Mary's role in Second Coming

[Jacafamala]

I will say, as a Sunday school teacher over the years, I’ve always taught the Rosary. We always prayed the “Hail Mary” along with the “Our Father” and the “Glory Be” at the start of every class. I taught them about Fatima, about OL Guadeloupe. I have no regrets in doing so. On the contrary. These things are all intrinsically Catholic.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Good for you! These are giant points in the Catholic faith. All Catholics should know about them.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Michael’s reply did very well and covers mostly how I feel but I will reply because the questions were asked of me.

Do you think it’s an alright idea for people to pray the Rosary as a group in Church prior to the Mass?

I do no think this is a good thing. I much more prefer silence before the Liturgy so that I may privately pray and meditate before the start of the Liturgy. I do not like having someones favorite devotion forced into my prayers. I know I do not have to join in and I do not join in but it is distracting.

With all due respect, you are the one who brought up your spiritual life. I don’t mean to pry. I’m merely trying to understand where you’re coming from. I’m trying to understand how you can say the things you’ve said. Because your ideas are foreign to my understanding.

I do not see how it can be foreign to your understanding unless you believe that everyone should be praying private devotions.

Let me clarify, then.

If the Church pronounces something worthy of belief, is it disrespectful to say that it isn’t worthy of belief? Perhaps you didn’t mean it exactly that way. Do you agree that you can chose to not make it part of your personal devotion, but as to whether or not something is deemed as being worthy of belief, can your opinions really be in direct opposition to that of Holy Mother Church? This is what I want to know.

Worthy of belief does not require belief. It is not an infallible statement.

Mmm, I’ve read her diary and I’d say not. Clearly she stated several times over this is something meant for all who will partake of it.

I more was thinking of the novena done are Easter time, that one was explicitly given for her private use yet it is in wide spread usage today. You can not get a booklet on the Divine Mercy Chaplet that does not include it.

In all honesty, it’s a huge concern of mine. I look around and see stripped down churches devoid of statues and prayer candles. Few Rosaries being said as a community. you go into the homes of Catholics and they’re no different than anyone else’s. They’re Protestant looking. No statues, no prayer cards out on display. This would be unheard of in Catholicism but a few decades ago. I feel to a large extent we’ve been robbed of our spiritual heritage by those who would rather we were more appealing to Protestants. It grieves me very much. So, that’s where I’m coming from. But it wasn’t meant to be a personal attack on anyone here at the forum, yourself or anyone else.

I will leave what Michael said on this as he was a bit more articulate than I could ever hope to be but I will say that you are mixing apples and oranges. You start off talking about missing statues then bring up the lack of a public usage of a private devotion.

The Church has many public Liturgies, such as the Liturgy of the Hours, I would much rather see this than a public recitation of a private devotion.

Well, I would never say that, that they must. Still in all, I don’t apologize to anyone for wearing the brown scapular, for praying the rosary and for keeping the traditions that were our grandparents and great grandparents, all the way back to ancient times.

No one is asking you to apologize for the practice of a private devotion (and I would be the last to comment on the usage of the brown scapular as I wear one (the kind you wear) when not in habit and of course my habit has the full brown scapular) what I am saying should not be done is telling others that they must practice some private devotions or they are some kind of minimalist Catholic or that private devotions should be used publicly.

I would also caution the use of “ancient times” as many of the devotions date to the medieval times.

 

[hansard]

Ok, here’s what I don’t understand about the whole “apparition” business:

1. Mary is the Mother of the Lord, Queen of Heaven, mediatrix of all graces, who intercedes with Christ on behalf of the faithful;
2. Her perpetual virginity and assumption into Heaven are matters of fiercely-defended dogma (the Church *is *very serious about Mary):
3. She appears to the faithful all over the world, with dire warnings for humanity;
4. and, somehow, believing in this is regarded as a matter of personal choice–“worthy of belief”, I think was the expression.

I mean, if the Church were serious about Mary’s place in the grand scheme of things, these pronouncements would be recorded and elevated to the status of Holy Scripture, of equal importance, for example, with anything Paul wrote or anything revealed to John. But no, the Queen of Heaven, the most venerated saint of all, appears and speaks to humanity (just consider the importance of this for a second!) and the Church seems quite ambivalent about it.

