Sunday 22 May 2016

St. Augustine vs. Fr. Iannuzzi

Myself and Stephen Walford (author of the excellent Heralds of the Second Coming, and the eagerly awaited forthcoming book The Communion of Saints) are currently engaged in a theological debate with the highly regarded Catholic evangelist Mark Mallett and others on the Mother of God forum concerning the subject of Fr. Iannuzzi's "spiritual millennialist" theory, and how this stands completely at odds with Sacred Tradition, based on the teachings of St. Augustine - one of the greatest Doctors of the Church.  Come and see!


Mark W said...

Well, I spent some time on myself, Emmett. I can't go there anymore. It angries-up my blood too much.

Mark L said...

Ditto Mark.

I tried again on this thread and lasted up to the point where they gave Stephen the boot because they deemed he wasn't being "charitable" enough in his replies. Yup - they banned him! And of course the "group" there all circled the bandwagons around the moderator and said how he did the right thing.

What nonsense. I can't stand that place.

Mark L

Mark W said...

Emmett - You're casting pearls before swine. This is from their first post on this thread (yes, morbid curioisity got the better of me):

"I think we can all agree on 3 things;

"Lusia tells us......

"1] The Divine Will is a new Sacrament. And I agree that this is a possibility!"

So, the opening statement of the entire thread is that there's a new sacrament, and that it's one of three things that "...we can all agree on..."?

And, Emmett, I don't have an account there anymore, so I can't post anything.

Mark L - I didn't get banned, but Padraig was seriously miffed that I dared to question Garabandal and asked serious questions of Glenn Hudson that no one could answer. I left before I could get banned. In fact, that forum went a long way toward convinving me that Garabandal is diabolical.

Mark W said...

And honestly, anyone willing to question a Doctor of the Church in order to rationalize their belief in a particular off-shoot of PRIVATE revelation, really needs to talk to a psychiatrist as well as a priest. Mallett is no less private revelation than any of the others, but St. Augustine is...well...SAINT Augustine, Doctor of the Church.

Sr. Marianne Lorraine Trouve said...

Thanks for this tip, Emmett. I used to read Mallett but I stopped because I think he is unreliable on this point. He's a good man but his eschatology is off, I think. They all take Iannuzzi as their authority.
I also read something about Lusia Piccarette and the Divine will thing, but that seemed off to me as well. It sounds too much like a revival of Joachim of Fiore's error.

Rachmaninov said...

I think there are very serious issues over there concerning attitudes to papal teaching; the total manipulation of sacred texts and blatant disregard for the authority of the CDF. I mean how anyone can claim the second coming is an event not associated with the last judgment-even when a variety of papal and catechism quotes are provided is beyoned me. I have to say it, but i think there is a bit of a personality cult surrounding the main ringleader. I have wondered if one of the protagonists is even Catholic. He seems to pick and mix like a protestant would in terms of biblical interpretation.

1.2012 said...

Thank you all - for awhile there I was thinking I was the only one on the planet thinking in terms of the Magisterium. Sister, I couldn't agree with you more (thanks for your post!). Earlier on, Mallet had some great reflections on current topics, but eschatology? Seriously? A bridge too far......

Anonymous said...


The Church has only told us what the Millennium is not. The Church has never defined it. St. Augustine debated himself on this very point and although he ended up embracing the idea that the Millennium is the present Church age, that is by no means the definitive interpretation.

It is also not at all certain that the Millennium is even the same thing as the period of peace promised at Fatima.

One thing that is clear from the discussion at that you linked to, is that this matter is by no means settled. Mark Mallett has admitted that it is by no means settled but you and Stephen insist, contrary to reality, that it is settled. The Church Fathers are by no means United on this matter.

Rachmaninov said...

Concerning your point, back in 2012 I asked two prominent Cardinals who workes for the CDF about this issue:have the millennium theories of the early Fathers been rejected completely in reference to Rev 20 as an earthly temporal era of peace? Cardinal Prospero Grech " The millennium was never approved by the Fathers as an earthly period of peace, and Joachim de Flora was condemned for his “period of the Spirit”
Same question to Cardinal Karl Josef Becker: " we have to maintain that we can never accept millennial theories."
Cardinal Becker RIP was very close to Benedict XVI and was at the forefront of discussion with the SSPX.
Emmett has the original email exchange I had with Cardinal Becker. So its fact. No temporal kingdom to come. Ever.

