Divine Will revisited.

I also thought Stephen was banned because of his public criticism of Fr. Iannuzzi and Mark Mallett. I now understand he was banned because of the way he expressed this criticism/tone.

I agree with one of Stephen's main points, which was that many people in their enthusiasm for a particular private revelation do not pay sufficient deference to the Church's official positions. Garabandal posted a link to a document on humility. Obedience is just as important. The discussion on Vassula is a case in point; she is not only the subject of a negative Notification that remains in effect, but also of negative rulings by her own Greek Orthodox Church and the Church of Cyprus. Failure to mention these negative rulings so misleads the uninformed and shows a lack of docility to the Church's rightful direction.

 

Thanks for your personal opinion, Stephen. However, you are in direct contradiction to the magisterial and "authoritative" statements I quoted and the one below.

There is a flaw in logic here. And it is this: the antichrist manifestations of the "beast and false prophet" and afterward, "Gog and Magog" are most certainly driven by Satan. But the Scriptures say that the beast and false prophet are thrown into hell. God does not consign ideologies, government systems, etc. to the lake of fire, but souls. Likewise, "Gog and Magog" are an antichrist manifestation, like the beast and false prophet, that are both groups of people and, according to Augustine, the "last Antichrist".

We shall indeed be able to interpret the words, “The priest of God and of Christ shall reign with Him a thousand years; and when the thousand years shall be finished, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison;” for thus they signify that the reign of the saints and the bondage of the devil shall cease simultaneously… so in the end they shall go out who do not belong to Christ, but to that last Antichrist… —St. Augustine,The Anti-Nicene Fathers, City of God, Book XX, Chap. 13, 19​

Clearly, Augustine is contradicting you since, before the "thousand years", Scripture clearly depicts "the beast and false prophet". Hence, after the reign of the saints comes that "last Antichrist."

The Church has never closed the door to these possibilities, and as Pope Benedict affirmed, it is dogma not to restrict the antichrist to any one man, though Tradition teaches that there will be an individual "son of perdition."

 

Thank you for the clarification, Emmett.

The particular judgment is a matter of doctrine—that when the soul dies, it immediately faces its own particular judgment. There is no harm in the allegorical interpretation that the "first resurrection" in Rev. 20 refers to such. However, that there is a historical/future "first resurrection" was most certainly taught by the Church Fathers, affirmed even by Augustine, and is still a matter of debate, as theologians Cardinal Jean Danielou and Rev. Iannuzzi have stated. The interpretation you stand by was, for the most part, a reaction to millenarianism. However, contemporary exegesis and closer examination of the Church Fathers utilizing the various fields of theology and biblical hermeneutics, has developed an understanding of the "first resurrection" that is faithful to what the Church Fathers say was the intent of St. John. I mean, we have a serious allegation that is essentially saying that a great number of Early Church Fathers were heretics. But a careful examination of their words, in light of a proper hermeneutic, shows otherwise.

If you have not, I encourage you to pick up a copy of The Splendor of Creation by Fr. Iannuzzi, which is not a personal statement, but careful, systematic development of this theology. That is, a little paragraph like above is only a fraction of the theological thought and foundation upon which such a statement is made.

 

This is not quite true.

First, Revelation 20 teaches that there is a first resurrection; the Church Fathers then, saying that they received this directly from St. John, affirm a first resurrection; and then contemporary theology expands upon this possibility.

And possibility is the key word. The answer, as I have said in The Coming Resurrection, is that this is still a mystery. You want things black and white, but any theologian will tell you that the mysteries of God are never such. I think the most humble position, at this point, is to defer to greater authorities than ourselves. That should always be the case as sons of the Church.

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​

 

Harper, Vassula's stand with the Church has been defined on MOG many times. Read Mark's post #290 on this thread if you want to get updated on your position as it relates to her. I am not aware of anyone who's enthusiasm for a particular private revelation has taken them in contrast to the Churches official position. Could you please explain this in more detail? Those who I read and know have taken serious study of private revelation along with public revelation, Churches teachings and prayer in their positions on eschatology.

