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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eilish_Maura
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear CradleCath,

Are you aware that Pope John Paul II has passed new laws in 1983 for the Causes of Saints? You are stating something from the Council of Trent in the 16th century and expecting it to carry the weight of this entire discussion. I had thought we all came to a good understanding of the present teaching of the Church, which always supplants and perfects previous teachings.

At the very moment we were all thankful to the Holy Spirit for His guidance, you chose to renew controversy once again, and in not too kind a manner, but more or less arbitrarily and taunting.
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.
Click to expand...
What is this supposed to mean in the final disposition of this thread? Not a single person has said they disbelieve the Church when she makes this declaration. Why are you provoking anyone as if they were disagreeing? This is not the first time you have injected the “liar” theory.

I am not sure how many more times we need to spell it out for you. The problem is not with ‘disbelief’ … but with the freedom to not be devoted to the apparition or the message, according to Church teaching. It has nothing to do with not believing it is true or ‘worthy of belief.’
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”.
Click to expand...
There is absolutely nothing to explain, because nobody denies the Church’s declaration. KIndly read the thread thoroughly, especially the last several posts. Maybe they were not of interest to you, since you seem adamant in clinging to your old argument, rather than work through this teaching with the rest of us, and listen to the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit.

I see no fruitful purpose in continuing this.
 
My own position is that there is no necessity to believe in something The Church declares “worthy of belief”, nor does The Church ask that a person who does not believe declare their reasons for not believing. These matters are simply not Articles of Faith…and one can remain a good, loyal and practising Catholic without believing in such matters, nor should their integrity be called into question since we are asked not to judge.

The statement above is not a statement of my own personal belief re apparitions, private revelations, writings of saints etc. It is merely a statement of what The Church does teach on these matters which is the central core issue of this thread:
If you don’t believe in approved apparition(s) are you denying the Church?
No you are not either denying The Church or The Lord.

Blessings and always with goodwill…Barb:)
 
These matters are simply not Articles of Faith…and one can remain a good, loyal and practising Catholic without believing in such matters, nor should their integrity be called into question since we are asked not to judge.
Click to expand...
Thanks Barb! 👍

I sure wish the moderator would close this thread before it degenerates like the others.
 
“This Rock” – Catholic Answers…………… “Quick Questions”
catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9209qq.asp
No private revelation is binding in conscience on anyone except the person to whom it is given. If your neighbor has a real apparition, and if he’s convinced it’s authentic and ultimately from God, then in conscience he’s bound to follow it–but you aren’t, even if you think the apparition is real.
Click to expand...
You can be a perfectly good Catholic and pay no attention at all even to apparitions which really occurred. If you don’t believe in them, or if you do believe in them but don’t pay attention to them, you aren’t guilty of any sin.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You are bound to believe and follow all general revelation, but general revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, commonly believed to be John the Evangelist, who died near the year 100. This general revelation is protected and interpreted by the magisterium of the Church.
Click to expand...

Quoting Joysong:
I sure wish the moderator would close this thread before it degenerates like the others.
Click to expand...
PS…I dont think a moderator would close a thread on the presupposition that it might degenerate into uncharitableness. On the thread I mentioned that Klara closed, apparently (she stated) there had been six pages of personal attacks. I dont think we are anywhere near this yet - leastways I hope not nor will not arrive there, nor even come close. The point is to keep an argument objective to the point of view expressed and not a personal attack on the person because the other may disagree.
Certainly if one has a complaint about a thread or post one can take it to a moderator who will then decide on action to be taken if any.
My own personal position is that I would like the actual teaching of The Church on this matter to be very clear and not obscured and certainly not defaced in any way by other issues.

