CLAIMS OF PRIVATE REVELATION: TRUE OR FALSE?

Medjugorje – More than a Private Revelation

An evaluation of the messages of Mother Eugenia,
and the so-called Message of God the Father of all mankind

Introduction

Mother Eugenia Elisabetta Ravasio (born 1907, died 1990) claimed to have received private revelation from God the Father, in the form of a long two-part 'Message,' under the title of 'God the Father of all mankind,' along with an image intended to be used as an icon in worship. [This Mother Eugenia should not be confused with Blessed Eugenia Ravasco, born 1845, died 1900, beatified 27 April 2003.] The messages to Mother Eugenia are promoted by Father Andrea D'Ascanio OFM Cap., and by a number of individuals and small groups dedicated to the spread of this claimed private revelation.

In my humble opinion as a faithful Roman Catholic theologian, the claimed private revelation to Mother Eugenia Ravasio, in the form of the messages and the image of 'God the Father of all mankind,' are not true private revelations from Heaven. A list of reasons and examples follows.

Reception of the messages

In true private revelations, such as those to the Saints of the Church, God cannot err, for He never errs in anything that He says or does. However, the Church rightly considers even true private revelations to Saints to be fallible, because the one receiving the messages may have misunderstood, or the one writing down the messages may have erred. Such errors do not occur in infallible Sacred Scripture (in which God protects both the receiving and the writing down of the Divine Revelation), but errors can and do occur in true private revelations, even those received by Saints. For example, the true private revelations to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich state that the Virgin Mary died at Ephesus, but the true private revelations to Saint Bridget of Sweden state that the Virgin Mary died in the valley of Josaphat (which is near Jerusalem). God could have easily corrected such a misunderstanding with a subsequent private revelation to the same Saint. But He did not do so, and He generally does not do so. God permits errors in true private revelations, so that such private revelations will not be held by the faithful as equal to, or greater than, infallible Sacred Scripture.

Thus, one of the indications of false private revelations is the claim that the received messages are without possibility of error. The false visionary (or locutionist, or seer, etc.) claims that the messages are directly from God, without any possibility of the introduction of error by the visionary. This is a common claim among false private revelations, but it reaches an unusual height in these messages to Mother Eugenia.

She received her so-called 'Message' in the Latin language.

"It is noteworthy that the Father (in 1932) dictated the Message to Mother Eugenia in Latin, a language totally unknown to her." (The Father Speaks to His Children, Pater Publications, L'Aquila, Italy, p. 5).

The claim that Mother Eugenia did not know Latin at all is presented as proof that these messages could not be her own invention. Now it seems unlikely that a nun in Italy would have no knowledge whatsoever of Latin, especially since Italian is derived from Latin and since the Mass was in Latin during the time prior to Vatican II. But it is a credible claim that this nun did not know Latin to an extensive degree. That granted, a conclusion is not thereby justified that the Message must be from God. One common source for the many false private revelations in the world today is fallen angels. Angels, good and bad, have natural abilities; fallen angels can use their natural abilities to present messages, locutions, visions, and seemingly-miraculous signs.

For example, the Archbishop of Kwangju Archdiocese in Korea condemned the claimed private revelations to Julia Kim, also known as Julia Youn, even going so far as to excommunicate her. And he attributed the various signs surrounding her apparitions to preternatural power. The term preternatural refers to the natural abilities of angels. See section 1.3 at http://www.kjcatholic.or.kr/naju/gong1998e.html

Also, some persons possessed by, or under the influence of, fallen angels have been known to speak in other languages, including Latin. See these articles:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58835
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0308-gallagher

Now there are three claims here that combine to present this Message as if it were equal to Sacred Scripture in its infallibility. First, it is said that the messages were given in Latin, a language mostly unknown to Mother Eugenia. This claim necessarily implies that she was not writing down her own fallible understanding of what she had seen or heard (as occurs with true private revelations to Saints).

Second, it is said that this Message was "dictated" by God the Father. Again, there would be no possibility of error if God were to dictate messages. This contrasts with the private revelations to the Saints, which generally were written down later as a recounting of what had occurred, not as dictation. Blessed A. C. Emmerich, for example, often could not remember all that she had seen and heard in her visions, and she readily and repeatedly admitted that she was unsure if she was remembering particular points correctly. Not so with this claimed private revelation. They are said to be dictated from God, not written from Mother Eugenia's understanding, and written in a language she did not know (thus, dictation would be the only possibility).

Third, it is said by Father Andrea D'Ascanio, who promotes these messages, that Mother Eugenia told him that when she made mistakes in writing down some words, God the Father took control of her hand to correct them. If this were true, then these claimed private revelations would be written directly by God the Father, either dictated by Him or literally written by Him by taking physical control of her hand. This would make the Message to Mother Eugenia infallible, and equal to, or even greater than, Sacred Scripture (which was not written in the manner of God controlling the human author's hand).

