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

[BarbaraTherese]

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

…me, a blessing, Carole. I have seen people roll their eyes as I approach, indicating that I am not always a ‘blessing’! But thank you for your kind and generous thinking.

I will read the document you posted, Carole…it is just that at this point in the morning here I am distracted on an entirely different subject asking some focus.

I think it is important that our own concepts are formed from the authority of Rome and that we do not quote such concepts unless we can back them up with some authoritative link, both to double check our own understanding and to ensure that we are not communicating incorrect information.
As I said before there is much confusion out there amongst non Catholics especially (I am a student on a campus where much discussion takes place on many matters and it is known I am a practising Catholic) about visions, private revelations and our saints - and the extent of it in Catholic belief and we need to have it clear in our minds what exactly The Church does proclaim. Over and aboe that, at times even Catholics are confused…I did think I was not and perhaps my own folly?
We need to be aware that there may well be ‘lurkers’ both of the Faith and also not who are simply reading posts and trying to understand Catholic teaching, as well as perhaps other matters. Hence we may well be in “evangelizing mode” without knowing it as a surety. We need, I think, to recognize this very real potential. We need to I think to take onboard what was said of the very early Christians with awe “see how they love one another” and act that others may see us likewise…says she sitting in a glass house!!!

Thank you for your contributions, Carole, which I hope will be an aid to clarifying matters for all re visions, private revelations and the writings of our saints, and that this thread may be able to rest its head having come to an agreed conclusion…Blessings and with goodwill to all…Barb

 

[BarbaraTherese]

I have read the document you quoted, Carole…and even to such as me it is quite clear with simplicity of expression that there is no obligation at all on Catholics to believe in approved visions, private revelations and writings of saints. Such belief is not necessary to salvation and hence there is nothing sinful in not believing in them, other than perhaps if one is acting against one’s own (God alone gifted) level of humility and prudence, and what it tells one, in the face of the superior wisdom and hence gifted insight of Church authority. And sin alone is offensive to God and to all in Heaven, united as they are to God and His Will.

The authority of The Church may declare that there is nothing contradictory to Faith in such which means that The Church is stating … (quotation taken from the document quoted by JoySong (Carole) :

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”.

…or in other words, “worthy of belief”…but not necessary and mandatory to believe?

Blessings and with goodwill towards all always…Barb

 

[CradleCath]

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…

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Originally Posted by THurifer2 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cab/viewpost.gif
*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…*

This is very true, CradleCatholic, and I am presupposing that this is your point in quoting THurifer above without comments of your own…and a supposition of his/hers. ***The issue does remain with absolute validity ***that The Church teaches that believing in apparitions, visions and the writings of saints canonized for heroic virtue is not essential to salvation…and hence essential to Supernatural Faith…rather worthy of belief and human faith and "probable and credible to piety”. " to quote Cardinal Lambertine (the future Pope Benedict XIV) and the document quoted by Joysong.

Blessings and always in goodwill…Barb

 

[CradleCath]

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

Have you ever read a book that deals specifically with her life & her visions? Will you answer that?? I doubt it.

 

[THurifer2]

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

This thread has really made me think about things. I guess we owe that to Elish Maura.

 

[BarbaraTherese]

This thread has really made me think about things. I guess we owe that to Elish Maura.

Great point! It has really made me think things through too to a more logical conclusion than previously, and thanks to Elish Maura in raising the subject in the main:thumbsup: . Joysong’s (Carole) contribution has been very helpful to me too especially the document by Cardinal Lambertine (now kept in my files), amongst your own and others comments which have made me pause and think,…The Holy Spirit is forever at work in us and often through others.

My personal conclusion is that if I do need to state Church teaching on the subject, to do so …adding that I personally do believe in apparitions, private revelations and the writings of saints and being the type of person that can be something anyway I hope of a credit to what I believe and those saints and Our Lady in whom I also believe and especially to Christ and His Gospel…of striving to be so. My own personal accountability and responsibility has been highlighted through this thread…glug!..double glug and glug!

