Divine Will revisited.

You seem to not know the faith here, Richard. It's Catholic dogma that the Jews will convert en masse just prior to the Second Coming-- and not before that.

You have some Jews here and there-- like myself-- who have converted. But we as a people won't convert en masse until the Second Coming.

And that means the majority of us will still reject Jesus AFTER the illumination of conscience and Era of Peace, when Satan can no longer deceive people, and when the rest of the world is converted into the Church. The evidence for the truth of the Catholic faith will be ridiculously overwhelming.

There's no way us Jews will be able to be invincibly ignorant at that point. Yet we know, dogmatically, that we'll still reject Jesus for another approximate 1,000 years.

So yes, this will be far far worse for us than the holocaust.

 

+
The Jews will be converted right before Christ's coming for the final time for the Last Judgement. "Right before" as perhaps 1 day? KP1983, the fullness of revelation that mankind gained through Jesus Christ was for our salvation. It wasn't for God to put Himself in a box to be figured out. Jesus, though 100% Divine and 100% Human, did not deam equality with God as something to be grasped. I do not claim to know what is meant by the length of time, before the last coming, that the Jews will convert. The point is, you don't either. If it is 1 day before, and a day is like a thousand years, it could be before the new great outpouring of the Holy Spirit. To not believe this is possible is to put a limit on what God can do. I do not believe this is your intention and I am glad that you are now a part of the Mystical Body of Christ in His Church. Our God is a God of Mercy before Justice. Do you really believe all of those faithful Jews would reject an illumination of conscience. If anything, they would recognize their older Brother (Christ), before we do.

Peace, Ed
+

 

Ed, it's dogma that the Jews will convert en masse, just prior to the Second Coming, and AFTER the "full number of the gentiles" come into the Church.

After. the. full. number. of. Gentiles.

This isn't vague. This isn't some questionable tangential issue of theology. This issue of the Jews conversion at the End is clearly defined by both Scripture and the Magisterium.

My objection still stands. Mark knows it does. That's why he's avoided it by making a sentimental appeal to the future conversion of the Jews at the END of the period of peace, but completely ignored the crux of my argument regarding the Jews living during the majority of the Era of Peace, when most of them will no longer be invincibly ignorant, yet still reject Jesus and be damned.


From Jimmy Akin:
"First, there are what Our Lord refers to as “the times of the gentiles,” in which the Gospel is preached to all nations and the gentiles are given the chance to convert, and then the second stage in which the partial hardness that has come upon Israel is removed and so “all Israel will be saved”—a reference to a corporate conversion of the Jewish people at the end of history."
"[Pope Benedict] is not saying that Jews don’t need Jesus or that they don’t need to become Christians. He is saying that they will corporately convert to Christ, but not until the end of time. Prior to that point, individual Jews may become Christians—as with the apostles and the very first Christians and with other converts from Judaism down through history. But the full, corporate conversion of Israel (which even then might not involve every single individual without exception) is something to be found only at the end of the world."

From Pope Benedict:
"In the light of Romans 11:25, the Church must not concern herself with the conversion of the Jews, since she must wait for the time fixed for this by God, ‘until the full number of the Gentiles come in’"

 

Where Peter is, there is the Church, there is God. We are a hierarchical church; the bishop's teaching authority derives from their union with the Pope. The union part is very important.

When a small group of bishops needed further guidance on Vassula (between Notifications), they properly approached the Vatican with their concerns. Cardinal Ratzinger was tasked by the Pope to deal with questions of private revelation. He offered his guidance in a letter to a particular group of bishops. He did not amend or correct the heart of the Notification: that Vassula's writings were private meditations and not messages from Heaven. He told the bishops to exercise prudence in dealing with requests for gatherings by Vassula's followers in their own dioceses.

Bishops are to be guided by official decisions of the congregations. If they are in union with Rome they will show proper deference to these decisions. In the case of Vassula, the Vatican later reaffirmed its original Notification after Ratzinger became Benedict. That is the Church's decision. It stands.

(In the case of Medjugorje, remember, the Vatican took the matter out of the hands of the local bishop. The bishop's decisions on private revelations and mystics are subject to review by the Vatican.)

I obey my bishop in matters of faith and morals, and in matters under his prudential judgement and control. I would never engage in any "ministry" either in my area or online, without clearing it with my bishop or his representative.

To whom does Vassula owe obedience? To whom does she defer here on Earth? Does she recognize the authority of the Greek Orthodox Church of which she claims to be a member? Because that Church has said officially that she has expelled herself.

