Thank you Peter for this, as ever, well reasoned response. One point I particularly agree with is that I do think that even where a seer is authentic, the content of his or her messages might still contain errors. The best example of this, for me, is Fr Gobbi's messages which I believe to be authentic despite the messages which referred specifically to the year 2000. When Vassula was asked, in 1999, what she thought about the message which referred to the following year, she replied that she thought there was quite a lot of 'Fr Gobbi' in that particular message, meaning Fr Gobbi's own thoughts. There is one point in your response that I will comment on, namely putting any particular messenger 'on a pedestal'. I'm not going to speak about Vassula here , but I would like to refer to Medjugorje and Garabandal. For me there is virtually no possibility that either of these apparitions could be false. They are very different apparitions in nature and duration but I believe they can be categorized as authentic with certainty. So am I putting them 'on a pedestal'? I think not. I have simply investigated them very thoroughly and I would be dishonest if I said there was any possibility that they were not genuine.
This is a common confusion. It is indeed true that the assent of Supernatural Catholic Faith is only required of the Deposit of Faith, which private revelation can never add to. But the totality of what one must think, say, and do, is not summed up by merely believing what one is absolutely required to believe with Catholic Faith. Such an opinion is analogous to the Protestant "salvation by Faith alone" heresy. Quite the contrary, as the Catechism teaches, “In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right.” (paragraph 1778). Private Revelation indeed falls under the banner -- when properly discerned -- of what one "knows to be just and right." I go into more details on this very issue on pages 60-62 of this PDF. Above all there should be nothing puzzling to any Catholic about the notion of avoiding criticism of a Private Revelation that may be valid. Just read Acts 5:38-39
I just don't get it...I was very much against loco to the world. And I had members of this forum asking Padraig to delete me. I said my peace twice but then ignored it for the sake of charity. To each his/her own. It finally came to a end when the seer actually got so big headed, it tried to do real prophecy and failed. God does not send play by play announcers. I could just as easily given those messages...if I watched cnn every night. It's not that difficult. We are all looking for that mystical attachment but it is really within us. If God really wants to send a message it will come hard and fast. Not by updates on cnn. Maybe, we don't understand...God can do anything anytime. I know this seer or that seer is emotionally tantalizing but all those things should be about 5% (really 1%) of our spirituality. The sad part it becomes 99% of our spirituality for many of us.
Daniel, I disagree. My argument is that you are implicitly holding others to a standard beyond that of the Church. I am not "confused" by this, nor am I arguing for a minimalist approach out of a desire to do as little as possible. I am arguing against the imposition of something. No private revelations belong to the deposit of the faith. For example: If I am not attracted to the spirituality and messages of Luisa and the Divine Will, I do not have to pay attention to them. I may lose spiritually, but so be it.
But Louisa is different...she is dead. Her whole life is being investigated and she has passed the first test. But the most interesting thing is even if she becomes a saint. You don't have to follow her or her spirituality. It's not necessary for salvation. It's just another roadmap to salvation. Brother al
From EWTN's expert answers: Some private revelations, however, the Church has accepted as credible, calling them constat de supernaturalitate (that is, they give evidence of a supernatural intervention). Such private revelations cannot correct or add anything essentially new to Public Revelation; however, they may contribute to a deeper understanding of the faith, provide new lines of theological investigation (such as suggested by the revelations to St. Margaret Mary on the Sacred Heart), or recall mankind prophetically to the living of the Gospel (as at Fátima). No private revelation can ever be necessary for salvation, though its content may obviously coincide with what is necessary for salvation as known from Scripture and Tradition. The person who believes the teachings of the Magisterium, utilizes devoutly the sacramental means of sanctification and prayer, and remains in Communion with the Pope and the bishops in union with him, is already employing the necessary means of salvation. A private revelation may recall wayward individuals to the faith, stir the devotion of the already pious, encourage prayer and penance on behalf of others, but it cannot substitute for the Catholic faith, the sacraments and hierarchical communion with the Pope and bishops. Another way of saying this is that private revelations may not be believed with divine and Catholic Faith. They rest on the credibility of the evidence in favor of a supernatural origin. https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/apparitions.htm
I quoted the Catechism; that was the standard I was using. Please explain how it is somehow categorically impossible for any Private Revelation to fall under that which man "knows to be right and just." And let us avoid straw men here: I already specifically agreed that private revelation does not add to the Deposit of Faith, nor am I seeking to "impose" anything. I am merely pointing out the erroneous nature of the laxist view which basically amounts to"it's categorically impossible to incur sin by ignoring/criticizing a private revelation."
