I've decided to set this poll up here instead of in the debate table because I'm not looking for a debate, and I don't want this thread to cause complications in our dialogue with non-Catholics on that forum who already have their hands full with a number of other important topics like salvation.

As I told another PM'er, this has always just been a non-issue for me. I've never decided I believe in any of the apparitions, nor have I ever really studied them, nor do I outright reject the possibility of an apparition happening. But studying our faith, there have been many more pressing topics. I think the vast majority of the "Look its Jesus in an oil stain on the drive way" are the workings of overactive imaginations.

so, pro-apparition people, why do you believe in them? I'm looking for more than 'the Church says so". Blind faith is fine, but I've decided in the little spare time I have to read up a little on this topic since it means so much to so many Catholics.

What apparitions are you most fond of, and why? How are these apparitions Christocentric (CT 5-6)? How do they move others to faith. I know I'm going to get a lot of generalities, so I'm really looking for specific instances from different apparitions, and no, I don't have time to read a book, though I will do some short reading, though I'd prefer not to be linked to death. I'd like to hear from you personally as well.

Blessings,
Adam

Im indifferent, to be honest.
I dont know enough about them in order to make a decision one way or another. I would like to visit some, like Lourdes, for one.

Sorry I wasnt more helpful.

Fatima and Lourdes are two of my favorites.

Why?

The public miracles, witnessed by thousands.
The prophecy
The saints

Do you pray the Rosary? If so, why? Is it just the result of an overactive imagination?

Do you pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet? If so, why? Is it just the result of an overactive imagination?

Even though apparitions are not part of the deposit of faith and nobody is obliged to believe them, they are part and parcel to being a Catholic.

In this discussion it's necessary to separate the legitimate, time tested Marian apparitions from the oil spots on the driveway and the stains on the bottom of the tea cup type of signs that you're alluding to.

I give a hesitent 'yes'.

Just a quick search will reveal my skepticism for certain apparitions (i.e., Medjugorje). I give my consent to approved apparitions, mostly because the Church says so...

However, more than just a "because the Church says so" answer from me is that I look at the aftermath... the miraculous medal (the most popular marian medal) is the direct result of an apparition, much of the Rosary (the Fatima prayer, and some say even the Rosary itself) is also the result of one or more approved apparitions. All the Church approved apparitions of Mary seem to have an effect on the building up of the entire Church (she said to St. Bernadette, "I am the Immaculate Conception"), etc. now obviously the dogma was not based solely on this apparition, but the apparition, in a sense, confirmed the general movement of the Church and came at an appropriate time to build up the faithful.

I believe in them. I guess they mean something to me because I have a very strong devotion to Mary. I'm suspicious of the ones that aren't approved, but as for the ones that are... why do I believe in them? It's just mom workin', doing her thing.

I think they can move others to faith because, well, what a more wonderful way to go to Jesus than through His own mother? I can't get too specific about my own experience without referring you to books. And apparitions aren't a big focus of mine, although I can appreciate it when people share messages with me. But Mary is the one who is and continues to convert me to her Son, pretty much. She's been a wicked amazing channel of grace to me. So it kinda warms my heart to know she's appearing to people all over the place and doing the same thing to others, y'know? Anyways. You said you didn't want generalities, my apologies, sah!

Glad you started this topic BA. It shows an openness in the area that relieves some of my concern.



I actually agree with this paragraph and like what you have stated. The Catholic faith is broad and vast and we don't need to be experts in it all on some level. An openness to these things is important. I do agree that alot of the oil stains on the driveway, mary in tree bark (I saw this over the weekend) Virgin Mary grilled cheese actually does more damage to the Catholic faith by making it look ridiculous. Though I will not completely rule out all of these, I do think EXTREME caution is neccessary.

As to why I am in favor of SOME of the apparitions, because the Church is wiser than I and has approved of several is the first and foremost reason for me. But this did not prevent me from studying the issue any more than because the Church says that the Eucharist is the body and blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, this should prevent me from a deeper understanding and a faith based on logic and reason as well. First of all I see that there were apparitions in scripture and so no reason why they would have stopped at the close of the NT. Angels, Moses, Elijah, relatives of those livng in Jerusalem, and of course John's vision in Rev 12 which I truly believe was the first apparition of the blessed mother.