Well, that’s how it seems, anyway.

 

[Hesychios]

…and the Church seems quite ambivalent about it.

Well, that’s how it seems, anyway.

It is contradictory, to say the least.

The problem arises, I think, from the fact that many Popes in the last two or three hundred years had their spiritual formations during a period of heightened Marian piety.

This is a roller-coaster ride through the church’s history, it has always ebbed and flowed since Marian piety really took off for the first time in about the sixth century.

Thus many of the later Popes (who can be thought of as products of the ‘Marian faction’, so to say) were inclined to aggressively promote the devotions we see today. Pope John Paul II was a very good example of this. He was on a personal crusade to reverse the trend of declining personal devotion to Saint Mary of Nazareth. The changes were obvious to everyone and it saddened him greatly.

However, the church’s “hand’s are tied” so to say by the more sober and discerning approach it inherited from the earliest centuries. The church can theoretically never reverse itself, what was once true for the church is (presumably) always true.

So, the age of revelation is closed, full stop.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

It is contradictory, to say the least.

The problem arises, I think, from the fact that many Popes in the last two or three hundred years had their spiritual formations during a period of heightened Marian piety.

This is a roller-coaster ride through the church’s history, it has always ebbed and flowed since Marian piety really took off for the first time in about the sixth century.

Thus many of the later Popes (who can be thought of as products of the ‘Marian faction’, so to say) were inclined to aggressively promote the devotions we see today. Pope John Paul II was a very good example of this. He was on a personal crusade to reverse the trend of declining personal devotion to Saint Mary of Nazareth. The changes were obvious to everyone and it saddened him greatly.

However, the church’s “hand’s are tied” so to say by the more sober and discerning approach it inherited from the earliest centuries. The church can theoretically never reverse itself, what was once true for the church is (presumably) always true.

So, the age of revelation is closed, full stop.

I don’t understand your point, here . The Church will never infallibly contradict itself, but it isn’t running into problems due to its past Marian teaching. The problem is in people not heeding the warnings of the private revelations. They are at liberty to ignore their Church on these matters, though that doesn’t make them right to do so. One doesn’t have to have a public revelation in order to get people to listen.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I don’t understand your point, here . The Church will never infallibly contradict itself, but it isn’t running into problems due to its past Marian teaching. The problem is in people not heeding the warnings of the private revelations. They are at liberty to ignore their Church on these matters, though that doesn’t make them right to do so. One doesn’t have to have a public revelation in order to get people to listen.

But public revelation is the only one that people must listen to and grant their assent to.

Private revelation does not require that and it can not surpass nor add to public revelation.

So anything said in the private revelations must already be a part of the public revelation, so do we really need it? Can we not just follow the public revelation?

I do not need anything extra in my spiritual life, public revelation is enough. It is everything.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

But public revelation is the only one that people must listen to and grant their assent to.

Agreed. What one “must” do is the minimum, though. Daily Mass, which you attend, goes beyond the minimum. To really grow in the spiritual life and become more one with God, we are unwise to limit ourselves to the minimum of what He offers us. To do only what we “must” do, not doing any daily prayers beyond the Mass on Sundays and not going to Confession any more often than the minimum attendance required of us, is not conducive to spiritual growth. Practicing Daily Mass like you, or praying daily, helps one’s soul a lot. So do the devotions offered by the true apparitions of Jesus and Mary. Seeking to do only what we “must” do leaves the soul less fruitful and more susceptible to threats from the enemy than is a soul that’s trying to do all it “can” do to be one with God.

Private revelation does not require that and it can not surpass nor add to public revelation.

It cannot “surpass” public revelation in ever being more important than public revelation, nor can it “add” to public revelation in becoming a necessary part of one’s faith as a Catholic. It can, however, expound upon public revelation. They can also teach things not included in public revelation but neither contradictory to it nor necessary to people’s faith as Catholics. Often, apparitions or Church Fathers feel free to elaborate on the public revelations of God’s relationship with humanity, expounding on them, discussing specifics of philosophy or theology that aren’t explicit in the public revelation.

