Prophesy - GSWYL

I ap

I appreciate the prayers. And I respect the zeal you have for these messages and the man who receives them. He is blessed to who have you for a friend. My own history is such that I am exceedingly careful where private revelation is concerned. I simply don’t trust myself to discern. For myself I am content to be guided by the Church. The example I gave to Gracia simply adds to her observations that Protestants can talk themselves into anything.

 

I think debate and dialog on any subject of the faith is beneficial for the faithful. All of us baptized and confirmed have been given gifts from God to understand and there is great confusion, because of the devil, in what God truly desires us to know. All we need for salvation has already been given, but God continues until the end of time to enlighten his faithful more fully on the details of his truth. One way he does this is through prophecy. Prophecy that does not contradict what the Church has clearly defined, but rather prophecy that has not been settled as official church teaching. This is what I believe we are called to open our minds and hearts to. One does not need to run to a bishop for an imprimatur every time a book is written, a some would suggest. There are many mysteries that the Church has not spoken definitively on. These we can and should, I believe, speak to in order to help prepare ourselves and others for.

For instance, some Catholics are still stuck on the outdated thinking that Jesus only returns at the end of time to separate his sheep from goats at the general judgement. The Protestant heresy, believes Jesus returns in the flesh to dwell on earth with the believers after a tribulation (called millenarianism). Both of these are wrong. The Church clearly teaches these are wrong. Yet the Church leaves open for believers to discern, using scripture and church teaching to hear what God wants us to understand through the light of the Holy Spirit and through prophecy that does not reject the established mind of the Church and the word of scripture. This is how and why I can support the book God Speaks Will You Listen. Yes, there is some things in there the Church has not defined, but they are not opposed to the mind of the Church or scripture and they help, as Father Albert Roux (former head of the MMP) said: "I did not learn anything new from God's messages to Verne. I have read many messages from other locutionists and prophets from various countries. What I found however, is that the messages to Verne present a pretty good summary of the many other messages. Also, I noticed that messages in question do not present a time table as such, but some kind of sequence or order of the many catastrophes and events to come that is not necessarily found in other recipients of messages. That was quite interesting. I have not discovered anything that contradicted the teachings of the Church or the Holy Scriptures".

Now Father Roux has not provided an imprimatur, as they are reserved for bishops. What he does provide is a learned understanding of messages and scripture, which he has read throughout the world for many years and found nothing in Verne's messages opposed to scripture or church teachings and nor has anyone on this forum since I started posting his messages. This is reaffirmation to me and I continue to post, because I believe God wants these messages in the book GSWYL to be known. What I do know is Satan hates them and did everything he could to keep them from going to the printers for the 20,000 books Cletus paid for and handed out free of charge.

 

Ha! That is actually funny. The ironic part is, that the near unanimous thinking of the Church fathers from the 3rd century, starting with Augustine, says otherwise. You have to go back to the first 2 centuries to find church fathers that believe as to suggest. This is development of doctrine, there was a debate, Saints since the third century starting with St. Augustine state otherwise. And today 2000 years later we have the answer in our CCC.

How much clearer does it have to get?

The CCC asks the question when, and the answer is the end of the world.

Next you will be trying to convince us all that 2+2 can equal 5 in some circumsrances... because the equation 2+2=4 doesn't specify that 4 is the only answer.

Doctrine is being developed the opposite way you are saying it is being developed.

The church teaches that the first resurrection is Christ's and the 1000 years is the time we live now. How is it you can appoint yourself arbitrator of what is symbolic in the book of Revelations and what is not? How is it that many saints that prophesied speak otherwise?

Funny also how you bring up Fr. Gobbi. He had a timeline of 10 years in his messages. It seems Verne had one of less than 5. This was in 2007. You know of it I'm sure, it is in the message about the glorified bodies you keep posting. But ironically enough you cut it out of the quote. Verne's messages speak of the time being our own human time too, so spare the twisting that usually happens i.e. Charlie Johnston.

I have more to say about this, but it's the weekend and family time. I'll revisit on Monday.