Secondly I cannot reconcile non-belief in them with belief in the Catholic faith. At least with regard to approved apparitions. If St. Dominic, Juan Diego, the three fatima children, St. Bernadette, and Sister Faustina (to name a non-marian one) were liars or were seeing an angel of light then the Church is very decieved in promoting the prayers (rosary, chaplet of divine mercy, oh my jesus forgive us our sins....etc. etc) that grew out of and were promoted by these apparitions. I can't reconcile the open promotion of them unless the apparitions that raised them to the level of a valid practice of the Church highly recommended to be performed on a daily basis, unless the apparition behind them is in fact true.

Thirdly I have studied apparitions in general. The preponderance of evidence and the number of witnesses to events surrounding them, ie. the apperance of Mary in Egypt, seen by tens of thousands or perhaps a 100,000 as I recall, the miricle of the sun at fatima also seen by tens of thousands, the tilma of etc. etc.Juan Diego, etc. etc. makes it, for those who have studied these things difficult to deny them and it builds my faith. It also makes sense with Catholic Marian theology the way these things have occured and I think they point beautifully to what is happening in the world, to prophecies about the trimumph of the immucalate heart and the way that JPII declared 2004 as the year of the blessed mother and 2005 as the years of the Eucharist. I see incredibly apocolyptic implications in all of this. When it is all said and done we will be amazed at what these apparitions have shown about the final events in history. Also the way I think Fatima in particular ties in with the muslims has implications about the future. The issue between Christianity and Islam I believe must come to some sort of a head before the end of time.

As to how are they Christocentric, I have read the messages of many of the apparitions. The rosary we know is very christocentric, being about his life, death, and resurrection. Many protestants have complained that the apparitions try to take the glory for Mary. I find nothing to be further from the truth. Promotion of the rosary is the mother pointing to her son. Further in the messages I have studied Mary talkes about her son (names him in some fashion) almost 50:1 over saying things like "I am the Immaculate conception". i.e. speaking of herself in any way. When she says such things, just as with the council of Ephesus which used Marian doctrine to flesh out who Christ was, her words about herself point to who Christ was. Well that's it off the top of my head for starters. Hope it helps.

I do not recommend what I would call Mary chasing, that is looking for every apparition and every log that looks like the blessed mother. One could waste alot of time out in the woods looking for something to sell on ebay. However I think as a part of the total package, cautiously keeping an ear to the wind, with discernment, listening carefully toward the Church, one can use apparitions as a faith builder, innoculating the soul against a possible fall. This of course must always be tempered with a dose of making sure that Marian Apparitions or a certain apparition isn't the reason for beleiving.

Blessings

Thess

I will perhaps add that my openness toward such phenomena is likely influence by my mother who I think held a similar discernment to mine in such matters. She was also cautiously open to them and trusted highly in the view of the Church in these matters.

Thanks for the replies. I appreciate the honesty.

And I'm glad your relieved Thess though it bugs the hell out of me when people disagree with me so it automatically means I'm going to become a Protestant again. It couldn't be any further from the truth. I'm accused of being a Protestant all the time because I dont' believe in the charasmatic movement. Now figure that one out!!!!!!!!

Oh, I don't think your going to become a protestant. Sorry for any offense.

You pretty much covered my thoughts . . . I don't think belief is essential . . . I do think that they reflect a more "activist" communion of the saints than most people are willing to credit . . . given the investigation the Church puts into apparitions before approval, I am willing to accept their findings, rather than go do the work myself . . . I also think there is a lot in Fides comment that the aftermath may be the leading indicator.

Well like I've said in other threads- i used to be an agnostic. When I first came back to the faith I thought Marian devotion was reminscent of polytheism. However, i felt moved to accept her as my mother because the Church accepts her as its mother. I began to pray the rosary frequently- and it has enriched my life so much. It's brought me so much closer to Christ- closer than i ever thought possible. After having a set of prayer beads totally reverse my skepticism in such a short time- I tend to have an open mind about Marian apparitions.