Blessings and with goodwill always…Barb:)
 
NotWorthy said:
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!!! :o
Click to expand...
:rotfl: …No, sanity is not necessarily a requisite for sanctity to my knowledge…but I should imagine it would be a great help indeed…Blessings - A sufferer of Bipolar Disorder and the second of the two major mental illnesses…:whistle: …
 
I would like to forumlate an answer to the Original Post.
  1. No one is not denying the church. One is not “less” Catholic if they do not believe in approved apparitions. (similar to my wife not being less pregnant at 4 months than when she was at 8 months)
2)With that in mind the Church has declared that elements and aspects of approved apparitions are WORTHY of belief. The church has also said that such elements and aspects can be a benefit to the growth faith in individuals.

The fact that devotions that have sprung up from such approved “occurances” of which can benefit spiritual growth we SHOULD never find ourselves discouraging others from such devotions likewise we are not boud to encourage them either.

If however one does find themselves in a situation of inquiry from another individual regarding an approved appartion…we have to rely on the churches indications that it would be wrong to discourage an individual from interest in such. Doing so could be potentially impeding graces that may flow to such an individual.

We are not required to encourage…but it is likely wrong to discourage…
 
Quoting THurifer:
I would like to forumlate an answer to the Original Post.
  1. No one is not denying the church. One is not “less” Catholic if they do not believe in approved apparitions. (similar to my wife not being less pregnant at 4 months than when she was at 8 months)
Click to expand...
Agree, we have the freedom to believe or disbelieve…(I did pick up a possible/potential only inference in the above, and with a smile:) )
2)With that in mind the Church has declared that elements and aspects of approved apparitions are WORTHY of belief. The church has also said that such elements and aspects can be a benefit to the growth faith in individuals.
Click to expand...
“Worthy of belief” statement by The Church carries a lot of weight for me as a personal matter while upholding that one is not bound thereby to believe.
The fact that devotions that have sprung up from such approved “occurances” of which can benefit spiritual growth we SHOULD never find ourselves discouraging others from such devotions likewise we are not boud to encourage them either.
Click to expand...
Absolutely …I agree. By the same token it is not right to denigrate others because they do not believe when the option is presented by The Church to either believe or not.
If however one does find themselves in a situation of inquiry from another individual regarding an approved appartion…we have to rely on the churches indications that it would be wrong to discourage an individual from interest in such. Doing so could be potentially impeding graces that may flow to such an individual.

We are not required to encourage…but it is likely wrong to discourage.
Click to expand...
It is very wrong indeed to discourage anyone from some clear good including some clear good in the interests of their spiritual life and life of piety…and since The Church states that these matters are worthy of belief etc. to my mind it may well be very wrong and culpable to discourage such belief. The superior wisdom in this instance, to my mind, is with The Church not a personal conclusion for myself under my option to arrive at my own decision.

While we have freedom to make up our own minds in this matter…freedom of any kind does bring with it accountabilities and responsibilities and The Church states this quite clearly too.
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a3.htm

Blessings and with goodwill always…Barb:)
PS Incidentally “This Rock” (Catholic Answers) has an article on the Third Secret of Fatima “Secret No More”.
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0010fea1.asp
…I am reffering to Eilish Maura’s post you quoted mentioning the above locked thread and a new book out on The Third Secret of Fatima.
 
40.png
Thurifer:
We are not required to encourage…but it is likely wrong to discourage…
Click to expand...
Agreed! Just a little observation re the thread you requoted from Eilish. The so-called encouragement any of us gives to another must always be authentic dispensation of what the Church has actually approved, and not a quacky interpretation from an apparition sensationalist who seeks to distort it and teach their own false version of it. The posts by Saint Raphael are an abomination of the truth. Here’s an example: :eek:
The reason the Popes and the Curia don’t want to release it is because the secret is extremely grave and would condemn the negligence of the hierarchy the last couple of decades.
Click to expand...
From Barb’s link [Excellent, Barb! Deo gratias!]:
1) Has the Vatican revealed the whole of the secret?
Yes. Any accusation to the contrary is simply not credible. John Paul II clearly believes that the third secret of Fatima is crucial to understanding his own pontificate. He is specially invested in the third secret, and, if he says that he has released the full text of the document, then he has. No one with an accurate appraisal of the moral character of John Paul II could think otherwise.
Click to expand...
The reason has to do with the nature of private revelation. Since it is principally for the benefit of the individuals directly involved, they are the most likely to interpret it properly. In this case, both Sr. Lucia and the Holy Father are in agreement that the interpretation offered in The Message of Fatima is the correct one. Those of us who are not principals have little reason to question the judgment of those for whom the revelation was given.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks Carole - my computer (and my paper) files, were it not for the Search facility, would be a complete nightmare!!! Thank The Lord for computers… Deo Gratius, Amen!..👍

