Tuesday, 4 April 2017

Archbishop of Trani Confirms Fr. Joseph Iannuzzi has Breached the Moratorium on Luisa Piccarreta

The Archbishop of Trani, Giovan Battista Pichierri, has sent me a letter confirming that Rev. Joseph Iannuzzi OSJ has breached the moratorium he placed on the writings of Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta. This means his books on this subject, including The Splendor of Creation, are to be avoided by all the faithful. Here is the Italian text of the letter below, followed by a rough translation using Google translate.

Trani, 30 marzo 2017
Prot. 128/17/C2
Egregio Dott. Emmett O'Regan,...
ho ricevuto il suo messaggio di posta elettronica del 21 febbraio 2017 nel quale mi riferiva della sua attività di studio e del riscontro da lei compiuto sulle pubblicazioni del sacerdote Giuseppe Iannuzzi.
Preciso che detto sacerdote non appartiene a questa Arcidiocesi e non ha ricevuto da parte mia alcuna autorizzazione, permesso o mandato di nessun genere sia in relazione alle pubblicazioni sia in riferimento allo studio e alla diffusione.
In questo momento l’Arcidiocesi e l’Associazione “Luisa Piccarreta – P.F.D.V.” sono impegnati nella elaborazione dell’edizione tipica e critica degli scritti della Serva di Dio sulla base della quale sarà possibile compiere le necessarie traduzioni in altre lingue e ulteriori studi di natura teologica.
Ad ogni buon conto, tutte le attività di studio ufficiali in questo momento vengono concordate e coordinate in sintonia con la Congregazione delle Cause dei Santi per il tramite della postulazione.
Nell’assicurarle la piena disponibilità ad ogni ulteriore chiarimento, la saluto cordialmente e le auguro una Santa Pasqua.

Giovan Battista Pichierri

Trani, March 30, 2017 Prot. 128/17 / C2
Dear Mr. Emmett O'Regan,

Dear Mr. Emmett O'Regan, I received your e-mail of 21 February 2017 which informed me of your study and the response made on the publications of the priest Joseph Iannuzzi. Point out that this priest does not belong to this Archdiocese and did not receive from me any authorization, permission or warrant of any kind and in relation to publications both in reference to the study and dissemination. Right now the Archdiocese and the Association "Luisa Piccarreta - PFDV" are engaged in the typical edition processing and critical writings of the Servant of God on the basis of which it will be possible to complete the necessary translations in other languages ​​and additional theological research to be conducted. In any event, all of the official study activities at this time are agreed and coordinated in harmony with the Congregation for the Causes of Saints through the postulation. I assure you full availability for any further clarification, I greet you cordially and a Happy Easter.

Giovan Battista Pichierri

You can find the official text of the letter here.

Below is the text of the original email that I sent to the Archbishop:

Dear Excellency,

I am a theology graduate and writer from Ireland, and have been doing some research into Servant of God Luisa Piccaretta and the “Divine Will Movement” in North America. I am concerned about 2 books containing translations of Luisa’s writings that appear to breach the moratorium you placed on her writings in 2007. The books in question are “Proper Catholic Perspectives: On the Teachings of Luisa Piccarreta” (2010) and “The Gift of Living in the Divine Will in the Writings of Luisa Piccarreta” (2013), both by Rev Joseph Iannuzzi OSJ. Neither of these translations of Luisa’s writings into English contain imprimatur, contrary to Canon 829: "The approval or permission to publish some work is valid for the original text but not for new editions or translations of the same." Father Iannuzzi claims that he has received official ecclesiastical approbation for his 2013 book from the Pontifical Gregorian University, which appears to usurp your singular authority over these writings. In his books, Father Iannuzzi claims that he received your official written endorsement for producing these translations. I presume by this he means your correspondence with him in 2003, in which you rescinded certain statements made by your Vicar General, Mons. Savino Giannotti, concerning Father Iannuzzi’s authority within the Archdiocese of Trani in relation to the writings of Luisa. Would you be able to confirm for me if you really did officially endorse Father Iannuzzi’s books, as he himself claims? My suspicion is that these books were in fact published without your permission, and that Father Iannuzzi misinterpreted your letter as an act of “endorsement”.

Yours faithfully in Christ,

Emmett O’Regan

My suspicions were based on the fact that none of Fr. Iannuzzi's works have the imprimatur of his responsible ordinary or the imprimi potest of his major superior, which contradicts Canon Law. In addition to this, in a communique from the Vicar General of Trani dating from 2003 we find the following statement:

"Rev. Giuseppe Iannuzzi never had any position within the Archdiocese of Trani-Barletta-Bisceglie. He is concerned with finishing his studies on the mystical life, examining the texts of Luisa Piccarreta, up until now never being recognized by the Archdiocese; and neither has he ever been a Censor or preacher."

(See here)

Compare the above with the wording of the 2007 moratorium issued by the Archbishop of Trani:

"This Archdiocese following the opening of the Diocesan Inquiry has never appointed any theologian or official censor of the writings of Luisa. So likewise has not appointed any official translator of the writings in Italian into other languages"


Anonymous said...


In the letters you posted from the Archbishop, I don't see any words confirming your assertion that "Rev. Joseph Iannuzzi OSJ has breached the moratorium...." Has Rev. Iannuzzi ever claimed to be the "official translator" for these writings? All the Archbishop appears to be saying is that Rev. Iannuzzi has not been given an official position and is not a member of his Archdiocese and is not apart of the Archbishop's own "additional theological research" into the life and writings of Luisa Piccarreta. The 2003 letter even admits that Rev. Iannuzzi "is concerned with finishing his studies on the mystical life, examining the texts of Luisa Piccarreta." To that end, Rev. Iannuzzi was even in Rome a while back presenting his academic study on the writings and life of Luisa Piccarreta. I think you are reading more into the Archbishop's words than you should Emmett. I can understand you might have a motive to do so since some of his eschatological theories conflict with your own. Perhaps Father Iannuzzi did misinterpret the Archbishop's reply. Maybe you are right and maybe I am wrong, Emmett, but wouldn't the prudent thing be to write to Father Iannuzzi for a rebuttal and post it here in the interests of charity?

Emmett O'Regan said...

Fr Iannuzzi claimed that he had permission from the Archbishop to issue authorised translations of the writings of Luisa Piccaretta. I specifically asked the Archbishop if he granted this permission, and he stated no. If Fr. Iannuzzi wants to offer a rebuttal, I will certainly consider posting it here.

Emmett O'Regan said...

Here is the words of the Archbishop on the moratorium: "neither the Archdiocese nor the Association, let alone the same Secretariat, have delegated any person, group or association to represent themselves outside their legitimate seat, in order to diffuse the life, thought and the writings of the Servant of God, or to make any decisions on their behalf. This Archdiocese following the opening of the Diocesan Inquiry has never appointed any theologian or official censor of the writings of Luisa. So likewise has not appointed any official translator of the writings in Italian into other languages ​​"  
"As I have already indicated at the conclusion of the diocesan cause, it is my desire, having listened to the opinion of the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints, to present a "TYPICAL AND CRITICAL EDITION" writings, in order to provide a safe and textually faithful work of Luisa Piccarreta. In this regard, I reiterate that the ownership of the writings is only the Archdiocese (Letter to the Bishops, 14 October 2006). To accomplish this challenging work that requires special skills, I will use a team of experts chosen by agreement with the postulation.
7. I must, however, point out the increasing uncontrolled spread of transcriptions, translations and publications both on paper and computer. Instead, taking account of the sensitivity of the current phase every publication of the writings is absolutely suspended. Anyone who takes action in the opposite way disobeys and seriously damages the Cause of the Servant of God (Press, 30 May 2008). Therefore, in every way "leaps forward" regarding publication should be avoided.

Anonymous said...


Could the first of three angels of Revelation 14 be the two Tsunamis of 2004 and 2011?

Anonymous said...

Dear Emmett, if we follow your second link we find the Archbishop's response to you which has an addition, as does the original Italian letter, stating that the Archbishop rescinds the paragraph about Fr Iannuzzi. Does this change your opinion that Fr Iannuzzi has breached the moratorium? It has become confusing! Karen

Emmett O'Regan said...

Hi Karen. I mentioned about that letter which apparently rescinded those comments to the Archbishop himself in my correspondence with him. He reiterated that Fr. Iannuzzi does not have permission of any kind to publish Luisa's writings.

Brendan Triffett said...

I have a few points to make here Emmett.

You claim there is a discrepancy between what the Archbishop of Trani says, and what Fr. Iannuzzi says. Did you ask Fr. Iannuzzi to explain the discrepancy for you?

You said would consider positing Fr. Iannuzzi's response. You can cut and paste it from here

I think it is important to point out that in an important sense, Fr. Iannuzzi has not "published Luisa's writings" at all! He has not produced a new translation of any of the volumes of Luisa's Book of Heaven, or of either of the other two books associated with Luisa (The Virgin in the Kingdom of the Divine Will, The Hours of the Passion). Nor has he uploaded a document or file that contains a complete volume of Luisa's writings (an old translation or "pro-document") or anything similar. If Fr. Iannuzzi has included quotes from Luisa's writings (and yes, he has) in his own publications, that is another thing altogether.

I would also remind you of the spirit of the "law" (in this case, the "moratorium"). The intention of this moratorium was to prevent people from spreading false interpretations of Luisa's writings. One reason for this was inaccurate renderings of the original language in which they were written. Another reason is the absence of theologically sound commentary that would make doubly sure that Luisa's writings are interpreted in the context of the Catholic tradition. Now, as I'm sure you know, Fr. Iannuzzi learnt Luisa Piccarreta's own dialect of Italian in order to read the original texts for his thesis on Divine Will theology, and not rely on faulty translations. Second, the works that Fr. Ianuzzi has published are for the specific purpose of curbing the spread of false interpretations of Luisa's writings--which is hardly against the spirit of the moratorium! Indeed, he was encouraged to do his thesis on Divine Will theology for that same purpose. And you can hardly say that Fr. Iannuzzi (Ph.B, STB, M. Div, STL, STD) does not have enough theological training to teach others how Catholics should be reading Luisa's writings!

I wonder if any of this makes you change your mind.
Or perhaps there's something I'm not seeing?

In Christ,
Brendan Triffett

Emmett O'Regan said...

Hi Brendan. I'll post that up with my response to it. The fact is, the Archbishop of Trani holds the sole copyright to the entirety of Luisa's writings, and anyone that wishes to publish them must obtain his permission first. The Archbishop of Trani has explicitly stated that Fr. Iannuzzi did not have his permission to do so.

