If you don't believe in approved apparition(s) are you denying the Church?

[Eilish_Maura]

Are you turning people away from Jesus?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Are you turning people away from Jesus?

No of course not! All are classed a “Private Revelations”. The only thing the Church requires is that we believe that they are possible.

 

[NotWorthy]

If you have doubts or down-right disbelieve, no it’s not a sin.

If you tell others that it is blatantly false, no matter what the Church says, then you are in danger of grave sin.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

If you tell others that it is blatantly false, no matter what the Church says, then you are in danger of grave sin.

Can you expand on this?

 

[Eilish_Maura]

No of course not! All are classed a “Private Revelations”. The only thing the Church requires is that we believe that they are possible.

Can you show me where the Church gives us this requirement?

 

[Joe_5859]

Here is what the Catechism says about private revleations:

CCC 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”.

The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith gives a pretty good explanation of private revelation in their commentary on the Message of Fatima (scroll down about 2/3 of the way to the “Theological Commentary” section). Here’s probably the most helpful portion of that commentary (I have bolded/italicized the parts I think are especially helpful):

This clarifies two things:

1. The authority of private revelations is essentially different from that of the definitive public Revelation. The latter demands faith; in it in fact God himself speaks to us through human words and the mediation of the living community of the Church. Faith in God and in his word is different from any other human faith, trust or opinion. The certainty that it is God who is speaking gives me the assurance that I am in touch with truth itself. It gives me a certitude which is beyond verification by any human way of knowing. It is the certitude upon which I build my life and to which I entrust myself in dying.

1. Private revelation is a help to this faith, and shows its credibility precisely by leading me back to the definitive public Revelation. In this regard, Cardinal Prospero Lambertini, the future Pope Benedict XIV, says in his classic treatise, which later became normative for beatifications and canonizations: “An assent of Catholic faith is not due to revelations approved in this way; it is not even possible. These revelations seek rather an assent of human faith in keeping with the requirements of prudence, which puts them before us as probable and credible to piety”. The Flemish theologian E. Dhanis, an eminent scholar in this field, states succinctly that ecclesiastical approval of a private revelation has three elements: the message contains nothing contrary to faith or morals; it is lawful to make it public; and the faithful are authorized to accept it with prudence (E. Dhanis,Sguardo su Fatima e bilancio di una discussione, in La Civiltà Cattolica 104 [1953], II, 392-406, in particular 397). Such a message can be a genuine help in understanding the Gospel and living it better at a particular moment in time; therefore it should not be disregarded. It is a help which is offered, but which one is not obliged to use.

 

[NotWorthy]

Can you expand on this?

Well, take Guadaloupe for example (I assume these are the type of “approved apparitions” you were talking about.

I can have all the doubts in the world about Guadaloupe and go about my business. But if I tell others that Guadaloupe was a crock and the Church needs to “get a life” then shame on me, for I am denying the Church’s Authority to declare these things approved.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Well, take Guadaloupe for example (I assume these are the type of “approved apparitions” you were talking about.

I can have all the doubts in the world about Guadaloupe and go about my business. But if I tell others that Guadaloupe was a crock and the Church needs to “get a life” then shame on me, for I am denying the Church’s Authority to declare these things approved.

You can have doubt, or not believe it happened at all, and it is ok so long as you don’t admit to it???

 

[LilyM]

Well, take Guadaloupe for example (I assume these are the type of “approved apparitions” you were talking about.

I can have all the doubts in the world about Guadaloupe and go about my business. But if I tell others that Guadaloupe was a crock and the Church needs to “get a life” then shame on me, for I am denying the Church’s Authority to declare these things approved.

Exactly - the precise wording the Church uses in approving them is that they are ‘worthy of belief’. If you publicly state they’re a crock you’re in fact stating the opposite - that they’re UNworthy of belief. Hence going against the Church.

Privately, since they’re not binding, you can choose or not to believe in 'em.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Exactly - the precise wording the Church uses in approving them is that they are ‘worthy of belief’. If you publicly state they’re a crock you’re in fact stating the opposite - that they’re UNworthy of belief. Hence going against the Church.

Privately, since they’re not binding, you can choose or not to believe in 'em.

“Worthy of belief” means it is safe to believe if you want to because there is nothing contrary to the Faith in it.