First Epistle of St. Peter - Chapter 3

15 But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you.
16 But with modesty and fear, having a good conscience: that whereas they speak evil of you, they may be ashamed who falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

Blessings and always with goodwill…Barb

 

[Eilish_Maura]

This thread has really made me think about things. I guess we owe that to Elish Maura.

<I just fell off my chair!> :blushing:

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Have you ever read a book that deals specifically with her life & her visions? Will you answer that?? I doubt it.

What do you doubt?

BTW - do you know of a book that is specifically about her cannonization?

 

[CradleCath]

What do you doubt?

I doubted that you would answer my question: Have you ever read a book about St. Bernadette’s life & visions?? Surprise me.

BTW - do you know of a book that is specifically about her cannonization?

catholic-pages.com/saints/st_bernadette.asp

An excerpt:
One hundred and thirty-two sessions were to follow, in the course of which appeared the survivors of the Soubirous family, a number of clergy, nuns and layfolk who had known Bernadette well. The Ecclesiastical Commission displayed prodigious activity, for by October 23rd, 1909, the Congregation for Rites was in possession of all the documents of the Enquiry.

At Nevers, the previous September 22nd, before finally closing the Informative Process, Bishop Gauthey had ordered proceedings to be taken, in due canonical form, for the exhumation of the body of Sister Marie-Bernard. In St Joseph’s chapel there was profound emotion when the “confidante of the Immaculate,” after being buried for thirty years and five months, was again brought into the light of day.

There was no trace of corruption. The flesh was parched but intact, and it had preserved its whiteness. Her head, which was covered in the cap and veil, and her hands, which were crossed over her heart, holding the tarnished crucifix and the rosary corroded with rust, were slightly inclined to the left. Her eyes, deeply sunk in their sockets, were found to be completely closed. Her lips were partially open, as in a smile… The touching attitude of the little dead body, as Bishop Gauthey remarked, recalled that of the young virgins in the first centuries discovered in the catacombs.

On August 13th, 1913, Pope Pius X signed the decree for the introduction of the Cause. By that very fact Bernadette received the title of Venerable. Then was to follow under the authority of Cardinal Vico the “Apostolic Process” concerning her reputation for sanctity, her virtues and miracles. Delayed by the war, this did not open until September 17th, 1917, and was presided over by Bishop Chatelus, successor to Bishop Gauthey, who had no become Archbishop of Besançon. Two hundred and three sessions were required. At length, on February 11th, 1920, the resulting documents were lodged with the Congregation of Rites.

BTW., if you don’t believe that the private revelation given to her by the Blessed Virgin was real, what DO you believe…that she was a fraud & a liar?? That she was insane??

 

[BarbaraTherese]

As an aside I have great devotion to Our Lady of Lourdes and in St. Bernadette…
…as a general comment… if one does not believe it does not necessarily mean thereby and therefore that the person who does not believe thinks St. Bernadette was either a liar or of unsound mind. St. Bernadette was not canonized on the evidence of her visions (and attendant private revelations) of Our Lady having been real and from God and not imaginery, rather on her heroic virtue. I think a person under what The Church does state is in the instance of apparitions, private revelations and writings is quite free to exercise the option to believe or not without accusation or incrimination.

I just noticed another (there have been others) very active active thread that was locked by Klara Collins due to lack of charity between posters…and Klara reminded all that charity between posters is a rule of CAF. Just a general reminder!

…be kind…

God’s rich blessings and with goodwill always…Barb

 

[THurifer2]

of Our Lady having been real and from God and not imaginery, rather on her heroic virtue.
…be kind…

God’s rich blessings and with goodwill always…Barb

This is where things get murky. The post prior indicated that her heroic virutues consisted of “sticking” with her story.

I guess the real questio lies in the fact that if Mary had not appeared to Bernadette would she be a Saint.

But then again simply a speculation.

