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

[Jon_in_Charlott]

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

They, Catholics in good standing, are following along the path towards salvation. So, how could they be denying Christ by not accepting or even by not being receptive to Church approved and (semi) approved appartions?

Many of the messages recieved from the apparitions are similar in content as they are promoting prayer, penance, reconciliation, attachment to the hearts of Jesus and Mary, and more…

So, if the Catholic in good standing is already doing what is being prescribed by the apparitions, then why would they need to adhere to them?

Simply because we could be being called to do more. The Time could very well be near, as many of the apparitions suggest, and Christ could be sending His Mother to call attention to that fact. There’s always room for more prayer.

It would be egotistical, taking pride in one’s intellectual perception, for one to think they understood the parameters of God’s will.

So, a Catholic doesn’t deny the Church by practicing even a minimalists approach to their Catholic faith, however, they could still deny Christ through their resistance to Church approved apparitions. And, as a result, deny themselves a deeper and more enlightened relationship with Christ. And, as a result of that deepened relationship, a greater willingness to serve His will.

Personally, individuals I know that embrace certain apparitions and there messages are the same Catholics who pray and counsel outside of abortion mills, work with the handicapped, participate in adoration, seek opportunities to evangelize and much more.

Lastly, a priest who is a friend to my family is a convert to Catholicism. During his journey from Protestantism to the Church he went to Medjugorje. During his visit he was told by one of the visionaries that the Blessed Mother told the visionary that he was under her protection and that he was to become a priest.

Now, he could have resisted the message and still become a Catholic in good standing, but, he chose not to deny the message, the Blessed Mother and Christ.

As JPII once stated, there are a lot of good things happening in Medjugorje.

 

[Joysong]

Jon:

So, a Catholic doesn’t deny the Church by practicing even a minimalists approach to their Catholic faith, however, they could still deny Christ through their resistance to Church approved apparitions. And, as a result, deny themselves a deeper and more enlightened relationship with Christ. And, as a result of that deepened relationship, a greater willingness to serve His will.

Be my guest, and follow your call to do a little more, as many of us already do. But I strongly urge you to desist from this notion that one may deny Christ if they do not follow an appariton. This is utterly false teaching and you do much harm by persisting in promulgating it.

Let’s hope in your newfound conversion experience that you may have read the Story of a Soul, by St. Therese. She is a fairly new saint, named a Doctor of the Church for her writings. In examining her writings, there is not a single mention that she followed the Lourdes apparition, though it was certainly being widely circulated in her lifetime.

Did that cause her to deny Christ? Hardly, and her sanctity and the eminent status bestowed on her by the Church, which only 33 saints have been titled ‘Doctor,’ teaches her little way of simply following Him in the gospel. The Imitation of Christ, the works of St. John of the Cross, and the scriptures were her only food. Proof that one can become a saint without an apparition to follow.

 

[THurifer2]

The Imitation of Christ, the works of St. John of the Cross, and the scriptures were her only food. Proof that one can become a saint without an apparition to follow.

Theres had visions (apparitions) of the child jesus.

I find it interesting that the pope Has written the forward of a book that has been released by a top vatican official regarding The fatima apparitions. Certainly HUGE since the vatitcan official is releasing this book while he is in OFFICE. and the forward is written by the pope himself.

The Last Secret of Fatima is a new book by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican Secretary of State that is mainly a discussion of his three visits with Carmelite nun and seer Sister Lúcia of Jesus and of the Immaculate Heart. This book will be coming out on May 6th.

This is why I think it is an immense part of our faith…not required but IMMENSE.

Not many books get an introduction written by Pope Benedict XVI, but this one does. The Last Secret of Fatima delves into the story of Fatima, the three secrets, and the various controversies that surround them - especially the third secret. Though Fatima is not the only focus of this book. The book is actually an interview by an American Adrian Walker a theologian living in Europe and who was also the translator for the English version of Pope Benedict’s XVI. In some ways this book is similar to the book length interviews by Peter Seeward of then-Cardinal Ratzinger, except much more focused on one topic.

 

[Joysong]

Therese had visions (apparitions) of the child jesus.

Uh … are you attempting to inform a carmelite about this error?
I won’t even ask for a reference or source, because there is none.

But I will repeat my question that you haven’t answered.

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 …?

And now a new question.

Thurifer:

I find it interesting that the pope Has written the forward of a book that has been released by a top vatican official regarding The fatima apparitions. Certainly HUGE since the vatitcan official is releasing this book while he is in OFFICE. and the forward is written by the pope himself.

The book will not be released until May 6th … so how do you know what is being submitted by the author? Nevertheless, do you believe the Pope’s recommendation will a) suggest, b) command, c) or support devotion to the past event of Fatima? Does this change church teaching in the CCC#67, that one is not bound to devotion in an apparition and is still a faithful Catholic in good standing? No.

