archive.org/…3444/http:/www.transporter.com:80/apologia/kdw.htm

Is Luisa Piccarreta's
"Kingdom of the Divine Will"
Catholic?
The purpose of this page is to provide information on the writings of Luisa Picaretta, with the intention of determining if the Kingdom of the Divine Will movement poses a threat to Catholics. The following spells out specific portions of Luisa's writings which appear to contradict Catholic teaching. A mailing list has been set up for discussion of these issues, and anyone who is interested in these issues (especially anyone who can address these issues) is encouraged to join.
A New Revelation?
Luisa 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 a new and higher level of beatitude which God desires for all his children.
Luisa claims to be the founder of a totally new dispensation, a new way of holiness, a new way of being united with God.
According to her writings, this new way of being united with God has only been lived by three people before it was revealed to Luisa Piccarreta: Adam and Eve (before the Fall) and Mary.
A New "Sacrament" of 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.
What Does the Catholic Church Teach?
"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.)
"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.)
The Council of constantinople III 680-681 (DS 556-59), Ecumenical VI (against the Monothelites), clearly defines that the man, Jesus Christ, has two natural wills in Him, a human will and a divine will.
On July 13th, 1938, "In the Kingdom of the Divine Will" and two other writings of Luisa Piccarreta were condemned in the General Reunion of the Supreme Sacred Congregation. On July 14th, Pope Pius XI approved the decision of the Most Eminent Cardinals that had been submitted to him, confirmed it, and ordered it published.
The above information was extracted from a critique of the "Kingdom of the Divine Will" movement written by Father Terrence Staples.
More information about the movement:

Father Staples' entire critique of the "Kingdom of the Divine Will"

Father Staples' article on the Kingdom of the Divine Will from the May/June 1998 issue of Envoy Magazine

Letters to the Editor, Envoy Magazine, January/February 1999

CONDEMNATION OF THE WRITINGS OF L. PICCARETA
(Acta Apostolicae Sedis, t.30, 1938; page 318)

Notes by Rev. William G. Most concerning the writings of Luisa Piccarreta

Letter from Fr. Martin (Capuchin Friary, San Giovanni Rotondo) concerning the connection between Padre Pio and Luisa Piccarreta

Letter from Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., to Catholics United for the Faith providing a concise evaluation of the "The Kingdom of the Divine Will" movement

Letter from Archbishop Cassati, President of the Tribunal responsible for Luisa's Cause, to "Authorized Promoters" of the Kingdom of the Divine Will - all activities concerning both conferences and printed matter must STOP

The Orthodoxy of Luisa Piccarreta’s Writings: A Response to Certain Doctrinal Objections, by Stephen Patton.

Moratorium Update - Cause of Luisa Piccarreta Suspended by the Vatican

Contested Will - Article by Mary Jo Anderson

The Authorized Divine Will Web Site

[Back to the Previous Page]
[HOME] * [Catholicism] * [Mormonism] * [Apologetics]
[Search] * [About TIS] * [Feedback] * [Photo Gallery] * [Links]

© 2005 Transporter Info Services, All Rights Reserved.
_____________________________________________________________________________

Is Luisa Piccarreta's "Kingdom of the Divine Will" Catholic?

Is Luisa Piccarreta's "Kingdom of the Divine Will" Catholic?
Fr. Terrence Staples
October 16, 1997
In the following pages, evidence will be given to demonstrate that the writings of Luisa Piccarreta contain many doctrines which are completely contrary to the Catholic faith which comes to us from the Apostles. It seems there are two principal errors from which many others flow. These two principal errors will be documented and some of the other errors will also be briefly mentioned.
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.
THE FIRST PRINCIPAL ERROR: A NEW REVELATION?
The first principal error in Luisa's messages is that they cannot be reconciled with the Church's understanding of divine revelation. The following texts define some of the essential characteristics of divine revelation:
"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.)
Luisa's writings clearly contradict these teachings of the Church. This contradiction can be seen in the following selections from her writings. The format used in this critique is as follows: first Her words are cited and numbered and a brief commentary follows.
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).

Luisa's new revelations are not, by her own admission, connected with the mind of the Church which is rooted in the Tradition. They cannot represent a genuine development of doctrine.

Some will argue, "But Luisa's writings fulfill the Lord's prayer, doesn't that imply they are rooted in the Tradition?" This begs the question. The question is, do her writings fulfill the Lord's prayer? And, how do we know? We must interpret the Scriptures with the mind of the Church. We cannot base our interpretation on a private revelation. Vatican II teaches: "But since sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted with its divine authorship in mind, no less attention must be devoted to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture, taking into account the Tradition of the entire Church and the analogy of faith, if we are to derive their true meaning from the sacred texts" (DV #12). Luisa's interpretation of the Lord's prayer is completely novel by her own admission. She says, "It is true that ever since I came to the earth the Church prays the 'Our Father' which asks that my Kingdom come so that my Will be done on earth as It is in Heaven. But who thinks of what they are asking for? It can be said that all the importance of this request remained in my Will and that creatures pray it only to pray it, without really comprehending, nor having real interest in obtaining what they are asking for" (BH, p. 19). Luisa clearly states that the interpretation she is giving to the Our Father is without precedent and is not rooted in Tradition. Her teachings have not developed from the Tradition and are foreign to the analogy of faith. No teaching of the Church or interpretation of Scripture can be based solely on private revelation without reference to the living Tradition. Luisa teaches explicitly that her doctrine is not a development from Tradition but a new revelation. Therefore, her doctrine does not fulfill the Lord's prayer according to Catholic interpretation.
Jesus to Luisa, "Then the Divine Will will breathe through their soul. It will give the soul the life, the effects, and the value of Life in my Will. But if it is not known, how will they be able to love and to want such a holy life. It is the greatest glory that the creature can give Me."

"The sanctity of the other virtues is quite known throughout the Church and whoever wants can imitate it. For that reason I am in no hurry to disseminate its knowledge. But the sanctity of living in My Will, its effects, the worth that it contains, the final touch that my creative hand will give the creature to make him similar to me is not yet known. This is why it is urgent that all I have said to you be known. And if you do not do this, you would, so to speak, restrict my Will and repress in Me the flames that consume Me and cause Me to delay the complete glory that creation owes Me." (p. 2 BH)

Comment: Clearly, Luisa is claiming that only through the revelations she has received can someone attain the knowledge necessary to reach the highest degree of sanctity. Without her writings, this knowledge is simply unknown to the Church. The Church teaches otherwise: "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." (DV 8)
Jesus to Luisa: "My daughter, my Will is the Sanctity of Sanctities. Therefore, the soul that does my Will according to the perfection that I teach you, that is, on earth as It is in Heaven, no matter how little, unknown, or ignorant she my be, she will surpass all the other Saints despite their prodigies, striking conversions and miracles. Moreover, the souls who do my Will, as in my Third 'Fiat,' are the queens; and all the others are as if they were at their service. The souls that do my Will in this manner appear as though they do nothing, yet they do everything. Because by remaining in my Will they act divinely, secretly and in a surpassing way. Such souls are the fights that illuminate, winds that purify, fire that bums, miracles that make miracles occur because it is in these souls that the power to perform them resides. Whereas those doing the miracles are only channels" (BH, p. 38).

