Vassula receives Holy Communion for the first time

Discussion in 'Video Blogs' started by davidtlig, May 19, 2016.

  1. davidtlig

    davidtlig Guest

    Your question about the the trademark protection obtained for Vassula and True Life in God is a reasonable one. But the answer is straightforward. A supporter of Vassula took out the protection for one reason and one reason only. To protect the messages from misuse. The legal action taken against Maria Pio was done because the lady was causing so many problems misinforming clergy prior to Vassula witnessing around the world. Although her website has since been duplicated under different ownership, she herself has stopped her attacks on Vassula and that has resolved the basic problem that led to the legal action.

    The TLIG foundation was set up, again, to protect the messages. It is registered in Switzerland simply because the people who set it up come from Switzerland.

    As for your question that seems to suggest you consider that someone needs permission to promote messages from God, I can only say I believe you are mistaken.
     
  2. Julia

    Julia Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us.

    Earthtoangels, I posted in reply to a most trustworthy witness God ever put on the earth. A convert from the Romanian Orthodox faith, who confirmed that the Roman Catholic Church does not enter into offering Holy Eucharist without first establishing sincere informed conversion to the Roman Catholic practice of the faith.

    For your information, I have never had any reason to doubt the apparitions in Garabandal or Medjugorje. And if the seers there behaved in a way that I found scandalous; that would be the end of my belief in their authenticity.

    I do not take every view proposed by strangers on the internet as a means of discerning these things. But the Vassula incident falls very short of belief on many levels to me. I first came to this decision in the early 90s, from messages that gave me concern. The details don't matter, at the time she was one of a few people who I dismissed for my own peace of mind. Thank God none of the other strange ones seem to have survived to be discussed any more.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2016
    HeavenlyHosts likes this.
  3. Well that's good to know. I replied to what you said about what you have "heard" on this thread and that is what you wrote that formed you judgement of Vassula. If you are open to going to the source beyond that then you would gain more information other than what "others" may have dis-enthused you with here. This is what I replied to:

    This post says everything I need to hear when it comes to expressing what is so wrong with Vassula.

    You said "everything 'you' need to hear". Evidently you went beyond such naysaying re: other unapproved private revelations and those involved therein.

    The Roman Catholic Church gives parameters for permission to those of the Orthodox Church to receive Communion in an RC Church. Those have been written here earlier and those are what Vassula explained for the reasons she partook of the Eucharist within an RC Church at times. I don't know about you but I don't consider myself to be holier than the Church when offering such permissions to those of the Orthodox Church nor would I ever wish to set up barriers for such to occur under those conditions.

    "a certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged" (CCC 1399)."

    Vassula had the advice for such participation within those parameters from authorities in both Churches.

    Earlier a sourced actual informative comment on this topic was offered by "Sam". The example you give of someone who "formally" was entering into the Roman Catholic Church as a full member from the Orthodox Church does not pertain to an Orthodox, remaining in that Faith, but who is following the earlier mentioned permissions given such by the RC Church for reception of the Eucharist. Are you saying that other than those times she is receiving an invalid Communion in her Orthodox Church?

    To formally switch rites in a permanent manner requires a formal procedure. (the example you gave which is separate from the case of Vassula)

    The question is somewhat diverse for the case of Orthodox Churches, which are not in full communion with Rome but which enjoy the apostolic succession and all seven sacraments. While full communion is lacking, the Catholic Church no longer considers these Churches as being in a formal schism or as being excommunicated.

    From the Catholic standpoint, a member of the faithful who is unable to attend Mass because there is no Catholic celebration available, may, if he so wishes, attend and receive Communion at an Orthodox Divine Liturgy.

    Likewise, an Orthodox Christian in a similar situation is allowed to receive Communion and some other sacraments in any Catholic rite. Such an attendance is always optional and is never obligatory, not even in order to fulfill a festive precept.


    Eastern Rites and Orthodox
     
    Julia likes this.
  4. He doesn't need what you suggest. It's a private revelation that hasn't been condemned and judgement of it as a whole does not fall under Roman Catholic auspices anyway. A Bishop then cannot order a person to refrain from such offering of information in this regard. He can only offer an opinion (which should be informed with due diligence as to what the Church is permitting universally) or a caution. A Bishop can make judgements about what takes place on Diocesan/Church properties. If he goes beyond that then one could refer to the higher authority that stipulates otherwise for the actions of Bishops re: this particular cause.
     
  5. Harper

    Harper Guest

    Of course. Now I remember the time Mother Teresa (TRADEMARK!!) sued Christopher Hitchens over his book "The Missionary Position."

