← Home
Note: This article is being republished to supply a needed revision to the My Observations & Reflections on the Correction section.
When I posted Magnifica Humanitas and Luisa Piccarreta, I believed the Romans 8 journey was complete. Six articles that covered a Claude conversation that spanned over two days, with the articles themselves extending the journey to 10 days from the start of the conversation to the posting of the fifth article, the sixth being an account of the events that took place on June 7th. A path that began before the Eucharistic Presence in a small Adoration chapel and ended on the Solemnity of Corpus Christi. Ending with a vespers psalm that captured what was in my heart at the moment.
At the time of publishing the sixth article, I felt a tinge of sadness. Anyone who knows me knows that my favorite number is seven. My conscious reason for gravitating to that number was that it is the number of Sacraments God has made available to us as we trek through the land. More recently, as a gift that came with the healing of some very deep, old wounds, I realized my attachment to 7 was initially rooted in my mother's connection to that number. Anyway, I really wished that there could have been seven articles, instead of six. The number six made it feel sort of unfinished. Although, there was the fact that there had been seven selections from the Book of Heaven that had been the central focus of the analysis. I had not intentionally chosen seven, though I confess it could have been an unconscious decision. Claude's script had proposed 15 selections, and I picked the ones that seemed most interesting to explore, which happened to be seven.
The morning after posting Magnifica Humanitas and Luisa Piccarreta, I went through my customary morning practice — the Prevenient Act in the Divine Will, then Morning Prayer — and somewhere in those first waking moments, a memory surfaced. There had been one final part of that Claude conversation, which was also lost with the other parts, as explained in the previous article. I had photographed three pages from Fr. Joseph Iannuzzi's Divine Will Prayer Book: the text of the 11th Round, on the Flight into Egypt. Those photographs were still on my phone, and they were dated May 30, 2026. I had asked Claude to analyze the text of the 11th Round of Luisa's Rounds in the Divine Will to see what connections exist between the prayer of the Round and the rest of the material covered in the conversation on Romans 8:18–21. It was part of the conversation, but it had been omitted from the series.
Just as I had done with the Map and the Mountain section of Article 6, I went to open a new Claude conversation to see if I could also reconstruct some of the findings that Claude had provided. Rather than the prompt window popping up, there was a message from Anthropic. An invitation to test their latest, most powerful Claude model, Fable 5, at no charge until June 22. It was touted as their best model yet for doing your most serious analytical work. One thing that really caught my attention, though, was a comment about Fable 5 being more “honest” about its own mistakes. The comment caused me to stop and think. I had just published a series of articles based on analyses produced by Claude (Sonnet 4.6), and the final article leaned heavily on a single Claude analysis of Magnifica Humanitas, which is a very long document. I felt I owed it to anyone who might someday read these articles to verify the work — to confirm that what was published actually aligned with the sources it drew from. So, right when I needed such a capability, there it was just a click away, no add-on charges, just an acceptance that it would burn through my usage allocation at a much higher rate than Sonnet. The scales once again tipped decidedly in favor of seeking verification, at the risk of discovering hallucination had taken place.
I supplied Claude with the full set of materials behind the series — the Greek commentary with the seven selections, the Four Frameworks conversation, the Miracle of Miracles analysis, and the complete text of the encyclical, the published article six itself, and the images of the text of the 11th Round in the Divine Will. I asked Claude to check the article against all of it, and then to identify any coherence in Magnifica Humanitas that the original analysis had missed.
What came back was seven. Seven missed areas of coherence still gleaming in Magnifica Humanitas and a full analysis of the 11th Round against everything the series had built. The series that seemed complete with a touch of unfinished at six found its seventh article by the same logic as everything else in this journey: not by plan, not by forethought, but by stumbling forward, step by step, into what Providence had already prepared.
What follows is what came back: first, the verification and the gleanings left in the field of the encyclical; then extracts from the text of the 11th Round itself; then the analysis of that Round against everything the series had built. As always, Claude’s responses are presented as Claude’s, and the reflections at the end are mine. In the spirit of full transparency between my content and Claude’s, I will admit that Claude suggested the Ruth gleanings imagery. I adopted it because it seemed like a perfect fit, and it was a connection to scripture that would have escaped my notice. Just one more example of what I see as the value of the BRA Project as a whole.