Such cannot be the case. Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium contain all that is needed for salvation. And the canon of Sacred Scripture is closed. There is no further written Divine Revelation from the completion of the Bible to the Return of Christ. Even true private revelation is not infallible, not essential for salvation, and not greater than or equal to Sacred Scripture. But since this alleged private revelation to Mother Eugenia claims to be written in dictation, and even to be physically written by God, it cannot be true private revelation. This type of exaggerated claim is commonly found in false private revelations. They exalt their messages as if these were equal to, or greater than, the Divine Revelation of Sacred Scripture, and they present their messages as if these were essential to salvation.

On the point of God the Father supposedly taking control of Mother Eugenia's hand, this is the type of behavior exhibited by fallen angels, who desire inordinate control; this is not the way that God the Father acts. For even when God wrote Sacred Scripture, He did not directly dictate the words and sentences, and He did not physically control the hands of the sacred authors. God does not behave in the way suggested in this claimed private revelation, dictating a text in a language unknown to the writer, and then even controlling the writer's hand.

Heretical teaching on salvation

The Message of this claimed private revelation teaches that one can achieve eternal salvation, with certainty, merely by calling God by the name 'Father,' even only one time. Such a promise ignores and rejects all that Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterium teach on the subject of salvation.

ALL THOSE WHO CALL ME BY THE NAME OF FATHER, EVEN IF ONLY ONCE, WILL NOT PERISH, BUT WILL BE SURE OF THEIR ETERNAL LIFE AMONG THE CHOSEN ONES.
(The Father Speaks to His Children, Pater Publications, L'Aquila, Italy, p. 49)

This promise is obviously intended to attract adherents to this claimed private revelation. It is often the case that false private revelations offer extravagant promises to anyone who will follow their false messages. But, even when compared to other false private revelations, this is an extreme example.

Notice that this alleged promise of eternal salvation is entirely independent of the Sacraments and the Church, entirely divorced from Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium, entirely without mention of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Virgin Mary. The author of the Message claims that if we just call him 'Father' once, we will have eternal life with certainty. All that the Church teaches and offers pertaining to salvation is cast aside, as if it were nothing. There is no mention of avoiding mortal sin, nor of repenting from mortal sin, nor of Baptism, nor of following Christ, nor of adhering to the teaching of the Church.

But all these things that are being ignored were given to us by the Father, Son, and Spirit for the sake of our salvation. All these things, which this promise circumvents and treats as so much chaff to be winnowed away, are now, and always have been, essential to the plan of the Most Holy Trinity, from the very beginning and even from all eternity, for our salvation. So it is not possible, after thousands of years of unfolding this carefully-sculpted beautiful plan for our salvation, that God would abandon His own plan, even in its entirety, and give salvation merely to anyone who refers to God the Father as 'Father' just once. Those who believe this heretical claim are justly condemned by God for the sin of abandoning all the truths about salvation, taught for so many centuries, by Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church. For Christ Himself taught:

[Matthew]
{7:21} "Not all who say to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the kingdom of heaven. But whoever does the will of my Father, who is in heaven, the same shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.
{7:22} Many will say to me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and perform many powerful deeds in your name?'
{7:23} And then will I disclose to them: 'I have never known you. Depart from me, you workers of iniquity.' "

But this alleged private revelation teaches that those who say 'Father' only once (not even 'Lord, Lord' twice) will have salvation with certainty. So whoever believes the false claim of alleged private revelation is necessarily disbelieving the teaching of Christ. To enter Heaven, one must do the will of the Father, and His will for us is so much more than merely calling Him 'Father' at least once.

It is clear to me that this claim is from a fallen angel, who offers an empty promise of certain salvation to anyone who is willing to call him 'Father,' as if he were God the Father, even if only once. This fallen angel wishes to be worshiped as if he were God. And he has had some limited success, since this false 'Message' has spread now throughout the world.

The image of the Father

Mother Eugenia was shown an image, supposedly of God the Father, to be made into an icon for use in worship. The icon can be seen here:

http://www.theworkofgod.org/Library/Trinity/Father/Icon.htm
http://www.theworkofgod.org/God.htm

There are a number of theological problems with this image and the claims that pertain to it.

