Divine Will revisited.

No, I used the word "approval" in relation to the text (viz. the "volume"), not the revelation itself. Read more carefully.

 

Danny,
The early Church Fathers were wrong. Get over it. Joachim of Fiore was wrong. The Popes are right.

 

Dont use the word approval. Everyone knows in catholic circles what the suggestion is. If you think theologians say its free of doctrinal error then fine say its got an imprimatur. Dont muddy the waters. It doesnt help your argument

 

I don't suppose anyone reading this thread will have much trouble seeing who is more likely to be representing the truth here.

So farewell for now and God's blessings to you all

 

Danny,
Just to clear that up you actually said Luisa Piccaretta was "clearly told by God". sorry mate

 

Thanks, Mark, for putting all those statements in one place. Those statements make it clear that a period of triumphant Christianity is certainly possible before the Second Coming.

 

Temperature seems to be rising here again... The problem is that we're back to the 'zero-sum game' of implying that because Pope Benedict taught on the theme of baptism as the first resurrection, that this symbolic reading exhausts the exegetical possibilities. A study of Church history reveals that one-dimensional approaches to Biblical interpretation are actually very modern, whereas for centuries prior to the crises of the 16th the Church followed the much more elastic four-fold Quadriga principle according to which the Scriptures were interpreted on four different levels simultaneously: literal, allegorical, tropological (moral) and anagogical (eschatological). The idea that one level - in this case allegorical - would cancel out the others would have been quite alien.

As an indication of the flexibility of pre-modern reading, St Thomas Aquinas (Quaestiones Disputate de Potentia Dei q.4, a.1) also stressed the principle of interpretive flexibility within the literal level, regarding the reduction of the meaning of Scripture to one sense as an interpretive error. For Aquinas, this error occurs when


'someone wants to force Scripture to one sense in such a way that other senses that contain truth in themselves and that can, with due regard for the circumstances of the letter, be fitted to the letter are entirely excluded. For this belongs to the dignity of divine Scripture, that under one letter it contains many senses'
(cited Scott W. Hahn and John A. Kincaid, "The Multiple Literal Sense in Thomas Aquinas's Commentary on Romans and Modern Pauline Hermeneutics" in Matthew Levering and Michael Dauphinais (eds), Reading Romans with St Thomas Aquinas (Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2012), 163-182:164.)

As for Augustine, nobody is disputing his role as a hugely important figure in the history of Christianity, a Doctor of the Church, colossal intellectual (and certainly extremely influential as far as the thought of Benedict XVI is concerned). But he definitely had some weak points, as I tried to point out a few pages back in referencing Henri de Lubac's seminal critique of the long-term consequences of a certain over-emphasis in Western theology on the later works of Augustine (shaped heavily by his conflict with Pelagius). The near-exclusive reliance on Augustine in the medieval development of Latin theology, particularly at the expense of the Eastern Fathers, had major repercussions, not all of them good, and some of us here are convinced that eschatology was unfortunately not one of his stronger suits...

 

Oh for crying out loud....rarely do Pope's approve private revelations...usually only once they garner worldwide attention and therefore must receive a greater public notice by the Church and have been forced by the ground up. It's left up to the local Bishop unless there is found to be some kind of fraud or bias, etc., which is brought to the attention of the relevant office at the Vatican. And even with the Bishops, when dealing with private revelation, you can't always count on forever or cite with complete certainty the latest judgement of a Bishop since it's known that replacement Bishops may judge opposite or grant some neutral position of a former Bishop a positive judgement, etc. There can be more evidence discovered over time or simply that someone with greater interest and with new discovery can reopen a case that may seem to have been buried and gone forever.

That's why all this demand for some definite judgement "by the Church" (well, the Church is where the Bishop is) when it comes to Private Revelations demonstrates a pretty childish approach, naive to the entirety involved in this rather fluid category of the mystical. People are free to discern as they please to whatever degree they wish to get involved in whatever background is available. If it's not condemned with serious evidence (and not involving a quickie fraudulent commission that does not perform due diligence required by the Church...for instance as so often happens, just to get rid of something and get it off the plate of the Bishop) people are free to get involved. But everyone knows that theologians with expertise and Marian experts should be consulted in any thorough investigation as well as recognizing the info from scientific testing, etc. Then again, esp. with "run of the mill" theologians (Francis thinks you'll wait forever if you believe theologians will naturally agree or give some final statement on most things!) certainly won't refrain from offering their 2 cents worth. That's when you just measure their experience, methods, etc. Sad that so many of the faithful have a favorite cleric or just believe the one that is promoted to the general public on EWTN, MSM, and think that anything they pontificate about has just got to be from God's own mind therefore swallowing erroneous info and they never question it.

