Studies In Official Catholic Prophecy

[Techno2000]

I have used the search feature here at CA for as far back as 2004, and did not really see a topic that would address my questions in the same scope that I have in mind so I am starting this topic to try and start a study that will address my questions.

To me, as the lowly Protestant here; Catholic ideas on Bible prophecy seem to be non-descript, vague, or atleast very general. It seems too hard for one to actually pin down anything exact, that would be classed as “official teachings,” and that deals specifically with prophecies in Daniel and Revelation.

Can we use this topic to try to explore Catholic prophecies; both in general, and specifically?

1/ What are Catholic principles of prophetic interpretation?

2/ What is the Catholic understanding of a true prophet?

**3/ **Can you name any specific and official Catholic prophecies that have been fulfilled, or are yet to be fulfilled?

**4/ ** Can you name any officially Catholic prophets?

Thanks, in advance, for your willingness to take the time and effort here with me…

PRAYER TO ST. MICHAEL
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in the day of Battle; Be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the Devil. May God rebuke Him, we humbly pray, and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the power of God, cast into Hell, Satan and all the other evil spirits, who prowl through the world, seeking the ruin of souls.
Amen

---

(This powerful prayer of exorcism was composed by Pope Leo XIII; in a vision, he had been shown the fearful battle to be waged between Satan and St. Michael, over the Church of the future. Now, as never before, the Church needs the intercession of St. Michaell Please say this prayer every day.)
angelfire.com/ca3/rafaelmarie/ThePieta/zcangelus.html

 

[adventistnomore]

So is it official Catholic Church teaching that prophecy has nothing to do with “matters of faith and morals?” That really sounds obtuse.

No, prophecies are matters of future historical events usually. All that regards faith and morals was already revealed to the Church at the time of the apostles, period.

I have read the CC just yesterday on this; and I figured you might bring up this point re “infallibility,” but if a Pope/s are convicted that something is true; it must be.

Absolutely not. The pope himself (as a human being–his thoughts, opinions, ideas) is not infallible–only his ex cathedra pronouncements are. More exaggerated opinions of the pope’s infallibility (such as Protestants accuse us of having) were excluded by the I Vatican Council. Now, I recommend working within established Catholic theology when telling us what we do or do not believe about the pope’s infallibility,

And there are many Popes who have endorsed the Fatima Secret. It cannot possibly be “heresy” because too many have endorsed the vision, and “Mary’s” message therein.

No, it isn’t heresy, but at the same time, its not obligatory for Catholics to assent to, though they are encouraged to prudently consider these visions.

The Bible even calls it “the sure word of prophecy.”

For us, the “sure word of prophecy” especially refers to the prophecies and teachings of scripture.

In reference to your question about waiting for Catholics to decide what brand of prophecy is “true” I find that to be amazing. Surely, a Church that professes to have “the depository of truth” can decide at least in principle, that not all of the 3 methods of prophecy are correct? To allow church members to study all 3 is no different than most churches; but to just say you still don’t know which is true is incredible given the “truth” you say you already have. Why would God give any prophecies of warning to anyone, without being clear on what He is warning us about? How can you not know?

If biblical prophecy were “clear,” you and I wouldn’t continue to disagree on its proper interpretation. Let’s face it; neither view has yet done a convincing job interpreting every element of biblical prophecy–if they had, there wouldn’t be the diversity of opinions we have today.

 

[Protestant101]

No, prophecies are matters of future historical events usually. All that regards faith and morals was already revealed to the Church at the time of the apostles, period.

Absolutely not. The pope himself (as a human being–his thoughts, opinions, ideas) is not infallible–only his ex cathedra pronouncements are. More exaggerated opinions of the pope’s infallibility (such as Protestants accuse us of having) were excluded by the I Vatican Council. Now, I recommend working within established Catholic theology when telling us what we do or do not believe about the pope’s infallibility,

No, it isn’t heresy, but at the same time, its not obligatory for Catholics to assent to, though they are encouraged to prudently consider these visions.

For us, the “sure word of prophecy” especially refers to the prophecies and teachings of scripture.