Comment: Luisa is very clear in saying that with her "Third Fiat" a new way of doing God's will is opened to the Church. Her new way allows us to surpass all the other saints in holiness. Without this "revelation," the teachings and Sacraments of the Church as they have come to us through Scripture and Tradition are inept to bring us to the level of sanctification God desires us to have. If we want to attain the highest levels of sanctity we must adhere to this private revelation. This is not Catholic teaching.
Jesus to Luisa: "With three FIATs I will complete the work of sanctification in man.... The generations will not cease until my Will reigns on earth. My Redemptive FIAT will interpose itself between the Creative FIAT and the Sanctifying FIAT. They will entwine, all three together, and bring to fulfillment the sanctification of man. The Third FIAT (i.e. Luisa's) will give creatures such grace that they will return almost to their original state. Only when I have seen man as he emerged from Me, will my work be complete. Then will I enjoy perpetual repose in this, my last FIAT. Only the Life of my Will shall return man anew to his original state. Therefore, be attentive and together with Me, help Me accomplish the sanctification of creatures." (P. 125, BH).

Comment: Again Luisa claims that without this private revelation the redemption remains incomplete and we cannot understand the full meaning of creation. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 67 cited above (p. 3, #4), even approved private revelations cannot add to the deposit of faith. Based on this fact, the following criteria for judging a private revelation can be given: the teaching given in any private revelation must be demonstrable from Scripture and Tradition apart from any reference to the private revelation itself. In other words, the deposit of faith, "everything we need for holiness and increase of faith," can stand on its own without any private revelation; this is the teaching of the Church. Luisa's revelations cannot be accepted because they attempt to add to the deposit of faith. Where in the Tradition, for example, do we have the teaching that a third Fiat would be necessary to bring our sanctification and redemption to completion? This is not only absent from the deposit of faith, it contradicts it!

John Paul II while visiting Fatima demonstrated how the teachings of private revelations must meet the criteria of being already present in Tradition. He said, "The Church has always taught and continues to proclaim that God's revelation was brought to completion in Jesus Christ, who is the fullness of that revelation, and that "no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord" (Dei Verbum, 4). The Church evaluates and judges private revelations by the criterion of conformity with that single public Revelation. If the Church has accepted the message of Fatima, it is above all because that message contains a truth and a call whose basic content is the truth and the call of the Gospel itself." (Pope John Paul 11. Homily at Mass in Fatima May 13, 1982.)
Jesus to Luisa: "This is the Supreme Unity. There also exists the poor and lowly union in which the soul is resigned to my Will. Yes, but such a soul does not see my dispositions as her own, as her life. Neither is she happy in my Will; nor does she lose her will in Mine. I see that one, yes; but she does not manage to enamor Me. Nor does she cause Me to become enchanted with love for her, as happens with the one who lives in the Supreme Unity." (BH, p. 38).

Comment: Luisa claims that Jesus has revealed to her a new way of achieving "Supreme Unity" with God. All the saints that lived before she made her "Third Fiat" could only achieve "the poor and lowly union in which the soul is resigned to my [God's] Will." Thus, St. Joseph, St. Francis, St. John of the Cross, etc..., only achieved a "poor and lowly union" with God; whereas, through Luisa's "Fiat" and through her writings, those who are alive today can achieve a much more sublime "Supreme Unity" with God. This teaching obviously does not come to us from the Apostles.

St. Thomas Aquinas accurately portrays the Tradition with respect to the possibility of the coming of a "new era" before the Second Corning. He says, "there is a threefold state of mankind; the first was under the Old Law; the second is that of the New Law; the third will take place not in this life, but in heaven." Furthermore, he says, "we are not to look forward to a state wherein man is to possess the grace of the Holy Ghost more perfectly than he has possessed it hitherto, especially the apostles who 'received the first fruits of the Spirit, i.e. sooner and more abundantly than others. . . "' (Summa Theologiae, 1-11, 106).
Jesus to Luisa: "...in my All-Seeingness I see that these writings will be for my church as a new sun that will rise in her midst. And men, attracted by its radiation light, will strive to transform themselves into this light to become spiritualized and divinized, thereby, renewing the Church, they shall transform the face of the earth." (p. 3,4 BH).
Jesus to Luisa: "These revelations regarding my Volition will be as a balm to heal the wounds produced by the human will. Whoever has the benefit of this knowledge will feel the flow of a new life of light, of grace and of strength to fulfill my Will in everything.... My daughter, the Kingdom of my Will is invincible. In these writings I have placed superabundant light, grace and attraction to make my kingdom victorious. To the extent that these writings become know, they will wage a sweet battle against the human will and will win." (p. 16, BH).
Luisa to Jesus: "By living in this Divine Volition, the soul is clothed in a light similar to the light of the One in Whom she lives. And even in Heaven she will shine more brightly than the others and will be for the very Saints the cause of Greater glory." (p. 23).
"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).

Comment: Here, Luisa claims Jesus told her that God's greatest desire is that we adhere to this private revelation and so enter into the Divine Will. The Church cannot make this teaching her own because she cannot obligate the faithful to adhere to private revelations. For example, the Pope could not embrace Luisa's writings and pronounce: "God's greatest desire is that all the faithful embrace Luisa's private revelations." The following excerpt from Poulain's classic book puts private revelations in their proper perspective:

With regard to the special revelations that have been made to the saints, belief in them is not required by the Church even when she approves them. . . . "It matters little" (says Melchior Cano) "whether or no one believes in St. Bridget's revelations or those of other saints, these things have nothing to do with faith" (De locis theologicis, Book XII, ch. iii).

Benedict XIV is quite clear with regard to this question. "What is to be said of those private revelations which the Apostolic See has approved of, those of the Blessed Hildegard [which were approved [in part by Eugene III], of St. Bridget [by Boniface IX], and of St. Catherine of Siena [by Gregory XI]? We have already said that those revelations, although approved of, ought not to, and cannot, receive from us any assent of Catholic, but only of human faith, according to the rules of prudence, according to which the aforesaid revelations are probable, and piously to be believed [probabiles et pie credibles]" (De canon., Book 111, ch. Liii, No. 15; Book II, ch. Xxxii, No. 11. Eng. trans.: Benedict XIV on Heroic Virtue, Vol. III, ch. xiv).

"Cardinal Pitra says the same: 'Everyone knows that we are fully at liberty to believe or not to believe in private revelations, even those most worthy o credence. Even when the Church approves them, they are merely received as probable, and not as indubitable. They are not to be used as deciding questions of history, natural philosophy, philosophy, or theology which are matters of controversy between the Doctors. It is quite permissible to differ from these revelations, even when approved, if we are relying upon solid reasons, and especially if the contrary doctrine is proved by unimpeachable documents and definite experience.' (Book on St. Hildegard, p. xvi)." (Poulain, A., S.J., The Graces of Interior Prayer. B. Herder Book Co., St. Louis, MO., 1950. p. 320-321.)

