Divine Will revisited.

The objection is to the Protestant "millenarianism"....not to the reasoning of the Early Church Fathers re: a time period of an era of peace, not written in stone as you seem to insist, but referencing the scriptural understanding of the symbolic use of time periods. And I think that I offered the referenced sources of Mark Mallett, always specific to the topic, but you apparently choose not to accept or reference since you don't mention their weight. That certainly then can't fit into your "can anyone show me" excuse. However one wishes to proceed shouldn't give one any heartache because they don't wish to stop at some offered point when it appears to them to be limited in information. We all certainly have reason to weigh what is offered from various sources of trustworthiness...esp. scripture! No use arguing, resulting in some angry spirit because not everyone was convinced to one's own way of judging witnesses. What is expected by scripture as well as by those closest to witnessing the original direction for the times will simply play out. In the meantime one can certainly look for clarification on topics of eschatology via, esp. approved apparitions and Saints, since the Church itself has been quite lax in such acknowledgement of God's Will to intervene through the Holy Spirit when what is expected to come from those in Church authority goes without action. Fatima would be one example since there are now reported to be further places of apparitions continuing on the same intentions since times are worse for not acting on the original specifications for what is to be done to "prevent" this continuing horror in the world.

Only the spirit of insistence upon others that they accept a certain point of view is rejected...esp. when it's obvious that they have no intention of doing so. If that's not accepted then interesting topics can get into a kind of rut, becoming stale and stunted rather than just sharing where someone is coming from. It's not a challenge or contest as one forms one's thinking or conscience based on, esp. Church appointed reliable sources...which of course can't be called just "leaning too much on apparitions"!

 

Earthtoangeles,

I went online to find out more about Vassula. I discovered an article by Fr. Mitch Pacwa, a scripture scholar and EWTN personality. Vassula sent him her work to study. His response was a resounding negative; he details the whole incident in this article, http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=08-01-017-f. I also looked again at the Vatican website and even Wikipedia... From everything I've found, I feel I should avoid Vassula's work in the future.

Can you direct me to the clarification notification on Vassula from Pope Benedict? I can't seem to find it on the Vatican website.

 

Amen!

 

Fr. Mitch does not like to speak re: any apparitions other than perhaps Fatima or Lourdes. He won't touch Medj with a ten foot pole for discussion. He is seen as a rather biased person re: such type phenomenon. Unfortunately he speaks to thinking individuals on such matters as if they were just children without their own background of information themselves. Mother Angelica had much more wisdom, intuition, and spiritual gifts as well as openness to that Spirit within that realm. And actually she was rewarded for such openness via her own healing...whether she had desired it or not!! I don't go for "pick your favorite cleric" when it comes to a more all encompassing discussion of the mystical. They all have their limitations as well as prejudices.

RE: clarification of ongoing dialogue with Vassula and thus how the Bishops are to continue:

Official letter to the Presidents of the Episcopal Conferences of
France, Switzerland, Uruguay, Philippines, Canada

CONGREGATIO PRO DOCTRINA FIDEI
10 July 2004

Prot N. 54/92-19631

Eminence/Excellence,



As you know, this Congregation published a Notification in 1995 on the writings of Mrs. Vassula Rydén. Afterwards, and at her request, a thorough dialogue followed. At the conclusion of this dialogue, a letter of Mrs. Rydén dated 4 April 2002 was subsequently published in the latest volume of "True Life in God", in which Mrs. Rydén supplies useful clarifications regarding her marital situation, as well as some difficulties which in the aforesaid Notification were suggested towards her writings and her participation in the sacraments (cf. Attachment).

Since the aforementioned writings have enjoyed a certain diffusion in your country, this Congregation has deemed it useful to inform you of the above. Concerning the participation in the ecumenical prayer groups organised by Mrs. Rydén, the Catholic faithful should be called to follow the dispositions of the Diocesan Bishops.

In communicating to you the above, I use the occasion to assure you of my lasting and profound esteem.



Yours Emminence's/Excellency's

Most Devout

(Signed)

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

(With attachment)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cover Letter:

CONGREGATIO PRO DOCTRINA FIDEI
10 July 2004

Prot N. 54/92-19631

Dear Mrs. Vassula Rydén,



With reference to the preoccupations expressed to this Congregation in your letter of the 4 June 2004, I take the opportunity to inform you that this Congregation has addressed to some Presidents of the Episcopal Conferences the letter of which I enclose a copy (see attached).

In informing you of the above and in union of prayer, I take the opportunity to send you my most respectful greetings.