    "Causing problems" is certainly a reason to launch repeated lawsuits, especially after you've lost the first one.

    Where are the annual reports for the TLIG Foundation? Why aren't they available online? Is Vassula paid a salary? What's the overhead?

    Permission? Well, the Vatican has assumed jurisdiction over Vassula's messages and issued a Notification. Meetings can only be held with the approval of the local ordinary. With a website and YouTube, you are holding virtual meetings. I'd be on the safe side.

    The Vatican has studied the messages and concluded they are personal meditations, not messages from God. Big difference. Whereas I could be misled and not tell the difference between Angel Daniel and Captain Howdy, I trust Cardinals Ratzinger and Levada can.
     
  6. Why do you compare Vassula with those who have taken vows of obedience and poverty esp. when those already had the established backing of the institutional Church to counter any misuse or besmirching of the truth about them?? There was/is a much larger and organized source for correct information therefore with them which is lacking but for those individually in defense for Vassula. Many differences. A lot harder to be carrying forth a mission today, alone from the beginning, when almost flying without a co-pilot and not safely within the walls of an official order's benefits of belief by association.
     
  7. Julia

    Julia Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us.

    Earthoangels, I am surprised you seem to be aware that not every Tom, Dick or Harry can just receive Holy Eucharist.

    But you seem to accept that Vassula can be allowed to publish a Utube testifying to her presumption that receiving our Catholic Consecrated Host is some sort of a game. That is how I felt scandalised by watching it.

    Any one who decides to avail themselves of Holy Communion in a Christian Church which is not the one Faith that they have claimed to be taught, would need to ask permission from the pastor. I do not know what the pastor would say; but at least that person would respect the norms associated with that particular Christian Church.

    And I can't comprehend how you do not see the sacrilege in such behaviour.

    God preserve us from self proclaimed prophets, and demonic drama queens.
     
    Yellowcoffeecup and josephite like this.
  8. davidtlig

    davidtlig Guest

    I think that your response here illustrates you are not in search of information but are simply asking rhetorical questions in the hope that something negative can be pinned on Vassula. But for the sake of the readers of the forum who are in search of the truth, I will just point out that Vassula gets no salary or ANY money from her work. All she accepts is payment for her flight and hotel costs when witnessing around the world.

    The messages are available free of charge in various formats - see http://www.davidtlig.org.uk/messages.html Only the books need to be paid for but not a penny goes to Vassula. I have spent a small fortune over the years (about 25 years!) promoting the messages and am happy to do so. The Lord has always provided for His Work.

    I'm sorry to post this photo again but I'm always curious how people explain why Cardinal Ratzinger was happy to be photographed with a 'condemned visionary' in the Vatican in 2004!! What's your explanation...

    [​IMG]
     
    earthtoangels likes this.
  9. davidtlig

    davidtlig Guest

    Julia, I don't quite see how you can be positive about Medjugorje yet totally disregard the views of two such prominent individuals in that mission as Fr Jozo and Fr Petar. Both are strong supporters of Vassula and True Life in God.
     
    earthtoangels likes this.
  10. "Quis ut Deus"

    "Quis ut Deus" Powers Staff Member

    I think maybe that seems to be the very reason why their might be objection to the original post on this thread,So maybe a little clarification would be the ingredient that is needed to understand some valid points being made..

    I personally would like to know Vassula's own current religion and marital status ? David if you can would be so kind to answer this question for me.
    Thanks.
     
  11. Earthoangels, I am surprised you seem to be aware that not every Tom, Dick or Harry can just receive Holy Eucharist.

    Now wait a minute here....let's get beyond the ad hominem attacks and our "feelings" re: such importance.

    What you have decided to advertise about what I think or believe or "accept" is quite an omission since Vassula obviously did not treat anything as "some sort of a game". She was participating and desired to learn about the differences between the way this RC celebration of the Mass was presented and how she had learned of the Eucharist within the Faith in which she was raised but did not participate as she got older. Since she did not understand the particular presentation of this Eucharist she did not know how to respond because it simply differed from what her prior experience had been of same. But nevertheless she believed this "matter" had to be sacred and why she explained, in her limited understanding of the truth, that she thought she should place it by holy icons revered by her own Faith's traditions...until she later learned more. From the heart's desire to do the right thing she showed a respect not seen from the heart in so many "born and raised" Roman Catholics for their own individual receptions. That's for sure.