Most certainly the Churches witness in the aftermath is the greatest testimony to their authenticity. But we must be careful here. A part of the authenticity for instance of fatima, by which the church judged it was the fruits during and the witnesses during the events. The spirit most certainly moves some to participate in the event. There were sixty or seventy thousand who saw the miracle of the sun at fatima. This added to it's authenticity and the Churches eventual possitive judgement. God gave this miracle for the benefit of all. Not just those who experienced it. So I guess my point is that we should not be afraid of these events or of participating in them but doing it with discression, listening to the Church along the way even if the apparition is not approved officially. Especially since this doesn't come until after they are over. If we all waited till they were over alot of the evidence to authenticate them would not be there. There would be no fruit of the apparition for the Church to judge it by.

Are Marian apparitions part of the deposit of faith?

I don't think so.

But to "disbelieve" something the Church has given approval to is somewhat oxymoronic, in a sense (not saying anything specifically to you or anyone else... just saying in general)...

I don't think so, not necessarily. I think it falls along the lines of the interpretation of creation. Most clergy and bishops are evolutionists, but it is perfectly acceptable to be a creationist, it is a matter of science. This is a matter of personal devotion/private revelation. I'm not sure 'approval' is in any way attached to necessity as much as it is attached to 'not harmful to the faith'.

Emphasis is mine.

With regard to MA's being a part of the deposit of the faith, I would first say that the one that John had in Rev 12 was. However the rest of it is a bit tricky I think because while they are not a part of the deposit of the faith they are a part of the life of the Church. The living out of the deposit of the faith. We are given the means through the Church to discern them. They are the grace of God for mankind to motivate them to live the Gospel. Those that are consistent with the Gospel are authentic. They transmit the Gospel to us and give us a greater understanding of the depth of it. To ask this question of them ("are they a part of the deposit of the faith" is like asking if the priest standing up at Mass is a part of the deposit of the faith in some sense. He is not the Gospel but he is a part of the means that God uses to transmit the Gospel. If someone comes to us along the street and gives us something we need to hear and God intends for us to hear we are accountable for that are we not. If our wife tells us we spend to much time on the ocmputer and not enough with the kids are we to say "well that's not a part of the deposit of the faith".
So I am not sure that the question is a valid one. Each is accountable fore the grace and light he is given no matter how God communicates it to them and we should not be closed to a valid form of his communication. The Church holds apparitions as one means of God's communication to us. It approves them. We are under some obligation here.

Blessings

I completely agree with you.

I am a stong believer in Fatima, Lourdes

a) The evidence that is presented is unwavering, we have the testimonies of the 3 children seers in Fatima who choose death by boiling rather than reveal break Our Ladys instructions.

Bernadette was tried countless times and suffered through so much and still remained true to Our Lady.

b) There was a solid message attached to each that is a call for conversion of hearts and a return to the Catholic faith

c) Countless miricales attached to each, most notible the miricle of the sun witnessed by 70 000 people at Fatima.

d) As for prophecy, we have to predictions of the end to WWI the begining of WWII the rise of Communism etc.

Also with Fatima we have the dates that things happen. It seems everything attached to Fatima happens on the 13. Oct 13 Our Lady appears. Sr. Lucy dies on a 13. its Chilling.

I'm not sold on Marian apparitions being the same thing as your wife telling you that you spend too much time on the computer. Perhaps it can be a means of communication, but it is said that so can dreams and so can babbling nonsense and calling it tongues. Certianly I appreciate the faith people have in them. Because they are private revelation I see nothing that would bind a Catholic in believing in them that had trouble believing in them. I've come to the conclusion that they are not in any sense obligatory. It is obligatory that one is baptized, absolutely necessary, so I compare it in that sense. Certianly there is a hierarchy of truths to consider here as well. Don't get me wrong, I love Mary, she has brought me to Jesus on more than one occassion, but the whole MA thing still sits entirely uneasy with me.

The simple point is that God speaks to us in many ways. There is nothing that does not speak of God in some fashion. " If today you hear his voice harden not your hearts.," . These (at least the real ones) are either real or the Church is being decieved. I don't see how one can draw the later conclusion.

I posted a story several weeks ago about a man who was leading a very hedonistic lifestyle, drugs, sex, theft, you name it. A book on Medjougorie, converted him. He was transformed from a hateful, selfish person to a loving one hungry for God and has become a very devout Catholic preist. It's an amazing story. So has he been decieved in to becoming a priest?

Any manner of means can draw us closer to God, Protestant included. That doesn't make something like an apparition authentic, simply becaue of the faith of the onlooker.

