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

[Tantum_ergo]

But the Church has it’s core material and doctrine, that of which we must believe and follow, the Holy Magisterium, the Bible, Doctrine, established many years ago, during and immediately after Christ. There must be a word for this which escapes me now.

I think you mean “Deposit of the Faith”, which goes without saying.

Worthy of belief the approved apparitions are; ‘required’ to believe they are not.

I feel like Yoda.

 

[SongofShepherds]

I think you mean “Deposit of the Faith”, which goes without saying.

I don’t think it “goes without saying”: this is really a central issue in this discussion and thank you, “Deposit of Faith” is most likely the word I was looking for.

Some have said that the Fatima apparitions were too important to just speak of whether they are just “worthy of belief” in light of the very turbulent 20th Century and the messages they contained and in fact, some of the messages are called “secrets.”

So, indeed, this is a very fine point which in some people’s opinion should be fine tuned.

But away from the discussions of whether we need to believe in approved apparitions, I also see, that the common man and the faith is such a widespread one, it may be difficult to reach everyone on the fine points of an “approved” apparition especially in days gone by, to say someone in remote Bolivia or Laos or Africa and factoring into the matter, past illiteracy.

When doctrines and rules were developed in regards to approving apparitions, those making them may not have envisioned that these could possibly include crucial messages as even in the message of Divine Mercy.

Thus, the Vatican is hesitant to add to the age old “Deposit of Faith” such as the matters of Apparitions.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

I don’t think it “goes without saying”: this is really a central issue in this discussion and thank you, “Deposit of Faith” is most likely the word I was looking for.

Some have said that the Fatima apparitions were too important to just speak of whether they are just “worthy of belief” in light of the very turbulent 20th Century and the messages they contained and in fact, some of the messages are called “secrets.”

So, indeed, this is a very fine point which in some people’s opinion should be fine tuned.

But away from the discussions of whether we need to believe in approved apparitions, I also see, that the common man and the faith is such a widespread one, it may be difficult to reach everyone on the fine points of an “approved” apparition especially in days gone by, to say someone in remote Bolivia or Laos or Africa and factoring into the matter, past illiteracy.

When doctrines and rules were developed in regards to approving apparitions, those making them may not have envisioned that these could possibly include crucial messages as even in the message of Divine Mercy.

Thus, the Vatican is hesitant to add to the age old “Deposit of Faith” such as the matters of Apparitions.

The nature of any private revelation that can be approved is that it does NOT add to Public Revelation (and thereby add to the Deposit of Faith).

 

[SongofShepherds]

The nature of any private revelation that can be approved is that it does NOT add to Public Revelation (and thereby add to the Deposit of Faith).

I like this statement but I am still mulling over it and others haven’t commented;

It reminds me of what I heard yesterday on Relevant Radio, some speaker said, you can read Pope Benedict’s encyclicals and it is reasonably easy to understand,

And they said, one can read Pope John Paul II’s encyclicals with John Paul’s acclaimed great spirituality and this was a Priest who was speaking and he said he has to ask another priest or two “what does that say?” :

So, how about that, Eilish Maura’s statement seems to put her in the second category!

 

[CradleCath]

I have posed the same question (do we have to believe in private revelation) in threads** where folks have denied or distorted Church’s teaching.**
This thread is a refinement of that thought and a query about statement(s) made to me about following the Church’s teaching.

Hopefully those who have posted on this thread will check out your various posts on various threads about private revelation & “those folks who have (supposedly) denied/distorted Church teaching”.It might be a real eye-opener for some of them.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Hopefully those who have posted on this thread will check out your various posts on various threads about private revelation & “those folks who have (supposedly) denied/distorted Church teaching”.It might be a real eye-opener for some of them.

Have you finished baiting?

 

[Joysong]

CradleCath:

Hopefully those who have posted on this thread will check out your various posts on various threads about private revelations …

This is ridiculous to assume that we will all run to ‘various threads’ … like we have nothing better to do than to dig up some so-called dirt on another poster, in order to have a ‘real eye opener.’

What is important is that we all worked together through this thread and all came to the conclusion which the Holy Spirit led us to understand re Church teaching on this topic. Whatever a person said or believed once upon a time is totally irrelevant, and I consider it rather demeaning to even suggest that any of us look back in time. I noted that other posters changed their opinion, but you said not a word to them. Interesting.

The only person who seems to remain obstinate and contentious is you, CradleCath.

 

[CradleCath]

This is ridiculous to assume that we will all run to ‘various threads’ … like we have nothing better to do than to dig up some so-called dirt on another poster, in order to have a ‘real eye opener.’

What is important is that we all worked together through this thread and all came to the conclusion which the Holy Spirit led us to understand re Church teaching on this topic. Whatever a person said or believed once upon a time is totally irrelevant, and I consider it rather demeaning to even suggest that any of us look back in time. I noted that other posters changed their opinion, but you said not a word to them. Interesting.

