Divine Will revisited.

None of you know me, and I don't know you. I do not have anywhere near enough education or knowledge to join the discussion on this topic in a substantial, topical way. However, I can commentate on the discussion itself, and I think I have some things to say that may be worth listening to there.

I can't say who is wrong, or who is right. From reading through things, and if I were judging this as a high school debate, Emmett wins hands down. Mark references a lot of non-authoritative sources, including personal conversations, that can neither be confirmed nor denied, and cannot be analyzed. Furthermore, all personal conversations on matters of faith, even with high-ranking church officials, are not official statements, and have literally no bearing on the accuracy of anything being discussed.

Mark also continually makes the logical fallocy of appealing to authority. An example is below:

It doesn't matter how respected Fr. Iannuzzi is in the Vatican or anywhere else. That has no bearing on the truth, the accuracy of his beliefs, or anything else. If that statement is true, the only thing that can then be said about Fr. Iannuzzi being respected in the Vatican is that he is in fact respected in the Vatican. Given the number of egregious, sinful, and corrupt folks that occupy the Vatican, being respected may not even be something one would recommend.

Because of the logical fallacy as presented by Mark, literally everything supported by that (and similar) statements must be understood by all reasonable participants in the discussion to be nothing more than Mark's personal opinion on the matter and no more. It is not proven, it is not supported by any evidence due to the logical fallacy, and without additional supplemental backing from a source or other argument should be completely dismissed from the conversation as fallacious at best, and false at worst.


Emmett quotes and refers to the Catechism, which is not an appeal to authority. It is an appeal to stated, given, and understood fact. The Catechism was released by the church to be a summary and starting point for all members of the church, in their own language, stating the doctrines and precepts of the Catholic church and the faith preached therein. It is non-negotiable, and intended to be the most accurate summary of all things, so one doesn't have to be an expert in who said what in which council in which century. The Catechism is presented by the Church as Fact and Truth, in plain language.

Mark has several times then argued the semantics of the plain language quoted by Emmett. This is a very useful tool and tactic used by lawyers in courtrooms to open loopholes or sow doubt, but can never be used to prove anything. The only thing that can resolve an argument on semantics is another clarifying statement from the original authors or sources. Due to the nature of language and the inability of human nature to be able to communicate fundamental truths in an absolutely indisputable way via direct, soul-to-soul communication, this will always be an issue. Hence the reason for the Cathechism, to state in plain language what the Church teaches and means. It is nearly impossible to have a better source, and to attempt to read it like a legal document to find wiggle room is erroneously misguided at best, and worse than deceitful at worst. The only possible end result of such attempts ends with Bill Clinton arguing what the meaning of the word "is" is.


Finally, on the treatment of Stephen:

It appears to me that there was a spirited, energetic, emotional, forceful debate going on between two parties. The debate was fiery and tough. However, it was professional at all times. Insults were not thrown, names were not called, and there was no flaming. However, it seems to me that a third party became offended on one of the participant's behalf, and involved a fourth party to have one participant thrown out, stifling the conversation.

I could rant for days on the troubles society faces regarding folks being offended and feeling that anyone who gives offense is wrong, and what a truly and deeply non-sensical believe that is to have and to hold. That isn't the point I want to make, however.

Instead, I'd ask each and every one of you what Jesus would have done in the situation of Stephen, or in the situation of a bystander watching the discourse take place. There are a few few things I would like to remind you of as you consider this question.

1. During councils in the early church, participants on more than one occasion physically came to blows and personal insults in the spirited debates over important matters.

2. Jesus, when dealing with blasphemy in the temple, literally created a weapon and used said weapon to physically and personally attack the blasphemers, cursing them, breaking their stuff, overturning tables, etc. Whenever you ask the question "What would Jesus do?" you must always acknowledge that he was not a pacifist, his followers walked around armed for killing people in his presence, he told them to acquire weapons good only for killing other people, and he himself physically attacked individuals with a weapon. There is a non-zero chance that the answer may be, "physically attack with righteous anger."

