope of peace, and it will be possible. —POPE FRANCIS, Sunday Angelus, December 1st, 2013; Catholic News Agency, Dec. 2nd, 2013​

And so, in summary Emmett, what is being taught is not a temporal utopia, but a period of peace and justice whereby Satan's powers are chained, the Gospel is preached to all the nations, and above all, the Church enters into the final stages of her purification that prepares her to be a Bride "without spot or blemish." This is no more heretical than the transformative unions and teachings of St. John of the Cross or Teresa of Avila were. The union coming is merely one of the last stages of the Church's development in the application of the merits of Christ's Redemption. However, I'll let Fr. Joseph defend himself in this regard:

Whenever the Church Fathers speak of a Sabbath rest or era of peace, they do not foretell a return of Jesus in the flesh nor the end of human history, rather they accentuate the Holy Spirit’s transforming power in the sacraments that perfects the Church, so that Christ may present her to himself as an immaculate bride upon his final return. —Rev. J. L. Iannuzzi, Ph.B., STB, M.Div., STL, STD, Ph.D., theologian, The Splendor of Creation, p. 79​

Quoting The Teachings of the Catholic Church (1952), the distinction I've outlined above, and Fr. Joe just made, is repeated here:

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 things but would still be a portion of the history of mankind. This is not consonant with Catholic dogma. The coming of Christ in the 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.​

While I would not be disappointed in the least if Jesus came tomorrow and we all went to Heaven (okay, well I'll watch you go from my sorrowful perch in Purgatory)... it is not my place to edit, modify, or mitigate what the Magisterium is clearly expecting:

It is God’s task to bring about this happy hour and to make it known to all… When it does arrive, it will turn out to be a solemn hour, one big with consequences not only for the restoration of the Kingdom of Christ, but for the pacification of… the world. We pray most fervently, and ask others likewise to pray for this much-desired pacification of society. —POPE PIUS XI, Ubi Arcani dei Consilioi “On the Peace of Christ in his Kingdom”, December 23, 1922​

 

It doesn't have to be the establishment of an eternal paradise on earth in order to be considered utopian, or in order to qualify for the label millenarian. The Thousand Year Reich proposed by the Nazis is considered to be a secular type of millenarianism, even though its aspirations were limited to a thousand year period. Indeed, as I've already pointed out, it is the atheistic types of millenarianism which propose to inaugurate a period of harmony on earth separate from God that is of most concern for the Catechism, rather than just Chiliasm or its modified forms. What Fr. Iannuzzi proposes in theological terms can be specifically identified as a spiritual type of millennialism, and millennialism in both its pre and post forms are both considered to be Christian forms of millenarianism.
Even more than this, if we are to adopt Fr. Iannuzzi's position, then we are forced to reject the Augustinian model of eschatology which has provided the working basis for the development of Church doctrine over the course of a 1,600 year period. We would be gravely mistaken to assume that such a radical departure from Augustinian tradition would not impinge on any core Catholic teachings that were directly influenced by St. Augustine's insights on the Millennium in subsequent centuries. Or that the Catechism itself is in no way dependant on the amillennial position which has been embraced by the Church since the 5th century. The whole section of the Catechism dealing with Christ's Second Coming is entirely dependent on Augustinian theology, which if we had the time, we can dissect in minute detail. The rejection of St. Augustine's amillennialism would have a domino effect on Catholic eschatology, causing the collapse of an entire edifice founded upon the teachings of one of the greatest Doctors of the Church.
To cite but one example from an entirely different portion of the Catechism, the Church has long taught that immediately after death, we will be faced with the particular judgment, where our souls will be immediately granted access either to the beatific vision, purgatory, or hell. Then at the end of time, following the Second Coming of Christ, we will all experience the General Resurrection of the Dead.

"Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ. The New Testament speaks of judgment primarily in its aspect of the final encounter with Christ in his second coming, but also repeatedly affirms that each will be rewarded immediately after death in accordance with his works and faith. The parable of the poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the soul--a destiny which can be different for some and for others.
Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification or immediately, -- or immediate and everlasting damnation." (CCC 1021-1022)

The doctrine of the particular judgment, which is a dogma binding upon all Catholics, is directly based on St. Augustine's teachings concerning the "first resurrection", which in turn is derived from the amillennial model. So if we reject St. Augustine's teachings on amillennialism and the first resurrection, then we also have to reject the doctrine of the particular judgment.

