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

[nobody]

On a slight tangent, help me figure this out:

The church says we are not required to believe in approved apparitions, such as Lourdes and Divine Mercy.

We are required to believe that some of the visionaries, such as St. Bernadette and St. Faustina, are indeed Saints. (Is this correct? I’ve heard this many times in discussions, but when I do a search of the CCC for “sainthood” or “beatification”, nothing comes up.)

What is a person, who does not believe in an apparition, to think about the saint: they were delusional, but well meaning? They were misled or mistaken? It would seem they could not be believed to be liars, because that would be in contradiction with their sainthood.

Any thoughts?

 

[NotWorthy]

On a slight tangent, help me figure this out:

The church says we are not required to believe in approved apparitions, such as Lourdes and Divine Mercy.

We are required to believe that some of the visionaries, such as St. Bernadette and St. Faustina, are indeed Saints. (Is this correct? I’ve heard this many times in discussions, but when I do a search of the CCC for “sainthood” or “beatification”, nothing comes up.)

What is a person, who does not believe in an apparition, to think about the saint: they were delusional, but well meaning? They were misled or mistaken? It would seem they could not be believed to be liars, because that would be in contradiction with their sainthood.

Any thoughts?

One is to believe that the saint is a saint because of the life that they lived, not because of any apparitions that they may or may not have seen.

None of Mary’s visitations saved anybody. It was only their conversion that saved them.

Thank goodness salvation has nothing to do with mental stability or I"d have no hope left in the next world!

 

[CradleCath]

Are you turning people away from Jesus?

I just noticed this thread today & I can’t help but wonder about your obsession with apparitions & miracles. You have consistently defended Charismatic movements & “speaking in tongues”, yet you show a very negative attitude toward Marion apparitions. While the actions of Charismatics of all faiths seem to me to border on hysteria & emotionalism & are just personnally distasteful to me, you seem to believe in the miracles found within this movement…speaking in tongues, healing, etc.

Can you tell me why you consider one type of miracle “worthy of your belief” & another type, those that involve the Blessed Virgin in particular, NOT worthy of your belief. This makes absolutely no sense to me. Do you feel that the apparition of the Sacred Heart to St. Margaret Mary is not “worthy of your belief”, though the Church says it is??

The Church has 3 categories for apparitions & miracles & has since the 16th century. They are:

1. Constat supernaturalitas, that is to say, the apparition is recognized, approved and declared “worthy of belief” by the Church.
2. **Nonconstat supernaturalitas, **which means the supernatural character of the apparition in question is not evident. The Church takes a neutral stance in this case. The apparition is not condemned because there is nothing contrary to the faith.
3. **Constat non-supernaturalitas, **which would mean the claimed apparition is false, and hence not worthy of belief.

Now the first category is the one I’m interested in. Constat Supernaturalitas, which translates literally into “It is agreed supernatural”, & figuratively into “we agree that this apparition is of SUPERNATURAL origin”. In order to prove that this supernatural origin is God & not Satan, the Church spends many years discerning the results. The council of Trent established diocesan commissions to study apparition claims.

The commission was to verify whether or not the alleged apparitions "manifest a hidden presence of God, renew community life, convert hearts, reawaken and stimulate faith, and renew hope and dynamism in the Church"

So, in answer to your question…“are you turning people away from Jesus if you don’t believe in Church approved apparitions”, I would say that you are turning YOURSELF away from Him. You are saying that His Church doesn’t know what she’s talking about. You are saying that His Church declared a miracle worthy of YOUR belief, but you deny this fact & consider it UNworthy of YOUR belief. In other words, quit concerning yourself re other people & worry about what such disbelief is doing to your own soul.
.

 

[BarbaraTherese]

“All things are possible to God” (Scripture). It is hence entirely possible that Our Lady has appeared (I am speaking objectively and not of my own personal subjective beliefs) and spoken with people alive today. I think when the Church approves such a vision or apparition, She is simply affirming in an indirect manner that all things are indeed possible to God and that Our Lady for example could appear to a person and speak with him/her/them, and that any such apparition or vision together with anything stated is worthy of belief in that nothing is in contradiction with what The Church teaches on Faith and Morals. I should think also that the integrity of the person(s) claiming to have such a ‘visit’ would also be checked out by The Church prior to making a statement that the matter is “worthy of belief”.

If one were to state they did not believe, this is their option and choice in free will and they have the freedom under The Lord to state this. It is well to remember though “whatsoever you do to one of these my little ones, you have done it to me” and to take care not to offend others nor confuse others and we are all little ones of The Lord. Freedom has responsibilities and accountabilities.

…be kind…

Blessings - Barb

 

[Eilish_Maura]

If one were to state they did not believe, this is their option and choice in free will and they have the freedom under The Lord to state this. It is well to remember though “whatsoever you do to one of these my little ones, you have done it to me” and to take care not to offend others nor confuse others and we are all little ones of The Lord. Freedom has responsibilities and accountabilities.

Blessings - Barb

How could standing by the Church and its decision to make belief in approved private revelation optional offensive or confusing?