 

I agree with Frodo, I just don't get why people argue that a very simple, straightforward-speaking sentence from the Catechism should be reinterpreted. I am sure the theologians who wrote the Catechism, and the bishops/cardinals who reviewed it, considered what Revelations said about the Resurrection, and about different interpretations of the passages Fatima/earthtoangeles posted, and then decided to write what they wrote "definitively".

It is also an issue, I think, to insist that if someone had problems publishing it must have been because Satan didn't want the book published. You cannot know that for a fact. It makes life more dramatic if many problems are a result of Satan, but mostly problems are just problems!

Also, saying one self-proclaimed "prophet" agrees with other self-proclaimed "prophets" does not mean they are all right. Maybe they have influenced each other, consciously or not. It is not a "consensus" of the Faithful!

 

Once again, you speak what you do not know. From Father Joseph Iannuzzi's book, The Triumph of God's Kingdom in The Millennium and End Times with IMPRIMI POTEST on 3/8/99 say's the following: "Indeed, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Prefect of Sacred Doctrine of Faith, made a note worthy pronouncement in recognizing that the issue of an age to come before the final return of Christ is not yet concluded. A few years ago, Fr. Martino Penasa, an eminent theologian, presented this eschatological matter of Christ's millenary reign (not millenarianism) to the Cardinal, who reassured him that the matter is still open to discussion: [the Holy See has not yet made any definitive pronouncement in this regard]. The Holy See has never condemned the Apostolic Fathers' Tradition in this regard".
How much clearer does it have to get? Next you will be trying to convince us that 1+1 is 20.

 

Christi, you should be speaking to your errors that earthtoangels laid out for you from your last post. Can't you tell her that she was right and you didn't do your homework before commenting on what you did not know?

 

No comparison in the above choices for references of those who actually fully delved into and interpreted the two bodily resurrections.

St. Irenaeus, only one quoted above on this question (outside of the evangelists themselves), speaks to the evidence in scripture itself while Augustine only speculated upon the ideas of resurrections around two hundred years later. Augustine speaks solely of his theory of meaning re: a first "resurrection" of man in his soul...one of the soul's (not two bodily resurrections) death into life via the new teachings and acceptance of the Christ. He does not touch, in this regard at least, upon the "1000" year period or interim period of sanctified existence upon this earth, after it is renewed by the Holy Spirit. That is the period that is addressed by Verne's given message that verifies what scriptures and what this particular early Church Father, St. Irenaeus, among others, speaks to. Don't please mix apples with oranges here in order to disqualify what the Church Herself accepts. There was a period of around 200 years between these two theologians....Augustine considered to be also more of a philosopher.

Irenaeus was much closer then to the actual oral history passed down by the Apostles themselves and what they actually meant from their own witness. Around 130 AD vs Augustine's 200 year later mention of a "type" of "resurrection" of the soul of the man which can arise, during this life, in the original defective body from its former death into life due to Christ. Irenaeus though is recognized for the very development itself of Christian theology early on and had to combat heresy which naturally included defining what is orthodoxy. He came from Turkey, and he had heard the preaching of St. Polycarp, who himself heard John the Evangelist.....being closer then to the meaning of the "first resurrection" that is mentioned in his scriptural "Revelation". As far as I know Augustine never really addresses this "1000" year period or "interim period" as any separate type of period of peace, etc. He expresses only a "type" that he believes to simply be a reign of an unspecified length of time of the life of the Church from its birth at Pentecost until the very end of the world. IOW, Augustine says, or at least the Church interprets what he meant as, that we are currently living in this "millennium" NOW. And that means, as some rather self proclaimed speakers for the Church accept, that Satan must now be much less active because we are now in this period that is said for it to be so. Think maybe that might have to be altered a bit these days, esp. with the other later prophecies from Our Lady Herself that speak otherwise....in fact, that things couldn't be worse at this time vs any previous time. So much as well for the Blessed Mother's own later description/promise or the development of the Divine Will actually coming to pass "on earth as it is in heaven". See, it must all be included. St. Irenaeus then is the one early Father to be respected on this question since he built the earliest and basic foundation for orthodox teaching within the Church. Kind of like a husband's growing "selective" hearing of his wife.....he only hears what he wishes to hear and tunes out the rest!!

