Private Revelation

[Brother Adam]

If none of the faithful is required to believe in private revelation (it is not binding), does it not seem odd that one would be allowed to not believe in private revelation approved by the Church? What do you think approval actually constitutes?

[Era Might]

The approval of the Church simply means that the apparition is officially cleared for public devotion and adherence.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 15 2006, 10:12 AM']The approval of the Church simply means that the apparition is officially cleared for public devotion and adherence.
[right][snapback]912280[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

So it is a declaration of authenticity?

[Era Might]

Also important is that private revelations can only receive HUMAN faith, never DIVINE faith:

[quote]It is not obligatory nor even possible to give them the assent of Catholic faith, but only of human faith, in conformity with the dictates of prudence, which presents them to us as probable and worthy of pius belief).

--Pope Benedict (the Fourteenth, not Papa Ratzi)[/quote]

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 15 2006, 10:13 AM']Also important is that private revelations can only receive HUMAN faith, never DIVINE faith:
[right][snapback]912282[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

what does that mean? Human faith and divine faith?

[Era Might]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Mar 15 2006, 11:13 AM']So it is a declaration of authenticity?
[right][snapback]912281[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No, it is a declaration that the faithful can piously believe it is authentic. But the Church does not take an opinion herself, except as a prudential judgement that it is LIKELY legitimate.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Mar 15 2006, 11:14 AM']what does that mean? Human faith and divine faith?
[right][snapback]912284[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Human faith means that we can only assent to private revelations based on our prudential judgement on its truthfulness. If the facts tend to support it, then we can exercise a pious HUMAN faith in the facts, as best we know them. But there is no guarantee that we are right.

The assent of Divine faith means that we assent not because we've weighed the facts and things look like they may be true, but we submit to a teaching because it is revealed by Christ or proposed by the Church for definitive belief.

Human faith is based on prudence, whereas Divine faith is based on the supernatural gift of faith.

Edited March 15, 2006 by Era Might

[Brother Adam]

Can someone judge the authenticity of a private revelation, even after the Church has given approval?

[Era Might]

Yes, because the Church does not judge a private revelation authentic. She simply ensures its doctrinal fidelity and opens it up for the pious adherence of the faithful.

The Church does not teach "Fatima is a legitimate apparition". Rather, she says "Fatima seems to be a message from God. After examining it, we will open it for public devotion." But that devotion is never compulsory.

[thessalonian]

This paragraph from the CCC is pertinent.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.
Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations".

Edited March 15, 2006 by thessalonian

[cmotherofpirl]

Would that not go against the Church that says its authentic? Take Fatima or Lourdes, for example. There are huge shrines there, built by the Church staffed by priests with Masses said daily. Do you think that would happen if the Church didn't not beleive them worthy of belief?

Are you falling for the chronological snobbery thing? That people were dumber in the past and believed things without proof?

[Era Might]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Mar 15 2006, 11:23 AM']Would that not go against the Church that says its authentic?  Take Fatima or Lourdes, for example. Trere are huge shrines there, built by the Church staffed by priests with Masses said daily. Do you think that would happen if the Church didn't not beleive them worthy of belief?

Are you falling for the chronological snobbery thing? That people  were dumber in the past and believed things without proof?
[right][snapback]912293[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The Church does believe it worthy of belief. That's different from saying she believes it is a real apparition. Her judgement is based on prudence, not any authority from the Deposit of Faith.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Mar 15 2006, 10:23 AM']
Are you falling for the chronological snobbery thing? That people  were dumber in the past and believed things without proof?
[right][snapback]912293[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Who are you talking too?

[Era Might]

As for the dumb thing, the dumb people are still with us. They sell grilled coagulated milk apparitions on Ebay. :

[thessalonian]

This seems helpful:


[url="http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/apparitions.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/apparitions.htm[/url]

The whole article is worth reading.

