Unapproved private revelations

[Monica4316]

Hello,

I have a question… are we allowed to believe unapproved private revelations, if they don’t seem to go against Catholic doctrine, and if they have not been rejected by the Church? For example, if they’re new and ongoing and the Church has not made a decision on them yet. Are we allowed to believe them, and what about sharing them with others??

thanks!

 

[couponfit]

Hello,

I have a question… are we allowed to believe unapproved private revelations, if they don’t seem to go against Catholic doctrine, and if they have not been rejected by the Church? For example, if they’re new and ongoing and the Church has not made a decision on them yet. Are we allowed to believe them, and what about sharing them with others??

thanks!

I do know this, in every doctrine, dogma and creed, that which was stated by the church was already believed by the people. The church merely explains explicitly, or more so than we already know.

Mary was venerated as ever virgin, she was believed immaculate, and much more long before hand. There are already catholics who suspect Mary is co-redemtrix and who write opinions of this and who maintain communion as an ordained bishop, priest, or even lay member (although the laity does not usually write such beliefs into printed form outside of devices like CAF and blogs and personal letters.).

Also there’s a huge difference between a belief, an opinion, and a discipline. There are catholics who are celibate, and take vows of poverty but doing so is allowed but not required as doctrine or belief but rather a personal revelation to follow a discipline and a way of life.

Also not all dogma’s which many believe as dogmas are actually dogma’s but none the less part of the magistarium of the church. So it’s not unusual for a catholic to use the wrong wording to describe a discipline or an opinion as a belief, but the point should be to refine and make more clear and wait for the day when the church issues more definitive clarity on the issue.

 

[bmullins]

I believe we are allowed to believe them, even discuss them. But we aren’t allowed to present them as fact or dogma. That’s how the church eventually works out it’s revelations. I think as Catholics though we are bound that if the church does release something declaring the right thought, we are bound to teach and present that thought instead. (Even if we don’t understand why the church has come to that conclusion.)

 

[triumphguy]

There’s enough Truth in Church teaching, the Gospels, the homilies we hear on Sunday to keep us all very busy absorbing and spreading it. I don’t know where anyone gets the energy to get involved in private revelations.

 

[martininthefiel]

There is a bumper sticker that used to make frequent appearances in these parts. “Don’t believe everything you think.”

The trouble is that all sorts of things run around one’s brain at various times. Private revelation can cause all sorts of mischief in the world. It well might be the work of the devil, masquerading as the Holy Spirit, or simply your will expressing itself in a dramatic form. People have done truly awful things responding to such ideas, sometimes injuring themselves or others.

This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have original ideas, but when you believe them to be at the level of ‘revelation’, they are important enough to submit to a weighty testing. There are also things that are matters of taste, such as vegetarianism. You are certainly entitled to your opinions, just don’t present them as moral imperative.

When something that is not explicitly Church teaching comes to one’s mind, it is best to talk to one’s pastor or spiritual director concerning it. It is also not wise to share it with others until you have gone through extensive discernment concerning it, lest you lead others astray.

I’m not sure specifically what your ‘revelation’ entails, but you’d best check it out with someone who can help you sort it out.

 

[Monica4316]

thanks for the replies! just to clarify, I am not speaking about any private revelations given to myself - I have never had this happen - but to others.

 

[martininthefiel]

thanks for the replies! just to clarify, I am not speaking about any private revelations given to myself - I have never had this happen - but to others.

I have the same response. I am always wary of such things.

 

[thistle]

Hello,

I have a question… are we allowed to believe unapproved private revelations, if they don’t seem to go against Catholic doctrine, and if they have not been rejected by the Church? For example, if they’re new and ongoing and the Church has not made a decision on them yet. Are we allowed to believe them, and what about sharing them with others??

thanks!