Brother Adam, it appears we have something in common (not that I didn't think we did before, but we may be in the exact same boat on this one).

Last semester, I had a "crisis of Mary." I had to write a paper on 21st century Mariology (a brief summary of Mariology with a particular focus on the latter 20th century). And during my researching, I really began to name and identify things I had never previously contemplated about Mary. Now, lest I get off track here, Marian Apparitions.

One of the books I used for my research looked at the historical/cultural context from which each apparition arose. For me, the question is a more radical one than are these true, are these part of the deposit of faith, is this just someone's overactive imagination. My question is this: Do the presence of these apparitions indicate/ hint toward greater problems/ deficiencies in the life of the Church?

Before I elaborate, know first that I mean no disrespect to anyone with this statement. But the question still remains. I wonder if the peasant Church of France or Mexico saw in Mary a heroine because the Church wasn't acknoweldging the plights of the people. And if I may be so bold, if strictly masculine images of the divine left something more to be desired.

I feel as if my thoughts are somewhat scattered. But I agree with Brother Adam when he said above that here is something about Marian apparitions in general that makes me feel uneasy as well. I am thankful for dialogues such as this that allow all parties to deepen their faith. God Bless!

Shortnun,

"crisis of mary"???? Sounds like you were opening yourself up to being persuaded by dissenting view. What you are saying is that basically Lords and Guadalupe may well have been creations of the people in those areas and the stories are contrived. The Church was fooled. I think you should throw that book in the trash. Gudalupe has nothing to do with life in the Church. The people there in general were not Catholic but 9 million converted as a result of the apparitions. Do you think they were decieved in to becoming Catholic? I mean no disrespect either but have a serious problem with the nature of your post. I don't condemn anyone who doesn't go gung ho in to marrian apparitions. They should be approached with some caution. But to undermine them in the way that your post has is a serious error in my view. You've crossed the line with regard to submission to the Church.

As for Marian Apparitions being a deposit of the faith, this is an invalid question. They are a part of the life of the Church. God has given us the means to discern his voice in the various ways he speaks to us. The Church applies those means which are a part of the deposit of the faith and has approved some Marian Apparitions. You undermine this approval with your questions and your posts. Yes, I am a bit steamed but have thought about your posts for several days so I am not just speaking off the handle. Your post second guesses the judgement of the Church concerning approved apparitions. That for me crosses the line of submission.

For a minute there I thought you just up and disappeared

You haven't even come close to proving your point. Speaking in tongues is approved by the Church and is practiced by many Catholics and leads to conversions, yet nearly every Catholic here would assert that rejecting speaking in tongues as babbling non-sense is an acceptable point of view. There really is no reason to take this personally or to get steamed. It is not an attack on the Church or on Mary.

Blessings,
Adam

Your post is nonsense. Individual instances of speaking in tongues are not approved by the Church. And yes, if one undermines the decisions of the Church regarding individual apparitions I think that is quite a different matter. I am not taking it personally. I do however rebuke those who put themselves above the judgements of the Church. Her post crossed the line. So it seems do you.

By the way, I do think that faithful Catholics can be rebuked. Paul gives us an example in Galations I believe.

This is not entirely true. The person receiving the private revelation IS obliged to believe it and to act on it.

Firstoff, there is no way that one could have an authentic conversion JUST by hearing someone speaking in tongues, even if they were/are authentic. So your arguement fails on that alone. As I said above there are no approved post apostolic incidents of tongue speaking so your analogy also fails on that point.

I would certainly hope that they would not say those incidents of Acts 2 and Acts 10 are not babbling nonsense. If the Church approved of a certain instance of tongue speaking as authentic I would hope they would not say it is nonsense. As for my example with the preist the issue with his conversion was not just the apparition but the Gospel message that went with it and in particular the message of the Eucharist that was conveyed correctly through the apparitions. I think the fruit of Medjogorie will bear out it's authenticity but time will tell.

I am also aware that arguements will never convince those who don't want to be convinced.

That was deep.




The charismatic movement, along with everything that comes with it, is approved by the Church. That includes tongues, unless you're saying the Church is stupid and doesn't know about the 'gift of tongues' that is praticed.



No, I don't think it is. The Church does not require one to believe in apparitions, nor do they require Catholics to pray the rosary.



