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