 

Also in my earlier comment there is quoted a most excellent book that is often used in RCIA classes. It could be helpful to those not quite up to snuff on this question, apparently being rather new to them. "The Faith Explained" by Fr. Leo Trese. Following the Baltimore Catechism.....
"A great book for adults to read in bite-size pieces and for high school students' religion course. Highly recommended in CHC Lesson Plans and Preparing to Receive Jesus to give parents the background necessary to teach catechism lessons naturally.":

And last but not least, to give impetus to this doctrine of the first resurrection, the ordinary Magisterium states that "all the just who live during this time have a first resurrection..."

Also included in my comment was the source, The Divine Institutes, which work "was the first full attempt to defend Christian theology in Latin, and it was likely written to appeal to and convince educated pagans"! And that quote, again:

"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... Then they who shall be alive in their bodies shall not die"

Just sayin.....

 

Fatima,

Christi, you should be speaking to your errors that earthtoangels laid out for you from your last post. Can't you tell her that she was right and you didn't do your homework before commenting on what you did not know?

No, I don't think so.

This is the same Fr. Ianuzzi? I think many theologians disagree with him, as does the Church, officially.

"My name is Reverend Joseph Leo Iannuzzi, ... I’m here to speak on the importance of the True Life in God Messages as dictated by Our Lord to his scribe, Vassula Ryden.

Why are these messages important? Because the one public revelation that Christ preached to his apostles and that his apostles transmitted to us (kerygma ton apostolon) is continually being explicated by the Holy Spirit that Christ promised to send us so that we may come to the knowledge of “all the truth”. Before departing from this world Jesus told his disciples: “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when the Spirit of truth comes, He will teach you all the truth” (Jn. 16:12). Among these “things” Jesus did not tell his disciples are the teachings of the TLIG messages, which the Holy Spirit of truth continues to explicate to Vassula. Although such TLIG messages on unity, love, mercy, intimacy with the Trinity and a holy fear of God are implied in Scripture, they are explicated in Vassula’s messages...

http://www.tlig.org/en/testimonies/christian/catholic/fr-joseph-iannuzzi/

 

Where do you get that the Church disagrees with Fr. Iannuzzi, officially???? Not long ago they awarded his research, translation, and proper interpretation of the works of Luisa Piccarreta.....at the Vatican examination by appointed theologians of his Doctoral dissertation....the Gregorian Pontifical University. In fact he's obtained 5 post-graduate degrees. I don't know how individuals feel comfortable just pulling such implied derogatory kinds of self proclaimed offerings or innuendo out of the sky....esp. pertaining to the reputation of others....when there is no basis for them in truth. What I quoted was from the actual writings of those recognized Church Fathers, from the approved orthodoxy of the Church. In Fr. Iannuzzi's writings he quotes same with foot notes and takes other references from Divine Institutes and from other most scholarly Church history of such compilations of the basis of our faith.....all noted.

He is also recognized as one of the few theologians of eschatology (the last things) of the Church as well as Marian/mystical kinds of revelations....while the Church is still studying such and relying upon his opinion as well as others that have been recognized as well in such areas for decades.....in the same company then of Fr. Laurentin, Fr. Kieran Kavanaugh well known English translator of the writings of St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross, Archbishop Franic, Fr. Emiliano Tardif, Fr. Michael O'Carroll, Theologian and member of the Pontifical Marian Academy ("It is easy to see why her books have caused so many striking conversions."), and too many others to list here. So IOW, on such subjects, in good company....and some awaiting him to continue discussions in heaven!!

I'm not understanding the difficulty that you seem to have with the quotation you offer from Fr. Iannuzzi. Do you refute his recognized expertise to give his backing for individual private revelations? We are fortunate to have such authorities to study for our permitted discernments. Those who do not have such references can only rely on their limited knowledge, often picked up from groups who have similar prejudices and without reputable resources.