 

This line of reasoning surprises me somewhat, as reading the above quotes I wouldn't have made any connection between Benedictus Deus or Lumen Gentium and the question of how to interpret Revelation 20; bringing them into the argument is certainly an ingenious move, but I don't really see how the text itself justifies such a juxtaposition, which I find a little on the arcane side. What doesn't convince me in terms of the conclusion drawn is the side-stepping of exegetical questions when dealing with Revelation 20:4-7:

'I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshipped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended). This is the first resurrection.'

I don't profess to have any definitive interpretation of what this means, but clearly it must mean something. I know that Augustine interpreted this as spiritual resurrection, but I don't see why that's obligatory, and indeed it would seem to create an exegetical problem. If the words 'come to life' are only intended in a spiritual sense, why are these holy souls mentioned at all as being exceptional (Benedictus Deus itself stating that they would in any case be alive in a spiritual sense, like all righteous believers after death)? And what about 'the rest of the dead' who only 'come to life' after the thousand years? Their 'coming to life' presumably means reunion of soul and body unless one believes in 'soul sleep' until the Last Judgment like some Lutherans and Seventh-Day Adventists. In which case it would seem an arbitrary interpretation to say that the 'coming to life' of the First Resurrection is only spiritual in nature.

My own sense is that Benedictus Deus and Lumen Gentium are here being employed to do work that they weren't designed to do: if invoking dogmatic texts results in a conflict with what would appear to be the plain sense of Scripture, then the likelihood is that there has been a dodgy interpretive move somewhere along the line IMHO.

Here I refer back to my post about paradigm shifts in the history of science. When a paradigm (in this case Augustinian eschatology) requires increasingly convoluted and ingenious defence strategies against counter-evidence - then this is often an indication that the paradigm needs to change. In the development of science one can also point to what can be called the 'principle of elegance' (in mathematical theorems, for example), not so different from 'Ockham's Razor' in philosophy. If the proposed solution to a given conundrum is messy and over-complicated, then the likelihood is that there's a need to go back to the drawing-board... until you find an ultimately simpler solution that makes you say 'Eureka!' or 'of course, why didn't I think of that all along!'

I know this is an aesthetic argument of sorts with a subjective component to it, but it does I think have a certain relevance to theology considered as a science (and some of the greatest mathematicians proceeded largely intuitively when doing their problem-solving). Speaking personally - and as a matter of mere opinion, of course - one of the attractions to me of the hypothesis of Fr Iannuzzi (and others such as Fr Adam Skwarczynski in Poland, who in addition is looking for an eschatological model that will fit his own alleged visionary experience) is that it provides a far more elegant 'explanatory fit' in terms of matching the plain sense of Scripture than do exclusively spiritualizing interpretations of apocalyptic texts. I say exclusively intentionally, as of course there is a strong symbolic component to such texts, but even the multi-layered, sophisticated exegesis of the medieval Quadriga (four-fold sense of Scripture) still included the literal sense as one of its levels of reading. To eliminate it altogether in the supposed interests of 'spiritualizing' exegesis is to diminish rather than enhance Biblical interpretation.

 

Hi Harper,

The problem is that Stephen refuses to acknowledge official Church positions, such as the Prefect of the CDF saying that the matter of a "millennial reign" is still open to discussion. I am astonished at the flagrant disregard of this "official Church position", among others. And Stephen has not acknowledged the full story on the Notification of Vassula. Scroll back a page or two, where I gave the full story after speaking personally to the theologian who handled the meetings between Vassula and the CDF. (I am not in any way making a pronouncement here on her writings, but merely on the truth of the Notification in light of the clarifications that were made.)

Just because someone says something is not so, does not make it such. But I think this has been the case. We must all go beyond, far beyond our personal subjective thoughts and examine the entire body of evidence in the Church—something that one simply can't do for 15 minutes on a forum. Fr. Iannuzzi has provided the Church with stimulating theology that resonates not only with the Scriptural texts, but affirms what the most credible mystics of the past century are also indicating.

Last, anyone serious about understanding the Era of Peace, and the theology behind it, will pick up Rev. Iannuzzi's books on the subject and prayerfully read them. They are a systematic theological development of Rev 20 consistent with the Early Church Fathers—far more than Augustine's fourth model, which is unique (that alone should tell us something). I would say the same thing to anyone wanting to discuss human sexuality: pick up the theological development of it, namely John Paul II's theology of the body, and carefully reflect upon it with Catechism in one hand, and the Bible in the other.