3. Stephen clearly believed that this topic was an extremely serious matter, and a matter of utmost importance, with eternal consequences. He was clearly frustrated with his understanding and what he believed to be an inadequate response by the opposing participants. I detected no malice from Mark in responding to him, but clearly Mark was incapable of answering Stephen's questions in a way that was meaningful to Stephen. At that point, It was incumbent on others to help mediate between the two, helping Mark distill his verbose answers down to something more simple and concrete (I can't fault Mark for being verbose, as this is perfect evidence that I suffer from the same affliction), and to help Stephen understand why he might be overlooking something.

Instead, the issue was escalated by other parties who did not help the discussion or understanding at all, and simply removed what they perceived to be a problem, disregarding all points I have made above. In Stephen's mind, he clearly believed Mark's viewpoint bordered on heresy. When confronted with heresy, the correct response is never, ever, to simply agree to disagree. Heresy should always be confronted head-on and denounced as such. If you aren't sure, find out definitively. Stephen was attempting to do that.

I don't think Mark is a heretic. I don't know one way or another, but I certainly don't think that is his intent, even if he is wrong about what he is saying. There is more than sufficient room for misunderstandings and conflicting viewpoints in this discussion. It is easy to be mistaken without preaching heresy, and word choice can again play a role. Inaccurate word choice amongst laymen can inadvertently be heretical without intent, especially on complex, abstract matters as the Church deals with.


Here are the spiritual works of mercy as espoused by the Catholic church:

1. To instruct the ignorant.
2. To counsel the doubtful.
3. To admonish sinners.
4. To bear wrongs patiently.
5. To forgive offences willingly.
6. To comfort the afflicted.
7. To pray for the living and the dead

I believe Stephen was trying to do #1 and #3. I don't see anyone doing #2, #4, or #5 regarding Stephen at all. I think a disservice has been done, and errors committed. That's fine, we're all imperfect, we're all sinners. However, I think maybe a review of actions is in order, and recompense deserving. Let's try to avoid a repeat of it all.

Feel free to disagree as much as you would like, as vociferously as you would like. I won't mind.

Thanks very much for the great read, and the opportunity to learn, from Mark, and Emmett, and everyone involved. I appreciate your time and efforts, and it has given me a whole list of things that I wasn't even aware I didn't know. They'll get added to the list of stuff to research and learn. Hopefully I'll get to it before I die.

 

You Stephen in disguise??

 

Thanks, Cetera, for your stimulating post above; of course you are welcome to judge for yourself as to what occurred on this thread. If in your opinion Emmett O'Regan's arguments won the day, that's fine. However, as the 'third party' you referred to, I will say that I felt and still feel that it is imperative for certain rules of charitable engagement to be respected on this forum, and that this was unfortunately not followed by all participants in the discussion. For me, and I know I am not alone in this, what was happening was on the threshold of calumny/slander and could not be allowed to go on. This is a moderated forum, not a free-for-all and the moderator - who as the site's owner is not merely a 'fourth party' - has the absolute prerogative of intervening. Those who can't accept these parameters are probably looking for a different type of website (of which there are plenty around!).

I understand your analogy with the robust engagement Conciliar debates of the early Church (which I agree were very heated), but feel that this is of limited applicability here as the Council Fathers were members of the Magisterium authorized representatives of concrete communities, which none of us here are. We simply do not have a mandate to call others (and especially a priest, as in this case) heretics on the basis of our fallible understanding of Magisterial documents as if our personal interpretation were unassailable, when it is clearly contested by others who, even if we may think they are wrong, are neither knaves nor fools.

A few days ago, Fr Thomas Rosica was quoted in an article linked to by SpiritDaily as making the following comment on internet culture generally, and I feel that his remarks could not be more appropriate in this context. May the following please not be applicable to any of us here.. whatever side of the argument we happen to find ourselves supporting.
“Many of my non-Christian and non-believing friends have remarked to me that we ‘Catholics’ have turned the Internet into a cesspool of hatred, venom and vitriol, all in the name of defending the faith!” he said.

