Healing of families

  • Thread starter Thread starter etheria
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

etheria

Guest
Has anyone heard of Fr. Joseph’s Healing of Families seminars and book? Some of what he says makes sense but some of it is hard to believe or understand.
 
Thanks. THat is what I was looking for. Some of what he says just didn’t fit with what I have always believed as a Catholic.
 
etheria said:
Has anyone heard of Fr. Joseph’s Healing of Families seminars and book? Some of what he says makes sense but some of it is hard to believe or understand.
Click to expand...
It is a bit hard to get your head around some of the things he says, because there are some very important distinctions that need to be made. But do not let this dissuade you from this book.

I attended the Clergy only seminar in Feb 2014 and was able to spend four days with Fr. Yozefu and spent half the time drilling him with questions. The fundamental principle is based on the suffering due to the consequence of sin and diabolic bondage that can results.

I give this program my highest recommendations. Yes the book is poorly written and could do a better job at making some key distinctions. But ultimately this program is tremendous and in keeping with the Catholic Faith. I personally have benefited from this program in significant ways. This weekend alone, I witnessed a woman with serious postpartum depression be immediately healed using Fr. Yozefu’s principles. There are also numerous testimonies of people who have suffered from depression, anxiety, fear, habitual acts of self abuse (despite years of effort to stop) … all immediately healed. Key distinctions about the Body/Soul composite relationship and oppression vs behavior, need to be made.

If you would like to discuss this further please email me and we can set up a time to speak. I read both articles and there are great points made, also some misnomers included in the “is it catholic.”

Fr. Ken Geraci, CPM
Fathers of Mercy
kjgeraci@gmail.com

**
Response Continued …**
I read both articles, listed above and the author of “is it catholic” expresses several of my exact concerns. There are very important distinctions that need to be made regarding the term generational healing; mainly that it is not the sins of the parents that are passed down but rather the consequences. A natural example is an alcoholic father, with three children,who drinks for five years; after five years he sobers up, goes to confession, receives forgiveness from his family and does his best to be a catholic father. The sin is forgiven by God and the family, but the consequences remain; specifically the spiritual and emotional affects the sin has had on the children and spouse.

The distinction need to be made in regards to baptism and it is that baptism cleanses from original sin and all temporal punishment due to sin; not the consequence of sin. In my experience and observation, in the new rite of baptism there is no exorcism said … yes there is a place that says “exorcism,” but it is a simple prayer (see below). The author of the website says “the Priest commands any impure spirits who might be present to depart from the person to be baptized.” This is not done in the new rite; hence the author inadvertently makes the case for Fr. Yozefu’s program. Because “any spirits who might be present” are not commanded to depart, they have permission to remain. Remember this exorcism is not trying to cast out demons of the person (possession), but cast away demons (oppression). (…Again many distinctions need to be made.)

**Old Rite: **
Priest: I exorcise thee, unclean spirit, in the name of the Father + and of the Son, + and of the Holy + Spirit, that thou goest out and depart from this servant of God, N. For He commands Thee, accursed one, Who walked upon the sea, and stretched out His right hand to Peter about to sink. Therefore, accursed devil, acknowledge thy sentence, and give honor to the living and true God: give honor to Jesus Christ His Son, and to the Holy Spirit; and depart from this servant of God, N. because God and our Lord Jesus Christ hath vouchsafed to call him (her) to His holy grace and benediction and to the font of Baptism.

New Rite:
Almighty and ever-living God, you sent your only Son into the world to cast out the power of Satan, spirit of evil, to rescue man from the kingdom of darkness, and bring him into the splendor of your kingdom of light. We pray for this child: set him (her) free from original sin, make him (her) a temple of your glory, and send your Holy Spirit to dwell with him (her). We ask this through Christ our Lord. All: Amen

The Old rite goes right after and commands the devil, with the full understanding that children are born into spiritually polluted systems. The new rite, if you read it slowly, says nothing of the sort. The first sentence is a simple statement; the second is a prayer asking for three things: 1. freedom from original sin, 2. “make him the temple of your glory,” 3. the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The act of baptizing the child does this on it’s own (cleanses from OS and indwelling of the Holy Spirit, thus making you a temple of His glory). I am not criticizing the Church’s Rite, rather making the observation that there is no prayer of exorcism being explicitly or implicitly said.