Rachmaninov said...

There is the problem also that the Magisterium has not spoken on the correct interpretation of the Divine Will writings. Fr Iannuzzi gives his own interpretation and marries it up to the erroneous belief about a symbolic thousand year reign of Christ to come which is totally contrary to various statements of Popes, not to mention Gaudium et Spes 37 which states "For a monumental struggle against the powers of darkness pervades the whole history of man. The battle was joined from the very origins of the world and will continue until the last day, as the Lord has attested." Also his idea that Lactantius was a "genius" does not match the view of Fr Brian E Daley, winner of the 2012 Ratzinger prize for theology and a world expert on patristics. In his 1991 book "Eschatology in the Early church" he stated that Lactantius' eschatology was a mixture of Christian, pagan and even occult apocalyptic writings. The spiritual millennium theory is totally at odds with magisterial teachings, in fact Fr Iannuzzi's belief that the Antichrist will come before this temporal Kingdom is also an error. The Catechism clearly states he will form the final persecution of the Church before the end of the world.

Emmett O'Regan said...

Here is the words of the Archbishop in the moratorium:
"In the meantime, the Congregation [of the causes of saints] has informed me that “before proceeding any further, an examination of the writings of the Servant of God will be done in order to clarify difficulties of a theological nature” and that consequently, in the current state of the Cause, her writings may not be published. The rule of prudence and respect for the Church, therefore, obliges everyone to avoid any publication, be it in print or on the internet, of Luisa’s writings both in Italian and in any other language. This is true also because of legal reasons since the Archdiocese of Trani-Barletta-Bisceglie has exclusive ownership of, and rights to, her writings.”

Brendan Triffett said...

Dear Emmett and Rachmaninov

I would actually be interested in reading more about your objections to Fr. Iannuzzi's eschatology (particularly on the era of peace); if you could provide a good reading list I would be grateful. I'm not in any position at the moment to respond to these objections.

That said, we should distinguish between the two accusations being made here--one against Iannuzzi's eschatology, the other against his supposed breach of copyright. I was only concerned with the latter. (The fact that they two accusations are being mixed together here is cause for concern. It seems like you are launching a general attack on a person, trying to hit him by any means available).

I think you are missing something very important (and actually quite obvious) here. Let me put it like this. Your own published book, I would assume, has quite a lot of quotes from other books. Now in most cases the publishers own the copyright to these works (I'm not a lawyer, but I think that's right). I don't have access to your bibliography right now, but let's suppose one author you quote from is Jo Blogs who publishes all his writings through Oxford UP. Suppose I were to write to Oxford UP and ask them whether a certain Emmett O'Regan was given permission by them "to publish the writings of Jo Blogs." What would they say? They of course would say "no"--and by that they would mean that Emmett has no permission to publish the entirety of any volume of Jo Blogs. Now does that imply that Emmett has no right to publish a book in which there are (possibly extensive) quotes from the writings of Jo Blogs? Of course not!

We have both published before, and we both know that there is no need to contact every copyright owner to ask them permission to quote from a certain author. Where I live (Australia), 10% of a volume can be copied without explicit permission, or a whole chapter, whichever is more (last time I checked). I would be surprised if that were much different elsewhere in the Western world.

Don't you think it illogical and unjust that you would hold Fr. Iannuzzi to a standard that you don't hold to yourself, and that no researcher holds to either?

Unless I am missing something, I really think you should retract this particular accusation. Either that, or (a) produce documents that show that you have explicit permission to "publish the author's works" from the copyright owners of all the books you have quoted from, or (b) show that Fr. Iannuzzi has breached copyright according to the normal standard, not the imaginary (and rather odd) standard you have dreamt up--for the purpose of grinding an axe, it would seem. (Maybe you don't have an axe to grind; I couldn't know. But it certainly looks like it--I'm just informing you what things look like from out here.)

Good, clean theological debate is to be encouraged in the Church. But what you're attempting here is a low blow. If you have an issue with Fr. Iannuzzi's theology, that is all well and good. Debate the issue; don't attack the man.

I hope and pray for a peaceful resolution in this matter.

Brendan Triffett, PhD

Emmett O'Regan said...

Brendan, its not a matter of breach of copyright, which pertains solely to civil law, but the breach of the moratorium, which concerns ecclesiastical law. Here we have the sole copyright holder and responsible ordinary explicitly stating that the works of Luisa Piccaretta may not be published, which obliges "everyone" to avoid any of her writings. The fact of the matter remains that Fr. Iannuzzi did not and does not have permission to publish these writings according to ecclesiastical law. The onus is on Fr. Iannuzzi to prove that he has not breached the moratorium, and I would suggest that both him and yourself raise your objections to the Secretariat of the Cause of Luisa. If the Secretariat affirms that Fr. Iannuzzi has not breached the moratorium, I will immediately retract any claims to contrary and will issue Fr Iannuzzi with a public apology.
I would suggest reading Stephen Walford's books, Communion of Saints (particularly the epilogue) and Heralds of the Second Coming, as well as my own.

Brendan Triffett said...

You claim, Emmett, that the moratorium "obliges everyone to avoid any of her [Luisa's] writings". But if you had been more prudent, and actually done your research, you would know that this is not true. The Archbishop of Trani wrote in 2012: "Necessary prudence cannot deaden the ardor of those who feel compelled to spread the knowledge of the sanctity of life of the Servant of God, to recommend reading the writings, (and) to inspire the making of trusting prayer for her beatification. All this is not only not forbidden but it is desirable."

I include below an excerpt from an unofficial translation of the Archbishop's third press release about the process of beatification and canonization of Luisa Piccarretta (emphasis in the original Italian and in the translation, a couple of typos removed from the translation). I am astounded that you did not even check your facts against this readily accessible document before proceeding as you did.

<<8. With joy I note also the news I receive, as groups that are inspired by the Divine Will are quick to strengthen the bonds of communion with their diocesan bishops, realizing that indispensable communion that puts them organically in the Local Church (Press, 30 May 2008). I repeat, therefore, that the initiatives that are taken in reference to the spirituality of Luisa, such as conferences, days of spirituality, prayer meetings, etc., to give peace of mind to those who participate, must be authorized by their Bishop (Letter dated 24 November 2003).
9. Necessary prudence cannot deaden the ardor of those who feel compelled to spread the knowledge of the sanctity of life of the Servant of God, to recommend reading the writings, (and) to inspire the making of trusting prayer for her beatification. All this is not only not forbidden but it is desirable. As well as, an invitation to strengthen the unity and communion among sister dioceses in which are found individuals, groups and associations inspired by the Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta and know her writings (Final Communiqué, 28 October 2005).>>

The original was published on the 1st of November 2012 and can be found at the official website for the cause of Luisa's beatification.

Unofficial translation found at

In Christ,
Brendan Triffett, PhD

Brendan Triffett said...

I also meant to include this in the excerpt too:

<<4. Pending the outcome of this prayerful inquiry, I wish to address those who say that the writings contain doctrinal errors. This, today, is not endorsed by any ruling of the Holy See, nor by my staff. I would note that in this way the legitimate judgment of the Church is anticipated, causing a certain scandal to the faithful whom these writings have nourished spiritually, and giving rise to suspicions even among those of us who are zealous for the remainder of the Cause. Waiting for the judgment of the competent authority, I invite the most serious and thorough personal reading, meditation and reflection on these writings in the light of Sacred Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church.>>


Rachmaninov said...

The simple fact is, the archbishop more or less acknowledges that he cannot stop people reading the writings that are already out there, but what the 2012 statement clearly says is that"taking account of the sensitivity of the current phase every publication of the writings is absolutely suspended. Anyone who takes action in the opposite way disobeys and seriously damages the Cause of the Servant of God."
Now, Fr Iannuzzi's dissertation came out in 2013, and was not publshied even by the Gregorian University, but by St Andrew's Press in the USA. So please could you tell us how that is not breaching the clear words of the archbishop? There is no way the Gregorian University-even if it ordered Fr Iannuzzi to publish it- has the authority to go over the archbishop who has sole authority along with the Congregation for the Causes of Saints.

Emmett O'Regan said...

There may not be any doctrinal errors in Luisa's writings, but there is certainly doctrinal errors in Fr. Iannuzzi's interpretation of her writings - especially in his promotion of a millenarian spiritual reign of Christ on earth during an invisible "middle coming". Such extreme interpretations of her writings is why all publications of them have been suspended until the critical edition. Fr. Iannuzzi has patently acted against the Archbishop's moratorium, and the fact that he uses the writings of Luisa Piccaretta to advance his millennial theories is certainly damaging her cause.

Brendan Triffett said...

Emmett and Sergei,

I have already answered your questions above. But let me re-state my reasons for my claim that Fr. Iannuzzi has in all likelihood not "breached the moratorium." I doubt I will have anything else to add after this.

1. What is the most straight-forward and natural interpretation of "publishing the writings of x"? I have published an article with quotations from John Milbank, Thomas Aquinas, and Pseudo-Dionysius (amongst others). Now let's say I write on my resume that amongst my achievements I have published the writings of Aquinas, and the writings of Milbank, and the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius. How would that be understood? Would my statements be accurate, or would they be misleading? Would you, Emmett, be comfortable writing a statement on your website that you have published the writings of Augustine (I am assuming here that you have referred to him in your book)?

2. Granted, usually the writings of authors are published in piece-meal fashion. We don't across all of Augustine's writings in a single volume, for example. But still, if I write a book that includes a few passages from Augustine--or even a book which is solely about Augustine, and quotes from him extensively--it would be misleading (at best) to say that I have contributed to the publication of Augustine's writings. In order to contribute to the publication of someone's writings, one needs to publish those writings in the correct form. The writings would have to be preserved whole and continuous--this is crucial. If people want to consult the works of Augustine, where do they turn? Do they turn to a book in which quotes from Augustine are scattered? Hardly.

3. On your interpretation of the Archbishop of Trani's statement, he has forbidden (at least for now) anyone to publish (say) a theological journal article that quotes a single sentence from Luisa Piccarreta's writing. Do you think that is likely? Does the Archbishop really have that sort of authority?

4. If you are so concerned about Luisa's cause, why did you not first go after those people at all those other websites who have uploaded the ENTIRETY of Luisa's works?

5. You will answer that Fr. Iannuzzi has mixed his own false interpretation with the writings of Luisa. Well, that is your understanding--and you are entitled to it, I suppose--but neither of you are official representatives of the cause of Luisa. Be careful you do not do the same thing that you have accused Fr. Iannuzzi of doing.