“The character assassination on the Internet by those claiming to be Catholic and Christian has turned it into a graveyard of corpses strewn all around,” said Rosica, who assists the Vatican Press Office with English-speaking media, on May 11 as he delivered the keynote address at the Brooklyn Diocese’s observance of World Communications Day.
“Often times the obsessed, scrupulous, self-appointed, nostalgia-hankering virtual guardians of faith or of liturgical practices are very disturbed, broken and angry individuals, who never found a platform or pulpit in real life and so resort to the Internet and become trolling pontiffs and holy executioners!” Rosica said.

“In reality they are deeply troubled, sad and angry people,” he said. “We must pray for them, for their healing and conversion!”
http://www.cruxnow.com/cns/2016/05/...rns-catholic-blogs-create-cesspool-of-hatred/

 

Garabandal,
Thank you for the link, to another teaching of Fr Hardon that you've provided above.

I have, only in recent months, been alerted to the writings of Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., and from what I have read, I believe he was a very holy Priest and also an astute theologian!

What he says has not deviated from the truth of Catholic teachings or from the Catholic catechism! but its hard hitting because he pulls no punches!

The end times are going to test our fidelity, to the truth of Our Faith!

However, Our Holy and Blessed Mother has given us the remedy [ Ad nauseam], over many centuries, to pray the rosary! Telling us that our soul will be saved by the daily recitation of the Rosary, Her prayer.

And isn't this our hope that our souls reach heaven, our destination, for this is what we hoping for while we live in this valley of tears,!

We can take comfort in this, even if we happen to live in the most frightful of times, the end times, because this prayer [the rosary] will save our souls!!!!

Praise God for His unfathomable Mercy. Amen.

 

Cetera you seem to be missing one very important criteria in your analysis.
First Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Corinthians
Chapter 13

Charity is to be preferred before all gifts.

[1] If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. [2] And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. [3] And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. [4] Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely; is not puffed up; [5] Is not ambitious, seeketh not her own, is not provoked to anger, thinketh no evil;

[6] Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth; [7] Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. [8] Charity never falleth away: whether prophecies shall be made void, or tongues shall cease, or knowledge shall be destroyed. [9] For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. [10] But when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away.

[11] When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child. [12] We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known. [13] And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity.

 

Josephite, having spent several years going to Father John Hardon retreats in Barrington, Ill, I can attest that he was a brilliant theologian and living saint. He knew what was coming for our time, because he lived the persecution in his own time through is own Jesuit brothers who resented his orthodoxy and spoke of it often. He prayed for the gift of martyrdom and while he did not receive the gift of 'red' martyrdom he was a 'white' martyr for sure. BTW, Father Hardon's Catholic Catechism is a gem and can still be acquired through Amazon.

 

Hi Cetera and welcome,

What you have posted in regards to the works of Mercy are correct and yes all Catholics are held accountable to follow these works.

1. To instruct the ignorant.
2. To counsel the doubtful.
3. To admonish sinners.
4. To bear wrongs patiently.
5. To forgive offences willingly.
6. To comfort the afflicted.
7. To pray for the living and the dead

I think most posters on this thread have attempted to do this. But some of us have failed in one or two areas and if I have offended anyone I am trully sorry.

I know that even though my understanding of the Catholic Faith may differ in some respects to others, I am hopeful that we are all trying to understand a great mystery!

Which in reality only God Knows! So let us continue to live Our life as Jesus has taught through His scripture and through His Church!


I believe that just as no one can fully understand and explain the Blessed Trinity, so too our little minds cannot behold all the truths of the final days!

 

