Why are these called "private revelations?"

[pprimeau1976]

I am wondering why appartitions are considered “private revelations” when the actions of the Church based on these private revelations seem to indicate that they were indeed public.

For example:

The Second Sunday of Easter is now known as Divine Mercy Sunday, due to a private revelation to St. Faustina.

The Church has tried for four times to consecrate Russia due to private revelations of the children at Fatima.

I understand that there really wasn’t anything new that was revealed in these two examples when it comes to the deposit of the faith, but the Church took these two “private revelations” and publicly acted on them. In fact, with the latter example, the Church tried very hard to make sure that Our Lady’s request was met. So, why are revelations to St. Faustina and the children at Fatima considered private and not public?

 

[Tomster]

I am wondering why appartitions are considered “private revelations” when the actions of the Church based on these private revelations seem to indicate that they were indeed public.

For example:

The Second Sunday of Easter is now known as Divine Mercy Sunday, due to a private revelation to St. Faustina.

The Church has tried for four times to consecrate Russia due to private revelations of the children at Fatima.

I understand that there really wasn’t anything new that was revealed in these two examples when it comes to the deposit of the faith, but the Church took these two “private revelations” and publicly acted on them. In fact, with the latter example, the Church tried very hard to make sure that Our Lady’s request was met. So, why are revelations to St. Faustina and the children at Fatima considered private and not public?

To be a dogma a revealed truth need not be solemnly defined by the Church. It is sufficient, as the Church has repeatedly declared, that it be proposed as being divinely revealed in her ordinary official teaching. This at least is necessary. Hence, regularly, a private revelation - i.e. a revelation made by God for the benefit of one individual or a group of individuals - binds only those to whom and for whom it is made. It is not intended for all the faithful, it is not accompanied by any divine guarantee that it will be transmitted to others without adulteration, nor is it, as such, contained in the deposit of faith committed to the Church. The approbation granted by the Church to these revelations means nothing more than “permission, given after due examination to publish them for the edification and utility of the faithful.” (Benedict XIV) Moreover, by such approbation the Church does not - at any rate infallibly - guarantee even their authenticity. (Pius X: Pascendi) Truths so revealed form no part of the dogmatic teaching of the Church.

Tomster

 

[pprimeau1976]

OK, I understand that their revelations don’t add anything dogmatically, but the Church is more than just dogma.

For example, the Church has a Liturgical calendar. Why have private revelations affected the Liturgical calendar if it was truly private? Did Christ want only St. Faustina to celebrate Divine Mercy Sunday, or was that a public revelation for the Church?

I have the same question regarding Fatima. The Church has repeatedly tried to consecrate Russia four times. Why do this if what happened was a “private revelation”?

My point is not to question the private revelation, I just wonder whether there should be more than just one classification of “revelations”.

 

[Gamera]

Anything new is by definition a “private revelation” because the period of general revelation is over. God’s general revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. Nothing new can be added to our deposit of faith from now until the end of time. Any further revelation by God to individuals – whether to 1 person or to 1,000 – is still called a “private” revelation because it cannot be added to the deposit of faith.

 

[davidv]

OK, I understand that their revelations don’t add anything dogmatically, but the Church is more than just dogma.

For example, the Church has a Liturgical calendar. Why have private revelations affected the Liturgical calendar if it was truly private? Did Christ want only St. Faustina to celebrate Divine Mercy Sunday, or was that a public revelation for the Church?

I have the same question regarding Fatima. The Church has repeatedly tried to consecrate Russia four times. Why do this if what happened was a “private revelation”?

My point is not to question the private revelation, I just wonder whether there should be more than just one classification of “revelations”.

I believe the that the solution to this dilemma is to recognize that authentic private revelation does not contradict the public revelation. So, to the extent that the private revelation enhances or sheds new light (i.e. “develops the doctrine”) this may cause a change in emphasis, such as change the celebration of a feast on the liturgical calendar.

 

[gap51]

OK, I understand that their revelations don’t add anything dogmatically, but the Church is more than just dogma.