Yours faithfully

(Signed)

P. Joseph Augustine Di Noia, O.P.
Under-Secretary

___________________________________________________

The dialogue between Vassula and the CDF was published in the latest editions of TLIG worldwide at the request of the CDF’s Prefect at that time, H.E. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now H.H. Pope Benedict XVI. The publication of this dialogue has resulted in a letter dated 10th July 2004 which is signed by Cardinal Ratzinger himself to a number of Presidents of Catholic Episcopal Conferences who had expressed particular concern on Vassula and her writings. His Holiness explained to them in his letter that the position of the CDF has been modified towards Vassula and her writings. Pope Benedict wishes that everyone reads the questions put to Vassula and her answers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
And from this representative letter of

Fr. Lars Messerschmidt
Vicar General of the Catholic Church in Denmark

.....There are abundant testimonies from different denominations and even from non-Christians indicating that people have come to a real and deep faith in Christ by reading and listening to Vassula. Jesus says that spiritual things are to be judged by their fruits. There can be no doubt that the fruits of Vassula's activities are good, but every one has to discern, whether she is one of Jesus Christ?s instruments today. On the basis of Cardinal Ratzinger's short letter it is now without the shadow of doubt that a Catholic with a clear conscience can consider Vassula as sent from God. Of course, everyone is free not to do so, but it is no-longer possible to posit dogmatic grounds to reject her. To judge spiritual things one needs to listen to one's heart. Freedom and respect for each other's opinions are imperative when dealing with apparitions and prophesies.

20.10.2004



Fr. Lars Messerschmidt
The Catholic Church in Denmark

 

Perhaps someone can explain your post here, but I dont really understand at all what you are saying. I have discussed this issue at length with Mark Mallett several years ago. He still holds this erroneous opinion unfortunately. The "can anyone show me" excuse as you call it is remarkable, since you seem not interested in proving this theory from an approved source.
What I have done is highlight very serious prblems with Fr Iannuzzi's research, and yet as is typical with adherents to this millenial idea, you appear totally uninterested in understadning the implications of this. I have spoken with Cardinals who worked for the CDF and professors of theology who work for the same department, and none have any time for this theory. One referred to the idea as "bonkers".

 

I'm sorry, Earth, I think we'll have to agree to disagree.There is no letter from Cardinal Ratzinger dated 2004 on the Vatican website. I went and read the Cardinal Levada letter of 2007. It seems pretty definitive.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...con_cfaith_doc_20070125_vassula-ryden_en.html

 

Earthtoangels,

Anyway, I will stop writing about Vassula on this thread -- wrong place.

 

Suppose you'll just have to find some way to alert Pope Emeritus that there is a fraudulent letter of his being officially used....and then copy to Gus DiNoia....then perhaps make sure that the recipient prelates discover that they've been wrong all these years, after permitting those meetings with Vassula, basing such allowances on that fraud, yet informative missive to them....well, for some 12 years now....and with them never finding out! By now you may just cause a rather exciting amount of chaos in all parts of the world. What fun! I'll get the popcorn.

I suppose we'll continue to disagree anyway...even if we don't agree to....ha!

 

So Peter, we have a theologian on the thread at the moment.Are you going to take the opportunity to discuss?
Or do you just feel safer talking to me?

 

Mark Mallett and I discussed this issue extensively with Stephen Walford a couple of years ago - as you will see if you use the forum search engine - and the positions on both sides have not changed. As I said earlier on this thread, I set out my own arguments against an uncritical acceptance of Augustinian eschatology in my introductory essay on questions of mystical phenomena and private revelation in Brian Nugent's book Marian Apparitions in Ireland (portions of which you can read on Google Books).

The problem is essentially one of epistemology: the baseline assumptions in terms of the way that sources (Scripture/Church Tradition/Private Revelation) are evaluated differ between those who follow Fr Iannuzzi's view and his opponents. We don't agree as to methodology, and because of this difference, the prospects of coming to an agreement are minimal. The two sides will most likely pursue their views to their logical conclusion, which in some respects is perfectly normal procedure, and my own sense is that it is best to leave it at that rather than going round in circles. Re-hashing the arguments at this stage is probably a waste of time when there are so many other urgent matters to attend to. Intellectual disagreements are a fact of life, of course; my hope is that they nonetheless remain respectful.

However, I will say this... In terms of private revelation, there is definitely at least one approved (and I mean approved in the strong sense, i.e. as being supernatural in origin, not just given a nihil obstat or imprimatur as not contrary to faith or morals) source that supports the Fr Iannuzzi/Mark Mallett eschatology - the apparitions in Itapiranga in the Amazon. There are a couple of hundred pages of purported locutions connected with the officially-approved (1994-1998) phase of these apparitions, which is a substantial body of material, but one relatively little-known for linguistic reasons. I will provide textual evidence to back up what I am saying as soon as I have translated the relevant material from the Portuguese original.

Ultimately it is coming events themselves which will decide... and given that everything indicates their magnitude and seriousness, I would not be at all surprised if they focus our minds sufficiently so as stop wasting precious time and energy on theological speculation.

