It may not be an official Church site, but it gives the text of various official Vatican documents concerning Ms Ryden's relations with the Church authorities. (and, I might add, it shoudl be judged on the cogency of its arguments, whether or not it is an official site).The very fact that someone who is not a church official takes the time and money out of their busy schedule to create a website that launches a virulent attack upon the messages, gives me all the more reason to believe in Vassulas case. The only Documents we should be looking at if we really want to see them are the ones given out by officials sites such a the vatican.va which holds the notification, since then Vassula has met with and cleared up things upon the notification which can be read at the site above.
I notice that the vassula-cdf site to which Stephen links cites a 2007 CDF document which includes the statement:
3) Finally, it remains inappropriate for Catholics to take part in prayer groups established by Mrs Rydén.In January of 2007, Cardinal Levada of the CDF stated in a letter (see Attachment #2) that (a) the “old notification” of 1995 stands, (b) that Vassula maintains that the Messages are not divine but personal meditations and (c) that the faithful should not pray in TLIG prayer groups. Looking at each of these points:
a. The 1995 Notification instructed the faithful to “read with Caution, because TLIG has theological errors”. It cited such errors, as for example: “Vassula calls Jesus “Father”; and “The antichrist will prevail” (this latter statement is Not in TLIG – read TLIG, March 17, 1993), etc.
In fact, never did the CDF instruct the faithful not to read TLIG, but to read it with caution! No one argues with this (see answers to objection #1).
However, there are theological problems with the “errors” cited in that 1995 Notification, which cause serious doubts to a faithful but also sincere, impartial, yet knowledgeable reader regarding the validity of that Notification. For example, the 1995 Notification states that Vassula confuses the persons of the Holy Trinity, because she calls Jesus “Father” when Yahweh is the Father, and Jesus is the Son… this of course contrasts sharply with the words of Jesus that “I and the Father are One11 ”; and “he who sees Me, sees He who sent me12 (the Father)”. For an in depth Response to the older Notification, please read: “Touched By The Spirit of God – Vassula and the CDF” By Fr. Edward D. O’Connor, C.S.C.
b. Vassula emphatically disagrees that she has ever said that the Messages are not of divine inspiration.
c. Cardinal Levada’s comment for the faithful to not participate in prayer with TLIG groups is most strange, and definitely in contradiction with the Canons cited in the letter, namely 215 and 223 §1. These Canons encourage people to form associations and to pray! Any statements that invite the faithful not to pray with other Christians is simply unchristian!
Given the above, the Pope’s letter (Attachment #1)… is the best he could do, and he did so, in support of TLIG!
Some Orthodox and some Roman Catholic Bishops (at local level) approve of TLIG and some do not approve. However, no formal Orthodox or Roman Catholic position on TLIG has been pronounced.
Certainly, according to the Roman Catholic Canon 50, if the Church is to arrive at a conclusion, it must hear the defense of the person under scrutiny. The “dialog” between Vassula and the Vatican concluded satisfactorily for TLIG, as evident by the fact that Pope Benedict XVI (a) agreed to publish this dialog in the TLIG books - it has been included in Volume 12 of the handwritten edition – and (b)issued the clarification letter (Attachment #1).
There have been no additional formal “hearings” specific to TLIG by either the Roman Catholic or the Orthodox Church and TLIG remains not condemned by either.
Protestant Churches are by and large not aware of TLIG, hence there is nothing to comment upon.
One may postulate on difficulties that mainline Protestants may have with Catholic (Orthodox and Roman) Traditions not explicitly stated in the Bible, such as Confession to a Priest, the true nature of the Holy Eucharist, salvation through faith alone, prayers to the Holy Mother and the Saints, etc. It is not the purpose of this document to discuss doctrinal differences between Protestants and Catholics… however, the author believes these differences stem from serious misunderstandings that can be explained away in a brotherly and humble way.
If Stephen wishes to defend Vassula, he should begin by addressing the existence of critics instead of referring to Fr. Laurentin as "all the theologians", as if there were no theologians who deny the authenticity of her messages. This would be the same Fr. Laurentin who used to speak so highly of the sanctity of Fr. Tomislav Vlasic of Medjugorje (I am not mentioning this to equate Ms Ryden with that scoundrel, but to point out hat Fr. Laurnetin's discernment has been shown to be flawed.) No critic has ever found theological errors in the messages, the very fact that you choose to throw stones at Fr.Tomislav, who regardless of his sins should be loved and prayed for it has nothing to do with the Fr.Rene Laurentins discernment when it comes to theological contradictions in the messages. Anyone can praise anyone for their good deeds and speak highly of them, this does not say that that person like any other sinner will fall at some stage in their life.