DO said...

A "fact," that there will be no Era of Peace, Stephen, because two Cardinals said so?


Anyway, I am not about to get back into a debate with people who treated their opponents with no respect or charity whatsoever (this is not a reference to you, Emmett), but I will just say that my final follow-up to that debate was posted here:

God Bless

In Christ, through Mary,
Daniel O'Connor

DO said...

Sorry, Link didn't work ...

That should do it.

God bless again


Rachmaninov said...

Yes Daniel,
Two cardinals who worked at the CDF who know the teachings of the Church and helped ensure for years that the truth was promoted. Your rather silly response shows an unfortune immaturity and lack of understanding of their important roles as guardians of Catholic orthodoxy. I hope one day soon you will accept what all catholics should accept: Obedience to the Magisterium that pleases the Lord.

Kp said...

So Daniel is denying the Magisterium, laughing at it, and then appeals to his own authority. Sounds like Protestantism more than Catholicism.

And Daniel, asking you to give evidence is not being disrespectful or mean. That's how catholics debated for centuries. It's only in our very recent history that we started appealing more to feelings and less to truth.

srt8 said...

Thanks KP and stephen for closing MOG
This falls squarely on you two and rude bill

You have not cornered the market on truth and never will.

pray on it.

Rachmaninov said...

The day I was banned, I knew it was coming because for several days I had asked questions neither Mark Mallett, Peter or Daniel could answer, and because I was insistent their only line of defense was to start throwing stones and groundless accusations-but of course they know that anyway. I do genuinely feel sorry for them though; that you can get in such a mess and not realize it. I do have issues with Mark Mallett though, in the sense that he uses his blog to create a scenario where the vulnerable are left to think that he is being given "inspirations" from on high which as we know from that forum can have devastating consequences. You can understand why some bishops have banned him from their dioceses. His ability to manipulate papal texts -and get away with it to a certain extent is quite a feat. I hope he ponders th damning words of Fr Brian E Daley, winner of the Ratzinger prize for theology in 2012 and world expert in patristics, who in his 1991 book Hope of the Early Church wrote: "Its contents [Lactantius's eschatology], however, are a curious hybrid of Christian
apocalypticism and the speculations of late pagan "prophetic" literature - of
works like the non-Christian Sibylline Oracles, the Hermetic tract Asclepius,
and the Hellenized Zoroastrian work known as the Oracles of Hystaspes.9
This eclecticism is undoubtedly due in part to Lactantius' apologetic and
popularizing intentions in writing the work, but it also represents the
farthest development hitherto of what would become a much more widespread
phenomenon: the blending of biblical eschatology with elements of
folk religion, occult speculation and late antique literary traditions, in a
vividly concrete picture of our individual and collective destinies. From now
on, the apocalyptic myth Lactantius portrays, with both its Christian and its
non-Christian elements, was to have a life of its own." For those who dont know, in Fr Ianuzzi's thesis, Lactantius wroe "perhaps the finest exposition on the millenium as developed in the Apostolic Trandition". No contradiction there then.

Mary H said...

I looked at the Divine Will thread. I will wait for the Church to decide things on Luisa. There was also a debate about Vassula Ryden going on. The Vatican ruled against her years ago. People who argue pet mystics after they're rejected by Rome remind me of those Japanese soldiers discovered in the '60s who didn't know World War II was over and were ready to fight.

The forum appears to have shut down this afternoon (Tuesday).

Anonymous said...

The reason that Emmett and others are so invested in pretending that a period of Triumphant Christianity is the same as the heresy of Millenarianism, is because they have written books that depend on such a hypothesis to be true. I think in another of Emmett's writings he has even tried to argue that Hitler was the False Prophet and that the locusts of Revelation 9 were synonymous with the military aircraft of The Great War.

Anonymous said...

I knew that things were taking a turn for the worse at when KP1983 showed up and started playing the Jewish-card. When one side starts playing that card you know they have lost the argument.

Kp said...