Remember that we don’t even have to believe ones that are “approved”.
Catholics can go their whole lives not believing any private revelations and that has no impact on their faith or salvation.
Catholics are complete through Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and The Magesterium.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Caution is always advised when dealing with unapproved private revelation. There are famous examples of these (such as Međugorje) which have been denounced by the local Bishop. Proponents of these revelations quickly note that the Vatican has not denounced them. But if the local Bishop denounces something, the Vatican will never even consider it. When a local Bishop denounces something, he is speaking for the whole Church (although his decision is not final - he is free to change his opinion, or his successor might have a different opinion).

Some people think that an “unapproved” revelation is one that the Church has not examined, and has not issued a ruling one way or another. In fact, many have been denounced by competent Church authority.

I agree with an earlier poster who noted that there is far more approved revelation than anyone could possibly fit on their plate. Why scrounge around in a dustbin looking for scraps (which may not even be edible) when a fine banquet has been provided?

 

[Monica4316]

I don’t mean those that have been denounced by anyone including the local Bishop…

I know they’re not required, but that doesn’t mean they’re unimportant at all, for example the Rosary is not “required” but we receive many graces by praying it. The only bare minimum requirement is to receive Communion on Easter and go to Confession once a year, - but of course that is very very minimal, we should do more
I believe all the approved private revelations… like Fatima, Lourdes, etc. But I’m wondering about those that have not been approved OR rejected, because they are still ongoing. I don’t mean Medjugorje in particular. I agree that we should always be careful.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I know they’re not required, but that doesn’t mean they’re unimportant at all, for example the Rosary is not “required” but we receive many graces by praying it. The only bare minimum requirement is to receive Communion on Easter and go to Confession once a year, - but of course that is very very minimal, we should do more

Not when you’re called to a life that requires more action and less prayer. And from the perspective of such a life, there are indeed more important things than the rosary: help pay the bills, do better at work, learn skills to make even more powerful use of the talents God has given, and finally, feed That Which Keeps You Sane.

In such a life, the Deposit of Faith and the more well-defined authority of the Church, serve as more objective guides. The tendency of private revelations to bring out blind, religious obsession in some people is simply not worth the risk in such a life that is better off governed by objective and down-to-earth goals.

I believe all the approved private revelations… like Fatima, Lourdes, etc. But I’m wondering about those that have not been approved OR rejected, because they are still ongoing. I don’t mean Medjugorje in particular. I agree that we should always be careful.

Rejected already means it’s no longer ongoing. Rejected is rejected.

 

[FraLeones]

i remember the Mary, mediatrix of all grace, appeared in Lipa… many people believed it. But it was banned. People obeyed. 40 years later the ban was lifted. the conversion even increased and many miracles where said to heal peole. still it is not approved like fatima or lourdes…

 

[knotanes]

Personally, I wouldn’t do it or encourage my kids to go that direction. If it was something they felt particularly strongly about, I’d point them in the direction of the nearest priest or religious.

The human mind has way too much capacity for error. I wouldn’t trust it. Even our own memories of events can be easily corrupted–best not to go there or at least, not without the counsel and approval of the Church.

 

[thistle]

I don’t mean those that have been denounced by anyone including the local Bishop…

I know they’re not required, but that doesn’t mean they’re unimportant at all, for example the Rosary is not “required” but we receive many graces by praying it. The only bare minimum requirement is to receive Communion on Easter and go to Confession once a year, - but of course that is very very minimal, we should do more
I believe all the approved private revelations… like Fatima, Lourdes, etc. But I’m wondering about those that have not been approved OR rejected, because they are still ongoing. I don’t mean Medjugorje in particular. I agree that we should always be careful.

That is not correct. Confession is only required if you have committed mortal sins. If a person has not committed a mortal sin in more than a year he/she is not required to confess.
We are required to receive Communion at least once a year and obviously if you are in a state of mortal sin you would have to confess. I think this is where the confusion arises about having to confess once a year.

Of course both Communion and Confession are recommended regularly.