 

[THurifer2]

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 …?

Oh dear, no My comment about many practicing such devotions was an indication that even though they are not required.(which I have said quite a few times on this thread) Apparitions are an immense part of our faith.

Goodness, One would just have to go to Mexico to see that apparitions are an immense part of the Catholic faith.

Another poster here said it would be wrong to act as if apparitions were an immense part of our faith. I think that is turning a blind eye to the Following of Our Lady Of Guadelupe

 

[Joysong]

Uh … are you attempting to inform a carmelite about this error?
I won’t even ask for a reference or source, because there is none.

But I will repeat my question that you haven’t answered.

And now a new question.

The book will not be released until May 6th … so how do you know what is being submitted by the author? Nevertheless, do you believe the Pope’s recommendation will a) suggest, b) command, c) or support devotion to the past event of Fatima? Does this change church teaching in the CCC#67, that one is not bound to devotion in an apparition and is still a faithful Catholic in good standing? No.

And in spite of all that has been said in this thread, I have the sense that you disagree with the Catechism and church teaching. If it were up to you, you would bar Catholics from the faith for not following your viewpoint on this, at least verbally in threads such as this.

 

[THurifer2]

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?

[per church teaching]

Oh my.

All along I was under the assumption that the church allows people to deny that the apparitions happened.

What is the OFFICIAL church teaching on an apparition.

Can a Catholic say Mary has never appeared to anyone after she was assumed? Can they say that Mary did not appear to anyone at lourdes and they don’t believe it happened. (which is basically calling it a hoax.)

 

[Joysong]

Oh my.

All along I was under the assumption that the church allows people to deny that the apparitions happened.

I don’t think that was the intent of this thread; i.e, licit denial of the Church-approved event, but rather the free choice by grace to not hold an attraction to any particular one, nor to any at all. That’s how we get in trouble with language sometimes, when a word’s meaning is obscured by something we think another is saying. Thank you for working through this difficulty!

What is the OFFICIAL church teaching on an apparition.

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.

Can a Catholic say Mary has never appeared to anyone after she was assumed? Can they say that Mary did not appear to anyone at lourdes and they don’t believe it happened. (which is basically calling it a hoax.)

No, I don’t believe anyone is saying that. It depends on what the word “believe” means to someone else’s thinking. I can’t speak for others, but I trust that most of us have full faith in the Church’s affirmation that an apparition is true, but still not be obligated by any portion whatsoever to act upon it personally, unless grace moves them by free will to embrace what is being asked for within the message.

I suspect that the objection arose because other Catholics force-feed the message without respect for another’s free will, and vehemently suggest they are reprobate Catholics if they don’t believe like “they” do (whoever “they” happens to be.)

It has caused our hair to stand up and resist, not the message, but the coercion.

 

[THurifer2]

I don’t think that was the intent of this thread; i.e, licit denial of the Church-approved event, but rather the free choice by grace to not hold an attraction to any particular one, nor to any at all.

I guess we should bounce this back to the OP. I have always been under the assumption (possible incorrectly) that the Church allows us to deny that such events even occurred.

 

[Joysong]

I suppose so, Thurifer, but to get back on our definition path, what DOES the Church require of us to believe?

CCC 182 We believe all “that which is contained in the word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church proposes for belief as divinely revealed” (Paul VI, CPG §
20).

These basic dogmas are professed by all Catholics each Sunday in the Nicene Creed, and also the infallible dogmas issued by the Church on the Assumption and Immaculate Conception. However, the Church does not require for our faith and salvation to believe in any of the approved apparitions. These do not rest in ‘divinely revealed truths’ essentially required for our belief.

Not saying, then, that even though the Church asserts that an apparition is trustworthy, that She requires our belief in the same manner as the essential dogmas. Most people do listen as faithful children of the Church, but they have the freedom not to become devoted to an apparition. Hence, they believe it is true, but they are not mandated to embrace the message, as perhaps feeling they sinned if they don’t pray the Fatima rosary.

 

[po18guy]

Are you turning people away from Jesus?

This is a balancing act. A tightrope walk between obedience and growth. We must remain obedient and allow time for the church to examine such things. In the early church, much of the scripture that appeared was likely received with enthusiasm, and appeared enlightening and edifying. However, some of it was later excluded from the canon. This lead to much disappointment at the time. The time that has passed has shown us the inspiration of the early church in determining the canon. And so, it is prudent to wait, especially if we believe in the authority of the church.

Isn’t God in charge of all events?

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Quoting JoySong:

I don’t think that was the intent of this thread; i.e, licit denial of the Church-approved event, but rather the free choice by grace to not hold an attraction to any particular one, nor to any at all. That’s how we get in trouble with language sometimes, when a word’s meaning is obscured by something we think another is saying. Thank you for working through this difficulty!