6. Finally, as I already mentioned earlier, there is the spirit of the moratorium (I have already dealt with the letter). Father Iannuzzi is certainly qualified to guide people away from false interpretations of Luisa's writings.

7. The onus is on you to seek further clarification from the Archbishop of Trani on the moratorium and the status of Fr. Iannuzzi's work, if you are not convinced. (If and when you do that, you should probably word your letter a bit better to avoid ambiguity). To put the onus on others is to say that Fr. is guilty until proven innocent.

8. I do not claim to be the "official interpreter" of the Archbishop of Trani's statement. If His Grace or some official representative of his were to correct my reading of his statement, of course I would comply. Here I am simply doing my best to interpret his statement in the most natural way.

Have a good holy week.

Brendan Triffett said...

I forgot to include this point:

Rachmaninov said "the archbishop more or less acknowledges that he cannot stop people reading the writings that are already out there."

When you write it like that, it sounds as if the archbishop begrudgingly accepts that people will still read the writings of Luisa. But point 9 in his official letter (already quoted by me above) suggests otherwise:

"Necessary prudence cannot deaden the ardor of those who feel compelled to spread the knowledge of the sanctity of life of the Servant of God, to recommend reading the writings, (and) to inspire the making of trusting prayer for her beatification. All this is not only not forbidden but it is desirable".

Emmett O'Regan said...

Brendan, the fact remains that Fr. Iannuzzi has published a large volume of the writings of Luisa Piccaretta despite the Archbishop of Trani specifically stating that none of her writings may published without his express permission or that of the Secretariat. There is no way round this. Additionally, Fr. Iannuzzi's works on Luisa Piccaretta, including Splendor of Creation, do not bear the imprimatur of his responsible ordinary or the imprimi potest of his major superior, which is in direct contravention of Canon 832: "To publish writings on matters of religion or morals, members of religious institutes require also the permission of their major Superior, in accordance with the constitutions." I do not bear Fr. Iannuzzi any animosity, I am just concerned that he is unwittingly leading quite a lot of people into error on this subject.

Anonymous said...


Satan Must Reign in the Vatican. The Pope Will Be His Slave.”


psieve2 said...

Maybe the bishop of the diocese should just read over the priest's writings about her and declare them free of doctrinal error or not. It might give others the feeling of liberty to break moratoriums, but it would make a statement about the bishop's authority over those matters. Until then, he could ban sales of the priest's books at Catholic media stores until or if he approves of the books in question with a penalty of once committing a mortal sin for selling the materials, regardless. I, personally, see no reason

Fr. Corapi's materials are not played on orthodox Catholic tv or media. He made himself a bad example after things went south for him, it's true and should be a disclaimer, but his teachings were doctrinally sound, I believe. Catholic radio has speeches made by Medjugorje devotees talking highly of its famous disrespectful (of the bishops' declarations), if not disobedient, priest, but no Fr Corapi is played. Interesting.

Anonymous said...

Brendan,you should first address Emmetts last post here before continuing.

Brendan Triffett said...

If I must respond, then:

Emmett said "the fact remains that Fr. Iannuzzi has published a large volume of the writings of Luisa Piccaretta despite the Archbishop of Trani specifically stating that none of her writings may published without his express permission or that of the Secretariat. There is no way round this."

Emmett has only repeated his claim without addressing any of my reasons for believing his claim to be false. Just sticking one's heels in and saying "there is no way round this" is not an argument.

As for Emmett's next point, Fr Iannuzzi writes that he has in fact obtained in writing every year from his superior a letter of suitability, and a letter of endorsement for his work. Father writes that Emmett "in his ignorance failed to write to my superior who is the proper ecclesiastical authority and who alone can grant me a letter of endorsement for my work (which I have obtained very year), but
he chose to write the Archdiocese of Trani to which I do not belong and which cannot canonically grant such a letter."
See here

I notice that Emmett has not included Father's response here on his blog yet, as he promised to do.

If Emmett is right about Fr. Iannuzzi's thesis--that it contains serious error--then: (1) the 45 bishops who proclaimed that the work provides an "essential service to the Church" were all deluded--and instead we should give more weight to the authority of a certain layman, Mr O'Regan.
(2) The Archbishop of Trani himself was deluded when he personally wrote to Fr. Iannuzzi to endorse Father's writings on Luisa Piccarreta--and instead we should give more weight to the authority of a certain layman (Mr O'Regan).
(3) The authorities that be in the Gregorian Pontifical University, which is authorised by the Holy See, were seriously misguided when they approved with high honours Father's thesis--and instead we should give more weight to the authority of a certain layman (Mr O'Regan).
(4) All of Father Iannuzzi's theological training, and his research on the work of Luisa, is to be discounted and put aside--and instead we should give more weight to the authority of a certain layman (Mr O'Regan).

I am sure that Emmett provides a service to the Church with his research and even with his differing point of view. But I find the idea that he as an individual layman, has more authority on this subject than the clergy mentioned above taken together, to be extremely unlikely.


Rachmaninov said...

The problem is not-at least for me with- Luisa Piccaretta's writings which we await the proper interpretation from the proper authorities.The problem is the spiritual millennium theory which Fr Ianuzzi promotes. Now unfortunetely there is a clear contradiction between his view of what is to happen and the magisterium. Gaudium et Spes clearly teaches evil will continue to grow until the end of the world; various popes have said the same. In fact John Paul II in a general audience in 1986 said the Book of Revelation shows how evil will increase in a spiralling way towards the end. Now what Fr Ianuzzi has done is link Luisa Piccaretta's writings to the spiritual millennium theory, and I have never seen one reference to Rev 20 in any of her writings, or about the era of peace being temporal. St Hildegard of Bingen, Doctor of the Church in her mystical writings says no resurrection of the dead until good and bad together on the last day. The our Father will only be fulfilled after the end of the world not before thats in the Catechism.
Theological gymnastics to try and put square pegs in round holes does not help anyone, and thats why Luisa Piccaerreta's writings should be left alone until such time the CDF theologians finish their work and if they are accepted as authentic, be given an intepretation that is consistent with the teachings of the Church. Lactantius whom Fr Ianuzzi called a genius was getting his eschatological writings from a variety of soures including pagan and occult. Fr Iannuzzi didnt tell anyone that-but fortunately world expert of patristics, Fr Brian Daley winner of the 2012 Ratzinger prize for theology did.

Emmett O'Regan said...


I have deleted your post where you quoted Luisa Piccarreta's writings, since the ecclesiastical ban on publishing any of her writings in print or online remains in force. As such, I don't want them to appear on my blog. I'm not going to post up Fr. Iannuzzi's rather uncharitable response on my blog either, since he launches a personal attack against me, falsely claiming that I oppose the Magisterium of the Church (even though he obviously knows nothing about my writing) and he also accuses me of lying. I have contacted Fr. Iannuzzi's superior informing him of this situation, and am still waiting on a reply. The letter of suitability that Fr. Iannuzzi receives from his superior each year is not a formal endorsement of his writing. If Fr. Iannuzzi's superior endorsed his writing, his books would bear his superior's imprimi potest, along with the accompanying nihil obstat, declaring his works to be free of doctrinal error, as Canon 832 requires of members of religious institutes.
The Archbishop of Trani also made it abundantly clear that he does not endorse Fr. Iannuzzi's work in his letter to me: "this priest does not belong to this Archdiocese and did not receive from me any authorization, permission or warrant of any kind and in relation to publications both in reference to the study and dissemination". He might have received the Archbishop's endorsement at one stage, before the doctrinal errors in Fr. Iannuzzi's books became clear to him. But certainly since Fr. Iannuzzi's personal correspondence with the Archbishop of Trani in 2003, the Archbishop has not endorsed any of his work. In fact, the moratorium was placed on Luisa's writings precisely because of the theological difficulties presented by some of the material, such as the passage you quoted. Fr. Iannuzzi certainly interprets Luisa's writings in a millenarian style that is contrary to Catholic doctrine. I don't appeal to my own authority on this subject, but rather the Catechism, which categorically rules out all types of millenarianism, even modified or mitigated forms (CCC 676).

Emmett O'Regan said...

Also, I am not in any way opposed to the writings of Luisa Piccarreta, as Fr. Iannuzzi claims. I am opposed to how they are being interpreted by Fr. Iannuzzi to support the millenarian idea of a "spiritual millennium" of peace on earth after an invisible "Middle Coming" of Christ, which is apparently to take place before His Second Coming. I'm sure the future critical edition of the writings of Luisa Piccarreta will address the theological difficulties that some of her material presents. Until it is published, we must respect the wishes of the Archbishop of Trani.

Emmett O'Regan said...

The Catechism categorically rules out the notion of a "golden age" of total peace on earth, which is "immanentizing the eschaton" (Voegelin) - "to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgement" (CCC 676).

Though already present in his Church, Christ's reign is nevertheless yet to be fulfilled "with power and great glory" by the King's return to earth. This reign is still under attack by the evil powers, even though they have been defeated definitively by Christ's Passover. Until everything is subject to him, "until there be realized new heavens and a new earth in which justice dwells, the pilgrim Church, in her sacraments and institutions, which belong to this present age, carries the mark of this world which will pass, and she herself takes her place among the creatures which groan and travail yet and await the revelation of the sons of God." That is why Christians pray, above all in the Eucharist, to hasten Christ's return by saying to him: Maranatha! "Our Lord, come!"
Before his Ascension Christ affirmed that the hour had not yet come for the glorious establishment of the messianic kingdom awaited by Israel which, according to the prophets, was to bring all men the definitive order of justice, love and peace. According to the Lord, the present time is the time of the Spirit and of witness, but also a time still marked by "distress" and the trial of evil which does not spare the Church and ushers in the struggles of the last days. (CCC 671-672)

Anonymous said...


You are are wrong when you say that the Church rules out a period of peace on earth prior to the Second Coming. In fact, at the approved apparition at Fatima, Our Blessed Mother used the very words "period of peace." Perhaps, Emmett, what you meant to say was that the Church rules out the Millennium which would be a coming of Christ in glory prior to the Second Coming. Please don't conflate the Millennium with the Era of Peace. Such a notion of a period of peace, restoration and unification is present in many approved prophecies. Numerous Popes have also hinted at it. And I have in my possession a book from 1952 titled The Teaching of the Catholic Church, which bears the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, and which states the following:

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

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

So, you see Emmett, a period of peace and triumphant Christianity is possible before the Second Coming. It is not the same thing as the Millennium. And it is sound Catholic teaching.

Anonymous said...

It's hard for some people to accept the notion of the era of peace because since the Freemason "Enlightenment" what was once known as Christendom has been plunged into darkness and division culminating in the violence of 20th century.

