No! There are real heresies in the writings of Luisa Piccarreta which we will explain. 

HERESIES:

The first principal heresy is that she clearly violate the Catholic notion of Divine Revelation and the role of private revelation in the Church. She (Luisa) clearly states that what she has received is a new revelation, available solely through her writings. This heresy is hold by the Modernists.

The second heresy is called Monothelitism. This heresy was comdemded by the 3rd Council of Constantinople (680). The heresy 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. With a greater reason neither that could happen with any man’s will whatsoever. Impossible for anyone´s will to be absorbed into the Divine Will. And that is exactly what Luisa teaches again and again in her “revelations”. Luisa clearly and repeatedly teaches that when one receives this new ¨Sacrament¨ of the Divine Will the human will ceases to function as such remaining only the Divine Will in us. I repeat, this not even happen with Chist. He has 2 wills, one Divine and one human. 

The third heresy is called Quietism. Luisa follows this heresy by teaching interior annihilation, asserting that this is the means of attaining holiness. She is teaching that our free will is not responsable of our actions once it is placed into the Divine Will.

Besides, there is a formal condemnation of Luisa’s books:

¨On Wednesday, July 13, 1938, in the General Session of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, the Most Eminent and Reverend Cardinals concerned with the defense of the faith and good morals, following the previous recommendation of the Reverend Consultors, have CONDEMNED and ordered inserted into the Index of forbidden books the following works written by Luisa Piccarreta and published by others at different times in several places:

1. The watch of the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Chist, with a Treatise on the Divine Will

2. In the kingdom of the Divine Will

3. The Queen of Heaven in the Kingdom of the Divine Will

The following Thursday, July 14 of the same month and year, Our Most Holy Father, Pius XI, Pope by Divine Providence, in the usual audience accorded the Most Excellent and Reverend Assessors of the Holy Office, approved the decision of the Most Eminent Cardinals that had been submitted to him, confirmed it, and ordered it published.¨ (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, t.30, August 31, 1938).

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES TO KEEP IN MIND:

1.- Christian faith cannot accept ¨revelations¨ that claim to surpass or correct Revelation which was indeed closed down at the death of the last Apostle, St John the Evangelist.

2- The teaching given in any private revelation must be summited to Sacred Scriptures and Tradition in order to prove itself as something considered as catholic teaching.

3.- Everything we need for our salvation and sanctification to the highest perfection has been given to us by Jesus Christ and the apostles and handed down to us through the Catholic Church.

EXAMPLES OF HERESY IN LUISA’S BOOKS:

1. Jesus to Luisa: “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.¨ (BH, p 119). Against principle 1,2 and 3.

2. Jesus to Luisa: ¨There will not be either before or after you, any creature for whom I will obligate through necessity assistance of my Ministers.¨

  COMMENT: One cannot be obligated through necessity to follow a private revelation. (Princ. 1)

3. Jesus to Luisa: ¨My Mother has supremacy over all the Church. In the same way I have done this with you… 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”. (BH p.14)

  COMMENT: Luisa is claiming to have received a new ¨deposit¨ of faith which parallels the revelation given to the Apostles. St Thomas teaches de following: “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… 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.” (Summa I-II, 106).

Against St Thomas there is again Luisa’s ‘revelation’ from “Jesus”: “These revelations regarding my Volition will be as a balm to heal the wounds produced by the human will. Whosoever has the benefit of this knowledge will feel the flow of a new life of light, of grace and strength to fulfill my Will in everything… My daughter, the Kingdom of my Will is invisible. In these writings I have placed superabundant light, grace and attraction to make my kingdom victorious. TO THE EXTEND THAT THESE WRITINGS BECOME KNOWN, they will wage a sweet battle against the human will and will win.” (p.16, BH)  (Against principles 1 and 3)

4. Jesus to Luisa: “Even the way I ask you to pray is not found in any other” (p 19, BH).

   COMMENT: Suffices the Magisterium to answer for us: “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).

5. Jesus to Luisa: “The soul that does my Will according to the perfection that I teach you … she will surpass all the other Saints… because by remaining in my Will they act divinely, secretly and in a surpassing way” (BH, p 38).

   COMMENT: Besides the heresy of Monotheism and Quietism in this sentence. Take heed that Luisa is saying that without this “revelation” the teachings and Sacraments of the Church as they have come to us through Sacred Scriptures and Tradition are inept to bring us to the level of sanctification God desires us to have”. It contradicts also principle #3.

6. “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.” (p.36 BH).

    COMMENT: This is completely impossible. Holy Communion cannot be compared to the indwelling of oneself spiritually in God! The Holy Eucharist is God Himself lasting physically few minutes in us, whereas on a mystical union of wills with God we always remain OURSELVES united with God through the bounds of charity! It is Monothelitism in all its monstrous size. It is again the voice of the serpent: “You shall be like unto God!” (understood as God as He is in His own essence).