1. The TLIG prophetic revelations enjoy the Magisterium's Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat – official ecclesiastic seals of approval.
2. The Church's Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat are an exercise of the Magisterium.
3. The Church requires of the Christian faithful “adherence with religious assent”1 to the Church's Magisterium, which is particularly exercised by those bishops teaching in communion with the Pope.
4. The teachings of those bishops in communion with the Pope and exercising the Magisterium2 have granted to the TLIG prophetic revelations said seals of approval (11/28/2005 Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur) that remain in full force this day.
5. By virtue of the conferral of the Magisterium's Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat upon the TLIG prophetic revelations, Christians are prohibited from setting themselves up as their judge and from publicly condemning them.3 On the contrary, inasmuch as all Christians are to “concur with their bishop's judgment concerning faith and morals” and “adhere to this” judgment and to the Magisterium “with a religious assent of the mind”,4 the Magisterium's Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat upon the TLIG prophetic revelations elicit from the Christian faithful said religious assent.

Vassula enjoys many approvals from various Catholic Bishops throughout the world as well as respected authorities of other religions who act within their appropriate areas of ecclesial mandates. Since she is of the Greek Orthodox faith she is appropriately viewed by those authorities that stand outside that jurisdiction but whose opinions are given weighty respect when it comes to the whole evaluation of her mission and her personal life in regards to it. In fact, as far as her ecumenical meetings held in the different dioceses, Pope Benedict's letter to the Bishops re: Vassula's ongoing dialogue with their "useful clarifications", the faithful are instructed to follow the dispositions of the diocesan Bishops. So those Bishops who offer similar opinions to Fr. Iannuzzi's should also be reprimanded then?

 

On Vassula Ryden, the Church disagrees with Fr. Iannuzzi. He's also backed other "messengers", like those of Our Lady of Emmitsberg (spell), who the Church has ruled against. He is not a bishop (or the Catechism!), he does not speak for the Church officially. He is one theologian, with one opinion.

I do not want to "hijack" this thread, so I will stop discussing other "messengers" now.

From EWTN,

HOME - EWTNews - FAITH - TELEVISION - RADIO - LIBRARY - MULTIMEDIA - EWTNKids
WHAT'S NEW - GENERAL - RELIGIOUS CATALOGUE - PILGRIMAGES - ESPAÑOL

Terms of Use Privacy Policy

Vassula Ryden/True Life in God
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
The following documents of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith have been issued on the subject of the writings and activities of Vassula Ryden, a Greek Orthodox, and author of True Life in God.
Notification (6 October 1995) Questions the teaching contained in her writings, instructs bishops not to permit dissemination of her ideas, and cautions the faithful not to regard the writings as being from God.

Press Release (December 1996) Re-asserts the authority of the Notification, following certain interpretations attributed to Cardinal Ratzinger by Mrs. Ryden's followers. Also contains a useful general statement regarding the duty of the Church's Pastors about the dissemination of alleged private revelations.

Letter to Presidents of [certain] Bishops Conferences (10 July 2004) Informs the presidents of episcopal conferences, where the True Life in God movement is active, about clarifications of her writings published in True Life in God, vol. 10. It calls on Catholics "to follow the dispositions of the Diocesan Bishops" with regard to participation in her ecumenical prayer gatherings (a change from the absolute prohibition of the 1995 Notification). Nothing in this letter, however, indicates a modification of the statement in the 1995 Notification suggesting that the writings are "merely the result of private meditations."

Letter to Presidents of Episcopal Conferences (25 January 2007)
Reaffirms the validity of the doctrinal judgments of the 1995 Notification, affirms that her writings, which are not to be considered divine revelations, must be read within the context of the clarifications which she made to the Congregation in 2004, and notes that Catholic participation in the prayer groups organized by the True Life in God movement are "inappropriate."

Provided Courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210
www.ewtn.com

 

Um, in laying out the correction offered to the notification, by none other than Pope Benedict himself, you are somehow still saying that the Church disagrees with Fr. Iannuzzi? Just the opposite occurred. Pope Benedict gave the permissions to attend those gatherings that can be opened to the faithful by the local Bishops, thus permitting the faithful to study and discern, and hear the messages, and therefore not changing anything for such experts as Fr. Iannuzzi to also then offer his studied guidance for the faithful who may wish to discern same with expert advice.