 

[Joysong]

Aw shucks, Thurifer,

Do you really believe the only heroism in her virtues was simply sticking to her story? That concept is definitely off-balance in a study of St. Bernadette’s life, and we should avoid putting our faith in that idea.

I guess the real question lies in the fact that if Mary had not appeared to Bernadette would she be a Saint.

But then again simply a speculation.

You are correct, that is simply speculation. Many canonized saints never experienced these, but lived the virtues of faith, hope, and charity to a heroic degree. This is what the Church examines, in extensive and minute detail. If you cannot think of any saints, write back, and I’ll be glad to mention a few that are coming to mind just now.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

catholic-pages.com/saints/st_bernadette.asp

An excerpt:
One hundred and thirty-two sessions were to follow, in the course of which appeared the survivors of the Soubirous family, a number of clergy, nuns and layfolk who had known Bernadette well. The Ecclesiastical Commission displayed prodigious activity, for by October 23rd, 1909, the Congregation for Rites was in possession of all the documents of the Enquiry.

The bolded is what I would be interested in - do you know a book about it?

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Seeing ‘issues’ like this makes me more resolute to share that the Church does allow us to ‘opt out’ when it comes to private revelation:

New Book on Third Secret!!!
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=236331

 

[CradleCath]

This is where things get murky. The post prior indicated that her heroic virutues consisted of “sticking” with her story.

I guess the real questio lies in the fact that if Mary had not appeared to Bernadette would she be a Saint.

But then again simply a speculation.

I don’t know. I believe that she would have been a saint (small s), but would she have become a cannonized Saint, recognized by the Church? I don’t think so. She was a young girl whose family was extremely poor. They had no home & lived in an abandoned jail cell. There was not enough money for food, which is what took Bernadette to the place that would later become the grotto, as she was looking for wood that could be sold or bartered for food.

I do know that there had to be something special about her for Our Lady to appear to her with a message to give the world. Perhaps it was her determination to make her First Communion. She had to be able to read in order to do so & she often worked & couldn’t go to school. (she worked both as a waitress at an inn & did farm work though she was reported to be small). She finally received the Eucharist for the first time when she was fourteen years old.

 

[CradleCath]

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…

You’re right. If one declares that the appartion of, for instance, St. Bernadette didn’t happen…though Bernadette said it did…that person would be declaring the Saint to be…

#1. A liar & a fraud…
OR…
#2. So out of touch with reality that they would be called insane.

 

[NotWorthy]

You’re right. If one declares that the appartion of, for instance, St. Bernadette didn’t happen…though Bernadette said it did…that person would be declaring the Saint to be…

#1. A liar & a fraud…
OR…
#2. So out of touch with reality that they would be called insane.

OK, but sanity is not necessarily a requirement for sainthood, is it? I certainly hope not, or else I’m in a whole lot of trouble!!!

 

[CradleCath]

Quoting JoySong:

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.

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.

Blessings - Barb

I posted this in the beginning of this thread, but will do so again:
Hidden Presence of God

Already in 1563, the Ecumenical Council of Trent required the establishment of a diocesan commission 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. That is not up to us to decide, for we haven’t the wherewithal to investigate the apparition.

The final evaluation was to fall into one of three categories:

1. Constat supernaturalitas, that is to say, the apparition is recognized, approved and declared “worthy of belief” by the Church. Notice that it is not the Catholic in the pew who names it “worthy of belief”, it’s the Church. They do not say we MUST believe it or we will go to hell…just that this apparition is “worthy”, that it is of supernatural origin & that same supernatural origin is beneveloent.

1. 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, however the Church found no evidence that the origin of this apparition is of Supernatural origin.
2. Constat non-supernaturalitas, which would mean the claimed apparition is false, and hence not worthy of belief.

One can look these phrases up several places on the internet.

I do appreciate your efforts at peacemaking, though I am at peace & am not harrassing Eilish Maura. I simply disagree with her, not that she MUST believe, but what the phrases “worthy of belief” & Constat supernaturalitas (we agree…it is Supernatural) mean to Catholics.

