Is it a sin to have a devotion to unapproved apparitions, etc?

  • Thread starter Thread starter victrolatim
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

victrolatim

Guest
I know some people who hold devotions to Medjugorje, etc. Is this considered a sin since they are not approved by the church? Hypothetically, if it is, would that be forgiven if say the said apparition becomes approved in the future?
 
There was a point in history where Fatima and Guadalupe and Lourdes and Carmel were unapproved apparitions. The first people - the first fruits - who were devoted to the message were not sinning.

There is nothing that Jesus or Mary or any saint would say that would ever conflict with Church doctrine. If an angel appears to a person to give a false gospel, that angel is to be rejected.
 
There is a difference between unapproved and condemned. Unapproved apparitions are usually waiting for approval, but if one has been condemned, we may not support or promote it in any way.
 
I mean, no it is not a sin to have a devotion to unapproved apparitions. In the same sense, many Vietnamese Catholics have a devotion to Our Lady of Lavang, and the local bishops approve of it. But the apparition of Our Lady of Lavang isn’t actually approved, so if it was, then many, many, many, Catholics would be sinning.
 
It is PURELY an ORGANISATIONAL issue, NOTHING MORE.

If it gains the local bishop’s approval, visits to it may be accorded parish or diocesan status within that diocese.

If approved more widely then outside parishes or dioceses may run a parish or diocese trip there.

In other words your PP shouldn’t advertise a trip to Medjogorje in the bulletin. It should be advertised by a lay person and outside formal church channels. And you can’t formally catechise people from the actual content of the Medjugorje events in a church catechism class (as opposed to merely allude to or discuss them generally).

That’s because individuals and bunches of individuals acting privately may visit a shrine unless asked by those concerned not to (some recipients of locutions have asked not to be visited by strangers).

If you discern it’s a good devotion, and it’s your style, you’d better be devoted to it! At the same time “if an angel should preach a different gospel, let him be anathema”.

If people are getting heavy with you and accusing you of sin, and you are not trespassing or specifically disrespecting another diocese’s rules by the status of your visit, ignore them.

Some manifestations can be mostly from God but a little bit hot air. Then one should probably explore to what extent one can be devoted to the more good part of it.

Some recipients of manifestations have been put under pressure by church or civil authorities and then changed their account of it, which can be used by authority as an excuse to cast doubt. We have to make up our own minds to what extent this really casts doubt.

Those are just my observations and hints I’ve picked up from people about the oprinciples of it. In my own taste, I don’t go for melodrama, I go for a very deadpan, commonsense, low key and down to earth type of spirituality and a lot of devotions aren’t my style but that’s just me.
 
victrolatim said:
I know some people who hold devotions to Medjugorje, etc. Is this considered a sin since they are not approved by the church? Hypothetically, if it is, would that be forgiven if say the said apparition becomes approved in the future?
Click to expand...
I doubt it would be a sin,but one must always separate the actual apparition from any alleged messages
If one puts their faith in messages of unapproved apparitions they could be jeopardizing themselves or waiting for secrets,signs,and invisible messages only revealed to the visionaries.
If the messages contradict CHurch teaching in any way it may also set up the possibility of schism.
 
If the local ordinaries approve of an apparition, like in Vietnam, then that is one thing.

But in the case of something like Medjugorje, the local ordinaries have consistently taken stances against this so-called apparition, and people have continued to disobey them and to put their own private judgment above those whose judgment they should submit to.

Is that at least venially sinful, objectively speaking? Of course it is! It is a sin against piety, it is a sin of rash credulity, it can also be the sin of superstition, and it is clearly disobedient.

Anyone who is unwilling to submit to legitimate authority, all because their emotions tell them it’s okay, is in no way practicing virtue.

The Church has approved so many apparitions and private revelations that I fail to see the need to sidestep the Bishop and “approve” certain apparitions before him, to say nothing of utterly disobeying him and having a devotion to apparitions he has said are not of supernatural origin in the first place.

Piously trust and wait for the Church to decide, and follow her guidance, and don’t chase after the newest “seer” and “mystic” and whatever else one might stumble across.
 
cjforJesus said:
I doubt it would be a sin,but one must always separate the actual apparition from any alleged messages
If one puts their faith in messages of unapproved apparitions they could be jeopardizing themselves or waiting for secrets,signs,and invisible messages only revealed to the visionaries.
If the messages contradict CHurch teaching in any way it may also set up the possibility of schism.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%. Their is so much controversy over this one that I wouldn’t want to follow anything with any doubt to it. In Lourdes and Fatima and the other Approved Apparitions, there was not all the doubt and confusion about it. God Bless, Memaw
 
victrolatim said:
I know some people who hold devotions to Medjugorje, etc. Is this considered a sin since they are not approved by the church? Hypothetically, if it is, would that be forgiven if say the said apparition becomes approved in the future?
Click to expand...
There is no sin in holding a devotion to an alleged apparition about which the Church has not come to a conclusion, so long as there is nothing obviously suspect about it.

However, Medjugorje is not among those. At this time the official position of the Church is that it is not a true apparition. Both of the local Ordinaries have ruled against it very forcefully, as has the local conference. It is not for the faithful to ignore that.
 
neophyte said:
There is no sin in holding a devotion to an alleged apparition about which the Church has not come to a conclusion, so long as there is nothing obviously suspect about it.