Are you saying that the local Bishops are NOT part of the magisterium of the Church? They have been given permission to allow such ecumenical gatherings within their own dioceses if they so choose to do by Pope Benedict who participated in that dialogue with Vassula and made such a decision afterwards. This comes AFTER the Notification and considered a type of correction to it. The Church condemns nothing with regard to this particular private revelation. She doesn't fall under the Church's jurisdiction for judgement anyway. Again, the Church may offer guidance...and this latest guidance stands. Are you then standing in front of the Church and telling those whose Bishops choose to "entertain" Vassula within their dioceses not to attend such permitted gatherings?? You have to get with the latest on these ongoing treatments by the Church. Contrary to what you might like to lead others to think about Fr. Iannuzzi, he is doing nothing wrong, and thank goodness for his expertise and opinions that follow his up close and personal study.

RE: the local decision by the Baltimore diocese' extremely limited and even false facts and misquotes of the messages themselves, and the treatment of the Emmitsburg seer, doctor of pharmacology, and her husband, medical doctor, those Marian experts involved, many noted above in comment re: Fr. Iannuzzi's good company, who testified to their positive findings, being rather eagerly dismissed, w/ stated prejudices by the Cardinal re: private revelations in general, such experts took their concerns to the proper discastery at the Vatican handling such questions and were told that such facts offered about this conduct deserved another look at a future time. Some of these experts with complaint, such as Fr. Laurentin, have since passed away. As in so many private revelations in history, there is continuing study and different decisions offered at later times beyond any one particular decision. Medjugorje is probably the most serious example of such a change due to such prejudicial attempts by the local authority to simply dismiss something w/o the ordered compliance with what constitutes a true and reliable commission of study. So again, Fr. Iannuzzi did nothing wrong or even inadvisable when offering his own reasoning for being favorable towards this private revelation either. The last critique stands now in a cloud of at least, to be kind, impropriety. That error is to be considered then when discerning the entirety of this private revelation. And there is no proper guidance to the faithful while all parties remain in more complete obedience to the Church than the authority, now passed on, involved at the time.

 

Fatima, assuming that we can discern as the Church does or would feels risky.

 

Brilliant, Gracia.

 

Just seems better to be safe than sorry. Especially with weirdness and confusion on the rise. Even at the highest levels. We're not that smart. We're really not. Putting ourselves in a position to judge based on our feelings, gut, intuition, assumptions, and hopes looks too much like Protestantism.

 

How are you "safe" when it comes to private revelations when the best known "approved" private revelation, Fatima, is still not explained in full by the authorities of the Vatican who want people to stop following its demands and just accept it as a nice little shrine to visit? That's just pure clericalism rather than the God given desire to understand the truth of what God intends for His children's future by intervening Himself for our sake through His own mother. And, btw, who here only took a position of "judgement" based on "feelings, gut, intuition, assumptions, and hopes"? besides those who actually denigrated the recognized experts of that Church, scripture itself, and the Church fathers who formed the orthodox foundation for what is worthy of belief???? Didn't like their affirmations of those revelations not to your personal approval? Please don't count researched, thinking faithful in your "not that smart" when it comes to the deliberately clueless clerics who are now pretty well known within the history of private revelations, even approved ones, and those seers involved who were so mistreated by same.

 

gracia, discernment within the faith, in most cases, is not so difficult if one knows their Catholic faith and scripture, unless it is perhaps dealing with subjects that are not well defined in these matters. Would you agree? Would you agree that a 50 year old should know their faith, say better than a 15 year old? If so, why?

I contend that indeed we, as Catholics, have been given everything we need to discern the essentials of the faith in order to get to heaven, if we were attentive to its sacraments, the 1o commandments and the fundamental teachings of the faith that should have been taught through catechism classes (which is not a given anymore). But, what we are discussing is not essential for salvation and that is our understanding and belief in prophecy, the endtimes, the Divine Will, the era of peace, the antichrist and false prophet and God's temporal kingdom on earth where his will shall be done as it is in heaven. Proper understanding of these will be helpful on our journey, especially if we enter into them and are deceived by the Antichrist as scripture attests he will be able to do , but are not essential in order to die in God's grace and enter heaven. I hope we can agree on this?

