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

[BarbaraTherese]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BarbaraTherese forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cab/viewpost.gif

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

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

I think that the answer to your question can be found in this thread perhaps. To speak the truth without mutual respect and self esteem not only for the persons of others, but for their concepts, is only ever half the truth since Charity needs be one’s disposition at all times in all instances.
*

1

If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. 4 Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely; is not puffed up; 5 Is not ambitious, seeketh not her own, is not provoked to anger, thinketh no evil; *

Common sense will dictate if one is in a situation where one is perhaps running a risk of being offensive or confusing another and if such situations should not exist at all (impossible!), then my primary point in my thread still stands.
To start raising the point of examples of situations where another may be offended or confused and speaking to these situations as the subject is beside my point really. My point is that freedom has responsibilities and accountabilities before God and that mutual love and respect is a requisite for any and all circumstances and each person’s conscience will inform them when Charity is at risk…and Charity is the most important of all. And St. Paul in 1 Corinthians Chapter 13 gives us a detailed explanation of what Charity actually is and the dispositions it adopts.

1 Corinthians, Chapter 8:
*

11

• And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ hath died? 12 Now when you sin thus against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.

Could Our Lady appearand speak with giving messages to a person or a persona live today? Yes she could since God can do all things. The Church affirms this by stating that such an apparition and attendant messages, words, are “worthy of belief”. Are we bound to believe once The Church states “worthy of belief”?..no we are not bound to believe, which is simply what The Church teaches. Are we bound to treat each other and all with loving Charity? Yes we are, which is simply what The Church teaches.

…Blessings…barb

 

[THurifer2]

CradleCath;3606685:

No - it does not require it of all Catholics.

This is an interesting one. Catholics must believe in elements of apparitions. Divine Mercy for instance. THe Sunday after Easter is called Mercy SUnday explicitly for faustinas experience…right down to the day the feast was to be celebrated.

Along with the institution of Mercy SUnday which comes from the apparition comes an apostolic letter from JPII MANDATING that priests tell the faithful of a plenary indulg for that SUnday.

Likewise as with all people who have had apparitions and subsequently been canonized saints requires ALL Catholics to believe that they are Saints. So you I guess one could say that we are not bound believe in apparitions but we are bound to believe that the persons who had the apparitions are Saints and they are saints becuase of the apparitions…(which in some cases people don’t believe)

SOrta makes ya wonder how those who scoff apparitions feel about recognizing a Saint who became a saint for somthing they scoff

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Eilish Maura;3606695:

This is an interesting one. Catholics must believe in elements of apparitions. Divine Mercy for instance. THe Sunday after Easter is called Mercy SUnday explicitly for faustinas experience…right down to the day the feast was to be celebrated.

Along with the institution of Mercy SUnday which comes from the apparition comes an apostolic letter from JPII MANDATING that priests tell the faithful of a plenary indulg for that SUnday.

Divine Mercy did not originate with Sr Faustina’s experience and given the significance of the Easter Season the selection of the date did not need private revelation if any pope at any time had opted to put it on the calendar. Also a pope can make, and mandate such things without direction from private revelation.

BTW - how does any of this indicate that all Catholics MUST believe in private revelation? Was that mandated somewhere?

 

[THurifer2]

THurifer2;3611133:

BTW - how does any of this indicate that all Catholics MUST believe in private revelation? Was that mandated somewhere?

Likewise as with all people who have had apparitions and subsequently been canonized saints requires ALL Catholics to believe that they are Saints. So you I guess one could say that we are not bound believe in apparitions but we are bound to believe that the persons who had the apparitions are Saints and they are saints becuase of the apparitions…(which in some cases people don’t believe)

SOrta makes ya wonder how those who scoff apparitions feel about recognizing a Saint who became a saint for somthing they scoff

Bernadette Comes to Mind. ALL Catholics are bound to recognize that she is a Saint.

Now what makes her a saint?

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Eilish Maura;3611146:

Likewise as with all people who have had apparitions and subsequently been canonized saints requires ALL Catholics to believe that they are Saints. So you I guess one could say that we are not bound believe in apparitions but we are bound to believe that the persons who had the apparitions are Saints and they are saints becuase of the apparitions…(which in some cases people don’t believe)

SOrta makes ya wonder how those who scoff apparitions feel about recognizing a Saint who became a saint for somthing they scoff

Bernadette Comes to Mind. ALL Catholics are bound to recognize that she is a Saint.

Now what makes her a saint?

I do not know the details of each and every saint but when the Church allows us to not believe in private revelation I find it hard to think that it would name someone a Saint based solely on having one.

 

[NotWorthy]

I do not know the details of each and every saint but when the Church allows us to not believe in private revelation I find it hard to think that it would name someone a Saint based solely on having one.