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. No, I don’t believe anyone is saying that. It depends on what the word “believe” means to someone else’s thinking. I can’t speak for others, but I trust that most of us have full faith in the Church’s affirmation that an apparition is true, but still not be obligated by any portion whatsoever to act upon it personally, unless grace moves them by free will to embrace what is being asked for within the message.

Hi Carole…I may be wrong, but my impression was that the Church stated “worthy of belief”, while there is no obligation on any member of the faithful to hold that there was actually a vision of some kind and any attendant message etc. including private revelations without attendant vision. Are we bound to believe that God can do all things - Yes. Could visions etc. be real - Yes. Is a Catholic bound in any way to believe that Our Lady has actually in some specific place to some specific person…No.

I suspect that the objection arose because other Catholics force-feed the message without respect for another’s free will, and vehemently suggest they are reprobate Catholics if they don’t believe like “they” do (whoever “they” happens to be.)

Truth in the above for sure … but also I have always laboured under the impression that there is no obligation on the faithful to hold that any vision has actually occured (including private revelatin with or without a vision).

What is The Church’s official teaching re belief in anything declared by Her as "recognized by the authority of The Church" - see below: Am I then bound to believe? Or is this perhaps not an infallible statement? I am not being "picky’ I am now genuinely confused as to what is actual Church teaching.
Obviously if I am a practising Catholic once a vision, revelation etc. is attended by "recognized authority of The Church’ as authentic, this is the very highest of recommendations…but am I then bound in conscience to believe there actually has been a vision, private revelation etc.

I am not at any point expressing my own personal belief, rather desiring to discern the actual teaching of The Church.

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.

Blessings - Barb

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Quoting JoySong:

Not saying, then, that even though the Church asserts that an apparition is trustworthy, that She requires our belief in the same manner as the essential dogmas. Most people do listen as faithful children of the Church, but they have the freedom not to become devoted to an apparition. Hence, they believe it is true, but they are not mandated to embrace the message, as perhaps feeling they sinned if they don’t pray the Fatima rosary.

Are we bound in conscience to believe in a vision/private revelation once affirmed by Church Authority?..and being bound in conscience to believe, we are then free not to become devoted to the apparition, private revelation etc.? I am genuinely confused. … certainly educated and raised pre V2 I had always been under the impression that one had freedom of conscience re belief in a vision or private revelation etc. All I personally am searching for is the actual Church teaching without sharing my own personal beliefs.
I have always laboured under the impression that there was no obligation at any time to believe that a vision/private revelation has actually occured. 'Belief" is one matter I think and “devotion” another.
The CCC is a little vague…since the meaning of “deposit of Faith” is that (I think) all that it is mandatory to believe is contained in the “deposit of Faith”.
I think it of great importance that we actually understand what the Church teaching actually is.
**

**86 **

“Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”**
…which leaves the matter of precise Church teaching re the necessity of belief in approved visions, revelations etc. still unclear to me…
Incidentally to clear up any perhaps wrong conclusions, I have had great devotion to Our Lady of Fatima since childhood and also Our Lady of Lourdes and in all that these imply. St. Faustina and the Divine Mercy devotion are also very important to me. Our Lady is a very important part of my own spirituality. Be that as it may, I would still like to understand precise Church teaching.

Blessings and goodwill always…Barb

 

[Joysong]

Hello Barb, my longtime friend,

Maybe this will help a little, for I pulled it from the Holy See website. They refer to the CCC quote #67 that I mentioned earlier, and explain it rather well, I thought. Since I edited a lot of it for brevity’s sake, you can log on if there is more you want to read.

Public Revelation and private revelations – their theological status

Before attempting an interpretation, the main lines of which can be found in the statement read by Cardinal Sodano on 13 May of this year at the end of the Mass celebrated by the Holy Father in Fatima, there is a need for some basic clarification of the way in which, according to Church teaching, phenomena such as Fatima are to be understood within the life of faith. The teaching of the Church distinguishes between “public Revelation” and “private revelations”. The two realities differ not only in degree but also in essence. The term “public Revelation” refers to the revealing action of God directed to humanity as a whole and which finds its literary expression in the two parts of the Bible: the Old and New Testaments. It is called “Revelation” because in it God gradually made himself known to men, to the point of becoming man himself, in order to draw to himself the whole world and unite it with himself through his Incarnate Son, Jesus Christ.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says in this regard: “…even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made fully explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries” (No. 66).

In this context, it now becomes possible to understand rightly the concept of “private revelation”, which refers to all the visions and revelations which have taken place since the completion of the New Testament. This is the category to which we must assign the message of Fatima. In this respect, let us listen once again to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Throughout the ages, there have been so-called ‘private’ revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church…
It is not their role to complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history” (No. 67).