Daniel, in response to your question, the Catechism (as has already been stated) clearly rejects all forms of millenarianism. We shouldn't expect every single theory someone dreams up to be formally rejected. What Ratzinger said very clearly was "The Kingdom of God which Christ promises does not consist in a modification of our earthly circumstances." I don't think anyone can seriously suggest Fr Iannuzzi is claiming there wont be any changes in earthly circumstances. His writings most definitely contradict this statement of Ratzinger's. It is worth noting again that on the plane to Brazil, Pope Benedict XVI explained what millenarianism is "creating the conditions for a just life" this side of eternity- this in relation to liberation theology. I draw your attention to this extract from the CDF's instruction on certain aspects of liberation theology written again by Cardinal Ratzinger: "The new 'hermeneutic' inherent in the "theologies of liberation" leads to an essentially 'political' re-reading of the Scriptures. Thus, a major importance is given to the Exodus event inasmuch as it is a liberation from political servitude. Likewise, a political reading of the "Magnificat" is proposed. The mistake here is not in bringing attention to a political dimension of the readings of Scripture, but in making of this one dimension the principal or exclusive component. This leads to a reductionist reading of the Bible.6. Likewise, one places oneself within the perspective of a temporal messianism, which is one of the most radical of the expressions of secularization of the Kingdom of God and of its absorption into the immanence of human history." (How close is that to the passage in the Catechism on millenarianism?)
In placing liberation theology on a par with chiliasm, Pope Benedict XVI is clearly saying that any idea that tries to free humanity from is history long and continuous battle against the forces of evil is utterly false. There is to be no golden age where Satan is vanquished. That is the stuff of Hollywood, not reliable theology. He couldn't be clearer than stating our earthly circumstances will not change; and this was shown clearly also in his magisterium by stating sin and evil will remain constantly until the end of the world.
What Ratzinger wrote about Exodus above is equally true of those who read the Book of Revelation in the same way. What was once the liberation from Egypt is now replaced with temporal liberation from the modern world. If you still don't accept this, I would ask you to explain why Pope Benedict can say liberation theology is a form of millenarianism even though no liberation theologian to my knowledge has ever linked it to Rev 20, and it contains no trace of any type of presence of Jesus in the flesh on earth?

 

Mark,
To address your point that Augustine's teaching on the spiritual resurrection is only one interpretation, I quote from John Paul II's general audience of 22 April 1998 where he states very precisely: "We must not forget that for Christians the "eschaton", that is, the final event, is to be understood not only as a future goal, but as a reality which has already begun with the historical coming of Christ. His Passion, Death and Resurrection are the supreme event in the history of humanity, which has now entered its final phase, making a qualitative leap, so to speak. The horizon of a new relationship with God is unfolding for humanity, marked by the great offer of salvation in Christ.

This is why Jesus can say: "The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live" (Jn 5:25). The resurrection of the dead expected at the end of time already receives its first, decisive realization in spiritual resurrection, the primary objective of the work of salvation. It consists in the new life given by the risen Christ as the fruit of his redemptive work." Mark, this I think you will find is identical to the passage I quoted from Augustine; both he and St John Paul II cite the same verse from St John. This is the magisterium teaching. It reinforces the dogma of Benedict XII confirming no physical resurrection before the end of time, and with papal authority proclaims the spiritual nature of the first resurrection. It simply cannot be denied any longer. It is therefore wrong to suggest the Church hasn't taught this. It is dogma plain and simple. Pope Benedict gave a similar explanation on the Feast of the Assumption 2009: "the Assumption reminds us that Mary's life, like that of every Christian, is a journey of following, following Jesus, a journey that has a very precise destination, a future already marked out: the definitive victory over sin and death and full communion with God, because as Paul says in his Letter to the Ephesians the Father "raised us up with him, and made us sit with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Eph 2: 6). This means that with Baptism we have already fundamentally been raised and are seated in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, but we must physically attain what was previously begun and brought about in Baptism". Once again the first resurrection spiritual." In the same homily, he stated: "Human life on earth as the First Reading has reminded us is a journey that takes place, constantly, in the intense struggle between the dragon and the woman, between good and evil. This is the plight of human history."
And finally, to seal this argument once and for all, the words of Pope Benedict XVI from Ash Wednesday 2007: " Dead in Christ to sin, the baptized person is reborn to new life, freely re-established with his dignity as a child of God. For this reason, in the primitive Christian community Baptism was considered as "the first resurrection" (cf. Rv 20: 5; Rom 6: 1-11; Jn 5: 25-28)." It is rather significant Mark, that Pope Benedict completely ignores the early Fathers that you keep quoting on this verse (Rev 20:5). Why? Because the Church had moved on from the error (which is why millenarianism died a death in virtually all the Fathers after the first several centuries). The Holy Spirit guided the church to its correct understanding, and that is taught here by the Holy Father.
Pope John Paul II in hs Encyclical on the Eucharist states: "For in the Eucharist we also receive the pledge of our bodily resurrection at the end of the world: “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” (Jn 6:54). I hope we can all finally agree that the papal magisterium undoubtedly teaches the first resurrection is spiritual not physical, and that the physical resurrection is reserved until the very end of the world. This leaves Fr Ianuzzi's thesis in tatters.

