- Report
Social media
Change post
Remove post
The Piccarreta Crap?
VRS just not a Catholic comment. Declared Servant of God, lived 64 years on the Blessed Sacrament only, St Pius X gave specific permission for daily Mass in her bedroom, 100% obedient to Holy Mother Church, crucified by Our Lord and Our Lady on a daily basis, non visible stigmata. 20 volumes of her work imprimatur 1918.
@Scapular
Three books do not mean three volumes. As the Holy Office statement goes forbidden books by Piccarreta were published many times in different places.
As for Piccarreta writings obvious errors are the following:
1. Undermining the role of Redemption, Revelation and Covenant in Jesus Christ as incomplete and requiring supplementation by Piccarreta's inventions ("Third Fiat", new revelation …More
@Scapular
Three books do not mean three volumes. As the Holy Office statement goes forbidden books by Piccarreta were published many times in different places.
As for Piccarreta writings obvious errors are the following:
1. Undermining the role of Redemption, Revelation and Covenant in Jesus Christ as incomplete and requiring supplementation by Piccarreta's inventions ("Third Fiat", new revelation in so many volumes and the New Covenant of "God's Will" - which of course involves a kind of millenarianism, i.e. that a new era of "God's Will" is coming)
2. Erroneous concept of the relationship between human will and God's will. Depreciation of the Church's teaching on God's will (and yes, old anathemas on monothelitism still apply - even in Christ the human will was not destroyed/absorbed by the God's will)
3. Depreciation of the traditional Holy Sacraments vs. new means of sanctification / devotion to "God's Will"
4. Pseudo-messianic role of Piccarreta, for example, repeatedly referred to as "Firstborn of God's Will".
Three books do not mean three volumes. As the Holy Office statement goes forbidden books by Piccarreta were published many times in different places.
As for Piccarreta writings obvious errors are the following:
1. Undermining the role of Redemption, Revelation and Covenant in Jesus Christ as incomplete and requiring supplementation by Piccarreta's inventions ("Third Fiat", new revelation in so many volumes and the New Covenant of "God's Will" - which of course involves a kind of millenarianism, i.e. that a new era of "God's Will" is coming)
2. Erroneous concept of the relationship between human will and God's will. Depreciation of the Church's teaching on God's will (and yes, old anathemas on monothelitism still apply - even in Christ the human will was not destroyed/absorbed by the God's will)
3. Depreciation of the traditional Holy Sacraments vs. new means of sanctification / devotion to "God's Will"
4. Pseudo-messianic role of Piccarreta, for example, repeatedly referred to as "Firstborn of God's Will".
VRS 3 books on the index, for explainable reasons and 36 Books examined and off the index. 20 volumes imprimatur 1918.
Now VRS you raise 4 subjective points that you don’t think the pre VII academia haven’t examined. VRS this has all been examined and questioned in an age when the Church academia was sufficiently qualified to do so.
VRS the Divine Will is about “grant us to have part in the Godhead …More
VRS 3 books on the index, for explainable reasons and 36 Books examined and off the index. 20 volumes imprimatur 1918.
Now VRS you raise 4 subjective points that you don’t think the pre VII academia haven’t examined. VRS this has all been examined and questioned in an age when the Church academia was sufficiently qualified to do so.
VRS the Divine Will is about “grant us to have part in the Godhead of Him Who hath deigned to become a partaker of our humanity“
Now VRS you raise 4 subjective points that you don’t think the pre VII academia haven’t examined. VRS this has all been examined and questioned in an age when the Church academia was sufficiently qualified to do so.
