Divine Will revisited.

Actually, getting to the real world where decisions are played out in every day life, the actions taken with backing by the Church evolve around permissions granted to Bishops to discern the situation of Vassula within their own dioceses.....many of whom have in the past and continue to this day allowed for the gatherings of Vassula's organization as well as having decided to attend themselves. Those actions within permitted boundaries demonstrate the current position of the Church which demonstrates a movement that is no longer stuck only at some former immovable stance. If one considers himself to not be holier than the Church then one must admit to this reality that goes currently beyond a wished for negation of all things within the TLIG phenomenon. "Even" the Church can be open to "learning something new every day".

If several Canadian bishops have decided against appearances of Vassula within their dioceses then they have simply used the same directive for their own personal decision re: her case as others have who have decided in the opposite positive direction. Since the Church also does permit such appearances then it goes beyond the permission for discernment only for Vassula to invent repercussions involving another individual whose appearance would not have any mention of the private revelation in question. Such Bishops would simply give a directive for conditions for the other's appearance to him/her. Going beyond those parameters seems not in good faith and can look like some over the top vindication of their own individual opinion on the matter.

 

Harper, that is incorrect. It was Stephen Walford who introduced Vassula into this discussion, not I. I have simply presented, in response, what is public record as a matter of justice, despite her perceived reception or not in the Catholic or Orthodox Church. I have no personal opinion on her writings since I do not follow them. As "earthtoangels" states, several Catholic bishops are allowing her to speak and are promoting her. This amounts to a magisterial backing of sorts as well. While you wish to downplay her clarifications to the Vatican's questions, it is pretty obvious that allowing her to speak means that they found her clarifications acceptable—and they said as much. "Excellent" was the word used, and "Vassula has replied very well!" One could be forgiven for thinking that the Prefect would not suggest that outstanding heresy is "very well." It also seems a bit far-fetched that the CDF would then permit her to speak in dioceses on a case by case basis if she was confirmed, in her clarifications, to be teaching heresy. Some people have been "banned" for much less.

So it seems to me that the truce here is that the Church has left this situation in neutral for various reasons, which are also part of the public record. Regardless, the theological development of the Era of Peace stands on its own without private revelation.

In my own situation, I discovered I was not allowed to speak in the diocese of my birthplace. After a year of seeking clarification, this is the letter I received from the Archbishop:

The simple fact of the matter is that we have a policy in the Archdiocese, which stipulates that any speaker invited to address our people on matters of faith or morals must first receive a nihil obstat [Latin for “nothing hinders”] from me or my delegate. This is standard policy. In your case it was not granted because of indications on your website that you make reference to what you claim to have received in private revelations. This is an approach that I do not wish to promote within the Archdiocese of Edmonton. —Archbishop Richard Smith, Letter of April 4th, 2011​

Indeed, as I have subsequently explained to the Archbishop, I share from time to time with my readers what I have received in prayer through meditation or Lectio Divina. Ironically, his predecessor, Cardinal Thomas Collins, encouraged and taught Lectio Divina, the practice of "listening to the voice of the Lord." Apparently, this is not acceptable there at this time, or rather, it is not acceptable to repeat what one has received. The neighbouring bishop decided he would not allow me to speak their either, he said, because it is not ‘good pastoral policy for the two dioceses to be going in different directions.’ Strangely, neither bishop consulted my own bishop, whose blessing and collaboration I work under, and who is also their "neighbour." The third bishop raised a few concerns over my use of sound equipment and lighting for my concerts, and was concerned that I quoted "Poem of the Man God" (which I never have, nor have I ever read) and "Vassula". My explanation is here: http://www.markmallett.com/blog/on-the-archdiocese-of-edmonton/

I have obeyed the bishops in this regard, and pray for them in the difficult task they have at this hour in the Church.

 

For those interested in Stephen Walford's views, I would suggest purchasing his book Heralds of the Second Coming and consulting his website.

I would however also encourage readers of this thread to go back several days to see what occurred prior to Stephen's first post in the discussion. It should become apparent that I did not disparage Emmett O'Regan other than to express my opinion that I felt that Fr Iannuzzi is in a different league as a theologian, despite Emmett (who was not a participant in the discussion at the time) having some stimulating ideas. If making such a evaluation concerning relative professional/academic standing offends someone, I apologize, but it certainly does not constitute a personal attack.