If biblical prophecy were “clear,” you and I wouldn’t continue to disagree on its proper interpretation. Let’s face it; neither view has yet done a convincing job interpreting every element of biblical prophecy–if they had, there wouldn’t be the diversity of opinions we have today.

I think you are looking at this with your shades on or something. It seems quite clear to all of your Popes. How you can say what they believe on this point is still optional seems so obscure:

According to the Fatima prophecy; from the beginning Popes have had a specific role in it’s message; because of their insistence God sent the Holy Mother to Fatima; and when the Pope fulfills God’s demands, the Blessed Virgin will allegedly bring peace to the world. Therefore, because their role in the Fatima Message is so primary, let us examine how the Popes have approved of and promoted Fatima.

Firstly, Pope Benedict XV re-established the ancient diocese of Leiria on January 17, 1918, and in an April 29, 1918 letter to the Portuguese bishops, he referred to the occurrences at Fatima as “an extraordinary aid from the Mother of God.” In 1929, at an audience of the Portuguese Seminary in Rome, Pope Benedict’s successor, Pius XI, personally offered each seminarian two pictures of Our Lady of the Rosary of Fatima. Pope Pius also wished to read all the results of the Canonical Process of Fatima so that he would be personally acquainted with Our Lady’s apparitions.

On October 1, 1930 the Sacred Penitentiary under Pius XI granted a partial indulgence to those who individually visited the Shrine and prayed for the intentions of the Holy Father, and a plenary indulgence once a month to those who went there in a group. These indulgences granted in Rome came just in time to prepare minds to receive with entire confidence the soon-to-be-announced Episcopal approval, which the Holy See had thus discreetly supported.

With the knowledge and consent of Pope Pius XI, on October 13, 1930 Bishop da Silva of Leiria (the diocese in which Fatima is contained) announced the results of the official inquiry of Fatima in a pastoral letter on the apparitions. This official approval contained these important paragraphs:

In virtue of considerations made known, and others which for reason of brevity we omit; humbly invoking the Divine Spirit and placing ourselves under the protection of the most Holy Virgin, and after hearing the opinions of our Rev. Advisors in this diocese, we hereby declare worthy of belief, the visions of the shepherd children in the Cova da Iria, parish of Fatima, in this diocese, from the 13th May to 13th October, 1917 permit officially the cult of Our Lady of Fatima.

Pope Pius XII, whose Episcopal consecration took place on May 13, 1917, the date of Our Lady’s first apparition at Fatima, did many things to help encourage devotion to Our Lady of Fatima. He was known as “the Pope of Fatima”. He said, “The time for doubting Fatima has passed, the time for action is now.” When the Pilgrim Virgin statue was touring Italy, and miracles were being worked wherever it went, Pius XII stated in amazement: “We can hardly believe our eyes.”

(to be continued)

 

[Protestant101]

In 1940, Pope Pius XII spoke of Fatima for the first time in an official Papal text, his encyclical Saeculo exeunte, which was written to encourage the Church in Portugal to further its foreign missionary activity. In the text he stated: “Let the faithful not forget, especially when they recite the Rosary, so recommended by the Blessed Virgin Mary of Fatima, to ask the Virgin Mother of God to obtain missionary vocations, with abundant fruits for the greatest possible number of souls. …”

He then concluded the encyclical with, “Without any doubt God in His goodness will pour out His abundant blessings on these generous enterprises and on the most noble Portuguese nation. The Blessed Virgin, Our Lady of the Rosary venerated at Fatima, the Holy Mother of God who brought victory at Lepanto, will assist you with Her most powerful assistance. …” Also in 1940, the Holy Father granted the new diocese of Nampula, in Mozambique, Our Lady of Fatima as its Patroness.

In October of 1942, in response to a message given to him by Sister Lucy in 1940, Pope Pius XII consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, with a special mention of Russia. In early 1943, Sister Lucy explained that the Lord told her that He would accept this Act of Consecration to help speed the end of the World War II, but that it will not obtain worldwide peace. As predicted, this act obtained the end of the war, but did not usher in the reign of peace Our Lady promised, as it was not a consecration of specifically Russia, and the world’s bishops did not participate in it.