 

After that He adds the words, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in Himself; so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself.”13341334 John v. 25, 26. As yet He does not speak of the second resurrection, that is, the resurrection of the body, which shall be in the end, but of the first, which now is. It is for the sake of making this distinction that He says, “The hour is coming, and now is.” Now this resurrection regards not the body, but the soul. For souls, too, have a death of their own in wickedness and sins, whereby they are the dead of whom the same lips say, “Suffer the dead to bury their dead,”13351335 Matt. viii. 22.—that is, let those who are dead in soul bury them that are dead in body. It is of these dead, then—the dead in ungodliness and wickedness—that He says, “The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live.” “They that hear,” that is, they who obey, believe, and persevere to the end. Here no difference is made between the good and the bad. For it is good for all men to hear His voice and live, by passing to the life of godliness from the death of ungodliness. Of this death the Apostle Paul says, “Therefore all are dead, and He died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them and rose again.”13361336 2 Cor. v. 14, 15. Thus all, without one exception, were dead in sins, whether original or voluntary sins, sins of ignorance, or sins committed against knowledge; and for all the dead there died the one only person who lived, that is, who had no sin whatever, in order that they who live by the remission of their sins should live, not to themselves, but to Him who died for all, for our sins, and rose again for our justification, that we, believing in Him who justifies the ungodly, and being justified from ungodliness or quickened from death, may be able to attain to the first resurrection which now is. For in this first resurrection none have a part save those who shall be eternally blessed; but in the second, of which He goes on to speak, all, as we shall learn, have a part, both the blessed and the wretched. The one is the resurrection of mercy, the other of judgment. And therefore it is written in the psalm, “I will sing of mercy and of judgment: unto Thee, O Lord, will I sing.”13371337 Ps. ci. 1.

And of this judgment He went on to say, “And hath given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of man.” Here He shows that He will come to judge in that flesh in which He had come to be judged. For it is to show this He says, “because He is the Son of man.” And then follow the words for our purpose: “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment.”13381338 John v. 28, 29. This judgment He uses here in the same sense as a little before, when He says, “He that heareth my word, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but is passed from death to life;” i.e., by having a part in the first resurrection, by which a transition from death to life is made in this present time, he shall not come into damnation, which He mentions by the name of judgment, as also in the place where He says, “but they that have done evil unto the resurrection of judgment,” i.e., of damnation. He, therefore, who would not be damned in the second resurrection, let him rise in the first. For “the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live,” i.e., shall not come into damnation, which is called the second death; into which death, after the second or bodily resurrection, they shall be 426 hurled who do not rise in the first or spiritual resurrection. For “the hour is coming” (but here He does not say, “and now is,” because it shall come in the end of the world in the last and greatest judgment of God) “when all that are in the graves shall hear His voice and shall come forth.” He does not say, as in the first resurrection, “And they that Hear shall live.” For all shall not live, at least with such life as ought alone to be called life because it alone is blessed. For some kind of life they must have in order to hear, and come forth from the graves in their rising bodies. And why all shall not live He teaches in the words that follow: “They that have done good, to the resurrection of life,”—these are they who shall live; “but they that have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment,”—these are they who shall not live, for they shall die in the second death. They have done evil because their life has been evil; and their life has been evil because it has not been renewed in the first or spiritual resurrection which now is, or because they have not persevered to the end in their renewed life. As, then, there are two regenerations, of which I have already made mention,—the one according to faith, and which takes place in the present life by means of baptism; the other according to the flesh, and which shall be accomplished in its incorruption and immortality by means of the great and final judgment,—so are there also two resurrections,—the one the first and spiritual resurrection, which has place in this life, and preserves us from coming into the second death; the other the second, which does not occur now, but in the end of the world, and which is of the body, not of the soul, and which by the last judgment shall dismiss some into the second death, others into that life which has no death. (City of God XX:6)

 

I agree that the assessment of the Augustinian paradigm is critical to this whole question, and this is clearly where we differ considerably. One side of this debate is very insistent that amillennialism is non-negotiable because it became the default position of the Church for many centuries, whereas the other side challenges that notion on the grounds that, while there is de facto truth in that in historical terms, Augustine's position was never fully dogmatized.

My whole approach to this is a little different, perhaps because faith/science dialogue is my area of professional specialization, meaning that my epistemology is more weighted towards phenomenology as a possible means to breaking the deadlock frequently created by conflicting interpretations of texts (starting with the Scriptures, of course!). What I'm trying to advocate is to adopt something as close to scientific method as possible, taking my cue from Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Let me try to explain a little what I mean by this and how it might be applied to theology. It's basically all about how paradigm shifts come about.

