Divine Will revisited.

Abott Vonier clearly says that a period of Triumphant Christianity "more or less prolonged" is possible before the Second Coming. The 1995 notification says that an era of peace AND universal prosperity is not possible. Perhaps the problem is in defining what exactly is meant by "peace." I don't think Abbot Vonier and Cardinal Levada have the same notion in mind.

 

My answer: Faustina, and the Day of the Lord.

 

Please answer the question i just put to you

 

Mark,
I am off to bed, but I hope in the morning to see your answer is yes, I accept 100% that the Church teaches with the full authority of the Catechsim of the Catholic Church that the Antichrist St.Paul spoke of only comes at the end of the world, forming the final persecution that gives way to the last judgment, therefore to place his coming before a temporal era is not only wrong but putting oneself above the teaching authority of Holy Mother Church.
I look forward to seeing hopefully your full obedience to what is written in the catechism.

 

As we heard, in recent Church readings "there are many gifts, but one Spirit". Seems to me that one of the main gifts and responsibilities given by God to his popes is to teach (faith & morals), govern and sanctify. I for one, do not look to our Pope's or early church writers (like Augustine )to have all the answers, especially as it pertains to prophecy (God revealing his plans throughout history). Perhaps this is why the Holy Spirit reveals through prophets/messengers (Amos 3:7 "for surely the Lord God does nothing without revealing his plan to his prophets his messengers)" in lieu of clergy, theologians and the learned. One of the hindrances I see today is, to many are only interested in reading what Pope's, councils and 'approved apparitions' are saying as it pertains to future events, while scripture and tradition surely do not exclude private prophecy to help guide us along the way, especially in the end-times, which Jesus spoke of in Matthew 24. Yes, test prophecy, but retain what is good. There is simply to much prophecy today that is saying the same thing, to which the Church is silent/waiting on. My observation is, He reveals to the simple of heart what he keeps from the learned. Head knowledge is not a virtue. He will confound the wise and speak through those with simple hearts. Don't get me wrong, being learned is not a bad thing, but it can lead to pride and lack of docility in the understanding of His ways. For instance, I look at Father Charles Arminjon, author of The End of the Present World, (which St. Teresa of Lisieux said "reading this book was one of the greatest graces of my life"), as being a very learned/humble mind and he was surely open to and supported the idea of man continuing on well after the antichrist in a new era of peace. I'm just say'n, keep ones heart open, because God has many surprises coming, so don't be a hardened heart and miss what God is cluing us in on in today's world.

 

The Catechism states:

Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh. n. 675​

The Catechism says nothing other than "before Christ's coming," which could mean anytime between the Ascension and His coming. But the real question is "who is the antichrist?" Affirming that "the hour" of the coming of antichrist began after the Ascension, St. John continues:

Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that the antichrist was coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. (1 John 2:18)​

Pope Benedict affirmed this teaching of St. John:

As far as the antichrist is concerned, we have seen that in the New Testament he always assumes the lineaments of contemporary history. He cannot be restricted to any single individual. One and the same he wears many masks in each generation. —Cardinal Ratzinger (POPE BENEDICT XVI), Dogmatic Theology, Eschatology 9, Johann Auer and Joseph Ratzinger, 1988, p. 199-200​

Therefore, how fitting that it was also St. John who describes the manifestation of two end-time antichrists: the "beast and the false prophet" and "Gog and Magog". There is no question that these are separate manifestations, because when Gog and Magog and Satan are cast into the lake of fire, St. John notes that they are damned to "where the beast and the false prophet were." (Rev 20:10)

Finally, avoiding any personal interpretation on my part, I defer to Sacred Tradition which affirms the appearance of an antichrist both before and after the "thousand year" "sabbath rest":

At the end of the six thousandth year all wickedness must be abolished from the earth, and righteousness reign for a thousand years; and there must be tranquillity and rest from the labours which the world now has long endured. —Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius (250-317 A.D.; Ecclesiastical writer), The Divine Institutes, Vol 7, Ch. 14

Scripture says: ‘And God rested upon the seventh day from all His works’… And in six days created things were completed; it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year… But when The Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from Heaven in the clouds… sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom, that is, the rest, the hallowed seventh day… These are to take place in the times of the kingdom, that is, upon the seventh day… the true Sabbath of the righteous. —St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Church Father (140–202 A.D.); Adversus Haereses, Irenaeus of Lyons, V.33.3.4, The Fathers of the Church, CIMA Publishing Co.