 

No one on MOG opposes dialog of the faith. What Stephen, in his hard core positions, lacked was charity and humility. I don't know of anyone who is opposed to respectful differences, but when Stephen could not defend multiple quotes and statements, which were contrary to his own, he stopped being respectful. Stephen could have added much to this discussion if only he could have done so without making it personal (at least how I saw it).
Sorry for repeating, I did not see Mark's response above.

 

Yes, excellent Peter. The words come to mind, "Unless you become like a child..." I find the Augustinian fourth model to be mental/spiritual gymnastics in an effort to steer the text away from the genuine heresy of millenarianism: the early Jews expectation that Jesus would reign on earth amidst carnal pleasures, etc. etc. Augustine's "opinion" on the matter, as he called it, leaves so many difficulties with the text, which you have also touched upon, not to mention the clear chronology of St. John with definitive breaks in time. The Early Church Fathers did not touch this chronology with a ten foot pole, so to speak. Maybe because they read to the end of the book:

I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. (Rev 22:18-19)​

 

It is sad that Stephen is gone. Personally I had Stephen and Emmetts team winning the debate.
Peter B getting his team off to a bad start scoring an own goal disparaging Emmett, followed by the mysterious disappearance of Daniel.

Anyway ,I guess we will never see the fullness of Stephens arguements.

We all lose.

 

Mark,

You said:

"And Stephen has not acknowledged the full story on the Notification of Vassula. Scroll back a page or two, where I gave the full story after speaking personally to the theologian who handled the meetings between Vassula and the CDF. (I am not in any way making a pronouncement here on her writings, but merely on the truth of the Notification in light of the clarifications that were made.)"

I take as authoritative what appears in official publications, the Vatican website or Vatican paper, a signed letter to a conference of bishops from an official speaking in an official capacity.

A personal conversation that you had with someone who was involved just does not carry the same weight. If the person is not authorized to speak for the Church, it does not command the deference owed to an official ruling. The Levada affirmation says the original Notification remains in effect. That's the only thing that matters. Anything else is inside baseball.

Think of this as a high court decision: The court decides to uphold an earlier decision. The decision is signed by the chief justice. It is released. It is acted on. Now, whether you have a wonderful conversation with the chief justice's clerk who tells you how the chief justice "really feels" means... absolutely nothing in terms of the impact of the decision or its value as a precedent. It goes into the law books as issued. The "truth" of the decision is found in its plain text.

Mark, what do you think of the ruling of the Greek Orthodox Church, which has jurisdiction over Vassula, its daughter? Has she changed her behavior in light of what must be described as a devastating public rebuke? How about the very strong language of the Cyprus Church, which labeled her a "heretic"? Did she respond by withdrawing into silence to contemplate God's will for her? Withdraw any of her writings? Shouldn't the Orthodox lead be followed since they do have authority?


Fatima,

You said:

"Harper, Vassula's stand with the Church has been defined on MOG many times. Read Mark's post #290 on this thread if you want to get updated on your position as it relates to her."

I have, thanks.

"I am not aware of anyone who's enthusiasm for a particular private revelation has taken them in contrast to the Churches official position. Could you please explain this in more detail?"

Lots of people. Holy Love in Ohio, a group which ignored their bishop's negative ruling. Bay Side in Brooklyn which still has adherents. John Leary, who continued to convey his messages in disregard of his bishop's ruling. Fr. Nicholas Gruner, who was suspended from his priestly functions by his bishop in 1996 for his position on Fatima. (The Congregation for the Clergy confirmed the suspension in 2001. Several bishops in Canada and the US are on record warning Catholics not to support Gruner's organization.) I am sure there are more, but this is off the top of my head.

 

We all lose when it can not be said of us, "They will know we are Christians by our love."

 

Thought I'd post today's gospel, seemed appropriate as humility and all playing for the same team need to be remembered..... My two cents.


Gospel Mk 9:38-40
John said to Jesus,
“Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in your name,
and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow us.”
Jesus replied, “Do not prevent him.
There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name
who can at the same time speak ill of me.
For whoever is not against us is for us.”