Discernment of the endtimes is a bit more complex and requires much study and prayer. More than most want to do. It requires an open mind to mysteries that are unfolding in 'real time'. For instance, When Pope John Paul, two years before becoming pope, said we are now facing the greatest historical confrontation the world has ever faced between Christ and the Antichrist, the gospel and the anti-gospel etc... he was making a prophetic point of view. Some took it literally and some subjectively. This is no different than what the prophets of the old testament did. They spoke what God gave them and some believed and some didn't. It is the same today. Prophets will always be mocked and that has been and will always be the case, as scripture attests to. Who of us would want to be a prophet, a messenger of God? We can however discern as the Church does, there is nothing to say we can't. What we can't do is provide a imprimatur that essentially say's that whatever is being discerned is not contrary to our faith or morals. It does not mean it is absolutely true. One must accept the Antichrist is coming. One does not have to believe he is here today, but the Church cannot discern with imprimatur that he is either here is or is not. This is not an objective teaching of faith or moral belief, but a subjective belief. This and many other things like this is what is being debated. I believe Verne's messages are true, some do not. I contend nothing in them contradict scripture or church teaching, but I, along with the monks, priests and theologians who have studied his messages cannot say this with imprimatur. The Church can, but it is not essential that they do, as private reading of them can be done without it and not cause harm to the Church. For instance, Father Gobbi's messages have double imprimatur, yet many, if not most, do not believe them to be true. One does not sin if they believe or disbelieve private prophecy, whether they have imprimatur or not, unless one knows them to conflict with objective church teaching.

 

gracia, one of the most important reasons that God provides prophecy is to prepare his faithful for what is coming, so they are safe, rather then being sorry when it is to late. Especially with the weirdness of our times, which is a huge indicator for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, as it has always been with prophecy. I sometimes wonder when the people who laughed at Noah for 40 years realized they should have listen and prepared? Most likely, right before the water reached their noses while on their tippy toes. It will be the same prior the the era of the Antichrist and we have all the indicators of this right in front of us now.

 

Fatima, even well educated, consecrated men have been deceived. And are being deceived. Assuming that we can make a valid judgement on whether an apparition is from a God or not, as individuals, is vain. And risky. It is not wrong to hope. And it is not wrong to check things out.

But to stand up and say that an alleged apparition, vision, message, book, or devotion is most certainly from God when the Church has not yet agreed that it is so, is dangerous.

God bless and be with you, Fatima. And please just be careful.

 

gracia, I would never accept or follow anything that is contrary to our Catholic faith or scripture. I have studied the Catholic faith earnestly for the past 35 years strong. I know my faith and I know that my prayer life is strong. I pray the rosary morning and evening, visit our Lord in his true presence almost daily. If I boast of anything, it is in the Lord, as this is what is on my heart 24/7. I am not a perfect man by far, but I know the love God has for me in my heart, as it is a joy and peace the world does not know and I did not know for the first 25 years of my life. I totally trust our Blessed Mother and her spouse the Holy Spirit to keep me faithful. The reason I can stand up and say what is in my heart, is because I know nothing is contrary to our faith or scripture, even though the Church is very slow to accept what much of the prophetic consensus is within the Church. Pope's have said and prophecised , things I have repeated, that has yet to be accepted by the large majority of Catholics. That does not make them dangerous. But, I will take your heed and not stand up for anything contrary to what the Church has formally defined. Just remember the Church is silent on much of what God has done and is doing today waiting for events to unfold as the rest of us are and which I believe we are in the very midst of today. That is what I am preparing for and being a "watchman" for my family and friends, many of whom are and have been swallowed up already by this world and its prince. Most of the time, all I can do is pray and sacrifice for them, as ears are closed and hearts are rendered to cell phone's, facebook, entertainment and socialization, along with fornication, co-habitation, divorce etc...... All the signs heaven has been telling us through scripture and prophecy, which are here and present now.