I remind readers that the starting-point for this thread was the question of the writings of Luisa Piccarreta. Controversy ensued because Fr Iannuzzi was accused of being a 'deceiver', at which some forum members took understandable offence, the persistent and IMHO gratuitous 'baiting' of Daniel O'Connor (who I can see is still being mocked in the post above), and the introduction of polemical material stemming from Unity Publishing. In all these moves - which have not surprisingly been construed by some including myself as inflammatory -, anyone who reads carefully will quickly see who has been responsible for their initiation, as well as similar controversies on other forum threads. Let them draw their own conclusions.

 

I would like, again, to thank Mark for his patient responses regarding Vassula. I always feel a kind of responsibility to respond in some way to the almost endless attacks on her and her mission but Mark's responses have been much clearer than I could ever manage.

Of course those who attack contemporary prophecy (as distinct from enquiring about it) will never be impressed by such responses (or even read most of them!) but the hidden forum readers who are in search of the truth will be helped by them.

 

Oh for goodness sakes Peter. Daniel admits he doesnt even know anything about Vassula .
Did you advise him to stay out ?
And besides ,I have been ribbing Daniel long before this thread started. And he played ball.
Are you determined to see me removed also?

I really believe we already have a lot of information worth digesting here thanks to Stephen and Emmett.

While Theologians can digest this stuff quickly , I on the other hand are very slow. Very slow!

But first , before Stephen and Emmett joined in,


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

Do Peter B and Mark concur?


Did St Louis not understand True Devotion to Mary?
Should the title of his work now be changed to Partial devotion... or Best at the time Devotion to Mary?

 

It is true that some of the Early Church Fathers held to Chilaism, years before it was condemned by the Church as heretical. But they are not considered heretics, as the Church still had not yet discerned the full truth on this matter. They are merely considered to have been mistaken. If they had persisted in this teaching after the Church had condemned Chiliasm as heretical, only then would they have been considered heretics. That's why Joachim de Fiore isn't considered a heretic, even though his writings on the coming of a "spiritual millennium" were condemned as heretical after his death by Pope Alexander IV and the Synod of Arles in 1263. Those Church Fathers who held Chiliastic beliefs did not adhere to the idea of a "spiritual millennium" promoted by Fr. Iannuzzi and yourself, which is a modified form of this belief (which I believe falls under the "modified forms" of millenarianism that are also ruled out by the Catechism). I think it is rather telling that after St. Augustine and St. Jerome laid the heresy of Chiliasm to rest in the 5th century, not a single Catholic theologian or Doctor of the Church has challenged their position on the Millennium other than Fr. Iannuzzi and a few others in the 19th century, whose "modified forms" of millenarianism were specifically condemned by the Catechism:

"Chiliastic views disappeared all the more rapidly, because, as was remarked above, in spite of their wide diffusion even among sincere Christians, and in spite of their defence by prominent Fathers of the early Church, millenarianism was never held in the universal Church as an article of faith based on Apostolic traditions.The Middle Ages were never tainted with millenarianism; it was foreign both to the theology of that period and to the religious ideas of the people. The fantastic views of the apocalyptic writers (Joachim of Floris, the Franciscan-Spirituals, the Apostolici), referred only to a particular form of spiritual renovation of the Church, but did not include a second advent of Christ. The "emperor myths," which prophesied the establishment of a happy, universal kingdom by the great emperor of the future, contain indeed descriptions that remind one of the ancient Sybilline and millenarian writings, but an essential trait is again missing, the return of Christ and the connection of the blissful reign with the resurrection of the just. Hence the millennium proper is unknown to them.
Some Catholic theologians of the nineteenth century championed a moderate, modified millenarianism, especially in connection with their explanations of the Apocalypse; as Pagani (The End of the World, 1856), Schneider (Die chiliastische Doktrin, 1859), Rohling (Erklärung der Apokalypse des hl. Iohannes, 1895; Auf nach Sion, 1901), Rougeyron Chabauty (Avenir de l'Église catholique selon le Plan Divin, 1890)."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10307a.htm

This "paradigm shift" in Church teaching on the Millennium that yourself and Peter are advocating would force us to conclude that Fr. Iannuzzi is the greatest theologian who has lived since the time of Sts. Augustine and Jerome, and that he surpasses even them in stature, whose views on the Millennium have never been challenged on this subject by any notable figure in the Church for 1,600 years. I trust that you will understand that it is a tall order for me to accept this. Especially since his teaching on a future coming of the "first resurrection" contradicts the doctrine of the particular judgment.
Desmond Birch has already shown the claim that St. John had personally passed down Chiliastic beliefs to Papias was a mistake made on behalf of Sts. Justin and Irenaeus. I'll quote him on this topic:

"Both Justin and Irenaeus misunderstood the first century Father, Papias, to have claimed he received this Millennium doctrine personally from the Apostle John. It was from the antiquity of Papias' testimony that they thought the Millennium was a received apostolic doctrine. Papias wrote but one work we know of, The Explanation of the Sayings of Our Lord. What we possess of it is "only a few small fragments, mostly preserved as quotations within Eusebius". But as the Father of Church History, Eusebius of Caesarea, makes clear in his Historica Ecclesia, Papias himself is candid that he did not directly hear any of the apostles speak about a millennium, nor their disciples either, but rather of the "acquaintances".
Again, the final point of all this is the traditional Catholic teaching which "rejects" a millennium." (Trial, Tribulation & Triumph, p525)

 

Thank you Emmett.

 

Mark:

You said:

"While you wish to downplay her clarifications to the Vatican's questions, it is pretty obvious that allowing her to speak means that they found her clarifications acceptable—and they said as much. "Excellent" was the word used, and "Vassula has replied very well!" One could be forgiven for thinking that the Prefect would not suggest that outstanding heresy is "very well." It also seems a bit far-fetched that the CDF would then permit her to speak in dioceses on a case by case basis if she was confirmed, in her clarifications, to be teaching heresy. Some people have been "banned" for much less."

Let us use the term public record in its legal/common sense, as an official account."Excellent" and "Vassula has replied very well" are not part of the public record, they are nowhere officially recorded, instead they are a private recollection, published privately (not through a Church organization or press) by an interested party. The word used in Cardinal Ratzinger's formal letter was "useful." The 2007 Notification is also quite clear that Vassula's writings are to be considered personal meditations, not divine revelations.

The term heresy was not used by anyone representing the Catholic Church in regards to her clarifications. The Church of Cyrpus used the term "heretic" about Vassula Ryden in a message to its followers.

 

I'm fully aware that I'm arguing in favour of a minority opinion here; not long ago I for example saw an online commentary on the Book of Revelation from the US Episcopate which was thoroughly amillennial. And I'm also aware of the divergences in eschatology between Fr Iannuzzi and Desmond Birch. I don't see why anyone should draw the conclusion from what I am saying that Fr Iannuzzi is 'the greatest theologian who has lived since the time of Sts Augustine and Jerome' - that's not my point at all. What I'm saying is something quite different: if I find Fr Joseph's doctoral dissertation on Luisa Piccarreta very stimulating, it is because he seems to be the first English-language theologian (René Laurentin has also done this in French, together with Père François Brune, although I have a number of reservations about the latter despite having sympathy for him personally) to draw systematic theological conclusions from the mystics (whereas mystical theology and systematics are 'normally' considered separate tracks in academic theology). Fr Iannuzzi's work is only a starting-point in this respect, but methodologically it is significant, as it begs a question which I for one consider highly important for theological research: why is it that systematics continues to build on the work of all sorts of theologians of varying degrees of orthodoxy, but completely ignores the writings of approved mystics past and present, refusing to accord them the same status as speculative theology? For me that simply makes no sense in terms of epistemology but merely testifies to the hold that rationalism has over academe. Of course it could be said that Hans Urs von Balthasar tried to break this mould by allowing the visions of Adrienne von Speyr to shape his theology, but that proved something of a double-edged sword because of the wholly unapproved status of Adrienne's alleged mystical experiences: Balthasar was certainly courageous, but perhaps in retrospect not sufficiently circumspect in mobilizing his sources...

The really interesting question for me is what will happen once the authorized edition of Luisa P's writings appears, especially if she is beatified (same thing with Concepcion Cabrera de Armida, whose writings total more pages than Aquinas!!). My feeling is that at that point Luisa's material will be a theological bombshell, impossible to ignore. Then the work will really begin in earnest - what Fr Iannuzzi is doing IMHO is just a foretaste.

 

Vassula was light years ahead of Amortis Laetitia.


[Vassula Ryden] told the story of how in the early days of the TLIG messages she went to her first Catholic mass with her sister and innocently didn’t know that what she received in the front of the church was the Eucharist- the Body and Blood of Christ. She later told Jesus how ashamed she was but He didn’t scold her. He was just happy with her for wanting to learn.

 

It is highly ironic that so many Catholic sources cite Orthodox condemnations of Vassula as evidence against her when it is apparent from the text of True Life in God that one of the biggest reasons for these condemnations is that TLIG supports aspects of Catholic doctrine that the Orthodox do not accept!!