Some private revelations, however, the Church has accepted as credible, calling them constat de supernaturalitate (that is, they give evidence of a supernatural intervention). Such private revelations cannot correct or add anything essentially new to Public Revelation; however, they may contribute to a deeper understanding of the faith, provide new lines of theological investigation (such as suggested by the revelations to St. Margaret Mary on the Sacred Heart), or recall mankind prophetically to the living of the Gospel (as at Fátima). No private revelation can ever be necessary for salvation, though its content may obviously coincide with what is necessary for salvation as known from Scripture and Tradition. The person who believes the teachings of the Magisterium, utilizes devoutly the sacramental means of sanctification and prayer, and remains in Communion with the Pope and the bishops in union with him, is already employing the necessary means of salvation. A private revelation may recall wayward individuals to the faith, stir the devotion of the already pious, encourage prayer and penance on behalf of others, but it cannot substitute for the Catholic faith, the sacraments and hierarchical communion with the Pope and bishops.

Another way of saying this is that private revelations may not be believed with divine and Catholic Faith. They rest on the credibility of the evidence in favor of a supernatural origin. In the case of private revelations approved by the highest authority in the Church we can say with Pope Benedict XIV,

Although an assent of Catholic faith may not be given to revelations thus approved, still, an assent of human faith, made according to the rules of prudence, is due them; for according to these rules such revelations are probable and worthy of pious credence. [De Serv. Dei Beatif.]

The Pope is saying that a Catholic, seeing that the Church (and here the Holy See is meant, as only it's acts can be of universal effect) has investigated and approved certain revelations, is being prudent to give them human assent. That acceptance does not rest on the guarantee of Faith, or the charism of infallibility, but on the credibility of the evidence as it appeals to reason. The assent involved is not supernatural but the natural assent that the intellect gives to facts which it judges to be true. Approved private revelations are thus worthy of our acceptance and can be of great benefit to the faithful, for as the Catechism of the Catholic Church notes,

Edited March 15, 2006 by thessalonian

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 15 2006, 10:25 AM']As for the dumb thing, the dumb people are still with us. They sell grilled coagulated milk apparitions on Ebay.  :
[right][snapback]912296[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Are they dumb, or are the people who buy them dumb?

[thessalonian]

More from the above article.

Types of Decisions.

The decision of the local bishop should be one of the following: 1) constat de supernaturalitate (established as supernatural), 2) constat de non supernaturalitate (established as not supernatural); or 3) non constat de supernaturalitate (not established as supernatural).

1. Constat de supernaturalitate.[b] An apparition judged supernatural (formerly called worthy of belief) has manifested signs or evidence of being an authentic or truly miraculous intervention from heaven. This judgment is possible when there is evidence of supernatural phenomena, sound doctrine, moral probity, mental health and sound piety of the seer(s) and enduring good fruits among the faithful.[/b]
The issue of supernaturality is one that deserves to be explored more fully. According to the common teaching of the Church, most extraordinary phenomena in the mystical order (visions, apparitions, locutions, ecstasies, mystical knowledge etc.) are caused by angels acting on God's behalf. Whether the burning bush which Moses saw, the ecstatic flights of St. Joseph Cupertino, the stigmata of St. Francis or the revelations of St. Catherine, the general rule in the spiritual order is that God does not do immediately and directly what can be done mediately through a lower order nature, in this case the good angels. The presence of such phenomenon is not, therefore, unequivocal evidence of supernaturality. Each of the approved apparitions have had such clear signs, from the instantaneous and inexplicable cures at Lourdes to the natural prodigy of October 13th 1917 in Fátima, but also the other marks of authenticity mentioned above.

2. Constat de non supernaturalitate. The judgment that an alleged apparition has been shown to be not supernatural means it is either clearly not miraculous or lacks sufficient signs of the miraculous. Private revelation, for example, which is doctrinally dangerous or which manifests hostility to lawful authority could not come from God. It could even be demonic, especially if there are extraordinary signs accompanying it. The devil gladly mingles truth and lie to deceive the faithful, dazzling them with signs and wonders to give credence to his message. His purpose is to separate them from the Church, either by getting them to believe things contrary to the deposit of the faith or to act contemptuously of Church authority. An attitude of pride and judgment toward the Church is a clear sign of his presence. An alleged revelation may also only be a pious rambling, consistent with faith and morals, but lacking evidence of being anything more than the product of human effort. No fraud need be intended, only an active imagination. Finally, it may be that the doctrine may be sound and there may be phenomena, but insufficient to demonstrate supernaturality. In this latter case, there would seem to be a possibility of revision.

