On the Dangers of Some Private Revelations – Part 2

22 comments

by Supertradmum

The article is now entering into the nitty-gritty of the dangers of following some private revelations. I write this out of concern for souls, not for the sake of criticism. If anyone is offended, I suggest prayer and openness to the Teaching Magisterium of the Church.

The Narrow Gate is the study and reverence for the long teaching of the Catholic Church, including council documents, encyclicals, and apostolic letters. Also included would be the writings of the Early Church Fathers and the Doctors of the Church. However, most people can find what they need in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. As adults, we are totally responsible for learning our Faith, and cannot be reliant on priests, bishops, or seers.

Herein lies the problem. Too many people, and, I must say, mostly women, do not study or read unless they are led by others. And, the main reason why many women fall into error following fake seers is that they want to get holy either is an easy way, entering the Broad Gate, which is taking an emotional and easy path, or they want to feel good. This feel good factor involves them in cults, prayer meetings which spew heresy, and even days of retreats run by people who are steeped in error.

What can we do to avoid endangering our immortal souls by not following false seers? Simple, understand the basic teachings of the Church. ALL Catholic adults from the age of 16 must read the entire Catechism of the Catholic Church and a Catholic history of the Church. That is the minimum to get through the Narrow Gate.

To show how easy it is to fall into serious errors which deny the dogmas of the Church, I have chosen on seer and with the help of some commentators, who are reliable, will show how this seer’s revelations contradict Church teaching. One cannot become stubborn and dig in one’s heels against the dogmas of the Church.

This false teaching to which I allude is that of the Divine Mercy movement begun years ago with the writings of Luisa Piccarreta. Years ago, I read the first three volumes of Luisa Piccaretta’s Divine Will private revelations. I quickly discovered several doctrinal errors in those volumes and put the books in the bin. I found out later that the Pope Emeritus while active pope declared that the books (36) volumes were not to be disseminated and that the prayer groups were to end. I also discovered that people insisted on being disobedient to this order from the Vatican and still attend conferences, meetings, and print the books. This is against the Church’s current warning. Today, I finally found an excellent critique from the point of view of real Church teaching on some of the errors of this Servant of God. I warn people against this movement for several reasons, some of which are listed in this article below. Then, I shall quote carefully the current Church’s stand on this seer. Some of you may be surprised.

The following points are from this article written in 1997 by Father Terrance Staples. For those who want the entire article, here is the link. I summarise his points.

http://www.transporter.com/Apologia/KDW_art.htm

A brief two paragraphs introduce his main ideas, which are based on Church teaching.

“The first principal error in Luisa’s writings is that they clearly violate the Catholic notion of Divine Revelation. She clearly states that what she has received is a new revelation, never before communicated to the Church, which is necessary for all the faithful to adhere to and understand if they hope to attain to the new and higher level of beatitude which God desires for all his children and has made available solely through her writings. She claims to be the founder of a totally new dispensation, a new way of holiness, a new way of being united with God which has only been lived by three people before Luisa: Adam and Eve (before the Fall) and Mary. These “revelations” cannot be true because they contradict the church’s teaching on the nature of divine revelation and the role of private revelation in the Church.

The second principal error in Luisa’s writings pertain to her notion of how the human will is related to, and cooperates with, the divine will. Luisa clearly and repeatedly teaches that when one receives this new “Sacrament” of the Divine Will the human will ceases to function as such and the Divine Will acts in the creature in such a way that the action is purely divine. This notion has been condemned by the Church when dealing with the Christological heresy of monothelitism”

These two errors are HUGE. Both of these are absolutely against the long teaching of the Catholic Church. Divine Revelation ended with the last book in the Bible. Father Staples agrees with all the great teachers of the Church on this subject. Here is his summary. Notice that he quotes Dei Verbum and the CCC. Garrigou-Lagrange also writes about private revelation and I have put the link below. Here is Fr. Staples on this subject.

