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

[Eilish_Maura]

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.

Do we or do we not have the choice to believe in private revelation - including approved ones? If the Church does not require belief in approved ones how can it be sinful to not believe in one or more of them?

How does not believing in approved apparitions and not being afraid to admit it, or reminding others that private revelation does not carry the weight of important things in the Faith, get turned into ‘spread seeds of doubt within the Church’?

 

[Eilish_Maura]

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).

Letting others know that private revelation can be ignored and/or not believed in (all in accordance with what the Church teaches us) denies Church’s authority or otherwise undermining PUBLIC revelation???

 

[LilyM]

Do we or do we not have the choice to believe in private revelation - including approved ones? If the Church does not require belief in approved ones how can it be sinful to not believe in one or more of them?

How does not believing in approved apparitions and not being afraid to admit it, or reminding others that private revelation does not carry the weight of important things in the Faith, get turned into ‘spread seeds of doubt within the Church’?

Because people are very easily influenced and only hear half of what is said to them - it’s quite likely people will turn the words ‘I don’t believe’ into ‘you shouldn’t believe’, no matter what else is said or not said.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Because people are very easily influenced and only hear half of what is said to them - it’s quite likely people will turn the words ‘I don’t believe’ into ‘you shouldn’t believe’, no matter what else is said or not said.

Just like they easily misunderstand what ‘approved’ means regarding private revelation?

 

[Steve40]

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’.

It certainly wasn’t unapproved so I think that would make it approved. Is there much else besides approved or unapproved. Either the Church says this is authentic and is of God or it is not, or when unapproved it may mean they don’t know.

The approval of an apparition must be different from an impramater where the Church is saying this material contains no error. In the case of an apparition the Church is refering to an encounter so the encounter either happened or it did not. To say that you do not have to believe it is to say that you do not trust the judgement of the Church any more than Thomas trusted the words of the Disciples.

 

[NotWorthy]

Letting others know that private revelation can be ignored and/or not believed in (all in accordance with what the Church teaches us) denies Church’s authority or otherwise undermining PUBLIC revelation???

Eilish, I’ve chosen my words carefully.

Discussing it and such? That’s cool.

But I’ve used words like “so long as you don’t try and teach others that it’s a crock” or " If you tell others that it is blatantly false, no matter what the Church says" or “But if I tell others that Guadaloupe was a crock and the Church needs to ‘get a life’ then shame on me”. My words have intentionally gone far beyond “Letting others know that private revelation can be ignored and/or not believed in”.

Let’s take a different tack. Are you familiar with the charismatic movement in the Church. I’m vaguely familiar with it, I’ve got several friends from local parishes that travel to Lake Charles, LA. to participate in it. But that kind of worship is not for me. In any event, my bishop and the bishop of Lake Charles have given the charismatic movement their blessing, the Lake Charles bishop is active in it, but mine isn’t.

Now, should I just say, “I’m sorry, but that’s not for me”. Or should I say, “Man, you guys are wrong and you’re taking worship in the wrong direction”.

 

[NotWorthy]

                 Originally Posted by **LilyM**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3598872#post3598872)                 
             *Because people are very easily influenced and only hear half of what is said to them - it's quite likely people will turn the words 'I don't believe' into 'you shouldn't believe', no matter what else is said or not said.*

Just like they easily misunderstand what ‘approved’ means regarding private revelation?

Well, considering the mass skepticism that the Church throws out when anyone claims to have seen an apparition, IMO, if the Church says something is “worthy of approval”, then that’s a very strong statement, indeed.

It’s not like every southerner with their hair in curlers that says, “I saw Jesus in my taco” receives the stamp of approval from the Church.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Eilish, I’ve chosen my words carefully.

Discussing it and such? That’s cool.

But I’ve used words like “so long as you don’t try and teach others that it’s a crock” or " If you tell others that it is blatantly false, no matter what the Church says" or “But if I tell others that Guadaloupe was a crock and the Church needs to ‘get a life’ then shame on me”. My words have intentionally gone far beyond “Letting others know that private revelation can be ignored and/or not believed in”.