‘And He rested on the seventh day.’ This means: when His Son will come and destroy the time of the lawless one and judge the godless, and change the sun and the moon and the stars—then He shall indeed rest on the Seventh day… —Letter of Barnabas, written by a second century Apostolic Father

But He, when He shall have destroyed unrighteousness, and executed His great judgment, and shall have recalled to life the righteous, who have lived from the beginning, will be engaged among men a thousand years, and will rule them with most just command. —Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius (250-317 A.D.; Ecclesiastical writer), The Divine Institutes, Vol 7, Ch. 24

…when His Son will come and destroy the time of the lawless one and judge the godless, and change the sun and the moon and the stars—then He shall indeed rest on the seventh day… after giving rest to all things, I will make the beginning of the eighth day, that is, the beginning of another world. —Letter of Barnabas (70-79 A.D.), written by a second century Apostolic Father​

In this regard, the Church Fathers see the "lawless one" as appearing before the Era of Peace. Citing the "authoritative" view of the Church in his time 150 years ago, Fr. Charles Arminjon—whose book St. Therese de Lisieux said was "one of the greatest graces" of her life—writes:

St. Thomas and St. John Chrysostom explain the words quem Dominus Jesus destruet illustratione adventus sui (“whom the Lord Jesus will destroy with the brightness of His coming”) in the sense that Christ will strike the Antichrist by dazzling him with a brightness that will be like an omen and sign of His Second Coming… The most authoritative view, and the one that appears to be most in harmony with Holy Scripture, is that, after the fall of the Antichrist, the Catholic Church will once again enter upon a period of prosperity and triumph. —The End of the Present World and the Mysteries of the Future Life, Fr. Charles Arminjon (1824-1885), p. 56-57; Sophia Institute Press
​

 

This is stated with a childlike heart, and thus, a wisdom from beyond. I totally agree.

 

Warm greetings Josephite!

Thanks for your question. This is what Pope Pius XI said regarding this "restoration" of the world:

“And they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.” May God… shortly bring to fulfillment His prophecy for transforming this consoling vision of the future into a present reality… It is God’s task to bring about this happy hour and to make it known to all… When it does arrive, it will turn out to be a solemn hour, one big with consequences not only for the restoration of the Kingdom of Christ, but for the pacification of… the world. We pray most fervently, and ask others likewise to pray for this much-desired pacification of society. —POPE PIUS XI, Ubi Arcani dei Consilioi “On the Peace of Christ in his Kingdom”, December 23, 1922​

Jesus prayed that we would all be one. The Scriptures testify that, "a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved." (Rom 11:15) Thus, the Catechism teaches:

The glorious Messiah's coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by "all Israel", for "a hardening has come upon part of Israel" in their "unbelief" toward Jesus. n. 674​

The Scriptures do not say that the whole world will be converted. Only this:

And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the world as a witness to all nations, and then the end will come. (Matt 24:14)​

Free will, and thus the possibility of sin, and thus suffering, will remain until the end of the world. As the third millennium approached, John Paul II warned that we should avoid the temptation to "indulge in a new millenarianism" that would eliminate sin and suffering before the end of the world...

Human life will continue, people will continue to learn about successes and failures, moments of glory and stages of decay, and Christ our Lord always will, until the end of time, be the only source of salvation. —POPE JOHN PAUL II, National Conference of Bishops, January 29th, 1996;www.vatican.va

For the Lord told us that the Church would constantly be suffering, in different ways, until the end of the world. —POPE BENEDICT XVI, Interview with Journalists on flight to Portugal, May 11th, 2010​

And yet, John Paul II emphasized a coming...