There used to be a time when the known world order was Catholic and there was no separation of Church from State. Those times were not times of universal peace, prosperity or the abolition of suffering but compared to tyranny of the Freemason world order, they were truly a golden age of humanity. I suspect that the coming era of peace will see the destruction of Freemasonry's deathgrip on world power and the reestablishment of the Church's authority in political sphere. As for what initiates the Era of Peace, I believe that it will be a worldwide miracle - a sort of Miracle of the Sun but on a worldwide level. Saint Faustina wrote in her diary that before the Second Coming, all light in the heavens will be extinguished and the Sign of the Cross will appear in the sky and light up the earth for a time. I believe that this will be the event that ushers in the period of peace and the restoration of the Church.

Colin Cooper said...

A period of peace before the final persecution/rebellion is both biblically and ecclesiastically evidenced, being related to the Katechon that restrains the full manifestation of the Antichrist.

It is entirely distinct from the "millennium" in Revelation 20, which the tradition of the Church since St. Augustine at least has near-unanimously understood as referring to the reign of the saints in the Church Triumphant, which is therefore contiguous with the entire epoch beginning with the resurrection of Jesus and terminating with the Eschaton, in other words the present "age", as a term marking an indefinite period of time between the first advent, when Christ’s kingdom was established, and his second advent.

During this span of time, writes Augustine, the devil is “prevented from the exercise of his whole power to seduce men” and the saints “reign with Christ” over his spiritual kingdom. When Christ returns, he will judge the living and the dead, and then will usher in the eternal state.

The magisterium has never defined the “millennium” St. John saw in his vision. It has only rejected certain interpretations of the term discerned to be in error, which include the belief that Christ will return to earth at the climax of a long period of righteousness and peace arrived at by means of a "historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy". This is not an acceptable position for a Catholic to hold.

The prophesised "period of peace", which I do absolutely believe in, is actually referring to 1 Thessalonians 5:1-3 (NRSV):

"...Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers and sisters,[a] you do not need to have anything written to you. 2 For you yourselves know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 When they say, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them, as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and there will be no escape!..."

Colin Cooper said...

One of the signs of the End Times is that people say "There is peace and security", before "sudden destruction" comes - that is, the rebellion of Antichrist, who is described in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 as "the man of lawlessness, the son of destruction".

In other words, a period of peace and security precedes the "labour pains" that will ultimately lead to the Final Persecution. In her Book of Divine Works, St. Hildegard contends that the original Pax Christiana inaugurated by the Great Monarch and the other secular princes will gradually decay into a "lazy peace" characterised by lethargic religiosity, brought about by the absence of conflict and the abundance of temporal needs. And then, as men become self-assured in the permanence of this "peace and security," it will suddenly be brought crashing down by "precursors of Antichrist" who she describes as disciples of Baal, the "birth pangs", after the Katechon (who enables the peace to take place and has traditionally been identified, according to the Church Fathers with the Holy Roman Emperor and the Roman Empire) is taken out of the way.

This is the verse that St. Bonaventure relied upon in his exegesis to justify his belief in a future "great peace" before the Eschaton in his Collations on the Hexaemeron (1273)

"...The seventh time or age, that of quiet, begins with the shout of the angel who "swore through Him who lives forever and ever that there would be no more time; but in the days of the seventh angel the mystery of God will be completed" (Rev. 10:&-7)...It is necessary that One Ruler, a defender of the Church, arise. After him will come the darkness of tribulations...No one knows how long that time of great peace will last since ''when they said 'Peace and security,' then suddenly destruction came upon them" (1 Thessalonians 5:1-3)..."

The Peace has nothing to do with a "spiritual millennium" that will persist until Christ's Second Coming after the fall of Antichrist or a progressive upward spike in holiness culminating in such an epoch, rather it has to do with the Katechon which/who restrains the full manifestation of Antichrist and the peace spoken of by St. Paul which precedes Antichrist.

Sr. Marianne Lorraine Trouve said...

From what I've read about them, Luisa's writings seem very strange to me and similar to the errors of Joachim of Fiore regarding a new age of the Spirit. We already have all we need in Sacred Scripture, the sacraments, and the teaching of the Church. Even if the Church eventually approves Luisa's writings, we don't need them to become holy. My own opinion is that they are a sort of Gnosticism. I will spend my time studying Scripture, the true and sure Word of God.

Anonymous said...

Since Our Lady mentioned a period of peace at La Salette[25yrs] and at Fatima,why would she be so clumsy as to speak of an era of peace?

Sr M Lorraine said...

Also, Emmet, I pray that you have a happy Easter and that God will bless you abundantly.
You are doing good work here; I enjoy your blog. I think it is good to have an open discussion about the status of Fr Iannuzzi's book; certainly people may disagree about this but there is room for differences of opinion.
Also your case stands on its merits; if you are wrong, a thousand theologians saying you are right won't make any difference. And if you are right, a thousand theologians saying you are wrong won't make any difference. I wouldn't read too much into the endorsements given to Iannuzzi's book by various bishops. That is a standard practice in the publishing world and it's doubtful they combed through it and agreed with every word. They are basically just saying that he's made a contribution to the discussion, which he has, but that doesn't mean they agree with all his opinions.

Emmett O'Regan said...

Thanks Sr. Lorraine! I'm sure that those bishops who endorsed Fr. Iannuzzi's books were not fully aware of the full implications of his work as a whole. I also want to reiterate that I hold Fr. Iannuzzi in high esteem, given his wholehearted dedication to Christ in his priestly vocation. However, I feel that it is my duty to oppose him on this issue, since his exposition of a future spiritual millennial reign of Christ on earth contradicts the clear and constant teaching of the Church on matters of eschatology.

Brendan Triffett said...

Sr Lorraine

Yes, I agree with you about there being room for differences of opinion on Fr. Iannuzzi. I even agree that Emmett's research and publication can be of benefit to the Church. And yes, Emmett is under no obligation as a Catholic to agree that there will be an era of peace. Where Emmett goes too far, though, is in saying that the notion of an era of peace contradicts official Catholic doctrine, or that Fr. Iannuzzi's book contradicts official Catholic doctrine. It is one thing for someone to say they don't agree with Fr. Iannuzzi; it is quite another to say that he is promoting something that contradicts Catholic teaching.

Brendan Triffett said...

Sr Lorraine

And I forgot to say, I would be interested to know what you meant by "gnostic" in regard to Luisa Piccarreta. I am not interested in trying to change your mind or pursuing the point further, I just wasn't sure what you meant by the term.


Brendan Triffett said...


I'm just wondering what you would think if it turned out that Fr Iannuzzi's book that promotes an era of peace was actually given the Imprimi Potest by his superior? Would you say that that religious superior was mistaken as well?

And what if the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith were to say that the Church does not condemn the notion of an era of peace (I am not talking about a literal one thousand year reign, or a coming of Jesus in the flesh and in glory to reign on the earth for a time prior to the final judgement--that is quite different)? Would you still insist that you are right on this matter, and that the Prefect is wrong? I am just wondering how far you would go down this path.


Emmett O'Regan said...

Brendan, if the imprimi potest was granted, then it would be extremely odd that it would not appear in print at the start of the book where imprimatur usually goes. The whole point is to assure readers that nothing in the book is contrary to doctrine. We'll soon find out anyway. If the CDF categorically stated that the notion of a future extended era of temporal peace, wherein Satan was chained and evil completely banished from the face of the earth, was within the bounds of Catholic orthodoxy, then of course I must submit in obedience with humility.
For the CDF to do so, it would have to overturn the Catechism's condemnation of millenarianism. Given the fact that you have a PhD in philosophy, I am interested to hear your take on Fr. Iannuzzi's definition of the word millenarianism. You will know the importance of semiotics in this regard. Fr. Iannuzzi uses this word millenarianism solely in its archaic sense, in that it refers only the coming of Christ in the Flesh to establish a future millennial reign, and that a spiritual, invisible coming of Christ to establish such a future reign has not been ruled out. However, the Catechism clearly uses the word millenarianism in the modern academic sense of the word, in that it refers to any sort of future utopian period. It is clearly influenced by Norman Cohn's seminal 1957 book The Pursuit of the Millennium, in which he identified Nazism and Communism as secular types of millenarianism. Which in turn was influenced by the thought of Eric Voegelin. So all types of millenarianism are ruled out, including secular forms, not just Christ coming in the Flesh.

Rachmaninov said...

which is why Pope Benedict referred to liberation theology as a "facile millenarianism"

Emmett O'Regan said...

Below is Norman Cohn's appraisal of the definition of millenarianism as used in the modern academic sense of the word. Cohn was one of the most influential scholars of the 20th century to specialise in the area of millenarianism, and his work had a clear influence on Cardinal Ratzinger when he composed the section in the Catechism condemning millenarian beliefs:

"... in recent years it has become customary amongst anthropologists and sociologists, and to some extent amongst historians too, to use the word 'millenarianism' in a more liberal sense still. The word has in fact become simply a convenient label for a particular type of salvationism. And that is the way it will be employed in this book.
Millenarian sects or movements always picture salvation as
(a) collective, in the sense that it is to be enjoyed by the faithful as a collectivity;
(b) terrestrial, in the sense that it is to be realized on this earth and not in some other-worldly heaven;
(c) imminent, in the sense that it is to come both soon and suddenly;
(d) total, in the sense that it is utterly to transform life on earth, so that the new dispensation will be no mere improvement on the present but perfection itself;
(e) miraculous, in the sense that it is to be accomplished by, or with the help of, supernatural agencies.
Even within these limits there is of course room for infinite variety: there are countless possible ways of imagining the Millennium and the route to it. Millenarian sects and movements have varied in attitude from the most violent aggressiveness to the mildest pacifism and from the most ethereal spirituality to the most earthbound materialism. And they have also varied greatly in social composition and social function.
There was certainly great variety amongst the millenarian sects and movements of medieval Europe. At the one extreme were the so-called 'Franciscan Spirituals' who flourished in the thirteenth century."
(Cohn, N. The Pursuit of the Millennium, pp15-16 OUP, Oxford, 1957)

Sr. Marianne Lorraine Trouve said...

