DECEMBER 12, 2012
Mystical theology add-ons…
By Terry Nelson, August 3, 2010
On notifications and clarifications
One of the reasons I believe seminarians need extensive training in mystical theology in our times is precisely because of all the spiritual frauds and their delusional devotees running around parishes and the archdioceses of the world these days. Last week I came upon a post on mysticism and discernment written by a British Third Order Carmelite priest who claims to be an exorcist – (whenever he speaks to anyone it seems he makes this fact known) – in addition to being a mystical theologian. His name is Fr John Abberton. Fr. Abberton may indeed carry all of those credentials, but he has a lot of baggage on top of that – he promotes the false visionary: Vassula Ryden.
The CDF issued the following Notification on Vassula Ryden – who some say is more an occultist than mystic – as far back as 1995. Fr. Abberton goes to great lengths trying to explain away the notification, but his arguments are less than convincing, if not without authority.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – Notification on Vassula Ryden, October 6, 1995
Many bishops, priests, religious and lay people have sought an authoritative judgement from this Congregation on the activity of Mrs. Vassula Ryden, a Greek Orthodox residing in Switzerland, who in speech and in writing is spreading in Catholic circles throughout the world messages attributed to alleged heavenly revelations.
A calm, attentive examination of the entire question, undertaken by this Congregation in order to “test the spirits to see whether they are of God” (cf. 1 Jn 4:1), has brought out — in addition to positive aspects — a number of basic elements that must be considered negative in the light of Catholic doctrine.
In addition to pointing out the suspect nature of the ways in which these alleged revelations have occurred, it is necessary to underscore several doctrinal errors they contain.
Among other things, ambiguous language is used in speaking of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, to the point of confusing the specific names and functions of the Divine Persons. These alleged revelations predict an imminent period when the Antichrist will prevail in the Church. In millenarian style, it is prophesied that God is going to make a final glorious intervention which will initiate on earth, even before Christ’s definitive coming, an era of peace and universal prosperity.
Furthermore, the proximate arrival is foretold of a Church which would be a kind of pan-Christian community, contrary to Catholic doctrine.
The fact that the aforementioned errors no longer appear in Ryden’s later writings is a sign that the alleged “heavenly messages” are merely the result of private meditations.
Moreover, by habitually sharing in the sacraments of the Catholic Church even though she is Greek Orthodox, Mrs. Ryden is causing considerable surprise in various circles of the Catholic Church. She appears to be putting herself above all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and every canonical norm, and in effect, is creating an ecumenical disorder that irritates many authorities, ministers and faithful of her own Church, as she puts herself outside the ecclesiastical discipline of the latter.
Given the negative effect of Vassula Ryden’s activities, despite some positive aspects, this Congregation requests the intervention of the Bishops so that their faithful may be suitably informed and that no opportunity may be provided in their Dioceses for the dissemination of her ideas.
Lastly, the Congregation invites all the faithful not to regard Mrs. Vassula Ryden’s writings and speeches as supernatural and to preserve the purity of the faith that the Lord has entrusted to the Church.
Vatican City, 6 October 1995
[Published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis AAS 88 (1996) 956-957; OR 23-24.10.1995; EV 14, 1956-1957; LE 5618; with the signatures of Card. Joseph Ratzinger and Mons. Tarcisio Bertone, respectively Prefect and Secretary of the Congregation. Source: http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfrydn1.htm and http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19951006_ryden_fr.html.]
“Merely the result of private meditations…”
I believe that has been the same assessment on the messages of Fr. Gobbi to the Marian Movement of Priests [MMP]; not surprisingly, Fr. Abberton is also a member of MMP.
Fr. Abberton, who also appears to be supportive of the alleged apparition at Medjugorje, just posted another defense of Vassula Ryden today, 3 August 2010:
I write as a priest who has had over twenty-five years experience as a spiritual director of a mystic soul. Some who read this may want to ask how I know she (Ryden) is a mystic. The answer is that according to the usual rules of discernment in these matters, and through my own experience, and the experiences of others who know her, along with the general acceptance of those who have read her writings that she has not deviated from the teaching of the Church, my considered opinion is that she is genuine. A priest who gained his doctorate in a specialised study of mysticism agrees with my judgement, and she was accepted as genuine by a bishop who told her that he had never really understood the “Song of Songs” until he had read her writings. I do not mention this lady [?] to distract from Vassula but in order to show that I have some knowledge and experience in these matters. -> Omissions? Blank pages? Changed Messages?