To feel, and perhaps voice, that one feels a particular apparition is not worth paying attention to or did not happen is NOT a statement against the church at all regarding it’s right to evaluate any message(s) involved for things contrary to the faith. That is an assumption on the part of the other person.

 

[Tick_Dawk]

So should we lie about what we think, so we don’t go against doctrine? That sounds counter-intuitive.

 

[LilyM]

“Worthy of belief” means it is safe to believe if you want to because there is nothing contrary to the Faith in it.

To feel, and perhaps voice, that one feels a particular apparition is not worth paying attention to or did not happen is NOT a statement against the church at all regarding it’s right to evaluate any message(s) involved for things contrary to the faith. That is an assumption on the part of the other person.

Well what else does ‘not worth paying attention to’ mean except unworthy of belief? If it was worthy of belief then it’s worthy of paying attention to, though not necessary.

 

[LilyM]

So should we lie about what we think, so we don’t go against doctrine? That sounds counter-intuitive.

You don’t have to lie and say you approve or are devoted to any apparition, you just need to say ‘the church has declared it worthy of belief, my private opinion doesn’t matter’. Because it doesnt, not to anyone but yourself.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Well what else does ‘not worth paying attention to’ mean except unworthy of belief? If it was worthy of belief then it’s worthy of paying attention to, though not necessary.

Worthy of belief means it is safe IF you chose to believe it.

Not paying attention to something is NOT the same as saying something is ‘worthy of unbelief’. It is a simple action within a chain of actions which is also acceptable.

I would like to know where the Church teaches that if one does not believe something in the area of private revelation they have to hide it.

 

[LilyM]

Worthy of belief means it is safe IF you chose to believe it.

Not paying attention to something is NOT the same as saying something is ‘worthy of unbelief’. It is a simple action within a chain of actions which is also acceptable.

I would like to know where the Church teaches that if one does not believe something in the area of private revelation they have to hide it.

Saying or indicatin that you don’t believe in it can very easily lead the person you say or show it to to deduce that it isn’t in fact worthy of belief, no matter how careful you are in how you phrase it or show it.

So the danger lies in the fact that you’re potentially dissuading someone from believing in something that is perfectly fine to believe.

So of itself it’s not wrong, but you do need to take extreme care.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Saying or indicatin that you don’t believe in it can very easily lead the person you say or show it to to deduce that it isn’t in fact worthy of belief, no matter how careful you are in how you phrase it or show it.

So the danger lies in the fact that you’re potentially dissuading someone from believing in something that is perfectly fine to believe.

So of itself it’s not wrong, but you do need to take extreme care.

I don’t believe that is true at all and I don’t believe the Church teaches that if one has doubts or does not believe in private revelation they have to stay silent.

 

[Steve40]

Are you turning people away from Jesus?

Thomas did not believe in an approved apparition. He was wrong and later admitted it.

I am concerned that my lack of faith does not help with the proclaimation of the Gospel but the only thing to do is ask for more faith. All faith comes from God.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Thomas did not believe in an approved apparition. He was wrong and later admitted it.

If you are talking about the Thomas of ‘doubting Thomas’ fame I would not would call what he did not believe as happening as an ‘approved apparition’.

 

[NotWorthy]

You can have doubt, or not believe it happened at all, and it is ok so long as you don’t admit to it???

I wouldn’t phrase it, “so long as you don’t admit it”.

I’d phrase it, “so long as you don’t try and teach others that it’s a crock, for in doing so, you are denying the Church’s authority to evaluate the validity and steering others down that path”.

Do you see the difference? So many “heresies” are created or perpetuated because someone denies Church Authority. To lead someone down this path is to teach in error. Read Matthew Chapter 18 if you wish to see Jesus’ opinion of those who lead others away from the Kingdom (I’ll give you a hint. This - leading others away from the kingdom - is one of the things that He accused the Pharisee’s of doing).

 

[NotWorthy]

I don’t believe that is true at all and I don’t believe the Church teaches that if one has doubts or does not believe in private revelation they have to stay silent.

So you think there is nothing sinful in saying Our Lady never visited Guadeloupe and trying to convince others that she was never there? You think it’s OK to spread the seeds of doubt within the Church.

I’m not talking about Madjegordia (?) because that is not approved at this time. I’m talking about Fatima, Lourdes, Guadeloupe and such.