The only person who seems to remain obstinate and contentious is you, CradleCath.

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Quoting Tantum Ergo:

When doctrines and rules were developed in regards to approving apparitions, those making them may not have envisioned that these could possibly include crucial messages as even in the message of Divine Mercy.

Thus, the Vatican is hesitant to add to the age old “Deposit of Faith” such as the matters of Apparitions.

QuotingEilish Maura in reply to above from TE:

The nature of any private revelation that can be approved is that it does NOT add to Public Revelation (and thereby add to the Deposit of Faith).

Qutoing Tantum Ergo in reply to above from EM:

I like this statement but I am still mulling over it and others haven’t commented;

My comment on each of the above (in line with Eilish Maura has said) is that when apparitions etc. receive Church Approval as “worthyof belief” they never do*** nor will belong*** to the Deposit of Faith and hence belief becomes mandatory and non optional. This is been made quite clear in the course of this thread. No “worthy of belief” past or to come private revelation etc. will ever belong to the Deposit of Faith unless the Holy Father declares something from The Chair of Peter as an infallible declartion belonging to the Deposit of Faith.
There is no ‘hestancy’ as stated by TantumErgo onthe part of The Church to include any approved apparition etc. in the Deposit of Faith…clearly The Church teaches they do not belong in the Deposit of Faith nor ever will be except in very exceptional cases. For example the doctrine of The Assumption, though not in an approved revelation, was recently declared a doctrine of The Faith to be included in the Deposit of Faith.

Quoting CradleCatholic

Hopefully those who have posted on this thread will check out your various posts on various threads about private revelation & “those folks who have (supposedly) denied/distorted Church teaching”.It might be a real eye-opener for some of them.

I have felt quite safe in discounting and ignoring this suggestion.
I know over the years I for one only have been a CAF member and contributor to these Forums I have changed and grown. My own opinions and concepts have changed for the better and more in line with Church teachings which is an entirely good thing and a sign of growth and the work of The Holy Spirit. CAF has been an educational and growth experience for me and I am sure for others as well.
Perhaps only, Eilish Maura has had the same sort of experience and I dont know not have read the suggested threads by CradleCatholic, nor have the slightest interest in doing so.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Actually, I think it was Song of Shepherds who made those posts, not me, Barbara.

He (she) was responding to an earlier post of mine so I can see how it might have gotten a bit confusing.

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Quoting Cradle Catholic:

Hopefully those who have posted on this thread will check out your various posts on various threads about private revelation & “those folks who have (supposedly) denied/distorted Church teaching”.It might be a real eye-opener for some of them.

**Quoting Joysong in reply to above: **

What is important

is that we all worked together through this thread and all came to the conclusion which the Holy Spirit led us to understand re Church teaching on this topic. Whatever a person said or believed once upon a time is totally irrelevant, and I consider it rather demeaning to even suggest that any of us look back in time. I noted that other posters changed their opinion, but you said not a word to them. Interesting.

The only person who seems to remain obstinate and contentious is you, CradleCath.

Certainly most all of us did work through issues in this thread and arrived at the common conclusion that approved apparitions are declared “worthy of belief” however do not belong to the Deposit of Faith in which we must believe as Catholics. And if one reads through this thread, and if necessary I can isolate for the benefit of anyone who would like them the posts applicable, one will sight that absolutely reliable Church sources (including a document by Cardinar Ratzinger (now our Holy Father) quoted by Joysong), another two quoted by me in New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia (see links below) and the final one is an article from Catholic Answers here in “This Rock Magazine, have been quoted to confirm my latter statement that there is no necessity at all to believe in approved apparitions etc. which do have Church approval……………nor will there ever be any necessity with current or future apparitions etc.nor will private revelations, apparitions etc. ever be including in the Deposit of Faith - unless The Holy Father declares something from the Chair of Peter as a doctrine of The Church to be included in the Deposit of Faith, the source of which ended with the New Testament. This has never happened in the 2000 odd year history of The Church.

While approved apparitions etc. can be an aid to insight into The Deposit of Faith and an aid to personal piety, there remains no necessity to believe in them nor ever will be outside of an infallible declartion by the Holy Father, which has never happened to date in the case of a private revelation etc.
It needs to be understood that aids to personal piety and to insight into the Deposit of Faith can all be found in the Old and New Testament, hence The Deposit of Faith……….while some only may find like benefit in approved apparitions etc. and The Church approves this ‘like benefit’ not all do so. To do so is a gift of The Holy Spirit to a particular person and to their life of insight into the Faith and their life of piety and “The Spirit moves where He will”.