On another site I found a rather disturbing warning regarding Fr. Abberton, written by someone who identifies as a Fr. Rabit – most likely a pseudonym, but the comment is worth considering:
Fr John Abberton is ‘the’ Catholic apologist for the occult ‘seer’ Vassula Ryden. Yes, there’s only one Catholic priest in the UK who speaks up for TLIG – just do a Google search and you’ll see what I mean. As such, Abberton is completely ignoring the CDF’s instruction on Catholics keeping a distance from this woman and her dangerous ‘ecumenical’ sect. -> Medjugorje – Genuine or Hoax?
The CDF’s warning ought to be enough for Catholic faithful:
Given the negative effect of Vassula Ryden’s activities, despite some positive aspects, this Congregation requests the intervention of the Bishops so that their faithful may be suitably informed and that no opportunity may be provided in their Dioceses for the dissemination of her ideas. Lastly, the Congregation invites all the faithful not to regard Mrs. Vassula Ryden’s writings and speeches as supernatural and to preserve the purity of the faith that the Lord has entrusted to the Church.
-> Vatican City, 6 October 1995.
Yet Fr. Abberton seems to devote a great deal of effort spreading these messages through his website, blog, and any other web opportunity which presents itself – around the world. Unsuspecting Catholics pick up his writings, post what sounds good, and then link to his site. The errors are thereby spread. Whenever there is a valid question of error or vanity, self-will and pride, one cannot be certain the Holy Spirit is guiding the effort. Even more so, when anyone acts in opposition to official Church teaching – in this case, a notification from the CDF – one cannot be assured that the other person’s doctrine is orthodox, no matter how well educated the person may be.
Watch out for frauds and deceivers and their cults.
True Life In God Doctrinal Errors
CDF Clarification of Original Notification on Vassula Ryder (Fr. Abberton goes to great lengths to dismiss this 1996 Notification as well.)
Many thanks to Diane at Te Deum Laudamus blog for the source material regarding the notification.
Photo: One Clothed with the Sun Appears Enshrouded in effulgent light in Front of Vassula Ryden during a talk she gave on January18, 2009.
Out of 46 comments at http://abbey-roads.blogspot.in/2010/08/mystical-theology-add-ons.html#comment-form:
There are many doctrinal errors in Vassula’s writings cited by some very good and reputable theologians (and some things were altered according to Fr. Pavich, who proved this out… why?).
Couple this with what is actually in the Holy See’s explanations from 1995 and 1996, and it should give people adequate reason to spend their time reading things like the life of Catherine of Sienna, Teresa of Avila’s Way of Perfection, the story of Bernadette, Sr. Lucia’s memoirs, the Confessions of St. Augustine, the Devout Life by St. Francis de Sales, etc. Reading the biographies and writings of lesser known saints can be an exciting journey, such as Don Bosco’s Forty Dreams, or the life of the young St. Dominic Savio as written by Don Bosco.
Don’t spend precious time on questionable and controversial alleged private revelations.
In the case of Vassula Ryden, the Holy See was clear that these were not from God, but personal meditations (which contained doctrinal errors). Read the Vatican documentation your self and see.
Because the saints lived “yesterday” does not make their writings and lives irrelevant. Virtue and holiness transcend time and place. If you feel yourself drawn to things which have never gained Church approval, ponder why you are not drawn to that which is approved instead. –Diane
…I hope and expect that Fr. Abberton is a devout man and loves Our Lady very much, nonetheless it is inappropriate to promote spurious devotions and private revelations, and instead one ought to teach sound doctrine as revealed by the Church. As you can see by the photo I used for this post, the circus that accompanies the speaking tours of dubious mystics makes a mockery of religion… –Terry Nelson
First of all, I refer you to a book published recently on “Christian Prophecy” by Niels Christian Hvidt, a lay-theologian. The foreword is written by Cardinal Ratzinger who knows Hvidt – and knows he is involved with Vassula. In fact Vassula is mentioned in the book in a favourable light. It was Cardinal Ratzinger himself who answered two South American bishops regarding the Notification, and he also gave an interview with the Italian magazine “30 Days” (I expect you will find the reference if you search it) in which he said that the Notification was not a condemnation. Actually it could not be because there was no canonical process. He described it as a “warning”. After Vassula gave her answers to the questions posed by the Notification, with the aid of Fr. Prospero Grech who has worked for the CDF, Cardinal Ratzinger called her answers “useful clarifications” and said that the CDF response would be “modified” (all this is naturally on record). He also insisted that her answers be printed in one of her books – thus showing that if anyone wanted to see them, they would have to get a book. Hardly the thing to do if you want to dissuade people from reading them! (Again this is on record).