Jesus is allegedly saying through Luisa that to live according to her revelations is the "greatest good there can be in Heaven and on earth." Furthermore, the gift of the Divine Will, which can only be understood and received through Luisa's 4 revelations', surpasses the Eucharist as an efficacious source of spiritual growth!! [cf. Also citation 913 below]. If this is true, we can no longer say that the Eucharist is the source and summit of the spiritual life. The Second Vatican Council contradicts Luisa:

Nevertheless the liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the font from which all her power flows.... From the liturgy, therefore, and especially from the Eucharist, as from a font, grace is poured forth upon us; and the sanctification of men in Christ and the glorification of God, to which all other activities of the Church are directed as toward their end, is achieved in the most efficacious possible way. (SC, para. 10)
In summary, Luisa's writings claim to complete and surpass the revelation we have received from the Apostles. She also claims that apart from her revelations, the Sacraments and Tradition of the Church are inept to bring the faithful to the highest degree of sanctification which God strongly wills for all His children. The Church teaches that everything we need for holiness and increase in faith has been handed on from the Apostles "once and for all' (cf. Jude 3). Luisa explicitly denies that her doctrine has developed from the Tradition, rather, she insists that it is a new revelation to be given to the whole Church. If Luisa's writings are true we will have to amend the First Eucharistic Prayer: "...We offer them [the gifts] for all who hold and teach the Catholic faith that comes to us from the Apostles...and Luisa."
THE SECOND PRINCIPAL ERROR: MONOTHELITISM REVISITED
To understand the proper relationship between the human and the divine will we must understand how the human and divine wills operated within Christ Himself If anyone operated "in the divine will" as understood in Luisa's writings it would have to be the man, Jesus Christ. In fact, Luisa claims that the whole purpose of the new revelations she has received is to enable human persons to act as Christ Himself acted on the earth. If we examine the nature of Christ as defined by the great councils of the Church, we find that Luisa's writings are fundamentally opposed to, and incompatible with, the teachings of the Church. In the following pages I will present the teachings of the Church regarding the nature of Christ and then present a sample of Luisa's writings which contradict the said teachings.
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.
Given this clear description of the relationship between the two wills in Christ, we now present Luisa's teachings with a few comments.
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.
OTHER PROBLEMATIC TEACHINGS
"Jesus said to me [Luisa]: 'My dear one, look at how for the one who lives in my Volition there is no grace that goes forth from my Will toward all the creatures in Heaven or on earth in which he [i.e. the one who lives in the Divine Will] is not the first to take part. This is natural because he who lives in the house of his father abounds in his possessions. And if those on the outside receive anything, it is in virtue of him who lives inside." (p.25, BH).

Comment: Evidently, to live in the Divine Will is to join Our Lady as mediatrix of all graces!
Living in the divine will: your soul is consecrated in all the Hosts. Luisa: "I complained to Jesus that I couldn't even hear Holy Mass, and Jesus said: 'My daughter, aren't I the sacrifice? When I am sacrificed, the soul that lives with Me in my Will is sacrificed together with Me, not only in one Mass, but in all Masses from the first to the last. Since she lives in my Will the soul is consecrated in all the Hosts. Never leave my Will and I will take you wherever you want. Furthermore, such an electric current of communication will pass between us that you will not do one act without Me. Nor will I do any act without you. Therefore, when you have need of something, such as to hear Mass, enter into my Will and you will immediately find what you seek: as many Masses as you wish, as many Communions as you wish, as much love as you wish. Nothing is lacking in my Will. Not only will you find all things, but you will find them in a divine and infinite manner." (BH, pp. 86-87).

Comment: To participate fruitfully in the Mass we must be conscious of what we are doing, a human act is involved at some level. We cannot be unconsciously offering ourselves and consecrating ourselves in every Mass all over the world and certainly not in all the Masses which were ever offered before we were born!
After Jesus tells Luisa how her sufferings and prayers were instrumental in the establishment of the new "Kingdom of the Supreme Fiat," He adds: "The same thing occurred in the Redemption. If our Justice had not found the prayers, the sighs, the tears, the penances of the Patriarchs, Prophets and all the good people of the Old Testament and, moreover, a Virgin Queen who possessed our Will integrally and who took everything upon Herself with so many unceasing prayers, taking upon Herself the work of making satisfaction for all the human race, our Justice never would have conceded to the descent of the desired Redeemer among creatures. Our Justice would have been inexorable and would have given a resounding NO to my coming to earth." (BH, p. 18).

Comment: Luisa is claiming that God had to first satisfy His justice by looking to the merits of human beings before He could send his Son. This is totally false. The Incarnation and Redemption was completely unmerited. If the Patriarchs, Prophets, Mary, etc..., did anything meritorious it was by the foreseen merits and grace of Christ!
Back to the Divine Will page.

[THE CATHOLIC SHOP] * [MONTESSORI CATHOLIC COUNCIL]
[LEGION OF MARY] * [APOLOGETICS] * [TRANSPORTER INFO SERVICES]

This site is operated by Transporter Information Services.
For more information or suggestions on improvement,
send e-mail to WebMaster@transporter.com

© 1998 Transporter Info Services, All Rights Reserved.
Last Modified: 09/06/2023 08:24:22

