Is it me? Or just a lot of Catholics here don't get it

  • Thread starter Thread starter Righteousone
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Righteousone

Guest
Catholics come on this forum saying they don’t believe in The Blessed Mother’s apparitions, etc…I don’t understand why Catholics go against Catholics here…never saw this on any other web forum.
 
Apparitions are not required to be believed. They are not part of the Deposit of Faith. Catholics are free to reject them. That’s all it is, I think.

I believe in Fatima, Lourdes, etc. just based on the evidence. But I don’t believe in, say, Medjugorje.
 
From EWTN:
Although an assent of Catholic faith may not be given to revelations thus approved, still, an assent of human faith, made according to the rules of prudence, is due them; for according to these rules such revelations are probable and worthy of pious credence. [De Serv. Dei Beatif.]
Click to expand...
The Pope is saying that a Catholic, seeing that the Church (and here the Holy See is meant, as only it’s acts can be of universal effect) has investigated and approved certain revelations, is being prudent to give them human assent. That acceptance does not rest on the guarantee of Faith, or the charism of infallibility, but on the credibility of the evidence as it appeals to reason. The assent involved is not supernatural but the natural assent that the intellect gives to facts which it judges to be true. Approved private revelations are thus worthy of our acceptance and can be of great benefit to the faithful, for as the Catechism of the Catholic Church notes,
Click to expand...
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. [CCC 67]
Click to expand...
However, on the other hand, they do not demand acceptance by Catholics. As Pope Benedict states in the aforementioned text,
Click to expand...
it is possible to refuse to accept such revelations and to turn from them, as long as one does so with proper modesty, for good reasons, and without the intention of setting himself up as a superior. [De Serv. Dei Beatif.]
Click to expand...
 
Alexios said:
Apparitions are not required to be believed. They are not part of the Deposit of Faith. Catholics are free to reject them. That’s all it is, I think.

I believe in Fatima, Lourdes, etc. just based on the evidence. But I don’t believe in, say, Medjugorje.
Click to expand...
Why not?
 
lak611 said:
This is a banned topic here on CAF. We cannot discuss it. See this thread from the Moderator.
Click to expand...
I think that as long as we do not discuss any private revelation or particular message, we should be ok.

Basically, the Catholic Church teaches that the last public revelations ended when the last Apostle died (John). Anything after that is private revelation and not inherently binding on the Church as a whole. The particular message may be binding upon the recipient. Some apparitions have been studied by the Church and found to be legitimate. These are approved for public devotion and the messages are made known, but as they are private revelation they are not required. Some are found to be false and public devotion is forbidden. Some are not approved or disapproved, so you may or may not be allowed a private devotion, but public devotion are not allowed.

Here is a non-Catholic example. Joseph Smith claims he was visited. According to Catholic teaching, anything that was said to him has no power over others. Now, if the church studied the event and found it to be true, others can learn from it or study it, but it still does not have the authority that the Gospel or Sacred Tradition have over the faithful. To continue, Mormons believe in continual public revelation where Catholics do not.
 
lak611 said:
This is a banned topic here on CAF. We cannot discuss it. See this thread from the Moderator.
Click to expand...
Actually, *unapproved *private revelations are banned. I take that to mean approved ones are fair to discuss. However, Medjugorje, I believe has not been approved by the Church.

That being said, this thread has to do with Righteousone’s issues with Catholics who don’t hold to his/her interpretation of these approved private revelations. I’m not sure, but I suspect *that *might be a banned topic.
 
Another way of saying this is that private revelations may not be believed with divine and Catholic Faith. They rest on the credibility of the evidence in favor of a supernatural origin. In the case of private revelations approved by the highest authority in the Church we can say with Pope Benedict XIV,
Click to expand...
Although an assent of Catholic faith may not be given to revelations thus approved, still, an assent of human faith, made according to the rules of prudence, is due them; for according to these rules such revelations are probable and worthy of pious credence. [De Serv. Dei Beatif.]
Click to expand...
The Pope is saying that a Catholic, seeing that the Church (and here the Holy See is meant, as only it’s acts can be of universal effect) has investigated and approved certain revelations, is being prudent to give them human assent. That acceptance does not rest on the guarantee of Faith, or the charism of infallibility, but on the credibility of the evidence as it appeals to reason. The assent involved is not supernatural but the natural assent that the intellect gives to facts which it judges to be true. Approved private revelations are thus worthy of our acceptance and can be of great benefit to the faithful, for as the Catechism of the Catholic Church notes,
Click to expand...
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. [CCC 67]
Click to expand...
However, on the other hand, they do not demand acceptance by Catholics. As Pope Benedict states in the aforementioned text,
Click to expand...
it is possible to refuse to accept such revelations and to turn from them, as long as one does so with proper modesty, for good reasons, and without the intention of setting himself up as a superior. [De Serv. Dei Beatif.]
Click to expand...
Apparitions/Private Revelations
Click to expand...
 
Righteousone said:
Catholics come on this forum saying they don’t believe in The Blessed Mother’s apparitions, etc…I don’t understand why Catholics go against Catholics here…never saw this on any other web forum.
Click to expand...
Really? Then I ask two questions.
  1. Are you able to provide a link to a post where a Catholic directly says they do not believe in an approved apparition?
  2. Are Catholics required to believe in approved apparitions like Fatima or Lourdes? Please provide at least one link to a magisterial document to support this.
 
rpp said:
Are you able to provide a link to a post where a Catholic directly says they do not believe in an approved apparition?
Click to expand...
For clarity, I’ll respectfully note one I cannot give human assent to.