• “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord, Jesus Christ (cf. I Tim 6:14, 1 Tit. 2:13).” (Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum), para. 4.)

• “Everything we need for holiness and increase in faith has been handed on from the Apostles once and for all (cf. Jude 3). What was handed on by the apostles comprises everything that serves to make the People of God live their lives in holiness and increase their faith. In this way the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.” (Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum), para. 8.)

• “And Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.” (Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum), para. 9.)

• “Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.”

• “Christian faith cannot accept ‘revelations’ that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such ‘revelations.'” (The Catechism of the Catholic Church, # 67.)

Sadly, Luisa contradicts the Church’s teaching on Revelation by claiming her visions and ideas are part of Divine Revelation. Herein, she falls into grave error. Father outlines her errors by giving examples. These are painful in their errors. I leave them in a reddish colour to distinguish them from truth. Father makes a comment after each saying.

Jesus to Luisa: “Having sent forth from the bosom of my Creative Power the first two FIATs, I wish to emit the third FIAT, since I cannot contain my Love any longer. This will complete the work that poured forth from Me. Otherwise, the work of Creation as well as Redemption would remain incomplete. ” (Piccarreta, Luisa. When the Divine Will Reigns in Souls, Book of Heaven: A selection of Passages. [Hereafter referenced as BH] The Luisa Piccarreta Center for the Divine Will. Jacksonville, FL. 1995. P. 119.)Comment: According to Luisa, the first two fiats were the creation and the flat of Mary. This third flat, made by Luisa, completes the work of creation and redemption. Here Luisa is claiming that via her ‘private revelation’ God is revealing to the entire Church the full meaning of creation and redemption. Furthermore, she is claiming that without her the redemption would remain incomplete! According to Church teaching (cf. Above), Christ’s definitive revelation which He entrusted to the Apostles cannot be added to or surpassed.

• Jesus to Luisa: “Now, daughter, you also [i.e. along with Mary] are unique in my Mind; and you will be unique in history. There will not be — either before or after you — any other creature for whom I will obligate through necessity the assistance of my Ministers…. How much attention is required from you and them. You, in receiving from Me, as a second mother, The Great Gift Of My Will and to know all Its qualities, and my ministers in receiving It from you To Fulfill In My Church The ‘Fiat Voluntas Tua’ in Heaven as It is on earth.” (p. 12, BH).Comment: Luisa is saying that the ministers of the Church must receive from her the message of the Divine Will in order to fulfill God’s plan. One cannot be obligated through necessity to follow a private revelation.

• Luisa claims supremacy over all the Church. Jesus to Luisa: “Since my Mother was entrusted to Me and, being a Priest to Her, I entrusted to Her as a sanctuary all the laws, precepts and doctrines that the Church needed to possess. And, faithful as She was and zealous for even one of my words so they would not be lost, She deposited them in my faithful disciple, John. And for that reason my Mother has supremacy over all the Church. In the same way I have done this with you. Being necessary to serve the Fiat Voluntas Tua to all the Church, I have entrusted you to one of my ministers so that you might deposit in him everything I reveal to you about my Will: The Goods that it contains and how the creature should enter into it and how the paternal kindness wants to open another era of grace, putting the goods he possesses in heaven in common with the creature and restoring to man his lost happiness.” (p. 14 BH).Comment: Luisa is claiming to have received a new “deposit” of faith which parallels the revelation given to the Apostles.