A few basic points which should be borne in mind:
(a) Private revelations can never be a matter of doctrine; they are sent for our edification and for subordinate purposesI agree here, the messages are a reminder of what we have already been given there is no new doctrine in the messages
(d) Indiscriminate intercommunion on one's own claim to have received divine authority to do so without reference to church authorities contradicts point (c).
I notice that Defending-vassula.org in discussing the Orthodox Church's attitude to Vassula engages in the practice known as bait-and-switch; when Orthodox authorities condemn Vssula we are told that they do not represent the whole Orthodox Church in the absence of a synod, but when individual Orthodox authorities apporve of her this is treated as dispelling the negative views of other Orthodox! Some readers may not understand the distributed nature of the organization of the Orthodox Churches. Whereas The Patriarch of Constantinople has recognized seniority, over the other Patriarchs, this seniority does not in any way imply overseeing responsibilities. Each of the other Patriarchs is independent and has the right to administer his domain as he is inspired, according to the canons and traditions of the Orthodox Church. Because there is no centralized authority, the Orthodox require a synod in order to reach decisions on significant matters of faith. Individual Bishops report to one of the Patriarchs and those bodies are administered as distinct Sees.
Thus, the Orthodox Churches (they are Catholic, also) do not have a unified ecclesiastical hierarchy. With respect to TLIG most of the Bishops prefer to maintain a “wait & see” attitude.
The Editor of one of the journals of the Orthodox Church of Greece states that Vassula has by her own accord “fallen away” from the Church in form, if not in substance”. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Vassula has not “fallen away” by herself. In fact, Vassula maintains her standing in the Orthodox Church by having an Orthodox Priest as her confessor, and she continues to receive the Orthodox Sacrament of Holy Communion in the Orthodox Church, on a very regular basis.
Again, misinformation that circulates against TLIG includes a statement that because Vassula has received Holy Communion from the Roman Catholic Church, that event would render an Orthodox in violation of the Orthodox Canon. Indeed, the Orthodox Canon prohibits Orthodox from receiving the Eucharist from a Church that the Orthodox have excommunicated (“anathema”). This had been historically the case between the Churches of Rome and Constantinople, with the mutual excommunication over FILOQUE, which was put in effect by Pope Leo IX and Michael, the Patriarch of Constantinople, in 1054 AD.
However, at this present time, these two churches are NO LONGER EXCOMMUNICATED FROM ONE ANOTHER! On December 7th, 1965 both the Pope Paul VI and the Patriarch of Constantinople, Athenagoras HAVE LIFTED the excommunication toward one another, and as a consequence, the Roman Catholic Church now permits the Orthodox to receive the Eucharist (Canon 844 §3).
Sadly, it is the practice of most of the Orthodox Bishops to not reciprocate, by refusing to grant Holy Communion to Roman Catholics that are in good standing with their Church.
Orthodox Clergy think of themselves as the “guardians of the true faith” and therefore they probably believe that to share their Holy Eucharist with those of the Roman Church may in fact be perceived as betraying the true faith, in that dogmatic differences exist between those two sister Churches (the “Eastern vs. the Western Church”). Mutual discussions continue between the two, at an extremely slow pace, the most “sticky” point of disagreement being whether the Pope has authority to oversee the affairs of the Orthodox Patriarchates.
Nevertheless, it is a fact that the mutual excommunication between the Eastern and the Western Churches has been lifted, by both Churches!
Some may question whether Paul VI and Athenagoras had the authority to lift the excommunication on their own individual ecclesiastical authority… in fact they did: Patriarch Athenagoras was the legitimate successor to Patriarch Michael and Pope Paul VI was the legitimate successor of Pope Leo IX. Therefore, according to the Apostolic Canon both Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI had the legitimate authority to lift the mutual excommunication. And this is exactly what they did on that December 7th of 1965!
The decision of Patriarch Athenagoras to lift the Excommunication of the Roman Church was reaffirmed by his successor, Patriarch Dimitrios who directed that “an Orthodox could receive Holy Communion from a Roman Catholic Priest”.
Yet, it appears that Church politics interfere with God’s desires that we may all be one[1]. The Orthodox Bishops continue being too slow to accept the lifting of the excommunication, and they have been pressuring[2] Bartholomew I, the current Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, to distance his Church from the Roman Church.
Nevertheless, the former excommunication remains officially lifted, in compliance with the Canon of the Church! The Orthodox do not subscribe to the infallibility of any Patriarch or Bishop. They must all follow the Canons and the tradition of the Church. Therefore, if certain Orthodox Bishops forbid their flock to receive Roman Catholic Eucharist, on what canon do they base their judgment? Why would it be wrong for any Orthodox to receive Holy Communion from a Roman Catholic Priest?
The previous notwithstanding, for the Orthodox Churches to approve TLIG as one body, it probably requires a world-wide synod… something that last happened in the eighth century AD. The author believes that only a divine intervention would cause the Orthodox to convene in a Panorthodox Synod in order to approve TLIG!