The true apparitions never contradict the Church’s infallible teaching or tradition. They can illuminate our understanding, though, and teach us things not already made explicit. It’s no coincidence that many of the people proclaimed “Doctors of the Church” saw apparitions and heard from God’s Spirit in uniquely powerful ways.

Therefore listening to the apparitions and practicing their devotions is very valuable in building the spiritual life. This is especially true since the devotions of apparitions of Jesus and Mary often offer special outpourings of grace, and the Church is perfectly accepting of the possibility that God pour out grace through special means like relics, statues or devotions. This is the same as with Daily Mass. Just as Daily Mass or Eucharistic Adoration offer a special outpouring of grace for those that participate in them, so the devotions of the apparitions offer additional grace.

So anything said in the private revelations must already be a part of the public revelation, so do we really need it? Can we not just follow the public revelation?

Not everything said in the private revelations is in the public revelations. For instance, prophecies of future events. These always come true when it’s a true apparition, such as Our Lady of Fatima or Our Lady of Good Success. Also, the special opportunities to receive grace that come through the devotions of apparitions are passed over by those that stick only with what they must do rather than going beyond it to what they can do as well. The apparitions’ devotions, such as the Rosary and others, offer special growth of spiritual life that people don’t experience when they stick with the minimum of what the Church teaches. This is NOT what you are doing, for you go to Daily Mass and I imagine you pray more often than just at Mass and Confession. You are doing more than the minimum, or what you “must” do.

Devotions from apparitions, like Daily Mass or daily prayer, offer additional parts of grace that help people to grow in fellowship with Christ Jesus. While not “necessary,” they help people’s souls enormously. The goal is to be as close to God as we can be. Doing the minimum the Church requires of us to come nearer to God is not conducive for achieving that goal. Doing devotions Jesus, Mary or the Church offer to help people come closer to God is much better.

I do not need anything extra in my spiritual life, public revelation is enough. It is everything.

What was offered in the beginning of Church history was all knowledge and gifts necessary to the soul’s salvation. It doesn’t offer everything there is that may help a soul on the path to its salvation. Christ, His Mother and His Church have offered more since then, to help Christians. The Daily Mass, for instance, didn’t exist prior to a few generations ago. It is an extraordinary new blessing of grace offered by the Church for its members. Praying frequently also provides special grace and deeper intimacy with God. So does offering to God sacrifices or penances. So does practicing devotions, including and especially devotions offered by Jesus and Mary in the course of Church history for the benefit of the faithful.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Agreed. What one “must” do is the minimum, though. Daily Mass, which you attend, goes beyond the minimum. To really grow in the spiritual life and become more one with God, we are unwise to limit ourselves to the minimum of what He offers us. To do only what we “must” do, not doing any daily prayers beyond the Mass on Sundays and not going to Confession any more often than the minimum attendance required of us, is not conducive to spiritual growth. Practicing Daily Mass like you, or praying daily, helps one’s soul a lot. So do the devotions offered by the true apparitions of Jesus and Mary. Seeking to do only what we “must” do leaves the soul less fruitful and more susceptible to threats from the enemy than is a soul that’s trying to do all it “can” do to be one with God.

I do not put the term “minimum” to anything within Catholicism. There are things that we must do and must believe to be Catholic. Any thing else is a personal choice.

Yes I attend daily Mass but that is because the life I live allows for this. Not only does it allow for this but it is strongly encouraged, if not required, by the Constitutions of my Order, so in essence my attendance at daily Mass is a “minimum” as you put it. This is because of my Vow of Obedience to my superiors and the constitutions.

It cannot “surpass” public revelation in ever being more important than public revelation, nor can it “add” to public revelation in becoming a necessary part of one’s faith as a Catholic. It can, however, expound upon public revelation. They can also teach things not included in public revelation but neither contradictory to it nor necessary to people’s faith as Catholics. Often, apparitions or Church Fathers feel free to elaborate on the public revelations of God’s relationship with humanity, expounding on them, discussing specifics of philosophy or theology that aren’t explicit in the public revelation.

So as you say, private revelations add nothing necessary to the faith. Belief in them is not required nor is practicing anything that comes from them.

