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

[THurifer2]

Where can I read the specific reasons she was canonized?

You do believe she is a Saint…RIGHT?

You are aware that she verbally said that Mary was appearing to her right?

I am wondering what a Apparition Scoffer would think of the Church Canonizing someone who publicly declared Mary was appearing to her?

I am wondering if it would make them over emphasize the fact that the church doesn’t require belief in APparitions…even though dozens of Saints we call champions of the faith some of which are Officially called Doctors of the church verbally in public declared that Mary was appearing to them.

An apparition scoffer would have to believe that those saints were HUGE liars or Profoundly mentally ill…

For the answers to you question I suggest you read one of the many biographies on her.

Especially one that deals with her canonization.

VERY enjoyable and SPiritually enriching

 

[Eilish_Maura]

You do believe she is a Saint…RIGHT?

You are aware that she verbally said that Mary was appearing to her right?

I am wondering what a Apparition Scoffer would think of the Church Canonizing someone who publicly declared Mary was appearing to her?

I am wondering if it would make them over emphasize the fact that the church doesn’t require belief in APparitions…even though dozens of Saints we call champions of the faith some of which are Officially called Doctors of the church verbally in public declared that Mary was appearing to them.

An apparition scoffer would have to believe that those saints were HUGE liars or Profoundly mentally ill…

For the answers to you question I suggest you read one of the many biographies on her.

Especially one that deals with her canonization.

VERY enjoyable and SPiritually enriching

Do you know a book that deals specifically with her canonization?

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Thank you!

… …Deo Gratius! I have realized that we saw more eye to eye than not…

 

[BarbaraTherese]

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.

Hi THurifer…there is some truth in the above; however, it remains a teaching of The Church that there is no obligation on the faithful to believe in an approved apparition which is the central point of this thread title …or, that if one should not believe in an approved apparition, one is not denying The Church. Certainly if The Church states “*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;”***then it has great worth to my mind. That is my personal assessment for myself. The fact remains that it is a teaching of The Church that there is no obligation binding on the faithful to believe. What The Church is stating is that there is nothing contrary to Faith or Morals and the teachings of The Church in the apparition message or any writings and that The Church considers that the message(s) given and the writings could be read/believed with spriritual profit. Certainly, parallel profit could be found in other areas within Faith and Morals and the teachings of The Church.
Nor is it unknown that a document quite in line with Church teaching or even containing them hence of great worth, has been read and understood incorrectly to its actual contents and message.

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.

It is simply underscoring a teaching of The Church perhaps so that the actual teaching of The Church on the subject is not lost/obscured in this rather lengthy thread. ***Ahhh perspective and attitude!!! ***
Perhaps the very heroic virtue for which in part St. Bernadette was canonized - standing up for truth… in a much more minor way is the very virtue being condemned in part through this thread: standing up for what The Church teaches or the truth of what The Church teaches in response to the central subject, set out in the title of this thread.

Blessings - Barb

 

[CradleCath]

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.

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

I’m not sure how my name got into that quote box, but those aren’t my words. BTW., I do believe in those whom my Church has called Saints, & I have no problem believing in Church approved appartitions.

In fact, I’d love to hear the arguments one would use AGAINST the miracle of Our Lady of Fatima…70,000 people watched the sun spin & thought it was falling to earth. They were soaked, then they were dried. Common sense tells one that all of these people could not witness an event that didn’t happen…at the same time, in the same place. To NOT believe is a bit of a stretch I think.

 

[CradleCath]

THurifer2;3611173:

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?

Don’t you ever get tired of this subject? This is the third thread (that I have read, anyway) where you seem totally obsessed with the fact of whether the Church says one MUST believe in privated revelation…or whether She doesn’t. Perhaps you should just ask your priest.

 

[BarbaraTherese]

THurifer2;3611133:

I’m not sure how my name got into that quote box, but those aren’t my words. BTW., I do believe in those whom my Church has called Saints, & I have no problem believing in Church approved appartitions.

In fact, I’d love to hear the arguments one would use AGAINST the miracle of Our Lady of Fatima…70,000 people watched the sun spin & thought it was falling to earth. They were soaked, then they were dried. Common sense tells one that all of these people could not witness an event that didn’t happen…at the same time, in the same place. To NOT believe is a bit of a stretch I think.

