Luisa Piccarreta: Seduced by a demon?

by

 Damien F. Mackey

  

“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

 

Medjugorje enthusiasts tend to be keen as well on the Marian Movement of Fr. Stefano Gobbi (d. 2011) and the prolific writings of Luisa Piccarreta (d. 1947).

 

A Catholic woman recently gave me some material from alleged mystic Luisa Piccarreta’s 36-volume The Book of Heaven, asking for my opinion of it.

The first thing that I read was this (Dec/24/1902 – Vol. 4):

 

Continuing in my usual state, I found myself outside of myself, and I found Our Lord, who had a cross near Him, which was all braided with thorns. He took it and placed it upon my shoulders, commanding me to carry it into the midst of a multitude of people, to give proof of His Mercy and to placate Divine Justice. It was so heavy that I carried it bent over and almost dragging myself. While I was carrying it, Jesus disappeared, and as I reached a certain place, the one who was guiding me told me: “Leave the cross and remove your clothes, for Our Lord is coming back and He must find you ready for the crucifixion.”

I removed my clothes but I kept them in my hands because of the embarrassment my nature felt; and I said to myself: ‘I will drop them as soon as He comes.’ At that moment He came back, and finding me with my clothes in my hands, told me: “You have not even let yourself be found completely stripped so that I might crucify you immediately”.

 

I had to wonder who Luisa’s “Jesus” really was.

The real Jesus did not “leave the cross”, nor did he, in “the midst of a multitude of people”, remove his clothes. He was forcibly “stripped” (Matthew 27:27-28): “Then the governor’s soldiers took Jesus into the Praetorium and gathered the whole company of soldiers around him. They stripped him of his clothes …”.

 

Here are some further extremely weird excerpts that one will encounter in The Book of Heaven (Mar/10/1909 – Vol. 9):

 

He, instead of answering me, drew near my mouth and placed His tongue in my mouth, and I was no longer able to speak.  I could just suckle something -but I can’t tell what it was; and as He withdrew it, I could only say:  ‘Lord, come back soon – who knows when You are coming back.‘  And He answered: “This evening I will come back again.” And He disappeared.

 

(Feb/06/1919 – Vol. 12):

 

…. Jesus came, All in a hurry, and told me: “My daughter, I am very hungry.” And it seemed He would take many tiny little white balls from inside my mouth, and would eat them. Then, as if He wanted to satisfy His hunger completely, He entered inside my heart, and with both hands He took many crumbs, big and small, and ate them hurriedly. Then, as if having satisfied His hunger, He leaned on my bed and told me: “My daughter, as the soul keeps enclosing my Will and loves Me, in my Will she encloses Me; and, in loving Me, she forms around Me the accidents in order to imprison Me inside, and forms a host for Me. …”

 

Although Luisa Piccarreta died 70 years ago, her writings are popular today, especially in Spain.

Most worryingly from a Catholic point of view, Luisa’s messages go right against the teachings of the Church, and its Traditions, because they contain new revelations.

 

Fr. Terence Staples, a priest in the Diocese of Arlington, Virginia, has warned about this in:

http://www.transporter.com/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. ….

 

According to one writer, “even an uneducated two year old could see how false this is”. For Jesus is supposed to have told Luisa:

 

“IN THE NEW ERA, THE SACRAMENTS, THEMSELVES, WILL NOT GIVE THEIR FULL FRUITS BUT WE WILL NOT REALLY NEED THEM, FOR THE REAL LIFE OF THE HOLY TRINITY IN THE DIVINE WILL IN THE NEW ERA IS GREATER THAN THE MYSTICAL LIFE OF GRACE THE SACRAMENTS HAVE.”

 

In the Book of Tobit, the demon Asmodeus, lusting after Sarah, will cause the death of her seven successive husbands (3:8): “Sarah had been married seven times, but the evil demon, Asmodeus, killed each husband before the marriage could be consummated”.

In Luisa Piccarreta’s The Book of Heaven, it will be – not seven husbands – but the seven Sacraments, that the demon will try to knock off, because, according to Luisa’s “Jesus”: “We will not really need them”.

 

Advertisements

Yes voters vilify Christians to the bitter end

Image result for sr mary patrice ahearn

ONLY two days left to return your same-sex marriage postal survey, and the campaign is ending the way it began — with rainbow fascists silencing dissent and demonising Christians.