7. Jesus 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.” (p. 106, BH).

   COMMENT: This statement describing the nature of the union between the human and the Divine Will cannot be said even of Christ Himself. To say that His human will was melted into, or was fused with, his Divine Will, is heretical.

8. “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”. (p. 86, BH). 

    “Thus the soul, until she is buried in my Will and dies completely in It, by disintegrating her volition in Mine” (p. 28. BH).

    COMMENTS: It is the heresy of Quietism. Annihilation of ourselves when placed in the hands of God. St Athanasius explains: “The human will following and not resisting or hesitating, but rather always 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”

9. “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).

   COMMENTS: Evidently, to live in the Divine Will is to join Our Lady as Mediatrix of all graces!(??).

10.-After being refused Absolution from her confessor, Luisa nevertheless received Holy Communion (after that refusal). She tells us that Jesus said to her not to worry… “For once a person is relieved of his own human will and given over to my Divine Will, there is no need for priestly absolution, for it is given to you by your loving Jesus”. (BH, Vol. 16. Nov. 5, 1923)

   COMMENTS: Excellent example of the heresies of Monothelitism and Quietism. By doing this act of ¨trust¨ you shall be automatically saved without need of practicing your religion at all!!!

CONCLUSION:

     Luisa Piccarreta´s Divine Will is more than heresy. It is an entirely new religion that has a blend of Protestantism, Modernism, Buddhism, Monothelitism, and Quietism. These heresies destroy human responsability for one’s actions. This new religion gives the “formula” to become essencialy like unto God.

Note 1.- BH = When the Divine Will Reign in souls, Book of Heaven: A selection of Passages. Luisa Piccarreta Center for the Divine Will. Jacksonville, FL. 1995.

The minister who confers a Sacrament must have the intention of doing that which the Church and Christ intends (and do not what the false Church of Vaticano II intends or what the masons intend). And to do so in a right manner, the minister must use a Catholic RITE which Indeed was given by Christ for that purpose and therefore is indeed capable of signifying CLEARLY the Grace that the visible sign produces.

Begining with, let us remember the comdenation of the council of Trent (Canon 11):
“If anyone says that in ministers, when they effect and confer the sacraments, there he does not requiere at least the intention of doing what the Church does, let him be Anathema.”

Moreover, in whatever “fórmula” or sacramental change of the true Sacraments, if it does not reflect the intention that Christ had when He created it, this very fact alone makes that modified Sacrament invalid.

The meaning of any sacramental form must be a determinated one, it must be unequivocal, that is, it must be exclusive and univocal. By its very essence it cannot be at all equivocal, unclear, or ambiguous.

By its very definition a Sacrament is a sensible sign producing the grace signified. If the words used for this signification are ambiguous, it would therefore be obvious that in such a case Grace would not be granted because it is NOT signified. Therefore the Sacrament would be invalid.

In the especific case of the
New Mass and of the New RITE of priesly ordenation the “grace” signified is ambiguous and therefore incapable of producing Grace. Those New rites moreover, preecisely because the ambiguity, they are incapable of being faithful at the necessity of having the intention of doing what the Church and Christ does. Based upon this solid principles, we can safely conclude that these “New” rites by themselves are invalid.

Therefore one cannot accept Sacraments from a “priest” that was ordained with the New RITE of ordenation, in the same way one cannot accept the New Mass from the hands of a valid priest.

Conference (click here)

Source: Cathinfo

In view of the number of people who think that the meeting of the SSPX Major Superiors has produced a change for the better, it seems important to keep our heads cool. Below is Fr. Girouard’s thoughts on the June 29th SSPX communiqué.

THIS IS THE EMAIL FATHER GIROUARD SENT LAST JUNE 29th TO HIS PARISHIONERS IN ALDERGROVE, BC:

Dear parishioners,

The latest communiqué from Menzingen, following the Superiors’ meeting of June 25-28, is nothing more than window dressing to keep customers happy. See link to CathInfo:

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/SSPX-Communiqu-after-meeting-of-all-Superiors

Indeed, this communiqué doesn’t reveal any practical resolution, only “intentions”. So, after three days of meeting together, this is all the Major Superiors could come up with? Is this all they have been able to achieve? Seems like a lot of money, from the sacrifices of benefactors, has been spent for nothing… (Or maybe it was paid by the Rothschild’s donation from Austria?).

Remember, friends, the following: Whenever Menzingen comes up with soothing words like that, we must not forget what they have actually DONE.