First, the Father, the First Person of the Trinity, is not Incarnate. He has no body and no human nature, as does the Son. The Second Person of the Trinity, the Son of the Father, became Incarnate; He took to Himself a human nature, united to His Divine Nature, in One Person. But the First Person, the Father, did no such thing. When the Father is presented under the image of a man, He is presented as if He were Incarnate, though He is not. When the Father is presented in the form of a man, this image detracts from the Incarnation of Christ, which occurred as part of the Most Holy Trinity's plan of salvation. Do you not believe that it is the Father's plan from all Eternity to save humanity through the Incarnation of His Son? Then why would the Father undermine His own plan by presenting an image of Himself as if He were Incarnate? The Father would not undermine His own plan, ignoring the Incarnation of His Son, by presenting Himself under the image of a man. An image of Christ as a man is an image of an eternal truth, that the Second Person of the Trinity became man. But the image of the Father as if He were a man is a mere figure, and one which detracts from the Incarnation of Christ (which is not a mere figure).

Second, the Message portrays the Father as saying:

"I also desire that every family prominently display the picture I will later show to My 'little daughter.' "
http://www.theworkofgod.org/Library/Trinity/Father/Message2.htm
(The Father Speaks to His Children, p. 32)

If this request were carried out, the Christian faith would shift from being centered on Christ, who became a man and died for our salvation, to being centered on a figurative image of the Father as if He were a man. Every family should have a crucifix in their home, for the suffering and death of Jesus Christ is the culmination of the Most Holy Trinity's plan of salvation. But to have a figurative image of the Father as a man would draw the Church away from the Crucifixion of God-Incarnate as the center of salvation.

Third, the Crucifixion is the greatest deed of Sacred Tradition, and the culmination of the revelation of Sacred Scripture, and the basis for every teaching on faith and morals by the Magisterium. Even when the Church teaches on other subjects, the Crucifixion is at least implicit in every teaching. In the Crucifixion, every teaching of faith and morals is implicit. The Crucifixion of Christ is the center of the Christian Faith, and it is the foundation of Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterium.

But the image of the Father given to Mother Eugenia is of claimed private revelation. Yet the Message presents this image as if it were essential, even central, to the salvific plan of God. This is one of the marks of false private revelation, that the message of the claimed private revelation makes itself to be as important, or more important, than the Divine Revelation of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. In this case, the image of the Father, as well as the Message on the whole, contains little mention of the salvific death of Christ on the Cross. Christ is pushed aside so that a distorted portrayal of the Father can take His place as our Savior. The image, like the Message, tells us to honor the Father through the image, as if this were our salvation. But salvation cannot be of private revelation. And Divine Revelation in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture contains no such image, no such description of an image, no such request to make a picture of the Father represented as a man and to set it up in every home as a way to worship.

Fourth, the Message portrays the Father as if He had a human desire to be honored, an inordinate desire to be represented in an image:

"I desire that the tangible sign of My invisible presence be a picture to show that I am really present. Thus, all men will carry out all their actions under their Father's gaze and I Myself will have before Me the creature that I have not only created but adopted. In this way, My children will be, as it were, under their tender Father's gaze. Even now I am everywhere, certainly, but I would like to be represented in a tangible way!"
http://www.theworkofgod.org/Library/Trinity/Father/Message2.htm
(The Father Speaks to His Children, p. 35)

This portrayal of the Father as if He had desires, even unmet desires, even desires that He requires in order to be happy, is found throughout the Message in numerous places. This blasphemous claim presents the Father as if He had human weaknesses, as if He could not be happy unless He is honored, as if He were not content in and of Himself, as if He had need of honor and worship in order to be happy, as if He were changing such that first He desires something, and next His desire is fulfilled.

To the contrary, the Catholic Faith teaches that God is happy in and of Himself; He has no need of Creation or of anything in Creation in order to be happy; He is unchanging and eternal. He is lacking in nothing. Recall this prayer from the holy Mass:

"Father, all powerful and ever-living God, we do well always and everywhere to give you thanks. You have no need of our praise, yet our desire to thank you is itself your gift. Our prayer of thanksgiving adds nothing to your greatness, but makes us grow in your grace, through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Notice that the Father has no need of our praise. Yet the Message to Mother Eugenia continually portrays the Father as if He desires and needs our praise and honor. The Father is presented to us in this Message as if He lacks, and so desires, not only praise and honor, but also a tangible image of Himself by which He might obtain the praise and honor that He supposedly desires.

Fifth, the image shows the Father having set aside His Crown as if He were no longer King. To the contrary, Sacred Scripture teaches:

"Great and wondrous are your works, Lord God Almighty. Just and true are your ways, King of all ages." (Rev 15:3).

"These shall fight against the Lamb, and the Lamb shall conquer them. For he is the Lord of lords and the King of kings. And those who are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful." (Rev 17:4).