___________________________________

archive.org/…http:/www.transporter.com/apologia/KDW_Letters.htm
Letters to the Editor, Envoy Magazine, January/February 1999.
The Good News...
I just finished reading "Divine Will Hunting" in the May/June ('98) Envoy. Great article. Unlike other articles I’ve read exposing this heresy, Fr. Terry didn’t attack the priests and lay people who promote it.
I have read most of Luisa’s material available in English, as well as attending a Divine Will conference in Dallas a couple of years ago. One of my best friends, an otherwise good Catholic, has gone "nuts" over the Divine Will, offering classes at various parish communities. I can’t reason with her; it apparently is a very intoxicating heresy. Although I found the clergy and laity who promote and believe in this junk to be sincere, and otherwise good Catholics, they are sincerely wrong!
Again, thank you for your insight. I pray this isn’t Fr. Terry’s last article. Ken Pedigo, Tecumseh, OK
My family has been very heavily involved in the Divine Will movement for some eight years. I was 17 when they began and even at that time, I doubted the validity and accuracy of what was being taught. I’ve seen this tear my family apart. It’s at the point now that if you’re not involved in the movement (or are openly opposed to it like my husband and me), you’re somewhat out of the family loop. I’ll have to write to you at some point and give you some in-depth details about the chaos and harm I’ve seen this movement cause. The point of this e-mail, though, is to encourage you to keep fighting this thing. Just being able to read the articles and discussions have refueled me and my husband to keep opposing it head on. Again, thank you for all of your hard work. Tammy, via e-mail
... And the Bad News.
Within the next year or two, the Vatican will hopefully have something to say about Luisa Piccarreta. Do you really think the Vatican would have released her writings if they felt she was a "cult leader" You make it seem as if she were Jim Jones, or something. Someday soon we will "officially" find out about Luisa’s relationship with Christ. However, as one who has taken the time to look into her situation, I have come to the belief that she was very close to our Lord. She was always obedient to her confessors and the Church, unlike many alleged mystics of today. Her main confessor has been declared "Blessed." I don’t suppose that you or Fr. Staples have read what this holy man had to say about Luisa. Recently, this confessor of hers was also honored by Pope John Paul II.
I believe that you and Fr. Staples will someday feel very badly that the article was ever printed and will hopefully privately repent of this error. In conclusion, I only hope you have the decency to print a positive article on Luisa Piccarreta if the Roman Church decides that she is truly a blessed servant of God. Thomas Nicholas, Seven Hills, OH
One must always respect a sincere Catholic who has great zeal for the Faith and seeks to defend it from what he/she perceives to be a distortion, especially if the distortion can seriously harm the faithful. This is even more so when the Catholic is a priest of God. However, when this issue of a doctrine of the Faith has already been pronounced upon by several bishops in union with the pope, then this Catholic runs the very serious risk of being disrespectful of proper Church protocol, and borders on outright disdain for the teaching authority of the bishops. Such an example is Father Terry Staples’ "Divine Will Hunting."
Luisa Piccarreta’s writings (summarized in the Book of Heaven) have received the Imprimatur from Archbishop Joseph Leo after receiving the Nihil Obstat from (now) Blessed Hannibal DiFrancia, the priest originally appointed by the Church to be the official diocesan censor for her writings. Blessed Hannibal, after careful study over a substantial number of years, found nothing contrary to faith and morals. While individuals of this caliber can be wrong, one must give the highest respect to an archbishop in communion with Rome, and to someone who has been beatified by the Church, especially since Blessed Hannibal’s writings on Luisa were examined as part of his veneration and beatification process by the Sacred Congregation for the Cause of Saints. If Blessed Hannibal had been mistaken on Luisa’s writings, this fact would have, in all probability, prevented his beatification. Would God allow a miracle through the intercession of someone approving of serious anti-Catholic doctrine?
In addition; two outstanding Catholic theologians in full communion with Rome, Rev. Domenico Franza of the International University of St. Anthony, a medical doctor and professor, and Rev. Consalvo Valis, O.F.M., professor of dogmatic and mystical theology, also of the International University of St. Anthony, have studied her writings and found nothing contrary to faith and morals. A direct quote from Rev. Valis: "I find it to completely conform with the teachings of the Holy Church and those revealed in the sources of Revelation, including when it speaks in a passing manner on questions of dogma." Adding substantial, additional approval of the hierarchy of the Church, Luisa’s writings have received the written endorsement (which goes farther than an Imprimatur) of the retired archbishop of her diocese, Giuseppa Carata. He is the cofounder of the Association Luisa Piccarreta. Luisa’s writings have also been endorsed by the current bishop of her diocese, Archbishop Caramel Cassette, in a pastoral letter of January 23, 1997. Archbishop Cassette is the head of the diocesan tribunal for the cause of beatification of Luisa Piccarreta. As part of her beatification process, Archbishop Cassati’s Tribunal appointed two additional theologians who have studied her writings and they have also found nothing contrary to faith and morals. Her beatification cause proceeds, and will be submitted to Rome when it is ready.
It is also quite significant that Cardinal Ratzinger’s Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had no objection to Luisa’s cause for beatification after examining three of her edited works that had been placed on the Index of Forbidden Books, which index has now been abolished (a similar scenario happened with Blessed Faustina Kowalska). Archbishop Cassati has specifically asked in writing (January of 1998) that public promotion (positive or negative) of Luisa’s writings not be engaged in until the cause of beatification is submitted to Rome so that the Church can peacefully finish the process. One of the important points in the writing and publishing of this letter, is to make this fact known to the Catholic community in the United States. I respectfully suggest that the publisher should have presented these important facts.
Envoy prides itself on being obedient to the Magisterium, and readers rely on you to present the position of the Church as represented by the bishop in the diocese that has controlling jurisdiction. Why is there an apparent discrepancy? Again, I would respectfully suggest that the issue is quite simple. The reason is that the bishops and their appointed theologians who have studied Luisa’s writings recognize that there is no new public revelation at issue. As Father Staples correctly noted: this cannot be. Father Staples should be credited with correcting any proponent of Luisa’s writings about this important point. However, it is Father Staples who makes this claim, not Luisa. Nowhere in any of his quotations from the Book of Heaven does she make this claim of new public revelation. She does claim that God is now offering a higher level of sanctity to those willing to pursue it. This does not imply that our existing understanding of holiness from the Apostles does not allow for salvation. Quite the contrary. Our faith does, however, teach that there will be different levels (or mansions) of happiness in Heaven, just as there can be different levels of holiness leading to salvation. Unless the Holy See were to take away the Imprimaturs of Archbishop Joseph Leo and Archbishop Giuseppa Carata and the Nihil Obstat of Blessed Hannibal (and several other theologians), the writings of Luisa Piccarreta are approved by the Holy Roman Catholic Church as having nothing contrary to faith and morals. Our Holy Father has recently issued a document reaffirming the importance of obedience by the laity and priests to the official teaching authority of the bishops, the successors of the Apostles. Our Church and our Faith cannot stand without this submission. This is especially important for communications ministries such as yours. Certainly, one does not have to follow anything contained in private revelations; but how does an article like "Divine Will Hunting" build up the unity of the body of Christ, respect for the teaching authority of the bishops and respect for the reputation of a person that many bishops admire, and who has had her cause for beatification opened at the Diocesan level? Name withheld by request, via e-mail