 

I want to look into the theological reasoning why the Church, as St Hildegard of Bingen was shown, is already in the seventh day and that no other "day" awaits other than the eighth eternal day. In the Old Testament, the Sabbath was the day on which all could participate in God’s rest, in which man and animal,all creation shared in the blessing of God. Thus the Sabbath was an expression of the Covenant between God and man and creation. But in the early Church from the beginning the Sabbath was transformed into the first day of the week. It was a remarkable change. but why? The answer is that with Jesus' resurrection and his binding of Satan (as in Rev20), the fruits of His Sacrifce meant that the original communion of God and the covenant made with Isreal could take on its full meaning. Through baptism, the sabbath rest of the Old covenant was reformulated into the eternal rest offered by Christian baptism. The liturgical meetings on the Sunday from Pentecost show that the Apostles understood that a fundamental change had occured in the understanding of the sabbath. No longer did it point to saturday, but Sunday, the day on which Jesus rose and brought forth his new creation. In that sense the "New heaven and New Earth had arrived definitively in the person of Jesus. The eschatological eighth day was prefigured in Sunday-the day of Resurrection. Thefore the seventh day was now the "rest" provided by the existance of the Church and its sacramental life. We know this to be true because the Popes have always taught that baptism brings about a resurrection of the soul. Satan is bound, not because he cannot influence action within this last stage of history, but most importantly (and this is where Mark and Fr Ianuzzi dont quite get it) because his binding cannot interfer with salvation that is now possible. Everthing needed to attain salvation is now present within history. Satan cannot do anything about that. The exorcisms in the Gospels reveal that. Jesus even said about binding the strong man first before you can plunder his goods. He meant exorcisms were in his three year ministry prefigurments of the ultimate exorcism he would peform on Satan on Calvary. The resurrection of Jesus meant that everything had changed forever. The Old seventh day was no longer just anticipation, in Jesus and his Mystical Body the seventh day has come and the true "rest" in God most especially through his reception in the Holy Eucharist is available to all. Only the eighth day of eternity now remains.

 

There is a critical post over at Emmett's Unveiling The Apocalypse Blog in which "Rachmaninov" says:
"Concerning your point, back in 2012 I asked two prominent Cardinals who workes for the CDF about this issue :have the millennium theories of the early Fathers been rejected completely in reference to Rev 20 as an earthly temporal era of peace? Cardinal Prospero Grech " The millennium was never approved by the Fathers as an earthly period of peace, and Joachim de Flora was condemned for his “period of the Spirit”
Same question to Cardinal Karl Josef Becker: " we have to maintain that we can never accept millennial theories."
Cardinal Becker RIP was very close to Benedict XVI and was at the forefront of discussion with the SSPX.
Emmett has the original email exchange I had with Cardinal Becker. So its fact. No temporal kingdom to come. Ever."
Now if Emmett can back that up with the solid evidence when time permits, then I am sure that would be the game changer here. Cardinal Becker's supposed answer rules everything out with no exceptions.
Is that possible Emmett, to provide the evidence for this claim?
Peace
Bill

 

All, including the Jews, after the Warning will either convert to the Catholic faith or follow the Beast. All will know truth after the Warning. This is God's greatest act of mercy, yet many will not accept it. The second coming comes after the defeat of the Beast and his followers, so yes all Jews who accepted Jesus after the Warning, just prior to His second coming, will be within his New Jerusalem the Catholic Church and into the new era of peace.

 

Hebews 10:24-39


24Let us be concerned for each other, to stir a response in love and good works.

25Do not absent yourself from your own assemblies, as some do, but encourage each other; the more so as you see the Day drawing near.

26If, after we have been given knowledge of the truth, we should deliberately commit any sins, then there is no longer any sacrifice for them.

27There is left only the dreadful prospect of judgement and of the fiery wrath that is to devour your enemies.

28Anyone who disregards the Law of Moses is ruthlessly put to death on the word of two witnesses or three;

29and you may be sure that anyone who tramples on the Son of God, and who treats the blood of the covenant which sanctified him as if it were not holy, and who insults the Spirit of grace,will be condemned to a far severer punishment.

30We are all aware who it was that said: Vengeance is mine; I will pay them back. And again: The Lord will vindicate his people.

31It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

32Remember the great challenge of the sufferings that you had to meet after you received the light, in earlier days;

33sometimes by being yourselves publicly exposed to humiliations and violence, and sometimes as associates of others who were treated in the same way.

34For you not only shared in the sufferings of those who were in prison, but you accepted with joy being stripped of your belongings, knowing that you owned something that was better and lasting.

35Do not lose your fearlessness now, then, since the reward is so great.

36You will need perseverance if you are to do God's will and gain what he has promised.

37Only a little while now, a very little while, for come he certainly will before too long.

38My upright person will live through faith but if he draws back, my soul will take no pleasure in him.

39We are not the sort of people who draw back, and are lost by it; we are the sort who keep the faith until our souls are saved.

 

I agree with this. We have the great apostasy---> warning -----> anti-christ---> second coming.

You're agreeing with me here.

What Mark puts forward is great apostasy ----> warning-----> conversion of the whole world to the church for 1000 years (except us jews, who will nearly all be damned, no longer invincibly ignorant) ----> ANOTHER great apostasy----> Antichrist----> second coming.