Let us be clear - that section is talking about the conscience - not private revelation. There is no reliable way to pronounce favorable judgement on an apparition by oneself - it is above our pay grade, that responsibility is for the Church Magestarium who is guided by the Holy Spirit. With that being said, maybe you can explain to me how we can know to be right and just an private revelation which the Church has so far been silent on? I appreciate private revelation very much, as I am sure most everyone on this forum does, but I find it strange for advocates of certain messengers to come down so harshly - and frankly unjustly - on those who raise concerns in an effort to silent them. There is no sin in disregarding or critizing an unapproved revelation. Surely you are not going that far?
I respect what you have said here. In life, I have learned that it takes no effort to be negative on any issue. However, to be for something often requires great study and one has to be 'on their toes' ready to give testimony why they believe what they do. Here in lies the challenge and it is two fold. First one has to be given the gift of prophecy, which scripture fully attests would happen at the end of the age to some. Secondly, another would need to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit in order to interpret or recognize true prophecy from false prophecy. Either way it is a gift and not a learned thing like most of life is. This is why most prophecy is not something they can fully embrace, as they have not been given either gift. All this being said, here in lies the caution from scripture itself and that is "do not despise prophecy". Even approved apparitions or prophecy need not be accepted for salvation. So what good is it? It is simply Gods way to communicate his plans to his childeen that we may prepare. If a person decides to not hear them that is their choice and their journey may become much more difficult to travel. However, Satan knows well that he can as well use prophecy mixing a tiny bit of truth with a lie. Some with shallow understanding of this deciept will follow and may even loose their faith in doing so. This is the risk in prophecy. That is why scripture tells us to "take that which is beneficial" which to me means that which is not contradictory to scripture or church teachings and use it along with one's prayer life in their journey.
Daniel: I do not have to prove something is categorically impossible. You attempt to bolster your argument by making an appeal to authority, but as Frodo correctly noted, the section you cite concerns matters of conscience, not revelations. The thing about conscience is that it needs to be well-formed. A well-formed conscience is one that is in agreement with the teaching of the Church, and does not diminish the whole set of beliefs contained in the deposit of faith or exceed them. You made a point of quoting the Catechism. Here, from the Vatican website, is an excerpt from the Catechism: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a1.htm "There will be no further Revelation 66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries. 67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church." The Catechism contains much information on the deposit of the faith. It is to the deposit of faith that we must hold fast. I don't question your goodwill, Daniel, but your assertions.
Regarding messengers. This is my own personal observation, since their are messages with my name on them. Even if there are errors in the book God speaks will you listen, I learned something from this book. I was not well versed in the catholic faith so this book helped me. Being an optometrist, I'm skeptical of anyone's claim, God speaks to them. I also have a background in psychology. So I am familiar with the mental pathologies of thinking God speaks to a person. I also accepted the possibility I may have been deceived. There was one thing I could not argue with. There were several people who read this book gswyl, who had fallen away from God. After reading this book, they rejoined the Catholic Church. This told me God was using these words, for a purpose. It may have just been for those several people. If clergy, of all types would have been doing their job properly, I do not think it would have been necessary for messengers. When people are not following God's "normal" means for salvation, God will raise up even "stones" like me to help one person, who may not have known otherwise. This is why I will not denigrate a message, unless the message is blatantly false. God even used Balaam to prophesy about his son. It is a task not to take lightly. That is why I did not want the book gswyl to be given out. I will be responsible on the day of judgment, if I led people astray by promoting false teaching. A true messenger does not ask God to be a messenger. Sometimes God asks us, and we can say yes or no. The question I have to ask myself today is, Do I even recognize God's presence in my life and if not I am lukewarm, and need to repent of my sins.
someone said that one of the reasons to believe in Luz de Maria is that is necessary a kind of message like that for spanish speakers. but it is possible that it is the contrary, that is just the spanish version of locutions to the world. and both is very similar. there are some incongruent and even strange things in luz de maria locutions, instead of there are beautiful messages too. such locutions that alternate between Mary, Jesus and St. Michael speaking of microchip and bringing many false prodigies are more likely to be false. and I wanted to tell this: most false locutions will come with even more fantastic signs. the cases of locutions I am investigating the most are false.