Hello Brendan,
Thank you for responding to my comment. I do agree that having a difference of opinion is one thing and to say someone is promoting an idea contrary to Catholic teaching is another. It might be that the point at issue about the millennium needs to be clarified to see which ideas about it are in accord with Catholic teaching. To be honest the various ideas about the millennium can get rather confusing.
About Luisa, I haven't analyzed her writings and am no expert on them, by any means. What I meant is this: I saw a quote in which Jesus supposedly told her that by the gift of living in the Divine Will he was doing something greater than the sacraments, which are material. That set off some alarm bells in my mind, since the tenor of the quote (I can't find it now) and the context seemed to suggest a certain disdain for the flesh and for the material. But as the saying goes, from Tertullian if I recall correctly, "the flesh is the hinge of salvation." In Catholic teaching, matter matters, because of incarnational reality. Luisa's purported revelation struck me as being gnostic from that point of view. I do realize Luisa's works are being investigated and that quote may not be an accurate translation.
But another aspect that struck me as gnostic is the idea of secret knowledge, something for the initiated and not for ordinary people. I read some people saying things like Luisa was the holiest person since the Blessed Virgin, etc., and how Jesus brought redemption but now we will have sanctification--as if he doesn't sanctify us through the Church and the sacraments--strikes me as very odd indeed. Since by definition private revelation is private, Catholics are not obliged to accept it. So Luisa's revelations, if authentic, would be only for those who choose to accept it. But the true means of salvation, like faith and the sacraments, are not optional.
Emmett probably doesn't want this to turn into a thread on Luisa herself, but this is just to respond to your query. Also, since it's a matter of private revelation, how do we know it is authentic, and even if it is, that Luisa interpreted it correctly? Fr Groeschel in his book "A Still, Small Voice" has very helpful points about discerning private revelation. It is always filtered through the mind of the receiver, who may misinterpret or miss the point.
Thank you, Brendan, and God bless you!

Paul OFS said...

To follow up with Sr Marianne's comments:
I think people tend to give too much importance to private revelation. But even those approved by the Church are still tertiary (Scripture, then Tradition). Plus even approved revelations aren't supposed to add to, subtract from, or contradict what the Holy Spirit has already revealed through Scripture and Tradition. I haven't read much at all about Luisa's revelations, but even if approved, I don't have to believe them.
As far as the period of peace, Emmett does believe there will be one (he discusses this in his book), but it will be very short, 10-25 years, certainly not 1000. What Emmett is cautioning against (I believe) is believing that the upcoming period of peace will be a literal 1000 years and also a "heaven on earth" like many Evangelical Christians advocate.

Brendan Triffett said...

Hello Paul OFS

I pretty much agree with your first point; I make a point of reading Luisa's writings not as something added to public revelation but as explicating or drawing out something that is already given to the Church in public revelation in the form of Christ.


Stephen Patton's book is very good on this point too.

Anyway, this thread is about the putative "era of peace". On my understanding, the Magisterium rules against a LITERAL heaven on earth prior to the final judgement etc. There are secular and supernatural versions of this idea; I will deal with the latter first. To say there will be time when there will literally be heaven on earth, where this "heaven" is understood as a supernatural gift from God, is problematic for several reasons. (1) It does away with the need for supernatural hope, (2) takes away the possibility of falling away from God (since in heaven no-one is in a position to fall away from God) (3) implies that the beatific vision is given as permanent gift to everyone who inhabits the earth in that time.

If there is an extended "era of peace" in the future, it cannot involve a generally granted beatific vision, or the removal of the possibility of falling away from God. There would still have to be an eschatological "not yet" in which we anticipate, in hope, the face to face vision of God.

Nor could this era of peace (if it occurs) begin with the physical coming of Christ (as opposed to a spiritual, Eucharistic reign of Christ). For when Christ reveals himself again publically and generally in bodily form, it will be in glory, and it will be the final judgement.

We must also rule out the chiliastic notion that the happiness granted in the era of peace will consist in excesses of physical pleasure.

As for the "secular" version of "heaven on earth" (think of Marxism, or John Lennon's "Imagine"), this directly contradicts the notion that God alone is our fulfilment, and that grace alone enables us to do good either individually or collectively. Again, it does away with the need for supernatural hope.

In sum: the era of peace, if it occurs, cannot be thought in secularist terms (that would be Pelagianism), in crudely hedonistic terms, or in "finalistic" terms (collapsing the eschatological tension that makes falling away from God possible and supernatural hope necessary).

In my view, the basic notion of an era of peace does not imply any of these (secularism, crude hedonism, "finalism") in and of itself. There are two arguments for this claim. The first argument proceeds by showing that there is no necessary connection between the general notion of an era of peace, and any of these heretical positions (I will not pursue that here). The second argument is a reductio ad absurdum. I provide an initial sketch of this argument below.

Brendan Triffett said...

Suppose that the notion of an era of peace is inherently problematic--that by its very essence it demands something against God's order and wisdom. In that case, God original plan for Creation did not include an extended era of peace (for God would not plan something against His order and wisdom). But surely, God's intention for Creation was for there to be perfect peace, and for an extended period of time. Therefore the notion of an era of peace is not inherently problematic.

One might respond as follows. It is true that God's original intention for Creation was for there to be perfect peace at all times. However, what God actually wills for Creation is different, given that there has been a Fall.

However, that implies either (a) that God is not able to ensure absolutely that there will be an era of peace, given the Fall and human freedom or (b) that God is not willing to ensure absolutely that there will be an era of peace on earth.

The problem with (a) is that this gives man the power to thwart God's original purpose for Creation. True, an individual man has the power to resist God's grace working in his individual life. But no man has the power to thwart God's providence at a general level, or God's ultimate purpose for mankind. The other problem with (a) is that it limits the infinite power of grace made available through the sacrifice of Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (as mediated sacramentally in the Church).

What about (b)? Why would God not be willing to ensure an era of peace? It could not be because such a thing is inherently disordered (that has already been refuted). The only possibility left is that God is not willing to ensure an era of peace at some point in history, because of man's current condition.

But this is not how the economy of grace works. In view of Christ's perfect life and sacrifice, and in view of Mary's perfect obedience, the Father is willing to make available all manner of graces, and man's current condition is not an obstacle to this.

Someone might say that "God is not willing to ensure an era of peace at some point in history, because of man's current condition--and this condition will never change in the right way, or to the right extent, to make way for the era of peace. God will not give such a gift (general peace) to mankind unless man is receptive to it. But man will never be appropriately and sufficiently receptive to it."

But this is a false idea. God has always been able to raise up holy men and women from out of a human race in the throes of rebellion. And it is for the sake of such as these that the era of peace will be granted. Their receptivity will be sufficient to bring about the reign of the Divine Will, since the Divine Will will itself be operating in them.

(Dr) Brendan Triffett

Brendan Triffett said...

I am open to any comments on the above, by the way. :)


Brendan Triffett said...

Dear Sr Marianne

Thanks for your helpful clarifications!
I agree we have to be prudent when it comes to private revelation.
I really like the idea that the ultimate mouthpiece of private revelation is the Church herself-if and when the Church accepts it as part of her living tradition. (I came across this idea in a book by Stephen Patton on Luisa).

I will keep your recommended book in mind; thank you!

God bless you too.

Anonymous said...


I see you continue to ignore the post from April 21st at 10:50. That post makes it clear that it is perfectly valid to believe in a coming period of Triumphant Christianity.

Paul OFS said...

Thank you for your clarification. I understand much better where you are coming from. As far as the idea of the period of peace being rather short, Exodus provides a good guide to this. Not much time passed from the miraculous deliverance of the Israelites until they made the golden calf. Human nature hasn't changed since Biblical times. Even during the era of peace, the temptation to sin will still be there and it won't take long for people to lapse back into sin. Look at how quickly St. Peter denied knowing Jesus, probably less than 12 hours after the Last Supper.
I have not read anything about Luisa's revelations or Fr. Iannuzzi's book, so I cannot comment about those. I'll wait and see what the Church ultimately decides on Luisa.

Emmett O'Regan said...

Stephen Walford has already demonstrated at length that the book you cited "The Teachings of the Catholic Church", has absolutely no authority. You will have to trawl through the debate on the MoG forum to find it if you don't have his book Communion of Saints. Besides, it was written well before the Church's teachings on millenarianism became fully explicit in the Catechism, when it was published in 1991. It includes the following passage, which rules out an extended period of triumphant Christianity such as that proposed by Fr. Iannuzzi (i.e. spiritual millenarianism):
"The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection. The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God's victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven. God's triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world." (CCC 677)
The Catechism teaches that the triumph of the Church on earth will be in its final Passover during the persecution of the Antichrist, not during an extended period of triumphant sanctity. The triumph is the way of the Cross, not the establishment of a millenarian style earthly kingdom. Besides, Christ taught that the end of the world will come immediately after the proclamation of the Gospel to the ends of the earth during the New Pentecost. So there can't be a gap of a spiritual millennium in between.

Anonymous said...


The 1952 book, The Teaching of the Catholic Church, bears the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. You can't discount it and neither can Walford.

Once again you are conflating Millenarianism with the era of peace. The section of the Cathechism you keep posting has nothing to do with an era of peace. It is talking about the second coming and the fullfillment of the Kingdom. By definition, a period of peace is not a fullfillment of peace. Triumphant Christianity and progressive ascendancy are two different things. There have been periods of Triumphant Christianity in the past and there may well be a period or periods of Trimphant Christianity in the future. Our Lady in an approved apparition at Fatima also promised that there would be a period of peace. I'll take her word over yours, Emmett.

If Father Iannuzzi is guilty of dabbling in spiritual millenarianism then you, Emmett, are guilty of the oppostite extreme: denying the period of peace.

Anonymous said...

to the April 21 10:50 poster where it says:
'In fact, at the approved apparition at Fatima, Our Blessed Mother used the very words "period of peace."'

As I posted before Our Lady technically said, "...some time of peace" as recorded by Lucia, not "period of peace". It has been translated as "period of peace" but as always things get distorted in translation.

People keep debating the era of peace, but where does the notion of an era of peace come from? Can someone please list here where we get the idea of an era of peace? I know some have misconstrued this from what Our Lady said at Fatima, but where else does this come from?

Greg J Cring

Emmett O'Regan said...

Thanks for stepping into the debate Greg!
Brendan, the Church rules out any kind of millenarianism, even mitigated or modified forms. Do you agree that the Catechism specifically focuses on the secular forms of millenarianism (i.e. Nazism and Communism) in its condemnation?

Anonymous said...



Even then, hours after the morning’s consecration ceremony, the Pope acknowledged in a public prayer to Our Lady of Fatima that the consecration which She had asked for is yet to be done. In his prayer, he drew Her attention once again to this certain group of peoples (the peoples of Russia) that has a special need of being consecrated – a group of peoples, he said: “for whom You Yourself await our act of consecration and of entrustment.”


Brendan Triffett said...