Luisa: new way of union, new way of praying; Our Lord to Luisa, “…it is certain that I have called you first over other souls. Because to no other souls, however much I have loved them, have I shown How to live in my Will, The effects, the marvels, the riches that the creature receives who acts in my supreme will. Search the lives of the Saints as much as you wish or in books of doctrine and you will not find the wonders of My Will working in the creature and the creature acting in my will. The most you will find will be resignation, abandonment, the union of wills, but the divine will working in the creature and the creature in my will, you will not find this in anyone. This signifies that the time had not arrived in which my kindness would call the creature to live in such a sublime state. Moreover, even the way I ask you to pray is not found in any other...” (p. xix, BH).Comment: Notice here that Luisa does not claim that her teachings are in any way connected with the Tradition received. They are coming from outside what has been handed on. There is a genuine development of doctrine within the Church which is described in Dei Verbum, especially paragraph 8. This document says, “The Tradition that comes from the apostles makes progress in the Church, with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on.” Every legitimate development in the Church must be organically connected to the Tradition: it builds upon and deepens what is already present. Classically, legitimate development can be compared to the growth of a plant, e.g. Jesus compares the Kingdom to the growth of a mustard seed. Over the years it gradually expands and yet remains the same plant. The First Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, c. 4, sets forth the proper understanding of “the true progress of knowledge, both natural and revealed: “For, the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected, but has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding [can. 31.] “Therefore…let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding.” (DS 1800).

There are most instances of her errors concerning Revelation in the long article linked above.

For me, the most serious error is the denial of Christ’s human and divine will, which are equal in the Incarnated Son of God. This error denies the results of long years of the Church in councils defining clearly the doctrine of “Dyothelitism or dythelitism (from Greek δυοθελητισμός “doctrine of two wills”) is a particular Christological doctrine that teaches the existence of two wills (divine and human) in the person of Jesus Christ. Specifically, dyothelitism correlates the distinctiveness of two wills with the existence of two specific natures (divine and human) in the person of Jesus Christ (dyophysitism).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 475, states: “Similarly, at the Sixth ecumenical council, Constantinople III in 681, the Church confessed that Christ possesses two wills and two natural operations, divine and human. They are not opposed to each other, but co-operate in such a way that the Word made flesh willed humanly in obedience to his Father all that he had decided divinely with the Father and the Holy Spirit for our salvation. Christ’s human will ‘does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will.'”

This position is in opposition to the Monothelitism position in the Christological debates. The debate concerning the Monothelite churches and the Catholic Church came to a conclusion at the Third Council of Constantinople in 681. The Council declared that in line with the declarations of the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which declared two natures in the one person of Jesus Christ, there are equally two “wills” or “modes of operation” in the one person of Jesus Christ as well.

Dyothelitism was championed by Maximus the Confessor against monothelitism, the doctrine of one will.” This is from the excellent article on the subject obviously written by a Catholic on a site now out of commission.

What Luisa is giving in her visions is the heresy of Monothelitism. I sincerely hope she did not know she was a heretic, but this is serious. We cannot follow her error. Here is Fr. Staples again: The following paragraphs are taken from the Third Council of Constantinople (680-681). This council condemned the Monothelites who proposed that in Christ there was in effect only one will, the divine will, and that Christ’s human will was totally absorbed into the divine.

COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE III 680-681 (DS 556-59)
Ecumenical VI (against the Monothelites)
Definition of the Two Wills of Christ

Besides both in Synodical letters which were written by blessed Cyril against the impious Nestorius and to the oriental bishops, following also the five holy ecumenical councils and the holy and trusted Fathers, and defining harmoniously with them it confesses that our Lord Jesus Christ, our true God, one of the holy and consubstantial Trinity and giving forth the origin of life, perfect in Godhead and the same perfect in humanity, truly God and truly man, Himself of a rational soul and body; it confesses the same consubstantial with the Father according to Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to humanity, through all things like to us except in sin [Heb. 4:15], before ages, indeed, begotten of the Father according to Godhead, in the last days, however, the same for us and for our salvation of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary properly and truly the mother of God according to humanity, one and the same Christ, the only begotten Lord God in two natures recognized unfusedly, unchangeably, inseparably, indivisibly, never the difference of these natures destroyed on account of union, but rather the property of each nature saved and in one person and in one substance concurring, not into two persons portioned or divided but one and the same only begotten Son of God the Word. our Lord Jesus Christ, just as formerly the prophets taught us about Him, and our Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us [Conc. Chal., see n. 148].

