Should we all take Private Revelations seriously?

[Tis_Bearself]

I think even a bishop or confessor would have a tough time believing a new apparition or vision.

And that’s as it should be, because the vast majority of them are either going to be a product of the person’s imagination or else something very private meant for the person and the person alone. There are a good many Catholics who have a mystical event happen at some point in their life, or maybe several times in their life, and they just take it for what it is, God working in their life, and don’t propagate it or preach it to the world. They might share their experience with their priest, or with their immediate family, and that’s it. They aren’t claiming the Virgin Mary is sending them messages every week to be shared with the whole world.

 

[Krisdun]

Is it possible that the Vatican is holding records/details of a number private revelations yet unknown to the world but has decided not to publicise them (or may do so in future)?

 

[Krisdun]

Yes in a way although another person (Ananias) was instructed by the Lord to restore the sight of Saul of Tarsaus. Therefore it was not only St Paul involved in this miracle conversion.

 

[commenter]

Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus was a private revelation wasn’t it? That wound up in the Bible.

“Private Revelation” has a specific meaning in Catholicism, not necessarily equivalent to common usage.

The Bible is public revelation. It is part of the Deposit of Faith, which closed at the death of the last apostle.

It’s not like a private revelation can somehow grow into a public revelation.

 

[porthos11]

Yes in a way although another person (Ananias) was instructed by the Lord to restore the sight of Saul of Tarsaus. Therefore it was not only St Paul involved in this miracle conversion.

No, that was not a private revelation. The apparition of Jesus to Saul occurred during the lifetime of the apostles and formed a Scriptural account. That was very much part of public revelation.

 

[Inbonum]

Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus was a private revelation wasn’t it? That wound up in the Bible.

Public revelation consists of everything that is revealed in Bible and Tradition. Public revelation is for all people and for all times, the content is for all humanity.
Private revelations had individuals in some part of history. Private revelations do not serve to complete the public revelation but to help the faith to be lived more fully at a given time.

Private revelations came after public revelation.

 

[commenter]

My suggestion is spend one hour studying public revelation (Catechism, Bible, similar) for every five minutes reading or hearing about private revelation.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Is it possible that the Vatican is holding records/details of a number private revelations yet unknown to the world but has decided not to publicise them (or may do so in future)?

Possible, but not probable unless perhaps a Pope himself had the private revelation and decided not to share it with the world, or not share it now.

If a private revelation to someone else is important enough for the Vatican to pay attention, it’s likely by that point to have been heard by a lot of the faithful before that.
I also don’t think the Vatican really wants any more “Third Secret of Fatima” situations.
Nor do I think God provides such “secret” messages often.

 

[Salibi]

100 years later, the French Revolution occurred.

I don’t see the correlation. This is like telling someone breaking a mirror is bad luck then blaming the fact that he broke his leg fifty years later on the broken mirror. Furthermore, as anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the event will tell you, the French Revolution occurred for reasons that are mostly very clear to history today including but not limited to France’s collapsing economy, a wasteful, corrupt political and religious elite, and a starving populace.

I understand that it’s a “thing” for some Catholics online to hate on the French Revolution, but I don’t see how claims such as the above hold up to logical scrutiny.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Well, private revelations can be intended for more than just those who received them.

“Despise not prophecies.” Thessalonians 5:20

yes, good point.

another example is Rwanda

https://www.amazon.com/If-Only-We-Had-Listened/dp/1616581352

Some private revelations can be quite frightening especially to those who suffer from anxiety or are particularly sensitive.

Some can be frightening, yes, though so can some of the Scripture writings. The important thing is to trust God and His love, do your best to serve Him, and confess when you fail. From what I have read of prophecies (and that isn’t alot) much of the frightening parts are aimed at the enemies of the Church, not the faithful.

 

[Krisdun]

Do you think that each bishop has a duty to report any revelations he is aware of to the Vatican regardless of how minor or major he thinks they might be?

 

[Trying2overcome]

The Church was heavily persecuted during the French Revolution. Many were martyred, churches desecrated, etc. That’s why many Catholics don’t like it too much. And the fact that all this happened after the failure of the kings to consecrate France seems like too much of a coincidence to some.

 

[Salibi]

And the fact that all this happened after the failure of the kings to consecrate France seems like too much of a coincidence to som

Like I said, it’s a false coincidence. Just because someone broke their leg immediately after smashing a mirror does not mean the act of breaking the mirror is the cause, no matter how much of a coincidence it looks like. You are cherry-picking one thing (not consecrating France to Mary) and tying it to something completely different in another time period (the persecution of the Catholic Church 100 years later).

Why don’t you read up on the factual reasons why the Catholic Church was persecuted in France? There are plenty, and none of them have anything to do with a failure to conscrate France a century before.

I don’t see how this can be explained any more than it already has, but I guess people draw whatever coincidences they wish to suit whatever they think or believe.

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Have a nice day.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Do you think that each bishop has a duty to report any revelations he is aware of to the Vatican regardless of how minor or major he thinks they might be?

No, because the bishop is supposed to be the one mainly responsible for approving or rejecting or setting aside as “no decision” the private revelations in his diocese. The vast majority of private revelations never make it to the Vatican; it’s not necessary for them to go there, the bishop can handle them just fine and the Church prefers that he do so.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Some Catholics see a connection.

“Some Catholics” see weird conspiracy connections in many private revelations. “Some Catholics” are not a reliable gauge of private revelations.

 

[Krisdun]

So what happens if a Bishop approves a private revelation in his diocese but the Vatican does not?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

That happens very rarely. When it does, though, the Vatican decision would govern.

Most of the time the bishops make the decision and that’s that. Or the bishop chooses to not investigate the matter and it’s just left as a “no decision” and the Vatican doesn’t bother stepping in.

Often the so-called “Vatican approval” is basically the Vatican confirming the approval already granted by the local bishop. The Vatican approval signifies that Rome thinks the apparition is very important.

 

[Trying2overcome]

I don’t hold it as fact, but I don’t deny the possibility.

 

[Krisdun]

So in the case of a ‘no decision’ does that mean we should all forget about the revelation or does it mean we can believe in it if we want to?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

A “no decision” means that the private revelation is not approved and it is not disapproved. Since it is not disapproved, you can believe in it if you want, but the Church is not going to promote or endorse it in any way. And there is a chance it may be disapproved in the future.

Some “no decision” private revelations get approved much later. For example, I’m aware of some cases of “no decision” private revelations where the person who received the private revelation has an open sainthood cause. If the person is ever beatified, then the private revelation would be considered approved. I’m also aware of another case where it took over 100 years for a bishop to approve the revelation but he finally did, and it is approved as of today. And a third case where the archbishop at the time had approved the revelations for faith expression and might well have approved the revelation entirely, but he died too soon before he had a chance, and the archbishops who came in after him haven’t been interested.

Those of us who are interested in private revelations will usually read up on the history of them and see what the revelation is alleged to have said, and make our own decisions about whether this is something we think is good and healthy for a Catholic to ponder about and maybe practice related devotions. If the revelation has been “approved for faith expression”, that means we’re allowed to say prayers and do devotions associated with it, even if the revelation itself is a “no decision”. There are a lot of private revelations in the “approved for faith expression” category and some of them have very active prayer groups devoted to them, with diocesan approval.

But obviously all this is the sort of thing that takes some careful research and study and is not just a matter of seeing some video on Youtube and jumping to a conclusion about it.