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.
  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.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html

In His peace,
Carole

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Thanks Carole and hi there again!.. I will have to read it at some later point with application. There has been much confusion in this thread as to actual Church teaching and it would be great if it could be stated quite simply what the actual Church teaching is so we can have it clear in our minds…not only for our own sake, but for the sake of good evangelization and passing on actual Church teaching should we be put into such a position of being asked to convey what is necessary to belief re Catholicism.
Sometimes I can find theological documents confusing too…surely there can be a straight answer for those of us not gifted particularly in pouring over theological documents. …which is to cast no aspertion whatsoever on you, Carole…rather on complex ‘legislation’ and how to communicate such with simplicity. I can find the CCC ambiguous at times which is not much help. I am aware this is more a reflection on my intellectual capacities than anything, but then the simple minded are Catholics too and search for the truth of matters at times.

Blessings and always with goodwill towards all…Barb
PS…I may put it to the Apologetics Forum stating the fact that I do not have the ability to deal with complexities and could I please have a ‘straight answer’…necessary to believe, or not in Church approved visions/private revelations/writings of saints…i.e. am I free in conscience to disbelieve and still maintain full Catholicity in obedience to The Church and Magisterium. I genuinely am confused!

 

[Eilish_Maura]

This is a balancing act. A tightrope walk between obedience and growth. We must remain obedient and allow time for the church to examine such things. In the early church, much of the scripture that appeared was likely received with enthusiasm, and appeared enlightening and edifying. However, some of it was later excluded from the canon. This lead to much disappointment at the time. The time that has passed has shown us the inspiration of the early church in determining the canon. And so, it is prudent to wait, especially if we believe in the authority of the church.

Isn’t God in charge of all events?

Yes God is in charge BUT apparitions and such are just private revelation. Sometimes (well lots of sometimes) people make way too much of them (as in what opened this thread which was an accusation made elsewhere).

 

[Joysong]

Hi Barb,

I agree about the simplicity notion, but some folks won’t accept a layperson’s brief comment unless they can see the official word from Rome.

Let me try to explain it in capsule form.

Private revelation, which includes all Church-approved apparitions since the New Testament concluded, may be accepted by the faithful with prudence if the Church has officially recognized them. They must lead all of us back to the public revelation that is essential for our faith. They are not obligatory, but are often a help to piety.

How’s that?

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Quoting JoySong

I agree about the simplicity notion, but some folks won’t accept a layperson’s brief comment unless they can see the official word from Rome.

I must admit, Carole, I would have to line up with those who would like to see the official word from Rome and I do think Rome owes it and in conscience to we simple folk!

Let me try to explain it in capsule form.

Private revelation, which includes all Church approved apparitions since the New Testament concluded, may be accepted by the faithful with prudence. They must lead all of us back to the public revelation that is essential for our faith. They are not obligatory, but are often a help to piety.

How’s that?

That’s pretty good! Thank you.
I will continue to state that visions, private revelations and the writings of saints are not mandatory to Faith as a Catholic - that one has an option to believe or to not believe. That The Church does state in some instances, however, that a vision, private revelation or the writings of a saint in a particular instance are worthy of belief in that nothing is contradictory about them to what is mandatory to Faith, while the choice to believe remains optional.
Anything further is likely to complicate things in the minds of others especially…but also me too

Thanks again Carole…Barb

 

[Joysong]

Oh, I’m so glad that helped you, Barb. I understand the frustration you feel in the presence of long scholarly documents, because it bothers me, too. When I find posts that contain them, I confess that I seldom read them.

What is the best way to handle this, do you think? Just share in our own words what the Church’s teaching is, and let people believe us or not? If they don’t accept our simple truth, then that would be a good time to pull the loooooong document?

I apologize for not being more sensitive. I’ll try to work on this. You are a blessing!

Carole

 

[BarbaraTherese]

I guess we should bounce this back to the OP. I have always been under the assumption (possible incorrectly) that the Church allows us to deny that such events even occurred.

Again I may not be correct…I’ll have to check the rules of CAF re posting and threads, but I hold that there is the question of the OP to be addressed, but then there is also where the Holy Spirit may lead a thread, although for myself I prefer the discussion not to drift completely off the subject of the OP. Certainly this thread eventually had the power to question my own firm beliefs re belief in visions etc. Now re affirmed them.

Incidentally THurifer,* I think the answer is that we do have the freedom to disbelieve* that the events actually occured…while it would be foolish, and an indication perhaps of massive pride perhaps to stand against declared Church authority that they did in fact occur…both humility and prudence would ask, I should think, that one recognizes the superior wisdom and authority of The Church. * Be that as it may we are not bound to believe.* And if I am wrong, then please someone correct me and with some link to an authoritative statement from Rome, not just a personal opinion or deduction.

I do not want to advocate something incorrect as in fact Church teaching.

Blessings and with goodwill towards all…Barb