And so we proclaim two natural wills in Him, and two natural operations indivisibly, inconvertibly, inseparably, unfusedly according to the doctrine of the holy Father, and two natural wills not contrary, God forbid, according as impious heretics have asserted, but the human will following and not resisting or hesitating, but rather even submitting to His divine and omnipotent will. For, it is necessary that the will of the flesh act, but that it be subject to the divine will according to the most wise Athanasius. For, as His flesh is called and is the flesh of the Word of God, so also the natural will of His flesh is called and is the proper will of the Word of God as He Himself says: “Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of my Father who sent me), [cf. John 6:3 8], calling the will of the flesh His own. For the body became His own. For as His most holy and immaculate animated flesh deified has not been destroyed but in its own status and plan remained, so also His human will deified has not been destroyed, but on the contrary it has been saved according to the theologian Gregory who says: “For to wish of that one an entire deification, which is understood in the Savior, is not contrary to God.

But we glorify two natural operations indivisibly, inconvertibly, unfusedly, inseparably ‘in our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, our true God, that is, the divine operation and the human operation, according to Leo the divine preacher who very clearly asserts: “For each form does what is proper to itself with the mutual participation of the other, that is, the Word doing what is of the Word and the flesh accomplishing what is of the flesh” [see n. 144]. For at no time shall we grant one natural operation to God and to the creature, so that neither what was created, we raise into divine essence, nor what is especially of divine nature, we cast down to a place begetting creatures. For of one and the same we recognize the miracles and the sufferings according to the one and the other of these natures from which He is and in which He has to be as the admirable Cyril says. Therefore we, maintaining completely an unconfused and undivided (opinion), In a brief statement set forth all: that we, believing that He is one of the Holy Trinity, our Lord Jesus Christ our true God, and after the incarnation assert that His two natures radiate in His one substance, in which His miracles and His sufferings through all His ordained life, not through phantasy but truly He has shown, on account of the natural difference which is recognized in the same single substance, while with the mutual participation of the other, each nature indivisibly and without confusion willed and performed its own works; according to this plan we confess two natural wills and operations concurring mutually in Him for the salvation of the human race.

These things, therefore, having been determined by us with all caution and diligence, we declare that no one is permitted to introduce, or to describe, or to compare, or to study, or otherwise to teach another faith. But whoever presumes to compare or to introduce or to teach or to pass on another creed to those wishing to turn from the belief of the Gentiles or of the Jews or from any heresy whatsoever to the acknowledgment of truth, or who (presumes) to introduce a novel doctrine or an invention of discourse to the subversion of those things which now have been determined by us, (we declare) these, whether they are bishops or clerics, to be excommunicated, bishops indeed from the bishopric, but priests from the priesthood; but if they are monks or laymen, to be anathematized.

Here are some of Luisa’s errors, which are against this dogma with some comments by Father Staples again:

• Jesus says to Luisa: “Ah, I repeat and I confirm to you that my Will is Sacrament and surpasses all the sacraments together in a way that is much more admirable, since it needs no one’s intervention nor anything material. The Sacrament of my Will is formed between my Will and the will of a soul. When both wills melt into each other they form the Sacrament. My will is Life, and the soul who is disposed to receive Life is holy and receives Holiness, is strong and receives Fortitude, and likewise everything else.” (p. 106, BH).Comment: In this text, Jesus is explaining what happens when one receives this gift of the Divine will. This statement describing the nature of the union between the human and the divine will cannot be said even of Christ Himself To say His human will was melted into, or was fused with, his divine will, is heretical: “we proclaim two natural wills in Him, and two natural operations indivisibly, inconvertibly, inseparably, unfusedly.”

• “When a soul acts in my Will her humanity is, as it were, suspended. Then the Divine Life of my Love takes its place and acts; and, as it acts in a creature, my love finds itself unburdened of its desire for expression.” (p. 86, BH).Comment: All the human actions of Christ proceed from his human nature in submission to the divine will. You cannot say that when Jesus acted on earth His divine will suspended, or took the place of, his human will and proceeded to act in the creature. The two wills in Christ are “inconvertible.”