VRS the Divine Will is about “grant us to have part in the Godhead of Him Who hath deigned to become a partaker of our humanity“
Strong and Steadfast
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Fr. Mawdley's videos are biased and easily refuted. For example, the first of his 3 videos is all about a handful of cherry-picked quotes that seem sexual in nature to him, regarding Louisa breastfeeding Our Lord. He simply ignored the fact that multiple doctors of the Church, including St. Bernard of Clairvaux used the exact same language, and it is approved by the Church. St. Catherine of Sienna …More
Fr. Mawdley's videos are biased and easily refuted. For example, the first of his 3 videos is all about a handful of cherry-picked quotes that seem sexual in nature to him, regarding Louisa breastfeeding Our Lord. He simply ignored the fact that multiple doctors of the Church, including St. Bernard of Clairvaux used the exact same language, and it is approved by the Church. St. Catherine of Sienna has much more shocking language in which she thinks lovingly about using Our Lord's circumcised foreskin as a kind of wedding ring. Had Fr. Mawdley addressed these parallels and attempted to explain how they are ok for some saints and not for others, his videos on the subject might have more merit.
Regarding the 3 books on the Index, people should be made aware that those were not in the original language. They were bad translations, and they were right to be condemned. The same books, in the original language, were given Imprimaturs.
Regarding the 3 books on the Index, people should be made aware that those were not in the original language. They were bad translations, and they were right to be condemned. The same books, in the original language, were given Imprimaturs.
Strong and Steadfast
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
This is a great video. The thumbnail does seem a bit clickbaity, but he addresses that in the video. He also addresses a very serious fact, which is that Bishop Golka stepped outside of his authority in the letter to the diocese of Colorado Springs. He went beyond the document that has been oft-quoted from France (which is not an official document, but a leaked, "confidential" memo), and declared …More
This is a great video. The thumbnail does seem a bit clickbaity, but he addresses that in the video. He also addresses a very serious fact, which is that Bishop Golka stepped outside of his authority in the letter to the diocese of Colorado Springs. He went beyond the document that has been oft-quoted from France (which is not an official document, but a leaked, "confidential" memo), and declared the works of Louisa Piccarreta to have "serious doctrinal error", which is another way of saying "heresy". The leaked document from France did NOT make that claim, but said very specifically "theological difficulties".
O'Connor makes it clear that Catholics in Colorado Springs should obey their bishop. He also makes it clear, correctly so, that the bishop of Colorado Springs does not have the authority to make pronouncements on the issue. The Church has made no official, public finding. That right is reserved to the bishop of her diocese, who DID declare that anyone claiming "doctrinal error" in this case is causing scandal. Nevertheless, O'Connor insists that Catholics should obey their bishops, anyway.
It remains clear that Louisa Piccarreta's works are some of the most approved in Church history, having Nihil Obstats and Imprimatur's from blesseds and saints. Contrary to popular narratives, the vast majority of her works were never on the condemned list. There were 3 of her lesser-known works on that list at the same time as St. Faustina's Divine Mercy diary, and it's been made clear that all 3 of those were not the original, but simply bad translations. The originals of all 3 of those works directly had either Imprimaturs or Nihil Obstats.
The "difficulties" brought up in the document that was quoted by Bishop Golka are clearly false, and O'Connor gives very clear examples of how and why that is the case, as is the right of any Catholic, lay or ordained.
Furthermore, Louisa Piccarreta has been granted the status of "Servant of God". Her spiritual director is a canonized saint. She lived for decades on nothing but the Eucharist. She had the stigmata (invisibly). Even the unofficial, internally-leaked "suspension" document from Rome makes it clear her life was virtuous and that it's likely she's a saint, anyway.
O'Connor makes it clear that Catholics in Colorado Springs should obey their bishop. He also makes it clear, correctly so, that the bishop of Colorado Springs does not have the authority to make pronouncements on the issue. The Church has made no official, public finding. That right is reserved to the bishop of her diocese, who DID declare that anyone claiming "doctrinal error" in this case is causing scandal. Nevertheless, O'Connor insists that Catholics should obey their bishops, anyway.