It's not "playing the Jewish card." My father is Jewish. His while family is Jewish. My cousins are Jewish. Yes, we really do exist, and yes, we can go to Heaven or hell.

It's absolute catholic dogma that the Jews will not convert until AFTER the full number of the gentiles come into the church, right before the second coming. Get upset all you want, but that's true. Mark mallett knows it's true as well.

That means that us Jews will be rejecting Jesus For nearly 1000 years, even after Satan has no more influence and the evidence for the truth of catholicism is absolutely overwhelming. There's no way we'll be able to be invincibly ignorant.

My objection logically follows from those premises, whether you like it or not.

If my objection is so easy to dismiss and I have so easily "lost the argument" then please deal with my objection, rather than dismissing it as a "card," which does nothing to prove ir disprove anything. Show me where I'm wrong. Which of my premises is incorrect. You have yet to refute my argument, because its irrefutable.

But theres a larger problem here: winning an argument doesn't mean laughing or dismissing your opponents argument. Winning an argument means 1) proving the other sides premises wrong and 2) showing your premises are correct. Go read some Aristotle or Aquinas to see what I mean.

I gave an argument regarding Paul's understanding of the second coming and an argument regarding the Jews that were never refuted. None of my premises were shown to be incorrect. Therefore, you haven't won the debate.

On the other hand, I and others refuted all of Marks out of context quotes, and gave magisterial evidence to show he's wrong. His premises were proven wrong. He lost the debate and was left with emotional appeals and dodging tough questions.

Thats why now, instead of dealing with the arguments, you resort to using pejoratives, dodging, and obfuscation.

DO said...

The *Magisterium* is the guardian of Catholic orthodoxy; and despite your countless calumnious accusations that I violate it, you cannot come up with a single actual example with an actual quote from the actual Magisterium. If only you knew, Stephen, KP, Bill, et al., how much everyone who stumbles upon your posts and comments knows in a mere moment, by your tone and approach, that you do not represent the side of Truth.

KP said...

You believe in a theology that will lead nearly all of my relatives descendents into Hell. And I'm the bad guy?

You see the "tone" as wrong because I'm presenting arguments that you still can't refute. I'm holding you to the fire, and you can't answer the questions. You keep avoiding the obvious argument, again and again, just as you did right now.

That's not "mean." That's debating.

I've said nothing personally insulting. I haven't said anything about you as a person. I've stuck solely to the argument-- the premises and their conclusions. That's by no means "mean." That's how people debated for centuries and centuries.

Have you ever read past debates before the 1960's? Including those of saints? It seems you would be scandalized by them.

Emmett O'Regan said...

I am under severe spiritual attack from the Devil and need everyone's prayers.

Mark W said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mark W said...

Emmett, repeat this:

Vade retro Satana! Nunquam suade mihi vana! Sunt mala quae libas. Ipse venena bibas!

From the medal of Saint Benedict.

(Begone Satan! Never tempt me with your vanities! What you offer me is evil. Drink the poison yourself!)

Emmett O'Regan said...

The above comments show that the Devil doesn't want people to know about my work.

Anonymous said...

ah the good old days of having chris put too much on the thread

Cetera said...

Praying for you, Emmett. Leaving a comment here so you'll have some psychological backup too, so you know we are praying. That should help remove an avenue of attack, knowing you are supported, prayed, and cared for.

Rachmaninov said...

If I remember correctly, Mark Mallett (certainly) and you also I believe, held the position that the private quote attributed to Ratzinger by Fr Pernasa is magisterial, as was the made up "theological commission of 1952" (which I showed conclusively was utterly false). On that basis the two quotes from the CDF cardinals are also magisterial. therefore your own argument condemns you. The rest of us here I am sure all agree that actually they are not magisterial-none of them, not the quotes to me or Fr Pernasa. You see the difference between us is that we do not need to resort to fabrications and manipulations. We just rely on the plain old truth proclaimed in Sacred Scripture and interpreted correctly by living Tradition and the teaching authority of the popes. Just remember Pope Benedict XVI's words in his Chrism Mass homily of 2012 "We preach not private theories and opinions, but the faith of the Church, whose servants we are". Unfortunately, you and Mark have done just that-and whats worse claiming it is the truth. Stick with the authentic magisterium Daniel; its where th truth is found.
Emmett, my prayers are with you "If they persecuted me, they will persecute you too." Cling to those words in this time of trial.

