K
KevinK
Guest
Has any Pope ever had a private revelation?
- Status
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
The one that made the Saint Michael prayer might have had one.
Last edited:
F
fhansen
Guest
I tend to think a number of them have-but haven’t necessarily felt the need to reveal them publicly. Reading the works of some of the recent popes, in fact, has given me that notion, just based on certain things they have to say.
T
thistle
Guest
That is not relevant to the thread topic which is asking if any Pope had a private revelation!
I think you will also have to use spellcheck.
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Pope Pius XII did allegedly have a number of private revelations. From what I have read about him, he was a pretty mystical guy.
Pope Pius V in 1571 allegedly had a private revelation that the Christian fleet had won the Battle of Lepanto over the Turks. He exclaimed and thanked God about the outcome at the moment of victory although he was hundreds of miles away at the time.
Pope JPII allegedly had mystical visions and private conversations with the Blessed Mother.
Pope Leo XIII allegedly had a vision of demonic spirits converging on Rome, often reported as a conversation between Satan and God where Satan stated he would destroy the church in 100 years. Pope Leo composed the Leonine Prayers (including the Prayer to St Michael) in response and asked that they be said at the end of every Mass. There has been debate about this claim, with some saying the story is unsubstantiated.
Pope Pius X allegedly saw a Pope having to flee the Vatican over the bodies of dead priests and being killed. Some have said Pope Pius X saw a “successor of the same name” (i.e. Pius or his given name, Giuseppe), others dispute that and say he just saw a Pope and that it might have referred to Hitler’s activities in Europe.
I’m sure there are more, this is just off the top of my head.
Unfortunately we are not really allowed to discuss unapproved private revelations on here. Since the Church does not bother to approve or disapprove most private revelations, we can’t really get into details except to say they allegedly occurred.
Pope Pius V in 1571 allegedly had a private revelation that the Christian fleet had won the Battle of Lepanto over the Turks. He exclaimed and thanked God about the outcome at the moment of victory although he was hundreds of miles away at the time.
Pope JPII allegedly had mystical visions and private conversations with the Blessed Mother.
Pope Leo XIII allegedly had a vision of demonic spirits converging on Rome, often reported as a conversation between Satan and God where Satan stated he would destroy the church in 100 years. Pope Leo composed the Leonine Prayers (including the Prayer to St Michael) in response and asked that they be said at the end of every Mass. There has been debate about this claim, with some saying the story is unsubstantiated.
Pope Pius X allegedly saw a Pope having to flee the Vatican over the bodies of dead priests and being killed. Some have said Pope Pius X saw a “successor of the same name” (i.e. Pius or his given name, Giuseppe), others dispute that and say he just saw a Pope and that it might have referred to Hitler’s activities in Europe.
I’m sure there are more, this is just off the top of my head.
Unfortunately we are not really allowed to discuss unapproved private revelations on here. Since the Church does not bother to approve or disapprove most private revelations, we can’t really get into details except to say they allegedly occurred.
C
commenter
Guest
Actually respectful threads about private Revelations that have not been approved have been allowed to go on here. The problem is that these kinds of threads sometimes bring out the worst in a few people. Some posters hurl vile accusations at each other. Others refuse to recognize the distinction between approved and unapproved private Revelations, and the more important distinction between public and private Revelations. No private revelation outweighs the authority of the magisterium.
There should be a distinction between 4 categories:
- Public revelation - by far the most important;
- Approved private revelation; keep in mind that even if one is approved, such as Fatima, most of what you read about it was neither approved nor condemned;
- Revelations neither approved nor condemned, at present time;
- Revelations specifically condemned
Last edited:
J
joseie
Guest
Are there any public revelation of the type you mentioned other than those said in the Bible?
C
commenter
Guest
Refer to Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 1, Section 1, chapter 2.
Think of public revelation as a 3 legged stool, with Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the living Magisterium. The 3 are not totally separate but complementary.
For instance, the Table of Contents isn’t in the Bible, but the Magisterium informs us which books are inspired. Traditional doctrines are not explicitly in the Bible, but guides us in understanding it, as well the reverse. The Pope and bishops are guided by Tradition and the Bible.
The doctrine of the Trinity was implicit, suggested by the Bible, but clarified, defined, by the early Church (not that we fully grasp it, of course).