 

Emmet what you say resounds in my soul!
And my little heart sings!

Thank you for continuing,
your words are not falling on deaf ears.

I pray that the Holy Spirit will reveal the truth to all. I do not judge my fellow man because I know how easily one can be drawn away.

God Bless You and please God bless us all. Amen

St Joseph Pray for us. Amen

 

Emmett, I am no theologian, but could you please answer me this question. How is it that Enoch and Elijah return to preach to the ends of the earth. Will this be in a new resurrection of sort?

 

I'm just glad (or actually wish he was) St. Jerome isn't currently posting what he thinks about things here because he would probably be banned for his own insistence for scholarly and well digested knowledge within any discussion! He used to chase those who didn't catch on or those who tried his patience with their own ignorance out of his cave, throwing things at them! So there is a place for those who honor those truly in search for the Truth even if they have to overstep niceties at times esp. when such can only stall things or when there isn't a lot of time left for such when so many are in need of getting to "the beef". For instance to say that someone whose entire writings have been based solely on Church approved authorities be they the Catechism, Saints, Popes, approved mystics, or even those of our own time who also fit into such tested categories as not using authoritative sources....well, either there is a not so well hidden agenda, or the person simply has not read or truly familiarized himself with those writings of which he boldly makes accusations. Ah, Jerome would not "cotton" to such opinions either!

 

Speaking of martyrs! I think I may have posted this video before elsewhere of Judge Neplaitano's speech: "The Natural Law as a Restraint Against Tyranny". The whole speech is worth watching but you may just go to the end at about the 22:20 min mark and see the chilling way he sums up. He believes that he will die in bed but that many "young people" will face persecution and death at the hands of Tyrannical Government ... and he's talking about the USA! I'm the same age as the Judge and I'm not so optimistic about a peaceful death for myself! I'll keep saying that it's TIME to quit worrying about "How many Angels fit on the head of pins" and TIME for serious contemplation on when the SHTF and what are you going to do about protecting yourself, your family, your friends, your neighborhood and your Comrades in Faith!! Now!! I know we have people here who think "Better RagHead Than Dead", Da Gubermint will protect me, "IT" can't happen here or it's God's Will that I'm martyred .....BS&BS...... if Christians had that mentality in the past, Islam .... da Religion of Peace ... would have Killed-Off Christianity in the Eighth Century!! Now!! Me and many here might end up martyred but, Pray God, I hope to go down "fightin' like hell" with my face to the enemy. Jesus was no sissy as depicted in so much artwork! He, still a mystery to me, was directed by The Father to die for our sins on Calvary. Legions of Angels showing up to "save" Him would have screwed up the "Operation". I, truly, believe that The Father does not expect us to submit to Evil without a "helluva fight"!


GOD SAVE ALL HERE!!

 

Cetera, thank you very much for your excellent post. I am deeply humbled. And I'm sure Stephen is very glad for your support too. Your contribution is much needed to bring balance to this debate after Stephen was ejected. Tempers can flare in situations such as this, and I would advocate that forgiveness should be applied here in this regard, and that Stephen should be reinstated to the forum to bring further balance to this highly important debate.

 

How about we all step out of this debate for a few moments to praise God for the gift of The Holy Trinity! This mystery was also discussed with fervor, fisticuffs, and heresy. Praise God who makes all things clear in His time and in His ways.

