What does approval of an apparition (private revelation) actually mean?

[JMartyr73340]

Hello:

I was discussing Marian apparitions with my friend yesterday. I told him that approval of a Marian apparition does not mean that the Church is authoritatively saying that Mary appeared in the place where the apparition is claimed to have occurred. Is this correct?

I noted Sisters Faustina’s Diary as another example. In her case, approval by the Church is not a declaration that Jesus actually appeared to her, with his resurrected body, and spoke the passages that she attributes to him directly to her.

One website said that when the Church approves an apparition it means that the faithful can have “great confidence in the supernatural nature of the event”. Is this actual church teaching or just opinion? If it is Church teaching, what does that sentence mean? Does it mean that I can have full confidence that Mary and/or Jesus actually appeared as the witness claimed?

Just to be clear, I pray the Divine Mercy everyday and am devoted to it. BUT, I have my doubts about whether Jesus personally appeared to Sister Faustina. I certainly believe she was inspired by Jesus, but I have my doubts about whether he dictated anything to her directly.

My apologies if this has been answered in another thread, but I couldn’t find any thread that directly answers the question, and I don’t trust other Catholic Websites .

 

[Estel]

If approved we are not bound to believe such things. The Church declares they are worthy of belief, but this does not mean we have to beleive them. other than that I am not sure, but Chruch teaching is pretty flexible when it comes to private revelation, meaning we are not bound to believe these things. And this is my opinion and not the opinion of the Church but I think that there is a lot of misinformation when it comes to private revelation, and one must not worry about these things too much. Who really knows? I hope my answer helped in some way.

 

[pianistclare]

This pretty much covers it:

ewtn.com/expert/answers/apparitions.htm

 

[Brendan_64]

One website said that when the Church approves an apparition it means that the faithful can have “great confidence in the supernatural nature of the event”. Is this actual church teaching or just opinion?

Yes, that is Church teaching. If the Church approves of an apparition it means that, following thorough investigation, the Church has decided that there is indeed evidence of superenatural intervention.

Belief in this is not necessary for an individual’s salvation, but the Church has decided that the event was as a result of supernatural intervention and the corresponding revelation adds to a deepening understanding of the Catholic faith.

 

[chimo]

Hello:

I was discussing Marian apparitions with my friend yesterday. I told him that approval of a Marian apparition does not mean that the Church is authoritatively saying that Mary appeared in the place where the apparition is claimed to have occurred. Is this correct?

I noted Sisters Faustina’s Diary as another example. In her case, approval by the Church is not a declaration that Jesus actually appeared to her, with his resurrected body, and spoke the passages that she attributes to him directly to her.

One website said that when the Church approves an apparition it means that the faithful can have “great confidence in the supernatural nature of the event”. Is this actual church teaching or just opinion? If it is Church teaching, what does that sentence mean? Does it mean that I can have full confidence that Mary and/or Jesus actually appeared as the witness claimed?

Just to be clear, I pray the Divine Mercy everyday and am devoted to it. BUT, I have my doubts about whether Jesus personally appeared to Sister Faustina. I certainly believe she was inspired by Jesus, but I have my doubts about whether he dictated anything to her directly.

My apologies if this has been answered in another thread, but I couldn’t find any thread that directly answers the question, and I don’t trust other Catholic Websites .

I am very sure if the Catholic Church approves any apparition such as Fatima, Lourdes or the Divine Mercy messages that there is never any doubt of the authenticity of these apparitions. Remember that authentic apparitions do not make any new claim to the Deposit of Faith but reinforces what is already there. Sometimes faith can be waning so the Lord Jesus and His Holy Mother comes to reinforce (even rescue back) the teachings of the Church to encourage faith and hope. I believe in the Divine Mercy apparitions which the Lord Jesus had personally entrusted to His servant St. Maria Faustina. If you want proof of this apparition just see all the good it has brought to the Church and to the Church into the world. When my father passed away some 12 years ago I had my whole family prayed the Divine Mercy chaplet for him daily when he entered into a coma for two weeks. After the two weeks in this coma my father then died but just before he died he woke up from his coma and as he looked at us for the last time together on earth he put his head back on the pillow and died a peaceful death without any struggle at all. I never saw anyone who had died so peacefully as my father and I am sure the Lord Jesus promise to anyone praying the Divine Mercy chaplet (especially when one prays for the dying) was very instrumental for my father to have this very peaceful and holy death.

 

[TK421]

Hello:

I was discussing Marian apparitions with my friend yesterday. I told him that approval of a Marian apparition does not mean that the Church is authoritatively saying that Mary appeared in the place where the apparition is claimed to have occurred. Is this correct?

I noted Sisters Faustina’s Diary as another example. In her case, approval by the Church is not a declaration that Jesus actually appeared to her, with his resurrected body, and spoke the passages that she attributes to him directly to her.

One website said that when the Church approves an apparition it means that the faithful can have “great confidence in the supernatural nature of the event”. Is this actual church teaching or just opinion? If it is Church teaching, what does that sentence mean? Does it mean that I can have full confidence that Mary and/or Jesus actually appeared as the witness claimed?