Then you are blinded by what I am truly asserting. I haven't in any way put myself above the judgments of the Church. I have said before, and will say it again, I reserve judgment on apparitions, just as I reserve judgment on the approved charism of speaking in tongues. I don't disagree with the Church.



No it didn't, and it is your fantasy to induldge in if you want to continue to assert that it did.

Then you haven't been to Franciscan.

You're not doing to hot yourself buddy.



See previous post.



Yes, let's stretch your argument to say that we are saying what we are not saying .Sounds like Jack Chick and John McCarthy to me! Protestant tendancies indeed!



The purpose of an argument isn' t to convince anyone of anything.

I just lost all respect for you. If you wish to personally slam me with ad hom take it offline . There, say what you like. Bye.

Authentic Marian Apparitions (one of the criteria used for judgment by the Church) tend to have lasting conversions.

I daresay "lasting" is a problematic word for Steubenville conversions-- especially people who would be converted by someone speaking in tongues at a FOP or whathaveyou.

I DO believe in the gift of tongues. What I criticize in the modern-day babble without interpretation. Tongues is meant to BUILD up the Church (read St. Paul's letters)... tongues without interpretation in a public setting is blantantly false.

I know this is off topic, because this isn't about Marian Apparitions, but I have been reading this very heated thread with interest. Adam, I noticed that you made mention above that the Church doesn't require us to believe in the Rosary. I was wondering, perhaps it was from the tone of the rest of the thread that made me curious, but do you believe in the Rosary? Do you pray the Rosary? I was just wondering where that example came from. I don't wish to start a debate, I was just trying to ascertain your views.

I pray the rosary daily. As I said, I love Mary, and she has brought me to her son Jesus more times than I can count.

+Blessings+

NO FAITHFUL CATHOLIC HAS A RIGHT TO UNDERMINE OFFICIALLY APPROVED MARIAN APPARITIONS. KEEP SUCH DISSENT TO YOURSELF UNLESS YOU HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING SUCH DISSENT THAT AIDES YOU IN YOUR UNDERSTANDING AND SUBMISSION TO THE CHURCHES OFFICIAL DECISIONS.

This is an important point. If one has followed the bayside appartions eventually those who were caught up in them followed after them when they became disobedient and antagonistic toward the Church WHILE THEY WERE OCCURRING. There was also some alleged appartions in the Church that many preists and religous supported. Toward the end of them they also became disobedient toward the Church and many of those converted through them followed after the schism that was caused by them. The fruit they bore ended up rotten.

I'm sorry that you don't really have any clue as to my, or shortnun's position. I think you need to take a few more days off

But it's getting close.... Let's keep this friendly, or it's getting moved.

SN's post undermined the Church position on this matter. That is clear. What her exact view is matters little beyond that. I think I'm done.

Never mind.

I still respect you. I don't think you are exactly faultless here. Neither am I. Communication over the internet is difficult oftentimes. I know for a fact that you don't understand my position, and I very well probably don't understand where you are coming from.

PCPA2Be,

I'm not looking for debate either. Could you though, offer your own testimony perhaps on why you affirm apparitions, what you looked into perhaps, what evidence you discovered that the Church also considered? Thanks. Or anyone for that matter, even Thess. I'm leaving the 'with holding judgment vs. acceptance' discussion behind as it caused too many ill feelings, and this isn't the place to discuss it anymore.

I think the point Thess is trying to make (he can correct me if I'm wrong) is something along the lines of the statement I brought up earlier...


Basically, you give your assent to the Church, except when she makes judgments concerning private revelations.

It's the same Church. The same Church that judges right doctrine somehow can't judge private revelation correctly?

Call me crazy, but I don't see how that flies.

^ that was the turning point for me, honestly. If I couldn't give my assent to the Church (not dogmatic assent.. there are different kinds of assent) in ALL areas, than I wasn't truly following the Church, I was still picking and choosing in the cafeteria, so to speak.

Do I give the same assent to Marian apparitions that I do to Marian dogma? No. Dogma and private revelation are not the same thing, one is higher (namely, dogma). But I still give my faithful assent to apparitions because the Church has declared them valid and the Church cannot lead me astray.

If anyone would to chime on on what I asked earlier, feel free too. No sense in arguing about something when we aren't going to understand each other as it is right?