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0010fea1.asp
Final paragraph of the article from “This Rock” I quoted:
1) Has the Vatican revealed the whole of the secret?
Yes. Any accusation to the contrary is simply not credible. John Paul II clearly believes that the third secret of Fatima is crucial to understanding his own pontificate. He is specially invested in the third secret, and, if he says that he has released the full text of the document, then he has. No one with an accurate appraisal of the moral character of John Paul II could think otherwise.
“The reason has to do with the nature of private revelation. Since it is principally for the benefit of the individuals directly involved, they are the most likely to interpret it properly. In this case, both Sr. Lucia and the Holy Father are in agreement that the interpretation offered in The Message of Fatima is the correct one. Those of us who are not principals have little reason to question the judgment of those for whom the revelation was given.”
Click to expand...
The above are little know facts I think probably and certainly was an eye opener for me in part giving me new info …and the best of recommendations for the book The Message of Fatima. Always a wise move if one is able to base info and any decision making that may be involved on reliable sources. Based on the message at Fatima we were encouraged through my school years always to pray and do penance. …
I have heard many strange things about portion of the Third Secret still to be revealed - and as stated in the article this is untrue, and all has been revealed - and from a reliable source document …Blessings - Barb:)
 
THurifer2 said:
Like I said

we are not required to encourage, but it would be wrong to discourage.

APPROVED apparitions that is
Click to expand...
Who is discouraging anyone?

Even when ‘encouraging’ it should be within what the Church actually teaches - something I have always found lacking in discussions of private revelation.

I have been in threads and chats with some who are very upset when ‘private revelation’ and say Fatima (as an example) are used in the same sentence!
 
QUOTE=BarbaraTherese;3621852]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)
Click to expand...
No, I did not call another’s integrity into question. I simply would like to know what someone who has no faith in ANY apparition, DOES believe. This is why I asked the question do you belive that the Saint in question lied, was mentally ill, etc.?
…I wanted to avoid any potential of this thread decscending to unkindly personal by the ‘nudge’ about Klara locking another very active thread.
Click to expand...
I don’t know about you, but I think our moderators do an EXCELLENT job of keeping the various threads under control & doubt they need anyone’s help. I’ve often seen one of them warn posters long before they lock a thread, yet I don’t recall seeing a warning on this one.
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’.
Click to expand...
When I enter a thread in the middle of it, I do not “speak”. If I want to “speak”, I make sure that I go back & read ALL posts before adding my opinon & I think that’s a good idea for all of us. It helps one see the dynamics of the thread.
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.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. If you want, I’ll go through this thread (& the many others in which the poster in question asked a similar question re approved appartions) & count how many times she’s been told that one isn’t REQUIRED by the Church to believe in an approved apparition. I think that most Catholics were taught this as children. The part of the teaching of the Church on private apparitions, that’s so often forgotten is:
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Click to expand...
Yet even if Revelation is already complete,** it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.**
Click to expand...
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.****Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations.”
Click to expand...
 
