Private Revelation

[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.

[Era Might]

In Mother Angelica's biography, Fr. Groeschel comments on Mother's "visions" (for example, she claims to have seen St. Michael many times). He says that he doesn't think they're real apparitions, but they're not delusions either. They're part of a "pious imagination" that is rooted in the spiritual life. This accounts for a lot of the visions of the Saints, which often contradict one another. They aren't necessarily actual visits from the Lord or others, but moreso spiritual imagery.

Edited March 15, 2006 by Era Might

[HisChild]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 15 2006, 09:37 AM']Although the Catholic equivalents of Jack Van Impe and Tim Lahaye scare the heck out of me. 
[right][snapback]912305[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Excuse my ignorance but who is Jack Van Impe? Sounds like a demon (Impe ) Is he one of those 'bible prophecy' dudes?

And do you mean, when they 'scare' you, that they are fruity? Or they have credence?

[Era Might]

[quote name='PCPA2Be' date='Mar 15 2006, 11:41 AM']Excuse my ignorance but who is Jack Van Impe?  Sounds like a demon (Impe   )  Is he one of those 'bible prophecy'  dudes?

And do you mean, when they 'scare' you, that they are fruity?  Or they have credence?
[right][snapback]912311[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Jack Van Impe is the walking Bible. He thinks the return of Jesus will happen any time now.

I actually like JVI. He's a little crazy, but he and his wife are loveable. And even though his interpretations of Catholicism are whacked, he is VERY friendly to Catholicism, always quoting the Catechism.

I'm thinking of the Spirit Daily devotees, who see apparitions behind every corner. They're harmless, but obviously, they have an, um, over-zealous attention to private revelation claims.

Also people who concoct wild conspiracy theories about Fatima, claiming that John Paul covered it up, etc. These ones aren't harmless.

Edited March 15, 2006 by Era Might

[Brother Adam]

Welp. I'm confused. I understand everything that has been said. It just seems conflicting.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 15 2006, 11:20 AM']Yes, because the Church does not judge a private revelation [b]authentic[/b]. 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.
[right][snapback]912291[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Umm, yes the Church does deem private revelations "authentic". Read the Catechism.

Though you are correct that adherence to them only demands human faith, not divine faith. Private revelations are not dogma.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Mar 15 2006, 09:51 AM']Welp. I'm confused. I understand everything that has been said. It just seems conflicting.
[right][snapback]912325[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Please clarify. : In what way. I see no conflict and feel none in my practice regarding marian apparitions with what was spoken. If you follow my posts in the other thread on the apologetics section I made most of these points though not so eloquently.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Mar 15 2006, 11:55 AM']Umm, yes the Church does deem private revelations "authentic". Read the Catechism.

Though you are correct that adherence to them only demands human faith, not divine faith. Private revelations are not dogma.
[right][snapback]912334[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No, she doesn't. She declares that a private revelation is likely authentic, and thus, worthy of belief. But she takes no formal stance herself, as a Magisterium.

Edited March 15, 2006 by Era Might

[Era Might]

The Catechism says:

[quote]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. [/quote]

The "Sense of the Faithful" discerns whether a private revelation is "an authentic call of Christ', not the Magisterium. The Magisterium's role is to make sure that a proposed revelation does not conflict with the Deposit of Faith, which she safeguards.

[cmotherofpirl]

Nobody is requiring you to say a rosary or visit Fatima to be catholic. Its not like belief in the trinity or transubstaniation. However, the Church says the appariations did happen, are authentic, and it if helps your faith journey - all well and good.
I don't see anything in church teachings that says you can decide on your own that they really didn't happen or are not worthy of belief. That would be crossing a line

[Era Might]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Mar 15 2006, 12:06 PM']I don't see anything in church teachings that says you can decide on your own that they really didn't happen or are not worthy of belief.
[right][snapback]912349[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It depends what you mean by "worthy of belief".

When the Church declares a private revelation "worthy of belief", she does not say it actually happened. Rather, she says that there are no doctrinal or moral impediments to public revelation.

In this sense, the Church has authority, because the judgement is not about the revelation itself, as a revelation, but about its conformity to the Deposit of Faith.

However, the question of whether it is even a true (or "authentic") Revelation is not something for the Church to say. She only says whether it can be prudently believed. She does not teach one way or the other whether it really happened or not, although she does propose it for the faithful, sometimes even through the Sacred Liturgy.

The Church exercises human faith by saying "we judge that this is likely an authentic call from Christ, and we will honor it". But again, this is very different from actually saying it IS a real call from Christ.

Edited March 15, 2006 by Era Might