Notice that these quotes are from the Book of Revelation, which is about the future of the Church. God has not now, nor does He ever in the future, set aside His crown so that He would no longer be King of All. Furthermore, the Psalms teach us that God will reign as King forever and ever:

"Lift up your gates, you princes, and be lifted up, eternal gates. And the King of Glory shall enter. Who is this King of Glory? The Lord who is strong and powerful; the Lord powerful in battle. Lift up your gates, you princes, and be lifted up, eternal gates. And the King of Glory shall enter. Who is this King of Glory? The Lord of virtue. He himself is the King of Glory." (Psalm 23:7-10).

"And the Lord will sit as King in eternity." (Psalm 28:10).

"The Lord shall reign in eternity, even forever and ever." (Psalm 9:37; also numbered as 10:16).

Sixth, the original image portrayed the Father as clean shaven, making him look even younger than Jesus, making him look as if He were not the Father of Jesus Christ.

In addition to this, the original picture did not correspond to the reality contemplated by Mother Eugenia, who, for instance, saw the Father "without a beard." This detail caused innumerable objections, so in the painting, the beard was insisted on because it was inconceivable that the eternal Father did not have a beard.
(Fr. Andrea D'Ascanio, http://www.theworkofgod.org/Library/Trinity/Father/1st-icon.htm)

If this so-called Icon were truly from the Father, it would not prompt 'innumerable objections' from the faithful. Because of complaints about this portrayal, the image was altered, so that the Father was given a substantial beard. We are told that this image is given to us from a revelation from the Father, and that it is important to salvation, and yet it has been substantially altered from the initial revealed version. It is one error to claim that a private revelation is necessary to salvation, it is an additional error to change that which is claimed to be necessary for salvation.

Seventh, the image is only an image of the Father, not of the Son and Spirit. In a commentary on the Image, Father Andrea D'Ascanio states:

You notice that there is a small red border that surrounds the outside of the plate. This points out Jesus Christ's blood on earth. We can enjoy the benefits and effects of that blood through the gift of the Holy Spirit; none of the three Divine Persons of the Holy Trinity operates without the involvement of the other two. Therefore, the icon is of the Father, but we immediately notice that the Son and Holy Spirit are also present.
(Fr. Andrea D'Ascanio, http://www.theworkofgod.org/Library/Trinity/Father/1st-icon.htm)

His claim is that the thin red border around the Image of the Father is what represents the Son and the Spirit. But since the Father, Son, and Spirit are co-equal as God, it would not be fitting for one Person to be represented by almost the whole image, and the other two Persons to be represented by a thin border around the image.

Yet even if one sets aside Fr. Andrea's interpretation of the image, his interpretation nevertheless fits the Message that accompanies the image. The entire Message is about the Father, with only occasional mention of the Son and the Spirit. This is one of the primary errors of the Message. It shifts the focus of the faithful away from the idea of salvation through the suffering and death, the teaching and example, of Jesus Christ, who is God-Incarnate. The focus is now on the Father, almost to the exclusion of the Son and Spirit. And in place of salvation through the Cross and the Sacraments and the teaching of the Church, we are given an Icon of the Father and told that merely calling God 'Father' even once guarantees salvation. So the image fittingly represents the errors of the Message, replacing Christ our Savior with an altered representation of the Father.

[2 Corinthians]
{11:3} But I am afraid lest, as the serpent led astray Eve by his cleverness, so your minds might be corrupted and might fall away from the simplicity which is in Christ.
{11:4} For if anyone arrives preaching another Christ, one whom we have not preached; or if you receive another Spirit, one whom you have not received; or another Gospel, one which you have not been given: you might permit him to guide you.

[Galatians]
{1:6} I wonder that you have been so quickly transferred, from him who called you into the grace of Christ, over to another gospel.
{1:7} For there is no other, except that there are some persons who disturb you and who want to overturn the Gospel of Christ.
{1:8} But if anyone, even we ourselves or an Angel from Heaven, were to preach to you a gospel other than the one that we have preached to you, let him be anathema.
{1:9} Just as we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone has preached a gospel to you, other than that which you have received, let him be anathema.

Approval of a Bishop

This Message of Mother Eugenia is said to have the approval of a particular bishop, Alexandre Caillot, Bishop of Grenoble. This particular Bishop was not impartial in his evaluation of Mother Eugenia. He knew her personally from her work in his diocese. Furthermore, this Bishop is mentioned in the Messages of Mother Eugenia; part of the Message is addressed directly to him by name:

"TO THE BISHOP
"I also want to say a word to you, My son Alexander, so that My desires may be realized in the world.
"You must join with the father confessor of this "little plant" of My Son Jesus, in promoting this work, that is, the special devotion I expect from men. To you, My sons, I entrust this work and its future, which is so important.
"Talk, persist, make My words known, so that I may be known, loved and honoured by all My creatures. If you do this, you will have done what I expect of you, that is, My will, and you will have fulfilled the wishes that I have so long cherished in silence. "For everything that you do for My glory, I will do twice as much for your salvation and sanctification. In the end, in heaven, and only in heaven, you will see the great reward that I will give you in a very special way, together with all those who have worked to this end."
(The Father Speaks to His Children, p. 37)

These messages give this particular Bishop instructions and offer him a certain special great reward, not merely the great reward of Heaven offered to all the faithful, but a "great reward" given to him "in a special way" together with all those who work for the spread of this claimed private revelation.