…“new and divine” holiness with which the Holy Spirit wishes to enrich Christians at the dawn of the third millennium, in order to make Christ the heart of the world.—POPE JOHN PAUL II, L’Osservatore Romano, English Edition, July 9th, 1997​

So, like his predecessors, Pope Benedict continued to pray for a "new Pentecost":

We humbly implore the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, that He may “graciously grant to the Church the gifts of unity and peace,” and may renew the face of the earth by a fresh outpouring of His charity for the salvation of all. —POPE BENEDICT XV, Pacem Dei Munus Pulcherrimum, May 23rd, 1920​

So, what we are speaking of here is not a mitigated form of millenarianism—a kind of Disneyland before Heaven. Rather, it is the Vindication of Wisdom and the final preparation of the Bride of Christ before the end of time. As we hear in Revelation, there is most definitely a time of preparation for the Wedding Feast of the Lamb.

For the wedding day of the Lamb has come, his bride has made herself ready. (Rev 19:7)​

No, a new heavens and earth follow the resurrection of the dead and the Final Judgment.

 

Richard has answered you perfectly. However, from my own blog...

Q. Didn’t the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith say that the “era of peace” is millenarianism when it posted its Notification on Vassula Ryden’s writings?

I have decided to answer this question here since some are using this Notification to draw flawed conclusions regarding the notion of an “era of peace.” The answer to this question is as interesting as it is convoluted.

Vassula Ryden is a Greek Orthodox woman whose writings, “True Life in God,” exploded on the scene as “prophetic revelations,” especially in the 1980’s. In 1995, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), after reviewing her works, posted a Notification that…

…brought out—in addition to positive aspects—a number of basic elements that must be considered negative in the light of Catholic doctrine. —from Notification on the Writings and Activities of Mrs. Vassula Ryden, www.vatican.va​

Among their concerns, the Congregation noted:

These alleged revelations predict an imminent period when the Antichrist will prevail in the Church. In millenarian style, it is prophesied that God is going to make a final glorious intervention which will initiate on earth, even before Christ’s definitive coming, an era of peace and universal prosperity. —Ibid.​

The Congregation does not specify which passages of Vassula’s writings tend toward “millenarian style.” However, the CDF invited her to respond to five questions based on this Notification, and offer any clarifications on her writings. This seemed in the spirit of Pope Benedict XIV (1675-1758), whose treatise, On Heroic Virtue, has been used as a guideline in the beatification and canonization process in the Church.

Such occasional occurrences of flawed prophetic habit should not lead to the condemnation of the entire body of the supernatural knowledge communicated by the prophet, if it is properly discerned to constitute authentic prophecy. Nor, in cases of the examination of such individuals for beatification or canonization, should their cases be dismissed, according to Benedict XIV, as long as the individual humbly acknowledges his error when it is brought to his attention. —Dr. Mark Miravalle, Private Revelation: Discerning With the Church, p. 21

Vassula’s answers, including her response on the “era of peace,” were submitted through Fr. Prospero Grech, renowned professor of Biblical theology at the Pontifical Institute Augustinianum. He was commissioned by Cardinal Ratzinger, then Prefect of the CDF, to put the five questions to the alleged seer. On reviewing her answers, Fr. Prospero called them “excellent.” More significantly, Cardinal Ratzinger himself, in a personal exchange with theologian Niels Christian Hvidt who has carefully documented the followup between the CDF and Vassula and initiated the meetings with her, said to Hvidt after Mass one day: “Ah, Vassula has replied very well!” [1]

In perhaps a unique insight into the politics of the Vatican, Hvidt was told by those in the heart of the CDF that “The millstones grind slowly in the Vatican.” Hinting at internal divisions, Cardinal Ratzinger later relayed to Hvidt that He ‘would like to see a new Notification’ but that he had to “obey the cardinals.” [2]

It was confirmed in May of 2004 that a new Notification would not be forthcoming and that, rather, the positive response to Vassula’s clarifications would be “kept low-key.” That response was sent out by Fr. Josef Augustine Di Noia, undersecretary to the CDF. In a letter to a number of Bishops’ Conferences, it said:

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 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… Since the aforementioned writings have enjoyed a certain diffusion in your country, this Congregation has deemed it useful to inform you of the above. — July 10th, 200, www.cdf-tlig.org​

When asked in a subsequent meeting with Vassula on November 22nd, 2004, if the 1995 Notification is still valid, Cardinal Ratzinger responded:

Well, we would say that there have been modifications in the sense that we have written to the interested bishops that one should now read the Notification in the context of your preface and with the new comments that you have made.” —Ibid.
​

This was confirmed in a new letter from the Prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Levada, who wrote:

The Notification of 1995 remains valid as a doctrinal judgment of the writings examined.

​

Mrs Vassula Ryden, however, after dialogue with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has offered clarifications on some problematic points in her writings and on the nature of her messages which are presented not as divine revelations, but rather as her personal meditations. From a normative point of view therefore, following the aforementioned clarifications, a case by case prudential judgment is required in view of the real possibility of the faithful being able to read the writings in the light of the said clarifications. —Letter to the Presidents of the Episcopal Conference, William Cardinal Levada, January 25th, 2007

​

From the above dialogues and letters, four conclusions can be drawn.

​

I. The Notification is in reference to Vassula Ryden’s writings and herown particular presentation of an “era of peace” among other aspects of her writings and activities. Those who claim the Notification is a carte blanche rejection of all doctrines pertaining to an “era of peace” have made an erroneous extrapolation, and in the process, created their own set of contradictions. [3] For one, to suggest that any concept of an era of peace is now rejected wholesale by Rome conflicts with the approved apparition of Our Lady of Fatima who promised a “period of peace,” not to mention the Pope’s own theologian:

​

Yes, a miracle was promised at Fatima, the greatest miracle in the history of the world, second only to the Resurrection. And that miracle will be an era of peace which has never really been granted before to the world. —Mario Luigi Cardinal Ciappi, papal theologian for Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II, October 9th, 1994, The Apostolate’s Family Catechism, p. 35

​

Most notably, such faulty conclusions contradict Cardinal Ratzinger’s clear statement regarding the possibility of a “new era of Christian life” in the Church: [4]

​

The question is still open to free discussion, as the Holy See has not made any definitive pronouncement in this regard. —Il Segno del Soprannauturale, Udine, Italia, n. 30, p. 10, Ott. 1990; Fr. Martino Penasa presented this question of a “millenary reign” to Cardinal Ratzinger

​

II. Both renowned theologian, Fr. Prospero Grech, and the Prefect for the CDF, Cardinal Ratzinger, confirmed that Vassula’s theological clarifications were “excellent.” (I have read her clarifications on this as well, and they properly explain the era in terms of an interior sanctification of the Church through the power of the Holy Spirit or a “New Pentecost,” not the reign of Jesus in the flesh on earth or some kind of false utopia.) However, Cardinal Ratzinger admitted that the Congregation itself was divided, which prevented any changes to the Notification.

​

III. The Notification on her writings, though still in effect, has been modified to the extent that Vassula’s writings can now be read under the prudential “case by case” judgment of the Bishops along with the clarifications she has provided (and which are published in subsequent volumes). Cardinal Levada said this provision was made "in the light of the said clarifications."

​

IV. The CDF’s original statement that “These alleged revelations predict an imminent period when the Antichrist will prevail in the Church” should be understood as a contextual statement as opposed to a condemnation of the possibility of the proximity of Antichrist. For in an Encyclical of Pope Pius X, he predicted the very same thing:

​

…there may be already in the world the “Son of Perdition” of whom the Apostle speaks. —POPE ST. PIUS X, E Supremi, Encyclical On the Restoration of All Things in Christ, n. 3, 5; October 4th, 1903

​

 

Well then, let's let Pope Benedict interpret himself so no one can be accused of "twisting and manipulating" anymore.