Hi Cradle Catholic…much truth in your Post to my mind. Be that as it may, still The Church does not oblige any Catholic as an article of Faith to believe in such apparitions or the writings, words of declared saints. This is the central theme and basic subject of this thread. If a person does not believe are they denying The Church and The Church Herself answers that such a person* is not denying The Church* by stating that there is no obligation on the faithful to believe. We need to be able to communicate with accuracy the actual teachings of The Church if we are to be prepared to effectively evangelize as the Holy Father has asked. And “no obligation” simply means that there is no obligation.
I am obliged however to believe that God can DO ALL THINGS, which is Scriptural and a teaching of The Church. Hence is it possible Our Lady should appear to a person…yes, it is.

Blessings in good cheer:thumbsup: of mutual exchange of ideas and concepts…Barb

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Don’t you ever get tired of this subject? This is the third thread (that I have read, anyway) where you seem totally obsessed with the fact of whether the Church says one MUST believe in privated revelation…or whether She doesn’t. Perhaps you should just ask your priest.

Obviously there is no tiring as yet of this subject if one can go by the number of posts in this thread . Very sadly too, to ask one’s priest nowadays is not a guarantee that one will be given the precise Church teaching on a given subject. This is indeed very sad.
To my mind and this is strictly personal, the subect of Our Lady can be very confused in the minds of non Catholics for one and it is important to be able to convey what The Church actually teaches on the subject, which would in very many cases, if not perhaps all, clear up their confusion.

Blessings and good cheer in mutual exchange:thumbsup: …Barb

 

[RevDrNorth]

Are you turning people away from Jesus?

As was pointed out, Private Revelations are not required to be believed by the faithful.

However, just because something is miraculous is no reason to discount it. If this were the case much of the bible could be dismissed.

I tend to find it somewhat compelling when not only do the Church authorities give the stamp of approval after lengthy examination BUT the Holy Father Himself accepts and advocates them, as for example with Fatima. Pope JP II not only credits Our Lady of Fatima with saving his life but also notes the implausability of the revelations to Lucia being the stories of children as they were too detailed and indicative of a knowledge of global politics and an ability to predict future world events that was far in excess of what children would possess.

If you visit a Fatima site, please visit the church approved organization: worldfatima.com/ or wafusa.org/

I find devotion to Our Lady of Fatima to add a depth to my spirituality and am awed at the grace of Christ. Having said that, you are NOT going to hell for not believing that the apparitions at Fatima occurred.

 

[THurifer2]

Eilish Maura;3611179:

Don’t you ever get tired of this subject? This is the third thread (that I have read, anyway) where you seem totally obsessed with the fact of whether the Church says one MUST believe in privated revelation…or whether She doesn’t. Perhaps you should just ask your priest.

Sorry but I am not the one who started the thread.

It does seem as though some people are devoting time to making sure that people know that apparitions dont have to be believed.

This whole thread does have me wondering about if there really is any Catholics who do not believe in Apparitions. For the life of me I have never met a Catholic who didn’t. So perhaps I should have refrained from posting here…I find it hard to believe there is actually Catholics out there who do not believe in somthing even though isn’t required is a immense part of our faith.

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Quoting THurifer:

It does seem as though some people are devoting time to making sure that people know that apparitions dont have to be believed.

“Seem” being operative. Perhaps rather others are merely standing up for what The Church actually does teach and we should ideally do this at every turn.

This whole thread does have me wondering about if there really is any Catholics who do not believe in Apparitions. For the life of me I have never met a Catholic who didn’t. So perhaps I should have refrained from posting here…I find it hard to believe there is actually Catholics out there who do not believe in somthing even though isn’t required is a immense part of our faith

Must admit that I have never met or spoken with a practising Catholic who does not believe either and who does not find apparitions and the messages etc., writings of saints of great consolation and comfort, even enlightenment. It is not that there is anything new to be revealed, perhaps that something already revealed in the Treasury of The Church is better explained for a particular person through some approved Church apparition, message, writings etc. This is the exercising of their personal option in complete freedom under what The Church does proclaim re apparitions, private revelations and also the writings of saints as non mandatory.

Blessings and goodwill…Barb

 

[THurifer2]

Quoting THurifer:

“Seem” being operative. Perhaps rather others are merely standing up for what The Church actually does teach and we should ideally do this at every turn.

