Fatima, I do too stephen, Today at 12:25 AMReport #1335 Pasted from <http://motheofgod.com/threads/garabandal-news.2443/page-67>
To the best of my ability i believe i have copied the relevant posts from garabandal news. And we're up to date. ... Let the discussion continue.
No mystery. Just my assumption of what the answer would be when it finally came. I think Stephen was getting at the idea that the Popes have condemned all variations.
I think your right but it depends on who is right about what the Popes intentions were,..there seems to be two ways that are being interpreted,..Question is who is right??
Thank you Jerry, for all your work, I too was getting crosseyed going back and forth on the Garabandal thread, trying to follow the ideas on this thread and looking for anything that was actually about Garabandal. We do tend to digress on threads.... mea culpa mea culpa mea culpa
Mark, millennialism cannot be reduced just to its most famous form. PJ II referred to "certain forms of millenarianism," in Ecclesia in Europa no10 (Apostolic Exhortation) Benedict XVI on the flight to Brazil in 2007 said "I would say that with the changes in the political situation, the situation of liberation theology is also profoundly different. It is now obvious that these facile millenarianisms - which as a consequence of the revolution promised the full conditions for a just life immediately - were mistaken." The point about all forms of the "millenium" is that it promises a way of life that can only be realised after the resurrection of the dead. In the last chapter of the book I have compared what Fr Iannuzzi teaches with what the popes teach (on the same biblical texts). You will see that there is a huge contradiction. Fr has reinterpreted what the magisterium has defined. Another point-I have read thousands of papal addresses over the years and never once found any teaching about an era of peace. If this great era is coming, why do they not know about it? and further, why do they talk in the most prophetic terms about the final coming of Jesus as being close now? Why did Pius XII in 1957 state in his Easter address "Come Lord Jesus. There are numerous signs your return is not far off? `Why did Paul VI state in 1977 the he too could see the signs of the end emerging. Why did Pius XII John Paul II and Benedict XVI equate the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart with the coming of the Kingdom (which as the Catechism states comes after the Last Judgment)? Why when sr Lucia was asked in 1946 do you know anything about the end of the world she said "I cannot answer that question" Why did Alphonsine Mumareke, the first approved visionary in Kibeho who is a nun say Our Lady told her she had come to prepare souls for the return of Jesus?Why did St Faustina state to Blessed Sopocko that Divine Mercy had to be spread as quickly as possible because the world will not last much longer and God wanted people to be prepared for his judgment?Why have Paul VI and John Paul II stated already that the Gospel has already been spread throughout the world? Why did John Paul II in a letter to the Montfort religious family feel the need to correct an intepretation that the "apostles of the last time" as prophesied by St Louis de Montfort; come not before a millenium but are to come in preperation for the return of the Lord at the end of time? One last point worth stressing. The only theologians who ever peddle this "spiritual millenium" theory are those interested in mystical things. You do not get mainstream theologians loyal to the magisterium ever talking about this .That is because they know it is rejected. The spiritual millenium is just another form on millenarianism dressed up to look like it isnt
Stephen, I think you may be arguing with the arong person. The list I posted earlier is simply an attempt to define the question. Sometimes that makes understanding easier, sometimes not. With respect to number 1 above, Millennarianism in it's "classical Protestent sense", I agree completely that this is heresy. I don't buy the protestant variation of a rapture, or anything like that. If I'm not mistaken, and I very well could be, wasn't that defined as a heresy back in St. Agustine's day? If not, he certainly laid all the groundwork to end the idea of millennarianism as it's defined these days. To keep the conversation simple at this point, can we all agree that option 1 is not an option?
Stephen - I think you might want to look at the linked post by Mark Mallett a second time. I scanned the doc and got two hits for the word "second". Both hits were in quotes by other authors. I've traded e-mails a few times with Mark Mallett. He does, on occasion, omit thing from his posts that he feels are obvious. This could be one such occassion.