As a scientific example of a paradigm shift, take the 'Copernican revolution', i.e. the change from a geocentric to a heliocentric paradigm in cosmology in the 16th century. Prior to Copernicus, the Aristotelian/Ptolemaic view of the cosmos as centred around the earth had been in force for many centuries, and shifting away from it was a painful (as Galileo discovered to his cost!) and messy process. But eventually the Ptolemaic model collapsed because the conflict with observable data threw up too many anomalies that could only be solved by the addition of ever more convoluted 'epicycles' to the supposed movements of the planets in order to 'save the phenomena'. In other words, over time, as new data came in, it became apparent that there was something wrong with the underlying paradigm because maintaining it required too much intellectual gymnastics, even if the definitive vindication of the Copernican position only came about centuries later with the discovery of the parallax effect.

OK, now for my suggestion in terms of the historical development of theology as the scientific discipline which it has always been claimed to be by the Church (and using the word 'theology' I clearly differentiate theologoumena from binding doctrine in the case of issues such as eschatology which have not been fully defined dogmatically). For an example, look at the fundamental shift in theological anthropology from the neo-scholastic paradigm of the first half of the 20th century - which basically interpreted Aquinas through the lens of Suarez et al. to the nouvelle théologie of Henri de Lubac and Hans Urs von Balthasar which decisively shaped the thought of St John Paul II and Benedict XVI. This shift came about largely because of the ground-breaking work in Patristics in Lyon and the trenchant critique by de Lubac in his monumental Surnaturel of a one-sided reliance by theologians on Augustine's later polemical writings (read through the lens of the conflicts of the 16th century) which he linked to the eventual rise of a joyless, depressing Jansenism which he esteemed had been a smouldering poison in much Catholic theology. He and historians such as Etienne Gilson basically said that this had led to a falsification of the thought of Thomas Aquinas and the reduction of the Thomist corpus to a lifeless dogmatic system rather than the distillation of a living, mystical faith. The neo-scholastics, who claimed exclusivity for their own interpretation of Aquinas fought this one tooth and nail, actively persecuting the likes of de Lubac, Yves Congar et al., but they finally lost out when they were rehabilitated as periti at the Second Vatican Council.

The reason why I bring this up specifically is that the paradigm shift in Catholic theology from neo-scholasticism to the nouvelle théologie came about precisely because of new data: in this case, the dissemination through the Sources chrétiennes series of publications under figures such as Jean Daniélou, of the works of the Greek Fathers (work greatly facilitated by Eastern Orthodox scholars who found themselves in France as émigrés after the Russian Revolution). It became clear to Church historians that in terms of Patristics Augustine was no longer the 'only game in town' and that his importance needed to be relativized with respect to a number of theological areas (a good example is the acknowledgement by many theologians of the limits of Augustine's 'psychological' model of the Trinity in contrast to the more 'social/relational' model of the Cappadocian Fathers).

Cntd.

 

My contention is that, seen in terms of a research program, what Fr Iannuzzi is proposing is a similar paradigm shift in the area of eschatology, and here too what is central is not a dismissal of Augustine as much as a re-calibration of his relative weight compared to the post-Apostolic Fathers. This was also my impression after studying doctoral dissertation on Luisa Piccarreta, which is ground-breaking to the extent that it looks at the relationship of the mystics with systematic theology by making the rather Balthasarian move of relating Luisa to the concept of divine indwelling in figures such as Maximus the Confessor. The still largely unpublished corpus of twentieth-century mystical literature (specifically Luisa P., Concepcion Cabrera de Armida, Dina Bélanger...) provides the new 'scientific data' which he links to the Patristic period and which enables him to challenge existing paradigms.

By extension, my contention is that the eschatological content of the works of the modern mystics challenges the Augustinian paradigm to the extent that it throws up an enormous amount of material which cannot be harmonized with the Augustinian model, which in turn can only be defended either by appeals to Church discipline (along the lines of 'you are forced to believe this otherwise you are heterodox') or exegetical gymnastics. Study of the history of the philosophy of science tells me that it's a tell-tale sign of a paradigm that's on the ropes when its advocates have to resort to methods other than the normal intellectual tools of logical argumentation in order to defend it. We've seen this before and folks who go down that route tend to come off second in the long run.. As for myself, looking at this I prefer to operate out of a new paradigm rather than one whose days are numbered, as I think they are in this case. What the study of history however also indicates, as does the er... robust tone of much of this thread, is that the period in which two different paradigms co-exist tends to be pretty conflictual. And the proponents of new paradigms have a habit of being quashed first before being rehabilitated later, so I have my crash helmet constantly at the ready!!