The Second article about the banning of Generational Healing, does not directly point to this book or author; rather some of the abuses associated with similar programs. It also has to do with superstition in the Asian cultures.
 
Fr. Ken Geraci is absolutely right. I myself have been attended this healing with Fr. Ken and the seminar with Fr. Yosefu (Joseph). I asked many questions and answers were given to them all and none of the answers given were different from from what our Holy Mother Church teaches. What Fr. Ken speaks is the truth plain and simple. Thanks Fr. Ken!
 
HI ETHERIA. I am a devout Catholic, and I have attended Father Joseph’s Healing seminar. This is very Catholic. However, there are some Catholics (who lack the desire of wanting to delve deep into scripture) who can’t simply understand a Biblical Fact: Generational problems/curses. I was dealing with a particular sin that has afflicted me all my life. After going to his seminar and reading the book (2012), I went through a systematic prayer which dealt with the root of the problem. I have been freed from this, and mindful not to open any doors to this sin. I’m not saying that i’m free from all sin, but I am free from habitually sinning. He’s not a charlatan, but a man of GOD.
 
I have read Fr. Yozeuf’s book, “The Healing of Families” and have attended the three day seminar that goes by the same title. While I have no doubts regarding Fr. Yozefu’s sincere intentions, the book and the seminars are a total disaster from the standpoint of Catholic theology.

For the sake of brevity, I will draw the reader’s attention to one quotation of the book that is not simply problematic–it is actually heretical. On page 41, Fr. Yozefu states, "He (Jesus) did not come to die, but to save, and ended up dying because when the world opposed Him, ever more strongly (which was expected), He did not back down from His mission, so the world extinguished Him."

This statement literally rips the very heart out of redemptive theology as it has been taught by the Church for 2,000 years by reducing our Lord’s Passion to an unintended outcome from which God was able to work some good. This grave error alone is enough reason to discredit Fr. Yozefu’s teachings. However, there are numerous other problems with the teachings presented in “The Healing of Families”. They include the following:
  1. A dismissive approach to Old Testament passages of Scripture that do not fit the mold of Fr. Yozefu’s teaching.
  2. A denial that God administers temporal punishment (i.e. chastisement) to His children in this life.
  3. An approach to sickness that cannot be harmonized with the constant teaching of the Church as it comes to us through the Doctors of the Church and the Catechism. For example, he lumps virtually all sickness under the heading of “Unnecessary Suffering” and teaches, for all practical purposes, that it is totally within our control to get rid of such suffering if we will but think and pray correctly.
  4. The concept of satanic “generational bondage” that essentially teaches that Satan can maintain rights or prerogatives over the newly baptized (i.e. satanic bondage that survives Baptism).
Because of the limitations of posting message size, I cannot provide a detailed description of the preceding or the refutation of the errors in this post (i.e. it would require multiple postings). Therefore, I have provided a link to my dropbox where readers can obtain a PDF of a detailed critique of the book and its teachings.

dropbox.com/s/k13zofxd22…20Critique.pdf
 
Having collaborated with my superior and priests of my community, it is clear that the errors, proof-texting, and use of absolutisms in Fr. Yozesfu’s book lends itself to great error. The problems in the book are vast and wide, to the point, that I must withdraw my endorsement of the book.

Despite the healings that I have personally experienced; despite the hundreds of healings that I have encountered with parishioners and others, by use of the principles from this program … this book cannot be recommend due to the many errors.

I know Fr. Yozesfu to be a kind and humble man, and, by no means, does he set himself to be wiser or greater than the Church. The great struggle for me, in keeping with 1-John 4:1 who says: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God.” I have used principles distilled from this program and have seen amazing results; in his work there are Godly fruits, the Truth (with a capital “T”); however Godly results Do Not equal right. The errors that are written in Black & White in the book are simply too great. But this program needs to be distilled and refined to be in keeping with the doctrine of redemptive suffering and other elements of our Catholic Faith.