One’s sainthood is based on how one follows Christ, not on who was visited. You are right in this question.

 

[THurifer2]

THurifer2;3611154:

I do not know the details of each and every saint but when the Church allows us to not believe in private revelation I find it hard to think that it would name someone a Saint based solely

on having one.

It doesn’t have to be solely. In bernadettes case her canonization was based in PART on the apparitions (big part). Soooo when the church uses words that state she became a saint in part because of her experience with the Virgin Mary through apparitions. You cannot pick and choose which parts of the canonization you want to believe. When the church says that she was canonized in part because of her apparitions then you are bound to believe that is in part why she was canonizedd

 

[NotWorthy]

It doesn’t have to be solely. In bernadettes case her canonization was based in PART on the apparitions (big part). Soooo when the church uses words that state she became a saint in part because of her experience with the Virgin Mary through apparitions. You cannot pick and choose which parts of the canonization you want to believe. When the church says that she was canonized in part because of her apparitions then you are bound to believe that is in part why she was canonizedd

But is the Church saying they declare her a saint because she was visited? Or is the Church saying she changed her ways and became saintly as a direct result of having been visited.

I have trouble believing that someone is declared a saint because of who they know, rather than Who they follow.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Eilish Maura;3611161:

It doesn’t have to be solely. In bernadettes case her canonization was based in PART on the apparitions (big part). Soooo when the church uses words that state she became a saint in part because of her experience with the Virgin Mary through apparitions. You cannot pick and choose which parts of the canonization you want to believe. When the church says that she was canonized in part because of her apparitions then you are bound to believe that is in part why she was canonizedd

How does that make what I said wrong in any way?
How does any of this indicate that all Catholics MUST believe in private revelation? Was that mandated somewhere?

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Re Canonization

New Advent Encyclopedia
newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm

The Catholic Church canonizes or beatifies only those whose lives have been marked by the exercise of heroic virtue, and only after this has been proved by common repute for sanctity and by conclusive arguments.

Re Private (Particular or Special) Revelation

New Advent Encylcopedia
newadvent.org/cathen/13005a.htm

Private Revelations
There are two kinds of revelations:

(1) universal revelations, which are contained in the Bible or in the depositum of Apostolic tradition transmitted by the Church. These ended with the preaching of the Apostles and must be believed by all;

(2) particular or private revelations which are constantly occurring among Christians (see CONTEMPLATION). When the Church approves private revelations, she declares only that there is nothing in them contrary faith or good morals, and that they may be read without danger or even with profit; no obligation is thereby imposed on the faithful to believe them.

 

[Joysong]

Originally Posted by THurifer2
When the church says that she was canonized in part because of her apparitions then you are bound to believe that is in part why she was canonized.

This is very false and misleading. The Church NEVER canonizes ANYONE simply because they had apparitions, not even in “part.” May we have a source for your assertion?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

So many posts and so many people, it seems, just talking either ‘at’ or ‘past’ each other.

Bottom line, as has been brought out:

No Catholic is bound to believe in a private revelation per se. Even when the private revelation is something that contributes to a universal feast (note that I am not saying it is the ‘sole cause’ but that it is a contribution) like Divine Mercy Sunday, a Catholic is still free not to ‘believe’ in the apparition.

Where it seems people have been having trouble is differentiating between ‘not having to believe in an apparition’ and not ‘believing’ in Christian teachings because they were ‘presented’ in an apparition.

To give a point: Virtually all of the apparitions spoke of the need for Catholics to do more penance, prayer, and almsgiving.

Now, every one of those things is required of us as Christians and taught in the catechism. Catholics need to do all of these things in the practice of their Catholic faith. The ‘degree’ of doing is up to each individual Catholic.

For a person to argue, though, that because “an apparition of the Virgin” spoke of doing penance, prayer, and fasting, that one ‘need not do any of them’ because ‘we don’t have to believe in apparitions’–is a specious argument. This is the type of argument that is causing the real problem here.

I personally believe in the approved apparitions. However, even if I did not, I certainly would not try to argue that anything which is part of Christian teaching and was ‘mentioned’ in an apparition suddenly becomes ‘optional’ simply by virtue of its mention in an apparition.

So provided any Catholic tells me, “I don’t personally believe that an approved apparition occurred”–that’s fine. I may feel that they are missing out on some very helpful teachings, but that is my ‘feeling’ only.

BUT if said Catholic said, “I don’t personally believe that Fatima occurred, and I don’t believe that what the apparition supposedly said about the need for prayer and penance for Catholics is true”. . .then THAT is not fine. You don’t have to agree that Mary appeared. You don’t even have to believe that she said something. But. . .if that ‘something’ is a Catholic teaching. . .you do have to believe the teaching, even if you don’t believe Mary said it then.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

So many posts and so many people, it seems, just talking either ‘at’ or ‘past’ each other.