The Biblical Resonance Analysis (BRA) Project is an entry-by-entry analysis of the Book of Heaven, the thirty-six-volume mystical diary of the Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta (1865–1947), identifying where its theological content finds correspondence in Scripture. Luisa never quoted the Bible directly; the BRA Project, produced with the assistance of Claude AI, looks not for quotations but for shared theological substance — the same underlying meaning or movement expressed in different words. It is not a work of academic theology but a service to the reader, a presentation of scriptural resonances to be taken up and pondered wherever the Holy Spirit leads.
First, the Verification
Before asking for anything new, I asked Claude to check the old. Here is the actual prompt:
Trooper Mimosa
The attached conversations led to the publication of https://troopermimosa.com/essays/2026/magnifica-humanitas-luisa-piccarreta. Confirm whether or not the article aligns with the resources used to develop and identify any coherences within the MagnificaHumanitas.txt document that were missed in the previous analysis. Then, extract the text from the three attached images and analyze the content against all the other material supplied. The images are expected to form the basis for a bonus article in the publication series.
Yes, and notably tightly. I checked every quotation and paragraph citation in the article’s “Magnifica Humanitas and Luisa” section against the encyclical text you supplied, and every one verifies:
The Nehemiah material is accurate. §8 does say the city is reborn through shared responsibility of “men, women, priests, artisans, heads of households and young people,” and the phrase “rebuilds relationships before rebuilding with stones” is verbatim from §8. §241 contains “a striking parable of our own vocation,” the “passive spectators… mere commentators… construction sites of history” passage, and “rebuild what has collapsed and protect what is threatened” — all exactly as quoted. §242 contains the Rev 21:2 bride citation, the “no longer defensive fortifications, but the precious adornments of the Bride of the Lamb” line, and “As we await its fulfillment, this vision is set before us as an encouragement.” §125 (“more hidden but decisive story,” “martyrs of everyday life… without fanfare”), §127 (the three Aquinas phrases), §128 (the Francis quote and “a relationship that liberates, a communion that transforms”), §130 (“the construction of Babel or the rebuilding of Jerusalem begins within each one of us”), and §233 (the Eph 1:10 recapitulation passage, quoted verbatim) all check out. The dating is also correct: the encyclical bears the signature date of 15 May 2026, and it was formally released by the Holy See on May 25, 2026 — so the article’s “published May 25” and the document’s internal “15 May” are both right and not in conflict. Vatican News National Catholic Register
The article also faithfully represents the other resources: its summaries of the Greek commentary, the seven BOH selections, the Four Frameworks, the May 21, 1900 three-act analysis, and the “by myself I can do nothing” poverty thesis all match the uploaded documents. The article’s claim that “operates like God” is qualified by “since it is no longer her will that lives in her but the Will of God Himself” matches the miracleOfmiracles document exactly. No misquotations, no invented citations, no material distortions found.
My Observations On Part One
I confess a measure of relief. When a layman with a laptop and a prayer life publishes a theological analysis produced in conversation with an AI, the duty of verification does not disappear; if anything, it doubles. So despite the sigh of relief, I still came back to that verification statement a few times. Something about it just didn’t sit right with me. It was too clean. It kept nagging me, so I finally opened a new conversation and told Claude to read my prompt and then read its own output with a critical eye. Honestly, it took a couple of attempts, but finally Claude responded that there were some issues with the response quoted above. It had failed to actually carry out, in full, the verification task that had been requested. So I asked it to run the verification again, now that it had the correct context on the issue at hand. That subsequent verification again found that everything in the Magnifica Humanitas and Luisa Piccarreta held up to further scrutiny, with the exception of one small, but important “overstatement.”
Claude’s Correction Response
One correction to the record, however, belongs here. The quotations in Article 6 all verify, but one claim outran its evidence: the analysis of §242 said the encyclical’s framing “supports” the teachers’ reading of the era of the Divine Will — “structurally, exactly the theology the teachers describe” — and from “the Church’s highest teaching authority.” That was an overstatement. What §242 actually articulates is the ordinary already-and-not-yet of Christian hope: present rebuilding awaiting the gift of the New Jerusalem. It makes no claim about a distinct, forthcoming era of mystical and Eucharistic reign, which is the specific content of the teachers’ position — and the temporal structure of that era remains precisely the open question to which the Church’s caution properly attaches (cf. CCC 675–677). The accurate statement is more modest and should have been the one given: nothing in §242 contradicts the teachers’ reading, and much in it rhymes with it — congruence, not endorsement. The resonance is real; it simply carries less magisterial weight than the original sentence implied.