 

[Eilish_Maura]

I just noticed this thread today & I can’t help but wonder about your obsession with apparitions & miracles. You have consistently defended Charismatic movements & “speaking in tongues”, yet you show a very negative attitude toward Marion apparitions. While the actions of Charismatics of all faiths seem to me to border on hysteria & emotionalism & are just personnally distasteful to me, you seem to believe in the miracles found within this movement…speaking in tongues, healing, etc.

Can you tell me why you consider one type of miracle “worthy of your belief” & another type, those that involve the Blessed Virgin in particular, NOT worthy of your belief. This makes absolutely no sense to me. Do you feel that the apparition of the Sacred Heart to St. Margaret Mary is not “worthy of your belief”, though the Church says it is??

The Church has 3 categories for apparitions & miracles & has since the 16th century. They are:

1. Constat supernaturalitas, that is to say, the apparition is recognized, approved and declared “worthy of belief” by the Church.
2. Nonconstat supernaturalitas, which means the supernatural character of the apparition in question is not evident. The Church takes a neutral stance in this case. The apparition is not condemned because there is nothing contrary to the faith.
3. Constat non-supernaturalitas, which would mean the claimed apparition is false, and hence not worthy of belief.

Now the first category is the one I’m interested in. Constat Supernaturalitas, which translates literally into “It is agreed supernatural”, & figuratively into “we agree that this apparition is of SUPERNATURAL origin”. In order to prove that this supernatural origin is God & not Satan, the Church spends many years discerning the results. The council of Trent established diocesan commissions to study apparition claims.

The commission was to verify whether or not the alleged apparitions "manifest a hidden presence of God, renew community life, convert hearts, reawaken and stimulate faith, and renew hope and dynamism in the Church"

So, in answer to your question…“are you turning people away from Jesus if you don’t believe in Church approved apparitions”, I would say that you are turning YOURSELF away from Him. You are saying that His Church doesn’t know what she’s talking about. You are saying that His Church declared a miracle worthy of YOUR belief, but you deny this fact & consider it UNworthy of YOUR belief. In other words, quit concerning yourself re other people & worry about what such disbelief is doing to your own soul.
.

What in all this have you skipped over? So far I noticed you failed to acknowledge that belief in private revelation is optional PER THE CHURCH.

 

[fix]

I do not know if this has been posted yet:

it is possible to refuse to accept such revelations and to turn from them, as long as one does so with proper modesty, for good reasons, and without the intention of setting himself up as a superior. De Serv. Dei Beatif.]

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Is it a fair accusation to say that those who do not believe in approved private revelation are ‘minimalists’ regarding their faith (this disbelief being the only item known about the person)?

Are those who do believe in approved private revelation in danger of setting themselves up as if they are superior to those who do not believe in them?

 

[CradleCath]

How could standing by the Church and its decision to make belief in approved private revelation optional offensive or confusing?

OTOH, How could standing by the Church & it’s decision that an apparition is **worthy of our belief **be offensive or confusing???

Your acceptance of Charismatic Catholicism, which is steeped in apparitions & miracles, combined with your negavtive attitude toward Marion appartitions & miracles…serves to make your “theology” seem irrational. Please explain??

 

[Eilish_Maura]

OTOH, How could standing by the Church & it’s decision that an apparition is **worthy of our belief **be offensive or confusing???

Worthy of belief means it is safe to believe in and it does not contain anything contrary to the Faith and/or Public Revelation. It is not a command or even a suggestion that someone should believe in it.

 

[CradleCath]

What in all this have you skipped over? So far I noticed you failed to acknowledge that belief in private revelation is optional PER THE CHURCH.

Your question was:“are you turning people away from Jesus if you don’t believe in Church approved apparitions”?

I answered that question.

Now, if you want to get into another area that concerns minimilistic Catholicism, let me know. If so, be ready to answer MY questions.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Your question was:“are you turning people away from Jesus if you don’t believe in Church approved apparitions”?

I answered that question.

Now, if you want to get into another area that concerns minimilistic Catholicism, let me know. If so, be ready to answer MY questions.

Feel free to use ignore.

 

[LambOfGod]

John.10

[19] There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.
[20] And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him?
[21] Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?
[22] And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.
[23] And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch.
[24] Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
[25] Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me.
[26] But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
[27] My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

 

[CradleCath]

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

No…that’s not what Church approval means. It means
Constat supernaturalitas…the Church finds (agrees to the fact that) this apparition to be of **Supernatural **origin & that said Supenatural origin is benevolent. (It is not a work of the devil).

You are confusing “worthy of belief” with Category # 2 revelation…
Nonconstat supernaturalitas, which means the supernatural character of the apparition in question is not evident, (doesn’t mean that it can not be or Supernatural origin…just that this is NOT EVIDENT), but the message itself is not contrary to Catholic belief. IT is “safe”.

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

 

[CradleCath]

Feel free to use ignore.

Why would I do that???
You asked a question:

If you don’t believe in approved apparition(s) are you denying the Church? Are you turning people away from Jesus??