When we consider the fact that the Church has decreed that there was no obstacle to the opening of her cause because her writings were free of doctrinal and moral error and that she lived a life worthy of being considered for sainthood, it baffles the mind that any just person would publicly denounce her. I think it’s important to remember that as journalists, you have a grave responsibility to present the full truth to the faithful. I’m very disappointed that you didn’t contact those appointed by the Church to promote Luisa’s writings. I was told they would be more than happy to speak with you, if you call them. The phone number for the Center for the Divine Will is 904-381-1220.
Among the moral virtues, spiritual writers praise obedience as the guardian of all virtues. So if we obey the Church, we obey God. If we purport to be obedient to the Church, we must remember that "the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the word of God whether in written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone" (Dei Verbum, 10). Will you believe the Vatican’s decision which is made with the authority of the Church, or an opinion given by Father Staples? Gina Romano-Dum, Philadelphia, PA
[Editor's note: We received several other letters strongly supporting the Divine Will movement and strongly critical of Fr. Staples’ article "Divine Will Hunting," but lack of space prohibits us from printing them all. The essence of all the arguments in the letters not printed here are contained in the above three letters.]
Fr. Terry Staples Responds
1. In critiquing her work, I was in no way making a judgment about the sanctity of Luisa Piccarreta. She did in fact write down the details of her revelations in obedience to her confessor. I’ve no reason to doubt her sincerity and I don’t consider her a "cult leader," in the normal sense of the phrase. It’s important to realize the objections being raised about her writings aren’t dependent on her personal holiness. Even canonized saints can be wrong about private revelations. When the Church canonizes saints, she canonizes their virtue, not everything contained in their private revelations. Indeed, there have been saints who were completely wrong in their private revelations (St. Ursula is a good example).
Even private revelations which have been approved by the Church can contain errors. The Catholic chronicler of spiritual theology, Poulain, in his classic work The Graces of Interior Prayer, lists 32 saints and beatified servants of God who had significant errors mixed in with legitimate revelations, as well as bona fide miracles (St. Catherine of Siena, is an example). What can we conclude from this? We cannot accept the doctrine contained in Luisa’s writings simply because she had a reputation of sanctity. Neither can it be concluded that we’re passing judgment on the holiness of Luisa when we claim there are exaggerations and errors in her writings. Her doctrine must be measured against the received doctrine of the Church; this is what I did in my article.
In an official pronouncement, the Holy See said, "The principal subject of the writings of Luisa Piccarreta is the Divine Will conceived in an exaggerated, erroneous manner and presented in a language and with a terminology where often absurd inaccuracies and extravagances abound..." In making this statement, the Holy See was not passing judgment on Luisa’s holiness, nor was it showing disrespect for her. It was passing judgment on the doctrinal claims she made in her writings.
2. The claim made in one of the letters, that I am showing "disdain for the teaching authority of the bishops," by speaking on "a doctrine of the Faith [that] has already been pronounced upon by several bishops in union with the pope," is outrageous. This statement indicates the dangerous confusion being promulgated by the Divine Will movement. The allusion to "a doctrine of the Faith" having been approved by bishops in union with the pope is very problematic. There’s a huge difference between the approval of a private revelation and the approval of a doctrine of the Faith. The approval of a private revelation ultimately has no bearing on the doctrines of the Faith. A private revelation, even if eventually approved, cannot add anything to the deposit of Faith. Cardinal Pitra writes:
"Everyone knows that we are fully at liberty to believe or not to believe in private revelations, even those most worthy of credence. Even when the Church approves them, they are merely received as probable, and not as indubitable. They are not to be used as deciding questions of history, natural philosophy, philosophy, or theology which are matters of controversy between the Doctors. It is quite permissible to differ from these revelations, even when approved, if we are relying upon solid reasons, and especially if the contrary doctrine is proved by unimpeachable documents and definite experience" (Book on St. Hildegaard, xvi).
Even approved private revelations cannot be used to decide questions of history, philosophy or theology. The problem with the Divine Will movement, as it is being presented today, is that Luisa’s works are being used to establish a totally new conception of salvation history. The writings claim to provide a new understanding of the meaning of creation, the nature of Adam and Eve before the Fall, the nature of our Blessed Mother and how she acted in relation to God, the nature of the human operations of Christ and, furthermore, they claim to be an indispensable and unique source of knowledge, without which, the redemption of mankind itself remains incomplete! These are theological and doctrinal matters which cannot be established even by approved private revelations. None of these doctrines which are unique to Luisa’s writings have been approved by the Church and they cannot be taught as Catholic dogma regardless of whether or not her writings are ever approved.
3. I’m also accused of "being disrespectful of proper Church protocol." Perhaps a little background information may help to establish that this is not the case.
I spoke to the "authorized representatives" of Luisa’s cause more than a year ago regarding my objections to their claims. I was told by the secretary who works directly with the archbishop that he could not answer my concerns because he was "not a theologian." I received the same response from other official, authorized representatives of the Divine Will movement. So I sent a written critique of Luisa’s doctrine to Archbishop Cassati himself (the bishop in charge of her cause) and spoke to him personally by phone on two occasions. Nearly two years have passed, and I’ve still not received a response to my objections. No one seems to be willing or able to show how Luisa’s teachings can be reconciled with the Catholic Faith.
I presented my critique of the Divine Will movement to my own bishop (the late John Keating of Arlington) for his review and comments. After studying it, he contacted me and said he found it to be a "very good work for the Church." Thereafter, he referred to me people from our diocese who had questions or concerns about the Divine Will movement.
In addition to submitting my critique to my local bishop for his approval, I sent a copy to Archbishop Agostino Caciavilan, the Vatican’s Apostolic Pro-Nuncio to the United States. He reviewed it, thanked me graciously and forwarded it to Rome to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for their review. I also sent a copy to Fr. Augustine Di Noia, O.P., the chief theologian for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. After studying my findings, he expressed no objections to my critique, and he encouraged me to continue my efforts.
And regardless of what some may say in disparagement of my theological training and qualifications to speak on this subject, I should add that I am not alone in my opposition to the Divine Will movement. Eminent Catholic theologians such as Fr. John Hardon, S.J. and the late Fr. William G. Most – orthodox Catholic theologians of impeccable credentials, men who are staunchly loyal to the Magisterium – are equally staunch in their criticism of Luisa Piccarreta’s writings. These two theologians have publicly warned the faithful about the problems with the Divine Will movement.
In synopsis of his critique of the writings of Luisa Piccarreta, Fr. Most wrote: "The article in L’Osservatore Romano on the condemnation of the writings of Luisa spoke of them as putting things in ’an exaggerated, erroneous manner and presented in a language and with a terminology where often absurd inaccuracies and extravagances abound....’ After reading the above, one may conclude that in spite of any claims of rehabilitation, the strictures of 1938 are still true" (the complete text of his critique is available at transporter.com/apologia/kdw.htm).
Similarly, Fr. Hardon warned: "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" (the full text of Fr. Hardon’s letter can be found at transporter.com apologia/cuf 1tr.htm).
In sum, I have consistently and assiduously followed Church "protocol" in pursuing this matter. Beginning with seeking the approval of my own bishop, I’ve made sure that my work was submitted to the appropriate ecclesiastical and theological authorities for their review. Never once, through all these contacts with the hierarchy, did any priest or bishop even suggest that my methods or findings were somehow "disrespectful of proper Church protocol."
4. It is claimed that, "unless the Holy See were to take away the Imprimaturs of Archbishop Joseph Leo and Archbishop Giuseppa Carata and the Nihil Obstat of Blessed Hannibal (and several other theologians), the writings of Luisa Piccarreta are approved by the Holy Roman Catholic Church as having nothing contrary to faith and morals."
It’s certainly true that two theologians have approved her writings and declared that they didn’t find anything contrary to faith or morals in the writings. There have also been at least two bishops, including Archbishop Cassati, who have actively promoted her writings (and those, like Bishop Andrew J. McDonald, the bishop of Little Rock, who have officially banned them). The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has never approved her writings. Simply allowing her writings to be released and studied does not equate to official approval.
We must be clear about the nature of the Imprimatur. It means that a particular document, having been reviewed by authorized personnel has been approved for printing. The Nihil Obstat (Latin: "nothing obstructs") is the prerequisite for the Imprimatur and it indicates the examiner (usually authorized by a bishop) has reviewed the document and found nothing contrary to the Faith. The Imprimatur, then, represents the official opinion of one bishop. While we should not minimize its importance, it must also be kept in perspective. We cannot equate a work bearing an Imprimatur with the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, as some are trying to do. There are numerous problems with such an endeavor. For example, The Hours of the Passion (5th edition), by Luisa Piccarreta, received the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur in 1934. This same document was later condemned by an official act of the Church (Pope Pius XI and the Holy Office) in 1938. Incidentally, this same book, proudly bearing the 1934 Imprimatur, is being circulated today. For some reason, the publishers fail to mention the subsequent condemnation.
How could such thing take place? Easy. Bishops are not personally infallible; neither are their Imprimaturs. Mistaken or poorly considered Imprimaturs have been removed from books, after further consideration. The bishops teach authoritatively on matters of faith and morals only when they are teaching what has been handed on from the Apostles. No bishop can add new doctrine to the Church. In the 17th century, the Spanish priest, Molinos, had 68 of his theological propositions condemned by the Inquisition. This was after his writings had been lauded by priests, theologians, and even popes! The lesson from this is clear: We cannot blindly accept new doctrines as if they were approved by the Church just because a few bishops were unable to detect any errors. Archbishop Cassati himself has said the Church hasn’t yet spoken on Luisa’s writings; they need to be reconciled with Catholic teaching.
5. One of the letters to the editor alleged, "Archbishop Cassati, has specifically asked in writing (January of 1998) that public promotion (positive or negative) of Luisa’s writings not be engaged in until the cause of beatification is submitted to Rome so that the Church can peacefully finish the process." This is only partially accurate. Archbishop Cassati didn’t suspend the promotion of Luisa’s writings simply in order to allow the Church to "peacefully finish the process."
On the contrary, the stated reasons were: 1. "Poor and exaggerated explanations of her writings have already scandalized some faithful;" 2. Her doctrine needs to be reconciled with the teaching of the Church by means of "a definable development of doctrine;" 3. "to insist a lot with conferences and propaganda on Luisa can be dangerous for the cause because, before the Church pronounces itself in her regard, a true ’cult’ to Luisa could develop, and this would in no way be in harmony with the tradition of the Church."
It’s evident from the tone and content of the letters received (and from my personal experience) that the archbishop's concerns have, at least in part, been realized. Sadly, a true "cult" to Luisa has indeed developed, one which promotes an exaggerated and erroneous spirituality, and which promulgates theological opinions that have no roots in Catholic Tradition and are incompatible with Catholic teaching.
I plead with those involved in the Movement to take to heart the information Envoy has presented you. Can what you have learned from the Divine Will movement be traced throughout the history of the Church in the writings of the saints and doctors of the Church? No. Can the novel doctrines of the Divine Will movement be supported without reference to Luisa Piccarreta’s writings? No. That’s why her writings cannot be considered authentically Catholic.
Archbishop Cassati himself has admitted that what has been taught in the conferences on the Divine Will, even from the authorized representatives, is flawed by "poor or exaggerated explanations." Unfortunately, many who have responded to the article in this magazine have been (unknowingly, perhaps) infected with these errors.
6. Finally, it is asked, "how does an article like ’Divine Will Hunting’ build up the unity of the body of Christ, respect for the teaching authority of the bishops and respect for the reputation of a person that many bishops admire, and who has had her cause for Beatification opened at the diocesan level?"
The unity of the Body of Christ can only be founded and built on the truth. The errors being taught in connection with this movement have caused great division within the Body of Christ long before I’d ever heard of Luisa Piccarreta. I have a file full of letters to prove it.
Consider for a moment the basic message being promoted: 1. Receiving the gift of the Divine Will is what God most desires for all His children; 2. Accepting the knowledge and the particular manner of prayer found in Luisa’s writings is the only way to receive the gift. The conclusion follows directly: If you don’t accept the writings of Luisa Piccarreta, you’re rejecting God’s will for you. Let’s be frank. This is nonsense. Not only does the Church teach that the faithful are not bound to assent to Luisa’s private revelations, She also teaches that it’s "offensive to Him [God]" to seek or desire any revelation which would attempt to "improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation" (CCC #65, 67). In all conferences all over the U.S., I’ve heard Luisa’s writings being promoted as the indispensable completion of God’s revelation. To truly build up the Body of Christ, we must declare this untrue.
Express yourself. Send your comments to: Editor, Envoy Magazine, P.O. Box 640, Granville, OH 43023, e-mail: envoymag@juno. com.
Back to the Divine Will page.