The important question is: What exactly does the CCC mean by "millenarianism" when it rules out "mitigated" or "modified" forms of millenarianism?

676 of CCC says
"The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgement. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism [footnote here, referring to Denzinger 3839], especially the 'intrinsically perverse' political form of a secular messianism."

The href="http://patristica.net/denzinger/" older version of Denzinger (which has a different numbering) says this about millenarianism

[begin quote]
Millenarianism (Chiliasm) *

[Decree of the Holy Office, July 21, 1944]

2296 In recent times on several occasions this Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has been asked what must be thought of the system of mitigated Millenarianism, which teaches, for example, that Christ the Lord before the final judgment, whether or not preceded by the resurrection of the many just, will come visibly to rule over this world. The answer is: The system of mitigated Millenarianism cannot be taught safely.

The Presence of Christ in the Mysteries of the Church *

[From the Encyclical, "Mediator Dei," November 20, 1947]

[end quote]

This gives the impression that "mitigated millenarianism" includes, as an essential part of its definition, the claim that Christ will come again in physical form before the Final Judgement to rule over the world. I take it that "mitigated" means that the crudely hedonistic and "worldly" form that millenarianism took in early Christian times has been left behind. Mitigated millenarianism still maintains the core millenarian idea of Jesus' physical (as opposed to sacramental) coming as Lord on earth in some future millenium.

Brendan Triffett said...

The href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10307a.htm" Catholic Encylopedia uses the term "Millenarianism" in the same way:

[begin quote]

The fundamental idea of millenarianism, as understood by Christian writers, may be set forth as follows: At the end of time Christ will return in all His splendour to gather together the just, to annihilate hostile powers, and to found a glorious kingdom on earth for the enjoyment of the highest spiritual and material blessings; He Himself will reign as its king, and all the just, including the saints recalled to life, will participate in it. At the close of this kingdom the saints will enter heaven with Christ, while the wicked, who have also been resuscitated, will be condemned to eternal damnation. The duration of this glorious reign of Christ and His saints on earth, is frequently given as one thousand years. Hence it is commonly known as the "millennium", while the belief in the future realization of the kingdom is called "millenarianism" (or "chiliasm", from the Greek chilia, scil. ete).

This term of one thousand years, however, is by no means an essential element of the millennium as conceived by its adherents. The extent, details of the realization, conditions, the place, of the millennium were variously described. Essential are the following points:

the early return of Christ in all His power and glory,

the establishment of an earthly kingdom with the just,
the resuscitation of the deceased saints and their participation in the glorious reign,
the destruction of the powers hostile to God, and,
at the end of the kingdom, the universal resurrection with the final judgment, after which the just will enter heaven, while the wicked will be consigned to the eternal fire of hell.

[end quote].

By this definition, Fr. Iannuzzi does not teach millenarianism. Nor does he even teach mitigated millenarianism. I admit that his references to the future "millenium" may be misleading to some--but not if his books are read in their entirety.

Emmett, would you admit that it is possible that the CCC is using the more narrow definition of "millenarianism" here in its condemnation of that doctrine (the more narrow definition requires a proponent of millenarianism to agree that Christ will come again in physical form to rule the earth for some time; if someone does not agree to that, he is not a millenarianist; he is not even a "mitigated" one.)?

If you do not, why do you not? What evidence can you give that the CCC is using a broader definition, so that certain teachings of Mark Mallett, Fr. Gobbi and Fr. Iannuzzi are condemned as "unable to be taught safely", as you have claimed?

Brendan Triffett said...

Returning now to CCC676. The notion of an "era of peace", as taught by Mallett et al, does not include the idea that in this life we will see the realization of the "messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgement." For the era of peace is not understood to include the beatific vision, or the removal of the possibility of sin, or the final certainty of salvation. Indeed, it is often claimed that some people will fall away at the end of the era of peace.

Finally, to answer your question Emmett. I don't believe the CCC focuses specifically on the secular forms of millenarianism ("millenarianism" in the narrow sense). There is a "non-secular" form of millenarianism (in the narrow sense), which the Church also condemns. A non-secular form of millenarianism, as I explained in my previous long post, would be the idea that (a) humanity cannot, by its own power or reason, or political force, create a perfect society, and that (b) God will intervene powerfully to create a perfect society by sending his Son again to rule the earth directly and in person (not just sacramentally). This is the premillenialism popular amongst certain Protestants today (see href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/mill.cfm" here --and these Christian can hardly be called "secular". Indeed, it is often said that their pessimism about human progress is what motivates their premillenial views.

Brendan Triffett

Anonymous said...


Does the Third Secret of Fatima mention Vatican II?


Emmett O'Regan said...

Brendan, if the Catechism wasn't exactly precise about its use of the term millenarianism, then I would certainly admit that it could be using it in the narrow sense of Christ coming physically to reign with the saints on earth for the Millennium. The Catholic Encyclopaedia certainly only uses the word millenarianism in this narrow sense, since it was composed at the turn of the 20th century. The 1944 Decree of the Holy Office also only used the word in this narrow sense. So I can see why Fr. Iannuzzi, Mallett et al believe that a spiritualised form of the millenarianism espoused by some of the Church Fathers is an acceptable teaching, since this doesn't involve the physical presence of Christ.
As Norman Cohn notes in his book Pursuit of the Millennium, it is only relatively recently that the word millenarianism has broadened in scope within academic circles to include a much wider array of similar beliefs. This is why the various Joachimite groups of the Middle Ages are classified as millenarian sects, even though they did not teach a physical coming of Jesus, but rather an "age of the Spirit".
The key question is if the Catechism is using the word millenarianism only in this narrow sense. If so, then Fr. Iannuzzi's thesis on a "spiritual millennium" is indeed an acceptable position. However, we can know for a certain fact that the Catechism is using the word millenarianism in the modern academic sense by its identification of the worst form of millenarianism as "secular messianism":
"The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the 'intrinsically perverse' political form of a secular messianism." CCC 676.
The term "secular messianism" is derived from the political philosophy of Hermann Cohen, and refers to the idea that a secular state can establish a utopian society separate from organised religion. So the type of millenarianism that the Catechism condemns most vehemently is one that is absolutely without Christ at all, but rather the creation of a utopian society by a secular state through the implementation of an extreme political ideology. Therefore, the Catechism is definitely using the word millenarianism in the modern, broader academic sense, and is not just condemning the idea of the physical coming of Christ to establish an earthly utopia.

Emmett O'Regan said...

There is another footnote (number 578) in the Catechism after the word "secular messianism" which makes it abundantly clear that it is singling out the extreme atheistic ideologies of the 20th century as the worst types of millenarianism. The footnote in question runs as follows: "578 Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, condemning the "false mysticism" of this "counterfeit of the redemption of the lowly"; cf. GS 20-21." Pope Pius XI's Divini Redemptoris focused entirely on the dangers of atheistic Communism, and was published in 1937 five days after the Mit brennender Sorge encyclical that condemned the German Nazi regime and ideology. So the term "secular messianism" is specifically linked to the atheistic ideologies of Nazism and Communism. To make it doubly clear that it is these atheistic ideologies that are being identified as the worst types of millenarianism, the footnote in the Catechism also directs us to confer with passages 20-21 of the conciliar document Gaudium et spes ("cf. GS 20-21"). The relevant section runs as follows:

"Modern atheism often takes on a systematic expression which, in addition to other causes, stretches the desires for human independence to such a point that it poses difficulties against any kind of dependence on God. Those who profess atheism of this sort maintain that it gives man freedom to be an end unto himself, the sole artisan and creator of his own history. They claim that this freedom cannot be reconciled with the affirmation of a Lord Who is author and purpose of all things, or at least that this freedom makes such an affirmation altogether superfluous. Favoring this doctrine can be the sense of power which modern technical progress generates in man.
Not to be overlooked among the forms of modern atheism is that which anticipates the liberation of man especially through his economic and social emancipation. This form argues that by its nature religion thwarts this liberation by arousing man's hope for a deceptive future life, thereby diverting him from the constructing of the earthly city. Consequently when the proponents of this doctrine gain governmental power they vigorously fight against religion, and promote atheism by using, especially in the education of youth, those means of pressure which public power has at its disposal.
21. In her loyal devotion to God and men, the Church has already repudiated(16) and cannot cease repudiating, sorrowfully but as firmly as possible, those poisonous doctrines and actions which contradict reason and the common experience of humanity, and dethrone man from his native excellence.
Still, she strives to detect in the atheistic mind the hidden causes for the denial of God; conscious of how weighty are the questions which atheism raises, and motivated by love for all men, she believes these questions ought to be examined seriously and more profoundly..."

Emmett O'Regan said...

Therefore the Catechism is not only condemning the idea of Christ coming visibly to rule over the earth with the resurrected saints, but all types of millenarianism: "every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment". Once again, the above passage is directly derived from Eric Voeglin's concept of "immanentizing the eschaton", who argued that the ideologies of Nazism and Communism sought to create a sort of heaven on earth within history. Cardinal Ratzinger's influences are quite clear here. It is every time the claim is made to realize the messianic hope within history that the Church is condemning, not just whether it includes the visible presence of Christ - Nazism and Communism obviously didn't advocate a physical coming of Jesus. So there can not be any exceptions for what Fr. Iannuzzi et al teaches just because they "spiritualize" the presence of Christ in their posited earthly utopia. The "spiritual millennium" theory is definitely a type of millenarianism according to the modern academic sense of the word, just as Nazism and Communism are. It meets all of the criteria laid out by Norman Cohn I quoted above, in that it is(a) collective,(b) terrestrial,(c) imminent,(d) total,(e) miraculous.

Brendan Triffett said...

I can understand how one would come to the conclusion that you have, based on the wording of CCC 676. But a broader view rules out that interpretation.

But let's look at the immediate context of CCC 676.
675 speaks of a "supreme religious deception ... that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God... ".

676 adds a further comment to 675. Its purpose is to condemn the falsification of eschatological hope; it emphasises that our final hope will only be realised in heaven. The condemnation of secular messianism makes sense in that context-as does the rejection of the notion of a "progressive ascendency" of the Church which would supposedly result in the ultimate glory of the Church on this earth (par 677).

The single point being made in these passages is that our final hope, and the ultimate realisation of the Kingdom, are realised only after the final judgement.
All of the quotes that you have provided above illustrate the same point--that the Church rejects all forms of "immanentism" (my term)--the collapsing of eschatological hope into intra-historical expectation.

1. Is Iannuzzi's notion of an "era of peace" an example of "immanentism" as I have defined it here? I have argued that it is not. If you think otherwise, Emmett, please give reasons for that view.