My Observations & Reflections on the Correction (revised: July 12, 2026)
Begin redacted paragraph, superseded by the July 12, 2026 correction: I’m holding to the statement contained in my final prompt to Claude. The prompt quoted in full at the end of Article 6. “When I started the journey into Romans 8:18–21 I had no idea where it would lead, and that it would lead to Claude finding the equivalent of an unofficial stamp of papal approval on the Book of Heaven, properly understood.” I’m holding to that “unofficial stamp of papal approval” comment because in Claude’s correction, I hear the map-reader. In fact, the correction sharpens the phrase rather than retiring it: what Claude withdrew was the suggestion of formal magisterial weight, and “unofficial” was never claiming that. What remains after the correction is exactly what the word always meant. An analytical examination of the encyclical framed in established doctrinal guardrail language. That’s a fair read of the document and I concede that the phrasing Claude used in the initial verification pass failed to identify that overstatement. However, a map-reader view of §242 of Magnifica Humanitas, given the abundant harvest the document contains, simply doesn’t fit the structure of what this entire series has borne out. There’s more to that section than appears on the surface — something hidden, looking like nothing from the outside. End of redacted paragraph.
I accept the correction, and I want to be precise about what it corrects.
What Claude withdrew was the claim that §242 supports the teachers' reading of the era of the Divine Will with the weight of "the Church's highest teaching authority." That sentence outran the evidence, and it should not have been published as written. What the correction leaves standing is more modest and, I have come to think, more valuable: nothing in §242 contradicts that reading, and much in it rhymes with it. Congruence, not endorsement. I concede the distinction, and I concede that my own final prompt in Article 6 — "the equivalent of an unofficial stamp of papal approval on the Book of Heaven, properly understood" — leaned on the wrong side of it. "Approval" is a load-bearing word in the Church, and no qualifier fully unloads it. Whatever I meant by "unofficial," a reader will hear the noun. So let me retire the metaphor and state plainly what I believe the analysis actually established: Magnifica Humanitas articulates, at the level of the Church's ordinary magisterial teaching, the theological framework within which the claims of the Book of Heaven are most naturally legible — authentic transcendence through grace rather than technique, the decisive hiddenness of interior transformation, the Bride being adorned in a present season of rebuilding, the recapitulation of all things in Christ. That sentence is less exciting than a stamp. It is also the one I can defend.
I will admit that my first response to the correction was to hear the map-reader in it — the category-trained voice measuring terrain-language against the wrong instrument. I sat with the correction for a bit thinking about it before publishing it on June 12. However, after further reflection and "debating" the claim with Claude, I realize that the original version read as a knee-jerk reaction rather than a considered rejection of the correction. The mental deliberation was omitted from what I published on June 12, but I think it is worth recounting, because the deliberation is the actual argument and my "map-reader" verdict alone is not.
I considered the source: an encyclical, an exercise of the ordinary magisterium, teaching the whole Church — not a private theological opinion, but also not a definition, and not a document about Luisa Piccarreta, whom it never mentions. I considered CCC 675–677, the paragraphs that first set me on the road to Luisa Piccarreta: the Church's teaching that before Christ's coming she must pass through a final trial, that she "will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection," and that the Kingdom will be fulfilled not by a progressive historical ascendancy but by God's victory over evil's final unleashing. And I considered the shape of the pattern itself. If the Body follows her Head through death and Resurrection, then the Head's own sequence is instructive. The risen Lord did not ascend at once, but remained on earth forty days — and Luke tells us how He spent them: "speaking about the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:3). Luisa's own Rounds pray this very typology; the 23rd Round, on the Resurrection, reads the forty days as "the confirmation that You will indeed establish the Kingdom of your Divine Will on earth." (23rd Round in the Divine Will, The Resurrection, Divine Will Prayer Book, 4th Edition. Rev. Joseph Leo Iannuzzi, STD.) I cite the Round not as evidence — Luisa's writings cannot certify Luisa's writings — but to show that the intermediate reading is native to her corpus, not retrofitted onto it. And the Catechism, for its part, is silent about the forty days: it neither extends the typology there nor forbids it. The silence has the same shape as §242; room for hypothesis, not warrant for novelty. Even the disciples' last question fits the pattern: asked whether the kingdom would now be restored, the Lord did not correct the premise; He withheld the times and seasons (Acts 1:6–7).