Sincerely in Christ,
Fr. Ken Geraci
 
Fr. Ken,
Thank you for your insight. Could you elaborate a little bit more? What errors are you speaking of?

Thank you!
 
With no disrespect intended to Fr. Ken (who happens to be a personal friend of mine), I feel the need to underscore the fact that there are two sides to this “coin”. What I mean is this: Fr. Ken–while readily acknowledging the great many errors contained in the book–states that in Fr. Yozefu’s work “there are Godly fruits, the Truth (with a capital ‘T’)”. I want to underscore the fact that there are also fruits that are not Godly.

What I mean is this: at least twice in the introduction to his book, Fr. Yozefu assures his readers that he will provide them with what they need to “unload” the persistent problems occurring in their families (including chronic illnesses). He assures his readers that they are “in control” even if they do not realize it. The problem, however, is this: such confident assertions cannot be harmonized with Catholic teaching, common sense, or human experience. As a result, there are those who–taking Fr. Yozefu at his word–experience disillusion, anxiety, frustration, and–what can actually be said to border on–devastation when they fail to see the results he so confidently promises to deliver.

So, while there may indeed be those who have experienced some good results from employing some of the principles he lays out, there are others who experience results that can well be described as terrible. This is due to the fact that the book / program is based upon false starting premises. For example, one of the operating assumptions / premises seems to be that there is a discernible spiritual reason for virtually all sickness (i.e. a discernible spiritual reason that can be adequately addressed by his program–thereby enabling one to “unload” that illness). That is utterly false. While it is true that all illness is an encounter with evil (i.e. the absence of the desirable good of proper health)…and while it is true that, ultimately all evil is traceable back to the Fall…it does not follow that in an individual’s life today, one can lump all illness into the category of “unnecessary suffering” that can be “unloaded” by the individual once they learn and practice Fr. Yozefu’s program. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church makes it clear that illness is one of the effects of Original Sin that remains after Baptism (CCC-1264).

I have had several conversations with sincere Catholics who have been to the seminar and / or read the book who have come away distraught and confused. I personally tried with great intensity to harmonize what Fr. Yozefu teaches with the Catholic faith as it comes to us through Sacred Tradition. In fact, that process involved direct communications with Fr. Yozefu for the express purpose of clarifying what he teaches. In those personal communications, Fr. Yozefu admitted that during his ten years of studying theology in Africa and Europe, none of his teachers presented anything like what he presently teaches. In fact, he admitted that what is taught in the “Healing of Families” is something “new” that God is doing that is not rooted in the historic teachings of the Church as they come down to us in Sacred Tradition (thereby, effectively emptying Sacred Tradition of its true meaning and reducing it merely to the present moment without any concern for organic continuity). In the final analysis I was forced to conclude that I was drinking Kool-Aid that had been laced with poison (i.e. the poison of horrible errors). I do not mean to suggest that Fr. Yozefu has deliberately put poison in the mix. In fact, I am of the belief that he is acting in all sincerity for what he thinks is the good of others. However, the errors that run through his presentation are, indeed, like a poison that undermines simplicity in prayer and trust in God. And, having drunk from this poisoned well, I cannot stand by idly while others unsuspectingly imbibe.

It is also important to note that the publication of “The Healing of Families” book is a violation of canon law. Canons 822-832 require that any work touching on faith and morals receive an imprimatur prior to publishing. In fact, this is not simply my own personal opinion. I was privileged to discuss this matter with His Eminence Raymond Cardinal Burke when he was in Louisville last week to speak at a conference. As Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura in Rome, Cardinal Burke is, in essence, the top canonist in the world. He assured me that a book of this nature (i.e. one that purports to teach things of a doctrinal nature) requires an imprimatur. In fact, it is a violation of canon law for this book–as it now stands–to be sold (or even displayed) in a Catholic church.