[THE CATHOLIC SHOP] * [MONTESSORI CATHOLIC COUNCIL]
[LEGION OF MARY] * [APOLOGETICS] * [TRANSPORTER INFO SERVICES]

This site is operated by Transporter Information Services.
For more information or suggestions on improvement,
send e-mail to WebMaster@transporter.com

© 1998 Transporter Info Services, All Rights Reserved.
Last Modified: 09/06/2023 08:24:25
___________________________________

CONDEMNATION OF THE WRITINGS OF LUISA PICCARETA
CONDEMNATION OF THE WRITINGS OF L. PICCARETA
(Acta Apostolicae Sedis, t.30, 1938; page 318)
DECREE of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office Condemning and Placing on the Index of Certain Books
Wednesday, July 13, 1938, in the general Reunion of the Supreme Sacred Congregation, the Most Eminent and Reverend Cardinals concerned with the defense of the faith and good morals, after the prior advise of our Reverend Consultors, have condemned and ordered inserted in the Index of Prohibited Books the following writings written by other persons:
Watch of the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ with a Treatise on the Blessed Virgin;
In the Kingdom of the Divine Will;
The Queen of Heaven in the Kingdom of the Divine Will.
The following Thursday, July 14, Our Holy Father, Pius XI, Pope by Divine Providence, in the usual Audience accord the Most Excellent and Reverend Assessors of the Holy Office, has approved the decision of the Most Eminent Cardinals that had been submitted to him, and has confirmed it and ordered it published.
Given in Rome, at the Palace of the Holy Office, August 31, 1938.
Romulus Pantantetti, Notary of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office
Back to the Divine Will page.

[THE CATHOLIC SHOP] * [MONTESSORI CATHOLIC COUNCIL]
[LEGION OF MARY] * [APOLOGETICS] * [TRANSPORTER INFO SERVICES]

This site is operated by Transporter Information Services.
For more information or suggestions on improvement,
send e-mail to WebMaster@transporter.com

© 1998 Transporter Info Services, All Rights Reserved.
Last Modified: 09/06/2023 08:24:30

___________________________________

Condemnation: Writings of Luisa Piccarretta

Writings of Luisa Piccarretta
Notes by Rev.Wm.G.Most
Condemnation: On July 14,1938 Pope Pius XI approved the decision of the Holy Office to condemn and place on the Index of Forbidden Books, three writings of Luisa Picaretta.
The decree is published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1938 volume, p.318.
The semiofficial Osservatore Romano in reporting this said: "The principal subject... is the Divine Will conceived in an exaggerated, erroneous manner and presented in a language and with a terminology where often absurd inaccuracies and extravagances abound..."
Later developments: If devotees of Luisa try to be say now that the copies used by the Holy Office were defective if so, the defenders should bring forth both the defective passages and the corrected form in print today.
Current Texts: No proof of that contention has thus far been presented. But a reading of her writings indeed does show things that match the description given in the Osservatore: which called them EXAGGERATED, ERRONEOUS.... with OFTEN ABSURD INACCURACIES AND EXTRAVAGANCES in abundance.
We offer examples of such passages:
1.Jesus said: (Book of Heaven, p.119): I wish to emit the third FIAT.... this will complete the work that poured forth from Me. Otherwise, the work of Creation as well as Redemption would remain incomplete.
2.BH p.12: "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 work 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."
Comment: Mary of Agreda's canonization process was stopped by a Pope of the same Franciscan order as she was because she said all are OBLIGED to accept her teaching. Here Luisa is called unique in history like our Lady!
3.BH p.xix:..."to no other souls, however much I have loved them, have I shown How to live in my 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."
COMMENT: Often these texts speak of being IN the divine will, and claim it is substantially higher than conformity etc. man will produces activities and directs them. We note that the Divine will is working IN the Creature and the Creature IN God's Will. What does the IN mean? It cannot be local presence, for a Spirit does not take up place. Nor could it mean ontological identity then the soul would be God. Nor could it mean identity of action: for all God's actions are identical with His Being. Then the soul would be identical with God. There remains only identity of objects willed. But this amounts to conformity with the will of God."
We still wish to compare this state with that described by St. John of the Cross:
In Ascent of Mt. Carmel III.II.10; Living Flame 1.4;1.9; and 2.34): In the spiritual marriage, "God alone moves the powers of these souls to do the things that are right, and they cannot be moved to any others.....Such were the actions of the most glorious Virgin, Our Lady, who being elevated from the beginning [of her life] to this lofty state never had the form of any creature impressed on her, nor was moved by such, but was always moved by the Holy Spirit."
It is obvious that this is the ultimate takeover of the human will by the divine will, the Holy Spirit. One could not even imagine anything more. God Himself, alone, moves the will of one in the Mystical Marriage. The soul is not dead, it is still human. But all it contributes is the consent to be moved in this way.
In actual graces in general, God by His movement causes the soul to see something as good: That almost automatically causes the soul to be favorable to what God proposes. At this point could the soul decide to accept the divine movement? No, for Phil 2.13 says of souls even at a lesser stage: "It is God who works in you both the will and the doing."
Similarly, the soul could not make a positive decision not to reject, for that would be a good decision, ruled out by Phil 2.13. We must add, however that in the actual decision, the soul is not totally passive. For the Council of Trent defines in DS 1554: "If anyone shall say that the will of man, moved and aroused by God, does not cooperate at all in assenting to God calling and arousing, by which it might prepare itself to obtain the grace of justification, and that neither could it dissent if it willed, but that like a lifeless thing it does not act at all but is merely passive: Let him be anathema.". There is no way to conceive less activity on the part of the soul: but it is not lifeless and passive.
--Compare BH 29: "abandoning oneself completely in my Will destroys one's own essence and causes one to reacquire the Divine Essence." And also in BH 86:"When a soul acts in my Will her humanity is as it were suspended. Then the Divine Life of my Love takes its place."
What we have just explained pertains to the soul even in the highest possible state.
3.BH 38:
Jesus to Louisa: "My will is the sanctity of sanctities. Therefore the soul that does my will according to the perfection that I teach you, that, on earth as it is in Heaven, no matter how little, unknown, or ignorant she may be she will surpass all the other Saints despite their prodigies, striking conversions and miracles... The souls that do my Will in this manner appear as though they do nothing, yet they do everything. Because by remaining in my Will they act divinity, secretly, and in a surpassing way... Whereas those doing the miracles are only channels".
COMMENTS: We note that they act "divinely" compare to comments above on being IN the will. And there is a danger than ordinary souls may consider themselves greater than all the Saints of the past, except Our Lady greater than St. Joseph, than St. John of the Cross. Yet in BH 123:"...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.... With virtues it is just the opposite. How many efforts are needed, how many battles, how many long paths." So a soul that merely desires to be in the Will need not labor for the virtues, need not have the effort to prepare for spiritual marriage this is greater, and costs no effort, just a desire! BH 38 speaks almost with disdain of conformity to the will of God:" This is the supreme Unity. There also exists the poor and lowly union in which the soul is resigned to my Will. Yes, but such a soul does not see my dispositions as her own, as her life. Neither is she happy in my Will, nor does she lose her will in mine." We comment: So the great Saints had only a "poor and lowly union"! But an ordinary person who makes no great effort, but simply desires to be IN the Will is greater!
4.pp.3,4 BH: "I see that these writings will be for my church as a new sun that will rise in her midst."
5."When I am sacrificed, the soul that lives with Me in my Will is sacrificed with Me, not only in one Mass, but in all Masses from the first to the last. Since she lives in my Will the soul is consecrated in all the Hosts. And BH 106:"...my Will is Sacrament and surpasses all the sacraments together"
CONCLUSION: The Article in Osservatore Romano on the Condemnation of the writings of Luisa spoke of them as putting things in "an exaggerated, erroneous manner and presented in a language and with a terminology where often absurd inaccuracies and extravagances abound...." After reading the above, one may conclude that in spite of any claims of rehabilitation, the strictures of 1938 are still true.
Back to the Divine Will page.