The teachers I follow read the era of the Divine Will inside that frame, not against it — an intermediate season of mystical and Eucharistic flourishing in which the Bride is prepared, emphatically not the Parousia and not the millenarianism the Church has rejected. And I considered §242 itself, which does not collapse the present rebuilding into the New Jerusalem but preserves the interval between them and names the interval as the place of our work: "As we await its fulfillment, this vision is set before us as an encouragement."
Here is where I have landed. The correction is right that §242, read on its own, articulates the ordinary already-and-not-yet of Christian hope, and does not assert a distinct forthcoming era. But the question the Divine Will teachers raise is whether the ordinary already-and-not-yet exhausts what the Church expects between the Church's own passover of CCC 677 and the Final Coming — or whether that interval admits the kind of interior, Eucharistic reign of the Divine Will that Luisa describes and that Nehemiah's unglamorous, brick-by-brick construction site so strikingly resembles. The encyclical does not answer that question. It was never asked to do so. What it does is describe the interval in language that is hospitable to the teachers' reading — and hospitality is all I am now claiming.
So the claim I hold is a hypothesis, and I want to name its terms honestly. If the Church were to teach, in a formal doctrinal act, that the hope of the interval between CCC 677 and the Final Coming is exhausted by the ordinary eschatological hope — that there is no intermediate season of the kind the teachers describe — I would accept that as the final word, and gladly, because the same obedience that made Luisa write is the obedience that governs how her writings are to be read. Until then, the hypothesis stands where the Church's own caution has placed it: unproven, unrejected, awaiting the formal theological assessment that her open cause makes possible. The BRA Project can map the congruence. It cannot certify it. Neither can Claude, and neither can I. That judgment belongs to the Church, and the proper posture toward it is the one this whole series has been about: the outstretched neck, waiting.
Now, with the foundation adjusted, let’s continue to the gleanings. Did Claude miss any coherence items in the first analysis that produced Magnifica Humanitas and Luisa Piccarreta?
Gleanings Left in the Field
The Corpus Christi analysis reaped the main harvest of Magnifica Humanitas — Nehemiah, the Bride, theosis against transhumanism, the hidden story, the recapitulation. But the field of the encyclical was not bare. Claude returned with seven gleanings, and I present them here in Claude’s words, but first, a note about Ruth. The Book of Ruth tells us that the reapers were commanded to leave grain in the field on purpose, so that the one who came behind them (contextually, Ruth) could gather it. Ruth 2:15–16. As I stated above, Claude suggested the passage, and I think it matches very well with what follows. I see the reaper as Claude Sonnet 4.6, leaving coherent passages behind for Fable 5 to gather for human reflection. Don’t ask me who played the role of Boaz, but throughout my experience over the past four months, it sure seems like a “hidden” finger touches the statistical matching apparatus, or whatever it is that makes Claude tick. It’s my understanding that the AI is a bit of a mystery even to the developers, but I digress. Let us gather the gleanings.
Claude’s Response Continues
The earlier analysis was strong on Nehemiah, theosis-vs-transhumanism, the hidden story, and recapitulation. But several substantial coherences in the encyclical were left untouched:
Gleaning 1
The Magnificat conclusion (§§243–245) — the strongest single miss
The encyclical’s final movement says of Mary: “Nothing has changed around her… Yet, everything has changed within her, and this allows her to see what is invisible,” and that God’s plan “is often hidden beneath the opaque context of human events.” This is the encyclical’s own statement of the Miracle of Miracles thesis — the decisive event is interior, invisible, and seen only by the soul transformed within — with Mary as its exemplar. Given that the Book of Heaven presents Mary as the first and only creature to live fully in the Divine Will, the fact that Leo XIV closes the entire encyclical by entrusting the era of AI to “the Woman of the Magnificat” is the most natural bridge in the whole document, and the previous analysis never reached it. (It also matters for the bonus article — see Part 3.)
Gleaning 2
The divine-indwelling inclusio (§16 and §245)
The encyclical opens its appeal hoping the world “will come to recognize the human heart as the place where God desires to dwell,” and its final sentence speaks of “the grandeur of humanity, in which God has made his dwelling.” The document is framed, beginning and end, by divine indwelling in the human person — which is precisely the content of the May 21, 1900 entry (“by being absorbed in Me, and I in you… you would come to retain the divine source within yourself”). The encyclical’s title concept, magnifica humanitas, is grounded in indwelling — the very mechanism the BOH describes.