I am not aware of any Church Fathers’ discussions on apparitions as the hyper focus on apparitions seems to be a relatively new thing in the History of the Church. But I am sure you can point out such writings of the Church Fathers’ to help me along on this one.

The true apparitions never contradict the Church’s infallible teaching or tradition. They can illuminate our understanding, though, and teach us things not already made explicit. It’s no coincidence that many of the people proclaimed “Doctors of the Church” saw apparitions and heard from God’s Spirit in uniquely powerful ways.

Which Doctors of the Church experience apparitions?

While they may help us to understand the public revelation they are not necessary for us to use them to do so as there are many other avenues open to us to do such a thing.

Therefore listening to the apparitions and practicing their devotions is very valuable in building the spiritual life. This is especially true since the devotions of apparitions of Jesus and Mary often offer special outpourings of grace, and the Church is perfectly accepting of the possibility that God pour out grace through special means like relics, statues or devotions. This is the same as with Daily Mass. Just as Daily Mass or Eucharistic Adoration offer a special outpouring of grace for those that participate in them, so the devotions of the apparitions offer additional grace.

Many who do not listen to apparitions nor practice their devotions might disagree with you. Those in the Orthodox Church as well as many Catholics.

The use of apparitions nor the practice of their devotions are necessary to build a good spiritual life. I have yet to see this suggested in any writings on building the spiritual life.

I would say scripture reading/study and private prayer/meditation/contemplation are the best ways to build the spiritual life, but then I think that I biased here as this is the Carmelite way.

Not everything said in the private revelations is in the public revelations. For instance, prophecies of future events. These always come true when it’s a true apparition, such as Our Lady of Fatima or Our Lady of Good Success. Also, the special opportunities to receive grace that come through the devotions of apparitions are passed over by those that stick only with what they must do rather than going beyond it to what they can do as well. The apparitions’ devotions, such as the Rosary and others, offer special growth of spiritual life that people don’t experience when they stick with the minimum of what the Church teaches. This is NOT what you are doing, for you go to Daily Mass and I imagine you pray more often than just at Mass and Confession. You are doing more than the minimum, or what you “must” do.

I just have to disagree with you here, there are many ways to experience the Grace of God and saying that one way is superior to another is just nonsense.

Devotions from apparitions, like Daily Mass or daily prayer, offer additional parts of grace that help people to grow in fellowship with Christ Jesus. While not “necessary,” they help people’s souls enormously. The goal is to be as close to God as we can be. Doing the minimum the Church requires of us to come nearer to God is not conducive for achieving that goal. Doing devotions Jesus, Mary or the Church offer to help people come closer to God is much better.

Again, I disagree with the idea of a “minimum”. This ends up making a graduating scale of Catholicism. One where I can say that I practice more devotions than you so I am more Catholic. That just is not the case.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

What was offered in the beginning of Church history was all knowledge and gifts necessary to the soul’s salvation. It doesn’t offer everything there is that may help a soul on the path to its salvation. Christ, His Mother and His Church have offered more since then, to help Christians. The Daily Mass, for instance, didn’t exist prior to a few generations ago. It is an extraordinary new blessing of grace offered by the Church for its members. Praying frequently also provides special grace and deeper intimacy with God. So does offering to God sacrifices or penances. So does practicing devotions, including and especially devotions offered by Jesus and Mary in the course of Church history for the benefit of the faithful.

For me, as a religious, Daily Mass has always existed.

I am not against apparitions nor devotions from them. I am against saying that everyone must believe in apparitions or practice devotions from them. The Church does not teach that.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I do not put the term “minimum” to anything within Catholicism. There are things that we must do and must believe to be Catholic. Any thing else is a personal choice.

You see, I’m looking at it as a relationship. Union with God, relationship, is central to the nature of Catholicism.

You’re right that there are things we must do and must believe to be Catholic, or to have that relationship with God within Catholicism. It’s like that in human relationships too. There are things we must do for a relationship between two people to exist. But there if one person spends only the amount of time with someone else that that person must have to have a relationship, that’s not going to be the same depth of relationship as someone will have who spends lots of extra time with the person out of love.