    This ignorance I've seen in the innocent reception, at an Easter celebration of the Mass, by my elderly mother-in-law...when from across the Church where she was sitting I saw her rise to go up with all the rest simply believing that she should join in and that idea of "all are welcome" came from her own experience raised in the Southern Baptist faith. She didn't attend any church formally after raising her children in her husband's Roman Catholic Faith, saying that she didn't want to "rock the boat" with a different approach. Now, in her eighties, she thought she was demonstrating an acceptance of the community in which she found herself. The differences were explained along with the reasons why but when someone is in her eighties and somewhat embarrassed she really didn't want to hear what at that point she couldn't understand or comprehend. Both cases contained respect and good will. We could very well be in the same situations but for the differences in our own understandings and how we were taught and what we accepted in belief through those teachings.

    Vassula too was embarrassed once she understood the truth of the situation...and didn't want to face Jesus because she said she felt He wouldn't like that she hadn't "recognized" Him. And was met, for our benefit to learn as well, with His great understanding of such human occurrences and His response to those of good will wishing to learn more. What a beautiful teaching, by personal experience, of that response to our needs by our God which only points to His unfathomable Mercy.

    To be too quick to condemn can demonstrate a lot of fear within one's thinking and a lack of that perfect trust in Christ's "unfathomable" mercy....not only for the greatest of sinners but automatically for those of good will.
     
  12. Harper

    Harper Guest

    November 29, 1996 press release:

    I. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has received various questions about the value and authority of its Notification of 6 October 1995, published in L'Osservatore Romano on Monday/Tuesday, 23/24 October 1995, p. 2 (L'Osservatore Romano English edition, 25 October 1995, p. 12), regarding the writings and messages of Mrs. Vassula Ryden attributed to alleged revelations and disseminated in Catholic circles throughout the world.

    In this regard, the Congregation wishes to state:

    The Notification addressed to the Pastors and faithful of the Catholic Church retains all its force. It was approved by the competent authorities and will be published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the official organ of the Holy See, with the signatures of the Prefect and the Secretary of the Congregation.

    Regarding the reports circulated by some news media concerning a restrictive interpretation of this Notification, given by His Eminence the Cardinal Prefect in a private conversation with a group of people to whom he granted an audience in Guadalajara, Mexico, on 10 May 1996, the same Cardinal Prefect wishes to state:

    as he said, the faithful are not to regard the messages of Vassula Ryden as divine revelations, but only as her personal meditations;

    these meditations, as the Notification explained, include, along with positive aspects, elements that are negative in the light of Catholic doctrine;

    therefore, Pastors and the faithful are asked to exercise serious spiritual discernment in this matter and to preserve the purity of the faith, morals and spiritual life, not by relying on alleged revelations but by following the revealed Word of God and the directives of the Church's Magisterium.

    II. Regarding the circulation of texts of alleged private revelations, the Congregation states:

    1) The interpretation given by some individuals to a Decision approved by Paul VI on 14 October 1966 and promulgated on 15 November of that year, in virtue of which writings and messages resulting from alleged revelations could be freely circulated in the Church, is absolutely groundless. This decision actually referred to the "Abolition of the Index of Forbidden Books", and determined that - after the relevant censures were lifted-the moral obligation still remained of not circulating or reading those writings which endanger faith and morals.

    2) It should be recalled however that with regard to the circulation of texts of alleged private revelations, canon 823 §1 of the current Code remains in force: "the Pastors of the Church have the ... right to demand that writings to be published by the Christian faithful which touch upon faith or morals be submitted to their judgement".

    3) Alleged supernatural revelations and writings concerning them are submitted in first instance to the judgement of the diocesan Bishop, and, in particular cases, to the judgement of the Episcopal Conference and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.”
     
  13. Harper

    Harper Guest

    I could publish a photo of the Pope with Yassar Arafat, Assad and others. There was a controversial picture of JPII kissing the Koran.

    I also found this response:

    "A series of efforts were done by Dr. Niels Christian Hvidt – a Danish follower of Vassula who was studying theology in Rome – in order to convince Cardinal Ratzinger to reconsider Vassula’s case. His insistance was rewarded with the CDF giving Rydén the opportunity to answer the objections made in the 1995 Notification. This “dialogue” ended in 2004 with a semi-official meeting between Vassula and Ratzinger. At the conclusion of this meeting, Hvidt took a photo of Vassula with Cardinal Ratzinger, who granted it under the condition that it would not be used for "cheap propaganda" (as reported by Hvidt himself [http://www.cdf-tlig.org/dialogue.html]). That condition has not been respected: Hvidt has put the photo on Internet and authorized its public use through Wikimedia Commons [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vassula_Ryden_Ratzinger.jpg]. The photo gives the false impression that Vassula has received Ratzinger's approval and it is used to promote her books and conferences [for instance: http://www.duesacratissimicuori.it/1/home_266684.html]. The photo is even used as the cover of a booklet in Italian, in which the Church is presented as positive towards the seer [Corona, pp. 77-80 Although the booklet was published in 2012, it doesn't mention the 2007 CDF communication, in which the Notification's negative doctrinal assessment of Vassula's writings is re-confirmed]."
     