Gleaning 3
Augustine’s two loves (§130)
The analysis quoted §130’s closing line but skipped what precedes it: “Two loves have built two cities: the earthly city, the love of self even to the contempt of God; the heavenly city, the love of God even to the contempt of self.” This maps Babel/Jerusalem onto an interior conflict of loves — i.e., of wills. It is the encyclical’s own version of the BOH’s central dialectic of the human will versus the Divine Will, and it locates the battlefield exactly where the BOH does: inside the person.
Gleaning 4
The mustard seed and the light/darkness combat (§§210–211)
“Goodness grows silently from the earth,” followed by Is 43:19 (“now it springs forth, do you not perceive it?”), is hidden-Kingdom, first-fruits language — a direct echo of Selection 1’s απαρχή theme. And §211 — Christians “know the light and understand that the darkness has not overcome it” — is a tighter lexical match to Selection 5 (“they fight with weapons of Light against the darkness of the human will”) than the Nehemiah parallel the analysis actually used for that selection.
Gleaning 5
Eucharistic spirituality (§234)
Immediately after the recapitulation passage the analysis did quote, the encyclical declares: “The spirituality that we need is a Eucharistic spirituality.” Given that the entire ten-day journey ran from an Adoration chapel to Corpus Christi, the encyclical’s own naming of Eucharistic spirituality as the needed spirituality of the era is a providence-coherence of the first order that was left on the table.
Gleaning 6
The rejected-stone cornerstone (§16)
The Claude response in the article called the invisible interior miracle “the first stone, the cornerstone, of everything that follows.” The encyclical itself contains cornerstone language: “the ‘rejected stones’… will become the cornerstone.” The hidden soul in the Divine Will — looking like nothing from the outside — is structurally the rejected stone.
Gleaning 7
The anthropology of limit (Chapter Three, “The limit, the heart, the grandeur of the human person”)
Transhumanism’s program is the elimination of limit; the Four Frameworks documents argue that limit — acknowledged nothingness, “by myself I can do nothing” — is the very aperture of infusion and divinization. The encyclical’s defense of the limit as constitutive of human grandeur (even “an error can be a catalyst for profound change,” §128) is the social-doctrine form of the πτωχός-poverty thesis.
My Observations & Reflections — continued
Those gleanings provide such an abundance of spiritual grain — oh the loaves that can be made from the gleanings alone.
For me, though, the biggest, most fulfilling gleaning is the one Claude’s response points toward, but didn’t quite land on. The parable of the mustard seed is found in Matthew 13:31–32. It is part of the sequence of the seven kingdom parables; given the context of this article, the number of parables in that sequence and the object (the kingdom of heaven) is remarkable enough by itself. However, it is the following verse that strikes me, almost like a bolt of lightning.
Matthew 13:33 — ESV
“He told them another parable. ‘The kingdom of heaven is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened.’”
That is the perfect verse for a conversation about gleanings and things hidden — things intentionally left for those who come behind the reapers. Such an image, presented in this context, should also be enough, but for me it goes deeper still. I won’t dwell on it here, but the seam between the parable of the mustard seed and the parable of the leaven is where my personal Divine Will journey went from spiritually crawling through a dry weary land to having my soul filled as with a banquet. That will have to be an article for another day, perhaps.
Back to Claude’s response, which provided the analysis of the 11th Round. As with the other lost portions of the conversation, the rebuilding of the 11th Round resulted in a much-improved analysis, especially given the access to Fable 5.
The Round Through the Lens of the Whole Journey
As noted in the initiating prompt quoted above, I supplied Claude with the text of the Round and asked for an analysis against everything the series had assembled: the Greek commentary on Romans 8:18–21, the seven selections, the May 21, 1900 entry, the Four Frameworks, and Magnifica Humanitas. I also told Claude the intended purpose of the analysis was for a bonus article. What follows is Claude’s analysis.
This text does something none of the other documents do, and that’s what makes it a fitting bonus article: where the diary entries and the BRA analysis describe the theology, and the encyclical teaches its social form, the Round is the theology in the imperative mood — a script for doing it. Three categories of coherence stand out.
