Private revelation

[Jeremy]

Just looking for some clarification. My understanding from the CCC is that, if the Church gives its approval to a particular private revelation (such as at Fatima), calling it “worthy of belief”, a Catholic may choose to disbelief in that particular miracle for whatever reason and still be faithful to the Church.

I’m not referring to any particular examples. What I’m worried about is what it would mean for the Church’s authority if it were demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that some particular miracle did not occur the way it is supposed to have happened. I think that even if the Church were somehow “proven wrong” in such a matter then it would be embarrassing but nothing worse. I’m just looking for confirmation. Thanks.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Jeremy:

Just looking for some clarification. My understanding from the CCC is that, if the Church gives its approval to a particular private revelation (such as at Fatima), calling it “worthy of belief”, a Catholic may choose to disbelief in that particular miracle for whatever reason and still be faithful to the Church.

I’m not referring to any particular examples. What I’m worried about is what it would mean for the Church’s authority if it were demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that some particular miracle did not occur the way it is supposed to have happened. I think that even if the Church were somehow “proven wrong” in such a matter then it would be embarrassing but nothing worse. I’m just looking for confirmation. Thanks.

Worthy of Belief simply says that as of now with what we know and have investigated, nothing contrary to Catholic teachings is contained in the private revelation and that it’s occurrence is of probable supernatural origin. Remember that these are NOT public Divine Revelation and are NOT therefore protected by Infallibility.

 

[Jeremy]

Thank you

Follow up question:

I know that there is not going to be any more public divine revelation. So when the Pope or a council speaks infallibly (such as when Pope Pius IX defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception) does this mean that he was not revealing anything, but rather giving a definitive answer to an existing question?

 

[Jeremy]

Think I answered my own question.

The answer is “yes”. Here is a link to some Vatican II comments regarding infallibility

catholicapologetics.org/ap050600.htm

It says

“the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person …but rather as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, as one in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church herself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith”

and terms like “judgment”, “expounding” and “defending” refer to comments on existing questions, not on the introduction of innovations in faith. It goes on

“they pronounce it in accord with Revelation itself …”

meaning in accordance with existing public revelation. It concludes

“Under the guiding light of the Holy Spirit, Revelation is thus religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church. The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, strive painstakingly and by appropriate means to inquire properly into that Revelation and to give apt expression to its contents…they do not allow that there could be any new public revelation pertaining to the divine deposit of truth.”

meaning that there will be no new public revelation, and that what the Church does is infallibly interpret existing revelation.

I guess I was trying to make sure that papal infallibility did not refer in any way to the Pope getting things “infallibly revealed” to him, if you follow me. It just means that his ex cathedra rulings are divinely insured to be correct.