  14. davidtlig

    davidtlig Guest

    You haven't answered my question. The question is why was Cardinal Ratzinger happy to be photographed with a 'condemned visionary'? Saying that in public life you can't always choose who you are photographed with is irrelevant. This was a private meeting. Why was he meeting a 'condemned visionary'? Why did he agree to be photographed with this 'condemned visionary'?
     
    earthtoangels likes this.
  15. andree

    andree Powers

    Vassula answers that question in the response to the questions of the CDF 0n this page, just scroll down to Marital Status.
     
    earthtoangels likes this.
  16. Harper

    Harper Guest

    Cardinal Ratzinger is a kind and gentle man who acceded to a request for a photo that ended up being used for a purpose he did not foresee. From the man who arranged the meeting and took the photo:

    "It must be understood that the dialogue in itself entails no official "approval" of the True Life in God messages experienced by Mrs. Rydén. The Notification of 1995 with some critical comments on Mrs. Rydén’s experience remains formally in effect. Only the publication of a new Notification could "cancel" the former of 1995, and such publication will most likely not occur during Mrs. Rydén’s lifetime, given the Vatican’s always careful stance on alleged mystics still living."

    Another example of a kind and gentle man who probably saw this later and wondered: What the heck was I thinking? View attachment 4968
     
  17. Your other example is nothing like the one where Pope Benedict had complete control over the Vatican quarters in which the two met and spoke. He understood better than anyone what such circumstances, within his control, might involve. He also understood the repercussions from such a personal picture could mean to the public. He certainly was not naive about such matters. And he could very well, under the circumstances, rejected this inclusion since he was the highest authority within those familiar surroundings as well as of the Church at that meeting. A Pope abroad certainly cannot control what may happen around him which is unknown and unable to plan. Completely different weights should be given to the personal consent involved in each, obviously.
     
  18. Harper

    Harper Guest

    She is not a condemned "visionary." According to the 2007 Notification, she is a woman who has published private meditations:

    CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

    25th January 2007

    Prot. N.: 54/92 – 24945

    Your Eminence / Your Excellency,

    Requests for clarification on the writings and activities of Mrs Vassula Ryden continue to arrive at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in particular regarding the validity of the Notification of 6th October 1995 and the criteria that should be followed in defining the provision of local Churches regarding the advisability of spreading the writings of Mrs Vassula Ryden.

    At this regard, the Congregation wishes to specify as follows:

    1) The Notification of 1995 remains valid concerning the doctrinal judgement on the writings examined (cf. attachment 1).

    2) Following a the dialogue which has taken place with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Mrs Vassula Ryden has however provided clarifications on certain problematical points which appear in her writings, and also on the nature of her messages, which do not present themselves as divine revelations but, rather as personal meditations (cf. attachment 2: Letter of April 4th 2002 published in the True Life in God vol. 10). From the normative point of view, then, after the above mentioned clarifications, it is advisable to make a prudent evaluation, case by case, taking into account the concrete possibilities for the faithful in reading these writings within the framework of such clarifications.

    3) Finally, it is reminded that the participation of Catholics in prayer groups organized by Mrs Vassula Ryden is not advisable. In the cases of ecumenical encounters, the faithful should comply with the provisions given by the Ecumenical Directory, the Code of Canon Law (can. 215; 223 §2, 383 §3) and the diocesan Ordinaries.

    In sending you this information, I am sincerely yours in devotion to the Lord.

    Cardinal William LEVADA

    Prefect
     
  19. Harper

    Harper Guest

    Poor man, too kind and too gentle. According to the photographer, nothing from the meeting was to be used as cheap propaganda, and look what happened! Also, he didn't meet with her until after she agreed that her writings were to be considered private meditations.
    Not yet answered:
    To whom does Vassula owe obedience on earth?
    What church is she a member of?
    Has she responded publicly to the very harsh judgement against her by the Greek Orthodox Church?
     
  20. Harper

    Harper Guest

    Goodbye, Earth and David. I am off this thread.
     

Share This Page