Speaking out of my own limited perspective, and admitted ignorance on much of what has ever been "pronounced" by the church on this, I have to say I appreciate Stephen's zeal to instruct with Truth, and steer people from falsehood. (I myself have openly wondered why some very hopeful, mystical, and sometimes apocalyptic prophecies from apparitions, etc. are given to children, and not through the chair of Peter directly. ...A period of uncertainty and confusion always follows then, due to the source...) However, I still have not seen confirmed pronouncements, which directly address this idea of the Day of the Lord being a resurrected "form of existence" that coincides with an extended period. The veiled reference in response to Vassula is not enough for me, and is not in the proper context. Show us where the magisterium has "completely rejected" the church fathers, and proclaimed them to be "wrong". e.g. Did the Council of Ephesus reject premillennialism on the basis of its belief that Christ would reign in person? Therefore, is that why the Catechism says "Premillenialsim cannot be safely taught, though the church has not dogmatically defined the issue". Explain the quote from Ratzinger that "the church has made no definitive pronouncement" on the interpretation of the 1000 years. Talk about the theology of critical, hopeful aspects of these TIMES that we verbalize in prayer and worship....every day: ...Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done....On Earth as it is in heaven. <-And no,I don't think the procession of His Church (which I agree is the imperfect kingdom He established for us) toward its passion and death has fulfilled this, yet...Until the body/church is also resurrected. ...And I look forward to the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. (<- What does this mean? What world? What form of life? Which obviuosly comes after the resurrection, in the Creed, which is the definitive statement of our belief.) i.e. what is the difference between: A promised "renewed creation" or "renewed earth", and associated "life". A promised "New Heaven and New Earth", and associated "existence/life". A promised "Eternity in Heaven" and "beatific vision", and associated "existence" (maybe not a moment-to-moment, time-based conciousness that we are accustomed to). Explain this "rejection" in proper context with those church fathers and ecclesiastical writers that actually AGREED that this period is "POST-RESURRECTION", but "PRE-HEAVEN" (if I understand them correctly). I suppose these would be the better early examples, where seemingly, the right limits are placed on the understanding: RIGHT-MINDED CHRISTIANS...ARE ASSURED THAT THERE WILL BE A RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD, AND A THOUSAND YEARS IN JERUSALEM, WHICH WILL THEN BE BUILT ADORNED, AND ENLARGED, AS THE PROPHETS EZEKIEL AND ISAIAH AND OTHERS DECLARE." -- JUSTIN MARTYR But we do confess that a kingdom is promised to us upon the earth, although before heaven, only in another state of existence; inasmuch as it will be after the resurrection for a thousand years in the divinely-built city of Jerusalem, 'letdown from heaven,' which the apostle also calls 'our mother from above;' and, while declaring that our citizenship is in heaven, he predicts of it that it is really a city in heaven. This both Ezekiel had knowledge of and the Apostle John beheld." --Tertullian Though I am not sure if either of these writers included some bodily form of Jesus reigning in person. I thought moreso His Holy Spirit, I guess, but again I am fairly ignorant in this area, beyond what I parroted above. Even St. Augustine, the father of amillennialism, admitted he was not clear on the order of end time events, and only stated his views as thoughts, that could become clearer: And so in that judgement, or in connection with it, we have learned that the following events are to occur: Elijah the Tishbite will come; the Jews will believe; Antichrist will persecute; Christ will judge; the dead will rise again; the good and the wicked will be sorted out; the world will be burned in flames and will be renewed. Now all these events, we must believe, will come to pass; but how, or in what order, the experience of the future will teach us with a completeness that our human understanding cannot attain. -Saint Augustine Failure to delve into discussion at this level, then makes the counter-argument just another amillenialism for the sake of amillenialism, for fear of association with true heresy, type of potential blindness to revealed Truths...which are contained within sacred scripture nonetheless.
I've seen this quote in the past on the web, but never seen a citation. It's not much value without knowing where it came from and the context from which it came.
You know the problem with this quote-we have never seen in any book what the exact question was. Fr Iannuzzi didnt put the question in his book which is quite bizarre-to have an answer without a question. The closest i ever came to knowing what the question was, was when Fr gobbi mentioned it once. He said it was something like "how should be understand the return of Jesus to earth as King or Judge". Now if that is roughly the question that Fr Penasa asked, it has nothing to do with a millennial reign. Anyhow the question was asked in 1990 and the Vassula notification was in 1995.
Jon, dont you think the onus is on supporters of the spiritual millenium theory to prove it from the writing s of the popes?