Must admit that I have never met or spoken with a practising Catholic who does not believe either and who does not find apparitions and the messages etc., writings of saints of great consolation and comfort, even enlightenment. It is not that there is anything new to be revealed, perhaps that something already revealed in the Treasury of The Church is better explained for a particular person through some approved Church apparition, message, writings etc. This is the exercising of their personal option in complete freedom under what The Church does proclaim re apparitions, private revelations and also the writings of saints as non mandatory.

Blessings and goodwill…Barb

Good post,

I do wonder though about people who don’t believe in them. If one does not believe in an apparition then the only option for them is to say they are false. Which leads me to wonder what one would think of a saint (hundreds of them) that publicly proclaimed Jesus or his Blessed mother were appearing to them?

The only real options for A person who doesn’t believe in Apparitions has for such Saints is that they either are liars or Lunatics. I am not sure if the Church would canonize a Liar of such proportions and I am not sure if the church would canonize a Lunatic either…

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Good post,

I do wonder though about people who don’t believe in them. If one does not believe in an apparition then the only option for them is to say they are false. Which leads me to wonder what one would think of a saint (hundreds of them) that publicly proclaimed Jesus or his Blessed mother were appearing to them?

The only real options for A person who doesn’t believe in Apparitions has for such Saints is that they either are liars or Lunatics. I am not sure if the Church would canonize a Liar of such proportions and I am not sure if the church would canonize a Lunatic either…

I think you should stop ‘wondering’ about such people and leave them be instead of overlaying them with all kinds of unreasonable ‘expectations’ about what is going on inside of them.

You don’t read hearts and minds.

Each person makes this choice for themselves for their own reasons and does so well within the Church’s guidelines.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

CradleCath;3613482:

Sorry but I am not the one who started the thread.

It does seem as though some people are devoting time to making sure that people know that apparitions dont have to be believed.

This whole thread does have me wondering about if there really is any Catholics who do not believe in Apparitions. For the life of me I have never met a Catholic who didn’t. So perhaps I should have refrained from posting here…I find it hard to believe there is actually Catholics out there who do not believe in somthing even though isn’t required is a immense part of our faith.

I find it hard to believe that the Church would not mandate belief if something is as you say an ‘immense part of our faith’.

I believe it is wrong to act is if it is an ‘immense part’.

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Quoting THurifer

I do wonder though about people who don’t believe in them. If one does not believe in an apparition then the only option for them is to say they are false. Which leads me to wonder what one would think of a saint (hundreds of them) that publicly proclaimed Jesus or his Blessed mother were appearing to them?

Hi there again THurifer … As stated before, I anyway have never come across nor spoken with a practising Catholic who expresses disbelief and I think those who are not practising are not the best of authorities at times on what The Church does state…I think it was St. Augustine who said that if one practises one virtue one practises them all and that to break one law of The Church is to break them all. I really have been overly tenacious about this thread because I think it is very important that we do understand what The Church actually does state and our non mandatory option, if not for our own sake (but this is very important too) but also to ensure that incorrect statements are not stated as Church teaching.
While I have never spoken with a practising Catholic who did not believe in some Church approved apparition etc., I have spoken with rather quite a few who did not understand that there was no obligation (and why) to believe in declared apparitions etc…hence the potential was that they could pass on incorrect Church teaching as well as not really understanding themselves.

The only real options for A person who doesn’t believe in Apparitions has for such Saints is that they either are liars or Lunatics. I am not sure if the Church would canonize a Liar of such proportions and I am not sure if the church would canonize a Lunatic either

We can be very sure indeed that The Church’s process of canonization is so involved it would be near on impossible to actually impossible for the life of a liar or a lunatic (go easy on that word )to “pass muster” and make it to canonization. The lives of ‘wannabesaints’ are most carefully examined from every angle and they are only canonized when it is evidenced that they did practise heroic virtue in their lives, and heroic virtue is the prerequisite for actual canonization…any visions, locutions etc. etc. are incidental and not intrinsic to necessities for canonization - only evidence of some form of stable heroic virtue in the person’s life…and of course the proven miracles needed prior to actual canonization and The Church has a bunch of criteria that needs to be met before She will officially accept any sort of miracle as an actual miracle/