As to the errors that are contained in the book, I ask you to please use the link below to access a PDF of a critique I have written of the book. The errors are so numerous and complexly intertwined that it is very, very difficult to address them all on the forum (hence the link). If upon reading the critique, you agree that what this book teaches is highly problematic, I would encourage you to pass it on to others in order to spare them the pain, confusion, and loss of faith that can come from exposure to the errors taught in the so-called “Healing of Families”.

Bruce Sullivan

dropbox.com/s/b713injn83h164o/Healing%20of%20Families%20Critique%20copy.pdf
 
While we do not question Mr. Bruce Sullivan’s love of the Catholic faith, the fact remains that his objections against “The Healing of Families” (HOF) book contain substantial misunderstandings by which people are misled. We will address these in outline form, and post a link for more in depth reading.

dropbox.com/s/lvjdqyssk9guu3y/20140815%20Critique%20Correction.doc
  1. Mr. Sullivan avoids the elephant in the room: numerous healings occur by HOF. The most frequent response to these healings is a strong increase in love of God and participation in the Church, which unambiguously marks them as from God. Mr. Sullivan ignores the healing Jesus of Scripture Who authorized us to heal in His Name (Mark 16:17-18), and so severely truncates his Catechism quotes – i.e., discussing only those lines that fit his narrative - that a minimalization of healing is evident which projects a meaning that falls far short of the full texts. Perhaps this results from a personal crisis of faith, which can be inferred from his comment (which appears to include himself) about “those who–taking Fr. Yozefu at his word–experience disillusion, anxiety, frustration, and–what can actually be said to border on–devastation when they fail to see the results he so confidently promises to deliver”. Owing to our familiarity with those who did wait on the Lord and did receive healing, we counsel “…let your heart take courage, all you who wait for the Lord” (Psalm 31:24). Recall that Jesus addressed the paralytic’s sins before healing occurred (Matthew 9:2-8), and Jesus teaches about healing which must go through repentance (Matthew 13:15), and that HOF is about healing through repentance. Jesus can heal instantly, but healing that has to go through repentance can take time. HOF speaks confidently about the prospects for healing based on experience, but repentance must occur first.
  2. Mr. Sullivan claims that generational HOF prayer is unknown to Sacred Tradition, as if that is fixed, but ignores that Sacred Tradition has constantly expanded in the history of the Church, and that no document exists stating when Tradition was fixed. He also ignores that generational healing prayer is nearly 3 decades old, that the whole Church prays this kind of prayer (e.g., no. 34 of Tertio Millenio Adveniente; Saint John Paul’s Day of Pardon [2000]), that this prayer is under Church study, discernment and pastoral oversight (NOT condemnation), and that a number of Bishops both promote this type of prayer, and include it in the official prayers of their diocese.
  3. Mr. Sullivan incorrectly implies that there are no errors of human misunderstanding about God’s punishment in the Old Testament. Yet try to reconcile the punishment of children for their fathers’ sin in Exodus 20:5 (NAB) with God’s forceful rejection of that notion in Jeremiah 31:29-30 and Ezekiel 18, especially vv. 2-3 and 19-20. These misunderstandings are precisely why Jesus says “no one knows … who the Father is” (Luke 10:22). Jesus invalidates the Jewish idea of God punishing sinners through life’s bad consequences in the two stories of the victims of Pilate and of the fallen tower by saying they did not suffer this outcome by being “worse sinners” (Luke 13). Mr. Sullivan misses the teaching of the Church that “The punishments of sin … must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin” (Catechism, no. 1472), which definitively rules out even the fatherly correction Mr. Sullivan invokes. Temporal punishments are outcomes that arise directly from sin, but not from God.
  4. Mr. Sullivan confuses the non-existent idea of generational sin (guilt for other’s sin) with generational bondage (influence of the sin of those to whom we are spiritually attached). He is inconsistent in admitting that many influences of sin remain (Catechism, no. 1264), but that the influence of bondage does not. He fails to recognize that the whole Church prays against the influence of past sins (see point 2.) He fails to acknowledge the strong parallels between the influence of generational bondage and other influences of Original Sin. Like these other influences, generational bondage affects all kinds of family lines, since all kinds of families sin (Romans 3:23); generational bondage can be eliminated in this life, and at any rate does not survive into heaven, just as the influences of Original Sin do not survive into heaven, and can in some cases be eliminated in this life, such as a person healed from the suffering of a specific disease; and like the other effects or Original Sin, bondage “cannot harm those who do not consent” to its influence. He is unaware of Church teaching on the lingering consequences of sin, specifically that “reconciliation with God … implies an arduous process which … continues after the sacramental [Reconciliation] celebration. The person must be gradually ‘healed’ of the negative effects which sin has caused in him (what the theological tradition calls the ‘punishments’ and ‘remains’ of sin)” (St. John Paul II General Audience on Indulgences on September 29, 1999, no. 2). In consequence of the lingering nature of these effects, and because the hereditary aspect of our bodies reveals the hereditary aspect of our spirits, the lingering effects of an individual’s confessed sins can be inherited by later generations, but not the guilt. (See case studies in other generational healing books.)
CONTINUED
 