Mary H said...


We are allowed to receive Holy Communion twice in one day as long as we receive as part of attending Mass. When I feel under attack, I try to go to two Masses (morning and mid-day, I'm blessed these are available). You can also have a Mass said for your intentions. The Seraphic Mass Association in Pittsburgh arranges Masses online; they can have one said with little notice if you call. Blessings.

srt8 said...

Be in peace emmett. I enjoy reading your work and marks too. I can't hold a theological candle to any of you but my views are that your followers were very arrogant and rude in their comments over at MOG and got it closed for everyone. Of course you were charitable in your comments so you have no reason to feel anyone or anything is trying to prevent you from writing. I side with marks views on the era of peace but i value your research and work. I respect you a lot. God bless and be at peace.

Anonymous said...

Please all pray the daily prayers of the laity of the
This organization was established by two exorcists to provide spiritual support for them as the engage in spiritual battle. The spiritual protection extends to the participants and their family and friends.

The organization is also mentioned on several of his YouTube videos, especially on Spiritual Warfare by exorcist, Fr. Chad Ripperger.

I hope the prayers help you Emmett.


Kp said...

" views are that your followers were very arrogant and rude in their comments over at MOG and got it closed for everyone."

If I said anything insulting about anyone's character or personhood, then please point it out to me so that I can apologize for it.

Otherwise, I simply stuck to debating premises and conclusions. That's what Aquinas, Justin Martyr, etc did. That's how Catholics debated for centuries. Fulton Sheen talked about the eclipse of reason and the inability to debate and construct arguments over a half century ago! If it was bad then it is far worse now.

People tried dodging my question, and I kept bringing them back to it until they could answer my question-- which they still haven't been able to do. How is that rude? My question didn't personally insult anyone whatsoever. I said nothing against anyone as a person, I simply asked them to answer a question that should be easy to do if their beliefs are true. The only person who should be offended in that debate would be me, as Marks theology inevitably leaves my family and their descendent in hell.

Anonymous said...

I am a little confused. I thought that anyone that does not believe that Jesus is their Lord and Savior are sent to Hell.

Kp said...

Anonymous, the church teaches invincible ignorance-- that those who don't know the truth through no fault of their own may still be saved. The problem is that under Mark's theology, the state of Invincible Ignorance will practically be wiped out, since God will directly reveal their sins to them as well as the truth of the Catholic faith, there will be a practically universal conversion of the entire world to Catholicism, and even Satan himself will be unable to deceive anyone.

Yet the church teaches that the Jews won't accept Jesus until after the full number of the gentiles come into the church, at the end of time, just prior to the Second Coming.

That means that the Jews will remain in rejection of Jesus but no longer be invincibly ignorant for nearly 1000 years. It will be a nearly universal damnation of the whole mass of Jews.

But if you object to this you are rude and pulling the Jew card.

Yet if I were to say the same thing about Canadians-- that they'll be the only people en mass to still reject Jesus even AFTER invincible ignorance is practically wiped out, thus leaving the mass of Canadians damned for 1,000 years-- I'm sure Mark wouldn't like it and would object.

Emmett O'Regan said...

I would like to ask the people here from leaving comments for the time being. It was never my intent to stir such controversy on this matter. I can see that many people are divided on this subject, which causes anger. And where there is division we know that it is Satan scattering these seeds, not the people involved in the debate. So we should refrain from personal attacks and seek a way to unity from interior reflection.

Anonymous said...

Very good point. A lot of that seems to be going on. Many of us sincerely WANT to know whats going on and also re prophecy; what may be coming -- and its all coming from a normal human place -- but yes, satan is causing division, confusion - even among those of us, who for the most part are absolutely on the same team.
I see this regarding the 3rd secret prophecy, Medjugorje, Amoris Laetitia the new apostolic letter, etc -- It seems that this will only continue - if we have truly begun a greater time of the Church being Crucified like her Lord - then, unfortunately this will be here with us for a little while longer. Prayer. Prayer for ourselves, each other, our Church, our world.
United in prayer
Michael Patrick

Bernadette said...