As far as any Pope choosing his favorite saint or doctor of the Church to spend more time on, well, so what...that's the one he knows best and probably doesn't know enough about another or just is not personally interested in him/her. They could very well esteem one whom they do not spend time on but are simply bored by the personality or don't click with them. They're human...not gods. Pretty soon people will have to stand alone in Faith without the organization of the institutional Church so wisdom in discerning is best to acquire.

 

Earth,

Do you acknowledge the authority of your bishop concerning issues of faith and morals, and in matters under his jurisdiction, such as prudential judgements on speakers, personnel, etc.?

(Edited to add: The phrase is, "Where Peter is, there is the Church.")

 

JESUS I TRUST IN YOU!!!
................... all of the above ..... and below ...... not so much!
GOD GUIDE AND SAVE ALL HERE!!

 

Professor Rev Brian E Daley SJ (one of the great theologians of the patristic era and winner of the Ratzinger prize -presented by the Holy Father himself in 2012) had this to say about Lactantius's millenarianism:
"
Its contents, however, are a curious hybrid of Christian
apocalypticism and the speculations of late pagan "prophetic" literature - of
works like the non-Christian Sibylline Oracles, the Hermetic tract Asclepius,
and the Hellenized Zoroastrian work known as the Oracles of Hystaspes.9
This eclecticism is undoubtedly due in part to Lactantius' apologetic and
popularizing intentions in writing the work, but it also represents the
farthest development hitherto of what would become a much more widespread
phenomenon: the blending of biblical eschatology with elements of
folk religion, occult speculation and late antique literary traditions, in a
vividly concrete picture of our individual and collective destinies. From now
on, the apocalyptic myth Lactantius portrays, with both its Christian and its
non-Christian elements, was to have a life of its own"
From hope of the Early Church, 1991 p 68


That Mark is your thesis in a nutshell. OUCH!!!!

 

One things the newcomers have done, at least for me, is help solidify what I have come to believe as far as era of peace in the Divine Will in my own study and prayer. They have added nothing that would convince me otherwise that their over zealous limited rhetoric has brought fourth. I am not sure who encouraged to come on to MOG to argue their limited points of view, but I have read enough from them to convince me that Luisa Piccarreta, Francine Beriault, Elizabeth Kindellman, (just to name a few modern day messengers), have given us what the "learned" who have come on this form could not and that is the light of revelation from the Holy Spirit on this important gift forthcoming before we know it. Mark, Peter and Daniel have given us the best of their own studies and prayerful reflection on this gift and long after the few who came on to argue against this understanding, I will be ever grateful to the newcomers for their efforts, as failed as they may have been, for giving it their best. But, as we heard in Sunday's Gospel, John 16:12: "I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. [13] But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you". The era of peace, after the tribulation and AC is one of those truths the Spirit of God has given his Church in these last days of this era for those who have ears to hear.

 

General comment... looking at many of today's exchanges, I'm saddened by the abrasive, accusatory tone of much of the debate, not for the first time on this thread.

What I find particularly regrettable is that several irenic and balanced long-term contributors who have devoted serious time to studying Luisa Piccarreta's spirituality are no longer part of this discussion, perhaps because they no longer wish to participate in something that increasingly resembles 'trial by combat'...

My question is this - what is really going on here at a deeper level? Why are we talking to (or rather at) each other like this? Is this really about a theological disagreement or is this essentially being driven by psychological factors such as our own woundedness, with the theological issue being the smokescreen? And what does all this say about the influence of the internet on our interactions in terms of favouring 'passive-aggressive' behaviour?

Surely we can collectively set a better example of charitable conversation than what we have exhibited today. But do we actually want to try? Maybe it's really time for Padraig to freeze this thread until things have cooled down, (although on the other hand the friction would simply continue elsewhere...). And a little meditation on the fruits of the Spirit might just do us all a lot of good.