It remains clear that Louisa Piccarreta's works are some of the most approved in Church history, having Nihil Obstats and Imprimatur's from blesseds and saints. Contrary to popular narratives, the vast majority of her works were never on the condemned list. There were 3 of her lesser-known works on that list at the same time as St. Faustina's Divine Mercy diary, and it's been made clear that all 3 of those were not the original, but simply bad translations. The originals of all 3 of those works directly had either Imprimaturs or Nihil Obstats.
The "difficulties" brought up in the document that was quoted by Bishop Golka are clearly false, and O'Connor gives very clear examples of how and why that is the case, as is the right of any Catholic, lay or ordained.
Furthermore, Louisa Piccarreta has been granted the status of "Servant of God". Her spiritual director is a canonized saint. She lived for decades on nothing but the Eucharist. She had the stigmata (invisibly). Even the unofficial, internally-leaked "suspension" document from Rome makes it clear her life was virtuous and that it's likely she's a saint, anyway.
Strong and Steadfast
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Thanks @Scapular. I'd prefer to stay off of YouTube, honestly.
I don't speak French, but even I can clearly make out a couple details from the Holy See document:
1. It was not intended to be public, nor is it an official statement of any kind. It is directly addressed to a single individual - a Monsignor (perhaps that means bishop in French?).
2. "Les difficultes [...] nature a la fois theologique …More
Thanks @Scapular. I'd prefer to stay off of YouTube, honestly.
I don't speak French, but even I can clearly make out a couple details from the Holy See document:
1. It was not intended to be public, nor is it an official statement of any kind. It is directly addressed to a single individual - a Monsignor (perhaps that means bishop in French?).
2. "Les difficultes [...] nature a la fois theologique" is saying something regarding theological difficulties, which still falls far short of "serious doctrinal error". Everything in my statement still stands.
To my knowledge, the Holy See has not reserved to itself the decision on this matter, so therefore it still resides with the bishop in France. The Colorado Springs bishop went outside his authority in his language regarding it. He has every right to ban it in his diocese (which he did not fully do). The Korean bishops have every right to ban it in their diocese.
"Based on the information received from the Holy See, and in the face of the difficulties noted above, it will be appropriate to enlighten the consciences of believers to avoid possible confusion." The "difficulties noted above" are poorly researched by people who don't truly believe much of what the Church teaches. Nevertheless, they still have authority, granted to them by means of the Magisterium that was founded by Jesus Christ.
These are indeed confusing times, brothers. Let's try to face these issues with as much charity and obedience as we can muster.
I don't speak French, but even I can clearly make out a couple details from the Holy See document:
1. It was not intended to be public, nor is it an official statement of any kind. It is directly addressed to a single individual - a Monsignor (perhaps that means bishop in French?).
2. "Les difficultes [...] nature a la fois theologique" is saying something regarding theological difficulties, which still falls far short of "serious doctrinal error". Everything in my statement still stands.
To my knowledge, the Holy See has not reserved to itself the decision on this matter, so therefore it still resides with the bishop in France. The Colorado Springs bishop went outside his authority in his language regarding it. He has every right to ban it in his diocese (which he did not fully do). The Korean bishops have every right to ban it in their diocese.
"Based on the information received from the Holy See, and in the face of the difficulties noted above, it will be appropriate to enlighten the consciences of believers to avoid possible confusion." The "difficulties noted above" are poorly researched by people who don't truly believe much of what the Church teaches. Nevertheless, they still have authority, granted to them by means of the Magisterium that was founded by Jesus Christ.
These are indeed confusing times, brothers. Let's try to face these issues with as much charity and obedience as we can muster.
Strong and Steadfast
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
I agree we should be cautious of unapproved apparitions; in fact Scripture gives us the exact attitude we should have about it: 1 John 4:1, and 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21. We should test them. Those that prove true we should believe in, even if they are not approved by the Church. If they are formally condemned by the Church, that's another matter, altogether. But it's very clear the devil is setting …More
I agree we should be cautious of unapproved apparitions; in fact Scripture gives us the exact attitude we should have about it: 1 John 4:1, and 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21. We should test them. Those that prove true we should believe in, even if they are not approved by the Church. If they are formally condemned by the Church, that's another matter, altogether. But it's very clear the devil is setting up his counter-church right now, even inside the Catholic Church.