• “…to live in My Will is to reign in It and with It, while to do My Will is to be at My orders. …To live in My Will is to live with a single Will — God’s Will — a Will all Holy, all Pure, all Peace. And since one Will alone reigns, there are no conflicts; all is peace.” (Citation taken from a pamphlet: The Kingdom of the Divine will: An Introduction to the Fulfillment of the Lord’s Prayer. The Luisa Piccarreta Center for the Divine Will. p. 22.)Comment: Here Luisa clearly differentiates between acting in submission to God’s will, and her new way of acting which entails God’s will itself reigning and acting in the person. The Church teaches that the human will acts in submission to the divine: “…the human will following and not resisting or hesitating, but rather even submitting to His divine and omnipotent will. For, it is necessary that the will of the flesh act, but that it be subject to the divine will according to the most wise Athanasius.”

• Jesus to Luisa: “Thus the soul, until she is buried in my Will and dies completely in It, by disintegrating her volition in Mine, cannot come forth again to a new Divine Life with the resurgence of all the virtues of Christ which contain the true Sanctity.” (p. 28, BH).

• Jesus says to Luisa: “Although sorrow for one’s faults is good and praiseworthy, it does not destroy one’s own essence. On the other hand, abandoning oneself completely in my Will destroys one’s own essence and causes one to reacquire the Divine Essence…. And in reacquiring God, she reacquires all the benefits that God Himself possesses. It is only when the soul is completely in the Will of God that she reacquires God. And if she leaves my Will, she reacquires her own essence, together with all the evils of her corrupt nature.” (BH, p. 29).Comment: This obviously contradicts Church teaching: “For at no time shall we grant one natural operation to God and to the creature, so that neither what was created, we raise into divine essence, nor what is especially of divine nature, we cast down to a place begetting creatures.”

• Jesus to Luisa: “The only thing that should matter to you is that you dissolve your Will completely in Mine, because for him who lives in my Will, it is intimate union, not just for a quarter of an hour [reference to receiving communion] but always, always. Since my Will is in continuous Communion with the soul, not only once a day, but every hour, every moment, it is always Communion for him who lives in my Will.” (BH, p. 34).

• Jesus to Luisa: “They will no longer act on the human plane, but will penetrate into my Will; and their acts, now all divine, will be multiplied for all creatures.” (p. 94 BH).

• Jesus to Luisa: “‘My daughter, I [Jesus] recommend that you never go out of my Will, because my Will contains such power that It is a new baptism for the soul. It is, moreover, more than Baptism itself For in the sacraments my grace is received in a limited way, whereas in my Will, all the fullness of grace is received. In Baptism, Original Sin is taken away, but the passions, the weakness remain. On the other hand, in my Will, by destroying its own will, the soul destroys her passions, her weakness, and all there is that is human, and lives on the Divine virtues, strength, and all the Divine qualities.’ I [Luisa], upon hearing this, said to myself. ‘Soon He will say that his Will is more than Sacramental Communion Itself ” Then He immediately added: ‘Right! Right! Because Sacramental Communion lasts a few minutes. It is temporary. My Will, on the other hand, is perennial Communion…. That is why I want so badly for my creatures to take my Will. This is what matters most to Me, what interests Me most. And nothing else interests Me so much, not even the most holy things. Only when I obtain that the soul live on my Will do I feel triumphant, because in this is contained the greatest good there can be in Heaven and on earth.” (p. 36-37. BH).