On May 4, 1944, the Holy See instituted the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

In 1946 His Eminence Cardinal Masella, acting as the personal Legate of the Holy Father, crowned Our Lady of Fatima, “Queen of the World.” The entire Portuguese episcopate and over 600,000 pilgrims gathered at Fatima for the event.

In 1950 Pope Pius XII even said to the Master General of the Dominicans: “Tell your religious that the Pope’s thinking is contained in the Message of Fatima.”

(to be continued)

 

[Protestant101]

On October 13, 1951 the Pope’s Legate, Cardinal Tedeschini, was sent to Fatima for the closing of the Holy Year. He told the crowd that Pope Pius XII had himself seen, repeated in Rome, the Miracle of the Sun that had occurred at the last Fatima apparition. It is clear that the Holy Father chose Fatima for this major event, to bring attention to the Message of Our Lady of Fatima. The Holy Father had, in fact, been graced to see the Miracle of the Sun on four separate occasions the previous year: October 30 and 31, November 1 (the day Pius XII solemnly defined the dogma of the Assumption), and November 8 (the octave of the same solemnity).

On July 7,1952 Pope Pius XII, in response to the petitions of the Russian Catholics, consecrated Russia and her people to the Immaculate Heart. Unfortunately, the petitioners were unaware that the Holy Father had to do the Consecration in union with the bishops of the world. Thus, Pius XII did the Consecration in a private ceremony, without inviting the world’s bishops to join him, as Our Lady requested.

On October 11, 1954 His Holiness issued an encyclical on the Queenship of Mary, and in it he referred to Her miraculous image at Fatima. Two years later the Church that stands on the apparition site at Fatima was elevated to the rank of Basilica.

In 1964, during the Second Vatican Council, at the solemn closing ceremonies at the end of the third session, before all the Catholic bishops of the world, Pope Paul VI renewed Pius XII’s consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. He also announced that a special envoy was to be sent to Fatima. In the Pope’s name the Papal Legate would carry, as a symbolic gift, a Golden Rose to the Fatima Shrine. The inscription on it would say that Pope Paul was entrusting the entire Church to the care of Our Lady of Fatima. Then, in fact, on May 13, 1965, through his Papal Legate, as he had announced at the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul presented the Golden Rose at Fatima, commending the whole Church to Our Lady of Fatima’s care.

On May 13, 1967, on the fiftieth anniversary of the first Fatima apparition, the Holy Father went on a pilgrimage to the Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima. He wrote an encyclical on the occasion of his pilgrimage. While there, he also blessed seventy National Pilgrim Virgin statues, to travel continually so that many nations would remember and practice the Message of Fatima.

Before his election to the Papacy, Pope John Paul I exhibited a particular devotion to Our Lady of Fatima, and as Cardinal Patriarch of Venice he led a pilgrimage there. It was during this trip that he met with Sister Lucy, and was very struck by the meeting.

Pope John Paul II has many times exhibited his approval of Fatima. He has visited Fatima three times – in 1982, 1991 and 2000. During his 2000 visit he beatified the two deceased seers, Jacinta and Francisco. He has also made the Feast day of Our Lady of Fatima universal by ordering it to be included in the Roman Missal.

During his homily at Mass in Fatima on May 13, 1982, Pope John Paul II said, “The appeal of the Lady of the Message of Fatima is so deeply rooted in the Gospel and the whole of Tradition that the Church feels that the Message imposes a commitment on Her.” He also said, “The Message is addressed to every human being. … Because of the continuing increase of sin and the dangers, such as nuclear war, now threatening humanity, the Message of Fatima is more urgent and relevant in our time than it was when Our Lady appeared 65 years ago.”

He also stated, “Today John Paul II, successor of St. Peter, presents himself before the Mother of the Son of God in Her shrine at Fatima. In what way does he come? He presents himself reading again with trepidation the motherly call to penance, to conversion, the ardent appeal of the Heart of Mary that resounded at Fatima 65 years ago. Yes he reads it again with trepidation in his heart because he sees how many people and societies – how many Christians – have gone in the opposite direction to the one indicated in the Message of Fatima. Sin has thus made itself firmly at home in the world, and denial of God has become widespread in the ideologies, ideas and plans of human beings.”