So you are asserting that it is somehow impossible for Conscience to concern Private Revelations? The context of the CCC quote I presented changes nothing. Let me make one thing clear: I never have said, nor am I saying, that criticizing Private Revelation is intrinsically sinful; as if doing so were always wrong. How ridiculous such an assertion would be. What I am saying is that it is a real possibility to sin by doing so. I find it perplexing (tragic, really) that there seems to be a growing group of Catholics, largely inspired by lay apologists like Mark Shae, who think that they are immune from any possibility of sin as they oppose private revelations (as if immunity from sin was ever a possibility on this side of the grave, much less in such a sensitive matter as private revelation). Let me ask you this, Harper/Frodo, and everyone who liked their posts: What if, after taking a look through your posts on this forum, I decided to say, without any actual concrete, objective evidence: "You know, something doesn't seem right about this person. It's just a sense I get from his posts. I've felt this way before and been right. I bet he is cheating on his wife. " One is doing that and worse by publicly accusing private revelations without good cause. For doing so is implying that this person is the absolute worst type of fraud: one who claims to speak for God but is lying. That is all I am saying. I am not even saying anyone here has done precisely that. I am just admonishing everyone to be on their guard against this happening. The tongue (or, in the case of forums, the typing fingers) is the easiest way to sin.
Daniel, 1. Many, many claims of private revelations are bogus. After Lourdes, there were tens of of alleged seers who claimed to see the Blessed Mother. (Spirit Daily article here: http://www.spiritdaily.net/lourdesfalse.htm) In the age of the internet, there are thousands and thousands of alleged seers, on blogs, email lists and YouTube. A wise person knows the percentages and filters accordingly. 2. Saying something doesn't feel right, sound right, sounds crazy in a revelation is perfectly fine. Perhaps we finally agree here, Daniel. We are allowed to critique, dissect, discuss, argue over, and point out the flaws in any private revelation, at any time, in any way that seems fit (ad hominem attacks aside). This is part of the discernment process. The apostles argued. Peter and Paul argued, heatedly, over whether Peter was a hypocrite when he acted one way around Gentiles, another when his fellow Jews arrived. 3. Questioning a revelation is not equivalent to implying a seer is the worst type of fraud. There are many other possible explanations. A good-willed but misguided belief in one's own imaginings may be very common. Mental illness/hearing voices. Fatigue and altered states. Demonic influence, even on a good person: St. Faustina was taken in by a devil disguised by an angel and burned her notebook containing the Mercy messages. I'm sure there are other reasons than flat-out lying. 4. Who determines if a message may be valid? Easy: The bishop of the local diocese. Let me quote the great Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." God knows we all sometimes need to be hit upside the head to get the message. God has given extraordinary proof along with apparitions and messages in the past. He sent the sun spinning and plummeting to earth at Fatima (at the exact time and place that was predicted). He drew forth a spring whose waters provided miraculous healings at Lourdes. He sent plagues to Egypt to underline Moses' demands. He sent roses in winter and imprinted an image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on a cloak. If God wants to get our attention, He will. And the Church has set up a structure to investigate messages and messengers in every single diocese. That is the proper forum for filtering worthy from unworthy. 5. The greatest danger to souls regarding purported revelations, it seems to me, is the time and energy they can eat up. Locutions to the World did actual harm to some individuals not so long ago; think of those who were labeled crazy when they passed along urgent and dire predictions, and of those who spent money on supplies last fall. Maria Divine Mercy drew some against the faith, Bayside took an occult turn. So there is real potential harm in revelations. The harm can come from obsession with the latest messages, to distraction and anxiety. Think about the time people take away from prayer, mediation, reading and adoration to deal with private revelations.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" is the mantra of the modern atheist movement (hence Carl Sagan being the originator of this maxim); and it is untrue and no doubt diabolically inspired. All claims require reasonable proof. God grants great, magnificent signs when He so chooses; don't ever hide behind that mantra as an excuse (cf. Matthew 16:4 -- "a wicked and adulterous generation demands a sign...") Anyway, I don't want to get sidetracked here on a pointless debate in which we actually agree on most of the details. My point is very simple: Have some holy fear, is all I'm saying. It's a Gift of the Holy Spirit (the seventh, to be precise ). It is not true that the institutional Church is the sole discerner on private revelations; quite the contrary, the Church only even bothers with revelations that have already garnered a substantial lay following; and she has even gone so far recently as to make public her criteria for discerning so that we too can do so with renewed confidence, albeit always in deference to her own final judgments. It really is possible to sin if you are not careful, in anything, and most definitely is it possible when it comes to public criticism (e.g. here, on this forum -- which is world's apart from what flies in private conversation) of those who may be God's messengers. If you don't believe that.... (I'll in charity refrain from what I'd like to say next). So all I'm saying is: don't think out loud (that's why God made our brains operate silently) -- and definitely don't think out loud publicly.