I said the “triumph” will draw closer. This is equivalent in meaning to our praying for the coming of God’s Kingdom. This statement was not intended—I may be too rationalistic for that—to express any expectation on my part that there is going to be a huge turnaround and that history will suddenly take a totally different course. The point was rather that the power of evil is restrained again and again, that again and again the power of God himself is shown in the Mother’s power and keeps it alive. The Church is always called upon to do what God asked of Abraham, which is to see to it that there are enough righteous men to repress evil and destruction. I understood my words as a prayer that the energies of the good might regain their vigor. So you could say the triumph of God, the triumph of Mary, are quiet, they are real nonetheless. —POPE BENEDICT XVI, Light of the World, p. 166, A Conversation With Peter Seewald​

What does he mean by "the coming of the Kingdom?"

…every day in the prayer of the Our Father we ask the Lord: “Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt 6:10)…. we recognize that “heaven” is where the will of God is done, and that “earth” becomes “heaven”—i.e., the place of the presence of love, of goodness, of truth and of divine beauty—only if on earth the will of God is done. —POPE BENEDICT XVI, General Audience, February 1st, 2012, Vatican City
​

So, using the Pope's own words, he sees that "praying for the coming of the Kingdom" is the equivalent of seeing "the power of evil... restrained again" and "that the energies of the good might regain their vigor" such that "“earth” becomes “heaven”—i.e., the place of the presence of love, of goodness, of truth and of divine beauty—only if on earth the will of God is done." One need not twist or manipulate anything to see that this "restraining and reigning" vision of Benedict sounds an awful lot like Revelation 20:

...he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years... They came to life, and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (20:3-4)​

Furthermore, this vision of the fulfilment of the Our Father is precisely what the contemporary mystics like Bélanger, Robin, Piccarreta, Gobbi, Fr. Adam, St. Hannibal, Concepcion Cabrera de Armida, etc. are saying, and what John Paul II also foresaw as the substance and essence of the new millennium:

Young people of the new millennium… In this way you will find that only by following God’s will can we be the light of the world and the salt of the earth! This sublime and demanding reality can only be grasped and lived in a spirit of constant prayer. This is the secret, if we are to enter into and dwell in God’s will. —POPE JOHN PAUL II, To the Youth of Rome, March 21, 2002; www.vatican.va
​

Personally, I think this is precisely what Jesus meant when said,

And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, as a testimony to all nations; and then the end will come. (Matt 24:14)
​

For there is no greater testimony than to live in God's will, which Jesus defined as the essence of love and union with God:

If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and remain in his love. (John 15:5)​

It is this essence which is, and will be, the greatest witness to the nations:

By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)​

And then... the end will come.

 

Thank you Mark,

So there will indeed be suffering before the second coming of Christ.

The "new Pentecost" will be worked through the Church so that, He the Holy Spirit, may renew the face of the earth by a fresh outpouring of His charity.

I don't know whether you see the following the same as I do, but this is how I see this "fresh outpouring of The Holy Spirit"

I believe this will occur simultaneously for and within the Church at the very same time that the antichrist appears.

Romans 5:20
20 The law was given so that the trespass world increase: but where sin increases, Grace increases all the more


This tumultuous time will see the Bride of Christ 'The Church', washed clean for the wedding day of the Lamb and by being purified, 'the Church, Our Lords bride', will trully have been made ready.

 

Yes, to everything you wrote in those three posts, Peter, yes, yes, yes. This is precisely the paradigm from which Iannuzzi and others are working, which indeed is exposing the limitations in the Augustinian model. What you are offering here is a gift: deeper theological reflection, which in this context is the definition of epistemology: the separation of justified belief from opinion.

This has constantly been my approach, hence, the reason I frequently quote authoritative sources. (Who cares about my opinion, really?)

Onward Peter.

 

Yes,

Yes, I do see these in proximation of each other—the outpouring of grace, "the flame of love", etc. culminating in a New Pentecost. My two cents.

 

Stephen,
Having read your latest post, I am going to have to be direct with you, I'm afraid, for reasons that have nothing to do with the position you hold (to which you have a perfect right), but everything to do with the kind of language that has been seen on this thread.