(CONTINUATION)
  1. Mr. Sullivan refuses to acknowledge scriptural precedents for praying wrongly in James 4:3 and Luke 13:11. And in Job 42:8, we see God insisting that Job pray for his companions instead of allowing them to pray for themselves, precisely because they regard God incorrectly. And so, even a prayer of trust can be wrong prayer if it desires outcomes that contradict God’s will, just because it indulges human passions.
  2. Mr. Sullivan objects to Father Joseph’s phrase “He [Jesus] did not come to die, but to save”, and commits what is perhaps the most serious of his misrepresentations. He falsely accuses Father Joseph of portraying Jesus’ death as an “unintended consequence” (Mr. Sullivan’s words), when Father clearly says – twice – “He had to go through that/it”, as well as “That suffering was necessary” (page 41 of the book). To state the obvious, if Father says twice that Jesus had to go through with His death, and that this suffering was necessary, then he can’t be saying that the suffering and death are an “unintended consequence”. As with his use of Scripture and the Catechism, Mr. Sullivan picks and chooses small parts of what was said, and ends up reversing the meaning in many cases.
  3. In other comments, Mr. Sullivan portrays the HOF book as being about faith and morals, when it clearly deals with a healing prayer method which one is free to take or leave. It is a great misfortune for Mr. Sullivan, and the second most serious of his misrepresentations, that he used this dubious tactic with a Cardinal. Let’s put it more truthfully: the Cardinal has been manipulated into condemning something, and while he applied the right standards, he has of course been misinformed by Mr. Sullivan.
 
Let me begin by stating that it is bit odd replying to an entity that styles itself as “The Healing of Families Team” (hence forth the referred to as THOFT for brevity’s sake). It makes me wonder if the members of THOFT lack the courage of their convictions. While posting under the official sounding moniker of “The Healing of Families Team”, none of them actually signs off with their own names.

Anyway, that being said, I do not intend to re-hash everything I have already stated both in my previous posts and in my critique (which is still available for any and all to read). I do, however, want to address two comments made by THOFT (the other issues raised by THOFT are all addressed in my critique)(see link below).

dropbox.com/s/b713injn83h164o/Healing%20of%20Families%20Critique%20copy.pdf?dl=0

First of all, under item #1, THOFT does what many in so-called “healing ministries” do: namely, put the onus on those who do not receive the healing for which they prayed. THOFT does that in a not-so-subtle way by pointing out the need for repentance (thereby suggesting that those who are not healed through their ministry are, somehow, unrepentant). That, of course, begs the question as to whether not our Lord always gives physical healing to repentant souls who ask for it. The constant teaching of the Church (as seen in the teachings of the Saints and Doctors of the Church) is that He does not. Take, for example, this quote from St. Augustine (Doctor of the Church):

“Undoubtedly, it is good that you request bodily health from God. If He knows that it is for your greater good, He will give it to you. If He does not give it to you, then it was not for your advantage. God knows, therefore, what is better for us. Let us seek only that our heart be free from sin.” (Sermon on John 7, 12)

This is, basically, the opposite of what THOFT and Fr. Yozefu teaches. For them, it seems, if one does not receive healing from God it is simply proof that they are either (1) unrepentant, (2) praying incorrectly, or (3) not persevering in prayer until such time as they be delivered from illness. However, St. Augustine (and all of the other Saints and Doctors of the Church) teach otherwise.