Take a breather and listen to Bishop Barron give an awesome homily on this most perplexing of gifts.

http://www.wordonfire.org/resources/homily/begotten-not-made/5157/

 

+
On a lighter note:
Happy Holy Trinity Sunday Everyone.
View attachment 4960 View attachment 4961 View attachment 4962 View attachment 4963 View attachment 4964 View attachment 4965
Peace,
Ed

 

Peter,
I want to return to something you wrote about the second coming. Firstly, I think you will find Stephen's position on Fr Gobbi is as he has always stated in writings about any unapproved apparition that he waits until the Church decides. If you have read his book, you will be aware that he deliberately avoided any unapproved revelations. What his point was, that in the messages to Fr Gobbi, there is not a trace of millenarianism-in contradiction Fr Gobbi's own understanding. In fact as Stephen pointed out, Fr Gobbi said on June 24 1996: "I am a little apprehensive since this is a new theme. I myself was surprised to discover how Our Lady has revealed this to us in her messages. [This is] a theme on which perhaps, humanly speaking, I was not prepared, since this aspect was never a part of my theological studies; that is, the triumph of the Immaculate Heart comes about with Jesus’ return in glory… Another example can be found in the frequent expressions, that at first sight can leave us uneasy, in which it is affirmed that the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary coincides with the coming of the glorious reign of Christ." Incidentally, Fr Gobbi showed his theological issue by wrongly claiming in a 1999 interview that the end of the world would see the world destroyed forever rather than renewed forever.
Now you have in reality backed up what Stephen was saying all along, that these messages contain references to the bodily return of Jesus which if true cannot possibly refer to the spiritual millenium. That would be millenarianism in its most ugly form. You said "So... paradoxically, I actually agree with Stephen Walford here that we are headed for the Second Coming, but at the same time it's also the 'middle coming' and not the Last Judgment at the end of time: Christ's judgment on his enemies as in Rev 19 prior to the establishment of his Reign, but not the end of the planet."
If we compare your words with those of various popes we notice the contradiction: Pope Francis: "Lastly, a word about the passage on the Last Judgement in which the Lord’s Second Coming is described, when he will judge all human beings, the living and the dead" 24 April 2013
"The time of Christ’s Second Coming at the end of the world must therefore be left to the Father. In the meantime we, members of the Church, must be watchful and ready. We must also do everything possible to prepare the world for Christ’s final Coming-for Judgement." John Paul II homily in Malawi 5 May 1989
"Although the Kingdom of God bursts definitively into history with Jesus’ Resurrection, it has not yet come about fully.The final victory will only be won with the Second Coming of the Lord , which we await with patient hope." Pope Benedict XVI 25 January 2012
Peter, I think this explains perfectly why we should read and accept humbly what the Church teaches. We have no authority whatsoever to start making assertions such as the second coming is not the last judgment. Who in your opinion out of these various quotes should readers here believe: you or the popes?

 

As far as Fr. Gobbi is concerned with regard to how the Church currently backs the MMP and lay cenacles in which the order/format of each cenacle is to reflect upon/meditate on a particular message given to Fr. Gobbi, contained in the Blue Book, the Director of the MMP for the United States has been given permission to dedicate all of his time to this apostolate and permission to stay at the International Headquarters when visiting there in Italy. There are priests themselves who have been given permission by their Bishops to also give their time to this mission and to traveling to areas of request of them to lead or speak to various cenacles. It is now an accepted and by the actions taken by Church authorities, promoted apostolate that has been the saving grace for all those Marian priests buoyed by these brotherly gatherings. Again, we have the reality now of what is legitimate as far as those cenacles have been conducted and received for decades. When it comes to private revelations one can just as easily refer to what has been "accepted" for decades when attempting to discern its relative safety.

It would be good to refer directly to the particular statement or message when someone is giving an opinion about Fr. Gobbi that is pretty generalized in its presentation in order to make some point about him. Since there is a huge amount of writings that can be quoted, something mentioned as an aside without context isn't exactly fair to him or his mission.

And the quotes in above comment appear to be directed to and specific to only the "last" coming of Christ. They don't speak to or appear directed to those quoted as anything other than that last coming /final judgment. The Era of Peace with that coming via the Holy Spirit has been of course referred to by scripture itself as well as spoken to as that "interim" coming...obvious of course since it comes between....spoken to by those specified by both Fr. Iannuzzi and Mark Mallett with the necessary follow up quotes. That kind of specification is much clearer to follow than only one's personal thrust without acknowledging those historical definitions of what was and still is expected by the Church. And if these are not acknowledged by those being questioned or quoted then their answers appear as well to only be directed to that final coming which cannot serve for any personal or authoritative statement about this Era of completion of the Our Father....when the Divine Will comes to live among the creatures as ordered from the very beginning to be fulfilled.....or the then matching Era of Peace due to that living in the Divine Will. Although that should appear obvious to readers but could just as well trip up a reader not as well acquainted with this topic.