The wording of the expressions 'try to lead astray' and 'your attitude and those other peddlars of this doctrinal error' constitutes a direct accusation of heterodoxy against Mark which is not acceptable language on a public forum. Furthermore, you know full well that several of us here are in fundamental disagreement with the way in which you interpret the documents on which your arguments are based and consider your process of reasoning logically flawed, not consistent with generally accepted norms of theological method. You are speaking for yourself and the views you express carry the weight of private opinion, nothing more. An acknowledgement of this is essential for the continuation of the present discussion. You are not a representative of the Magisterium and do not have the right to make judgments of the type that you are making, neither against Mark, nor still less against Fr Iannuzzi who is a priest, exorcist and professional theologian of considerable standing. Indirectly, your accusation of heterodoxy is also targeted against the leadership of the MMP - an organization counting tens of thousands of clergy at the very least - who quote Fr Iannuzzi in their interpretation of Don Stefano Gobbi's alleged locutions, and indeed against Don Gobbi himself given his own published interpretation (why your view should be considered more authoritative than theirs is unclear).

If you modify the post above, I will also remove this present post. If you do not, I will call on the moderator (whom I am notifying about this) to remove it.

 

I didn't state that St. Augustine's teachings on the Millennium provided the only working basis for the development of Church doctrine. Merely that it directly influenced the development of at least one Catholic doctrine, that of the particular judgment, which most certainly is dogmatic. We cannot uphold this doctrine if we reject St. Augustine's amillennialist teaching on the first resurrection in Rev 20, cited in City of God XX:6 which I quoted above.

You seem to have misunderstood me on the Catholic doctrine of the particular judgment, which teaches in the immediate resurrection of the soul after death (the first resurrection described in Rev 20:4-6), which Christ won for the world through His Sacrifice on the Cross, and which has been taking place since His Glorious Resurrection. This first resurrection is not a mystery, it is a clear teaching of the Church. I'll post the relevant material from the Catholic Encyclopaedia below, but I would suggest reading all of it.

 

Dogma of particular judgment
The Catholic doctrine of the particular judgment is this: that immediately after death the eternal destiny of each separated soul is decided by the just judgment of God. Although there has been no formal definition on this point, the dogma is clearly implied in the Union Decree of Eugene IV (1439), which declares that souls leaving their bodies in a state of grace, but in need of purification are cleansed in Purgatory, whereas souls that are perfectly pure are at once admitted to the beatific vision of the Godhead (ipsum Deum unum et trinum) and those who depart in actual mortal sin, or merely with original sin, are at once consigned to eternal punishment, the quality of which corresponds to their sin (paenis tamen disparibus). The doctrine is also in the profession of faith of Michael Palaeologus in 1274, in the Bull "Benedictus Deus" of Benedict XII, in 1336, and in the professions of faith of Gregory XIII and Benedict XIV.
Existence of particular judgment proved from Scripture
Ecclesiastes 11:9; 12:1 sq.; and Hebrews 9:27, are sometimes quoted in proof of the particular judgment, but though these passages speak of a judgment after death, neither the context nor the force of the words proves that the sacred writer had in mind a judgment distinct from that at the end of the world. The Scriptural arguments in defence of the particular judgment must be indirect. There is no text of which we can certainly say that it expressly affirms this dogma but there are several which teach an immediate retribution after death and thereby clearly imply a particular judgment. Christ represents Lazarus and Dives as receiving their respective rewards immediately after death. They have always been regarded as types of the just man and the sinner. To the penitent thief it was promised that his soul instantly on leaving the body would be in the state of the blessed: "This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43). St. Paul (2 Corinthians 5) longs to be absent from the body that he may be present to the Lord, evidently understanding death to be the entrance into his reward (cf. Philemon 1:21 sq.). Ecclesiasticus 11:28-29 speaks of a retribution at the hour of death, but it may refer to a temporal punishment, such as sudden death in the midst of prosperity, the evil remembrance that survives the wicked or the misfortunes of their children. However, the other texts that have been quoted are sufficient to establish the strict conformity of the doctrine with Scripture teaching. (Cf. Acts 1:25; Apocalypse 20:4-6, 12-14)
Patristic testimony regarding particular judgment
St. Augustine witnesses clearly and emphatically to this faith of the early Church. Writing to the presbyter Peter, he criticizes the works of Vincentius Victor on the soul, pointing out that they contain nothing except what is vain or erroneous or mere commonplace, familiar to all Catholics. As an instance of the last, he cites Victor's interpretation of the parable of Lazarus and Dives. He writes:
For with respect to that which he (Victor] most correctly and very soundly holds, namely, that souls are judged when they depart from the body, before they come to that judgment which must be passed on them when reunited to the body and are tormented or glorified in that same flesh which they here inhabited — was that a matter of which you (Peter) were unaware? Who is so obstinate against the Gospel as not to perceive those things in the parable of that poor man carried after death to Abraham's bosom and of the rich man whose torments are set before us? (De anima et ejus origine, 11, n.8.)