 

Peter,
I am sorry to say that all your accusatory comments are always directed at your opponents. I mean some of the things Fatima has said about Stephen you have not mentioned a word, or from Mark or earthtoangels. I know your post above was general, but of course it was in response to a post of mine. Please be fair in your comments.
Peace
Bill

 

Sad to see, but this thread has disintegrated into a pharisaical witch-hunt to declare others as heretics rather than a humble consideration of what God is saying through the holy pontiffs, the Magisterium, and prophecy. It is one thing to misunderstand or require clarification. But when pride twists and distorts not only a brother's words, but that of the popes, there is something terribly wrong. When arrogance closes its ears to other theological perspectives that the Church herself has said can be discussed, then there is a spirit afoot that is not of Christ. There is a strange cloud hanging over this thread that attempts to cast every papal pronouncement and approved prophecy regarding a triumph, Era of Peace, or renewal of the Church under the heading of "millenarianism." Those "who strain out the gnat and swallow the camel." It has the effect of "quenching the Spirit," rather than advancing the pursuit of truth. I think it is notable that those who have stood by the pope's prophetic words regarding a triumph of the Church, the approved messages foretelling an Era of Peace, and the magisterium's declarations which indicate it is possible... have spoken with a notable degree of charity and patience. The fruit is more telling to me than any argument I've read. These voices have also been a witness to me.

Thank you Padraig. I am grateful that you provided a reasonable space for dialogue.

 

Bill, you are effectively and singlehandedly ending this thread, at least for me. The acrimonious tone has nothing to do with the Gospel or a sincere pursuit of truth. Moreover, I have not personally attacked anyone here to my knowledge.

Peter is right... there is something deeper happening here, and I am disturbed by it, frankly. Where charity has left, so has Christ.

 

And your answer to Fr Brian Daley's demolition of Lactantius?

 

Padraig..should you consider creating a thread for Mark and Emmett only to debate i would think that most wise. Then we won't have rude people like bill and stephen ruin it for everyone else. On behalf of rude bill , I apologize to everyone for the spiritual pride on display here.

 

Mark, I appreciate everything you do and your zeal for evangelism. But I think you're in error here.

I pointed out 2 arguments on the last page. I've given these 2 arguments (as well as others) to numerous people who believe in Millennialism. I have yet to have someone answer the objections directly.

Let me rehash:

1) All public revelation was given to the Apostles. There is no public revelation given AFTER the apostles.
2) Private revelation exists solely to confirm and give more information to what *already exists* in Public Revelation.
3) private revelation cannot create anything "new." Even a Marian apparition to the Pope witnessed by millions of people could only confirm what ALREADY exists in the Public Revelation. Private revelation is subservient to Public Revelation. Always. Always.
4) Paul taught his followers to beware, because Christ could return at any point.
5) The very very early christians, many who knew the apostles and their immediate successors, believed that Jesus could return at any moment.
6) In fact, both Paul and his followers believed that Christ's return was likely imminent, within their lifetimes.
therefore
6) Since Paul's teaching was Public Revelation, and he taught that Christ was able to return at any moment, quite possibly within his lifetime or shortly thereafter, any private revelation that contradicts this is false.

next line of argumentation:

1) Since Paul's teaching was Public Revelation, and he taught that Christ was able to return at any moment, quite possibly within his lifetime or shortly thereafter, any private revelation that contradicts this is false.
2) The Millennial belief is that Jesus could only return AFTER a 1,000 year period of peace.
3) Yet the teaching of Paul in Public Revelation, that Christ could return at any moment-- including within the lifetime of Paul himself-- cannot be squared with any theoretical 1,000 year Era of Peace.
therefore
4) The teaching of Millennialism contradicts Pauls' teaching and is false.

All of my premises here are true, and my conclusion logically follows from my premises.




And for the second argument, I present as a Catholic of Jewish descent, with Jewish relatives:

1) The Church teaches, infallibly, that the normative means of salvation is only through the sacraments of the Catholic Church.
2) For anyone to be saved outside of that, they must be INVINCIBLY ignorant. Even VINCIBLE ignorance still damns a soul for eternity.
3) Any theoretical 1,000 year Era of Peace will have unbelievable evidence for the truth of the Catholic Church-- near universal conversion, no Satan to deceive people, worldwide miracles, etc.
4) Any pers0n that rejects the Gospel, with absolutely no influence from Satan or the demons, and given all this evidence, will most certainly be incapable of being INVINCIBLY ignorant at this point.
5) The Public Revelation teaches, and has been confirmed by the Magisterium, that the Jews will not convert to Christianity until AFTER the full number o f the Gentiles comes into the Church, just prior to the Second Coming.
6) So the Jews will remain Jewish and not convert for the MAJORITY of the 1,000 year "Era of Peace."
therefore
7) The Jews living during this time period will most certainly be damned, with this period of "Peace" being far more spiritually dangerous for us Jews than even the Holocaust or slavery in Egypt.