2. CCC676 says that the Church has rejected all forms of the "falsification of the kingdom to come" (which is what I mean by "immanentism"), even modified forms. Clearly, it is referring to past pronouncements/actions of the Church, and not claiming to put forth some new doctrine. The Catechism merely gathers and presents in an accessible form the statements of the Magisterium. It would be wrong to expect a new condemnation of a particular position to arise for the first time in a Catechism. If in the magisterial exercise of the Church prior to CCC (1994), there is no example of an official condemnation of the notion of an era of peace as such, either directly, or by clear implication then surely, CCC676 does not condemn the notion of an era of peace as such.
But none of the passages referred to in 676 (or 675, or 677) include such a condemnation.

After reading your mode of argumentation, it seems to me that you are treating (falsely) the Catechism of 1994 as a document that puts into effect a certain doctrinal pronouncement for the first time.

If you are not, please bring to my attention the relevant passage from a previous magisterial pronouncement that condemns the notion of an "era of peace" directly or by implication.

Brendan Triffett

Anonymous said...

It says in a post above: "For the era of peace is not understood to include..."

The era of peace as a concept is being discussed here as a given so again my question, which steps back: where does the idea of an era of peace come from?

Jesus is already here sacramentally and has been ever since He instituted the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, in which He is truly present with us until the end of time, as He promised. And Jesus' saying Matt 28:20: Behold, I am with you always is the promise of Jesus’ real though invisible presence and it echoes the name Emmanuel given to him in the infancy narrative, as the USCCB version footnote says - i.e. Jesus has been and is with us right now.

Also Christ IS in physical form - He took a body, flesh and blood. We say He is present with us in Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity - the Real Presence.

To say there will be a spiritual reign of Christ is a conflicted thought and denies Christ's PHYSICAL presence already amongst us in the Holy Eucharist. (In contrast, the Holy Spirit is with us in spiritual form since the Holy Spirit has no physical body.)

Christ has a body; when He comes, His body comes too. And He has been and is with us now.

If Jesus was going to come in some special way before the Second Coming, a way other than how He is here, now with us, He would have told us while He walked amongst us. He did not, because He is not coming like that.( Secret knowledge is gnosticism.) Christ spoke openly; explained it to His apostles, as did the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

It is why I ask again where does this idea of an era of peace come from? - it is certainly not in the Bible. And to ADD it to public revelation via private apparitions such as Fatima is not permitted.

So where does the notion of an era of peace come from, please?

Greg J Cring

Anonymous said...

Bibilically, Jesus taught only of two comings. The ancient Jewish wedding provides a type for God's coming to us as the bridegroom for His people, the bride. There was the betrothal-type ceremony, followed up to a year later with the consummation of the wedding when the groom returned from his father's house to take his bride there. He DID NOT come to the bride between the betrothal and final consummation parts of the wedding; he remained apart. He might send a personal friend - an advocate - before his return, and likewise Jesus our bridegroom sent us the Holy Spirit, the Advocate to help us and guide us before His return.

From chapter 1 of the book "A While Longer":

We see the first and second Comings of Jesus as two distinct events but it is actually one event in two parts, which mirrors the traditional Jewish wedding. In the first part of the Jewish wedding, erusin, the bride and groom are betrothed. At nisuin, the second part of the marriage ceremony, the wedding feast and consummation take place, and in ancient times this could happen a year after erusin. Between erusin and nisuin, the bride and groom remained in their respective homes, preparing for the second part of the wedding. Considered fully and legally married although living apart, the couple could separate only with a bill of divorce. It was one marriage fulfilled in two parts. Even today the traditional Jewish wedding retains the two distinct parts, although they happen on the same day.

The Jewish wedding mirrors the marriage between God and His people. Most of the laws and customs about the wedding ceremony, its preparations and the wedding banquet date back to the Jewish Patriarchs and the giving of the Torah at Sinai. Sometimes the Chassidic wedding invitation reminds the guests of the wedding’s significance:

"In the merit of bringing joy and happiness to the bride and groom, may we see the reaffirmation of the bond between God Almighty (the groom) and the Jewish people (the bride) with the coming of the righteous Messiah imminently in our days."

Jesus often used marriage metaphors when speaking about His kingdom, and He identified Himself as the bridegroom:

"…some people came to him and said to him, ‘Why is it that John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not?’ Jesus replied, ‘Surely the bridegroom’s attendants cannot fast while the bridegroom is still with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. But the time will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then, on that day, they will fast." (Mark 2:18-20)

Between erusin and nisuin, the groom returned to his father’s house and prepared a place for his bride. The preparation lasted about a year, and after all was ready he returned. Following this custom, Jesus told His disciples He would return for His bride, the people of God:

"In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places. If there were not, would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back again and take you to myself, so that where I am you also may be." John 14:2-3

God bless you,
Greg J Cring

Rachmaninov said...

The CDF notification against Vassula Ryden in 1995 said the idea of an era of peace is a "doctrinal error". It specifically highlighted the imminent expectation of the coming of the Antichrist before the "era of peace" .Of course-as I am sure you know, the CCC clearly states the Antichrist will only come before the Last Judgement-forming the final persecution of the Church. I quote " 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, ah era of peace and universal prosperity."
Brendan, notice it says "millenarian style". The doctrinal error then is not chiliasm in this case, but a"final glorious intervention". That is exactly what fr Iannuzzi proposes is it not?
Stephen Walford

Anonymous said...

Our wedding ceremony forms a covenant between man and woman - marriage is a covenant. And God "married" His people at Sinai in the Old Covenant; Jesus likewise as the bridegroom "married" His bride in the New Covenant. Note that the covenants are formed in sacrificial blood, as seen in the sprinkling of the sacrificial blood at Sinai, and Jesus' giving up His blood - the blood of the New Covenant.

The marriage covenant is sacrificial - we die to self and become one with the other. Separate John and separate Sue become one flesh, united until death. At the Lord's Supper, the true Passover happened - the cross becoming the blood-stained lintel and post door out of bondage and into Heaven.

But the Lord's Supper is also the marriage between Jesus and His people, the Church.

Continuing from chapter 1 of "A While Longer":

In the ancient Jewish wedding ritual, wine played a prominent role, and in the modern Jewish wedding wine is still used in the blessings given at erusin and nisuin.

In the ancient form the bridegroom and his father would meet with the bride’s family and present a ketubah, or wedding contract, to the intended bride and her father. The young man would pour a cup of wine, and if the bride-to-be accepted the proposal she drank from the cup. In the current form of the wedding the erusin or engagement rite is a simple ceremony marked by two blessings given by the presiding rabbi while holding a cup of wine.

The first blessing over the wine is said at almost all joyous occasions:

"Blessed are You, Lord our God, Master of the Universe, Who creates the fruit of the vine."

The second blessing is specific for the wedding ceremony:
"Blessed are You, Lord our God, Master of the universe, Who has made us holy through His Commandments, and commanded us regarding illicit relations, and has forbidden to us the betrothed, and has permitted to us those whom we have married through Chupah and Kiddushin; Blessed are You, Lord our God, Who makes His people Israel holy through Chupah and Kiddushin."

After completing the second blessing the rabbi gives the cup of wine to the groom, who drinks from it. The cup is presented to the bride, who drinks from it, symbolizing her commitment to share her life with the groom and his family from that moment.

As priest and Rabbi at the Last Supper, Jesus performed the erusin ceremony with Himself as the groom and the disciples, the seeds of His Church, as the bride:

"Then he took a cup [of wine], gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it." Mark 14:23

to be continued...

God bless,
Greg J Cring

Anonymous said...


At every Catholic Mass, this ritual is re-presented to remind us that the Church is the bride of Christ and that we have committed ourselves to remain faithful to the teachings of Jesus our Groom, teachings which come from His Father. The priest, in the person of the Groom, takes the cup and drinks from it. Then the cup is presented to the bride in turn and when we drink from it we proclaim our union with the family of God. Catholics believe the bread and wine are the body and blood of Jesus, making it a complete communion of bride and groom.

At Sinai, Moses sprinkled the sacrificial blood of the Old Covenant on the altar and the people of God. At the altar at each Mass, the people of God receive the sacrificial offering of the body and blood of the New (renewed) Covenant, the perfect sacrifice of Jesus.

Nisuin takes place with seven blessings over a cup of wine. Various Rabbis and relatives give these blessings; the one who offers the blessing is the first to drink from the cup, followed by the groom and then his bride.

Nisuin between the Messiah and His people is still to come. Jesus has not returned from His Father’s house to claim His bride, and Jesus said as much at the Last Supper:

"Amen, I say to you, I shall not drink again the fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God." Mark 14:25

In other words, He will drink it again when the kingdom of God is completely fulfilled upon His return. We are in the period between the two parts of the wedding. We are the bride awaiting the groom’s return to consummate the wedding at nisuin.

So we see the Jewish wedding as a type for God's coming to us in "marriage" - He comes twice, and only twice.
God bless,
Greg J Cring

Anonymous said...

Jesus' coming aligns with that of the Jewish wedding. Jesus Himself said He is the bridegroom, and that He would go to the Father and then come back for us, His bride, to take us to His Father's house which has many rooms; this is the same as happens in a Jewish wedding of His day.

The idea of a millenarian style era of peace was not taught by Jesus to His bride, the Church, which has the full deposit of the faith.

And so neither does the Church teach it.

And so I belabor the point: where does the notion of a millenarian style era of peace come from? If not from the Church, then from who?

God bless,
Greg J Cring

Anonymous said...

we are on the verge of potentially uncovering a major scandal within the Church, one whose gangrene imperils the very heart of the Church itself.
At odds are two seemingly disconnected yet unfortunately linked circumstances.

First, the sacking (and politically driven re-instatement) of Maltese Grand Chancellor Albrecht von Boeselager over his emphatic defense of pushing contraception on the poor after explicitly promising he would not do so, having been caught in such a scandal once before.

The second part is perhaps more disturbing than the first. It has now come to light the Boeslager was reinstated at the insistence of Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Parolin, just four days after the Order of Malta's Grand Master Fra' Festing is ordered by Pope Francis to resign.

Lepanto's investigation into this odd occurrence of events has arrived at a deadly serious juncture, one in which we several leads that could lead to greater implications...


Anonymous said...

What we can reveal is this -- that the "commission" created by the Vatican Secretary of State centered exclusively on a multi-million dollar trust fund with uncertain origins. Cardinal Perolin knew of about this dark money, and Boeslager very early in his election did everything in his power to try to create a means of getting this money into the Order of Malta... a move which his predecessor rejected (and for good reason).