• Jesus to Luisa: “To enter [into the Divine Will], creatures need but remove the pebble of their own will. Although it lies within my Will, their will does not participate nor enjoy Its effects. It is alien to my Will because that pebble, a soul’s own will, hinders the flow of my Will, just as the rocks on a beach keep the ocean water from flowing everywhere. But if a soul removes the rock of her own will, in that very same instant she flows in Me and I in her; and she finds all My goods at her disposal: power, light, assistance and everything she desires. That is why there are no special paths, nor doors, nor keys to my Will. A soul has but to desire it and all is done. My Will assumes all the work, gives the soul what she lacks, and makes her expand into all the limitless boundaries of my Will. With virtues it is just the opposite. How many efforts are needed, how many battles, how many long paths…” (BH, p. 123).

In conclusion it should be pointed out that often the saints will use hyperbole to express their desire to be totally at the service of God. They may speak in “mystical language.” For example, St. Paul says, “I no longer live, but Christ lives in me”; or someone might say, “the Lord consumed my soul” or “Lord, may my will die in you” etc…. However, Luisa is presenting a theological argument for a totally new way of acting. She is not saying “may God’s will be done in me” in the traditional sense of the expression, i.e. “May 1, by grace, faithfully obey God’s will.” On the contrary, she is saying quite literally “God’s will performs good works in me apart from any intervention or cooperation from my human will.” As was clearly shown above, this cannot be said of Jesus Himself. His human will always acted in obedience to the Divine. His Divine will did not take the place of the human; the human will was not melted into, or suspended by, the divine. Rather, Jesus’ human will acted by its own human power of operation. According to Luisa’s description of what it means to “live in the Divine will” we must conclude that Christ Himself did not live such a life…nor can we

There are some other errors which I shall refer to in the next post.

JMJ, pray for us!

God is good,

Jay

22 comments on “On the Dangers of Some Private Revelations – Part 2”

  1. Hi Jay — Where did you hear that the Pope halted dissemination of the volumes and ended prayer groups? I am certain that is not true.

    Since Fr. Staples wrote that article, both Vatican-appointed theologians have affirmed, after years of careful Church-sanctioned review, that all of Luisa’s writings are free from any doctrinal error, and the Vatican itself has published a biography strongly endorsing both Luisa and her revelations (Sun of My Will).

    The only stubborn thing here is to continue to insist — falsely and contrary to the Vatican’s own decisions — that Luisa’s volumes contain doctrinal errors.

    Like

    1. First of all, the prayer meetings are approved only if the writings are not used except for the first two books which are the only ones approved. The approval or disapproval does not come from the Vatican at first but from the Archbishop of Trani, who warned the followers NOT to create a cult and not to reprint books. Here is the latest from both the bishop and the Vatican, which clearly states the books have not been approved. Also, these references are in the three posts on this..2017

      As of the end of 2017 the status of the Cause remains the same as in recent years. The Communique of the Archbishop of Trani of 1 November 2012 remains his most recent official statement on the status of Luisa’s Cause. In order not to prejudice the Cause and scandalize others, he reiterated that all things be done in communion with the local Ordinaries (e.g. prayer groups, reading of the writings etc.), that unauthorized translations not be promoted, and that explanations inconsistant with the teaching of the Church not be promulgated, that the critical edition of the writings with theological explanations be awaited, as well as other requests previously made in prior communications.

      At this time there are still NO official English translations of any of the volumes. As previously stated to EWTN by the Postulation, the complexity of translating from the dialect used by the author into Italian, and then from Italian into other languages, and doing so consistent with the doctrine of the faith, makes it absolutely necessary that the prohibition of unauthorized translations be observed. When the critical edition with theological notes is completed, and approved by the Holy See, only then will the Postulation authorize translations, and then only from the critical edition.

      In summary:

      1. The life and virtues of Luisa Piccarreti are being examined at the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints, following approval of the postive result of the documentary process by the Archbishop of Trani in 2005, and then committed to the Congregation at that time.

      2. Her writings are being examined on a separate track, in view of producing a critical edition with appropriate commentary in keeping with the teaching of the Magisterium.