[THE CATHOLIC SHOP] * [MONTESSORI CATHOLIC COUNCIL]
[LEGION OF MARY] * [APOLOGETICS] * [TRANSPORTER INFO SERVICES]

This site is operated by Transporter Information Services.
For more information or suggestions on improvement,
send e-mail to WebMaster@transporter.com

© 1998 Transporter Info Services, All Rights Reserved.
Last Modified: 09/06/2023 08:24:32
________________________

Letter Concerning Padre Pio and KDW
Padre Pio and Luisa Piccarreta

Return Address:
OUR LADY OF GRACE CAPUCHIN FRIARY
SAN GIOVANNI ROTONDO ITALY
13/1/98
Dear Mrs. Turner,

I have received your request about Padre Pio and Luisa Picaretti. I can give you no information as they never met, nor corresponded. This has been verified with a local person who has been much involved with the Divine Will movement.

There are absolutely no grounds to connect the Venerable Padre Pio with that movement and I strongly desire that his name not be used in any connection whatsoever.
Sincerely yours,

(Signed)

(Reverend) J. P. Martin

Back to the Divine Will page.

[THE CATHOLIC SHOP] * [MONTESSORI CATHOLIC COUNCIL]
[LEGION OF MARY] * [APOLOGETICS] * [TRANSPORTER INFO SERVICES]

This site is operated by Transporter Information Services.
For more information or suggestions on improvement,
send e-mail to WebMaster@transporter.com

© 1998 Transporter Info Services, All Rights Reserved.
Last Modified: 09/06/2023 08:24:35

________________________

Letter to Catholics United for the Faith from Father John A. Hardon

Letter to Catholics United for the Faith
from Father John A. Hardon, S.J.

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.

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.

Back to the Divine Will page.

[THE CATHOLIC SHOP] * [MONTESSORI CATHOLIC COUNCIL]
[LEGION OF MARY] * [APOLOGETICS] * [TRANSPORTER INFO SERVICES]

This site is operated by Transporter Information Services.
For more information or suggestions on improvement,
send e-mail to WebMaster@transporter.com

© 1998 Transporter Info Services, All Rights Reserved.
Last Modified: 09/06/2023 08:24:39

__________________________

Letter from Archbishop Carmelo Cassati

Letter from Archbishop Carmelo Cassati
to the Authorized Promoters of
The Kingdom of the Divine Will

January 22, 1998

Fr. John O. Brown
Fr. Mike Adams
Fr. Thomas Celso
Fr. Carlos Massieu
Mr. Thomas Fahy
Mr. & Mrs. Miguel Machado
Mr. Jose Luis Acuna

Dear friends,

After much prayer and meditation, I believe it is my duty to write this letter.

I think it is necessary for all of us to pause for a period of time for reflection, because all of us want what is best for Luisa Piccaretta and that the Cause of Beatification proceed well if it is God's will to glorify His Servant.

On the 28th of November 1994 I wrote a letter "To Whom it may concern." In this letter, I presented Mr. Thomas Fahy and Mr. & Mrs. Miguel Machado "as persons worthy of our trust to gather information, objects, writings, or any other things, which may be inherent to promoting this Cause (of Beatification), as well as monetary offerings."

Afterwards I wrote other letters "To Whom it may concern" to Bishops of many parts of the world for each one of you as trustworthy persons, and as authorized promoters to speak about Luisa.

You are well aware that I did this because of the presence in the USA of Fr. Guetavo's "Society of Apostolic Life" and I did not want people to mistakenly think our work for the Cause was the same as their activity.

All of you, authorized persons, have worked well, driven by your enthusiasm and love toward Luisa Piccarreta.

Unfortunately, when dealing with things concerning our faith, enthusiasm is not enough. Reflection is also necessary. Perhaps, without realizing it, we are hurting the very same Cause of Beatification of Luisa.

This is because, if it is true that: "private revelation may not add anything essentially new to Public Revelation, though it may extend what the Church already holds by means of a definable development of doctrine, it is the task of those who explain her doctrine to others (including her authorized promoters) to reconcile it with the teaching of the Church. Poor or exaggerated explanations of her writings have already scandalized some faithful, who then attribute the error to the Servant of God" (William G. Bilton to Arthur & Joanne Kirby, April 04, 1997).

To insist a lot with conferences and propaganda on Luisa can be dangerous for the Cause because, before the Church pronounces itself in her regard, a true "cult" to Luisa could develop, and this would in no way be in harmony with the tradition of the Church.

Due to all this, as the Bishop responsible for the Cause, I formed a Diocesan Commission and an Office, with the headquarters in Corato. It must take care of and follow:

1. The course of the Cause of Beatification.

2. The spiritual activity of the Pious Association "Luisa Piccarreta P.F.D.V."

3. The typical edition of the writings of Luisa (the Diaries).

4. The coordination of the Centers that already exist and those which will be formed.

5. Answering the numerous questions for clarification that arrive from all over the world.

Everyone must refer to this Office and Commission, you whom the Bishop had recognized as "authorized promoters."

