Originally Posted by CradleCath
I posted this in the beginning of this thread, but will do so again:
Hidden Presence of God
Already in 1563, the Ecumenical Council of Trent required the establishment of a diocesan commission to study apparition claims. The commission was to verify whether or not the alleged apparitions manifest a hidden presence of God, renew community life, convert hearts, reawaken and stimulate faith, and renew hope and dynamism in the Church. That is not up to us to decide, for we haven't the wherewithal to investigate the apparition.
The final evaluation was to fall into one of three categories:
1. Constat supernaturalitas, that is to say, the apparition is recognized, approved and declared "worthy of belief" by the Church. Notice that it is not the Catholic in the pew who names it "worthy of belief", it's the Church. They do not say we MUST believe it or we will go to hell....just that this apparition is "worthy", that it is of supernatural origin & that same supernatural origin is beneveloent.
2. Nonconstat supernaturalitas, which means the supernatural character of the apparition in question is not evident. The Church takes a neutral stance in this case. The apparition is not condemned because there is nothing contrary to the faith, however the Church found no evidence that the origin of this apparition is of Supernatural origin.
3. Constat non-supernaturalitas, which would mean the claimed apparition is false, and hence not worthy of belief.
One can look these phrases up several places on the internet.
I do appreciate your efforts at peacemaking, though I am at peace & am not harrassing Eilish Maura. I simply disagree with her, not that she MUST believe, but what the phrases "worthy of belief" & Constat supernaturalitas (we agree..it is Supernatural) mean to Catholics.
For instance, I think that if the Church declares an apparition as "worthy of belief".......it IS worthy of belief. To suggest otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, is inferring that either a Saint who spoke with the Sacred Heart/The Blessed Virgin is lying or the Church is perpetuating a hoax.
Perhaps you can explain another option or an acceptable reason for denying the truth of the Saint's story.....or the truth of the Church's declaration that this happening is "WORTHY of belief".
Hi CradleCatholic...............Thank you for reposting information that I have overlooked. Happy to read that you are at Peace.
If a Catholic should state to me that they did not believe in something that The Church stated there was no necessity in Faith to believe, then I would not call their integrity into question (and I realize that you did not do this directly)..........I wanted to avoid any potential of this thread decscending to unkindly personal by the 'nudge' about Klara locking another very active thread. And I am not saying that there was any 'unkindly personal' comments, merely that I was hoping that this thread would not descend to that level ..........and I did realize I was 'jumping the gun'. We are told by St. Paul that even if we have all knowledge, but lack Charity, we are merely a gong booming.......or truth without love is merely a half truth. In calling on The Church's God given authority to state "worthy of belief" or not, there is a far greater matter in hand and that is the Word of God Himself clearly stated in Scripture that truth without love is nothing. Ideally speaking these Catholic Forums should breathe a healthy search for truth/statement of known truth and with mutual respect and esteem always.
I daresay and I am completely open to correction in this and I have no problems with that............ a person could be canonized on the basis of heroic virtue whereas any claimed apparition is not highlighted due to the fact that it could have proceeded from the imagination/deceptions of Satan and the person themselves were neither lying nor of unsound mind. St. Teresa of Avila advised her nuns not to seek visions etc. as they were quite open to the deceptions of the devil, which does not at all call either the heroice virtue nor the integrity of the person into question and a person is quite free to hold to this........and not necessarily imply that The Church is perpetrating a hoax, merely I guess implying the Church is mistaken and one is quite free to hold to this too. I simply would not call into question the integrity of another I would hope under certain circumstances.
And the core and central issue remains that there is no necessity to believe in Faith that what The Church states as "worthy of belief" must therefore be believed in.............not an assumption of mine but a teaching of The Church. Nor is such a non believer thereby of necessity calling into question either the integrity of the saint or The Church.........and Charity asks that we do not judge them - merely accept their right to not believe.
Blessings and with goodwill always...............Barb