 

I've already asked him (as you should have as well) to clarify the citation. Again, I take exception to your continued inference that there is an intention to "mislead and manipulate," which as you'll see, is a grievous error on your part.

Fr. Joseph pointed out that "Whenever a book bearing the seals of the Church is reprinted, abridged or revised, it requires a theological review to ensure all changes are immune from error and for the literature to be published. Canon 827 vests the local ordinary with the authority to appoint one or several theologians (commission; equipè; team) of qualified experts to review materials before they are published. When did the theological commission for The Teachings of the Catholic Church gather, in '27 or '48 or '52 with the respective editions' releases? The answer is all three times."

Here then, your and my definition of "commission" is not the ecclesial one that the Church, and subsequently, Fr. Joseph uses. He has regularly participated on these commissions, which again are age-old protocols. In some cases, the names of those on the commission are private for obvious reasons. Clearly, there would have been an ecclesial expert appointed to The Teachings of the Catholic Church.

If there is any error, it is mine, which assumed their were bishops on the commission. I may have confused this with another commission. Nonetheless, it does not change the underlying fact that The Teachings of the Catholic Church is a magisterial document.

Actually, you've begun to contradict yourself. You are arguing in previous posts, and below, that the Second Coming of Jesus is imminent—that there is no Era of Peace. At the same time, you are in a kerfuffle because Fr. Iannuzzi, in referencing Faustina, spoke of an imminent coming of Jesus. In fact, as you pointed out in your last post, her spiritual director claimed that this was her expectation.

This is all to say that you've completely lost your point.

On the contrary, Benedict XVI, who confirmed that John Paul II expected a coming "millennium of unifications" after this "millennium of divisions", himself said:

Empowered by the Spirit, and drawing upon faith’s rich vision, a new generation of Christians is being called to help build a world in which God’s gift of life is welcomed, respected and cherished—not rejected, feared as a threat, and destroyed. A new age in which love is not greedy or self-seeking, but pure, faithful and genuinely free, open to others, respectful of their dignity, seeking their good, radiating joy and beauty. A new age in which hope liberates us from the shallowness, apathy, and self-absorption which deaden our souls and poison our relationships. Dear young friends, the Lord is asking you to be prophets of this new age… —POPE BENEDICT XVI, Homily, World Youth Day, Sydney, Australia, July 20th, 2008

As a former news reporter, I edit quotes all day long for brevity. And in this case, it changes absolutely nothing. I absolutely agree with the Pontiff. See my open letter to Pope Francis: Dear Holy Father... He is Coming! Here, I am referring to St. Bernard and Pope Benedict's Middle Coming, which is also St. John's coming of the "rider on the white horse", which is clearly before the Era of Peace. In fact, adding that sentence back in weakens your position, because the Pope, in referencing a dawning age of grace with factories—and coupling it with the expected coming of Jesus—infers a pneumatic coming, not the final coming. Unfortunately, you have restricted your theological worldview to the second coming of Jesus in the flesh, and thus, you are losing the train of logic. See Peter's excellent post on the theological differences below... notably "exegetical gymnastics."

Explained, quoted, and referenced a couple pages back. Pause. Breathe. Reflect.

Unfortunately, for every claim you say of Benedict, he contradicts you in the next turn:

This nation, and the Europe which [Saint] Bede and his contemporaries helped to build, once again stands at the threshold of a new age. —POPE BENEDICT XVI, Address at Ecumenical Celebration, London, England; September 1th, 2010; Zenit.org

 

No Kerfuffle Mark because I take the second coming of Jesus to mean exactly what the Church has always taught-his coming at the end of the world. I feel sorry that you appear so blinded that you cannot or dont want for whatever reason to see this truth. St Faustina's Diary contains not one word of any expectation of an era of peace to come before the end of the world.
And perhpas you can explain why Vassula Ryden in answer to Fr grech's question on eschatology replied by stating it was all poetic language about a new era, instead it is all interior. Why did she do that? because almost certainly she was advised that any explanation involving a physical temporal kingdom would be condemned -and yet Fr Iannuzzi hold that very theory AND the CDF in the form of two successive cardinal prefects (one who became Pope ) upheld the original document stating its a theological error.
I sincerely hope you some day wake uo and accept Church authority in this matter

 

Ok Mark,
I have paused, reflected and breathed as you kindly suggested and yes looking at Cardinal Levada's letter from 25 January 2007, I can still see it says: "The Notification of 1995 remains valid as a doctrinal judgment of the writings examined."
Hence your era of peace is and always will remain a doctrinal error.