Last edited:
J
joseie
Guest
Sorry.Not an answer to my question.!
C
commenter
Guest
I encourage a glance at the relevant portion of the Catechism, which is online.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Well, I’d love to be able to discuss some unapproved private revelations here, such as those allegedly had by saints or by people on the path to sainthood, which would include some of these Popes.
Unfortunately, I think such discussions also bring out groups of people who would like to talk about the Bayside, Queens business or the Prophecy of the Popes and other questionable things. We’d probably have endless Medjugorje threads also.
Unfortunately, I think such discussions also bring out groups of people who would like to talk about the Bayside, Queens business or the Prophecy of the Popes and other questionable things. We’d probably have endless Medjugorje threads also.
Last edited:
J
joseie
Guest
Let me reproduce two relevant and revealing paras,67 &73 from CCC(from part 1,Sec1,Chapter 2 pointed out by you)
" 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 fulfilment, as is the case in
certain non Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which
base themselves on such “revelations”. "
" 73 God has revealed himself fully by sending his own Son, in whom he
has established his covenant for ever. the Son is his Father’s definitive
Word; so there will be no further Revelation after him. "
It may be seen these rather refutes what you try to say …
" 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 fulfilment, as is the case in
certain non Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which
base themselves on such “revelations”. "
" 73 God has revealed himself fully by sending his own Son, in whom he
has established his covenant for ever. the Son is his Father’s definitive
Word; so there will be no further Revelation after him. "
It may be seen these rather refutes what you try to say …
T
thistle
Guest
Public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.
A
angel12
Guest
Which is why it was a good idea for CAF to ban discussion of unapproved private revelations. (only my personal opinion, of course)
J
joseie
Guest
To say that CAF may stop discussing about private revelations is to put it mildly.The factual position is this:
1.What all things about God were to be revealed were revealed by the time of Apostolic period.No further revelations after that.
2.Take it with a pinch of salt all these public/private /approved/unapproved revelations claimed to have happened subsequently including those in the present time.
1.What all things about God were to be revealed were revealed by the time of Apostolic period.No further revelations after that.
2.Take it with a pinch of salt all these public/private /approved/unapproved revelations claimed to have happened subsequently including those in the present time.
T
thistle
Guest
I would disagree with you on the approved private revelations. We may not be obliged to believe them but as they are approved by the Church you should not lightly dismiss them.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I agree with Thistle on the approved private revelations. When the Church takes the time and trouble to approve a private revelation, which is rare, then we should at least thoughtfully consider it, even though we are not required to believe it.
When you have a great Pope and saint like Pope John Paul II endorsing Fatima to the extent that he did, only a fool would dismiss it. Especially since two of the visionaries are now saints as well.
When you have a great Pope and saint like Pope John Paul II endorsing Fatima to the extent that he did, only a fool would dismiss it. Especially since two of the visionaries are now saints as well.
Last edited:
J
joseie
Guest
About such approved private revelations,pl.be aware that this is what is stated when the Church’s guidelines in the matter was published in 2012:
“Cardinal Levada made clear in his preface to the guidelines that, unlike public revelation, Catholics are not bound to accept the veracity or content of any private revelation, not even those officially approved by church authorities.”
So keep a pinch of salt,as I already suggested.Even Church has no objection in that.
“Cardinal Levada made clear in his preface to the guidelines that, unlike public revelation, Catholics are not bound to accept the veracity or content of any private revelation, not even those officially approved by church authorities.”
So keep a pinch of salt,as I already suggested.Even Church has no objection in that.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I think there’s a difference between “not bound to believe the approved private revelation”, which we are not disputing, and “take it with a pinch of salt” which would imply that we’re all supposed to be skeptical of the approved private revelation.
“Not bound to believe” means simply that we are not REQUIRED to believe.
If one wishes to believe 100 percent in an approved private revelation, that is also quite permissible, and even some Popes appear to have done that very thing. They did not take it with “a pinch of salt” and one is not required to be skeptical any more than one is required to believe.
“Not bound to believe” means simply that we are not REQUIRED to believe.
If one wishes to believe 100 percent in an approved private revelation, that is also quite permissible, and even some Popes appear to have done that very thing. They did not take it with “a pinch of salt” and one is not required to be skeptical any more than one is required to believe.
J
joseie
Guest
Ok…but not substantial…
- Status