To use an analogy, let’s say persons Jill and Henry know somebody named Martha. Jill meets Martha once a week at work for about an hour. Henry really likes Martha, so he not only meets her once a week for an hour, but he seeks out opportunities to hang out with her. They have breakfasts in the same cafe and like to chat or hang out. Occasionally they go to the movies together.

Jill is like the one-Mass-per-week Catholic who fulfills obligations but doesn’t go beyond them. She does what’s necessary to have a relationship with Martha, but she doesn’t take the effort or time to develop a deep relationship with Martha. Henry has breakfasts with Martha in the same cafe, though (like someone spending time with Jesus at Daily Mass rather than spending time with Him only once a week), and goes to movies with her at times (analogous to some private devotion). Perhaps Henry also phones her sometimes during the week (analogous to praying rather than leaving a communication void outside of Mass). It’s not about one person being a better Catholic than another. It’s about trying to develop a deeper relationship with God, and putting work or time into developing that relationship yields results. The saints encourage practicing devotions of various kinds, including the Rosary, fasting (beyond what’s required), the Sacred Heart devotion or the Immaculate Heart devotion, etc., because these are very valuable in deepening people’s relationships with God.

Yes I attend daily Mass but that is because the life I live allows for this. Not only does it allow for this but it is strongly encouraged, if not required, by the Constitutions of my Order, so in essence my attendance at daily Mass is a “minimum” as you put it. This is because of my Vow of Obedience to my superiors and the constitutions.

Your vow of obedience and your union with a religious order is itself beyond what is necessary for Catholics.

So as you say, private revelations add nothing necessary to the faith. Belief in them is not required nor is practicing anything that comes from them.

Agreed. But I’m focusing on how to develop one’s relationship with God, not just on having one.

I am not aware of any Church Fathers’ discussions on apparitions as the hyper focus on apparitions seems to be a relatively new thing in the History of the Church. But I am sure you can point out such writings of the Church Fathers’ to help me along on this one.

Which Doctors of the Church experience apparitions?

St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Therese of Lisieux, St. John Damascene and St. Athanasius, to name a few Doctors of the Church who saw Marian apparitions. For the Early Fathers, I’d cite John Damascene and Athanasius. Also the Apostle John had a vision that popes have said presented the Virgin Mary (Rev. 12). I expect I’d find more if I looked further.

I’ve heard that all the saints had strong Marian devotions.

While they may help us to understand the public revelation they are not necessary for us to use them to do so as there are many other avenues open to us to do such a thing.

Many who do not listen to apparitions nor practice their devotions might disagree with you. Those in the Orthodox Church as well as many Catholics.

I’m sure. I’m not impressed, though, as many popes and bishops have supported various apparitions and their messages. Pope Paul VI made a feast day to Our Lady of the Rosary. There also is a feast day to Our Lady of Mount Carmel, and to Our Lady of Guadaloupe. People that say devotions provided by apparitions bear no fruit of grace are free to their opinion, but they are not following the views of the saints or Doctors of the Church and are rejecting the views of many popes. I just am not that impressed by this. I’d rather try to follow the teaching of the saints.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

The use of apparitions nor the practice of their devotions are necessary to build a good spiritual life. I have yet to see this suggested in any writings on building the spiritual life.

I agree it’s not necessary. That doesn’t mean it’s not an excellent way of building the spiritual life, though. Nor does it mean it’s not the best way of building the spiritual life. St. Louis de Montfort was convinced that the best way to build a strong spiritual life is through a strong devotion to the Virgin Mary. I personally agree with him. Developing a strong devotion to the Virgin Mary is not the only way of building a good spiritual life, though.

I would say scripture reading/study and private prayer/meditation/contemplation are the best ways to build the spiritual life, but then I think that I biased here as this is the Carmelite way.

These are wonderful ways to find spiritual development. I think you’d be hard pressed to find anyone on CAF who disagrees with that. That doesn’t mean devotions initiated by apparitions don’t provide believers with great grace, though.

I just have to disagree with you here, there are many ways to experience the Grace of God and saying that one way is superior to another is just nonsense.

When Mary and Martha were in Jesus’ presence and Martha demanded that Mary come and help her with the household preparations, Jesus said, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things; there is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her” (Luke 10:38-42). That doesn’t mean Martha’s way is bad. But He did say Mary had chosen a better one.