3. Non constat de supernaturalitate. Finally, it may not be evident whether or not the alleged apparition is authentic. This judgment would seem to be completely open to further evidence or development.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Responsibility of the Faithful. Today there are a myriad of alleged private revelations and apparitions vying for the attention of the faithful. None have been definitively judged by the Holy See, some have been approved by local authority (e.g. Akita, Cuapa, Betania), others have been found lacking in supernaturality (e.g. Medjugorje, Garabandal), some few have been condemned (e.g. Necedah, Bayside) and finally, the vast majority have received no attention from Church authorities whatsoever.

[b]The first responsibility of the faithful is to remain firmly established in the faith, in the sacraments and in communion with the Pope and bishops. Any Catholic who gives their primary attention to alleged private revelation at the expense of Sacred Scripture, the teaching of the Church (especially the Catechism), sacramental practice, prayer and fidelity to Church authority is off course. The running after spiritual phenomena, such as alleged revelations, is condemned by St. John of the Cross as spiritual avarice. This means that pious souls who would be repulsed by crude materialistic greed think nothing of being greedy to know revelations and prophecies. [/b]An exclusive, or even a predominant attention to these matters (especially apocalyptic ones), cannot help but produce an unbalanced spirituality. Should the Church condemn some favorite alleged revelation such a person may find themselves believing more in it than in the supernatural authority of the Church. The devil will have succeeded in what he had set out to do.

[b]The second responsibility is to have regard, in the first place, for those private revelations and apparitions approved by the Church.[/b] Within a balanced practice of the faith the edifying content of approved private revelations can be a motive for deeper piety and fidelity to the Gospel. God has chosen to give guidance to the Church in particular eras in this way and we would,[b] as I noted above, be imprudent to disregard altogether what are credibly His prophetic interventions in the life of His Church.[/b]
Finally, there are many other private revelations that have not received Church approval. The Second Vatican Council urges us to discern the Spirit in the case of such extraordinary graces [Lumen gentium 12], which means being neither gullible or incredulous, but subjecting them to all relevant theological and human tests of credibility. Clearly, in this the judgment of the local bishop is the key element of such a discernment as I noted above. Often enough, unfortunately, the laity are left to make this determination themselves, relying on the testimony of the events, the judgment of holy and orthodox priests and common sense. It must always be kept in mind that however credible and reasonable such revelations seem to be, God would never ask one to separate oneself from the faith and discipline of the Church to follow it

Edited March 15, 2006 by thessalonian

[Era Might]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Mar 15 2006, 11:31 AM'][b]The second responsibility is to have regard, in the first place, for those private revelations and apparitions approved by the Church.[/b] Within a balanced practice of the faith the edifying content of approved private revelations can be a motive for deeper piety and fidelity to the Gospel. God has chosen to give guidance to the Church in particular eras in this way and we would,[b] as I noted above, be imprudent to disregard altogether what are credibly His prophetic interventions in the life of His Church.[/b][right][snapback]912301[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I would agree with this. If prudence and reason express itself in our souls, why would we want to ignore it, even if it is a matter of private revelation? We should exercise human faith in the miracles throughout history for the same reason we should exercise human faith in the opinions of our parents. Not because they can't be wrong, or that we can NEVER disagree, but because they know a thing or two.

Edited March 15, 2006 by Era Might

[Era Might]

Although the Catholic equivalents of Jack Van Impe and Tim Lahaye scare the heck out of me.

[HisChild]

I'm not a Church Scholar, but just a simple woman who is going to be a nun. The way I see Marian Apparitions, insofar as belief and/or practice is concerned, is sort of the way I see other devotions, like the various Litanies, prayers and other devotions like the 15 Prayers of St Bridget of Sweden, for example, which have all been given their imprimateurs. The Church is declaring they are without doctrinal error, but it's not necessary that one actually say these prayers or devotions. . .either regularly, or ever, in order to be a faithful Catholic.