Immediately after Fra' Festing was forced to resign, a deposit of €30 million (US$32.6 mil) was made to the Vatican Bank. From our report:
The fact of the matter is that Cardinal Parolin, the Vatican Secretary of State, is the point of contact and source of information in every incident related to the crisis in the Order of Malta. It was Cardinal Parolin who appointed the members of the investigating commission. It was Cardinal Parolin who spoke on behalf of Pope Francis in a letter to Fra Festing on December 12, expressing his disappointment at the “unpleasant and perilous turn taken by events.” Speaking on behalf of Pope Francis in his letter, Cardinal Parolin said, “His Holiness asked that dialogue be the approach used to address and resolve potential problems. He never mentioned, conversely, expelling anyone.” Most interesting of all is that since the announcement of the commission, Pope Francis is never quoted anywhere, but only ever spoken on behalf of by Cardinal Parolin.
Where did this money come from? How was it aggregated? What was its source? Why so much pressure to get the Vatican to accept this "gift"?

These are serious questions... ones that Boeslager and Parolin will not be able to evade in the coming months once the secular press gets hold of the facts.

I would only ask you this: please pray for all those involved. For Cardinal Burke, for Fra' Festing, for the Sovereign Military Order of Malta... but pray too for such men as Cardinal Parolin, von Boeslager, and most of all Pope Francis. Pray too for the members of the Order of Malta, who are now faced with a grave scandal which -- even with the reveal of this dark money being transferred -- only raises more questions than it answers.

Of course, much of this scandal comes on the heels of another bit of speculation: Pope Francis's possible abdication.

Most folks do not realize that Pope Francis is 80 -- old for most, but not too old for a pope (Pope St. Leo XIII lived to be 93).

What is unusual is the degree of speculation already being cast about by Vatican insiders who have already shown a proclivity for openly rumormongering against those loyal to the tradition of Pope Saint John Paul II and the Magisterium... and you'll never guess who they have in mind. From the UK Spectator's Damien Thompson:
Allies of Pope Francis are saying that he’s planning to follow the example of Benedict XVI and retire. But he’ll only do so once he’s appointed enough liberal cardinals to make sure that the next conclave doesn’t elected a conservative who will interpret Catholic doctrine more strictly than he does.
One of the rumored papabile? Cardinal Parolin.

The curious item in all of this -- once linked -- isn't curious at all. Faithful bishops and cardinals benched, the Order of Malta seized, the Vatican Bank under the control of certain individuals linked to the "Catholic Spring" and a papal retirement on the horizon?

Such are the times. Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.


Anonymous said...


You ask where the notion of the era of peace comes from? Answer: from the approved apparition at Fatima were Our Lady promised a period of peace, for starters. Where else is it mentioned? Perhaps in Scripture itself, as cited in the Catechism:

"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. St. Peter says to the Jews of Jerusalem after Pentecost: 'Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for establishing all that God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old.' —CCC, n.674

"Times of refreshing." Clearly, not eternity for there is no time in eternity nor need or capacity for "times" of anything. Everything in eternity is already as perfect as it will ever be. No need to refresh anything in Heaven. So, clearly a reference to some period within history.

Where else do we find references to this period of peace? In the 1952 book referenced by the Anonymous poster above on April 21st at 10:50 as previously mentioned. In that text we the author clearly condemns Millenarianism but draws a distinction between Millenarianism and a period of "triumphant Christianity." I think the Popes - who excercise the prophetic office - have also foreseen this coming period of peace.

"Empowered by the Spirit, and drawing upon faith’s rich vision, a new generation of Christians is being called to help build a world in which God’s gift of life is welcomed, respected and cherished...Dear young friends, the Lord is asking you to be prophets of this new age...Pope Benedict XVI, WYD 2008

"But even this night in the world shows clear signs of a dawn that will come, of a new day receiving the kiss of a new and more resplendent sun...A new resurrection of Jesus is necessary: a true resurrection, which admits no more lordship of death...In individuals, Christ must destroy the night of mortal sin with the dawn of grace regained. In families, the night of indifference and coolness must give way to the sun of love. In factories, in cities, in nations, in lands of misunderstanding and hatred the night must grow bright as the day, nox sicut dies illuminabitur, and strife will cease and there will be peace. - Pope Pius XII, 1957 Urbi et Orbi

"Oh! when in every city and village the law of the Lord is faithfully observed, when respect is shown for sacred things, when the Sacraments are frequented, and the ordinances of Christian life fulfilled, there will certainly be no more need for us to labor further to see all things restored in Christ...And then? Then, at last, it will be clear to all that the Church, such as it was instituted by Christ, must enjoy full and entire liberty and independence from all foreign dominion...All this, Venerable Brethren, We believe and expect with unshakable faith. —Pope Pius X, E Supremi

And I'm sure I could dig up more quotes, but these suffice to demonstrate that there is convergence in both what Our Lady of Fatima has said about a coming period of peace and what the Holy Fathers have also been saying. True Christian peace is possible at every moment. Theoretically, it is possible right now for every human person to be Catholic as well as to be in a State of Grace. Such a society would be very different from the present "modern" era. The Chruch is perfectly capable of bringing about such a happy situation by - as the 1952 book Teaching of the Catholic Church puts it - "the operation of those powers of sanctification which are now at work, the Holy Ghost and the Sacraments of the Church."

Emmett O'Regan said...

Brendan, yes Fr. Iannuzzi does "immanentize the eschaton", in the fact that he posits that the kingdom to come will be established on earth within human history before the Second Coming of Christ and Last Judgment. He proposes that Satan will be completely chained during this era of universal peace, wherein sin and sickness will be removed from the face of the earth, and everyone will live according to the "Divine Will" during an age of triumph for the Church. The list of errors contained in his writings are almost endless, but I will try to address them point by point as far as I can. I don't feel the need to coin a new term for the how the word millenarianism is used in the modern academic sense, as this will only confuse matters further. It also gives the appearance that by terming millenarianism as "immanentizing", you are attempting to distance this position from what has already been categorically rejected by the Church throughout history. Stephen Walford has given you but one example above of an official condemnation of the idea of the establishment of an era of universal peace within history, and the Catechism rules it out entirely, which you will see when I parse it out for you further. Chiliasm and Joachism have been consistently condemned by the Church.
By focusing on the aspect of Christ coming in the Flesh to rule on earth, you are missing the point entirely about why the Church condemns millenarianism. The real danger of millenarianism is the idea that humanity can create a paradise here on earth, which is one of the very first deceptions of Satan:
“You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Gen 3:4-5)
You will also need to address Greg's point above, in that the idea of a future "Eucharistic reign" of Jesus denies that Christ has already been reigning with the saints in the Eucharistic Prensence since His Passover.

Emmett O'Regan said...

The Catechism teaches that the reign of God is already among us, and will only be fully realised in the New Creation after the Last Judgement. It is not something that will only be established on earth in the future after an invisible "middle Coming".

CCC 680: "Christ the Lord already reigns through the Church, but all the things of this world are not yet subjected to him. The triumph of Christ's kingdom will not come about without one last assault by the powers of evil."

Notice that the Catechism teaches that the triumph of Christ's kingdom will only take place after "one last assault by the powers of evil", whereas Fr. Iannuzzi proposes that God's kingdom will be established on earth after the appearance of the Antichrist, and then after a millennial reign of total peace on earth, there will be another assault of the powers of evil in the form of Gog. Fr. Iannuzzi's views are utterly incompatible with the teachings of the Catechism. How can you reconcile this dichotomy Brendan?

Anonymous said...

The anonymous responder at 11:30:


A millenarian style 'era or peeace' as used by its supporters is not supported by Popes. The hope for a Christian or even Catholic world of harmony and love is often expressed by popes, but this must not be confused with support for a millenarian style era or peace as defined by its proponents here and elsewhere. The Bible and Popes and the Church teach against this false notion.

And we cannot change doctrine based on an apparition, especially a faulty understanding of that apparition's use of 'some time of peace'.

The entire reasoning is faulty: 'some time of peace' is promised once the Consecration is done; Lucia and the Church say it was done, but because of a misunderstanding or presupposition of the meaning of 'some time of peace', millerarian peace supporters then say the Consecration has not been done and look for ways to prove that again faulty anti-Church idea, even accusing the Church of a cover-up. Instead, a more reasonable person would say, "OK, it was done, I don't see that 'peace' I expected, so I must have misunderstood what Our Lady meant. Let me study her message again more carefully to try to understand it better."

But reason has been thrown to the wind. "The Church has covered up the true message, Lucia has a double, Lucia was order to say it was done, the world is still engaged in conflict so there is no peace so it has not been done, etc"

If reason were restored and those people did study the Fatima message again with a fresh approach, those people would accept the Consecration has been done, and come to know we must be and indeed are living in that 'some time of peace' right now. That is what the Medjugorje apparition is about - Our Lady Queen of Peace has come to conclude what she started at Fatima by preparing us for her promised Triumph.

God bless,
Greg J Cring

Anonymous said...

And, I might add, if that misunderstanding provides the main impetus for the whole idea of the millenarian ea of peace, as I suspect it does, then once that is seen as misguided, the entire idea can easily be discarded by its supporters, and we can move on to studying the current moment.

Greg J Cring

Anonymous said...


None of the Pope's I cited are talking about a Millenarian-style era of peace. Once again you conflate the period of peace/period of triumphant christianity with Millenarianism. Suffering and evil will not be abolished during the period of peace and it will not be a utopia. I think the bigger mystery is not the motives behind certain Fatima supporters' refusal to accept that the Consecration was done, but rather why you and Emmett are trying to conflate the period of peace with Millenarianism? Also, I find your notion that the period of peace is the present order highly dubious and no wonder: you use the demonic apparition/hoax at Medjugorje as evidence for such a mistaken notion.

Anonymous said...

Fatima is the evidence. Medjugorje is one part of Fatima.

Just as Jesus' coming was about more than restoring the kingship of Israel over the Romans, Fatima is more than a millenarian style era of peace. It is about the Final Coming, the Second Coming of Christ. The world is being prepared by Our Lady for that most glorious of moments.

That is why the Holy Trinity appeared to Lucia; that is why the final vision of Fatima is the final vision of the book of Revelation, the final vision of the Bible, a vision of the 'garden' restored, of peace between man and God - the final restoration, the garden restored, the New (meaning restored as explained by Dr. Hahn and others) Earth and God present with us.

It would be better to stop drifting about lost in a millenarian peace that will never come, and instead use all thought and exegesis to plumb the depths of Fatima and behold its mystery and its promise.

God bless,
Greg J Cring

Rachmaninov said...

Great Post Greg!