(I will keep it short here…):

1-The April 2012 Letters from and to the 3 Bishops show the SSPX General Council’s true opinions.
2-In 2012, Bishop Fellay has sent the AFD to Rome, and has not since sent another official document to Rome to repudiate it.
3-Bishop Fellay sent a letter to the Pope on June 17th, 2012, saying he would continue with all his strength to work for a recognition, and saying the only reason he cannot sign the Rome proposal of June 13th, was that too many people in the Society were not yet ready to accept it.
4-The General chapter of 2012 has abandonned the 2006 Chapter Resolution (“no practical agreement without the conversion of Rome”), which was in line with the Archbishop’s latest position.
5-Since the summer of 2012, Bishop Fellay and his cronies have punished severely anybody (clergy and lay) who publicly criticized his new policy, going even as far as expelling H.E. Bishop Williamson.
6-On June 27th, 2013 the 3 remaining SSPX bishops (F, G, T) declared publicly that they would accept an unilateral recognition by Rome, even without its conversion.
7-In October 2012, Fr. Wegner, then District Superior of Canada, admitted to me, and promoted, the new branding of the Society effected by a professional firm. This branding was summarized in one sentence: “If the Society is to grow, it has to cease criticizing Rome and the VII reforms, and focus rather on the beauties of Tradition.”

Dear parishioners, I think we must never lose sight of these above-mentioned FACTS. All the rest that comes from Menzingen is nothing else than lullabies intended to put people to sleep. Let us refuse these sirens’ songs. Let us  remain alert, strapped firmly on the boat of true fidelity to Tradition. And true fidelity can only be one that refuses any compromise with those and the things that are destroying the Church!

God bless,
Father Girouard

By Fr. Raphael, OSB (Prior, San José Monastery, Colombia)

Monsignor Lefebvre stated: It was the council and its FRUITS that caused the destruction of the Holy Mass, our Holy Faith, our catechisms and the social kingdom of Our Lord Jesus Christ (19 November 1989).

With this quote in mind, let us make an analogy. The Holy Catholic Church is like the Tree of Life (because It is the only source of spiritual life and salvation). The new religion of Vatican II is like a deadly disease which has progressively infected this Tree (in Its human element) ever since the council.

This conciliar disease attacks the whole Tree (in Its human element) and countless enemies labor with the conscious intent to destroy the Tree. The disease is in the Tree but it is not a product of the Tree. This is like the fact that the conciliar church infects the human element of the Catholic Church from within (like a virus does in a body). Then the infected Catholics are like “copies” of the “virus” which further spread the infection by using the Tree’s own structure (Catholic authority and the hierarchy now occupied by liberals).

The conciliar popes are most responsible for caring for the Tree of Life but instead they are working hard to further infect this Tree with the deadly disease. These popes should “spray” the Tree with “herbicide” to kill the disease, viz., clearly condemning errors and strongly resisting the Church’s enemies. These popes should also “feed” and “water” the Tree of Life (in Its human element), with Traditional Catholic doctrine and the True Sacraments. Instead, these popes prevent the Tree (in Its human element) from receiving most nutrition and hydration.

Many in the so-called “internal resistance” of the SSPX desire to “water” the Tree but their work is in vain because they fail in their duty to also fight the invading disease. This is like, when a citadel is besieged, those within the citadel fail in their duty if they merely plant gardens and feed the livestock! They must fight against the invaders, with all their might!

As our Lord’s conciliar enemies (Rome) further “infect” the Tree (in Its human element), the new-SSPX treats them as if they were fighting on our Lord’s side and approaches them in friendship without first demanding their conversion. By not resisting the disease being spread, the new-SSPX is cooperating in the destruction of the Tree and is thereby helping our Lord’s enemies. Even leaving aside the new-SSPX’s own affirmative liberalism, the new-SSPX is cooperating with the destroyers by omission.

Every SSPX priest now scandalizes the faithful by the very fact of his membership in, and cooperation with, the liberal SSPX, because his membership, assistance and cooperation indicate to the world that he condones and endorses the group and what it now stands for. This is like the scandal a person causes being a member of the Communist Party, even if he rationalizes his membership by thinking of himself as part of the Party’s “internal resistance”. Even if an SSPX priest indicates to some persons that he disagrees with certain SSPX positions, this is not enough because that SSPX priest is counted, listed and identified internationally as part of the SSPX. Therefore, the priest is regarded internationally as supporting and cooperating with the new-SSPX.

Besides the scandal caused simply by membership, the SSPX priests of the so-called “internal resistance” fail in the duty of every priest and every Catholic to completely resist the disease (modernism, ecumenism, liberalism, etc.), and use his maximum efforts to protect the whole Tree (the Common Good of the whole Church) and not merely protect his own friends or his own little parish (his own little “branch” of the Tree). Some in the so-called “internal resistance” of the SSPX do “speak out”, but they speak quietly and timidly enough so that they are tolerated by their liberal SSPX superiors.