Just like people, God has preferences. However, I am not trying to compare one devotion to another and say, “this is better.” My point is that the devotions provided by true apparitions of Jesus and Mary are good and very beneficial for creating righteousness. Teaching about them in RCIA is great, for they are wonderful in creating unity between believers and Christ, and Jesus loves them. However, as you have correctly pointed out, saying they are necessary to being a good Catholic is wrong.

Again, I disagree with the idea of a “minimum”. This ends up making a graduating scale of Catholicism. One where I can say that I practice more devotions than you so I am more Catholic. That just is not the case.

Someone saying that would be really silly, and focusing in religion all the wrong way. To go back to my Henry, Jill and Martha analogy, it would be as if Jill suddenly realized Martha was famous, so Jill started spending tons of time with Martha simply in able to be able to boast to other people that she’s Martha’s personal friend. In fact, her attitude might be annoying the heck out of Martha. The fact that one is spending time practicing devotions does not mean that one is gaining anything from them. As St. Paul said, “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.” In the same way, if I was to practice every devotion God ever created for man to practice, yet have not love, I gain nothing.

It is true that some people come into deeper relationships with God than other people do. Practicing devotions to unite oneself to Christ can foster that deeper relationship, and ignoring them can mean one stays further away from Christ than one otherwise might be.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

For me, as a religious, Daily Mass has always existed.

I am not against apparitions nor devotions from them. I am against saying that everyone must believe in apparitions or practice devotions from them. The Church does not teach that.

I agree with this.

As I said above, though, the fact that one might not “have” to do something to be Catholic doesn’t mean one wouldn’t do well to practice it if one wants a deeper relationship with Christ. One might be missing blessings and graces by sticking to what the Church says Catholics must do without doing anything more.

Jesus once said, “If anyone asks you to walk one mile with him, walk two.” We might apply the same principle when seeking to develop our relationships with God further.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

You see, I’m looking at it as a relationship. Union with God, relationship, is central to the nature of Catholicism.

You’re right that there are things we must do and must believe to be Catholic, or to have that relationship with God within Catholicism. It’s like that in human relationships too. There are things we must do for a relationship between two people to exist. But there if one person spends only the amount of time with someone else that that person must have to have a relationship, that’s not going to be the same depth of relationship as someone will have who spends lots of extra time with the person out of love.

Yes, but it is not our place to say what someone else’s relationship needs to be successful.

Your vow of obedience and your union with a religious order is itself beyond what is necessary for Catholics.

That is correct, but it is what is required for those who enter the Order of the Brothers of Our Lady of Mount Carmel (Carmelites).

And as I have said, I am not against the extras, I am against saying that the extras are required, which is what one is saying when they say that someone is a minimalist when they chose not to add extras.

Agreed. But I’m focusing on how to develop one’s relationship with God, not just on having one.

Again, this is between the individual and God, we can not just their relationship by our standards.

St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Therese of Lisieux, St. John Damascene and St. Athanasius, to name a few Doctors of the Church who saw Marian apparitions. For the Early Fathers, I’d cite John Damascene and Athanasius. Also the Apostle John had a vision that popes have said presented the Virgin Mary (Rev. 12). I expect I’d find more if I looked further.

The Apostle John’s vision is part of public revelation, not a private apparition, that is because it is part of the book of Revelation.

I do am not aware of any private apparition experience by St Therese of Lisieux. While these individuals may have experienced something has the Church ruled on them as private messages? Or were they just messages for the Saints in question?

I’ve heard that all the saints had strong Marian devotions.

I’m sure. I’m not impressed, though, as many popes and bishops have supported various apparitions and their messages. Pope Paul VI made a feast day to Our Lady of the Rosary. There also is a feast day to Our Lady of Mount Carmel, and to Our Lady of Guadaloupe. People that say devotions provided by apparitions bear no fruit of grace are free to their opinion, but they are not following the views of the saints or Doctors of the Church and are rejecting the views of many popes. I just am not that impressed by this. I’d rather try to follow the teaching of the saints.

That is fine, but it does not change the fact that they are not required nor the fact that I believe that we should not force them onto people.

I think we agree on much the point of our disagreement is on whether or not one can disbelieve and should private devotions be celebrated publicly. I think we are at an impasse there.