I am certain you understand the necessity for this unification.

America is very far away and the Bishop responsible for the Cause cannot know what is being said in Luisa's name.

You know the Spirituality of Luisa better than the others do and I am sure that you will know how to see the will of God in what I have decided.

You can keep the conferences you have already been committed to, but after them you must stop your activity both concerning conferences and printed matter.

I thank you for what you have done in Luisa's name and I bless you.
(Signed)
+ Carmelo Cassati

Back to the Divine Will page.

[THE CATHOLIC SHOP] * [MONTESSORI CATHOLIC COUNCIL]
[LEGION OF MARY] * [APOLOGETICS] * [TRANSPORTER INFO SERVICES]

This site is operated by Transporter Information Services.
For more information or suggestions on improvement,
send e-mail to WebMaster@transporter.com

© 1998 Transporter Info Services, All Rights Reserved.
Last Modified: 09/06/2023 08:24:40

_______________________

A Response to Certain Doctrinal Objections

The Orthodoxy of Luisa Piccarreta’s Writings:
A Response to Certain Doctrinal Objections

Contents

Introduction 1
The Question at Issue: Faith and Morals 2
The Critics and Their Criticisms 4
Objection #1: Luisa’s Writings Constitute New Public Revelation. 6
Objection #2: Luisa Claims to Describe a New Type of Holiness. 22
"Must" We Adhere to Luisa’s Private Revelation? 24
Was the Sanctity of the Saints a "Poor and Lowly Union"? 30
Is There a Higher Sanctity than the Mystical Marriage of the Saints? 32
The New and Divine Holiness as "Easy" to Receive and Live. 35
St. Thomas Aquinas and the Possibility of a State of New and 41
Divine Holiness in Man.
Objection #3: Luisa Advocates Monothelitism. 44
#4: Miscellaneous Objections 53
A. Luisa Places Herself on Par with Mary. 53
B. Mary had No Human Love for St. Joseph. 55
C. It is Improper to Speak of Acting "Divinely". 56
D. Luisa Advocates Quietism. 59
E. The Old Testament Jews Merited the Redemption. 63
Conclusion: Recalling the Proper Place of Private Revelation and Theology 65
Certification 67
The Orthodoxy of Luisa Piccarreta’s Writings:
A Response to Certain Doctrinal Objections
Stephen Patton*
February 11, 1999
Copyright, Stephen Patton

Introduction
One of the most controversial Catholic mystics of modern times has been the Third Order Dominican, the Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta (1865-1947). She was born in Corato, in the province of Bari, Italy, on April 23, 1865, received only a first grade education, and was called to serve Our Lord as a victim soul at the age of 16. On February 28, 1899, she was given the obedience by her spiritual director to begin a diary of her spiritual experiences, which she continued until 1938: 36 notebooks which detail her intimate rapport with heaven.
According to the revelations contained in Luisa’s diary, the Holy Trinity wishes to complete their work of creation, redemption, and sanctification through a "Third Fiat," an unprecedented outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Through this Third Fiat, the Holy Spirit will restore the original holiness of Adam and Eve to the earth and achieve the fulfillment of the Lord’s Prayer petition: "Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done on earth as it is in Heaven."
The years since the opening of Luisa’s cause of beatification in 1994 have witnessed an explosion of interest in these ideas and in Luisa’s writings. In a forward to a recent English translation of Luisa’s diary, Archbishop Giuseppe Carata, Archbishop Emeritus of the Archdiocese of Trani-Nazareth, observed that souls "from all five continents" have testified to the transforming power of Luisa’s writings. "It is awesome," he wrote, "that such abundant fruit, maturing in nations around the world, should have come forth from such a small tree planted by God here in Corato."
Along with the growing interest in Luisa’s writings, objections regarding their orthodoxy have also proliferated. This should come as no surprise. On their own terms, the writings are revolutionary. They describe an unexpected initiative of the Holy Trinity on the same level of importance as the creation and redemption of the universe. It would be troubling if such a claim did not evoke some caution, some questions, in the hearts and minds of Christians. This certainly was the case the last time God moved in such a way, in the Redemption.
God’s Second Fiat came even to good and faithful Jews in a way that was unexpected, and even scandalous. Some Jews, like Mary, received it immediately. Others, like Paul, received it only after opposing it passionately. Some never did receive it. But in light of what they knew of God, his laws, and his past dealings with them, all of them had to test the "orthodoxy" of the staggering, wholly redimensioning claims made by "this Jesus." (Acts 2:36)
We must now do the same with the enormous proposal that Luisa makes to us in her writings. God wants us to test her claims, to see if they agree with the teachings of the Church. Over the past two thousand years of the Christian Revelation, God has wanted us to keep our hearts open to gifts consistent with it, while screening out "gifts" that are not: "Do not despise prophecies. Test everything; retain what is good." (I Thes. 5:20-21)
Archbishop Carmelo Cassati, ordinary of the Archdiocese of Trani-Nazareth where Luisa’s cause is being advanced, underscores the importance of this task. In his letter of January 22, 1998, to the authorized promoters of the Kingdom of the Divine Will, he stated that "it is the task of those who explain her doctrine to others...to reconcile it with the teaching of the Church."
His statement describes two closely related but distinguishable endeavors, the latter of which rests upon the former: first, the task of reconciling Luisa’s doctrine with Church teaching, second, the task of explaining it. The scope of this paper is limited to the first task. Certainly the work of reconciling her doctrine will, of necessity, involve some measure of explanation. But it will not require a comprehensive, systematic account of her doctrine. It is important to note why.

The Question at Issue: Faith and Morals
Consider how the Jews evaluated God’s revelation of himself in the Incarnation and Redemption. It was incumbent upon them to compare his words and ways in the Old Testament with what Jesus said and did. They knew that if Jesus spoke and acted consistently with God’s ways of old, he was, at least, not unorthodox. This evaluation would not definitively answer for them whether he (or John the Baptist or anyone else for that matter) was God’s new revelation of himself, but they would at least know that Jesus was not against God’s former revelation. This was the first and foundational question.
But answering this one question positively did not resolve all of their difficulties. For example, the first converts needed to determine that Jesus’ description of himself as both "Son of God" and "Son of Man" was not against the faith they had been given by God. But merely making that determination did not give them a complete understanding of the hypostatic union. For two thousand years, the Church has been continuously and more deeply developing, explaining, and comprehending that doctrine.
I must immediately clarify that the public revelation of the Incarnation and Redemption and the private revelation to Luisa, even if it is legitimate, belong to entirely different orders of authority. Acceptance of and adherence to public revelation are required for salvation and growth in holiness. Acceptance of and adherence to Luisa’s revelation, by the very terms of public revelation, are not.
Nevertheless, in our evaluation of Luisa’s private revelation concerning God’s potential Third Fiat of Sanctification we can learn something from the first Christians’ response to public revelation, the Second Fiat. First, we learn that, before we can open our hearts and minds to this new revelation, we must make sure that it does not contradict any truth revealed by God. If it does, we must reject it immediately. Even if we conclude that it does not, we do not necessarily accept it. But we may. And if we do, we then proceed to understand it more deeply.
Appreciating the distinction between reconciliation and explanation will be especially important, for example, when examining what Luisa has to say about "living in the divine will," that is, allowing the divine will to become the primary agent of one’s acts while participating …