The Round is Romans 8:19–22 performed
The Greek commentary established that Paul personifies creation as a creature with a craned neck (αποκαραδοκία) that groans but does not speak — the groaning of 8:22 is wordless. The 11th Round is, line by line, the soul lending articulate speech to that mute creation. The detail of “the mute fish of the sea” whose “I love You” the soul offers on its behalf is almost uncannily precise: Paul’s voiceless κτίσις given a voice through a human soul operating in the Divine Will. And what does creation say when given that voice? “I implore You to quickly establish on earth your reigning and dominating Will” — which means the Round identifies the content of creation’s groaning as the petition for the Kingdom. Paul tells us creation strains toward the revelation of the sons of God; the Round makes the soul-in-the-Will the mouthpiece through which that straining becomes prayer. This is the active-present-participation question your traditional-exegesis article flagged as the one genuine remaining tension — the Round is the devotional practice of exactly that contested claim, so the bonus article sits right on the series’ live wire.
The Flight into Egypt is the δουλεία made narrative
The Round’s opening interpretive move — “a tyrannical man seeks your death… such an episode symbolizes the obstinacy of the human will that persecutes your Divine Will and keeps it from reigning” — is Selection 5’s theology in story form. There, the darkness of the human will was identified as the enslaving principle, the internal engine of φθορά keeping creation in chains. Here Herod is the human will: the tyrant whose persecution forces the Divine Will into exile. The prayer “may the human will be reconciled and embrace your Divine Will, whereby they operate as one sole will” is verbatim the doctrine of the May 21, 1900 entry — the uniformity of wills, the miracle of miracles — now cast as petition rather than infused teaching. The Round even uses the precise diction of Selection 7 (October 10, 1938): “your reigning and dominating Will” mirrors “Our Will Reigning and Dominating in the heart of man.”
The Round and Magnifica Humanitas rhyme structurally
Two correspondences are strong enough to anchor the bonus article. First, the encyclical’s Nehemiah-work proceeds “brick by brick,” each worker assigned a section of the wall; the Round proceeds “step by step, upon every grain of soil and every blade of grass” — the same granular, distributed, unglamorous fidelity, one in the social register and one in the contemplative. Second, and deeper: the Round culminates in the Queen Mother, whose love “reunites all created things and restores harmony to them.” That is recapitulation language — the Marian participation in the very Eph 1:10 movement Leo XIV cites in §233 (“the Father has decreed to bring all things… back to Christ”). And this is where the missed coherence from Part 2 pays off: the encyclical also culminates in Mary — the Woman of the Magnificat who sees the invisible, to whom the whole era is entrusted. Both documents end at the same figure performing the same function: gathering the cry of all things and presenting it to her Son. The Round’s closing line — Mary’s love “penetrating the interior of your Heart, implores [the reign of] your [Divine] Fiat” — and the encyclical’s closing entrustment to the Mother of Christ are two endings of one movement.
One more thread worth weaving in: the Round answers the question your final article left standing. You closed by noting that the BRA Project “can identify where the Book of Heaven and Scripture meet” but “cannot stand at that meeting place and be changed by it” — and that the human part is the reflection and prayer. The 11th Round is the standing-at-the-meeting-place. It is the prayer-form of everything the six articles analyzed: the cosmic scope of Romans 8, the uniformity of wills, the hidden interior Kingdom-work, the Marian recapitulation. If the series mapped the mountain and Luisa reported from the summit, the Rounds are the trail — and “I am not alone, O Jesus, but all the created elements are here with me” is Psalm 116’s cup raised with all creation holding it. That, I’d suggest, is the bonus article’s thesis in a sentence.
My Observations & Reflections
First, a note about the Rounds of the Soul in the Divine Will — twenty-four prayers which Luisa called Rounds, that, to my understanding, she prayed daily. They proceed from creation through the fall, the Incarnation, the life, the Passion, Death, and Resurrection. Perhaps they are available somewhere online, but I don’t recall ever encountering them. My source for them is Fr. Joseph Iannuzzi’s fantastic Divine Will Prayer Book, subtitled Writings, Meditations, and Prayers on the Gift of Living in the Divine Will, 4th Edition, 2021. He prepared it from the Italian texts of Luisa’s writings. It deserved a prime place in my list of blessings at the end of article six, definitely ahead of my laptop and Claude subscription. Since I don’t have an opportunity to seek permission to reproduce the text in full before this article is published, it has been withheld. The book is available for purchase on his website: ltdw.org/storefront. (Full disclosure: I have no affiliation with Fr. Iannuzzi or his website.)