As regards the Notification itself and the timing of it, the late Fr. Michael O’Carroll was on his way to Rome with a dossier he had compiled. He did not present it before the Notification was issued. A Brazilian bishop (I can provide reference to his talk on video) who worked in the Pontifical Biblical Institute and knew the Cardinal asked him personally what he should do about Vassula’s writings since he had gained so much from them. He was told, “Don’t worry. All is well” and that he could carry on as before.
As regards Fr. Mitch Pacwa, I know that ALL his criticisms have been answered in detail. I have seen the article that was personally sent to him. Maybe he did not receive it, but he did not reply. I have attempted to give a more positive view to different people, but it seems useless because if some people are determined to doubt Vassula it seems they often do it in unjust and uncharitable ways, even casting doubt on other’s (mine) sincerity and good standing with the Church. I can assure anyone who is interested that I am in good standing. My bishop knows about my involvement. I would just suggest that with regard to Vassula people look at the official site – tlig.org and see all the information there. Surely that is the just and correct thing to do rather than just following the negative view. But that is up to you…
A final note. The photo you showed at the head of these posts is a genuine photo. I know that lady who took it and I know some who were at that meeting. It was shown to some people who know about photography. You can pour scorn on it if you like, but please do not suggest that it is somehow manufactured or dishonest. You do not know the photographer – I do. Unless you now want to call me a liar (that has happened before). The full information is presented quite openly on the website. Surely reading that and asking serious questions is better than cheap jibes. –Fr John Abberton
Dear Father: what spiritual good does it do for my soul to spend time on her personal meditations over the works of St. Teresa? Or St. Augustine? Or the memoirs of Sr. Lucia of Fatima?
Until I see a modified notification on the Holy See’s website, I will not be reading any arguments which suggest the Holy See was satisfied. I need to hear this from the Holy See. Feel free to notify me through my blog email when it is visible, with protocol number. –Diane
Wikipedia has a good review of this matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vassula_Ryden.
It is clear that the Vatican does not approve of this business.
The photo reminds me of all of the zillions of similar ones at all of the other apparitions. They are a dime a dozen. It’s a matter of statistics. If everyone is snapping away, there are bound to be a certain percentage of double exposures & other photographic anomalies. –Michael R
It’s normal that CDF would not issue a “condemnation” about Vassula Ryden or propose any corrective actions toward her personally. This is because Mrs. Ryden belongs to the Greek Orthodox Church and does not claim to be a Catholic. The Catholic Church respects the jurisdiction of her Church towards her. The CDF notification about Mrs. Ryden was issued in 1995, and Cardinal Levada wrote not too long ago (in a letter to bishops 1/25/07) that there has been no change in CDF’s position. Any intervening talk of a ‘rehabilitation’ must not have been well-founded. –RC
…As I have tried to show, the “Vatican’s” viewpoint is not as simple as some believe. The information I gave is correct. If the CDF is so against Vassula, why does the Pope allow a book to be published with his foreword in which Vassula’s case is put quite favourably (by this I mean allowing for the possibility that she might be viewed favourably)? Why would he insist on Vassula’s answers being printed in her books if he felt that people should not read them? Why tell bishops they can continue to read them? Why remind us that the Notification is NOT a condemnation?
Cardinal Levada’s letter is confusing and contained some factual errors. Since that letter was published there has been more dialogue – and hopefully this will continue…–Fr John Abberton
You said: Why is it – may I ask – that many people assume that the negative view is the correct one? Why assume that the positive is not correct?
If you are referring to the doctrinal assessment, which to me is the most important of all, then it is the CDF that is correct.
The caution issued by the CDF in which it said (link provided in Terry’s post):
A calm, attentive examination of the entire question, undertaken by this Congregation in order to “test the spirits to see whether they are of God” (cf. 1 Jn 4:1), has brought out-in addition to positive aspects – a number of basic elements that must be considered negative in the light of Catholic doctrine.
You want me to take your word, your view, your assessment, your experience, over a document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which has repeated its doctrinal position?