I too was banned from MOG forum. I believe Glenn Hudson banned me because I was showing how the Bishops had condemned Garabandal. And showed all the falseness about it.
MOG forum is home to satan as all that forum does is promote every false apparition or prophecy.

Anonymous said...

I don't think "every apparition" is from satan. One must pray and discern. But yes, there is a problem when one follows every single person who says they have a locution or vision.
Personally, I think Medjugorje is worthy of belief. But as I've said many times, time will tell. And we await the Pope saying something in re: to the 3 yr study that the Vatican did officially on Medjugorje from 2011 - 2014. Otherwise, if one thinks that any apparition after Fatima (other then Banneaux and Beurang) are nonsense, then we should pray for them to begin to mature more in the faith and realize that the greatest gift is the 'visit' from our Lord Himself in the holy Eucharist! One of the signs that Medj. may full well be true is that Mary has told the 6 visionaries that the Mass is the greatest prayer! and the 6 always say it is a greater gift to receive our Lord in the Eucharist than to have an apparition.
Regardless. -- Adoration, Mass, Communion, rosary! We have obviously and absolutely entered into a new time of purification as we come closer to major events and the renewal of all things.
United in prayer
Michael Patrick

Anonymous said...

Also, re: possibly real apparitions regarding our time and our Mother coming from heaven to warn us and call us to return to her Son. There are now 4 fully approved Church apparitions since 1960.
Akita, Japan
Wisconsin, USA
Kibeho, Rawanda
San Nicholas, Argentina

San Nicholas was given full approval on Sunday last - May 22, 2016.
3 of them occurred in the last 46 years -- and all 3 are our Lady calling all of humanity to return to her Son and warning that if man does not change, then major chastisements are coming to clean everything up. FYI Let us continue to pray for one another.
United in prayer
Michael Patrick

Bernadette said...

Of course not 'all' apparitions are from satan, but just about every apparition, locution that gets spoken about on MOG forum is a lie.
As for Medjugorje. I could speak for hours against it. But take this as facts. Ivan alone (not mentioning the other so called seers) receives approx. 1.8 million yearly 'just' form his hotel in Medj, this does not include the money he receives when he gives his stage performances of having apparitions. hmmmm????? Do the sums with his hotel.

Pope Francis has spoken. Do our ears hear him? Or do we make excuses so not to see we are following a lie.
Pope F said 18/4/2016 "“Those who follow Jesus do nor err! ‘Oh, Father, yes, but things are difficult ... So many times I do not see clearly what to do ... I was told that there was a seer and I went there and I went there; I went to the [fortune teller], who turned the cards to me ...’ If you do this, you do not follow Jesus. You follow another, who shows you another way, a different way. Jesus shows the way forward: there is no other who can show the way.’ Jesus has warned us: ‘There will be others who will say the way of the Messiah is this, this, this [other way]: do not listen. Do not hear them. I am the way.’ Jesus is the door and also the path: if we follow Him we shall not go astray.”

Pope F also said Nov 2013. "Mary is not a postmaster sending messages every day."

Anonymous said...

Praised be Jesus!
Time will tell regarding Medjugorje. Until then prayer.
United in prayer
Michael Patrick

Mark W said...

Ya know, I'm beginning to feel left out. It seems that I'm the only one to NOT get kicked out of MoG.

How are you holding up, Emmett?

Rachmaninov said...

I see Mark Mallett is still claiming it was a "theological Commission" of 1952 who wrote that bit on eschatology, even though we know the writer of it was Abbott Anscar Vonier who died in 1938. You see i was kicked off the forum for claiming Mark was leading people atray with manipulations and errors.I suppose in a world where people are happy to be led along like in the Pied Piper of Hamelin story, it matters not that facts like this are revealed.

Emmett O'Regan said...

I'm not going to even bother going back to debate on this. Iannuzzi's book was directly inspired by the condemned false possibly demonic apparitions at Emmitsburg. You can't bend doctrine to suit private revelation. Montanism must always be shunned

Cetera said...

That's probably for the best, Emmett. Don't worry about it, and just move on. You have lots of good still to do, and you don't need to be down in the mud.