It is sometimes the case, concerning claimed private revelations, that the individual local Bishop approves of a false private revelation (as occurred with Ida Peerdeman of Amsterdam), or disapproves of a true private revelation (as occurred with the apparitions at Medjugorje). In this case, the Bishop erred because he was influenced by the personal charisma of the woman who received the claimed private revelation. He may also have been influenced by promises made to him in a portion of the claimed private revelation which is specifically addressed to him.

I often receive e-mails from persons who are supporters of one or another claimed private revelation that I have judged to be false. One of the most common objections that they raise is that I have not visited and met with the particular visionary whom they favor. They tell me that if only I would meet with the visionary and see how sincere and holy and inspiring this individual is, then I would surely be convinced that he or she is genuine. This particular Bishop was convinced in large part because he knew and worked with the woman who receive the claimed private revelation.

But my reply is that I ought not to meet the visionary when judging the claimed private revelation. A claimed private revelation must be evaluated on its own merits, not based on the personality of the one receiving the visions or messages. When Saul (St. Paul) was struck by God on the road to Damascus, and Christ then spoke to him, should I judge whether this is true or false based on the personality of Saul, one of the chief persecutors of the Church at that time? God is no respecter of persons. He judges each person's actions by whether or not the actions are good; He judges each person's words by whether or not the words are true; He does not judge based on the personality of the one who is speaking.

This Bishop's main stated reason for approving of the Messages of Mother Eugenia was that he was impressed with her personal qualities. But when a claimed private revelation contains abject heresy, such as the claim that calling God as 'Father' only once guarantees salvation, then it does not matter what her personality or personal accomplishments have been. Mother Eugenia may have been sincere and holy, and yet she was deceived by a false private revelation from fallen angels. Or she have seemed sincere and holy to those around her, but in her heart there were occult sins. God alone knows the hidden depths of the heart.

The Bishop also states that he ruled out hallucinations, hysteria, delirium, etc. as a source of this claimed private revelation. He also notes that she had too little education to have invented these messages herself. (How often I have read about the ignorance of a claimed visionary, presented as if it were proof that the claimed private revelation must be true!) The supporters of false private revelations often reason similarly, saying that the messages and apparitions (and accompanying signs and wonders) cannot possibly be the result of human deception, nor of mental illness. True enough. But they never consider fallen angels as a possible source of claimed private revelation. Fallen angels have a high degree of natural intelligence, so they are able to craft a convincing forgery of private revelation, and they can also present various deceptive signs and wonders (using the natural abilities of angels). In this way, they deceive the recipient and the adherents into thinking that a claimed private revelation is true, when it is false.

[Matthew]
{7:20} "Therefore, by their fruits you will know them.
{7:21} Not all who say to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the kingdom of heaven. But whoever does the will of my Father, who is in heaven, the same shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.
{7:22} Many will say to me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and perform many powerful deeds in your name?'
{7:23} And then will I disclose to them: 'I have never known you. Depart from me, you workers of iniquity.' "

The fruits of a claimed private revelation are not the signs and wonders that accompany it. And the fruits are not the external works or the powerful deeds done by the visionary and his or her adherents, such as founding houses of prayer, or hospitals, or other institutions. The fruits of a claimed private revelation are the truths on faith and morals found in the claimed messages. But when a claimed private revelation contains serious doctrinal errors and even abject heresy, then the claimed private revelation is certainly false, for the fruit is bad. The other good results that may be found surrounding any false private revelation are from the grace and providence of God, despite the false private revelations. For God is merciful, even to those who have gone astray.

False claims about fear of God

This Message repeatedly claims that the private revelation to Mother Eugenia was necessary to banish the excessive fear among the people of God. There are numerous references of this kind in the Message.

"I am coming to banish the excessive fear that My creatures have of Me, and to show them that My joy lies in being known and loved by My children, that is, by all mankind, present and future."
(The Father Speaks to His Children, p. 19)

First, it should be noted that private revelation cannot be held to be essential to salvation. So any claim that the Sacred Deposit of Faith (Tradition and Scripture), up to this point in time, was insufficient, awaiting an additional revelation, would indicate a false private revelation. Every true private revelation is non-essential to salvation, containing no new doctrines or dogmas or teachings, but instead exhorting us to holiness and to adhere to the existing Sacred Deposit of Faith.