Mark, Mark Mallett quoted this on that link (he supports this theory) "Any form of belief that Jesus Christ will return in His resurrected body to the earth and rule visibly on earth for a literal one thousand years (millenarianism) has been condemned by the Church and must be categorically rejected. This anathema does not include, however, the strong Patristic belief held by many Church Fathers and Doctors of a "spiritual", "temporal", "second" (but not final) or "middle" coming of Christ to take place before the end of the world. As i said yesterday he is in error about the second coming. He agrees with the idea that the second is not the final coming. . All I can say is that my book is endorsed by rev Professor Thomas J Norris, who is one of the foremost theologians in the world having worked alongside Cardinal Ratzinger for years in the CDF's International Theological Commission. I quote him about my book "Avoiding millennarism, he finds here a divine-human drama, detecting in it the deepest level of history. I warmly recommend it." By saying i have avoided millennarism, he is confirming that what I written corresponds to the truth of the magisterium in this area of eschatology. I think this passage from the International theological Commission's document from 1992 on Eschatology sums up the fact that the temporal kingdom theory is an error (the document was signed and approved by Cardinal Ratzinger) " There is silence about eschatology today for other reasons, of which we single out one: that is, the rebirth of the tendency to establish an innerworldly eschatology. This tendency is well known in the history of theology, and beginning with the Middle Ages it constituted what came to be called “the spiritual heritage of Joachim de Fiore”. This tendency is found in some theologians of liberation, who so insist on the importance of establishing the kingdom of God as something within our own history on earth that the salvation which transcends history seems to become of rather secondary interest...In this way a certain kind of “eschaton” is brought within historical time. This “eschaton” is not presented as the ultimate absolute, but as a relative absolute. Nonetheless, Christian praxis is directed so exclusively to the establishment of this eschaton that the Gospel is read reductively, so that whatever pertains to the eschatological realities absolutely considered is in great part passed over in silence. In this way, in a theological system of this sort, “one places oneself within the perspective of a temporal messianism, which is one of the most radical of the expressions of secularisation of the Kingdom of God and of its absorption into the immanence of human history." Lets follow the Church in her wisdom rather than those who impress private interpretations as if it was the truth.
I don't think this disposition applies at all to most Catholics who are seeking to understand the sequence of Christ completing the redemption of humanity. I don't see any "theologians of liberation" that are trying to reduce salvation history to something temporal and "man centered" in its end. Most devout Catholics are already way beyond any thoughts of this nature by the time they have ascended to the true understanding of the Church, the Mass, the Eucharist, and the communion of saints. This seems yet another obscure argument, broadly and incorrectly applied, to avoid a true analysis of questions or theories raised about interpretation of scripture, where the church has been ambiguous.
Ditto MarkW! If our Popes were the only ones to be given prophecy by God, we would not have a deeper understanding of our faith or future (ie,, Fatima, Lourdes, La Sallete, Akita, Rwanda etc..). God does indeed work through more creatures than Popes and I think that when our Lady speaks through seers, she is indeed providing some insight into the future of the Church and how best to prepare.
Nope. Sacred scripture, references in approved revelations and saints, and writings of church fathers has led some people to wonder openly, and try to discern their meaning in true faithfulness. You have said these ideas are categorically wrong (in their totality, by associating all ideas with some that are deemed heretical), but no sufficient proof has been shown for this conclusion yet. I imagine it does not exist, because the CCC even says "the church has not dogmatically defined the issue". I can't call myself a believer of any particular version of the millenium, or the non-millenium. I have just recently heard some of these theories, and am trying to discern just because knowing Truth is always a desire of my heart. I really DO want to understand many of those things I listed in my previous post, including the "renewed creation", or "new earth", or "world to come" promises we hope for every day as we worship. And I think these questions arise out of their presence in our creed, our prayers, and scripture....And from the 1st Pope himself: "Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire! But according to his promise we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace" (2 Pet. 3:8–14). Interestingly, I found this article somewhat enlightening on how the condemnation of Chiliasm at Ephesus actually never occured, yet was errantly cited by several 20th century authors until it became accepted historical "fact": http://bible.org/article/phantom-heresy-did-council-ephesus-431-condemn-chiliasm I kind of like the ending of the article: Implications and Conclusion The purpose of this article was twofold. First, by tracing the error to its source, I have attempted to counter the assertion that the Council of Ephesus condemned Chiliasm in A.D. 431. In light of the conclusions of this article, any continued assertion of this nature must satisfy a weighty burden of proof with reference to primary source evidence. Given the plentitude of untranslated, unedited, or perhaps even presently non-extant material on this subject, the case will of course never be finally closed. Nevertheless the burden of proof has been re-shifted to those who maintain an official ecumenical condemnation of Chiliasm.
Yes, but the critical point is that the popes are the guardians of the truth, therefore it is to them and nobody else who has the authority to give the interpretation to eschatological events! Sr Lucia used to say, its not for me to interpret, its the pope's authority.