 

St Paul said he had become all things to all people so that by all means some could be saved. Sounds like there is a way to try to please everyone.

 

Mark,

I support the stand taken by Frangois-Marie Dermine, a Canadian priest, theologian and exorcist. He writes about Vassula here: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=10013

His take on this is very different from yours, I think.

 

Maybe I am alone in this, but I didn't look at the exchange of reasoning as a competition. Rather, for me it is an opportunity to see, learn and reason through the various points of view based on scripture, church teachings and prophecy. I would have liked to seen Stephen continue his position, but it was apparent he could not do it in charity. To me, getting mad is the loss for Stephen. Perhaps it will help him see that if he is going to put forth a premise and get others to buy into it, he would do himself well to keep a calm, collective demeanor, which others can see as Christ like. I would imagine if he played his piano with such aggressiveness it would loose its appeal and harmony as well.

 

Then you didn't read everything that was written and documented from Cardinal Ratzinger himself, included the modification that Vassula can speak in a case by case basis in the Church. Her clarifications are a matter for the record as well, which were applauded by both officials in the CDF.

I have nothing to say about the rest of Vassula's messages, her life, etc. I am only addressing the question of the Era of Peace, which was clarified to the satisfaction of both Ratzinger and Fr. Prospero, who directly submitted the CDF's questions. Cardinal Ratzinger admitted that the reason the Notification has not been lifted is internal politics. That's the facts—not as black and white as you wish to make them.

 

Again, you are completely missing the point. The question on Vassula was on the orthodoxy of her statement on the Era of Peace. Period. I am not addressing anything outside of that. I have no idea at all what she is teaching today. It is beside the point. Got it?

Here, the words of St. Hannibal, who edited several mystics, comes to mind:

Conforming to prudence and sacred accuracy, people cannot deal with private revelations as if they were canonical books or decrees of the Holy See… For example, who could ratify in full all the visions of Catherine Emmerich and St. Brigitte, which show evident discrepancies? —St. Hannibal, in a letter to Fr. Peter Bergamaschi who had published all the unedited writings of Benedictine mystic, St. M. Cecilia
​

I wish to add, too, that St. Faustina's writings were also banned. And were it not for Fr. Seraphim Michalenko, they might have been totally canned. This is to say that the Church moves in slow motion on matters of purported mystical revelations, and sometimes, gets it wrong precisely because there are enemies of prophecy and all things "irrational." This is an ugly fact, but one to keep in mind when examining private revelation etc.

 

At this hour, when the world is closing in on the Church, division is Satan's trump card. I can't seem to quote this enough in my own writings:

Satan may adopt the more alarming weapons of deceit—he may hide himself—he may attempt to seduce us in little things, and so to move the Church, not all at once, but by little and little from her true position. I do believe he has done much in this way in the course of the last few centuries… It is his policy to split us up and divide us, to dislodge us gradually from our rock of strength. And if there is to be a persecution, perhaps it will be then; then, perhaps, when we are all of us in all parts of Christendom so divided, and so reduced, so full of schism, so close upon heresy. When we have cast ourselves upon the world and depend for protection upon it, and have given up our independence and our strength, then [Antichrist] will burst upon us in fury as far as God allows him. —Blessed John Henry Newman, Sermon IV: The Persecution of Antichrist​

 

Mark,

I'm getting sick of this too, but you assert her clarifications were "applauded." The source of that assertion is not the official record, but the private recollection of someone involved. The official record uses the more neutral term "useful." And the clarifications at issue covered a range of subjects, not just the Era of Peace matter. In fact, Dermine argued the clarifications that had the most impact were those concerning her controversial private life and actions.

I think the fair discussion of any aspect of Vassula's work requires the disclosure that she has received negative rulings from Catholic and Orthodox bodies, and public discussions of her are permitted only with the explicit permission of the local ordinary.

Hard cases make bad law. If you wish to discuss the Era of Peace, bringing Vassula in is a distraction, and one that has already cost you professionally, if I recollect, given that several Canadian bishops forbid your appearances in their dioceses because of your (alleged) promotion of her writings. I accept your argument that you were not promoting her, but surely you can see how you got into that predicament.