God’s blessings … and God’s Good Will towards all …Barb

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Quoting THurifer

Hi there again THurifer … As stated before, I anyway have never come across nor spoken with a practising Catholic who expresses disbelief and I think those who are not practising are not the best of authorities at times on what The Church does state…I think it was St. Augustine who said that if one practises one virtue one practises them all and that to break one law of The Church is to break them all. I really have been overly tenacious about this thread because I think it is very important that we do understand what The Church actually does state and our non mandatory option, if not for our own sake (but this is very important too) but also to ensure that incorrect statements are not stated as Church teaching.
While I have never spoken with a practising Catholic who did not believe in some Church approved apparition etc., I have spoken with rather quite a few who did not understand that there was no obligation (and why) to believe in declared apparitions etc…hence the potential was that they could pass on incorrect Church teaching as well as not really understanding themselves.

We can be very sure indeed that The Church’s process of canonization is so involved it would be near on impossible to actually impossible for the life of a liar or a lunatic (go easy on that word )to “pass muster” and make it to canonization. The lives of ‘wannabesaints’ are most carefully examined from every angle and they are only canonized when it is evidenced that they did practise heroic virtue in their lives, and heroic virtue is the prerequisite for actual canonization…any visions, locutions etc. etc. are incidental and not intrinsic to necessities for canonization - only evidence of some form of stable heroic virtue in the person’s life…and of course the proven miracles needed prior to actual canonization and The Church has a bunch of criteria that needs to be met before She will officially accept any sort of miracle as an actual miracle/

God’s blessings … and God’s Good Will towards all …Barb

Thank you for another great post.

 

[Joysong]

I do wonder though about people who don’t believe in them. If one does not believe in an apparition then the only option for them is to say they are false. Which leads me to wonder what one would think of a saint (hundreds of them) that publicly proclaimed Jesus or his Blessed mother were appearing to them?

I think we need to clarify what is meant by “believe in an apparition.”

• Does “belief” mean that one MUST therefore demonstrate their belief by investing their spiritual devotion in it and/or public promotion to it?
• Does “belief” mean that one admits to its authenticity, but does not have an inclination or attraction by God’s grace to follow it?
• Does this lack of attraction to that particular apparation which one “believes is true,” demonstrate that one is sinning against the Church, since She approved it?

I have publicly on CAF expressed my attraction to the Guadalupe apparition, but I have no particular devotion to Akita or Lourdes, though I believe they are true. One is not mandated to follow any one of them and be accused of not being loyal to the Church or Our Lady. It think is what the OP is trying to say, because certain obstinancies are circulating that God is angry, etc.

No, God is not angry, nor is Mary. One is always invited to listen, but is never coerced. If I choose to pray the rosary out of personal devotion only, that doesn’t mean I am rejecting an apparition. And, remember, if I choose NOT to pray the rosary, I am not under any sin or obligation whatsoever, nor can I be accused of not listening to Fatima! [per church teaching]

 

[Eilish_Maura]

No, God is not angry, nor is Mary. One is always invited to listen, but is never coerced. If I choose to pray the rosary out of personal devotion only, that doesn’t mean I am rejecting an apparition. And, remember, if I choose NOT to pray the rosary, I am not under any sin or obligation whatsoever, nor can I be accused of not listening to Fatima! [per church teaching]

:yup: :clapping: :extrahappy: :yup: :clapping: :extrahappy: :bounce: :bounce:

 

[THurifer2]

THurifer2;3614200:

I find it hard to believe that the Church would not mandate belief if something is as you say an ‘immense part of our faith’.

I believe it is wrong to act is if it is an ‘immense part’.

Apparitions are not an immense part of our faith?

There are millions of Catholics that practice devotions that come form “apparitions” or private revelations.

I realize that we are not required to believe in apparitions…but it must be assumed that the VAST Majority of Catholics do believe in them…to me that is immense…

 

[Joysong]

Apparitions are not an immense part of our faith?

No. They are a devotion that one is invited to embrace, if they feel urged by grace to do so, but nobody will be sent to hell for not doing so.

There are millions of Catholics that practice devotions that come form “apparitions” or private revelations.

And your point is? That EVERYBODY must practice them because MANY do? ALL of them? All at once? Every day? And the consequence of lawfully omitting any one of them [in your opinion, not church teaching] … is …?