Thus, from the above examples, we can see that in addition to its official approval in 1930, the Popes have approved of Fatima in many decisive ways. How can you say all of this is now optional for Catholics?

 

[MarysRoses]

Thus, from the above examples, we can see that in addition to its official approval in 1930, the Popes have approved of Fatima in many decisive ways. How can you say all of this is now optional for Catholics?

You really do need to review what the Church teaches about public and private revelations. The visions are approved, but they are PRIVATE revelations and not binding as a rule of faith on Catholics.

“…there is a need for some basic clarification of the way in which, according to Church teaching, phenomena such as Fatima are to be understood within the life of faith. The teaching of the Church distinguishes between “public Revelation” and “private revelations”. The two realities differ not only in degree but also in essence. The term “public Revelation” refers to the revealing action of God directed to humanity as a whole and which finds its literary expression in the two parts of the Bible: the Old and New Testaments. It is called “Revelation” because in it God gradually made himself known to men, to the point of becoming man himself, in order to draw to himself the whole world and unite it with himself through his Incarnate Son, Jesus Christ. It is not a matter therefore of intellectual communication, but of a life-giving process in which God comes to meet man. At the same time this process naturally produces data pertaining to the mind and to the understanding of the mystery of God. It is a process which involves man in his entirety and therefore reason as well, but not reason alone. Because God is one, history, which he shares with humanity, is also one. It is valid for all time, and it has reached its fulfilment in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In Christ, God has said everything, that is, he has revealed himself completely, and therefore Revelation came to an end with the fulfilment of the mystery of Christ as enunciated in the New Testament. To explain the finality and completeness of Revelation, the Catechism of the Catholic Church quotes a text of Saint John of the Cross: “In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word—and he has no more to say… because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behaviour but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty” (No. 65; Saint John of the Cross,The Ascent of Mount Carmel, II, 22).”

“In this context, it now becomes possible to understand rightly the concept of “private revelation”, which refers to all the visions and revelations which have taken place since the completion of the New Testament. This is the category to which we must assign the message of Fatima.”

“1. The authority of private revelations is essentially different from that of the definitive public Revelation. The latter demands faith; in it in fact God himself speaks to us through human words and the mediation of the living community of the Church. Faith in God and in his word is different from any other human faith, trust or opinion…”

" 2. Private revelation is a help to this faith, and shows its credibility precisely by leading me back to the definitive public Revelation. In this regard, Cardinal Prospero Lambertini, the future Pope Benedict XIV, says in his classic treatise, which later became normative for beatifications and canonizations: “An assent of Catholic faith is not due to revelations approved in this way; it is not even possible…"

“The criterion for the truth and value of a private revelation is therefore its orientation to Christ himself. When it leads us away from him, when it becomes independent of him or even presents itself as another and better plan of salvation, more important than the Gospel, then it certainly does not come from the Holy Spirit.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html

I posted what I considered excerpts most pertinent to your questions from the section entitled “Theological Commentary”. It would do you good to read the entire document.

MarysRoses

 

[mercygate]

Are all of these approaches to prophecy then, “correct?” How can the Pope allow for such ambiguous prophetic conclusions involving any or all of the 3 main prophetic views, as you have mentioned?

Because (as the Protestant Fundamentalist, J. Vernon McGee (who believes in the rapture & the millennium), says: It’s none of our business. Jesus told us that it is not for us to know when he will come again. Our job is to keep spreading the Gospel and not to “look up at the sky.” Catholic Fr. Mitch Pacwa, who was a teacher for years, puts it simply: It’s not going to be on the test!"
Fr. John Corapi says: Jesus is coming soon: within 20 or 30 years for most of us. That’s what we have to be ready for.

In the past; I have seen pictures of Pope John Paul in the hospital recovering from several serious gunshot wounds, standing in front of a little statue of “Fatima” and thanking Our Lady of Fatima for saving his life. He apparently recognized in his assassination attempt on his life, Our Lady’s miraculous intervention in an appeal from Her to listen to Her Fatima Message.