In 2007 Cardinal Levada wrote (Prot. N.: 54/92 – 24945):
1) The Notification of 1995 remains valid concerning the doctrinal judgement on the writings examined…
The doctrinal assessment of the writings stated that, a number of basic elements that must be considered negative in the light of Catholic doctrine.
When I see the Holy See change its position in the form of a notification, with a protocol number, which matches your view, then it may warrant my attention for a closer look. Until then, there is a treasury of writings worth consulting which are approved and doctrinally sound. If I never watched TV again, I could not get through them all.
In general, I have a problem with a priest who claims to be a diocesan exorcist, and who would publicly disagree with a notification by the CDF. If the case continues to be worked on, why do you then not work discretely? Why not suspend “defending Vassula” as you work discretely with the Holy See on your arguments? When, and if, they reverse what remains of what is negative in their findings, then by all means promote it.
But to openly and publicly contradict the Holy See on doctrinal points, as seen in this article at the “Defending Vassula” website, is wrong. Those advancing these kinds of arguments publicly, at this stage, given the notifications to date by the CDF, have become their own “magisterium”.
With regards to the last comment about exorcists that I made, it appears that you have somehow misunderstood what I said. You seem to think I was speaking about you, but you cannot know about whom I was speaking. I have never encountered you or any of your writings before today so I have no idea what you have said publicly beyond what is here and in the links provided.
I made a general comment about some things I have read in the media – statements made by exorcists – which ultimately has the potential to create, in the faithful, suspicion and mistrust of the hierarchy in a broad way (which is anti-ecclesial in my book). People hearing an exorcist say this then feel they have just cause to dismiss decisions that come down as they see fit because they believe Satan was behind it that particular decision. My comment was based on a broad-brush statement made some months ago or even last year – probably innocently, and without any thought for how some members of the faithful might use such a statement in unvirtuous and sinful ways. –Diane
This post caught my eye because prior to my defection from (and more recent subsequent return to) the One True Church, I remember my aunt being very interested in Vassula and her writings. She bought us some of the volumes, and although I read them I always held them at arms length “just in case”.
Now that I have returned to the church I have a new perspective on private revelations. Honestly, I think I had a bellyful of that in the Evangelical/charismatic church that I attended. –Clare
Terry, WOW! You lit the “proverbial” H-bomb here! I have stayed clear of V. Ryden since E. Michael Jones’ articles; if the Vatican says there are “problems”, then that’s good enough for me, they will settle the matter.
I must confess that the “automatic writing” business (or whatever is involved here) is a big problem for me.
The connection with Medjugorje is also a big problem; I know, I know, there is a commission in the Vatican working on this, etc. I still have a problem with M. and it boils down to the documented disobedience and lies of the seers.
Again, Rome will sort this out.
I’m not condemning anything; I just stay away from it and encourage anyone who asks me in direction or otherwise to be careful. In these dark days, even the elect can (and will) be deceived. That scares the hell out of me! –Nazareth Priest
The Notification is still valid, but as a “warning” (Card. Ratzinger’s word) A warning is NOT a condemnation. Card. Ratzinger told bishops they could continue reading Vassula’s writings. We have this in print and on video. This means that your very strict interpretation of what the CDF is saying is wrong – otherwise the Pope is wrong. Are you disagreeing with the Pope?
Since we are not getting anywhere with this, and since it all too often strays into personal attacks, I see no point in continuing the discussion about Vassula. Many of the problems and questions are answered by better people than me ON THE WEB SITE. –Fr John Abberton
…Videos and other letters, notes, etc., without a protocol number, which are not made plainly visible by the Holy See on such an issue, is no substitute for official word from the same Holy See. This is not “strict interpretation” when I accept the Holy See’s doctrinal assessment as valid, and the “Defend Vassula” website publicly does not.
To me, the issue of whether the material is ok to read, that was bound up in the context in which I previously quoted. Discussion about reading/not reading is secondary to the doctrinal matters for me. Interestingly, the Holy See must have thought so too, because in each of its letters, it called attention to doctrinal errors. No thanks. I’ll stick with Teresa of Avila and St. Catherine of Siena. –Diane
Vassula Ryden the Rails…
From Rorate Caeli: Patriarchate of Constantinople denounces Vassula Ryden
By Terry Nelson, March 18, 2011
the English translation of the official statement of the Patriarch is reproduced here.]
[T]he Holy Synod of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople issued a strongly-worded decree denouncing Vassula Ryden and her works, excluding her supporters from (Orthodox) communion, and warning people from spreading her teachings her lest they incur canonical censures.