 

Well, I think it shows Vassula has in fact unified the Catholic and Orthodox churches -- both at different times have issued negative rulings, neither accepts her work as being of divine origin.

 

Careful Harper.You will have complaints made to admins.

 

View attachment 4951

 

Indeed, Mac. Here is a video of her describing this incident:

 

Absolute disgrace, and worth its own thread.

 

Well, Mac, I'm a little surprised by that response from you. I would definitely support a separate thread on this one matter, perhaps even with a poll! For me, this little video highlights what Jesus is all about!

 

You start the thread....

 

Fr. Iannuzzi's views on the "first resurrection" described in Rev 20:4-7 are absolutely incompatible with the dogma of the particular judgment promulgated by Pope Benedict XII in Benedictus Deus:

"after such intuitive and face-to-face vision and enjoyment has or will have begun for these souls, the same vision and enjoyment has continued and will continue without any interruption and without end until the last Judgment and from then on forever."

Fr. Iannuzzi teaches that the "first resurrection" described in Rev 20 will only take place in the future, during a period which Satan will be bound for a "thousand years" and the just will be reunited with their physical bodies during this time period. We have already established how both the Catechism and Church teaching throughout the ages explicitly states that the Church will constantly have to endure death and suffering until the end of the world:

"The Lord told us that the Church would constantly be suffering, in different ways, until the end of the world." (Pope Benedict XVI during his pilgrimage to Fatima in 2010).

"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)

The dogma of the particular judgment states that the immortal souls of the saints will remain uninterrupted in the beatific vision until the resurrection of their physical bodies at the end of the world during the Last Judgment. The implications of Fr. Iannuzzi's teaching is that these saints who have been enjoying the beatific vision since their death will then be taken away from the beatific vision and resurrected during the "first resurrection" or "resurrection of the just" to take part in an earthly millennial reign in a world in which death and suffering will constantly exist. I would call this a rather serious interruption indeed, and it is in no way compatible with the above words cited in the doctrine of the particular judgment. Then according to Fr. Iannuzzi's view, after the "thousand years" are over, these saints who had previously been enjoying the beatific vision and been resurrected into the material world will be further subject to an attack by "Gog and Magog" before a "final Coming" of Christ, upon which we would have to conclude that the immortal souls of these resurrected saints would once again be unitied to their physical bodies at the General Resurrection of the Dead, since the Church teaches in the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church Lumen Gentium that the resurrection of the physical bodies of the saints into eternal life will only happen at the end of the world:

"For before we reign with Christ in glory, all of us will be made manifest "before the tribunal of Christ, so that each one may receive what he has won through the body, according to his works, whether good or evil" and at the end of the world "they who have done good shall come forth unto resurrection of life; but those who have done evil unto resurrection of judgment". (Lumen Gentium 48)

Fr. Iannuzzi's views on the first resurrection stands in direct contradiction to Church dogma. Unless you can show me some way in which this view of the "first resurrection" can be reconciled with the above Church doctrines, this position must be utterly rejected.

 

I agree Mac we all lose,

Because one side of this debate is obviously in error and we are taught by our Catholic Faith that error leads to heresy and that heresy is the greatest evil. [so I want to know which side of the debate is truth]!


St. John Eudes - The greatest evil existing today is heresy, an infernal rage which hurls countless souls into eternal damnation. (LETTERS AND SHORTER WORKS, St. John Eudes, trans. Ruth Hauser, NY Kenedy & Sons, 1948 p.55).


Steven, presented very good arguments for the ordinary Catholic, to follow Sacred Tradition and the Catholic Catechism.

Mark, on the other hand quotes many different sourses such as the Prefect of the CDF, who says that the matter of a "millennial reign" is still open to discussion.

I think that Steven still obviously believes in the Catholic Catechism which teaches that before Christ's coming the antichrist will form the final persecution of Our Lords Church which will lead to the second coming of Christ....


And I also think he was just trying to follow the 1917 Code of Canon Law which affirms that Catholics have a duty to reject error and heresy and all that works against the faith in the following words: Canon 1325.1 - “The faithful are bound to profess their faith openly whenever under the circumstances silence, evasion, or their manner of acting would otherwise implicitly amount to a denial of the faith, or would involve contempt of religion, an offense to God, or scandal to the neighbor.”

These are just my thoughts and interpretations of Stevens stance, Peter.