News reports and Catholic literature abound with this information. Whether or not you want to call it “doctrine” or not; it is obvious that this Pope was utterly convinced of the reality of the Fatima Secret. Why then would not Catholics who consider him “infallible” as far a matters of faith are concerned, not also be obligated to accept his convictions here? To just say that it is not “prophecy” or “not doctrine” makes no sense in light of what many Popes have formally stated by words and actions.

Because this stuff is “private” revelation. While it is approved for devotion, and Catholics might consider it salutary to believe in it, it is not required de fide.

In the statement re public & private revelations which you linked to above, it says:

It is hard to see clear with such statements with all the circumstances surrounding the Fatima Secret, and with the clear Bible revelation that revelation and visions do not in fact end with the New Testament; and the Bible is clear that prophecy if it is Bible prophecy, and backed up by the Bible, that prophecy always leads people to Jesus. True prophecy is HIS-Story and fixes our eyes on Jesus, not on Mary, as does the Fatima Secret.

I am not one of those who is deeply devoted to the Fatima message. But to my mind as an original skeptic of all things Marian, I do not see the Fatima messages of repentance to be focused on Mary at all. Repentance is always of the Lord.

Frankly, I think Catholics have their own “millennial madness” when they chase after every new supposed vision or revelation (usually of Our Lady).

 

[mercygate]

So is it official Catholic Church teaching that prophecy has nothing to do with “matters of faith and morals?” That really sounds obtuse. I have read the CC just yesterday on this; and I figured you might bring up this point re “infallibility,” but if a Pope/s are convicted that something is true; it must be. And there are many Popes who have endorsed the Fatima Secret. It cannot possibly be “heresy” because too many have endorsed the vision, and “Mary’s” message therein.

Just because it is “not heresy” and is “endorsed” by many popes, that does not put it on the same level as teaching that must be accepted de fide.

 

[SDA2RC]

Protestant101,
On the Fatima.org page, where I assume you got the list of “approvals”, the questions end with this statement, “So, while belief in the Message of Fatima may not strictly be required of Catholics as an article of faith, one would be very foolish to disregard such an obviously authentic message from Heaven.”

 

[Protestant101]

You really do need to review what the Church teaches about public and private revelations. The visions are approved, but they are PRIVATE revelations and not binding as a rule of faith on Catholics.

The term “public Revelation” refers to the revealing action of God directed to humanity as a whole and which finds its literary expression in the two parts of the Bible: the Old and New Testaments. It is called “Revelation” because in it God gradually made himself known to men, to the point of becoming man himself, in order to draw to himself the whole world and unite it with himself through his Incarnate Son, Jesus Christ. It is not a matter therefore of intellectual communication, but of a life-giving process in which God comes to meet man.

I posted what I considered excerpts most pertinent to your questions from the section entitled “Theological Commentary”. It would do you good to read the entire document.

MarysRoses

I have read and re-read this document the last few days; but there are many inconsistencies. How much more “public” could the Fatima Secret get?

 

[mercygate]

I have read and re-read this document the last few days; but there are many inconsistencies. How much more “public” could the Fatima Secret get?

In Catholic language, “public revelation” (largely contained in Sacred Scripture) ended with the death of the last Apostle. All other “revelation” is considered “private.”

The Church often has a very particular way of using language. For example “the assurance of faith” means quite a different thing in Catholic-speak than it does in “Luther-speak.”

These nuances can be confusing when you come upon them from outside the Church.

 

[mercygate]

FYI from: catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0011bt.asp

“What might be surprising to some is what he then notes: “The two realities differ not only in degree but also in essence” (emphasis added). This tells us that the difference between public and private revelation is not simply that public revelation is given to or binding on all whereas private revelation is given to or binding on only some (restricted by time, place, or identity). More than that is involved: Public and private are two different kinds of revelation.”