In this spirit, and for the beneficial protection of our pious Orthodox plenitude from dangerous spiritual confusion, who do not know well matters underlying the risk of delusion, rejects from the Mother Church Vasiliki Paraskevis Pentaki – Ryden, widely known as a “Vassula”, and her organization founded under the title “True Life In God” which rashly and frivolously proposes teachings based on the supposed “direct dialogue between her and the Founder of the Church Jesus Christ our Lord”, and those conquered by her and the supporters of “True Life In God”, which deviate arbitrarily from the God-given teaching of the Church, but also scandalize the Orthodox phronema of pious believers.
Hence, we call upon the proponents of these unacceptable innovations and the supporters who maintain them, who henceforth are not admitted to ecclesiastical communion, not only to not be involved in the pastoral work of the local Holy Metropolis, but also to not preach their novel teachings, to prevent the appropriate sanctions under the Holy Canons. –
The mystic circuit
I wrote about Vassula Ryden before [see pages 1, 2] and got some flak from a couple of her supporters, one a well known priest. Many of these people appear to be obedient yet they are adamant in their devotion of the seer and seem to be reluctant to accept the judgement of the Church in these matters. What did I say the other day in another post about priests and bishops who look the other way when it comes to dubious revelations and apparitions? They often dismiss the critics saying, “Well, as long as people are praying and going to Mass.” In some cases there are theologians, priests* and bishops who go along with the visionaries and promote their causes – despite the fact other bishops and Church congregations issue warnings that the movements are not supernatural, and may be false and even dangerous.
Another situation is scheduled in the St. Cloud Diocese in the next week or so. Outside of St. Cloud, Minnesota, in Sauk Centre is a House of Prayer established by the followers of Christina Gallagher, the Irish mystic whose work and revelations have been denounced by her Diocesan Bishop in Ireland. Yet she is allowed to promote her messages in the St. Cloud Diocese. These messages play to the mistrust and fears of gullible Catholics who look to Christina Gallagher as a stigmatic in direct contact with the Blessed Virgin. See their website here. I spoke with the chancery in St. Cloud and the chancellor, Fr. Rolfes told me he saw nothing against the faith in their prayer meetings, and that Gallagher’s priest-advisor is a priest in good standing. He is also aware of the problems Gallagher has had with her Bishop. The chancellor told me he intended to be present at the next meeting to see that everything was orthodox. That’s a good sign – I think.
Nevertheless, I’m always a bit surprised how promoters of such visionaries seem to be very skilled at explaining away CDF notices and episcopal condemnations in order to find loop holes for people of good faith to follow along and join the cult – and donate. The practice has been tolerated with the Medjugorje phenomenon for decades.
More trouble for self-proclaimed mystic Vassula Ryden
By Terry Nelson, February 9, 2012
This just in: Just when one kerfuffle over the automatic-writing mystic Vassula Ryden is announced, along comes another. Now the Orthodox Church of Cyprus issued a statement about her on January 13. The Synodical Committee for Matters of Heresy warned [http://www.impantokratoros.gr/church-cyprus-vassoula-ryden.en.aspx]*:
In reality, her teachings are heretical, and her claims that she communicates directly with Christ are fantastical and outside of the spirit of the experience of the Church. – Source: http://catholiclight.stblogs.org/
I’m sure devotees and followers will not be deterred by this news however.
Out of 19 comments:
You say it is sad that her “followers” (the wrong word) will not accept this. But you obviously don’t know, or don’t care, that the Patriarch of Alexandria and numerous other Orthodox bishops and Archbishops do not agree with this. The Synod of Cyprus is following its close neighbour – “Constantinople” (read Athens and Rhodos!), but as we have already said, there was no paper document sent to Vassula, no patriarchal seal – as regards Constantinople, nothing apart from the statement on the web. There has been no discussion, no proper canonical investigation – no dialogue with Vassula. Therefore the status of this latest statement is that it is an opinion. Vassula is accepted by the Patriarch of Alexandria (she was born in Egypt) as a faithful member of his Orthodox flock. Some other Orthodox authorities do not like this and – with regard to other Orthodox bishops who have supported her – are keen to go on the attack. Make of that what you will, but before making any other announcements, it might be a good idea to consult either the TLIG web site or to find some other way of getting your facts straight. –Fr John Abberton
When we have the insights of real mystics like St. Faustina, why do we need to bother with the confusion from maybe-but-probably-not mystics like Vassula Ryden or Medjugorje? –Patrick Dunn
*Church of Cyprus: Announcement Concerning
Vassiliki (Vassula) Paraskevis Pendakis-Ryden.