I gave you my answer to your question.

 

[Jon_in_Charlott]

I’ve just recently read through the last Akita thread and then through this one and I just wanted to share a few thoughts.

A number of years ago I had no faith life. I was living a completely secular existence. And, then I recieved a number of private/personal revelations.

personalrevelation.wordpress.com/about-the-pages/awakening-the-soul/
personalrevelation.wordpress.com/about-the-pages/you-are-purified/
personalrevelation.wordpress.com/about-the-pages/abba/

You don’t need to read them or can ignore that they were even mentioned, however, I cannot deny them. As a result I feel that I am a slave to Christ. The transformation has been so extreme that my Mother-in-law recently commented that our family room looks like a Catholic bookstore.

My experiences awakened me to the truth, and, since they occurred, I have been researching visionaries and apparitions.

I agree that a devout Catholic, who is actively practicing their faith, does not need to explore private revelations. Many Catholics, however, have their faith enriched through sharing in the numerous cases of private revelation. And, there are also many persons who are lacking in faith that are drawn to the Church as a result of sharing in these experiences.

I don’t believe that an individual would be denying the Church if they didn’t believe in an approved apparition, however, they could very well be denying Christ. And, an individual can be correct in resisting apparitions, but, also in error by publicly refuting them.

My wife recently attended a conference where a charismatic priest stated that there were presently over 800 cases of private revelations being investigated by the Vatican. I can only imagine the total amount of cases if unreported incidents (mine included) were added.

There is a logic to the multitude of cases that have been occurring over the last 30 years.

I heard a discussion by a priest recently on the concept of Christ coming like a thief in the night. And, the priest’s perception was that indeed for many that will be the case, however, for the righteous it will not be as such. The reason being that they will have prepared for his return.

I trust that many of these apparitions are for that purpose.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

No, the Church does not require (that seems to be one of your favorite words) assent to the **message **

 

[Eilish_Maura]

I don’t believe that an individual would be denying the Church if they didn’t believe in an approved apparition, however, they could very well be denying Christ. And, an individual can be correct in resisting apparitions, but, also in error by publicly refuting them.

.

Why do you think they could be denying Christ yet not be denying the Church?

 

[CradleCath]

CradleCath;3605251:

Does the Church require all Catholics believe that all approved private revelation actually happened?

You tell me? Someone brings an “event” to the attention of the Magisterium of the Church. The proper Church officials conduct an investigation that usually takes several years to complete. If they then declare that it is “constat de supernaturalitate” (we agree that this “event” is of Supernatural origin), they conduct another lengthy investigation to be sure that it is not what was once called a “lying wonder”, as Satanic deception is always a possibility. Scripture tells us that Satan is very capable of appearing as an angel of light.

That leaves them with the apparition’s message…does it agree with Scripture, are the results of the apparition good or evil? Remember that St. Luke said:

“No good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit; for each tree is known by its own fruit. Figs are not gathered from thorns, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush.”

There are many more things that they must investigate, the morality of the people who claim to have seen this appartion is one of them.

Pope John XXIII at the end of the Marian Year of 1959, **touching on the absolute reluctance of the Church to call anything a miracle or an apparition sent by God, said…**The Roman Pontiffs “also have the duty, when after mature examination, they deem necessary for the common good of bringing to the attention of the faithful those supernatural lights which it pleases God to dispense freely to certain privileged souls, not for the purpose of presenting new doctrines, but rather to guide us in our conduct.”

In speaking of Our Lady, Pope John XXIII also said:

"We exhort you to listen with simplicity of heart and honesty of mind to the salutary warnings of the Mother of God…"

Now, you tell me the answer to your last question!

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Eilish Maura;3606289:

You tell me? Someone brings an “event” to the attention of the Magisterium of the Church. The proper Church officials conduct an investigation that usually takes several years to complete. If they then declare that it is “constat de supernaturalitate” (we agree that this “event” is of Supernatural origin), they conduct another lengthy investigation to be sure that it is not what was once called a “lying wonder”, as Satanic deception is always a possibility. Scripture tells us that Satan is very capable of appearing as an angel of light.

That leaves them with the apparition’s message…does it agree with Scripture, are the results of the apparition good or evil? Remember that St. Luke said:

“No good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit; for each tree is known by its own fruit. Figs are not gathered from thorns, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush.”

There are many more things that they must investigate, the morality of the people who claim to have seen this appartion is one of them.

Pope John XXIII at the end of the Marian Year of 1959, touching on the absolute reluctance of the Church to call anything a miracle or an apparition sent by God, said…

The Roman Pontiffs “also have the duty, when after mature examination, they deem necessary for the common good of bringing to the attention of the faithful those supernatural lights which it pleases God to dispense freely to certain privileged souls, not for the purpose of presenting new doctrines, but rather to guide us in our conduct.”

In speaking of Our Lady, Pope John XXIII also said:

"We exhort you to listen with simplicity of heart and honesty of mind to the salutary warnings of the Mother of God…"

Now, you tell me the answer to your last question!

No - it does not require it of all Catholics.