Just to be clear, I pray the Divine Mercy everyday and am devoted to it. BUT, I have my doubts about whether Jesus personally appeared to Sister Faustina. I certainly believe she was inspired by Jesus, but I have my doubts about whether he dictated anything to her directly.

My apologies if this has been answered in another thread, but I couldn’t find any thread that directly answers the question, and I don’t trust other Catholic Websites .

Dogma is something we are bound to accept. “Bound” here is not used in a mere legal sense, as though it’s a man-made discipline that could theoretically change. It is referring to metaphysical truths that relate to the fulfillment of our destiny, which is eternal union with God. To use another analogy: if you want to be a student of math, you are bound to accept the mathematical rules, otherwise your answers will come out wrong. If the American Society of Mathematicians decided to change (on a piece of paper) what the mathematical rules are in order to achieve a solution to a problem, it isn’t actually really going to change those rules, because those “rules” are all based on intangible mathematical logic and cannot be changed. It would just mean those mathematicians will be rendered incapable of doing math.

The Church can endorse an event as being worthy of belief, but these events are demonstrations of certain dogma and not dogma itself. Or another way to look at: they are instruments that assist in teaching dogma. Fatima, for example, is a demonstration of the power of prayer, of eternal Heaven, of eternal hell, of certain falsehoods, and of certain truths. Fatima isn’t revealing dogma, but reiterating it. Prior to 1917, Catholics were not lacking insight of a certain dogmatic truth that related to their salvation.

 

[thistle]

Hello:

I was discussing Marian apparitions with my friend yesterday. I told him that approval of a Marian apparition does not mean that the Church is authoritatively saying that Mary appeared in the place where the apparition is claimed to have occurred. Is this correct?

I noted Sisters Faustina’s Diary as another example. In her case, approval by the Church is not a declaration that Jesus actually appeared to her, with his resurrected body, and spoke the passages that she attributes to him directly to her.

One website said that when the Church approves an apparition it means that the faithful can have “great confidence in the supernatural nature of the event”. Is this actual church teaching or just opinion? If it is Church teaching, what does that sentence mean? Does it mean that I can have full confidence that Mary and/or Jesus actually appeared as the witness claimed?

Just to be clear, I pray the Divine Mercy everyday and am devoted to it. BUT, I have my doubts about whether Jesus personally appeared to Sister Faustina. I certainly believe she was inspired by Jesus, but I have my doubts about whether he dictated anything to her directly.

My apologies if this has been answered in another thread, but I couldn’t find any thread that directly answers the question, and I don’t trust other Catholic Websites .

“Approval” of a private revelation is NOT a Church teaching. An approved private revelation is neither a new teaching nor does it add anything to an existing teaching. It is not a required belief. We are not bound by private revelations. We are bound by teachings.

 

[Bonnie]

Just to be clear, I pray the Divine Mercy everyday and am devoted to it. BUT, I have my doubts about whether Jesus personally appeared to Sister Faustina. I certainly believe she was inspired by Jesus, but I have my doubts about whether he dictated anything to her directly.

Happy to see that I’m not alone! I, too, like to pray the Divine Mercy - there’s something about it that is very appealing - but I don’t believe the apparitions happened. I feel the same about Guadalupe - I’m not convinced it happened, but I like the story - and the picture - anyway.

 

[TK421]

The only alternatives to “it was true”, do, however, mean that St Faustina (among many others) either suffered fabulous hallucinations or was a false prophet. The explicitness of her testimony doesn’t allow it to fall under the category of a pleasant fable.

In our contemporary time, a parallel to St Faustina is Myrna Nazzour, of Our Lady of Soufanieh. She maintains a Facebook page and travels internationally to offer testimony of the Marian apparitions and of the power of prayer. There is no trace shadow of “pleasant fable” in her accounts. She is telling a truth, she is severely delusional, or she is a serpent.

There will never be such a thing as a dogma over a private revelation, since private revelation doesn’t reveal something new but rather reiterates something already taught. There are, however, the faculties of reason that demand one of the above three conclusions.

 

[AttendeDomine]

“Approval” of a private revelation is NOT a Church teaching. An approved private revelation is neither a new teaching nor does it add anything to an existing teaching. It is not a required belief. We are not bound by private revelations. We are bound by teachings.

I think the way you’ve expressed this is probably quite common. However, I do believe it lacks a full-orbed approach to all of this.