The only way to get around this argument is to say that the Jews of this "1,000 year Era of Peace" will somehow still be Invincibly Ignorant. If you really want to assert that someone can be invincibly ignorant, even after the conversion of the entire world, worldwide miracles, no more influence of Satan and the demons, etc.. then quite frankly, EVERYONE must be invincibly ignorant.

Of course, that's ridiculous. You and I both know it.

The Millennials so-called "Era of Peace" should really be renamed the "Final Triumph of Hitler."

 

+
The Forest for the Trees

I have the print of a painting portraying a beautiful forest of birch trees in the winter time. Closer inspection reveals that the white and black bark of the trees forms another image. I did not see it originally but it was shown to me by another. Once I did see it, it appears so clearly now I wonder how I did not see it at first. I always point it out to friends and family and some see it, and some just do not (for now).

I hope that most here can see where I'm going with this with regards the Divine Will and a coming great new outpouring of the Holy Spirit that has physical effects on humanity. Some will see the inevitableness of this ongoing 2nd Pentecost. Some will come to this conclusion because other Brothers and Sisters brought them to it, and (through prayer, study and discernment), accept it, embrace it and then seek to pass it on to others. Some will just not see it (for now), and that's ok. That is how the Holy Spirit works and all of us should not take the gifts we have been given for granted. For those who vehemently disagree with a coming great outpouring of the Holy Spirit, you can use this same analogy towards us. We will pray for you (and love you), and I ask that you pray for us (and love us), for we are really one in Christ's Body. I can almost guarantee one thing that all of us can agree on one thing. Whatever happens will almost surely surprise everybody in many ways.

Has this ever happened before? In a way, yes. If we place ourselves at 1 B.C. and argue about the coming of the future promised Messiah, what arguments would be allowed (I realize that we now have the fullness of revelation and they did not, but this is still useful). Would the prophets be allowed? I guess it depends which prophets you like for your argument. Would Sacred Scripture like the Psalms be allowed. Were'nt they written mostly by a King who said he was told by God that his own line would prevail forever (David)? How about the Law? The 10 commandments don't give much guidance to a coming Messiah. What about Tradition? Tradition and the Prophets (giving God's own word), clearly spell out a coming Messiah and the Prophets Daniel and Issaih tell us much of what He would be like and even the approximate time and place of His birth. The question is, if we asked the Magisterium of the time (Chief Priest, Sanhedrin) what would they say? Even after Jesus was born, what did they say about Him? They had many political considerations to juggle didn't they? In the end, they did what they though was right and got rid of 1 man so that peace with Rome would prevail. I am not condemning them and I am most certainly not saying our Pope and our Magisterium are in err (I fully support Pope Francis as has been demonstrated on other threads). The point I am trying to make is that sometimes, in God's Divine Plan, all of us are called to Him but not all at the same time. Many brilliant Jewish Scribes and Priests did not recognize Jesus for who He is, the Son of God and King of Kings. We believe that our Jewish Brothers and Sisters are God's choosen Sons and Daughters to this very day (we Gentiles are the adopted). They will, in Gods time, be in full communion with the Catholic Church at some point (I believe it closer than others might).

If the Jews, who are God's chosen people, are still waiting to see the truth, I will surely not be to hard on any of my brothers or sisters here, if they do not yet see a future great outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Way before the end of time and the Final Judgement). I know that there are many here who do not agree with this position and you have presented valuable arguments. Somtimes they even have somewhat of a courtroom feel. That is when they fail. If everything has to be proven like in court, what may I ask is your first cause? I believe that it would be our Faith in God who is a Trinity of Co-equal Father, Son and Holy Ghost. All of us come down to our belief - our Faith. Our knowledge and wisdom must fail us if we are to get true knowledge and wisdom as part of the love in the Holy Spirit. Prayer (especially the Holy Rosary), Pennance and Fasting are much needed right now. This could never conflict with the Magisterium, with Sacred Scripture, with Holy Tradition and this is available to all of us. It does not mean that all of us will get the understanding that we seek though (for now). I can tell you though, Brothers and Sisters, that I look forward to the time when we all see the forest for the trees.
Peace Brothers and Sisterrs,
Ed
+