Moving on…

Under item #7, THOFT accuses me of deliberately misinforming and, thereby, manipulating a cardinal when I spoke with the cardinal about Fr. Yozefu’s book. That is a very perverse accusation for THOFT to make in view of the obvious fact that none of them were present when I spoke with Cardinal Burke. Therefore, they have no possible way of knowing what I did or did not say (much less whether or not I misinformed or manipulated him).

However, the most interesting aspect of THOFT’s comments on the matter of the publication of Fr. Yozefu’s book without an imprimatur is this: they–like Fr. Yozefu–fail to inform their readers of the whole truth of the matter. The “Healing of Families” website, for example, simply explains that Fr. Yozefu’s book, based upon its subject matter, does not require an imprimatur. What they fail to tell the reader is this: Fr. Yozefu did****** request an imprimatur from the bishop who was administering his diocese at the time. Moreover, Fr. Yozefu not only fails to inform his readers that he had requested an imprimatur, he fails to inform them that his request was rejected due to theological errors. You do not have to take my word for it: take the word of his bishop. Fr. Yozefu’s bishop has issued an official statement that details the history of the publication of this book. (ptdiocese.org/documents/Bishop/Ssemakula.pdf).

Peace to all,

Bruce Sullivan
 
Just recently, Pope Francis gave an address to prepare us for the 23rd Annual World Day of the Sick that will be observed in February. In his address, the Holy Father stated, "How great a lie, on the other hand, lurks behind certain phrases which so insist on the importance of ‘quality of life’ that they make people think that lives affected by grave illness are not worth living,” the Pope added. “People immersed in the mystery of suffering and pain, when they accept these in faith, can themselves become living witnesses of a faith capable of embracing suffering, even without being able to understand its full meaning."

This statement dovetails beautifully with the words offered by St. John Paul II on the first World Day of the Sick back in October of 1992 in anticipation of the First Annual World Day of the Sick. He stated, "Illness, which in everyday experience is perceived as a frustration of the natural life force, for believers becomes an appeal to “read” the new, difficult situation in the perspective which is proper to faith. Outside of faith, moreover, how can we discover in the moment of trial the constructive contribution of pain? How can we give meaning and value to the anguish, unease, and physical and psychic ills accompanying our mortal condition? What justification can we find for the decline of old age and the final goal of death, which, in spite of all scientific and technological progress, inexorably remain?
Yes, only in Christ, the incarnate Word, Redeemer of mankind and victor over death, is it possible to find satisfactory answers to such fundamental questions.
In the light of Christ’s death and resurrection illness no longer appears as an exclusively negative event; rather, it is seen as a “visit by God”, an opportunity “to release love, in order to give birth to works of love towards neighbour, in order to transform the whole of human civilization into a civilization of love” (Apostolic Letter Salvifici doloris, n. 30).
The history of the Church and of Christian spirituality offers very broad testimony of this. Over the centuries shining pages have been written of heroism in suffering accepted and offered in union with Christ. And no less marvellous pages have been traced out through humble service to the poor and the sick, in whose tormented flesh the presence of the poor, crucified Christ has been recognized."