 

[Jacafamala]

Michael’s reply did very well and covers mostly how I feel but I will reply because the questions were asked of me.

I do no think this is a good thing. I much more prefer silence before the Liturgy so that I may privately pray and meditate before the start of the Liturgy. I do not like having someones favorite devotion forced into my prayers. I know I do not have to join in and I do not join in but it is distracting.

Even in TLM parishes, where it is valued because the Blessed Mother has requested the Rosary on many occasions?

I do not see how it can be foreign to your understanding unless you believe that everyone should be praying private devotions.

Hey, I don’t assume to think for you. It was merely a question regarding something that you brought up.

Worthy of belief does not require belief. It is not an infallible statement.

But it does require respect and reverence, I believe. “Worthy of belief” implies that one should have no suspicions. Does it not? Because suspicion would imply that a thing is unworthy of belief.

I more was thinking of the novena done are Easter time, that one was explicitly given for her private use yet it is in wide spread usage today. You can not get a booklet on the Divine Mercy Chaplet that does not include it.

Faustina prophesied that this Divine Mercy Sunday devotion would take place. Didn’t she?

I will leave what Michael said on this as he was a bit more articulate than I could ever hope to be but I will say that you are mixing apples and oranges. You start off talking about missing statues then bring up the lack of a public usage of a private devotion.

Statues point to private devotions to saints and very often to different titles of Our Lord as well. So to me, they are both in the same category.

The Church has many public Liturgies, such as the Liturgy of the Hours, I would much rather see this than a public recitation of a private devotion.

Wrong.
A liturgy is merely a name for the Church at prayer. When the Church comes together to pray a Litany to the Sacred Heart, this is liturgy. [New Advent](A litany is a well-known and much appreciated form of responsive petition, used in public liturgical services, and in private devotions, for common necessities of the Church, or in calamities — to implore God’s aid or to appease His just wrath.)

“A litany is a well-known and much appreciated form of responsive petition, used in public liturgical services, and in private devotions, for common necessities of the Church, or in calamities — to implore God’s aid or to appease His just wrath.”

No one is asking you to apologize for the practice of a private devotion (and I would be the last to comment on the usage of the brown scapular as I wear one (the kind you wear) when not in habit and of course my habit has the full brown scapular) what I am saying should not be done is telling others that they must practice some private devotions or they are some kind of minimalist Catholic or that private devotions should be used publicly.

As soon as you say a private devotion can’t be prayed in church, you’re squelching it. And traditionally, just where do you suppose the spread of private devotions occurs? From a vacuum? From the internet? Only clandestinely in private homes or from dusty books? Where?

In the second place, you take offense at my discribing the fact you chose to keep things streemlined “minimal”. Why do you take such offense at this description. I should think that for you, less is more, as the saying goes. But Ok, then what do you prefer I call your particular spirituality?

I would also caution the use of “ancient times” as many of the devotions date to the medieval times.

You’re nit picking just a little.

 

[Hesychios]

You’re nit picking just a little.

Not by any means.

He’s right, very little of what you are arguing for represents the ancient, or early church.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

That is fine, but it does not change the fact that they are not required nor the fact that I believe that we should not force them onto people.

I think we agree on much the point of our disagreement is on whether or not one can disbelieve and should private devotions be celebrated publicly. I think we are at an impasse there.

I also think we agree on a lot. I guess we probably will continue to disagree about whether or not it can be appropriate to celebrate private devotions publicly. But I am not arguing that people must believe in the private revelations in order to be good Catholics. I am saying that because I believe the devotions those apparitions offer are extremely fruitful in developing the soul, one is missing graces when one goes without them. I am probably missing graces by failing to devoutly wear the brown scapular like you. Practicing more devotions doesn’t automatically make one person holier than someone that is abstaining from them. However, those devotions have a lot of power to help people in their spiritual lives, so practicing them truly can powerfully create godliness. Doing only what the Church requires, however, is not likely to create the same level of holiness as is plunging into all those extra graces.