My originating Post to Cradle Catholic**here
******
Quoting CradleCatholic:
No, I did not call another’s integrity into question. I simply would like to know what someone who has no faith in ANY apparition, DOES believe. This is why I asked the question do you belive that the Saint in question lied, was mentally ill, etc.?
Click to expand...
Hi again CC…I cannot answer this question, since I do believe in some apparitions that are Church approved. Others I know little about and neither believe nor disbelieve. I would not make conclusions about another’s disbelief. I would ask them, I guess if I really wanted to know. Of course they have their right to privacy and to not reply.
As I said in a previous post a person’s disbelief in an apparition does not thereby necessarily mean that the person who does not believe is assuming or concluding that the saint in question lied, was mentally ill, or that The Church was perpetrating a hoax. I am sure I dont know how they have arrived at their decision. Perhaps it is similar to my position in some cases where I have little knowledge of the approved apparition and am not obliged under Church Law to inform myself. I do have, however, and have had over a lifetime great devotion to Our Lady…along with various saints (and their life stories) and the angels especially my own guardian angel … which I learnt on my Dad’s knee as a small child.
I don’t know about you, but I think our moderators do an EXCELLENT job of keeping the various threads under control & doubt they need anyone’s help. I’ve often seen one of them warn posters long before they lock a thread, yet I don’t recall seeing a warning on this one.
Click to expand...
I also think the moderators on CAF are great and do an impressive job. Thank you for the information re warnings prior to locking threads.
When I enter a thread in the middle of it, I do not “speak”. If I want to “speak”, I make sure that I go back & read ALL posts before adding my opinon & I think that’s a good idea for all of us. It helps one see the dynamics of the thread.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a good habit.
Absolutely. If you want, I’ll go through this thread (& the many others in which the poster in question asked a similar question re approved appartions) & count how many times she’s been told that one isn’t REQUIRED by the Church to believe in an approved apparition. I think that most Catholics were taught this as children. The part of the teaching of the Church on private apparitions, that’s so often forgotten is:
Click to expand...
I was not aware that the OP had asked the question posed in this thread in other threads and am unsure if this against CAF rules - to re pose the same question/subject in two or more threads. It is not problematic to me personally if a person should re-pose a question, however … but then it is not up to me and CAF has rules although on this point I am unaware of what they might be and have never had occasion to check this point for myself.

I assent in Faith to all in the Catholic Catechism and what is taught by The Church.

Blessings and with goodwill always…Barb:)
 
BarbaraTherese said:
I was not aware that the OP had asked the question posed in this thread in other threads and am unsure if this against CAF rules - to re pose the same question/subject in two or more threads.
Click to expand...
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.
 
So do we think the question is now pretty much answered?

A. We are not ‘required’ to believe in approved apparitions. Thus. . .

B. Any Catholic who does not believe in an approved apparition is not denying the Church.

PROVIDED. . .

That what is meant by ‘not believing’ is that the person neither publically denounces an approved apparition as ‘false’.

Nor calls those who do believe in approved apparitions ‘wrong.’

And that believers in approved apparitions do not call a nonbeliever in approved apparitions who is not guilty of making variations on those two statements above ‘wrong’ for choosing not to believe.

Have we covered it now? 😃
 
Tantum_ergo said:
So do we think the question is now pretty much answered?

A. We are not ‘required’ to believe in approved apparitions. Thus. . .

B. Any Catholic who does not believe in an approved apparition is not denying the Church.

PROVIDED. . .

That what is meant by ‘not believing’ is that the person neither publically denounces an approved apparition as ‘false’.

Nor calls those who do believe in approved apparitions ‘wrong.’

And that believers in approved apparitions do not call a nonbeliever in approved apparitions who is not guilty of making variations on those two statements above ‘wrong’ for choosing not to believe.

Have we covered it now? 😃
Click to expand...
I read through most of the thread, so I don’t want to repeat something,

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.

But approved Apparitions are appraised “worthy of belief.”
 
Eilish_Maura said:
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.
Click to expand...
I suspected only that something like that may have applied not having read the previous threads…and no we are not ***bound/required ***to believe in approved apparitions.

Blessings … Barb:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top