Uncompromising Catholics must consider this as a “red light” to attending the Masses of all SSPX priests because they all cooperate with our Lord’s enemies at least by being members of the new-SSPX and also by softening their opposition to SSPX liberalism to the lower level tolerated by their SSPX superiors. Any SSPX priest who believes that he is speaking out strongly, loudly and continually against the liberalism of his SSPX superiors, is fooling himself.

Any priest who fearlessly stands against SSPX liberalism can count on our help amplifying his voice by which he opposes his superiors’ liberalism. Then he will soon no longer be in the (so-called) internal resistance because he will see how fast the iron fist of Menzingen crushes and expels him as soon as he begins to really make a difference by standing fearlessly against his superiors’ liberalism.

At that time, uncompromising Catholics will have a “green light” to attend his Masses because then he also will be an uncompromising soldier of Christ the King.

By Fr. Raphael, OSB (Prior, San José Monastery, Colombia)

We can see on the level of principle that the new mass is always evil since it is a fruit implementing the modernist heresy, and which ultimately ends in heresy.

But suppose someone were to say that the new mass is evil but he should attend it because he obtains some good fruits from it. This person would be claiming that there is a good and a bad effect and he attends the new mass despite the bad effect, in order to obtain the good effect. Such a person would be trying to justify his attendance at the new mass by invoking the Principle of Double Effect (also known as the Principle of the Indirect Voluntary).

Under this Principle of Double Effect, an action is permissible despite some bad effect if—and only if—the action fulfills each of four conditions. Otherwise the action must not be performed. These four conditions are:

1. There must be an immediate necessity to perform such an act;
2. The intention (of the person doing the act) must be to obtain the good effect and never to obtain the bad effect;
3. The good effect of the act must occur first or at least simultaneously with the bad effect; and
4. The good fruit of the act must be proportionally greater than the bad fruit.

Note. These four conditions must all be fulfilled for the act to be morally good. The lack of fulfillment of even one of these conditions makes the act evil and the act is therefore forbidden.

Applying these four conditions to assisting at the new mass, we can easily see that conditions one, three and four are not fulfilled.

The first condition is not fulfilled since a person could fulfill in his home the obligation to sanctify the Sunday, when there is no Tridentine Mass available. Moreover, mass and communion are never immediately necessary (or necessary at all) when they offend God—as does the new mass.

The third condition is not fulfilled since the (purported) good effect directly flows from a cause which itself is evil, viz., the heterodox “celebration” of the new mass. This is not a situation where two effects—one good and the other bad—both flow from one neutral cause. Instead, the new mass is itself the evil cause of the (purported) good effect and this evil occurs first and vitiates all which flows from it.

The fourth condition is also not fulfilled since the new rite is not Catholic and therefore endangers the Faith. It is objectively a sin against the First and Second Commandments (and other Commandments). Further, the end does not justify the means. One must choose death rather than commit a sin. Therefore there is no proportion between the evil of assisting at a new mass and the (supposed) good effect. This means no one should ever attend the new mass.

Lastly, a person might wrongly suppose that “there is some good part of the new mass” because the new mass contains the Our Father (etc.). But the new mass is evil in all cases and participating in any of its parts is evil as they exist as parts of this evil whole.

God is offended by mixing things that belong to Him, e.g., the Our Father, with other things that belong to the devil, e.g., the new mass. Thus, although reciting the Our Father is good when this is done separated from everything conciliar, God is offended by reciting the Our Father as part of the sacrilegious new mass. This is like the fact that He is offended by reciting the Our Father as part of a (heretical) Lutheran service. (This is why Catholics are forbidden to participate in even this part of a Lutheran service.) We must stay away from the new mass and its parts.

I am obliged to speak out about this subject due to the gravity of the error now being publicly spread, which is scandalizing Catholics. This error betrays the truth in our battle for the defense of our Faith and the glory and honor of Christ the King.

—Fr. Raphael, OSB (Prior, Colombia)

TO THE ATTENTION OF:

Most Reverend Mario Aurelio Poli.

Your Excellency, I am writing to you shocked by what happened in the Metropolitan Cathedral on 12 November. First I want to introduce myself, my name is Maria Luz Mozo Weisz, as you can see on my last name, my mother’s family was Jewish, and died in Auswitch.

I am Spanish, born in Madrid in 1975. My father is Spanish and I live in Spain, but so far down here have reached the sad news of what happened in Buenos Aires, television, social media have echoed the news and every day I wake up with a sad headline that references it , and honestly I do not understand it as a Catholic, as a relative of victims of the Shoah either.

Sigue leyendo →