For instance, I think that if the Church declares an apparition as “worthy of belief”…it IS worthy of belief. To suggest otherwise, as far as I’m concerned, is inferring that either a Saint who spoke with the Sacred Heart/The Blessed Virgin is lying or the Church is perpetuating a hoax.

Perhaps you can explain another option or an acceptable reason for denying the truth of the Saint’s story…or the truth of the Church’s declaration that this happening is “WORTHY of belief”.

 

[BarbaraTherese]

I posted this in the beginning of this thread, but will do so again:
Hidden Presence of God

Already in 1563, the Ecumenical Council of Trent required the establishment of a diocesan commission 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. That is not up to us to decide, for we haven’t the wherewithal to investigate the apparition.

The final evaluation was to fall into one of three categories:

1. Constat supernaturalitas, that is to say, the apparition is recognized, approved and declared “worthy of belief” by the Church. Notice that it is not the Catholic in the pew who names it “worthy of belief”, it’s the Church. They do not say we MUST believe it or we will go to hell…just that this apparition is “worthy”, that it is of supernatural origin & that same supernatural origin is beneveloent.

1. 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, however the Church found no evidence that the origin of this apparition is of Supernatural origin.
2. Constat non-supernaturalitas, which would mean the claimed apparition is false, and hence not worthy of belief.

One can look these phrases up several places on the internet.

I do appreciate your efforts at peacemaking, though I am at peace & am not harrassing Eilish Maura. I simply disagree with her, not that she MUST believe, but what the phrases “worthy of belief” & Constat supernaturalitas (we agree…it is Supernatural) mean to Catholics.

For instance, I think that if the Church declares an apparition as “worthy of belief”…it IS worthy of belief. To suggest otherwise, as far as I’m concerned, is inferring that either a Saint who spoke with the Sacred Heart/The Blessed Virgin is lying or the Church is perpetuating a hoax.

Perhaps you can explain another option or an acceptable reason for denying the truth of the Saint’s story…or the truth of the Church’s declaration that this happening is “WORTHY of belief”.

Hi CradleCatholic…Thank you for reposting information that I have overlooked. Happy to read that you are at Peace.

If a Catholic should state to me that they did not believe in something that The Church stated there was no necessity in Faith to believe, then I would not call their integrity into question (and I realize that you did not do this directly)…I wanted to avoid any potential of this thread decscending to unkindly personal by the ‘nudge’ about Klara locking another very active thread. And I am not saying that there was any ‘unkindly personal’ comments, merely that I was hoping that this thread would not descend to that level …and I did realize I was ‘jumping the gun’. We are told by St. Paul that even if we have all knowledge, but lack Charity, we are merely a gong booming…or truth without love is merely a half truth. In calling on The Church’s God given authority to state “worthy of belief” or not, there is a far greater matter in hand and that is the Word of God Himself clearly stated in Scripture that truth without love is nothing. Ideally speaking these Catholic Forums should breathe a healthy search for truth/statement of known truth and with mutual respect and esteem always.

I daresay and I am completely open to correction in this and I have no problems with that… a person could be canonized on the basis of heroic virtue whereas any claimed apparition is not highlighted due to the fact that it could have proceeded from the imagination/deceptions of Satan and the person themselves were neither lying nor of unsound mind. St. Teresa of Avila advised her nuns not to seek visions etc. as they were quite open to the deceptions of the devil, which does not at all call either the heroice virtue nor the integrity of the person into question and a person is quite free to hold to this…and not necessarily imply that The Church is perpetrating a hoax, merely I guess implying the Church is mistaken and one is quite free to hold to this too. I simply would not call into question the integrity of another I would hope under certain circumstances.
And the core and central issue remains that there is no necessity to believe in Faith that what The Church states as “worthy of belief” must therefore be believed in…not an assumption of mine but a teaching of The Church. Nor is such a non believer thereby of necessity calling into question either the integrity of the saint or The Church…and Charity asks that we do not judge them - merely accept their right to not believe.

Blessings and with goodwill always…Barb