In the sermons of the Fathers occur graphic descriptions of the particular judgment (cf. S. Ephraem, "Sermo de secundo Adventu"; "Sermo in eos qui in Christo obdormiunt").
Heresies
Lactantius is one of the few Catholic writers who disputed this doctrine (Divine Institutes VII:21). Among heretics the particular judgment was denied by Tatian and Vigilantius. The Hypnopsychites and the Thnetopsychites believed that at death the soul passed away, according to the former into a state of unconsciousness, according to the latter into temporary destruction. They believed that souls would arise at the resurrection of the body for judgment. This theory of "soul slumber" was defended by the Nestorians and Copts, and later by the Anabaptists, Socinians, and Arminians. Calvin (Inst. III, 25) holds that the final destiny is not decided till the last day.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08550a.htm

 

Stephen you are being unnecessarily aggressive and belligerent in your posts. Be warned.

Kick the ball, not the players

 

Stephen, I think Hitler and Stalin and Mao in more recent times would be of the type to give us insight as to what the anti-Christ would be like, they were just forerunners.

I think that after the Illumination/Warning, in reality not everyone will convert. But, that is when an anti-Christ type tyrant will be welcomed by mostly everyone. At first he will seem to have all the answers. And if we live to see this man, it wont be long before he starts to purge the earth of Christians. It will feel like the end of the world. But I think this will just be part of the Chastisement we hear about if people do not repent in sufficient number.

I don't think THE final anti-Christ will appear until Armageddon. Now we are in the Apocalypse, or unveiling.

 

When people resort to threats, you know they have lost the argument. I have never once presented my own opinion, but simply let papal/official quotes speak for themselves. It is a dogma of the faith (Pope Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus) that all of humanity will rise in glory or damnation together at the last day: "Nevertheless, on the day of judgment all men will appear with their bodies "before the judgment seat of Christ." No pope or council has ever suggested that judgment is split into two halves seperated by a symbolic millenium. I stand by everything I have said in the knowledge that discussions with cardinals and proffesors of theology who work for the congregation of the doctrine of faith have told me independently of each other that the Church accepts no millenial idead.period. I explained Fr Iannuzzi's thesis and the answer was no.
I am sorry if anyone here has trouble accepting that, i really do, but that is a matter for them and God. We have a duty as catholics to profess what the Church clearly teaches and obey decisions made under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I couldnt care less about my own opinions and nobody else should either, we listen to the Pope and those charged by him to explain certain aspects of the faith.

 

In the book GSWYL, which I feel is one of the best 'alleged' set me messages from our Lord for our times, makes quite clear that after the Warning all will know absolute truth. The only choices then that follow is either Christ or antichrist, the one true Church or the antichurch, since there will no longer be any middle ground. This makes way for the antichrist to execute his flawed plans, since God's plan is to win ultimate victory through his mother and his mothers remnant over him and his followers who rejected the grace of the Warning. This victory will surely usher in the new era of peace that our Lady of Fatima spoke of. Once the Warning takes place, many of other faiths will convert, but they will need to be catechized within the faith and this is what will be so important for those who have listened to God's prophecy/messages in our moment. I don't think we have a whole lot more time left before this moment, as even Catholics have lost their faith in massive numbers and many who still remain within the Church are clueless as to what heaven has been revealing in the past many years.