Blessings all and with goodwill…Barb

Applicable posts with authoritative Church articles on the general subject herein mentioned in my above post.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3611370&postcount=70

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3622141&postcount=143

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3616885&postcount=113

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Actually, I think it was Song of Shepherds who made those posts, not me, Barbara.

He (she) was responding to an earlier post of mine so I can see how it might have gotten a bit confusing.

My apologies …and thank you for pointing out the error with graciousness and insight. I have lost my edit function, TE, or I would amend things. I will ask a moderator to alter things for me via PM…apologies again…Blessings - Barb

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Just sent off a PM to Klara Collins, TE, asking her to amend things for me…and indeed you also! I hope this will be effected fairly quickly. I have been watching the number of accesses to this thread and there seems to be a fair bit of interest in this thread and I can understand why as there often is confusion on this point and very often by Catholics also.

Blessings - Barb

 

[SongofShepherds]

My comment on each of the above (in line with Eilish Maura has said) is that when apparitions etc. receive Church Approval as “worthyof belief” they never do*** nor will belong*** to the Deposit of Faith and hence belief becomes mandatory and non optional. …

Is this actually what you mean to say? Is this statement the conscensus of what has been written here? Not that a conscensus makes things right!

Speaking of “simplicity” but I don’t mean that in a negative manner. We write paragraphs and indeed, I’ve lost data and then found I can sum up what I was writing by half the words often.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Is this actually what you mean to say? Is this statement the conscensus of what has been written here? Not that a conscensus makes things right!

That private revelation is not added to the deposit of faith is not something come to by consensus but told to us by the Church.

To believe otherwise is to believe Jesus did not tell us all we need to know, that he is holding back from us.

 

[Joysong]

My

comment on each of the above (in line with Eilish Maura has said) is that when apparitions etc. receive Church Approval as “worthyof belief” they never do nor will belong to the Deposit of Faith and hence belief becomes mandatory and non optional. …

I think it was the phrasing Barb used that is confusing at first glance, but if you have followed her meaning in this thread, I think what she meant is,

They never will belong to the Deposit of Faith. If that were to occur, it would then require belief on our part as mandatory and no longer be optional, as it is presently.

 

[BarbaraTherese]

My

I think it was the phrasing Barb used that is confusing at first glance, but if you have followed her meaning in this thread, I think what she meant is,

They never will belong to the Deposit of Faith. If that were to occur, it would then require belief on our part as mandatory and no longer be optional, as it is presently.

Thanks Carole…

They never will belong to the Deposit of Faith. If that were to occur, it would then require belief on our part as mandatory and no longer be optional…

This is my meaning and also in the main the overall agreement arrived at in this thread re approved apparitions etc. to this point in time.

Blessings…Barb

 

[BarbaraTherese]

From SongofShepherds post here

Speaking of “simplicity” but I don’t mean that in a negative manner. We write paragraphs and indeed, I’ve lost data and then found I can sum up what I was writing by half the words often.

Hi SoS! …Indeed I have posted posts, and then thought later that I could have summed up near on 5,000 words in a paragraph:thumbsup: …or indeed, wished I had never posted at all. Not to worry - I did, I hope, my best at the time, though poor best it may have been and often is, and sometimes my best is always poor yet my personal best. And even my very best always leaves much to be desired. Conciseness and brevity were never gifts of mine, though now and then I might visit, stumbling over them, but only for rare moments.
“Simplicity” can have a few meanings.

God bless:thumbsup: …Barb

 

[NotWorthy]

I received this e-mail today and thought it would be apropos to this thread, even though it has died down (for it seems Eilish has been busy on another thread! ).

********St. Bernadette’s Body after 122 years!

---

These are pictures of St.Bernadette who died 122 years ago in Lourdes , France
and was buried; her body was only discovered 30 years ago. After church officials
decided to examine it they discovered Her body is still fresh until today and if you
ever go to Lourdes , France you can see in the church in Lourdes. Her body isn’t
decomposing because during her lifetime, the mother of Jesus would always appear
to her and give messages and advice to all mankind on the right way to live on this earth.
Many miracles have taken place in this place of Lourdes and still do until today.

These pictures show her body after 122 years!
Pass this message to every one in your address book…http://forums.catholic-questions.or...chmentid=3045&stc=1&d=1210216134****Scientist have wondered because this defy the laws of nature and instead of expecting a foul smell of a dead body ,**
a fragrance of flowers can beexperience when the glass coffin is open. Some say they experienced by just
going near the coffin. You can visit the Church of Lourdes,France to verifyyourself the authenticity of this truly
wonderful experience,if you want to see a living miracle of our times.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

I don’t think that post was appropriate for this thread at all and I don’t believe the thread should be forced to stay active this way (by going off topic totally).

Can we all pray for a lock before it goes further astray?