Dr. Robert Stackpole once wrote the following, and I believe his understanding of the role of “private revelation” in the Church is a bit more balanced:

The *Diary *has also been published with the nihil obstat (no objection) of the appropriate Church authorities (the copyright page of any authentic translation of the Diary will display this). However, it would not be quite accurate to say that the Diary is now one of the Church’s “official sacred documents.” It is not a proclamation of the Church’s infallible teaching authority, but a fallible record of the private and prophetic revelations given to a saint, and her musings about those revelations. As such, we are encouraged by the Church to accept it and respect it with the virtue of “prudence,” i.e., as on the whole trustworthy, rather than with the virtue of “divine faith,” i.e., as infallibly revealed by God, and therefore necessary to be believed by all the faithful. Thus, a faithful Catholic could largely disbelieve it and not be guilty of “heresy,” but one who did so would still be guilty of rashness and imprudence. It is overwhelmingly unlikely that a Diary which has been fully examined by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the Church’s highest doctrinal tribunal under the Pope) and by the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints, and has been praised and quoted repeatedly by popes, and whose author has been canonized as a “saint” (that is, as someone “full-to-overflowing” with the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth) would contain serious and unqualified errors and illusions. The Holy Spirit does not abandon the Church when she is making such important acts of discernment (see Jn. 16:13; Acts 15:28). If He did we would be lost indeed!

While a lot of people do emphasize that we Catholics are free to simply not believe approved private apparitions, what I have found does not often get emphasized is that such a Catholic should probably have some very, very good reasons for their position. Frankly, I’m not sure that the average lay person really has sufficient evidence to attempt to disregard the Church’s opinion that a given apparition is worthy of belief. As such, I agree with Dr. Stackpole: such behavior strikes me as being rash and imprudent.

 

[thistle]

I think the way you’ve expressed this is probably quite common. However, I do believe it lacks a full-orbed approach to all of this.

Dr. Robert Stackpole once wrote the following, and I believe his understanding of the role of “private revelation” in the Church is a bit more balanced:

While a lot of people do emphasize that we Catholics are free to simply not believe approved private apparitions, what I have found does not often get emphasized is that such a Catholic should probably have some very, very good reasons for their position. Frankly, I’m not sure that the average lay person really has sufficient evidence to attempt to disregard the Church’s opinion that a given apparition is worthy of belief. As such, I agree with Dr. Stackpole: such behavior strikes me as being rash and imprudent.

I’m not saying they should be dismissed out of hand. The Church makes it clear that they are worthy of belief but we do not have to believe them (we are not obliged or bound in any way) but I realise many people get a spiritual lift from one or the other. My previous comment was emphasise that an apparition deemed worthy of belief by the Church is not a teaching and nor does it add to an existing teaching and nor does it add to the deposit of faith.

 

[godisgood77]

I’m not saying they should be dismissed out of hand. The Church makes it clear that they are worthy of belief but we do not have to believe them (we are not obliged or bound in any way) but I realise many people get a spiritual lift from one or the other. My previous comment was emphasise that an apparition deemed worthy of belief by the Church is not a teaching and nor does it add to an existing teaching and nor does it add to the deposit of faith.

Your comments on the matter are completely accurate.

 

[Joe_5859]

This pretty much covers it:

ewtn.com/expert/answers/apparitions.htm

You’re right, that does cover things pretty well.

For those who don’t want to read the whole thing, I’ll just point out that the technical designation the Church uses for approving an apparition nowadays is “Constat de supernaturalitate”, which basically means there is evidence to support the supernatural at work. This replaces the “worthy of belief” verbiage that was commonly used previously.

Not that you can’t call approved revelations “worthy of belief.” But if you see any recent statements from the Church about an apparition, you’ll see the new language more often than the old.

 

[commenter]

While a lot of people do emphasize that we Catholics are free to simply not believe approved private apparitions, what I have found does not often get emphasized is that such a Catholic should probably have some very, very good reasons for their position. Frankly, I’m not sure that the average lay person really has sufficient evidence to attempt to disregard the Church’s opinion that a given apparition is worthy of belief. As such, I agree with Dr. Stackpole: such behavior strikes me as being rash and imprudent.

Keep in mind the distinction between doctrine defined by the Church, and private revelations. “Approval” only means that a given private revelation does not conflict with the Magisterium (which every person needs). In terms of private revelation, or private devotions, what one person needs may not be what another person needs.

Approved private revelations should be considered with respect, and suggested to Christians in general. I would mention them, briefly, in Catholic grammar schools, for instance. Some may choose to learn more about it. But we are living in an age when a great deal of what is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is unfamiliar, disbelieved, or even attacked by some Catholics. If we throw around words like “rash and imprudent” for those who disregard Lourdes, what do we say when people attack the Trinity?

 

[Bonnie]

For those who don’t want to read the whole thing, I’ll just point out that the technical designation the Church uses for approving an apparition nowadays is “Constat de supernaturalitate”, which basically means there is evidence to support the supernatural at work. This replaces the “worthy of belief” verbiage that was commonly used previously.

I wonder what they call “evidence.” Proving the existence of a supernatural experience is, I thought, not possible. One has to take it on faith. Which, I’m guessing, is why it is up to the individual. I would feel overloaded if I had to believe all the private revelations.

 

[Brendan_64]

But we are living in an age when a great deal of what is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is unfamiliar, disbelieved, or even attacked by some Catholics. If we throw around words like “rash and imprudent” for those who disregard Lourdes, what do we say when people attack the Trinity?

We say that they are in heresy, which is very different from being “rash and imprudent”. To deny or be in obstinate doubt over any of our Church’s doctrines, is to be in heresy.