Let’s take a different tack. Are you familiar with the charismatic movement in the Church. I’m vaguely familiar with it, I’ve got several friends from local parishes that travel to Lake Charles, LA. to participate in it. But that kind of worship is not for me. In any event, my bishop and the bishop of Lake Charles have given the charismatic movement their blessing, the Lake Charles bishop is active in it, but mine isn’t.

Now, should I just say, “I’m sorry, but that’s not for me”. Or should I say, “Man, you guys are wrong and you’re taking worship in the wrong direction”.

I have chosen my words very carefully as well and have continued to speak of this in terms of what the Church allows us.

Yet many I run into do not separate this ‘approved’ in the common day sense from the way the Church uses it. An approved apparition is SAFE to believe in because it does not contradict anything contained in Public Revelation but actual belief in them is not required of any individual Catholic per the Church herself.

 

[NotWorthy]

Yet many I run into do not separate this ‘approved’ in the common day sense from the way the Church uses it. An approved apparition is SAFE to believe in because it does not contradict anything contained in Public Revelation but actual belief in them is not required of any individual Catholic per the Church herself.

I can’t answer for those who can’t separate the “approved” status. I can only answer for what the Church states as “approved”.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Some people who do take private revelation as more than what the Church requires make inappropriate comments when they are reminded what the actual teaching is.

Any suggestions when someone tells you that you have sinned (because you don’t believe XXX apparition) or God will be angry or “do you think Jesus was foolish sending his Mother” or any of the assertions that this pope or that commanded we believe a particular vision?

 

[NotWorthy]

Some people who do take private revelation as more than what the Church requires make inappropriate comments when they are reminded what the actual teaching is.

Any suggestions when someone tells you that you have sinned (because you don’t believe XXX apparition) or God will be angry or “do you think Jesus was foolish sending his Mother” or any of the assertions that this pope or that commanded we believe a particular vision?

In regards to Jesus sending His mother, it makes more sense than Jesus appearing Himself, for then all the “Rapturists” would go nuts in the street thinking it’s the end of the world - or 7 years before the end of the world.

In my view, it makes perfect sense that Mary is the messenger, rather than Jesus. But I’m not sure if that’s your question.

Do I have suggestions for someone telling me that I have sinned because I don’t believe in, say, Medjugorje (which is still not church approved)? Tell them when the Pope blesses it, I will bless it. The belief in Medjugorje can’t be salvific, so it’s understandable to wait for the Church.

I’d rather do that than to pray for the visions, even though I don’t believe, simply because it will appease others. Don’t ever pray just to appease others. Prayer comes from the heart only!!!

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Do I have suggestions for someone telling me that I have sinned because I don’t believe in, say, Medjugorje (which is still not church approved)? Tell them when the Pope blesses it, I will bless it. The belief in Medjugorje can’t be salvific, so it’s understandable to wait for the Church.

What about not believing in approved ones?

 

[mercygate]

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

No. There is no doctrinal problem involved. The approval of apparitions is a matter the Church passes on negatively: This apparition is worthy of acceptance; this apparition does not contradict Christian teaching; the faithful may publicly participate in devotions surrounding this apparition (e.g., novenas to Our Lady of Guadalupe).

I guess I’m a little more comfortable with this than many converts. Despite a personal “miracle” wrought for me by the intercession of our Lady of the Miraculous Medal (when I wasn’t even looking for it), I do not seek out novenas, promote devotion to her under this title . . . ANYTHING. I am content with the Church’s position: This won’t HURT you; it might be GOOD for you. You can do it or not according to your own personal need – Just don’t put it up there with the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

 

[NotWorthy]

What about not believing in approved ones?

Having doubts and not believing in approved ones is one’s own right. Questioning it with others, asking for proof, is all right, as well.

Telling them that Guadeloupe never happens and one is sinful for praying to Our Lady of Guadeloupe places one in grave danger of sin. When you look at how much skepticism the Church has when She approaches each apparition, if the Church approves of an apparition then that’s good enough for me.