 

True.

And also on false apparitions!

Praise God

 

Peter,
Of course if you are going to claim any approved revelation backs this up, it would have to be within the specified approved timeframe (within 1994 to 1998 not after -you will recall Rwanda where very specifically only 3 visionaries were approved) and also clear reference to the saints being resurrected first, a spiritual millenium of some description and some specific link to Rev 20.

 

Returning to the Vassula Ryden notification document of the CDF, it should be pointed out that Cardinal Ratzinger used the phrase "in millenarian style" when condemning the era of peace theory she had espoused. I think this is very important because he could have just refereed to a specific form of it like chiliasm -thus seperating it from legitimate interpretations of Rev 20, but the point is he didnt do that. By using the word "style" he ensured that all variants of Rev 20 that see a temporal future kingdom are ruled out. In the document there is no mention of any specific errors like Vassula claiming Jesus would return in the flesh, or like a child as in the Gianna Talone "revelations" that were also condemned. Ratzinger simply stated the idea that the Antichrist would come first and then God allow a "final glorious intervention" of "universal prosperity" is false. I think the problem I and many others have is that supporters of a millenium to come dont seem to be able to accept straight forward declarations that rule it out-and also dont seem to accept that those early Church Fathers were wrong. Where is there any wriggle room when St. John Paul says "as long as this world endures, history will always be the theatre of the clash between God and Satan, between good and evil, between grace and sin, between life and death." Or when Pope Benedict XVI describes St. Hildegard of Bingen's writings as " eminent both for its depth, the correctness of its interpretation",(cf. Apostolic Letter proclaiming her a Doctor of the Church) , and as we know according to God the Father's explanations to her we are already living in the seventh day and have been since the first Pentecost.

 

Earth,

Clearly Fr. Pacwa is not your favorite cleric! (I fail to see why you are bringing in Mother Angelica, whose healing did not come about through Vassula.)

You are conflating a status-report of sorts that Pope Benedict--then still Ratzinger-- wrote to a small number of bishops with an amendment or revocation of his earlier official Notification with its negative ruling. It is not a revocation; Benedict is an immensely clear and careful writer, and what he said in the letter is no more and no less. The bishops were particularly concerned; Benedict tells them there has been some dialogue with "clarifications" offered which are "useful."

Clarification is an important word, but it doesn't mean approval. (For example, FBI Director Comey recently offered a clarification on the status of the Hillary Clinton email issue. Comey clarified that it was an "investigation" not a" security review." That was useful information, don't you think?)

In the 2004 letter, Benedict doesn't say he accepts the clarifications and withdraws any previous criticism. He simply states he has received useful clarifications. He also says the faithful should follow the direction of their bishop. (The faithful should always follow their bishop. Seems boilerplate to me.)

Isn't it much more important that in 2007 the cardinal who succeeded Benedict reiterated that the original negative Notification was still in force? Since Benedict had become Pope, I would think Cardinal Levada, if he had any questions, would have run it by Benedict, but that's just me. The underlining of the validity of the original Notification happened under Benedict's 'administration,' by a highly placed official.

As for that Danish guy... I lived in Copenhagen last century. It is not a hotbed of Catholic orthodoxy, more like a German bishops kind of place. Next to Benedict/Levada, I would give the letter little weight.

Roma locuta; causa finita est.

 

I think the key phrase in the Vassula notification was "in millenarian style." Yes, Millenarianism is a heresy. But I think it would be a mistake to equate the Era of Peace with the the heresy of Millenarianism. The excerpt from the 1952 Teaching of the Catholic Church: A Summary of Church Doctrine makes it clear what is orthodox and what is heresy:

"Another form of illusion in this great matter of Christ's second advent has been much more universal, much more persistent, and is, in a way, more easily forgivable. This form of religious dreaming is even older than the Gospels; it is man's hope of the millennium. It has always been the faith of certain pious people, whom the iniquities of the world have afflicted in their souls, that there would be on this earth some day a very magnificent kingdom of God. With the advent of Christianity it was, of course, Christ who would be the King of that happy era of human sanctity. It is not easy to contradict people and prove them to be wrong if they profess a hope in some mighty triumph of Christ here on earth before the final consummation of all things. Such an occurrence is not excluded, is not impossible, it is not at all certain that there may not be a prolonged period of triumphant Christianity before the end. The point of division between the legitimate aspirations of devout souls and the aberrations of false millenarism is this: the Chiliasts - as believers in the millennium are called, from the Greek word for thousand - seem to expect a coming of Christ and a presence of him in glory and majesty on this earth which would not be the consummation of all tings but would still be a portion of the history of mankind. This is not consonant with Catholic dogma. The coming of Christ int he second Advent - the Parousia, as it is is called technically - in orthodox Christianity is the consummation of all things, the end of human history. If before that final end there is to be a period, more or less prolonged, of triumphant sanctity, such a result will be brought about, not by the apparition of the Person of Christ in Majesty but by the operation of those powers of sanctification which are now at work, the Holy Ghost and the Sacraments of the Church. The Chiliasts of all times and shades of opinion, and there are many to be found even today, seem to despair, not only of the world, but even of that dispensation of grace which was inaugurated at Pentecost; they expect from the visible presence of Christ a complete conversion of the world, as if such a happy result could not be otherwise brought about. They have still to learn the meaning of Christ's words to the Apostles: 'It is expedient to you that I go. For if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you: but if I go, I will send him to you.'