 

Mark I am just a lay and simple Catholic wife and mother.

I have a couple of questions after reading your posts. But first I must say I enjoy reading your blogs very much as I believe you speak so much truth.


My questions follow in Blue......


If, as you say an era of peace will come and you point to Pope Benedict’s words to the youth in Australia and also to other writings that you interpret as saying there will be an era of peace for the world before the second coming of Christ.


Will these remnant people living in this era of peace [that is these youths that Pope Benedict addressed and the others alive] All be Catholic?


If so than the whole world will have converted so I take it that there will be no need for evangelization of the Gospel, at that time as all will be living according to the Gospel and doing or living in Gods Will, it will be like living in Heaven.


In this interim Era of peace......Will there be sin or the capacity to sin?


If not than there will be no more tears or pain?


It sounds beautiful! It sounds like the new heaven! And the new earth!


But I always believed that the new heaven and the new earth Era would come after the second coming of Christ and I also believed that this is what the Catholic Church taught.


Am I wrong in this belief?

 

The key phrase in the 1995 notification is "in millenarian style." The notification did not rule out a period of peace per se and the expectation of a period of triumphant Christianity before the Second Coming is not contrary to Catholic teaching, as has already been demonstrated here:

"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 things 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.'"

 

Mark,
these papal quotes you churn out which for the vast majority of people would refer quite simply to the desire for the love of God to prevail in hearts and minds, in general society and in the growth of evangelization, why do they never ever get anywhere near developing a theme such as your spiritual millenium? Dont you think if this was really heading our way soon they would be so much more explicit? Dont you think the phrase new age could just mean the next phase of human history such as after the cold war for example, or the rennaisance? your problem is everything has to be twisted and manipulated to fit, whereas when Pope Benedict XVI says he's too rational to think history is about to change direction (the implication of course beaing that those who think it is are irrational) we undertand immediately what he means, or when he prays in his Christmas homily (by the way I am not sure why you said I claimed he said that-go and look on the vatican website) for the era of peace with no end to come soon he means just that- a kingdom without end as the creed says.
You gave me an excellent example in your last post about manipulation and why I am so critial of it. You claimed i was contradicting myself concerning Blessed Michael Sopocko and the imminet return of Jesus not being the final coming and yet, you are well aware from my previous post that he stated exactly the words "end of the world" St Faustina had used. It is near she told him; she didnt say "no of course i dont really mean end of the world when I say it, I mean a temporal kindgom condemned by the Church".

 

Richard,
I am a pianist/teacher really, and when I play something in a particular "style", I know (even if I have never heard the particular piece) that it will have beautiful harmonies and most probably a lovely lyrical melody -not for instance dissonances you get in 20th century classicl music. There are hundreds of pieces written in this "style2 some very similar-certainly harmonically, but all different. That is the way it is with this phrase "millenarian style" is covers all theories which are varients of the original form of millenarianism. Without dount Ratzinger used the word to encompass them all. sometimes we just have to accept what we read in front of us, and that CDF notification couldnt be any clearer

 

And if I am not mistaken, I think numerous approved mystics of the Church have spoken of a coming restoration within Christendom under a very Holy Pontiff and a Catholic ruler (or "monarch"). Now, obviously, such a restoration would not mean that sin and evil would no longer exist, but it seems contrary to the very essence of Catholicism to say that it is not possible for individuals and nations to live peacefully. If a majority of the world was baptized and if a majority of the world was living in a state of grace - which is entirely possible right here and right now - then the world would be a very different place.

 

But the Teachings of the Catholic Church that I cited also couldn't be any clearer. You can't cherrypick, Stephen.

 

Well, to be frank, this is precisely what St. John was proposing in Revelation 20, and which the Church has never condemned. Emmett, please don't overlook that this question was put directly to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, of whom Cardinal Ratzinger was Prefect at the time. I repeat: 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?”). 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 definitivo”:

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.​

There is actually no theological basis for you to reject a period in history of a triumphant reign of Christ in His Church. Since when is holiness en masse a heresy? Because this is all that is being referred to here. If you are saying that such a period of peace is heresy, then you have just indicted several pontiffs who have prophesied this coming era: see The Popes, and the Dawning Era.