Bottom line, as has been brought out:

No Catholic is bound to believe in a private revelation per se. Even when the private revelation is something that contributes to a universal feast (note that I am not saying it is the ‘sole cause’ but that it is a contribution) like Divine Mercy Sunday, a Catholic is still free not to ‘believe’ in the apparition.

Where it seems people have been having trouble is differentiating between ‘not having to believe in an apparition’ and not ‘believing’ in Christian teachings because they were ‘presented’ in an apparition.

To give a point: Virtually all of the apparitions spoke of the need for Catholics to do more penance, prayer, and almsgiving.

Now, every one of those things is required of us as Christians and taught in the catechism. Catholics need to do all of these things in the practice of their Catholic faith. The ‘degree’ of doing is up to each individual Catholic.

For a person to argue, though, that because “an apparition of the Virgin” spoke of doing penance, prayer, and fasting, that one ‘need not do any of them’ because ‘we don’t have to believe in apparitions’–is a specious argument. This is the type of argument that is causing the real problem here.

I personally believe in the approved apparitions. However, even if I did not, I certainly would not try to argue that anything which is part of Christian teaching and was ‘mentioned’ in an apparition suddenly becomes ‘optional’ simply by virtue of its mention in an apparition.

So provided any Catholic tells me, “I don’t personally believe that an approved apparition occurred”–that’s fine. I may feel that they are missing out on some very helpful teachings, but that is my ‘feeling’ only.

BUT if said Catholic said, “I don’t personally believe that Fatima occurred, and I don’t believe that what the apparition supposedly said about the need for prayer and penance for Catholics is true”. . .then THAT is not fine. You don’t have to agree that Mary appeared. You don’t even have to believe that she said something. But. . .if that ‘something’ is a Catholic teaching. . .you do have to believe the teaching, even if you don’t believe Mary said it then.

Thanks for the lovely post.

I have one reservation though…

some things you have positioned in regards belief in private revelation (like the possibility of ‘missing out on some very helpful teachings’) implies the individual is not aware of these things because of Public Revelation and Church teaching.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Re Canonization

New Advent Encyclopedia
newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm

The Catholic Church canonizes or beatifies only those whose lives have been marked by the exercise of heroic virtue, and only after this has been proved by common repute for sanctity and by conclusive arguments.

Re Private (Particular or Special) Revelation

New Advent Encylcopedia
newadvent.org/cathen/13005a.htm

Private Revelations
There are two kinds of revelations:

(1) universal revelations, which are contained in the Bible or in the depositum of Apostolic tradition transmitted by the Church. These ended with the preaching of the Apostles and must be believed by all;

(2) particular or private revelations which are constantly occurring among Christians (see CONTEMPLATION). When the Church approves private revelations, she declares only that there is nothing in them contrary faith or good morals, and that they may be read without danger or even with profit; no obligation is thereby imposed on the faithful to believe them.

Thank you!

 

[THurifer2]

It does seem as though some on this forum go out of the way almost to the point of being obcessed with the fact that Apparitions are not Mandatory for belief.

With this in mind…it is not MANDATORY for one to climb mount everest with bottled oxygen. It is useful however for completing the journey.

Some people die attempting to climb without Oxygen. Even when it was offered to them. We never see anyone on the side of that mountain shouting the fact that it is not needed.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

With this in mind…it is not MANDATORY for one to climb mount everest with bottled oxygen. It is useful however for completing the journey.

How does the discussion of apparitions bring this example to mind?
It is not really a very good one to start with and has nothing to do with the discussion.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

some things you have positioned in regards belief in private revelation (like the possibility of ‘missing out on some very helpful teachings’) implies the individual is not aware of these things because of Public Revelation and Church teaching.

I’m not sure I understand what you mean when you say the above, especially “not aware of these things because of Public Revelation and Church teaching.” Guess I’d better check back after dinner–too hungry to concentrate. Could you clarify? Thanks!

 

[THurifer2]

How does the discussion of apparitions bring this example to mind?
It is not really a very good one to start with and has nothing to do with the discussion.

Thanks for the correction.

You seem to enjoy asking rhetorical questoins.

The oxygen is the apparition and gifts brought forth by apparitions.

Bernadettes canonization was based on her heroic chritian virtue. as evidenced by her refusal to deny to authorities (both church and public) that Mary was appearing to her.

I feel very very sorry for people who don’t believe in Marian APparitions.

Don’t you ?

 

[Eilish_Maura]

I feel very very sorry for people who don’t believe in Marian APparitions.

Don’t you ?

No - I don’t feel sorry for them at all.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Bernadettes canonization was based on her heroic chritian virtue. as evidenced by her refusal to deny to authorities (both church and public) that Mary was appearing to her.

Where can I read the specific reasons she was canonized?