      3. No change in the norms and guidance provided by the Archbishop of Trani in previous official communications has occurred.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. P.S.: Jesus specifically, repeatedly tells Luisa in her volumes that He DID have a human will; this just shows how little Luisa’s critics know about the very thing they are criticizing

    Like

    1. The 36 volumes indicate that the divine will of Christ overtook His human will and this is the heresy condemned by the Church long ago. Perhaps you have not read that far…Also, the expert theologians have NOT approved here writings which is why the existing order is in place not to reprint or read those except for the one on the Passion and short one on Mary. The eminent theologian mentioned in this letter clarifies the problems again.
      Mr. James Likoudis
      Catholics United for the Faith
      827 N. 4th St.
      Steubenville, OH 43952

      Dear Mr. Likoudis,

      This is a concise reply to your request for my evaluation of the “The Kingdom of the Divine Will” movement. What follows is a summary of the conclusions that I reached after reading a great deal of the writings of Luisa Piccarreta.

      In my judgment, the underlying premises of Luisa’s writings are not consistent with the magisterial teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Thus she claims that all that we have to do is abandon our own will to the Divine Will, which can be found everywhere. There is an emphasis on complete passivity of the soul in Luisa’s writings. The result is a promotion of Quietism, which was condemned by the Church in the 17th century.

      Catholics United for the Faith
      Luisa’s writings openly promote the idea that she has received a new revelation. The faithful must accept this revelation to achieve the new way of holiness which equates the sanctity of Luisa Piccarreta with the sanctity of the Mother of God.

      According to Luisa, once a person receives this “new sacrament” of the Divine Will, the human will, in effect, acts in such a way that the action is purely divine. This basic error was taught in the early centuries of Christianity and became a cardinal principle of the absolute predestination of such founders of Protestantism as John Calvin.

      If necessary, I shall be happy to provide further and more detailed analysis of the writings of Luisa Piccarreta. For the present, I will only quote from the formal letter of His Excellency, Andrew J. McDonald, Bishop of Little Rock, Arkansas. He wrote to Father James E. Mancini, “By this letter, I forbid either the public or the private promotion of the Kingdom of the Divine Will Movement in the Diocese of Little Rock.” The bishop’s letter was dated November 26, 1997.

      Recently Mr. Thomas Fay(sic), American promoter of the Kingdom of the Divine Will, came to visit me in Detroit where we spent several hours in conversation. I told him this movement needs to be very carefully analyzed by objective experts in theology and evaluated for its authenticity. I also told him that I would be available to assist in this evaluation.

      Be assured of my special prayers for you, your family, and co-workers in the Catholics United for the Faith.

      Sincerely Yours in Christ,

      (Signed)

      John A. Hardon, S.J.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Another letter–her books have not been approved nor the theology in them yet by the Vatican-https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/LuisaClarifications.htm
    Clearly in this letter, is stated that NO ONE may diffuse her writings and that the bishop of Trani has the only right to pass these around, which he did not do–any copies being made are as stated in the letter, “illicit.”

    Liked by 1 person

  4. As noted again in the above letter, prayer meetings which concentrate on Luisa’s holiness are permitted but not meetings to pass around her writings still not approved.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Yes, I am well aware of the Moratorium on the publication of the 36 Volumes.

    Here is the currently in-force official notice from the Archdiocese of Trani, in its entirety. There are no restrictions, condemnations, prohibitions, or anything of the sort, on Luisa’s writings/spirituality/cause, except that which is clearly delineated in this document: https://danieloconnor.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/communication-n3.pdf

    If you read that document, you will see that the most relevant excerpt is the Archbishop’s declaration that people who claim Luisa’s writings contain doctrinal errors *scandalize the faithful* and *preempt judgement reserved to the Holy See* (See point #4 on Page 2)

    Citing opinions written by priests many years before this 2012 declaration proves nothing.