So yes, these are confusing times. That is precisely what we deserve, as a sinful people. We deserve a pontiff who spews heresy. We deserve prelates overseeing approval or condemnation of prophecies to be people who write forwards for homosexual books. We deserve priests who speak heresy in their homilies, and bishops who ban the TLM and Ad Orientem liturgy and who refuse to acknowledge the great evil they did in 2020 when they deprived the faithful of the sacraments. We deserve it all.
God save us! God give us the grace to turn from sin, to reject it, and to pray faithfully for ourselves, for our families, for our friends, and especially for the Magisterium!
So yes, these are confusing times. That is precisely what we deserve, as a sinful people. We deserve a pontiff who spews heresy. We deserve prelates overseeing approval or condemnation of prophecies to be people who write forwards for homosexual books. We deserve priests who speak heresy in their homilies, and bishops who ban the TLM and Ad Orientem liturgy and who refuse to acknowledge the great evil they did in 2020 when they deprived the faithful of the sacraments. We deserve it all.
God save us! God give us the grace to turn from sin, to reject it, and to pray faithfully for ourselves, for our families, for our friends, and especially for the Magisterium!
Starlight777
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
I wouldn't use my time to view this video. Mr. O'Connor seems to have a flawed discernment process.
Ch6 St John “and they no longer walked with Him” This is how the chosen ones treated the Doctrine on the Blessed Sacrament. There would be no Catechism to teach them, Our Lord knowing all things just gave it to them and St Peter had the correct response. Unfortunately the insinuation of heresy here is very very sad. The chosen ones thought the same in Ch6 of St John’s Gospel.
Strong and Steadfast
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
"CTTK member Peter Bannister has written a piece refuting the condemnation" That right is guaranteed by Canon Law to all lay faithful, so long as he does not claim that the Church doesn't have the right to make the condemnation, and so long as he is not advocating anyone turning against the bishop or the pope (which seems a fairly common practice here on GTV...).
"Also, watch this video of their …More
"CTTK member Peter Bannister has written a piece refuting the condemnation" That right is guaranteed by Canon Law to all lay faithful, so long as he does not claim that the Church doesn't have the right to make the condemnation, and so long as he is not advocating anyone turning against the bishop or the pope (which seems a fairly common practice here on GTV...).
"Also, watch this video of their support for another fake seer" - it appears that is your video, and not theirs, correct?
"Also, watch this video of their support for another fake seer" - it appears that is your video, and not theirs, correct?
Strong and Steadfast
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
"In other words, the bishop is wrong." Nothing wrong with saying that outright.
"Well, the DDF disagreed with Bannister, and confirmed the 'constat de non' verdict." Indeed, as it has the authority to do.
At this point, given that the DDF is headed by a pro-homosexual-agenda person, and given that these conclusions are not infallible (as they often change later), lay Catholics need not agree with …More
"In other words, the bishop is wrong." Nothing wrong with saying that outright.
"Well, the DDF disagreed with Bannister, and confirmed the 'constat de non' verdict." Indeed, as it has the authority to do.
At this point, given that the DDF is headed by a pro-homosexual-agenda person, and given that these conclusions are not infallible (as they often change later), lay Catholics need not agree with the conclusion. It's important to obey the conclusion, but there is plenty of room for personal doubt as to its finality.
"Well, the DDF disagreed with Bannister, and confirmed the 'constat de non' verdict." Indeed, as it has the authority to do.
At this point, given that the DDF is headed by a pro-homosexual-agenda person, and given that these conclusions are not infallible (as they often change later), lay Catholics need not agree with the conclusion. It's important to obey the conclusion, but there is plenty of room for personal doubt as to its finality.