However, Medjugorje is not among those. At this time the official position of the Church is that it is not a true apparition. Both of the local Ordinaries have ruled against it very forcefully, as has the local conference. It is not for the faithful to ignore that.
Click to expand...
Without getting into a discussion of the status of Medjugorje (in part because I stopped paying attention to the issues surrounding it a long time ago), there have been three statements the Church could make about an apparition, and two of them are constantly confused (thus giving a false statement, though that most likely is not intended).

They are:
  1. Constat de supernaturalitate (“It is confirmed to be of supernatural origin”);
  2. Non constat de supernaturalitate (“It is not confirmed to be of supernatural origin”)
  3. Constat de non supernaturalitate (“It is confirmed to be of non-supernatural origin”).
While there has been discussion as to whether 3 has been eliminated and/or rolled up into 2, I have not found anything confirming that.

The point is, in Latin it makes a difference where the “non” goes. Most, if not all apparitions which have been approved have not been approved until some time after the apparitions have stopped.

And while a bishop can and may speak for his diocese, the matter can be moved from his jurisdiction to that of Rome.

2 in essence is a way of saying “we have not made up our mind”, or “we don’t know”, or “we are not going to approve of it at this time” or something in a similar vein. It is not saying that the apparition is not from God; rather, it is a withholding of judgment.

3 is a judgment. 2 is not.

And a whole lot of people get those two confused.
 
Nelka said:
Where does Garabandel stand?
Click to expand...
As best I can find, no bishop of that diocese has approved it, and Rome has maintained a position that any approval is to be decided by the bishop.

Both Pope Paul 6th and John Paul 2 have spoken favorably about it; but that is not approval.

So it would be Non constat de supernaturalitate (“It is not confirmed to be of supernatural origin”).
 
otjm said:
…there have been three statements the Church could make about an apparition, and two of them are constantly confused (thus giving a false statement, though that most likely is not intended).

They are:
  1. Constat de supernaturalitate (“It is confirmed to be of supernatural origin”);
  2. Non constat de supernaturalitate (“It is not confirmed to be of supernatural origin”)
  3. Constat de non supernaturalitate (“It is confirmed to be of non-supernatural origin”).
Click to expand...
In fact, #3 does not exist in law. #1 and #2 are the only statements the Church makes, and #2 is the negative declaration.
otjm said:
And while a bishop can and may speak for his diocese, the matter can be moved from his jurisdiction to that of Rome.
Click to expand...
The decision of the local Ordinary stands as the official stance of the Church, unless it’s overturned by Rome. That has not happened in the case of Medjugorje, and for years Rome’s response to inquiries about the status of Medugorje has been to point to the Bishop’s declaration of non constat de supernaturalitate.
 
neophyte said:
In fact, #3 does not exist in law. #1 and #2 are the only statements the Church makes, and #2 is the negative declaration.

The decision of the local Ordinary stands as the official stance of the Church, unless it’s overturned by Rome. That has not happened in the case of Medjugorje, and for years Rome’s response to inquiries about the status of Medugorje has been to point to the Bishop’s declaration of non constat de supernaturalitate.
Click to expand...
I would disagree with you that it (#2) is a negative declaration, as it can result later in a declaration that the apparition is approved. And yes, #3 is not the law, and there has been discussion as to whether of not it is rolled up into 2; but it clearly is different from 2.

As I noted, I don’t follow Medjugorje, but it is my recollection that at one point Rome stepped in and removed the matter from the local bishop. Having watched charges and counter charges between those who were in charge of the shrine/church/area and the bishop, I decided that I had better things to do than try to take sides.

And whether 3 is law of not, there is nothing preventing a bishop, Rome, or any other duly appointed individual/group from declaring 3; I can think of several alleged apparitions in the US that were either purely natural causes, or a hoax, and all would fit clearly within it.

I don’t know of any apparition which has been declared approved while the apparition was continuing to occur; so whether the Church officially or unofficially takes the position of #2, that is not a negative; it is simply a holding period.
 
otjm said:
I would disagree with you that it (#2) is a negative declaration, as it can result later in a declaration that the apparition is approved. And yes, #3 is not the law, and there has been discussion as to whether of not it is rolled up into 2; but it clearly is different from 2.

As I noted, I don’t follow Medjugorje, but it is my recollection that at one point Rome stepped in and removed the matter from the local bishop. Having watched charges and counter charges between those who were in charge of the shrine/church/area and the bishop, I decided that I had better things to do than try to take sides.

And whether 3 is law of not, there is nothing preventing a bishop, Rome, or any other duly appointed individual/group from declaring 3; I can think of several alleged apparitions in the US that were either purely natural causes, or a hoax, and all would fit clearly within it.

I don’t know of any apparition which has been declared approved while the apparition was continuing to occur; so whether the Church officially or unofficially takes the position of #2, that is not a negative; it is simply a holding period.
Click to expand...
I think that you are mistaken about “Rome stepped in and removed the matter from the local bishop”. In my recollection it was the bishop who asked Rome to take on a larger role especially since the phenomena has reached such a world wide level. I don’t know if I am saying this correctly but I know that this was at the request of the local bishop, not as any kind of removal of his authority.
 
zab said:
I think that you are mistaken about “Rome stepped in and removed the matter from the local bishop”. In my recollection it was the bishop who asked Rome to take on a larger role especially since the phenomena has reached such a world wide level. I don’t know if I am saying this correctly but I know that this was at the request of the local bishop, not as any kind of removal of his authority.
Click to expand...
More than one local Bishop as requested Rome’s help. And no other apparition has ever gone on this long. Who knows when it will ever stop. So many problems in this particular situation, that no others have ever encountered. God Bless, Memaw
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top