You make reference again to Augustine's fourth interpretation of Revelation 20—which he admitted was just his "opinion"—but I am not clear on why you reject his other interpretation where he says that this "sabbath rest" of the "thousand years" was acceptable if it was "spiritual, and consequent upon the presence of God."

It is also not correct to state that Augustine's fourth model was the only working basis for the development of Church doctrine. For one thing, it most certainly is not dogmatic. Second, as The Teachings of the Catholic Church pointed out nearly a century ago, what Iannuzzi and others posit (a "triumphant" era) has most certainly been in the mind of the Church all along. This model may not be as popular now, but Fr. Charles Arminjon, in his book on the end times written over 150 years ago, highlights quite an opposite perspective:

The most authoritative view, and the one that appears to be most in harmony with Holy Scripture, is that, after the fall of the Antichrist, the Catholic Church will once again enter upon a period of prosperity and triumph. —The End of the Present World and the Mysteries of the Future Life, Fr. Charles Arminjon (1824-1885), p. 56-57; Sophia Institute Press​

So clearly, what is being presented by Iannuzzi and others, and confirmed now by highly credible mystical revelations, is not such a radical departure as you suggest. In fact, it follows the mystical insights of St. John of the Cross, that corporately and mystically, the Church is passing from the Illuminative and Purgative states, to the Unitave—even though suffering will remain until the end of the world.

I think Peter beautifully illustrates the theological divergence and contemporary theology that is uncovering what has always been in Sacred Tradition. After all, the Augustine model you refer to simply does injury to the clear and indisputable chronology of Revelation 20 that the Church Fathers upheld and expounded on.

Actually, Scripture itself overturns this argument since we already find evidence of a resurrection before the particular judgment of the world:

And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook, and the rocks were split; the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. (Luke 27:50)​

(And as already mentioned, Augustine himself finds no conflict in a spiritual reign). The Scripture affirms that there can be a resurrection of sorts before the Final Judgment, though its nature remains somewhat 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, S.J., theologian, A History of Early Christian Doctrine Before the Council of Nicea, 1964, p. 377​

Rev. Iannuzzi adds:

Scripture and Patristic allegories further suggest that these martyred will not return to definitively reign on earth in the flesh, but will “appear” throughout the era to instruct the remant of Israel, much like the visions and apparitions of the saints of the past. —Fr. Joseph Iannuzzi, The Splendor of Creation, The Triumph of the Divine Will on Earth and the Era of Peace in the Writings of the Church Fathers, Doctors and Mystics, p. 69​

What is certain is that, before the Era of Peace, Scripture clearly speaks of a particular judgment of mankind in a manifestation of Jesus, "the rider on the white horse." He casts the "beast and false prophet" into the "lake of fire." Citing the "authoritative view" in his day, Fr. Charles writes:

St. Thomas and St. John Chrysostom explain the words quem Dominus Jesus destruet illustratione adventus sui (“whom the Lord Jesus will destroy with the brightness of His coming”) in the sense that Christ will strike the Antichrist by dazzling him with a brightness that will be like an omen and sign of His Second Coming… —The End of the Present World and the Mysteries of the Future Life, Fr. Charles Arminjon (1824-1885), p. 56-57; Sophia Institute Press​

Again, Fr. Charles is consistent with both Scripture and the Patristic writings. This judgment of the living described in Rev 19 is clearly different and separate from the Final Judgment in Rev 20 of the "dead", though both constitute the General Judgment at the "end of time". Why? Because when Gog and Magog and Satan are cast into the lake of fire, St. John notes that they are damned to "where the beast and the false prophet were." (Rev 20:10) It is "Act II" of one divine play.

There is a greater expansion of the theology of the "judgment of the living and the dead" here: The Last Judgments.

 

Well of course Richard I would say Abbott Vonier says no such thing

 

Mark,
Remember the question you just couldnt answer 3 years ago?
I'll ask again When according to the Catechism of the catholic Church does the antichrist come (not satan but the antichrist named by St Paul- the final one) Is is before your temproal era of directly before the last judgment. If you say the catechism states officially it before the last judgment, do you accept that 100%?
A simple question, please give us a simple answer.
thanks
Stephen