This Message to Mother Eugenia repeatedly claims that this private revelation is necessary to salvation. The Message claims that the people of God have lived in excessive fear, since the inception of the Church, and that this private revelation to Mother Eugenia was necessary to banish the fear from the people of God. It is as if the Church cannot succeed in worshiping God and living the Faith well, without this new revelation. It is as if a false teaching about fear of God has persisted in the Church until this claimed private revelation. Such is not the case.

Excessive fear of God is not found among the faithful. And holy fear of God is not to be banished, but to be sought:

[Revelation]
{15:3} and singing the canticle of Moses, the servant of God, and the canticle of the Lamb, saying: "Great and wondrous are your works, Lord God Almighty. Just and true are your ways, King of all ages.
{15:4} Who shall not fear you, O Lord, and magnify your name? For you alone are blessed. For all nations shall approach and adore in your sight, because your judgments are manifest."

Further claims that this private revelation is essential to salvation

"Here, finally, is the day, blessed for ever, the day the celestial Father promised!"
(Mother Eugenia, Introduction to 'The Father Speaks to His Children,' p. 17)

To what does this statement refer: "Here, finally, is the day, blessed for ever, the day the celestial Father promised!" What day is blessed forever, promised by the Father, which has been long awaited and has finally arrived? Is it the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary? Is it the Incarnation of Christ, or the Birth of Christ? Is it the Passion and Crucifixion of Christ, which is the source of all salvation? No, the day to which Mother Eugenia is referring is the day that she received a claimed private revelation from the Father, about the Father.

This private revelation is exalted as if it were just as important as, or more important than, the Immaculate Conception or the Incarnation or the Crucifixion. Through these messages, this private revelation is held up as one of the most important events in salvation history, as if our salvation, in its entirety, were not found in the Crucifixion, as if the three sources of truth in the Church (Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium) were insufficient. This private revelation is presented as if it is the culmination of God's efforts to save humanity.

There are several problems with this claim. First, the Church teaches that private revelation is not essential to salvation

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". (CCC, n. 67).

Yet the messages to Mother Eugenia repeatedly and emphatically present themselves as essential to salvation, as improving and completing Divine Revelation, and as adding a new devotion to the Father which surpasses all other devotions and which is, by itself, sufficient for salvation. It is claimed that merely calling God 'Father' once is sufficient to guarantee salvation. It is said that the image of the Father given to Mother Eugenia should be placed in every family's home. It is said that the Father has been waiting for centuries, after the Crucifixion of Christ and the establishment of the Church, for this one private revelation, so as to finally complete His salvific plan. It is as if the entire Catholic Faith, absent this one claimed private revelation, would be insufficient to save. Thus the private revelation to Mother Eugenia is presented as if it were not only integral to the Father's plan of salvation, but also its height and its completion. All such claims contradict the teaching of the Church on the limited place that even a true private revelation can have in the life of the Church.

Here are some quotes from the messages to Mother Eugenia which present this claimed private revelation as if it were essential to salvation, as if it improves, completes, corrects, and surpasses the Divine Revelation of Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium.

"I cannot give my beloved Son another time to prove My love for men! I am now coming among them in order to love them and to make them know this love, assuming their image, their poverty. Look, now I am putting aside My crown and all My glory to take on the appearance of an ordinary man!"
(The Father Speaks to His Children, p. 18).

It is as if the Incarnation and Crucifixion of the Son had failed to bring us salvation, so that the Father would now have to come to complete or surpass or improve or even to replace what the Son has done for salvation. And yet the Father comes only by means of a brief private revelation and an Image; all that 'the Father' is said to offer in this Message is less than what God the Father has already truly offered through His Son. Thus, what presents itself as so much more, is actually so much less.

May My power, My love and My Holy Spirit touch men's hearts, so that all mankind may turn to salvation and come to its Father, Who seeks it, to love and to save it! Let My Vicar Pius XI understand that these are days of salvation and blessing. Let him not fail to take this opportunity to call the attention of the children to their Father, Who is coming to help them in this life and to prepare their everlasting happiness….I am coming to banish the excessive fear that My creatures have of Me…. I am coming to bring hope to men and nations…. I am coming to make Myself known just as I am….
(The Father Speaks to His Children, p. 18-19).

