Apparitions and worthy of belief

fakename · #1 Oct 30, '11, 3:54 pm

When the Church investigates apparitions, do they only determine if it is worthy to believe in, or do they determine that it actually happened?

thistle · #2 Oct 30, '11, 4:21 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by fakename

When the Church investigates apparitions, do they only determine if it is worthy to believe in, or do they determine that it actually happened?

Another thread on the investigation process??????
How can the Church deem it worthy to believe if it hasn't determined what has happened?

domandcarols · #3 Oct 30, '11, 5:11 pm

Both. They're connected.

Mijoy2 · #4 Oct 30, '11, 5:51 pm

I think the question posed by the OP is an intelligent and inquisive question.

Worthy of belief does not imply that i really happened. I look forward to other answers to the OPs quesiton.

The Catholic Church could potentially suggest UFOs are worthy of belief, it doesn't imply the Catholic Church holds UFOs near and dear to Her heart.

I will re-interate the OPs question, what does "worthy of belief" actually mean?

fakename · #5 Oct 30, '11, 6:51 pm

"Both. They're connected."

But if one implies the other, then why is it that the Church can't require all believers to believe in an apparition? One could say that it has nothing to do with faith and morals. But why would it have nothing to do with it -for many apparitions seem to divulge important moral information (like consecrate Russia)?

thistle · #6 Oct 30, '11, 7:52 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by fakename

"Both. They're connected."

But if one implies the other, then why is it that the Church can't require all believers to believe in an apparition? One could say that it has nothing to do with faith and morals. But why would it have nothing to do with it -for many apparitions seem to divulge important moral information (like consecrate Russia)?

Because as you very well know they are PRIVATE revelations which do not add to any Church doctrines/truths necessary for our salvation. They simply must be of supernatural origin and not contradict any Church doctrine.
Why are you starting another thread on the same topic you already had a thread on???

StrawberryJam · #7 Oct 30, '11, 10:38 pm

You do not have to belive any of it. Not one of the apparitions. None of them.

Edit to add: to be a Catholic

**grannymh** · #8 Oct 31, '11, 1:37 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by fakename

When the Church investigates apparitions, do they only determine if it is worthy to believe in, or do they determine that it actually happened?

What needs to be considered is the *message* or content of the extraordinary phenomena. This message is in keeping with the teachings of the Catholic Church. It affirms the truths taught. Messages call people to turn away from sin in order to become holy. In general, messages call people to greater participation in the life of the Church.

fakename · #9 Oct 31, '11, 8:27 am

Sorry about the whole Started-new-thread-when-old-one-was-sufficient, I'll be more economical next time.

In the meantime I find it extraordinary that there is a true thing about morality that we are not obligated to believe. I mean, if someone proved that it was good to vegetables to maintain one's health it would seem imprudent not to then believe it and therefore there is an obligation to believe in so far as intellectual honesty and the need to be prudent exists. But in this case, when someone can prove that something is good for one's soul, yet nothing follows in the obligation territory? Why?

thistle · #10 Oct 31, '11, 6:57 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by fakename

Sorry about the whole Started-new-thread-when-old-one-was-sufficient, I'll be more economical next time.

In the meantime I find it extraordinary that there is a true thing about morality that we are not obligated to believe. I mean, if someone proved that it was good to vegetables to maintain one's health it would seem imprudent not to then believe it and therefore there is an obligation to believe in so far as intellectual honesty and the need to be prudent exists. But in this case, when someone can prove that something is good for one's soul, yet nothing follows in the obligation territory? Why?

Because it is PRIVATE revelation. Private revelations can often contain inaccuracies (after all they are the private interpretations of the receiver who can often misunderstand what is seen and heard). Private revelations sometimes even contradict other private revelations.
Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and The Magesterium are all we need for the fullness of faith and truths necessary for our salvation. NOTHING else is needed. We can live our lives not believing in any private revelations and it does not diminish us in any way.

ConstantineTG · #11 Oct 31, '11, 11:10 pm

It could have happened and yet not worthy of belief. Remember, the devil can disguise himself as an angel of light.

fakename · #12 Oct 31, '11, 11:33 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by thistle

Because it is PRIVATE revelation. Private revelations can often contain inaccuracies (after all they are the private interpretations of the receiver who can often misunderstand what is seen and heard). Private revelations sometimes even contradict other private revelations.
Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and The Magesterium are all we need for the fullness of faith and truths necessary for our salvation. NOTHING else is needed. We can live our lives not believing in any private revelations and it does not diminish us in any way.