For example, the Church has a Liturgical calendar. Why have private revelations affected the Liturgical calendar if it was truly private? Did Christ want only St. Faustina to celebrate Divine Mercy Sunday, or was that a public revelation for the Church?

I have the same question regarding Fatima. The Church has repeatedly tried to consecrate Russia four times. Why do this if what happened was a “private revelation”?

My point is not to question the private revelation, I just wonder whether there should be more than just one classification of “revelations”.

What are your thoughts about Our Lady’s revelation at Lourdes to St Bernadette. Bernadette (she wasn’t a saint then) at her PP’s request asks Our Lady 3 times "Would you be so kind as to tell me who you are?". Each time Our Lady smiles. The fourth time she asks the same question Our Lady answers “I am the Immaculate Conception.”

When Bernadette relays this to her PP he is shocked and states “You are mistaken. Do you know what that means?” for only four years earlier was it declared by the church that Mary was the “Immaculate Conception”. Bernadette would not have known about it for she was only 14 and learning her catechism in preparation for her First Holy Communion.

Ok! the revelation came after it was made a dogma by the CC but it was still a revelation of Thruth. BTW the feast of the Imacculate Conception was established in 1476.

 

[puzzleannie]

I am wondering why appartitions are considered “private revelations” when the actions of the Church based on these private revelations seem to indicate that they were indeed public.

For example:

. . . a private revelation to St. Faustina.

T . . .to private revelations of the children at Fatima.
?

they are private revelation because the alleged messages were received by private individuals not given to the whole Church through the acknowledged process of Divine Revelation, which closed with the death of the last apostle and is preserved and handed on by the Church through Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. these alleged messages are in no way binding on the whole Church and anyone is free to disregard them.

the Church has not “tried several times” to consecrate the world, successive Popes have consecrated the world to Christ through his Mother, and the Church will continue to consecrate the world through her sacramental system until the end of the world, as Christ commanded, through his grace.

 

[pprimeau1976]

the Church has not “tried several times” to consecrate the world

I never said that the Church did. I said that “The Church has repeatedly tried to consecrate Russia four times.” I will admit that my use of the word “repeatedly” was redundant. Any institution that does something four times does it repeatedly. Also, depending on who you ask, they tried consecrating Russia three times and “the world” only once. But that’s a topic for another thread. I stand by my original statement, they tried four times.

 

[pprimeau1976]

I believe the that the solution to this dilemma is to recognize that authentic private revelation does not contradict the public revelation. So, to the extent that the private revelation enhances or sheds new light (i.e. “develops the doctrine”) this may cause a change in emphasis, such as change the celebration of a feast on the liturgical calendar.

Thanks for your explanation, it makes alot of sense. The Feast of Corpus Christi comes to my mind as an example of private revelations enhancing doctrine. The Church always had the Eucharist, but we didn’t have the solemnity or Aquinas’ scholarship until St. Juliana of Liège had her vision of the full moon with a black spot; or as she interpreted, the Church without the solemnity.

 

[puzzleannie]

I never said that the Church did. I said that “The Church has repeatedly tried to consecrate Russia four times.” I will admit that my use of the word “repeatedly” was redundant. Any institution that does something four times does it repeatedly. Also, depending on who you ask, they tried consecrating Russia three times and “the world” only once. But that’s a topic for another thread. I stand by my original statement, they tried four times.

the Church does not “try” and “try” until she gets it right. Several popes have consecrated specific countries and the world to Christ through our Lady. They got it right the first time, and successive prayers are not repeated attempts to get it right, any more than the Mass is repeated every day because we are practicing.

 

[pprimeau1976]

the Church does not “try” and “try” until she gets it right. Several popes have consecrated specific countries and the world to Christ through our Lady. They got it right the first time, and successive prayers are not repeated attempts to get it right, any more than the Mass is repeated every day because we are practicing.

Are you saying that the Church never tried more than once to consecrate Russia according to the visions of Sr. Lucia? Are you saying that all of the other consecrations were just your regular, ordinary consecrations that would have happened anyway regardless of what Sr. Lucia’s vision said?

I am under the impression that these consecrations were done in order to fufill Our Lady’s request. Was this not the case?