 

Hello Emmett,
Of course nobody should take my word for anything. I'm not claiming any kind of authority, just voicing a theological opinion (and hopefully appealing to some logic), and if readers wish to dismiss what I'm saying, that's up to them.

1. The essential difference between us, I think, is in the hermeneutic that we bring to our sources. The basic point of contention concerns the pretty radically different way in which we respectively interpret Magisterial statements: Mark and I are essentially saying that formal Church doctrine on eschatology is more minimal and less tightly-defined than you are trying to present. In other words, we could still be in for a lot of surprises when the events themselves unfold ... You on the other hand feel that it's already been nailed.

My sense in your post as with other quotations is that IMHO you are setting up questionable dichotomies in the way that you interpret the material for the purpose of trying to bring the discussion to a cut-and-dried conclusion. The tactic clearly consists of trying to portray the Church's statements as allowing no wriggle-room (which is a matter of opinion) and then showing that the opponent has indeed wriggled, thereby demonstrating that those of us who take a different line have contradicted Church doctrine. In this way this discussion is no longer presented as the legitimate theological disagreement that I think it is, but a disciplinary question in which one side has taken a morally culpable position. That fundamental alters the nature of the debate, and this side of the house isn't convinced that there are logically solid reasons for this shift of registers.

2. Let me try to explain my purpose in making extensive quotations from Fr Gobbi and the Itapiranga apparitions. I'm attempting to demonstrate that to interpret the Second Coming as chronologically distinct from the end of time
a) is not merely Fr Gobbi's and the MMP's misreading but an inescapable conclusion from his alleged locutions (read n.166 as quoted in this thread, which is unequivocal). To try to keep both Fr Gobbi and Augustinian eschatology is logically incoherent in my view: it's one or the other.
b) a position not judged heretical by those Church authorities who gave Fr Gobbi's material the Imprimatur as being 'not contrary to faith or morals' (regardless of whether one considers the 'Blue Book' to be divinely inspired or 'private meditation')
c) absolutely coherent with the messages connected with an apparition which is officially supported by the Church, i.e. Itapiranga (1994-1998)
d) fully in line with a plain reading of Revelation 19 and 20 that does not require a spiritualizing interpretation as with Augustine
However, this having been said, the Second Coming in this reading is definitely an act of judgment - on Christ's enemies. It is also the 'end of the age', i.e. the end of the world as we know it (just not the end of history), and needs to be seen in the light of the essential unity of the eschaton. My sense is therefore that the conflict you are trying to posit between this position and for example the quote from John Paul II - who it should be remembered regularly invited Fr Gobbi to concelebrate Mass - is exaggerated.

3. In using the term 'the unity of the eschaton', I'd like to shift the discussion from a purely exegetical approach to Magisterial documents - where I fear that we may be hunkering down in our different trenches because we read differently - to some considerations from the viewpoint of systematic theology , working off the thought-categories of St Thomas Aquinas.

For the Angelic Doctor it is not coherent to conceive of Divine action as a sequence of separate acts - among other things that's problematic as it would imply that God doesn't act in between... then comes out of hibernation, as it were, to put it crudely. For Thomas that doesn't cut it because God is actus purus, 'pure act'. We may see events as separate occurrences from our creaturely perspective, but that's a problem of our own limitations which is also reflected in the limitations of our language. God's relationship to time is very different from ours, as the Bible tells us - for Him a thousand years are like a day, and vice versa, and our trying to conceive his perspective is like a two-dimensional object trying to imagine three dimensions or indeed something far more mind-mangling such as the multi-dimensional Hilbert space of advanced mathematics. Can't be done and it's better for us not to try as we just end up looking stupid.