From what I read on the lives of Maximin Giraud and Melanie Mathieu (from some of the evidence available) and the fact a lot of opposition and even violence transpired around the events - it gave me ‘reason’ to believe La Sallette was NOT authentic. I believe it was mainly a work of human imagination and exaggerations.

I won’t know for ‘certain’ if my belief is in fact correct or erroneous until I meet the Lord. Though there’s the very real possibility Jesus won’t even care about my reasoned disbelief in La Sallette. It does not affect the issue of Salvation.

I respect the Church and a bishop’s discernment and do understand they respect the laity’s as well, as long as we are being ‘reasonable.’
 
By the way, to answer the questions posed in the subject of the thread, it seems clear that the correct answer is the former choice.
 
CathFaith1 said:
For clarity, I’ll respectfully note one I cannot give human assent to.

From what I read on the lives of Maximin Giraud and Melanie Mathieu (from some of the evidence available) and the fact a lot of opposition and even violence transpired around the events - it gave me ‘reason’ to believe La Sallette was NOT authentic. I believe it was mainly a work of human imagination and exaggerations.

I won’t know for ‘certain’ if my belief is in fact correct or erroneous until I meet the Lord. Though there’s the very real possibility Jesus won’t even care about my reasoned disbelief in La Sallette. It does not affect the issue of Salvation.

I respect the Church and a bishop’s discernment and do understand they respect the laity’s as well, as long as we are being ‘reasonable.’
Click to expand...
As a good and faithful Catholic, you are free to hold this view. It will not affect your salvation or redemption, or even your time, if any, in Purgatory.

I presume you do not reject any of the doctrines of the Church in matters of faith and morals, do your best to avoid sin, confess it when you fail, engage in corporeal works of mercy and avail yourself of the sacraments.

So as long as what I presume to be true is indeed true, I think you are fine.

May God richly bless you.
 
CathFaith1 said:
For clarity, I’ll respectfully note one I cannot give human assent to.

From what I read on the lives of Maximin Giraud and Melanie Mathieu (from some of the evidence available) and the fact a lot of opposition and even violence transpired around the events - it gave me ‘reason’ to believe La Sallette was NOT authentic. I believe it was mainly a work of human imagination and exaggerations.

I won’t know for ‘certain’ if my belief is in fact correct or erroneous until I meet the Lord. Though there’s the very real possibility Jesus won’t even care about my reasoned disbelief in La Sallette. It does not affect the issue of Salvation.

I respect the Church and a bishop’s discernment and do understand they respect the laity’s as well, as long as we are being ‘reasonable.’
Click to expand...
Good post, CathFaith1! I respect your reasons for not accepting La Salette. And you definitely have every right to reject it.

However, for me, the behavior of Maximin & Melanie are the reasons I do accept it - at least, the original apparitions approved by the Church. (I don’t accept Melanie’s later “revelations”, which are pretty obviously the result of her bitterness towards the Church.)

If you think about it, La Salette shows the fallacy of the often-repeated wish most of us have had at some time: “Oh, if only I could really SEE Jesus or Mary in person, then I’d believe and be a saint!” Well, Maximin and Melanie saw Mary, and yet still went on to live non-saintly lives.

Perhaps La Salette was allowed to unfold exactly as it did - to give us all a warning not to become overly focused on “signs and wonders”.
 
By the way, I am unfamiliar with the apparitions of La Salette. Could both of you provide a description? The reason why I ask both CathFaith1 and TheistGal is that I want to contrasting perspectives.

Thank you.
 
rpp said:
By the way, I am unfamiliar with the apparitions of La Salette. Could both of you provide a description? The reason why I ask both CathFaith1 and TheistGal is that I want to contrasting perspectives.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
Well, you can get the basic info from several sources online - the Wikipedia entry is pretty good and has a lot of detail.

If you just want a quick overview, check the Catholic Encyclopedia (1911).
 
theistgal said:
If you just want a quick overview, check the Catholic Encyclopedia (1911).
Click to expand...
Thank you Theistgal.

I was going to recommend a start at the
New advent site as well. Sacred destinations has a few simple notes as well that seem consistent w/ others.

When I first was told about La Salette (twenty years ago or so) - I searched for anything from Pope Pius IX (about the letters) he was given and his apparent silence always left me w/ the impression it was prudent let history quiet the events? Again, I could be incorrect w/ my thoughts. Just my perception.

If anyone is interested in sharing anything they find helpful or bothersome regarding La Salette- I’m wondering if a new thread wouldn’t be best to avoid drift?
 
Please list those which are Approved, Disapproved, questionable, under investigation, or any other catagories.

thanks
 
MHalsey said:
Actually, *unapproved *private revelations are banned. I take that to mean approved ones are fair to discuss. However, Medjugorje, I believe has not been approved by the Church.

That being said, this thread has to do with Righteousone’s issues with Catholics who don’t hold to his/her interpretation of these approved private revelations. I’m not sure, but I suspect *that *might be a banned topic.
Click to expand...
He has mentioned unapproved private revelations on other threads. The poster I replied to asked why another poster did not believe in Medjugorje. I provided the information stating that we cannot discuss that topic, as it is banned since it is unapproved by the Church.
 
lak611 said:
He has mentioned unapproved private revelations on other threads. The poster I replied to asked why another poster did not believe in Medjugorje. I provided the information stating that we cannot discuss that topic, as it is banned since it is unapproved by the Church.
Click to expand...
You and I are in complete agreement. I was just adding to your explanation. It might have seemed you were saying discussion of all private revelation is banned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top