“The term ‘public Revelation’ refers to the revealing action of God directed to humanity as a whole and which finds its literary expression in the two parts of the Bible: the Old and New Testaments,” writes Cardinal Ratzinger. “It is called ‘Revelation’ because in it God gradually made himself known to men, to the point of becoming man himself, in order to draw to himself the whole world and unite it with himself through his Incarnate Son, Jesus Christ. It is not a matter therefore of [merely] intellectual communication, but of a life-giving process in which God comes to meet man.”
"
Public revelation, using this definition, embraces the fullness of God’s self-revelation to man in Christ. It reflects the full plan of revelation, which Vatican II explained “is realized by deeds and words having in inner unity: the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation manifest and confirm the teaching and realities signified by the words, while the words proclaim the deeds and clarify the mystery contained in them” (Dei Verbum 2)."

 

[adventistnomore]

protestant101:

How can you say all of this is now optional for Catholics?

Because the Vatican tells us as much.

You are right to point out that the vision is Vatican approved, and that Catholics are encouraged to believe in it, but this does not mean that Catholics are strictly bound to believe it (as if it were a matter of faith). The Vatican documents cited on this thread deny that very idea. Catholics do not receive these apparitions with the same urgency, in the same way, or with the same binding authority, that they receive the prophecies of scripture. The two modes of “revelation” are qualitatively different to us (in “degree” and “essence”).

Now, you may have trouble reconciling yourself to this sort of theological distinction, and I can understand that–it doesn’t exist in your faith tradition. But it does in our theology–a theology I believe you are sincerely attempting to articulate. According to the Catholic faith defined by the very popes you cited as approving the visions at Fatima, those visions are not a necessary part of our faith.

It’s new–I realize that. Thank you for taking the time to get to understand us better.

 

[SDA2RC]

I understand what Hugo is saying about this theology or distinction in revelation or prophecy not exsisting in your faith. However, I kind of disagree, and think how the SDA Church views EGW’s writings are very similar to how we view private revelation. For example, in the book “Questions on Doctrine”, which was written to represent Adventist beliefs to inquirers such as Walter Martin and other Protestant scholars, you find the following explanation of EGW’s writings.
" 1. That we do not regard the writings of Ellen G. White as an addition to the sacred canon of Scripture.
2. That we do not think of them as of universal application, as is the Bible, but particularly for the Seventh-day Adventist Church."

Like the Adventist view of EGW’s writings, we regard private interpretation much the same. We do not regard private interpretation as an addition to the deposit of faith given us in the canon of scripture and Apostolic Tradition. We further do not necessarily view them as having universal application, as we do the deposit of faith in Scripture and Tradition.

This does not mean however that we do not or cannot accept their divine origin or application to our lives personally.

Hope this helps to explain the thought process behind it.

 

[Protestant101]

Because the Vatican tells us as much.

You are right to point out that the vision is Vatican approved, and that Catholics are encouraged to believe in it, but this does not mean that Catholics are strictly bound to believe it (as if it were a matter of faith). The Vatican documents cited on this thread deny that very idea. Catholics do not receive these apparitions with the same urgency, in the same way, or with the same binding authority, that they receive the prophecies of scripture. The two modes of “revelation” are qualitatively different to us (in “degree” and “essence”).

Now, you may have trouble reconciling yourself to this sort of theological distinction, and I can understand that–it doesn’t exist in your faith tradition. But it does in our theology–a theology I believe you are sincerely attempting to articulate. According to the Catholic faith defined by the very popes you cited as approving the visions at Fatima, those visions are not a necessary part of our faith.

It’s new–I realize that. Thank you for taking the time to get to understand us better.

Thankyou

A couple more questions if I may. One of the things I am thinking as I read the differences you have in “public” and “private” revelations is with the private one.

In a case such as this - with the Fatima Secret, many Popes have quite abviously “approved” of this “vision.”

1. If I was a Catholic, and my Pope approved this vision, and he encouraged us to adopt or believe it too; then why would I not feel obligated to believe? Why would I consider it optional if the Pope encourages it?
2. I would like to see some clarification on your uses of words here. I think I have a basic understanding of the use of “public” and “private” as in “revelation.” But to me, there is a difference between “revelation” and “prophecy.” The two are inter-connected to be sure; but there are certainly some differences to be considered. To me Fatima is not truly revelation as “prophecy” seems to fit the bill better. What do you think?

 

[mercygate]

Thankyou

A couple more questions if I may. One of the things I am thinking as I read the differences you have in “public” and “private” revelations is with the private one.