So, in continuity with 2,000 years of Catholic teaching, Pope Francis and Pope St. John Paul II both teach us about the immense value of suffering (i.e. in the form of sickness) accepted in the light of the Cross of Jesus Christ. Fr. Yozefu, on the other hand, “assures” us that all sickness is "unnecessary suffering" that is not really a “true cross”. Moreover, according to Fr. Yozefu, God has no purpose whatsoever in human suffering in the form of sickness. Therefore, he presents vulnerable souls with the confident assurance that, with his prayer method, they can “unload” their chronic illnesses because, after all, according to Fr. Yozefu, they–his readers–“are in control even without knowing it”. In fact, in contrast with the statement from Pope Francis cited above, Fr. Yozefu suggests that those who are sick cannot really lead a “useful life” (this is the implication of the advertisement for his book as it appears on his own website: “This book with its powerful family healing ministry will pull you out of that “not knowing” and lead you step by step to the full benefit that Christ has already brought to you: not only a healed and useful life, but also a joyful one!”)

Nowhere in the 23 years of the Church’s World Day of the Sick have ideas like Fr. Yozefu’s been even remotely suggested. Nowhere in the 2,000 year history of the Church have ideas like Fr. Yozefu’s been taught by the Saints and Doctors of the Church.

So, take your pick: the constant teaching of the Church (i.e. “the pillar and support of the truth”) or the novel ideas of Fr. Yozefu Ssesmakula.
 
The Fathers of Mercy have now issued an official statement regarding their order’s position on Fr. Yozefu’s book and seminars. In a nutshell, they recognize the harm that can be done to souls by the numerous errors in the book…errors that are not simply “incidental” but foundational and fundamental.

You may read their statement at their website using this link:

fathersofmercy.com/wp-content/uploads/Healing-of-Families-CPM-Statement.pdf

You may also read it by accessing the file in my dropbox:

dropbox.com/s/h8z1yeyt0fu1gtz/Healing-of-Families-CPM-Statement%20copy.pdf?dl=0

I consider this statement significant for the following reasons:
  1. The Fathers of Mercy are recognized throughout the Church as being a solid order of missionary priests who are vibrantly orthodox.
  2. The Fathers of Mercy have very close ties with EWTN and Mother Angelica (they have had programs on EWTN and served as the official retreat directors at the Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament in Hanceville, AL during its first few years until the Missionaries of the Eternal Word were able to fulfill that task).
The bottom line is this: Fr. Yozefu’s book and seminars are so flawed on a fundamental level that they cannot be redeemed by a few simple corrections. Rather, to salvage them would require a complete remaking of them to such a degree that they would, essentially, be unrecognizable. In other words, when you remove “generational bondage” and his approach to sickness (i.e. that it is always “unnecessary” and “not a true cross”), you end up with something that is the antithesis of what he is presently teaching.

Peace to all,

Bruce Sullivan
 
brucesullivan said:
The Fathers of Mercy have now issued an official statement regarding their order’s position on Fr. Yozefu’s book and seminars. In a nutshell, they recognize the harm that can be done to souls by the numerous errors in the book…errors that are not simply “incidental” but foundational and fundamental.

You may read their statement at their website using this link:

fathersofmercy.com/wp-content/uploads/Healing-of-Families-CPM-Statement.pdf

You may also read it by accessing the file in my dropbox:

dropbox.com/s/h8z1yeyt0fu1gtz/Healing-of-Families-CPM-Statement%20copy.pdf?dl=0

I consider this statement significant for the following reasons:
  1. The Fathers of Mercy are recognized throughout the Church as being a solid order of missionary priests who are vibrantly orthodox.
  2. The Fathers of Mercy have very close ties with EWTN and Mother Angelica (they have had programs on EWTN and served as the official retreat directors at the Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament in Hanceville, AL during its first few years until the Missionaries of the Eternal Word were able to fulfill that task).
The bottom line is this: Fr. Yozefu’s book and seminars are so flawed on a fundamental level that they cannot be redeemed by a few simple corrections. Rather, to salvage them would require a complete remaking of them to such a degree that they would, essentially, be unrecognizable. In other words, when you remove “generational bondage” and his approach to sickness (i.e. that it is always “unnecessary” and “not a true cross”), you end up with something that is the antithesis of what he is presently teaching.

Peace to all,

Bruce Sullivan
Click to expand...
Thank you for this important information.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top