 

And so the common thread here is continued; opponents of the Era of Peace continuing to insist that this or that is Church dogma and always refusing to back it up with actual quotes from the Magisterium.

 

I quoted pope benedict discussing the issue directly.

Vatican 2 also discussed the role of the Jews and their conversion at the end of salvation history.

Hopefully the pope and vatican 2 are magisterial enough for you and mark.


You can try to skirt around this issue all you want and try to pretend that the Jews will convert after the Warning and during the 1000 year period of peace. You can ignore the scriptures, councils, and popes if you wish. But Mark and I both know that the church and scriptures teach that the Jews won't convert until after the full number of the gentiles, just before the Second Coming. The obvious implication of Marks teaching is that us jews will be rejecting the faith during the majority if the Era if Peace, and can hardly be invincibly ignorant at that point, since the evidence for the faith will be so overwhelming. Mark and I both know that people can only be saved without the sacraments of the catholic church if they're invincibly ignorant. Mark knows it logically follows that most of these jews will be damned. That's why he keeps avoiding these obvious implications of his belief and changes the subject.

We address your calls for magisterial teaching over and over. You just choose to ignore the quotes from the popes and councils and set yourself up as the magisterium. Strange that you ignore pope benedict and vatican 2, yet don't hold yourself to the same standard and give us magisterial teaching that supports your view. That's quite hypocritical.

 

If they are in union with Rome they will show proper deference to these decisions.

Which those who have permitted Vassula to conduct the gatherings within their dioceses, using Church venues, and even attending themselves did. No one can judge otherwise. You really shouldn't be attempting to disparage the good will in particular Bishops, universally, in accepting the authority given to them to decide for such on their own, after understanding that the Church is permitting such. That's the reality of the Church's ongoing involvement.

 

If they are in union with Rome they will show proper deference to these decisions.

Which those who have permitted Vassula to conduct the gatherings within their dioceses, using Church venues, and even attending themselves did. No one can judge otherwise. You really shouldn't be attempting to disparage the good will in particular Bishops, universally, in accepting the authority given to them to decide for such on their own, after understanding that the Church is permitting such. That's the reality of the Church's ongoing involvement.

 

Sorry about the triplicate post. Things weren't responding as usual. But then, perhaps the emphasis was somehow necessary in the eyes of "others"!!

 

Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

Sounds like you'll be angry if they/some do convert and the Illumination of the Truth plays a part in that. No one is saying that there will be a complete "conversion" (that doesn't necessarily involve traditions/externals anyway) by everyone in any faith since individual free will is still intact. That is why so often our Lady speaks to repenting now, changing, even for those who claim to believe and claim to be already "saved", because hearts can become so hardened that even when offered her Son's unfathomable Mercy they could deny or repulse it. It's not a question of formalities/externals. It's a question of the heart (which Natan in his NDE learned and applied that truth to the outward expressions/externals of the Orthodox Jews to whom he was speaking under the guidance of their Rabbi, which won't matter if their heart is not serving others).

BTW, if you think it will be only the Jews suffering under the NWO and the AC with its terrible persecutions of....and especially Christians.....you will be shown otherwise if you're around.

 

I. Quoted. Pope. Benedict. And. Vatican . 2.

You. Did. Not.

 

Your post doesn't address my argument.

Of course I want my jewish family and friends to be saved. That's why I look forward to the Second Coming. That's why the Era of Peace is horrific-- The majority of them will still reject Jesus, even though they'll no longer be invincibly ignorant.

The people on here trying to ignore this fact and dodge it simply seem ignorant of the churches teaching. But Mark and I both know that the Jews only convert after the full number of the gentiles, just prior to the second coming. Mark and I both know this. Mark and I also both know that people can only be saved without the churches sacraments if they are invincibly ignorant. Again, mark and I both know this. Mark also knows that the obvious implication here is that the majority of jews during the so-called era of peace will be damned. You can try to skirt around it all you want, but mark and I both know the obvious implications here. That's why he's dodging and obfuscating.

 

Of course, I didn't. This is the first time I've posted in this thread. I've not read every page, but I see that Mark Mallet and others HAVE indeed quoted valid sources to support their positions, and you have chosen to ignore them.

On another topic, you mention your Jewish backround, but I'm not clear on your current status. Are you also a regular Mass goer, a practicing Catholic, loyal to the pope? I have to ask because a friend of mine refers to himself as a 'J4J', which is short for 'Jews For Jesus'. He's more knowledgable about Catholicism than half of the Catholics I know, but his beliefs about Jesus and the Church definitely don't mesh with mine.

 

You mean like when he quoted Barnabas and Justin Martyr at me, and I referred back to the original writings and showed Mark took their quotes completely out of context? How they weren't even talking about any future period of peace? That's "ignoring them"?

No, that's called refuting the argument. Marks quotes are nearly always taken out of context. To contrast, Emmett and others comments are in context.

I'm 100% catholic, faithful to the pope and the magisterium.