There are a number of theological problems with this claim. First, Christ came into the world by His Incarnation to bring love, faith, hope, salvation, and a greater knowledge of God. But this Message continually speaks as if mankind has not been successfully offered salvation through Christ. Second, the Message claims to give the world what it needs (as if these needs were not already filled by the coming of Christ) by the coming of the Father. Thus, the arrival in the world of the Son is treated as if it were ineffective. Third, this coming of the Father is not by way of Incarnation, but by means of the Message to Mother Eugenia and the icon of the Father. So a great mystery and gift from God, the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection, and even all of salvation offered by Christ, is replaced by something much lesser in every way. Fourth, the truths of Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium are ignored and treated as deficient, and the Message to Mother Eugenia is exalted as if it offered new truths necessary to salvation.

Notice that the Father is said to be coming to bring salvation and everlasting happiness. But Christ already came at His Incarnation, and He already offered us salvation at His Crucifixion. Yet the life and death of Christ is treated as if it were insufficient for salvation. The coming of the Father (but not in an Incarnation) is said to be the salvation to which 'all mankind' should turn. But how does the Father come to save us? Only through a brief Message of claimed private revelation to Mother Eugenia. Jesus Christ came to save us through the Virgin Mary. But now it is claimed that the Father comes to save us through Mother Eugenia. And now it is claimed that the Father makes Himself known through this Message. To the contrary, Jesus Christ clearly taught that the Father has already made himself known through the Son.

[John]
{14:8} Philip said to him, "Lord, reveal the Father to us, and it is enough for us."
{14:9} Jesus said to him: "Have I been with you for so long, and you have not known me? Philip, whoever sees me, also sees the Father. How can you say, 'Reveal the Father to us?'
{14:10} Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I am speaking to you, I do not speak from myself. But the Father abiding in me, he does these works.
{14:11} Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?
{14:12} Or else, believe because of these same works. Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes in me shall also do the works that I do. And greater things than these shall he do, for I go to the Father.
{14:13} And whatever you shall ask the Father in my name, that I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son."

But the work of Christ is treated as insufficient by this Message. And the work of Mother Eugenia is treated as if it surpasses and corrects the Divine Revelation offered by Christ.


Confusion of the roles of the Persons of the Trinity

In this Message, the Father repeatedly is portrayed as taking the role of the Son.

"I cannot give my beloved Son another time to prove My love for men! I am now coming among them in order to love them and to make them know this love, assuming their image, their poverty. Look, now I am putting aside My crown and all My glory to take on the appearance of an ordinary man!"
(The Father Speaks to His Children, p. 18).

The Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity became Incarnate in order to accomplish our salvation by His salvific death on the Cross. Baptism, which is absolutely essential, in some form, for our salvation, flows from the side of Christ on the Cross. It was Jesus who came among us, assuming the poverty of a human nature. Jesus put aside His glory in Heaven to take on, not merely the appearance of a man, but to truly become a human being, like us in all things but sin.

And yet, in this Message, the Son's salvific Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection is treated as if it were ineffective. The Father is portrayed as saying that He Himself must now take on much the same task. And yet He takes only the appearance of a man, in the icon given to Mother Eugenia; He does not become Incarnate. The Father's act (of taking the appearance of a man in the icon) is presented as if it were necessary to salvation, as if it would be effective where Christ's Incarnation was supposedly ineffective, as if this claimed private revelation were more amazing than when God became man in Christ Jesus.

The roles and Persons of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are confused in this Message to Mother Eugenia.

For who is this Messiah? Whence does He come? What will He do on earth? Whom does He represent? The Messiah is God. Who is God? God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
(The Father Speaks to His Children, p. 20-21).

This message confuses the Messiah, Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity Incarnate, with the other Persons of the Trinity. Further on in the Message, 'the Father' says:

When I realized that neither the patriarchs nor the prophets had been able to make Me known and loved by men, I decided to come Myself. But how could I come among them? There was no other way than to come Myself, in the second Person of My divinity.
(The Father Speaks to His Children, p. 22).

This saying, that the Father came into the world in the second Person of His divinity, confuses the first and second Persons. It is the Second Person, not the First, who came into this world at the Incarnation. Saying that the First Person came into this world in the Second Person of the First Person's Divinity represents the Divine Nature as if it belonged only or mainly to the First Person. This confusion of Persons continues throughout the Message:

The work of this third Person of My divinity is carried out silently and often man is not aware of it. But for Me it is a very fitting way of living, not just in the tabernacle, but also in the souls of all those in a state of grace, to establish My throne in them and to live there always, like the true Father Who loves, protects and helps His children.
(The Father Speaks to His Children, p. 25-26).

