Private Revelation and culpability

[Ben_Sinner]

I’ve been wondering this for the longest time…

What is the culpability for following a private revelation?

For Example (and this is a exaggerated example):

I came across a church approved P.R of Jesus saying that it was a sin to go bowling. There are not any official rulings from the church saying that bowling is a sin, as a matter of fact, many great saints went bowling and there is even a Vatican Office of Bowling…would I be culpable for the evil done if I decided to go bowling after reading the revelation…even if the P.R was correct and the church was somehow ignorant of that it was a sin?

 

[Ben_Sinner]

I guess an easier way of saying it is…:

If I read in a church approved P.R that something was a sin, but I didn’t obey the P.R and committed the act anyway (not out of malice, just because there wasn’t enough proof)…would that be a sin?

 

[kitkatty]

Christ established a Church and a very important function of that Church is to be guided by her teachings, through the magisterium. Follow these things concerning your question. The church gives very clear teachings on this. Would the act violate the Commandments,etc.
As far as I know the Church may approve the devotion, such as in the case of Lourdes, Fatima but not the revelation per se.

 

[Monica4316]

In my understanding, everything that private revelations say is a sin, has also been decided to be a sin by the Church… but is there a particular case that you know that is an exception?

 

[kitkatty]

Remember no one is is required to believe any private revelation,which is not to say they are not worthy of belief but they are not dogmatic.

 

[kitkatty]

In my understanding, everything that private revelations say is a sin, has also been decided to be a sin by the Church… but is there a particular case that you know that is an exception?

Good point Monica, in other words I guess you could say that these things were considered sins by the Church anyhow and any authentic revelations would back up that which is already church teaching.

 

[Crumpy]

There are at least two ways in which bowling might be considered a sin.

There would be a general way that it might be sin, if the Church defined it as such. And, to my knowledge, it has not.

Bowling might be an occasion for sin, in particular instances, in any number of ways. This might be the case if it also involved cheating, gambling, drinking, neglect of family responsibilities, gossiping, etc.

I’m not an expert on private revelations, you might try looking it up in the catholic encyclopedia, which is a part of this website. See menu options above.

 

[Ben_Sinner]

In my understanding, everything that private revelations say is a sin, has also been decided to be a sin by the Church… but is there a particular case that you know that is an exception?

No, but whenever I worry about something being a sin mentioned in a P.R, people are always telling me “it’s a P.R. it’s not binding on you…even if it is approved by the church” I’m confused

btw, I didn’t come across a P.R stating that bowling was a sin…I just used that as an example

 

[Monica4316]

No, but whenever I worry about something being a sin mentioned in a P.R, people are always telling me “it’s a P.R. it’s not binding on you…even if it is approved by the church” I’m confused

btw, I didn’t come across a P.R stating that bowling was a sin…I just used that as an example

almost always, or always, if an approved private revelation says something a sin, the Church teaches the same thing if you are concerned whether something in particular is a sin or not, I think it would be wise to ask your priest in Confession

God bless

 

[Ben_Sinner]

…and not only private revelations…the approved writings of saints too

for example: there is an Impramptur on the writing of St. John Vianney. He said dancing was a grave sin but the church has never said it was and there are many catholic dances…

at what point are obligated to follow and at what point are we allowed to “ignore”

 

[baltobetsy]

Private revelations in and of themselves may always be ignored by everyone except the individual to whom they were given. That’s the reason they’re called “private.” Only public revelation must be obeyed by all, and public revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle.

Private revelations are given to particular people at particular times in history. The same can be said of the writings of the saints. It is important to consider the context. That’s not to say many private revelations do not contain material that is very helpful in our struggle for holiness - surely they do. But we are not bound in conscience to believe what they reveal for the reason that it’s in a revelation. We are bound in conscience to believe what the Church teaches, which may or may not coincide with the content of private revelation.

Sometimes, for some people, it’s wise to skip reading about private revelation. People who are scrupulous, for example, have enough difficulty discerning what is sinful and what is not without introducing ideas that are not part of required belief.

 

[fhansen]

This is from the CCC:
**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”.**

God grants private revelations but we must be very discerning about them-and none add to the faith or offer anything new which can become an article of faith.