Besides, we're all still eagerly awaiting your book! You need to expend your efforts for our benefit! We're selfish, and entitled, and we want what's in your brain!

Just kidding. I hope you're doing well. Leave all that crap in the past. Dream big, work small. Cheers!

Anonymous said...

The title of this thread is misleading. Father Iannuzzi and Saint Augustine are not at odds. Saint Augustine's interpretation of the Millennium is not dogma. The Church has never infallibly defined the Millennium. A period of Triumphant Christianity and Christian Restoration in the West is not ruled out. In fact, many approved private revelations speak of just such a time, when the old disciplines will be restored and when a very holy Pope and a "Great Catholic Monarch" will rule side by side. Of course, this will mean that Jewish Freemasonry will have to take a back seat, so I can understand why there is so much resistance to the idea.

Rachmaninov said...

Millenarianism is a heresy.This teaching applies to that as it is a variation on a theme. Popes have taught that the Church will suffer constantly until the end of the world.Popes have taught the phrase second coming means the last judgment Popes have never taught the "day of the Lord" is made up of two time periods separated by a millennium.Bill has shown today on the ' that Gaudium st Spes, a Famous Vatican 2 document states that the "monumental struggle" between good and evil is constant from the beginning of salvation history until it's end on the last day.Conclusive proof that there is no room and no chance of a temporal kingdom of God coming to create a terrestrial paradise on earth. Through history, the kingdom is spiritual and will only flower definitively after the last judgment.

Anonymous said...

Millenarianism is not the same thing as a period of Triumphant Christianity. Nice try, Rachmaninov. But you have failed to muddy the waters. I can't wait for Jewish Freemasonry to be destroyed and for Christianity to once again rule the West.

Rachmaninov said...

Who said there would be a period of triumphant Christianity? i known Abbot Vonier (you know the one who brings new meaning to the phrase "ghost writer" considering he is supposed to have written it 14 years after his death) said "if" there is going to be a triumphant period. But of course for you millenarians anything goes if you can just plug a heretical theory. Who cares about a bit if twisting here, or the odd manipluation there. Even blatant lies are fair game are they not?
But anyway back to your point. I think what you actually meant to say was "I look forward with joy to the day when God's plan will come to fruition in its fullness when our elder Jewish brothers and sisters embrace the catholic faith and complete the mystery of salvation. This will bring about the period of Triumphant Christianity without end. The eternal eight day of the resurrection. I realize now that to place a temporal Kingdom within history is to reduce Jesus to a political revolutionary like Che Guevara, rather than the King who is "not of this world".

Anonymous said...

The only one lying, Rachmaninov, is you by your equating a period of Triumphant Christianity with the heresy of Millenarianism. You know full well that the two are not the same.

Thankfully, we have the voice of the Church to guide us in the writings of Abbot Vonier which were included in a book entitled the Teachings of the Catholic Church, which carries the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur. And not only Abbot Vonier but several Popes and numerous approved mystics who all point to a coming restoration which WILL NOT be a Utopia but will indeed be a period of Triumphant Christianity when Freemasonry is vanquished and Catholicism restored once again to its position of prominence and governance in the affairs of the nations.

Rachmaninov said...

Just remember its thanks to me and my research that you know it was Abbott Vonier who wrote it, and not some made up "theological Commission." By the way if you look on the mog forum, you will see Bill has some interesting quotes on what fr vonier wrote. The term he used for the hope in a millennium (not millenarianism I hasten to add, but millennium was " a form of religous dreaming." For those who dont manipulate the truth, the Abbott was simply stating the fact that in the future, Christainity could spread in a triumpahnt evangelizing manner (as I certainly hold because I believe the Lord's words that the Gosepl would be spread throughout the world) so its fine; but that is a million miles from the heretical stance of a spiritual millennium. If you believe in vatican II, then you also thus believe that a "monumental struggle" will continue unabated between good and evil until the very last day. You cant have it both ways. Either you accept the real magisterium, or you have your own. Which is it?
Sorry but true.

Anonymous said...

