Just listened to Friar Hardon and he gives an excellent talk but he’s wrong on a few points.
1). Mystics do write down things all the time because they are instructed to given warnings or testimonies or because of habit of keeping a diary.
2). Blanket all or none statements are generally easily Spotted false opinions.
Remember that padre pio was thought not to have been authentic for some time and he was denied his sacramental duties because the soundness of his mind was questioned.
I completely agree that an authentic visionary or mystic must be pure and live a very holy life.
Nothing friar Hardon said addresses dreams and dream interpretation however.
Dreams are ordinary phenomenon in my experience.
Visions, locutions, excetera are the rare things.
I like his condition that mystics perform miracles and are humble.
However saying that only true visionaries are obedient to the bishop of rome smacks of elitism and false assumption. There are non catholic christians and unbelievers who have had mystical phenomena or visions who were not obedient to rome such as Diego of goudoule and the male mystic of kihebo who’s name I forget.
What Fr. Hardon is Doing is protecting the churches reputation from scandal and the believers from false doctrines, which is commendable, but not true to reality. The church generally only approves mystics or prophets until after they are proven by time.
Also he’s not qualified to state what a pathological mental condition is and in fact does not define what he means by pathological which indicates he’s missusing the word or not accurately using it. It almost sounds condescending and a quick way to dismiss something so as not to waist time.
All in all I agree with him mostly, but reality shows his black and white paint brush doesn’t hold true. However he also makes some very good points that are overlooked. One I already mentioned, the holyness of the person, but the problem is that not all prophets, saints, visionaries, or locutionists are that holy or obedient. Take the example of Jonah the prophet. What about king nebukanezers son who saw the hand writing on the wall.
That being said, the two best known dream interpreters I the bible, Daniel and Joseph, are the only two people in the bible that nothing bad of them is mentioned.
Dreams are a Common Communication of god and Not just Reserved for the saints mentioned in the bible. That smacks of the same bias fr hardon demonstrates. Experts often take their own opinions too seriously.
That being said I also noted him calling Islam a cult created by a false visionary which I agree with, but the Muslims who are having dreams and visions of jesus and thereby converting to Christianity are not all converting to Catholicism, pay homage and give obedience to the catholic bishop of rome, demonstrate purity or total holyness, and many have published their conversion accounts. Does that make them all decievers or deceived? See my point?
His strict criteria are for what he calls perfected saints which also matches his biased strict criteria which are really about protecting the church from scandal and false doctrines.
By the way I am far from being a perfect saint but insure want to be one. Please pray for me that I am perfected. Also please pray for me to have guidance from god about writing a book about the history of dream interpretation and a catholic lay persons view on how to do it with examples.
Bk