The Catholic Church has full confidence in the present order of supernatural life, and if she sighs for the return of her Christ it is not because she despairs of the work he has done, but because she desires to see that work made manifest to all men, that it may appear what wondrous things Christ accomplished for man before his Ascension into heaven."



Vonier, O.S.B, Abbot Anscar. "Death and Judgement." The Teaching of the Catholic Church: A Summary of Catholic Doctrine. Ed. Canon George D. Smith, D.D., Ph.D. Vol. 2. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1952. Print

The above excerpt make it crystal clear that an Era of Peace cannot be equated with the heresy of Millenarianism. Millenariansm requires the physical return of Christ in Glory prior to the Second Coming. The Era of Peace is simply the happy result of individuals and nations putting their faith into practice. Could a divine intervention like "the Warning" be the catalyst that ushers in the Era of Peace? It certainly is a possibility and is not contrary to the Church's teaching.

 

The Warning will separate the sheep from the goats so to speak. Then a period of adjustment. Then persecution/AC....purification.....Satan abolished for a time and Era of Peace.

 

Clearly Fr. Pacwa is not your favorite cleric! (I fail to see why you are bringing in Mother Angelica, whose healing did not come about through Vassula.)

Vassula is another private revelation lumped into the rest that Fr. Pacwa won't discuss in general...including Medj....while others in the Church have been doing so for decades....like everybody else is out of step but my Mitch! And Mother's healing came via her willingness to discuss many private revelations, open to them, as opposed to Pacwa's approach to such. Since his name came into the discussion pointedly re: Vassula, as if she was the only PR that he singled out or was negative towards, it was necessary, for clarity for the reader, to show that he would be negative in general on any PR of the day, including Medj.

RE: the point that it was only to a small group of Bishops that Ratzinger's letter was addressed...now then, where the Bishop is is the Church. Thus the reality now for more than a decade is that Vassula is permitted to hold ecumenical meetings in whatever dioceses throughout the world permit, of course BTW now many more than only those addressed in Ratzinger's definitive letter on the subject, and therefore (as the example of the Denmark Church demonstrates) that corrective letter is being relied upon for the other dioceses granting permission to her. That is the reality of the current Church's stance on such meetings. Equivocating changes nothing of this reality. I live in the Church's reality since I'm not holier than the Church.

 

Richard,
The mistake actually is seeing millenariaism in such a limited form. Look at Pope Benedict XVI's press conference on the plane to Brazil from 2007 where he states liberation theology is a form of millenarianism-because as he said- it promised the conditions for a just life immediately. Theologically speaking therefore, the Church says not unti the Lord returns at the end of the world will these conditions come about for all. Until then the battle between good and evil will remain-in fact get worse as we have seen the past century. On the point you quote from Abbot Vonier, where does he mention an era of peace exactly? It would twisting his words massively to suggest he is advocating a spiritual millenium. All he is saying is that in the future it is possible that evangelization could with the blessing of the Holy Spirit yeild wonderful results-as can be seen since he wrote this years ago in the missionary activity in Africa. That is what he is saying nothing more.

 

I don't think Abbot Vonier is alluding to missionary activity in Africa, Stephen.

I think he is alluding not to something that is now present and ongoing (missionary activity) but to some future event, one that is unexpected yet perfectly capable of being achieved with the help of "the operation of those powers of sanctification which are now at work."

Vonier uses the phrases "triumphant Christianity" and "a period, more or less prolonged" as well as "triumphant sanctity." These phrases immediately reminded me of Our Lady of Fatima's promise of a "period of peace" and of the coming "Triumph" of Her Immaculate Heart. This is clearly some extraordinary event, yet one which is fully achievable with the ordinary operation of Grace.

 

An extraordinary intervention like the Warning would also answer a question I have often wondered about: what leads to the final loosening of evil and how is the Antichrist permitted to exercise diabolical miracles?

If a public, supernatural event like the Warning occurs - God lifting the veil in the interests of Mercy - then I can see how the veil that currently restrains Satan will also be loosened. A similar parallel occured in the Old Testament when Moses confronted Pharaoh with miraculous signs and wonders: the diabolical activity of Pharaoh's magicians increased accordingly.