MIRANDA DEVINEMiranda Devine

The latest display of “tolerance” comes from The Rose Hotel in Chippendale, which has banned a group of young Christians from holding their monthly meeting in the pub’s beer garden because patrons complained that gay marriage was being discussed.
Tomorrow night’s Theology on Tap meeting, titled Listening as a Form of Love, has been cancelled after organiser Natalie Ambrose received an email on Friday afternoon from The Rose Hotel licensee George Kanellos.
“I’m terribly sorry to inform you that we can no longer let you host your event with us in the beer garden,” the email said.
“We’ve experienced some backlash from customers, and within these complaints they have threatened not to return if these events continue… I was told by staff yesterday that worked the previous event that 4 different groups of people got up and left and, out of the two groups, we were told that they might not ever come back.
“It was about the debate of marriage equality that had frustrated these groups and our locals.”
Kanellos refused to comment when contacted on Friday, but confirmed he had cancelled the Theology on Tap booking on the first Monday of every month, which attracts 200 to 300 people.
The event which so antagonised Rose Hotel patrons was a talk last month by American nun Sister Mary Patrice Ahearn titled, ironically enough, Resilient Faith: How to Survive When Under Attack.
The talk, organised by the University of Notre Dame’s Catholic chaplaincy, was not about gay marriage, but how to cope with being attacked for your faith.
Sister Patrice quoted the Gospels: “If the world hates you know that it has hated me before it hated you.”
She mentioned gay marriage as one issue, along with euthanasia, for which Christians would be persecuted.
“Most of us are feeling… tension, conflict, disruption in relationships, because of these issues,” she said.
She urged her audience to find “common ground between the two sides… I’m sure most of us in this room know or love someone who’s gay. Persons with same-sex attraction desire love, friendship and intimacy as much as you or I do.”
In other words, she could not have been more loving or charitable.
But for the “tyrants of tolerance”, anything a nun says has to be hate speech, and discrimination against Christians is the highest sign of virtue.
It’s part of what former High Court justice Dyson Heydon describes as “the new de-Christianisation campaign… the tyrants of tolerance pay lip service, but only lip service, to freedom of ­religion as a fundamental human right,” he said in a speech last month.
“Modern elites do not desire tolerance. They demand uncondi­tional surrender”. There’s no way an LGBTIQ group would be treated so shabbily as Theology on Tap, not least because sexual orientation and every other permutation of human diversity — except religious belief — is protected under anti-­discrimination laws.

Waverley Baptist Church was been vandalised with pro same sex marriage graffiti. (Pic: supplied)

Freedom not to serve people with whom you disagree only cuts one way. It is perfectly lawful for a pub to hang a “No Christians” sign in its window, which effectively is what The Rose Hotel has done.
Vilifying Christians has been a hallmark of the same-sex marriage campaign.
Rainbow bullies have physically attacked No volunteers, spat on them, stolen their placards, vandalised their churches, racially vilified them, blockaded their meetings. They abused Catholic students at Sydney University as “homophobes”, “bigots”, “neo-Nazis” and “gay-bashers”. “Go wank yourself off at home with your f … ing Jesus picture”, they screamed, on video.
They graffitied “Crucify No voters” on church walls, and stormed a Coalition for Marriage launch, chanting “crucify Christians”, and brandished a banner reading: “Burn Churches not Queers”.
The frightening intolerance of the rainbow fascists has been on display for everyone to see during the plebiscite process.
But disappointingly few high-­profile people stood up to defend traditional marriage — not one member of Cabinet, few religious leaders, no business leaders or sports bodies, almost no one in the media — even those regarded as conservatives.
So cowed is the business community that it is refusing to be associated with the Catholic Church.
One bank, which previously had donated to an archdiocesean annual appeal, this year grudgingly agreed to donate a smaller amount but on the condition its name was kept secret.
Any wonder that “No” voters have kept their opinions to themselves, and that published polls are wildly out of kilter with the reality that No campaigners have found on the ground?
No voters “feel like dissidents in their own country”, as the ACL’s Lyle Shelton puts it.
For all the criticism, with voter turnout at 80 per cent the process has been a success, and most importantly has galvanised a new generation of social conservatives, as Tony Abbott said last week.
Shelton says they are part of a “dissident movement against the elites and the celebrities and the media”.
“Win or lose, they’re determined to keep fighting for freedom.”
If the Yes vote gets up, religious freedom will be the battleground.

….
Taken from: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/yes-voters-vilify-christians-to-the-bitter-end/news-story/88c2b6ed2282f9ce97f14384108629d3

Pope Francis sides with Benedict by saying Christ shed blood ‘for many’

The Pope agreed Christ shed His Blood for ‘many’ rather than ‘all’

Pope Francis has appeared to wade into one of the most contentious rows over liturgical translations, and agreed with Benedict XVI that Christ shed His blood “for many” rather than “for all”.
During a Mass for cardinals who have died in the past year, the Pope said: “The ‘many’ who will rise for eternal life are to be understood as the ‘many’ for whom the blood of Christ was shed.”
Crux says that the Vatican used the quotation around “many” when distributing the text.
Francis added that “for many” better expresses the idea that people have a choice to make in this life – whether to be for God or against Him.

“Awakening from death isn’t, in itself, a return to life,” Pope Francis added. “Some in fact will awake to eternal life, others for eternal shame.”

Since the Mass was translated into the vernacular, liturgists have debated how best to translate the words “pro multis” in the prayer of Consecration. The words literally translate as “for many”, but many liturgists translated it into their own languages as “for all”.

In 2006, the Holy See gave instruction that all new vernacular editions of the Roman Missal from that point on should translate the words as “for many”, pointing out that it is also the most literal translation of the original Greek “περὶ πολλῶν” in Matthew 26:28.

The change met with opposition from some countries, most notably in Germany, prompting Pope Benedict XVI to write a personal letter in 2012 explaining why the bishops should adopt the new translation.

A new German version of the Mass was published but never officially adopted.

When Pope Francis published Magnum Principium earlier this year, devolving greater powers over translations to local bishops’ conferences, Cardinal Reinhard Marx indicated the German bishops would abandon the newer version.

This may put him at odds with the Pope. In 2007, the Argentinian bishops’ conference approved a new translation while the then Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio was its president. That translation had “for many” rather than “for all”.

….

Taken from: http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/11/04/pope-francis-sides-with-benedict-by-saying-christ-shed-blood-for-many/