So it would be more accurate, in line with a proper theology of the attributes of God (to whom all times are present simultaneously, as Aquinas says) to think of the whole work of Creation, Redemption and Consummation as one eternal act which we experience as unfolding in time. Thomas's concept is borne out, I think, when you look at the Apocalypse from a broader perspective: what comes out is the overall sweep of God's judging of history. The fact that it occurs in stages doesn't alter the Big Picture.

Seen in this way from the viewpoint of systematics, I don't see a conceptual problem with interpreting the Second Coming as a term encompassing both the manifestation of Christ's glory (Revelation 19) and the Last Judgment (Revelation 20). Ultimately what counts is God's one eternal act as Alpha and Omega. Our difficulty, it seems to me, is that our minds get frustrated by the Bible's multi-layered terms such as 'the Kingdom'/'new creation'/'new heavens and a new earth' because we want to lock them down to mean one thing. But thankfully God is far more interesting than that...

 

Nope, and that is not a terribly helpful nor respectful comment.

Absolutely, and I understand. Calumny/slander should not be tolerated any more than heresy. You also mention the second golden rule, ie, "He who has the gold (or pays the bills) makes the rules." We are all guests here, and should be mindful and respectful of that. Ultimately, we play by the rules set forth by the authority figures of the forum, or we don't play at all, and can find somewhere else to go.

My point and humble suggestion is, in this case, things could have been handled differently and/or better.

I could be incorrect in this. This is literally the only thread I've read on this forum, and my exposure to the individuals involved is extremely limited. You probably all know better who Stephen was, and had more background with him. Perhaps he is an opinionated PITA like my grandfather used to be, and needed to be elsewhere. I do believe he made some good points which have not been adequately addressed, and he was frustrated in that lack. It seems that this root cause of the frustration was not addressed at all, and instead he was just shown the door rather peremptorily.

Absolutely true, and again, my point. I feel that this is the sort of thing that needed to be pointed out to Stephen, rather than simply having him removed.

This is true the internet over, and not just with Catholics. My best advise is to take it all with a grain of salt, and put your feelings in your back pocket. The nature of discourse on the internet is that it is missing a good portion of normal conversational communication that helps sort these things out when dealing in face-to-face discussions, and that will always be the case. Also, it is literally open to anyone to join in, regardless of maturity or knowledge level, rather than people who may be involved in a face-to-face conversation. This is simply the nature of the beast.

If anyone gets personally offended online, my advice is that you are "doing the internet" incorrectly. If you happen to respond in a moment of emotion, oh well. Put it behind you, and get back on point when you realize it.

Never, ever, suffer trolls. To do so is to allow a site and a community to die. However, if a community member who provides intellectual discussion has outbursts or fiery diagreements, work as a community to see them through it. This is the internet, the wild, wild west of ideas. There's going to be some shooting. Without any kind of feedback that the text on the other end is actually a person, it is difficult to keep the "filter" functional. You get the same phenomenon as road rage as no one can see "the other" that they feel wronged by, and the inevitable response is as natural as it is a part of our fallen nature.


TL,DR edition: Practice patience, understanding, forgiveness, and actively help guide.

Not at all. That is the crux of the situation, and my entire point. And further, I believe that it is most important to be charitable towards those who have no charity themselves.

In this case with Stephen, I don't believe there was charity offered or espoused on any side.

I was going to make some comments on this in my initial post, but it was already too long, and off-topic enough. I believe it is literally impossible to make any kind of analogy to help explain the Blessed Trinity to someone who doesn't understand it, without also espousing heresy. I believe the Trinity to be the single most difficult concept to explain or understand in all of reality and of our faith. It is completely outside of our understanding as limited by space and time and our own consciousness of our selves, and I suspect it will be one of those things that even in Heaven we will not be able to truly and completely understand. I suspect that in order to fully understand the Trinity, you would have to become something you are not, and would lose or no longer be yourself. You almost need to be a part of it to fully get it. Hopefully I'm wrong, there, as I love to know everything. I want to understand.


My apologies to all for another extremely verbose post and a wall of text that may be daunting. If preferred, in the future I can break up replies to individual posts.