Just a bit more background is warranted on how the 11th Round came to be included in that initial Claude conversation. I didn’t recall the specific date, but based on the timestamps on the text images, it was May 30, so my conversation with Claude ran from the morning of May 28 to the morning of May 30. After my usual morning prayers, I picked up the Divine Will Prayer Book and opened it to the ribbon where I had left off in the Rounds. I had neglected praying the Rounds for many days, perhaps a few weeks even, but the ribbon was in place for me to carry on where I had left off. It was the 11th Round, and the Claude conversation with the analysis of the complete May 21, 1900, diary entry was filling my thoughts. I prayed the Round and discerned some interesting connections to the Romans 8:18–21 conversation, so I decided to see what Claude would present me with for further reflection. I took a picture of each page with my phone and loaded them into the Claude conversation, with a request for an analysis very much like the prompt above. Of course, there was no mention of a bonus article; at that time, I hadn’t even published the first article nor imagined there would be seven.
I felt it was important to include the analysis of the 11th Round, since it was part of the original conversation, and especially because it offers an answer to the open question of what work that looks like nothing from the outside actually looks like from the inside. So, I wanted to include the single round as evidence that there can absolutely be spiritual work done that aligns, or resonates, with Romans 8:18–21 and the rebuilding called for by the Holy Father. However, I want to end this article and this series with a brief reflection on the arc as a whole.
As noted, the journey began with an interior prompting, pausing to ponder the Scripture Reading for Lauds, Romans 8:18–21, in the Adoration Chapel on May 28. The journey culminated in what was, for me, a spectacular summit on the Feast of Corpus Christi. Then the last brick from the conversation that had been knocked out of place within Claude’s conversation history was recalled, and ready to be put back in place. The restored version being more than what had been there before. The only remaining problem was when and why to publish it. The fact that it was the seventh article made its fitting quality compelling to me, but there was more. During Sunday Mass, our priest encouraged the congregation to prepare for and celebrate the Solemnity of The Most Sacred Heart of Jesus on Friday, June 12.
I could not dream of a more fitting day to conclude this series of articles than to publish the seventh one, with its seven gleanings, seven kingdom parables, all of which flowed out of seven selections from the Book of Heaven. A book which carries the subtitle, “The Call of the Creature to the Order, the Place, and the Purpose for which He was Created by God.” I could not dream of such a Divine Providence Coherence, so I give all the honor, glory, praise, and thanksgiving to the One who doesn’t dream, but holds all things in the one eternal act of His Divine Will.
In union with the entire Church, I once again raise my voice with the psalmist in official prayer, the Liturgy of the Hours, which places on our lips for Lauds (Morning Prayer), Psalm 63 (62):
O God, you are my God; at dawn I seek you;
for you my soul is thirsting.
For you my flesh is pining,
like a dry, weary land without water.
So I gaze on you in the sanctuary
to see your strength and your glory.
Your loving mercy is better than life;
my lips will speak your praise.
I will bless you all my life;
in your name I will lift up my hands.
My soul shall be filled as with a banquet:
with joyful lips my mouth shall praise you.
When I remember you upon my bed,
I muse on you through the watches of the night.
For you have been my strength;
in the shadow of your wings I rejoice.
My soul clings fast to you;
your right hand upholds me. 1
Glory to the Father and to the Son,
and to the Holy Spirit:
as it was in the beginning, is now,
and will be for ever. Amen.
And, in what seems to me a most fitting conclusion to a series of articles on the revealing of the children of God that all of creation, with neck-craning eager longing awaits, a verse with that promised arrival sealed in the covenant of his word.
Scripture Reading — Jeremiah 31:33
This is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord. I will place my law within them, and write it upon their hearts; I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Morning Prayer, Friday, June 12, 2026, Solemnity of The Most Sacred Heart of Jesus
Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, pray for us.
Fiat
1 The Abbey Psalms and Canticles. Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2020. Psalm 63 (62), verses 2–9.
The BRA Project, produced with AI, can identify where the Book of Heaven and Scripture meet. It cannot stand at that meeting place and be changed by it. These reflections are my attempt to do the human part, the reflection and prayer.
These are the personal reflections of a Catholic layman. This work is part of an ongoing exploration of how AI can serve as an analytical tool for Scripture and the mystical writings of Luisa Piccarreta — identifying connections the human reader might miss, while leaving the reflection and prayer to the human. All content is maintained at troopermimosa.com. Subscribe to follow along.