Now the 'Father' calls the Holy Spirit 'this third Person of My divinity' as if the Third Person were merely a manifestation of the Father, as if the Third Person were not fully God and also distinct from the Father and the Son. The confusion continues as 'the Father' represents the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as 'Me … living, not just in the tabernacle, but also in the souls of all those in a state of grace…to live there always, like the true Father….' The Real Presence of the Second Person in the Eucharist (in the tabernacle) is confused with the presence of the Father. And the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in those who are in a state of grace is confused with the presence of the Father. This problem continues as the work of the Son is discussed:

In My Son, that is to say, in the Person of My Son made man, what have I not done! Divinity is veiled in this humanity, it is shrunk, impoverished, humiliated. With My Son Jesus I led a life of sacrifice and work.
(The Father Speaks to His Children, p. 23).

Again, there is a severe confusion between the Persons of the Trinity. The Son became Incarnate, and the Father did not. Yet this Message represents the work and even the sacrifice of the Son as if it were done by the Father. The Father is said to have led a life of sacrifice and work. But in truth, the life of sacrifice of the Son culminated with His salvific death on the Cross: "And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said: 'Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.' " (Luke 23:46). Since Christ offered His sacrifice on the Cross to the Father, it cannot be true that it was the Father suffering in the Person of His Son, as this Message claims.

This confusion of the roles and Persons of the Trinity continues, even to the extent that the Father is referred to as if He alone were God, as if the other two Persons were merely expressions of Himself:

The Cross is My way of coming down among My children…. In the Eucharist I live among you as a Father with His family…. I also want to show you that I come among you through My Holy Spirit….
(The Father Speaks to His Children, p. 25).

These words are supposedly spoken by the Father. Yet he says that the Cross of Christ was His (the Father's) way of coming down among his children. Then he goes on to claim that in the Eucharist (which is nothing other than Christ under the appearance of bread and wine) is actually the Father living among us. The Message then states that the Father comes among us through His Holy Spirit. Such confusion about the roles and Persons of the Trinity is common among false private revelations, because a subtle yet profound theological understanding is needed in order to speak at length about the Trinity without error.

Portrayal of God the Father as changing and as feeling emotion

God is unchanging and impassible; in His Divine Nature, He does not feel emotions of any kind, nor does he desire something and later fill that desire, so that He then ceases to desire. Christ in His human nature is like us in all things but sin, such that His human nature does change and does feel emotion, but not so with the Divine Nature. In His Divine Nature, God does not change or feel emotion. And, since the Father is not Incarnate, but only the Son, in no sense can it be said (as the Message of Mother Eugenia claims) that the Father changes and feels emotion.

The Catechism summarizes this belief in the unchanging and impassible Divine Nature of God:

"We firmly believe and confess without reservation that there is only one true God, eternal, infinite (immensus) and unchangeable, incomprehensible, almighty and ineffable, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; three persons indeed, but one essence, substance or nature entirely simple." (CCC, n. 202).

"O my God, Trinity whom I adore, help me forget myself entirely so to establish myself in you, unmovable and peaceful as if my soul were already in eternity. May nothing be able to trouble my peace or make me leave you, O my unchanging God, but may each minute bring me more deeply into your mystery!" (CCC, n. 260).

"When we say 'God' we confess a constant, unchangeable being, always the same, faithful and just, without any evil." (CCC, n. 2086).

Sacred Scripture teaches that God does not change: "For I am the Lord, and I do not change." (Malachi 3:6).

[James]
{1:17} Every excellent gift and every perfect gift is from above, descending from the Father of lights, with whom there is no change, nor any shadow of alteration.

St. Thomas Aquinas taught the same doctrine: "God is altogether immutable…. God is infinite, comprehending in Himself all the plenitude of perfection of all being, He cannot acquire anything new, nor extend Himself to anything whereto He was not extended previously. Hence movement [i.e. change] in no way belongs to Him. So, some of the ancients, constrained, as it were, by the truth, decided that the first principle was immovable [unchangeable]."

Yet in numerous places, in the claimed private revelation to Mother Eugenia, the Father is portrayed as if He were fervently, desirously, longingly waiting to present this revelation to her, as if He lacked happiness without humanity, as if He was unhappy, then sought and later obtained happiness.

Conclusion

The claimed private revelation to Mother Eugenia is one of the most severe examples of a false private revelation attempting to distort and even replace the true Catholic Faith. The teachings of the Message of this private revelation cast aside all that the Church teaches on salvation and on the Trinity, and replaces it with numerous falsehoods and distortions. No one can possibly believe all of the claims of this false private revelations without falling into abject material heresy. For all of the above reasons, I conclude that the claimed private revelation, message, and icon to Mother Eugenia are false and are not at all from God or from heaven, and that the message contains abject heresy injurious to the true Roman Catholic Faith.

by Ronald L. Conte Jr.
November 16, 2008