The monumental struggle is at all times operative. No one is suggesting that evil, sin and suffering will disappear before the Second Coming. But peace is possible at every moment. People have the choice to either live in a state of grace or live in a state of mortal sin. If most people alive today were living in a state of grace and were obedient to the authority of the Catholic Church then the world would be a very different place. Sadly, Jewish Freemasonry has had a death grip on the civilized world since the Enlightenment. Are you implying, Rachmaninov, that Jewish Freemasonry and all the evil it produces, must continue unabated until the Second Coming? Because if you are implying that you are in grave error.

Rachmaninov said...

I think you will find Fr Ianuzzi certainly thinks evil and sin will disappear. I am not implying anything, I am saying straight up, evil will remain until the last day. Suffering, illness-all forms of evil will exist. I dont know how you can say that is grve error when I have quoted an Ecumenical Council document and papal quotes to back it up. calm down on the Jewish rhetoric. Freemasonry has members of many nations and religions.The Jews are central to the history of salvation and God never revokes his covenant. Its all in st Paul's letter to the Romans. We should look with hope to their entrance into the Kingdom of Christ not be slagging them off. They are part of our extended family at present.

Mark W said...

I'd like to thank you both for honoring Emmett's request.

Cetera said...

I'm going to jump in here, just because I have something to say that I think applies, and I'm gosh darn sick and tired of the folks who seem to understand nothing about the Catechism or their faith, let alone why we're here, or what all of this means in the final picture.

To start, let's get back to basics, and examine some first principles.

Why are we here? What is our Purpose?

I don’t mean why any of us, as individuals, are here in this time, or at any particular place, but why is humanity here at all? To what end do any of us work? It is inevitable that we each will die. It is unavoidable, and non-negotiable. To be alive is to eventually die. Only life can die, and only those that experience death are ever alive. Yet life has this funny instinct of trying to survive, to do anything possible to remain living for just a little longer, no matter the circumstances.

We strive for our offspring, we fight to defend our children and our families. We hope in a better and brighter future, and we sacrifice to make a better life for our future selves, our children, and future generations. But why?

In the long run, everyone dies. The earth will be destroyed, the Sun will no longer provide for life, stars blow up, grow dim, go out. On a long enough timeline, the survival of everyone is zero.

Therefore, I believe it to be self-evident that we are not here for any purely physical reason, or to accomplish any physical objectives. The things that matter most in our lives are the things we do for others. The most meaningful accomplishments on a daily scale and on a lifetime scale are when we help others, when we express love and compassion and charity towards others. Making a difference in someone else’s life is the one thing that has always resulted in the greatest joy and happiness in my life.

We see this specifically stated in the Bible in a couple of places. “Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends,” (John 15:13). When asked what is the most important commandment, Jesus replies, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these,” (Mark 12:30-31).

There is another big hint in John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”

(continued below)

Cetera said...

(continued from above)

So what is the point? Why did God make us? Why did God make me?

Love is a recurring theme in the Bible. Indeed, one may say it is THE THEME of the Bible. God IS Love (1 John 1:18), and God created us to love. The point is that we love each other, and to love God. Older Catholics among us may remember a quote from the Baltimore Catechism that God made us to know Him and to love Him and to serve Him, in this life and the next. We are here to learn to love, to choose to love, and to actively love God and our fellow man.

If we proceed from an initial conclusion that we are to love both God and each other, how do we do so? What is love? First Corinthians tells us love is the greatest thing there is. That is all fine and dandy, but what is this thing called Love that we are called to be, to espouse, and to do?

Again, the quotes I selected previously (John 3:16, John 15:13, Mark 12:30-31) suggest the answer. Love is not an emotion or a feeling. Love is not something passive. Each passage involves action.

Spend some time with young children, and you will come to appreciate their points of view and marvel at the occasionally phenomenal and intuitive insights they have on life. They cannot explain love, and they cannot describe it, but they can tell what is and is not love, and they can certainly name examples of love in their lives. If you ask, they will tell you that they love their parents, or that their parents love them.

In a religious education class I taught with my wife a number of years ago with a bunch of fourth graders, I asked them about love. They believed that saying you loved someone was a primary example of love, as was hugging them, or patting them on the back. Several even believed that being obedient was part of loving their parents. I asked if, instead of children, their parents had robots instead, and the robots would always say “I love you,” and give their parents hugs and be obedient and keep their rooms clean, would those robots love their parents? Each of them said no. They could not explain why, since all the forms we talked about were there, but they said it was different. Something that they could not explain but that was a part of them, and was not a part of programmed machine who did those things by rote, was responsible for love, and without that something there could be no love.