Actually nevermind. After re-reading the entire thread I see I really have all the information I need and I see exactly where and why it broke down, which is mainly because people just were not understanding what others were saying. There is also a difference between non-belief and suspended judgment in light of greater study. If I cannot say in good conscience that I believe in this or that apparition, than I would be lying to say that I did.

That said I consider the matter closed.

Your early posts did not bother me. I understand in fact where you are coming from and my harsh words are not against someone who struggles with this matter. But seemed to support someone who expressed an opinion that the Church may have been decieved regarding validly approved apparitions. I can't go along with that in any manner and will rebuke it every time. It is over the edge.

I don't believe in the inane, such as finding Mary in a grilled cheese and selling it on ebay. . .or seeing her in a tree trunk as happened here several years ago. That's just. . . like seeing Jesus in the clouds when you're laying on your back looking up and daydreaming.

As for apparitions themselves, yes I believe in them. I know that God still speaks to people, and also does so through his Blessed Mother. I also believe, well, it wouldn't surprise me if many of the apparitions today were true simply because we are living in such a crazy, toxic world that NEEDS her help and her warnings to mend our ways.

I believe in her appearances, also based on the conversions and especially when prophecy comes true. That said, let me clarify. I believe in Church approved apparitions. I reserve judgement for those who haven't yet been approved, not only for Church approval, but also because 'by their fruits. . .' However, I am more likely to show an interest in one that has the beginnings of an approval...not sure what it's called, where the Church says that thus far, there is nothing said that contradicts Church teachings.

My favorite is Fatima, with Lourdes a close second. Others? I mean, I've read about them . . .but those are the ones that have warmed my heart the most with Fatima motivating me to conversion more intimately. I hope that makes sense.

God bless you.

I know I said I was done but I have another thought that I need to put in to words.

I also find in some sense the arguement that "Marian appartions aren't a part of the deposit of the faith" to be a red herring and a straw man at the same time. For something to be a part of the deposit of the faith it must have been TAUGHT since the apostles. An apparaition being a true even or a false one is not really what is TAUGHT by the Church. Faith and morals are taught. Dogma/doctrine is taught. The existence of Pius XII is not a part of the deposit of the faith. However whether or not the dogma of the Assumption HAS ALWAYS BEEN HELD AS DOCTRINE IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH is. We all most certainly believe that Pius XII has always existed. However in a sense his declaration on the Assumption is only a part of the deposit of the faith in that his words capture the true teachings of the Church throughout 2000 years and expound upon it consistent with the deposit of faith (developement of doctrine). Marian Apparitions are first primarily judged on whether they are consistent with Church teaching i.e. deposit of the faith. If some part of them is not consistent with the deposit of the faith the Church uses this criteria to automitically reject them. If a particular apparitoin is approved, what it askes the faithful to do has to be completely consistent with the deposit of the faith . Thus the reasoning that it is not a part of the deposit of the faith is miguided in my view. This is another reason why one would not neccessarily explicitly have to believe in an apparition if they in fact are doing what the Church asks anyway. The two should be equal in a valid apparition. Therefore the purpose of apparitions from God seems to be more motivational. They cannot add to the deposit of the faith.

The question of if the apparitions are part of the deposit of faith doesn't ultimately prove or disprove their authenticity or the need to believe in them. My question was a simple one, and an honest one - are they part of the deposit. A 'no' really would have sufficed and we could have moved on. My argument is not based on this question alone. (an argument that I did not have time to develop as things went quickly down hill).

Objectively, no Catholic is required to believe in private revelation or have devotion to private revelation, even that which is approved by the Church. Now the question is, what does approval by the Church actually mean? I don't believe it means that faith in them is necessary because as we said, objectively, no Catholic is required to believe in them. No Catholic is however free to declare that they are made up fantasies, and I never indicated anything of the sort. I'm not positive with a close reading of sn's post that she did either. Basically until one puts some study in for themselves to 'suspend judgment' or to defer to the Church is a good thing, and an honest thing. Suspending judgment is not rejection, but it shows that there is no active devotion, to which we are not required. If we were to be devoted and have faith in all private revelation we would never make it past our morning prayers.

I realize now that the poll is somewhat ambigous to the point I wished to make.

So...

No active devotion to something approved by the Church=suspending judgment?

What would be the point/purpose of this? Why not give assent?