    Like

  6. He repeatedly states that only the authorized versions can be used but these have NOT yet been approved or authorized as in the 2017 statement I quoted above–yes the warnings of the docrinal errors is that the Vatican has not approved or looked at the entire corpus yet…If one knows the faith, one can find the doctrinal errors..These books were on the Index, which meant they were forbidden to read by the faithful until St. John XXIII got rid of the Index, as his thinking was that the laity knew the Faith well enough to spot errors–they cannot…you must have missed the 2017 quotation above and the earlier datings of criticisms do not take away from the many errors, which are still in the texts…
    The note from the Archbishop is one I have quoted and as there are no approved versions, his own words hold,

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Again, until the Vatican, if ever, releases approved versions with commentary, no one is to read or pass around those volumes, period

    Like

    1. Interesting. the Archbishop, who specifically wrote (point 9 of his official declaration):https://danieloconnor.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/communication-n3.pdf

      “Necessary prudence cannot lesson the ardor of those who feel compelled to spread the knowledge of the sanctity of life of the Servant of God, or of those who recommend the reading of her writings, or of those who encourage the faithful prayer for her beatification. ALL OF THIS NOT ONLY IS NOT PROHIBITED, RATHER [IS] VERY MUCH DESIRABLE” [Caps added for emphasis.]

      Like

      1. Apologies if I was too sarcastic. Feel free to edit out the first line of my previous comment if you deem it of poor taste. I would appreciate, however, if you’d keep the link and the quote from the declaration

        Liked by 2 people

  8. Some errors –just a few..Jesus says to Luisa: “The miracles of redemption [the Cross] are greater than the old testament ones, but IN THE NEW ERA, God will work the greatest miracles. [Greater than the Cross and the Mass?] He will work the Miracle of Preservation, from all evil both spiritual and physical. [Millennarism and a heresy] Adam was formed before his fall with the sun of Divine Will and the rays of light clothed his humanity. [Not true, he had free will!] When he fell he lost his garment of divine will. [The Church teaches that he lost Sanctifying Grace….Jesus says: “These souls being in divine will are holier than any saints in heaven. Since living in the divine will on earth without a life of their own on earth should have a position in heaven different from the other saints.” (no one can claim who is holier or higher in heaven–St. John the Baptist, for example, was called by Christ the greatest of men ever born of women..Jesus said. “When the Divine Fiat encountered my Mother’s Fiat they became as one and my Fiat elevated Her, made Her divine.” [Divine means God. Mary is not God. Mary is not Divine.] And this one is really bad..Christ was saying to Luisa, “When souls live in this sanctity [the Divine Will] I will not need Priests to consecrate Me, not churches, nor tabernacles, nor Hosts, because these souls will be everything: Priests, tabernacles and Hosts; and my Love will be liberated. Every time a souls wishes to consecrate Me she will be able to do so, at any moment of the day or night, wherever the soul may be.” Here Luisa is making the following of the Divine Will greater than the Mass or the Eucharist…
    And there is more which a normal Catholic can see as not according to Catholic teaching..

    Liked by 1 person

  9. HI Marie; I know there are many criticisms of Luisa and her writings all over the internet; unfortunately I don’t have time to address them all right now. My purpose in coming here was just to set the record straight regarding what the currently-in-force declaration from the Archbishop (the 2012 one) actually says (remember, anything beyond the actual contents of that declaration, even if they are posted on websites that are usually trustworthy, are nothing but hearsay). — i.e. it actually *encourages* reading Luisa’s writings (it only prohibits anyone but the Archdiocese *publishing* them), and it rebukes those who claim her writings contain doctrinal errors.

    God Bless

    In Christ, through Mary,
    Daniel

    Like

    1. I provided both the relevant quote and a link to the complete document. I think it will be easy enough for readers to see I have not misinterpreted anything. The Archbishop is saying “ALL” of this is desirable — the ardor, the reading, etc.

      Like

  10. Good night and God bless. I have said enough..if you are not instructed well in your faith, and many Catholics are not, it is easy to not see errors. I suggest you be open to the commentaries which I posted above..your ardour is not being questioned.

    Like

Comments are closed.