Jesus isn’t an apparition.
Thank you for your input.
I quoted wikipedia so your quarrel would be with them though don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to cop out. I have seen this talked of before but I would not know the ruling myself. I thought what it was was we aren’t required to believe in a recognized apparition but we sure can’t criticize it. I have seen this spoken about in these forums before.
There is a common contention amongst those who call themselves “catholic” in this regard. There really shouldn’t be, however. If those who have an office of authority, given them by God, make a judgment calling an event worthy of belief from that office, who are we to reject it, even if it is not guaranteed to be inerrant? The authority, which only comes from God, binds us to believe. Therefore, in line with both common sense and good faith, we MUST believe what is declared worthy of belief.
It’s just like saying that which the ordinary magisterium binds upon us regarding contraception, direct abortion, what regulates marriage, who the Pope is, who is a priest, etc., is not, in fact, binding us to believe…since the charism of inerrancy is lacking.
- He appeared and disappeared on numerous occasions after His death.
- If He isn’t an apparition why should His mother be excluded?
- Why was St Bernadette canonised if she was deluded?
A unique way of expressing it, but an accurate one. You are correct.
Nicole’s view, while convincing in a sort of semantics way, is not Church teaching. This is why an apparition, even thought validated as authentic, does NOT add to the Treasury of Faith. If you have doubts about Fatima, personally, that does not make you less Catholic than someone who fully believes every detail.
You can hardly doubt that St Bernadette is a saint! I’m sure those who have been miraculously cured at Lourdes believe her intercession adds to the Treasury of Faith!
In 1996, John Haffert (co-founder of the Blue Army of Our Lady of Fatima) spoke about Fatima and his book “Meet the Witnesses” in which he personally interviewed nearly 200 witnesses to the Fatima Miracle, describing their detailed witness accounts.
I did happen to read this book, it is persuasive. When Fatima happened in when? 1917, that was still before even the radio age. I would think that the testimony and journalism of O’Seculo, the main newspaper in Portugal and even the NY Times reporting on it, should give it some credence.
Nowadays with our Cable/Satellite news networks covering everything, there would be little room for doubt if something like this happened again. Though I do believe some people did go to see this and some people, a very very small minority did not see anything. Also, per movies like ‘The Miracle of Our Lady of Fatima’, I believe indeed, it is said some people were healed. Still, Portugal in 1917 is rather remote to us. Unfortunately. If this happened in England though, same circumstances, I’ll bet we’d find that credible.
Thus, I’ve read books on Lourdes and I am totally convinced of that.
You are NOT required to believe in any apparition. See para. 67 of the Catechism – even when declared worthy of belief, “they do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith.”
The book written shortly after the Lourdes apparitions of 1858 in French and translated into English shortly thereafter as well; amazon.com/Our-Lady-Lourdes-Henri-Lasserre/dp/1151437034/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1314576780&sr=1-5 Our Lady of Lourdes by Henri Lasserre is very persuasive. He sure covered everything, the book was published about 1872.
Catholics do NOT have to believe in apparitions to be Catholic. It is not required.
Of course it does not add to the deposit of faith. That is why we are not required to believe the apparition by divine faith.
But if an authority declares it is worthy of belief, there is still an obligation to believe, but not by divine faith, just as if your father were to teach you something from his natural office of authority.
Again, we are not required to believe them by divine faith, as if they are additions to the deposit of faith…
But we are bound to believe them if declared worthy of belief…but not believe them by divine faith.
No, no Catholic is BOUND to believe them. You are perfectly free to, of course, once the Church makes a ruling of “worthy of belief.” But anyone can be a good Catholic without believing in one single apparition. It is simply not required.
In history, it probably would not have been practical until this more modern age to be up on Approved Apparitions and even then. So, this would have practical application as well. You couldn’t fault a Catholic Eskimo living in the Aleutian Islands in the 1800s if they didn’t know of say, Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal, an approved apparition and furthermore, with people of foreign tongues being evangelized to, I can see how it could have complicated things.
But Fatima addresses some serious issues but if one hopefully is a good Catholic, a lot of the message you might know. A lot of the message but not all of it. A good part of it was prophecy.
Because he is an atheist (former “devout” Catholic :rolleyes:).
He posted in another Fatima thread (very similar).
Kind of sounds like this whole thread was started to stir the pot among Catholics. I guess he got what he wanted.
I won’t waste my time staying subscribed to a thread that pits people against the Blessed Mother.
The manner in which Bohm may have framed the subject and having “Atheist” by his/her name may seem hostile to some but he/she does make some posts to reflect on nonetheless.
I remember I was once in a discussion about presenting all of the evidence for the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima to a jury, both pro and con and we conjectured as to how they would find. This is close to the same kind of discussion.
In fact, from experience, I think Fatima is a topic that does bring believers in, people look at the events and say “well, if this happened, there must be a God”… and indeed, if it happened, …
Found below in this thread…
"Of course it does not add to the deposit of faith. That is why we are not required to believe the apparition by divine faith.
But if an authority declares it is worthy of belief, there is still an obligation to believe, but not by divine faith, just as if your father were to teach you something from his natural office of authority".
Does this mean that if a very significant and profoundly legitimate apparition was in store for mankind and clear words were uttered on behalf of The Blessed Virgin Mary which corrected
a Catechism translation of scripture…the Catholic Church would reject the request from heaven?
Is this whats going on?
Rejecting all apparitions is akin to rejecting all the miracles associated with the saints. Why then does the Church insist on evidence for miracles prior to canonisation? If St Bernadette was deluded and the water at Lourdes has no curative properties why is she regarded as a saint?
[quote]1. He appeared and disappeared on numerous occasions after His death.
**Jesus is God the Son. He rose from the dead. His resurrected body was not an apparition. He ate with his disciples and they could touch him.***His body was certainly not an ordinary body. It was glorified and could pass though walls. An apparition is not necessarily a hallucination. It is a **supernatural **appearance, i.e. a vision of spiritual reality. *
[quote]2. If He isn’t an apparition why should His mother be excluded?
Excluded from what?
From being visible to those to pray to her.
[quote]3. Why was St Bernadette canonised if she was deluded?
**She was canonised through the usual method of canonisation. ***
Which is based on the reality of miracles to which apparitions are often inextricably linked.