CHURCH OF CYPRUS Synodical Committee for Matters of Heresy
Holy Archdiocese of Cyprus
13 January 2012.
Topic: The heretical positions of Vassiliki (Vassula) Pendakis-Ryden.
Over the last few days Vassula Ryden has been appearing in the media, giving lectures and trying to come into contact with bishops and priests, giving the impression that she presents and teaches the Orthodox Christian faith. In reality, her teachings are heretical, and her claims that she communicates directly with Christ are fantastical and outside of the spirit of the experience of our Church.
Seeing that she tries, not only in Cyprus, to present herself as Orthodox and that she possesses certificates of Orthodoxy from bishops, we cite the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s explicit announcement regarding this matter, so that Orthodox Christians may know exactly what it pertains to:
Source (Greek): http://www.churchofcyprus.org.cy/article.php?articleID=2129
The Orthodox Church, following strictly the shining example and teaching of the Holy Apostles, the teaching of the Fathers of the Church who have their succession, and the divinely-inspired decisions of the Ecumenical Synods, safeguards as a pearl of great price the faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which the Christian plenitude experiences through their participation in the Sacraments and entire spiritual life of the divinely-founded ecclesiastical body.
Hence, whatever movement and improvised tension, personal or collective, in contempt or in breach of the dogmas of the Orthodox Christian faith and life in Christ within the Church as the only path for the salvation of our souls, all the more the self-proclaimed “supposedly charismatic” personality, is rejected always as an unacceptable innovation.
In this spirit, and for the beneficial protection of our pious Orthodox plenitude from dangerous spiritual confusion, who do not know well matters underlying the risk of delusion, we denounce from the Mother Church Vasiliki Paraskevis Pentaki – Ryden, widely known as “Vassula”, and her organization founded under the title “True Life In God” which rashly and frivolously proposes teachings based on the supposed “direct dialogue between her and the Founder of the Church Jesus Christ our Lord”, and those conquered by her and the supporters of “True Life In God”, which deviate arbitrarily from the God-given teaching of the Church, but also scandalize the Orthodox phronema of pious believers.
Hence, we call upon the proponents of these unacceptable innovations and the supporters who maintain them, who henceforth are not admitted to ecclesiastical communion, not only to not be involved in the pastoral work of the local Holy Metropolis, but also to not preach their novel teachings, to prevent the appropriate sanctions under the Holy Canons.
We express, lastly, the profound sorrow of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of the acts of some – fortunately few – clergy of the Orthodox Church to be found at talks of the said “Vassula” and give to her a “certificate of Orthodoxy.”
At the Patriarchate, the 16th of March 2011, Of the Chief Secretariat of the Holy and Sacred Synod
Translated by John Sanidopoulos
VASSULA RYDEN-PROBLEMS WITH ROME BUT WELCOME IN INDIA
VASSULA RYDEN-A CDF NOTIFICATION BISHOPS WARNINGS AND THEOLOGICAL CRITIQUES
VASSULA RYDEN-THE REASONS FOR THE CHURCH’S NEGATIVE REACTION
VASSULA RYDEN-FR FRANCOIS MARIE DERMINE
VASSULA RYDEN-FR MITCH PACWA
VASSULA RYDEN-MARK WATERINCKX
VASSULA RYDEN-A CRITIQUE-DIALOGUE CENTRE INTERNATIONAL
VASSULA RYDEN’S JESUS-INGERLISE PROVSTGAARD
VASSULA RYDEN-RICHARD SALBATO
VASSULA RYDEN-JOE NICKELL
VASSULA RYDEN-CONSTANCE CUMBEY
VASSULA RYDEN-RONALD L CONTE
VASSULA RYDEN-AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN
VASSULA RYDEN-LAURENCE ENGLAND
VASSULA RYDEN-RICHARD CHONAK
VASSULA RYDEN-CATHOLIC ANSWERS
VASSULA RYDEN-SUSAN BRINKMANN
VASSULA RYDEN-DANIEL KLIMEK
VASSULA RYDEN-TONY-ALLEN CUCOLO
CDF, OCTOBER 6, 1995
Categories: False Mystics