Those children were correct. What is missing is intent. Love requires an Act of Will.

(continued below)

Cetera said...

(continued from above)

Love requires an Act of Will.

Love requires an act of the will. So what is an act of the will? It is a choice, a decision, and an expression of one’s entire being. “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.”

This is how God loves us, and how he desires each of us to love him. Life is about learning how to love like this; how to open ourselves and make a supreme act of will, consciously and with full knowledge, to love God back with our whole beings. God’s plan is for each of us to be in union with him through Love, an act of the will.

This is the point, and it is to this goal that we are called. There is a catch, however. With love being an act of the will, it can never be forced. It cannot be by default. It must be chosen freely, and expressed individually. Therefore, we must have the capacity to choose to love God, which results in us also having the choice to not love God. Without this choice, we are no better than the robotic children programmed to behave in certain ways, going through the motions, but exhibiting a hollow, empty facsimile of love.

As long as humanity is created with God's intention of coming to know Him, and to LOVE Him, sin will by default continue to exist. There can be no Triumph of Christianity on this mortal coil, where sin is no more. Where sin is no longer an option, free will no longer exists, and Love and Acts of the Will are no longer possible.

So what about Purgatory? Do souls in purgatory have free will? I kinda don't think so, at least not as we currently understand and experience our free will. If free will was the same in purgatory as it is here on earth, you could still sin in purgatory. If you could sin in purgatory, it would no longer be purgatory. You'd just be in hell, having made a choice to remove yourself from God and his grace.

Likewise, in Heaven sin is not possible either. I don't think you get into Heaven without fully and completely submitting to the Will of God, and being in complete harmony and union with His Will and Love.

Once you're in the afterlife, your choices have been made. When exposed to a choice or a decision to be in communion with the Will of the God, or to put an eternal distance between you and the Will of God, there isn't any redos. You know the consequences of your decision in the fullest, and the choice is made once. That is part of the miracle of life with us as humanity. We get to try to figure this out over and over again, to participate in the miracle of creation, and to do such wonderful things as to exercise our imperfect wills in charity and love for each other. God is wonderfully pleased by us when we do so.

But just so, if the eternity and fullness of our decisions is brought to our souls, and a fully informed and binding choice is made by us, then the choice is made. There's no turning back.

Espousing a belief in a worldly triumph and removal of sinfulness in mortals on this earth seems to be completely inconsistent with Christianity and Catholocism, and hence it has been condemned as heresy. In Heaven, that will absolutely be the case. I have no understanding of the New Heaven and New Earth that is referenced occassionally. Maybe Emmett can speak to that. But on this earth, until the very end of humanity and the exercise of free will, there shall be sin. It is built in to the fabric of the universe, in order to allow us to choose to love God with all our souls, with all our minds, and with all our strength.

Mark W said...

Has anyone else seen this:

I don't know how to do the small url. Sorry.

Mark W said...

Here's a page with the messages:

Emmett O'Regan said...

It's interesting that Ezek 47 keeps cropping up. I've mentioned before how this is a prophecy of the renewal of the Church at the end of time, and in the new version of Unveiling the Apocalypse, I will explain the significance of this passage in some detail, and how it ties into several approved apparitions.

Mark L said...

And not just Ezekiel 47, but the entire metaphor of the river of life. For me personally it keeps cropping up in prayer - a lot. In recent days I've been praying and memorizing psalm 46. The second strophe is quite striking: "The waters of a river give joy to God's city, the holy place where the Most High dwells." Juxtapose this with John 7.38. Juxtapose that with psalm 84 (v 6), e.g. "as the believer goes through the valley they make it a place of springs." This metaphor is powerful, and all through the scriptures in obvious and less-than-obvious ways and meanings.

It has become extremely prominent in my interior life these past six months or so. The Spirit is truly speaking in all of this, somehow, for His own mysterious purposes. I don't pretend or presume to know God's purpose in it. (John 3.8)

Mark L.