That doesn’t mean we have any right to judge people that practice less devotions or believe in fewer apparitions. They might very well be far greater in the eyes of Heaven than are those of us that do practice the devotions. Only my belief that practicing faithfully more devotions will very likely create greater grace in the soul than there will be in doing the minimum of what God asks flows naturally from my belief that the devotions, if practiced faithfully, do create real grace in souls that would not otherwise be there.

Yes, but it is not our place to say what someone else’s relationship needs to be successful.

I wouldn’t use the word “needs.” I would never tell someone, “You need the Rosary to have a successful relationship with God.” I would say, “Praying the Rosary may very well strengthen your relationship with God. After all, it has done so for all these saints . . .” etc. etc.

If I meet someone who is doing what the Church requires in their spiritual life and no more, I would encourage them to do more, but I would never judge their relationship with God. However, I do believe that Jacafamala is right that doing only what the Church requires and no more is unlikely to foster the same spiritual growth as there would be in taking advantage of the graces Mary and Jesus’ apparitions offer as devotions.

And many people do, I believe, hold to a kind of “minimalism,” because they feel religion is boring or nonessential for their overall lives.

That is correct, but it is what is required for those who enter the Order of the Brothers of Our Lady of Mount Carmel (Carmelites).

And as I have said, I am not against the extras, I am against saying that the extras are required, which is what one is saying when they say that someone is a minimalist when they chose not to add extras.

I wouldn’t typecast everyone who isn’t doing the “extras” as a minimalist. I think some people are, though. And I don’t believe at all that it’s a good idea to do only the minimum of what the Church requires. That certainly isn’t what Jesus teaches when He says go the extra mile.

The Apostle John’s vision is part of public revelation, not a private apparition, that is because it is part of the book of Revelation.

Agreed.

I do am not aware of any private apparition experience by St Therese of Lisieux. While these individuals may have experienced something has the Church ruled on them as private messages? Or were they just messages for the Saints in question?

She talked about how an apparition of Mary healed her of a grave illness in her autobiography, “A Story of a Soul.” I believe the ones I just referred to were messages for the saints in question rather than revelations for many people like Our Lady of Guadaloupe.

 

[Jacafamala]

Not by any means.

He’s right, very little of what you are arguing for represents the ancient, or early church.

Hesychios, the earliest Christians, and the Apostles, kept the Passover, and went to the Temple to pray at the appointed “Hours of Prayer”. So, yeah you’re right.

But how is this the issue? I feel this isn’t the issue. Byz said that he believes we ought not have the Rosary said in church before Mass because the Rosary’s a private devotion. This to me is the issue. Alright that he doesn’t want to pray the Rosary at church, but now he’s saying that others ought not pray it either? And then what are the implications using this train of thought regarding other private devotions, such as as the Stations of the Cross and the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament? Is it that we shouldn’t pray these devotions publicly either, because they’re not “ancient” enough? Is the Devotion to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts “ok”? Can we keep statues of these in our churches? I guess what I’m asking here is what exactly is the criteria for something to be acceptable in church?

 

[historyb]

A good Catholic book about the end times is Trial, Tribulation, and Triumph by Desmond Birch

ewtnreligiouscatalogue.com/TRIAL+TRIBULATION+AND+TRIUMPH+/cid=37/page_no=2/edp_no=4423/shop.axd/ProductDetails

http://www.ewtnreligiouscatalogue.com/images/catalog/detail/2732.jpg

 

[Monica4316]

I just finished St. Louis de Montfort’s True Devotion to Mary and he writes of how Christ came to Earth the first time through Mary, and so He will do the same the second time.

I’m wondering how this will happen through Mary the second time?

I think this is a mystery that we don’t fully know yet… St Louis de Montfort said some prophetic things that came true, and others have not yet come true, but (IMO) will. I think he is right about this but I dont’ fully understand it…

to interpret it, I think it’s important to only look at private revelations and apparitions that have been ACCEPTED by the Church. Such as Fatima…

One of the messages of Fatima was the reign of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

I tend to think, that maybe the reign of the Sacred Heart of Jesus (and His Second Coming) would come as a result of the reign of the Immaculate Heart of Mary she would bring the world to Himself, and He would come a second time, through her, like He did before. (but of course in a different way, He won’t be born again)

it could also mean that He would come as a result of her intercession.

God knows