Finally, I must express that you have not bothered to look at the sites I've mentioned, criticism is different that pointing out theological errors, not one critic has pointed out any such theological errors, and it remains at the moment a case for the CDF to make such judgments upon the messages, the Popes letter in 1996 ( of which you purported unofficial website does not cite, because if the site you quoted really did care about giving both sides of the argument a fair play in the game it would of dones so ) was the best he could do, so what more do people want? I'm gonna finish up now at this and leave it, because I'm just a simple lay person who loves the messages and has decided to follow his own good conscience, there is no disobedience of Vassula in TLIG.
In a published interview with theologian, Niels-Christian Hvidt, in 1999, Cardinal Ratzinger was asked about the Notification and commented,
"...the Notification is a warning, not a condemnation. From the strictly procedural point of view, no person may be condemned without a trial and without being given the opportunity to air their views first. What we say is that there are many things which are not clear. There are some debatable apocalytpic elements and ecclesiological aspects which are not clear. Her writings contain many good things but the grain and the chaff are mixed up. That is why we invited Catholic faithful to view it all with a prudent eye and to measure it by the yardstick of the constant faith of the Church." Later, just before he was elected Pope, Vassula had an audience with Cardinal Ratzinger. At that meeting, the Cardinal warmly greeted Vassula but made it clear that he was not able officially to have the Notification withdrawn. He then asked Vassula to publish her response to Fr Prospero's letter in any subsequent volumes of her writings, and she agreed. As Vassula was about to leave, she asked Cardinal Ratzinger what would happen if anyone asked the CDF in future whether the Notification was still in force. He replied, 'We will say that the situation has been modified.'
When the Cardinal became Pope Benedict XVI after the death of Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Levada was appointed head of the CDF in his place. Cardinal Levada was subsequently asked to clarify what was the current position as regards the Notification. On January 25, 2007, the following letter was issued by the CDF:
...the Congregation wishes to state the following: 1) The Notification of 1995 remains valid as a doctrinal judgment of the writings examined. ... 2) Mrs Vassula Ryd�n, however, after dialogue with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has offered clarifications on some problematic points in her writings and on the nature of her messages which are presented not as divine revelations, but rather as her personal meditations... From a normative point of view therefore, following the aforementioned clarifications, a case by case prudential judgment is required in view of the real possibility of the faithful being able to read the writings in the light of the said clarifications. 3) Finally, it remains inappropriate for Catholics to take part in prayer groups established by Mrs Ryd�n. Concerning the question of ecumenical meetings, the faithful are to follow the norms of the Ecumenical Directory, of the Code of Canon Law (canons: 215; 223 #2 and 383 #3) and of Diocesan Ordinaries.
Nothing in what has just been said establishes one way or the other whether the True Life in God messages are authentic. It certainly cannot be said that the 1995 Notification would not have been issued if the True Life in God messages were authentic. This is because in 1959 the CDF issued a Notification banning the distribution of the writings of Maria Faustina Kowalska regarding the Divine Mercy. This ban took almost 20 years to be lifted, and Maria Faustina Kowalska was subsequently made a saint, on April 30, 2000. So the CDF can make mistakes.
More generally, it is undoubtedly the case that many figures who were subsequently made saints by the Catholic Church, were in their lifetime rejected, or regarded with suspicion, by the Church authorities. In his interview with Niels-Christian Hvidt, Cardinal Ratzinger mentioned Ignatius of Loyola, John of the Cross, and Brigida of Sweden as prophetic figures who were rejected in their lifetime. In fact, suffering such rejection seems to be de rigeur for authentic mystics � it is one of the things God puts them through, possibly to bring them closer to Jesus Christ, who of course suffered the ultimate rejection at the hands of the religious authorities of His day.
It follows, then, that the fact that the CDF issued � and re-affirmed � a Notification in relation to Vassula Ryden's writings does not in any way establish that those writings are inauthentic. The point is made all the stronger in this case given the fact that there do seem to be divisions both within the CDF and the Vatican generally over Vassula Ryden's case.
www.vassula-cdf.org/I'm gonna have to leave it here I'm afraid, I never get into too much of a debate on the messages, its quite clear you have not even skimmed the sites that give positive praise of Vassula and read the testimonies of many Cardinals and bishops, and also that the messages have been given a Nihil Obstat by the Church, and they are not an obstacle to the faith, theres nothing much more one can do, so I now leave you with the wise and sound words of St.Anthony the great, and say good day to you.
St.Anthony the Great: On the character of Men: txt:44 ''When you find someone arguing, and contesting what is true and self evident, break off the dispute and give way to such a man, since his intellect has been petrified. For just as bad water ruins good wines, so harmful talk corrupts those who are virtuous in life and character.''
Pax Christi
Stephen
www.tlig.orgwww.vassula-cdf.orgwww.defending-vassula.org