In a case such as this - with the Fatima Secret, many Popes have quite abviously “approved” of this “vision.”

1. If I was a Catholic, and my Pope approved this vision, and he encouraged us to adopt or believe it too; then why would I not feel obligated to believe? Why would I consider it optional if the Pope encourages it?

It’s optional because it treats of matters that do not add to the Gospel message. Maybe I should clarify: the message of Fatima to do penance, clean up our act, is part of the Gospel message. So in a sense, the Fatima message is just reinforcement. Where the messages treat of end times – well: you know what the Boss said about that. If we’re doing our job as Christians, it really won’t matter when the End comes and it is none of our business.

1. I would like to see some clarification on your uses of words here. I think I have a basic understanding of the use of “public” and “private” as in “revelation.” But to me, there is a difference between “revelation” and “prophecy.” The two are inter-connected to be sure; but there are certainly some differences to be considered. To me Fatima is not truly revelation as “prophecy” seems to fit the bill better. What do you think?

Excellent and important distinction. Only God reveals. Others prophesy. That, I suppose, is why the Church uses the term “private” revelation. The Church holds that “public” or absolutely essential Revelation ended with the last Apostle, so anything we receive after that need be held as de fide, even if it is profitable or even if it is true. This would not apply to the development of doctrine, since the seeds of developed theology are all contained in the Public forum.

You are correct: this appears to show an overlap between prophecy and revelation. At Fatima, God may be revealing truth through our Lady, viia the visionaries as “prophets” but anything we need to know for our salvation is contained in the apostolic teaching. I’m not sure that makes a difference in terms of this discussion, but it’s a nice distinction that we definitely should keep in mind.

Did I just muddy the water here? Or contribute verbiage without clarifying anything?

 

[apologist]

Protestant101 re: your question dated 7–8-07. I recently saw on EWTN that since John the Baptist there are no more prophecies per se because he issued the last prophecies regarding the coming of the Messiah, etc. We have so-called prophets now but they do not add to what has been revealed in the Bible prophetically. They just reinforce what has already been revealed to us. I would suspect that these so-called prophets would fall into the category of “private revelation”. Quite interesting, and good question!

 

[SDA2RC]

Protestant101 re: your question dated 7–8-07. I recently saw on EWTN that since John the Baptist there are no more prophecies per se because he issued the last prophecies regarding the coming of the Messiah, etc. We have so-called prophets now but they do not add to what has been revealed in the Bible prophetically. They just reinforce what has already been revealed to us. I would suspect that these so-called prophets would fall into the category of “private revelation”. Quite interesting, and good question!

You sure that wasn’t John the Revelator?

 

[Protestant101]

Thanks everyone who is taking the time here. I appreciate the answers.

Going by the last two posts here; and a few others, I have sensed a bit of either confusion or lack of uniformity in understanding the “private” or “public” nature of “revelation” amongst Catholics.

With this post; I would like to clarify WHEN public revelations have allegedly ceased. Some say it was with John The Baptist, some say with John the Revelator, some just say “with the New Testament.”

Are there any quotes you can offer from the Catechism or other official Catholic documents spell this out exactly, and include some kind of references or documentation as to the reasoning?

Also, does Catholic literature explain in detail the difference between “prophecy” and “revelation?”

As i consider the following text; I can see how that we could say that all PROPHECY would somehow tie in with the second coming of Christ:

**2Pe 1:19 **We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

But then, I don’t see how we could say that all REVELATION (public or private) would always be connected to either Jesus’ second coming; or that it would end at any time before.

The Fatima Secret seems like prophecy because it is connected to the second coming, to God’s judgment therein, and to Mary’s alleged role in last day events. it does not seem like it would fit with my current understandings of your explanations about what “revelation” is from the Catholic perspective.

 

[Protestant101]

It should also be noted that one of the reasons I am thinking that there is a very distinct difference between “revelation” and “prophecy” comes from the Bible’s own definitions of prophecy:

**2Pe 1:20 **Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Prophecy is not an interpretation of the knowledge and feelings of the prophet, but of the will of God, of what the future holds; whereas in your descriptions of “revelation” it seems to have quite a different definition.