If they are known to have happened though, they seem to need to be believed as far as their actual existence is concerned (regardless of the contradictions in their messages, for instance I can say that a guy contradicted another guy while believing that they both existed). Plus the above answer seems to be rather circular (is it?) since it basically uses the fact that private revelations are defined as not worthy to believe, to prove that they are not worthy to believe, which is like me using the definition of the word God to prove that God exists which is absurd. Finally though, even if our salvation is not effected by private revelations, it can certainly help us for if we had consecrated Russia earlier, it may have saved many people from hell. My question still stands.

thistle · #13 Nov 1, '11, 1:20 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by fakename

If they are known to have happened though, they seem to need to be believed as far as their actual existence is concerned (regardless of the contradictions in their messages, for instance I can say that a guy contradicted another guy while believing that they both existed). Plus the above answer seems to be rather circular (is it?) since it basically uses the fact that private revelations are defined as not worthy to believe, to prove that they are not worthy to believe, which is like me using the definition of the word God to prove that God exists which is absurd. Finally though, even if our salvation is not effected by private revelations, it can certainly help us for if we had consecrated Russia earlier, it may have saved many people from hell. My question still stands.

Your question is irrelevant. The Church states we do not have to believe private revelations, even those deemed worthy of belief.
Listen to the Church and OBEY the Church.

fakename · #14 Nov 1, '11, 9:00 am

"Your question is irrelevant. The Church states we do not have to believe private revelations, even those deemed worthy of belief.
Listen to the Church and OBEY the Church."

Fair enough, (though I'm not sure in what sense it is irrelevant, I mean if someone wants knowledge I don't think it would be a waste of time to find an answer), but I've always attempted to obey the Church and me asking a question doesn't equal disobedience. That is, question asking could never be construed as disobedience without contradicting logic.

midori_ · #15 Nov 1, '11, 1:32 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by fakename

But in this case, when someone can prove that something is good for one's soul, yet nothing follows in the obligation territory? Why?

You might try thinking of private revelations like you think of sacramentals. Sacramentals have the positive effects of increasing devotion, or encouraging holy thoughts, but not all sacramentals appeal to all people. One person might use blessed salt in their food. Another person might keep holy water in their house. A third person might wear the Brown Scapular; a fourth person might wear the Red Scapular; and a fifth person might be drawn to the Miraculous Medal. A sixth person might have crucifixes in every room in the house, while a seventh person might use St. Anthony's oil, and an eighth person might wear a cord of St. Philomena. None of those people are "right" in the sense that their sacramental is correct to the exclusion of all others, just as no person is "wrong" in that they have an obligation to juggle every single sacramental in existence in their lives to the exclusion of none.

The same thing is true with private revelation, approved or not. Not everyone finds their spiritual profit in all places. You have lengthy conversations between God and certain saints, all related in their writings... but few of them have formally been ruled "worthy of belief", although they all have a certain degree of authority due to their sources. Does that mean everyone who doesn't read the writings of the saints is somehow lacking? No, although those that do might find great profit there if they make the effort. Does it mean that you can't disagree with something they write? Certainly not. The 17th c. apparitions in Agreda, Spain, for example, are listed as being formally approved (and presumably in reference to Ven. Mary of Agreda), but hopefully most people who read her writing can see how she was influenced by medieval ideas of ensoulment which are quite objectionable (and dangerous) in light of today's issues. So that's just one example how we're under an obligation to take what we find profitable, and leave the rest, rather than just accepting private revelation wholesale because "it's approved".

Everything we need is contained in our pillars of Scripture and Tradition, with the guidance of the Magisterium. Like with sacramentals, private revelation can have the effect of increasing devotion or encouraging holy thoughts, but we don't have any power to add to or change the Deposit of Faith--- which is one reason why we reject private revelations like those of Joseph Smith or Muhammed.

When the church deems something "worthy of belief", it's a testament to the fact that it doesn't contradict the DoF, or promote something damaging, but because it's not allowed to add to the DoF, there's no obligation to embrace it or its teachings, just as we have no obligation to read a particular saint's writings, or use a particular sacramental in our daily lives.