Are there any specific apparitions that you are referring to, either approved or non-approved?

 

[mercygate]

What about not believing in approved ones?

All you have to “believe” is that the Church has determined that the approved apparitions are beneficial to the life of the faithful. You do not need to promote them or participate in the devotions attendant upon them.

Now, if your parish is Our Lady of Guadalupe, you will celebrate that feast as a Solemnity. But that apparition did not add anything to Church teaching, nor is there anything in venerating Our Lady – under any of her approved titles – that is harmful.

 

[mercygate]

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

Maybe we could help better if we knew the specific reservation you have – not to “sell” you but just so that we can answer the REAL question instead of trying to guess around it.

Snce no approved apparition involves harmful teaching (even some of the more “interesting” aspects of Fatima), what exactly is the source of your doubt?

I do not believe in a forum like this that it is any problem to air one’s doubts, by the way.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Maybe we could help better if we knew the specific reservation you have – not to “sell” you but just so that we can answer the REAL question instead of trying to guess around it.

Snce no approved apparition involves harmful teaching (even some of the more “interesting” aspects of Fatima), what exactly is the source of your doubt?

I do not believe in a forum like this that it is any problem to air one’s doubts, by the way.

This IS the real question and I have no ‘doubt’ - other than one, and barely that one, I don’t believe the various private revelations.

That being said I have been accused of not being Catholic, of sinning by virtue of not believing in approved revelation, warned that Jesus will do me harm because I rejected (fill in the blank) apparition, and have heard numerous strange things the Church supposedly teaches.

In response I have posted the information from the Catechism - hard core cases simply tell me it is not infallible! The Catechism may not be infallible but that does not change that the Church does not require us to believe in private revelation.

 

[mercygate]

This IS the real question and I have no ‘doubt’ - other than one, and barely that one, I don’t believe the various private revelations.

That being said I have been accused of not being Catholic, of sinning by virtue of not believing in approved revelation, warned that Jesus will do me harm because I rejected (fill in the blank) apparition, and have heard numerous strange things the Church supposedly teaches.

In response I have posted the information from the Catechism - hard core cases simply tell me it is not infallible! The Catechism may not be infallible but that does not change that the Church does not require us to believe in private revelation.

Sounds like you’re the one holding all the aces.

 

[NotWorthy]

This IS the real question and I have no ‘doubt’ - other than one, and barely that one, I don’t believe the various private revelations.

That being said I have been accused of not being Catholic, of sinning by virtue of not believing in approved revelation, warned that Jesus will do me harm because I rejected (fill in the blank) apparition, and have heard numerous strange things the Church supposedly teaches.

In response I have posted the information from the Catechism - hard core cases simply tell me it is not infallible! The Catechism may not be infallible but that does not change that the Church does not require us to believe in private revelation.

From what you’ve said, I don’t think you have anything to worry about. The line about “Jesus will do you harm…” is idiotic. Jesus doesn’t harm even the most hard-core sinner. Tell them to brush up on the catechetics.

Now, with that being said, are you teaching in a CCE class that you don’t believe the private revelation of (fill in the blank) apparition and you don’t believe that it ever happened? Because if you are teaching others from a position of authority that you disagree with the Church on something She teaches, then you would be in grave danger of sin.

But if you simply say to a fellow parishioner, “Hey, I’ve got a little trouble with Fatima, but I don’t feel strong enough to argue about it”, then I wouldn’t worry about Jesus harming you.

 

[NotWorthy]

In response I have posted the information from the Catechism - hard core cases simply tell me it is not infallible! The Catechism may not be infallible but that does not change that the Church does not require us to believe in private revelation.

Neither are any of the Church’s approval of apparitions infallible. Tell them that if they can show you an infallible statement on a specific apparition, they you would be in the front row praising that apparition and all it’s private revelations.

Turn their own arguments back on them, so to speak. Show them the error of their logic. Nothing humbles someone quicker, in front of others, than to come to the understanding that they are wrong