Actually Daniel, I haven't been part of the "...wicked and adulterous" scene lately, but I maintain the right to "think out loud" publicly any time I want. Glad you're refraining in charity from what you'd really like to say next about my opinions there! But I must rise to the defense of the late Carl Sagan. Militant atheist? He was the kind of open-minded guy I wouldn't mind having a beer with. I don't think of him of a dour defender of his own brand of orthodoxy at all. (Pope Benedict reminded us that reason and faith are not opposed.) Sagan seemed open to the idea of God, in fact: "For small creatures such as we, the vastness is bearable only through love." "Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense. "Personally, I would be delighted if there were a life after death, especially if it permitted me to continue to learn about this world and others, if it gave me a chance to discover how history turns out. And my favorite: "But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
So what I am getting is that you think yourself exempt from Our Lord's caution in Matthew 16:4, you claim for yourself a "right" (thinking out loud publicly "any time you want") to a course of action condemned by Scripture (e.g. James 3) and every saint, and you take great lengths to defend an atheist who has stolen away thousands if not millions of souls from the Faith (and likely salvation itself) while at the same time going to similar lengths to defend your "right" to publicly oppose any private revelation you so feel like opposing and claiming for yourself immunity from any possibility of sin in doing so. Forgive me if I have misread anything you've written -- but I am trying here to be honest in summarizing what you're saying on this thread (even though I of course am phrasing the points more bluntly than you are). With all respect, I think I am done wasting my time on this back-and-forth. Be assured of my prayers and please pray for me. God bless you.
very likely archetype of false revelation: locutions with long and frequent messages, alternating between Jesus, Mary and other Saints or Angels, to an old obscure seer, talking a lot of antichrist, microchip, etc. In the middle of this, a lot of asking for prayers and reasonable messages (the honey that disguises the poison). better run
Well, if we're going to quote Carl Sagan's maxim, in the case of Luz de Maria there is (or at least appears to be) extraordinary evidence... If you go to her team's site www.revelacionesmarianas.com you will find video of oil exuding from a statue of Jesus Crucified and from an image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, as well as a bleeding crucifix. Furthermore, as you'll see if you look at the 'contemporary stigmatics' thread where you can find a YouTube link to her testimony, Luz de Maria is one of the figures in question; the phenomena noted above are very similar to those attested in parallel cases such as that of Giulio Massa (a book-length treatment of which, prefaced by an Italian archbishop, I am currently studying). Here I will divulge that, partly as a result of the controversy regarding Luz de Maria on this forum and the accusations on other websites (one Franco-Canadian page went as far as to say that she had been associated with Maria Divine Mercy and that her spiritual director didn't exist!), in the interests of conducting a proper investigation I contacted the revelacionesmarianas website. I introduced myself as a theological researcher working for a European university, and requested clarification on a number of specific issues. I was surprised when Luz de Maria - somewhat unusually, apparently - answered me in person, which is already a point in her favour; a couple of years ago I had made a similar request for clarification on a crucial point of credibility to the apostolate of another much-quoted but controversial alleged Latin American seer, and received no reply... Not only did Luz de Maria indicate her willingness to answer my direct and potentially uncomfortable questions, but then wrote an extensive and detailed message in Spanish addressing all my queries one by one in a manner that impressed me both in terms of humility and transparency (I was able to authenticate the biographical information she related concerning the priest whose existence had been disputed by the Franco-Canadian site). Additionally, the director of www.revelacionesmarianas.com sent me a private link to a video of her in apparent ecstasy receiving a purported locution (tape recorded by a nun) with three named priests in attendance, together with striking footage of her stigmatization - which I have also found corroborated elsewhere by eyewitness testimony. For the moment I am not authorized to share this link, but the likelihood is that it will appear on the revelacionesmarianas website in the near future. Does this mean that I give unthinking credence to everything in the messages of Luz de Maria? No; prudent discernment must always be ongoing; there are always human factors involved in private revelation on the part of the receiver, and as has been correctly pointed out on this and other threads, even saints have been deceived on occasion. As I have said before, anyone who doesn't feel comfortable with this set of locutions should simply leave them alone - apart from anything else, even genuine messages can be and often are interpreted wrongly by readers, with negative spiritual results irrespective of the question of the messages' authenticity. However, in the light of available information, all the objective and verifiable evidence that I have found to date suggests that this is a case that ought to be taken seriously and at the very least not dismissed without a proper examination of the facts. Many of the critiques directed against Luz de Maria are demonstrably false, constituting de facto defamation either by intent or resulting from sub-standard research. To my knowledge, the majority of arguments used to discredit her are based on subjective interpretations of her supposed locutions or words used in her personal presentations. Reading many of the reactions on this forum, it is evident that many of the critics are founding their opinions on a priori views of what Heaven can and cannot say, which says more about our pre-conceptions of God than anything else. In situations like this, I find that the fourfold advice of the famous Canadian Jesuit philosopher Bernard Lonergan bears repeating: 'Be attentive, be intelligent, be reasonable, be responsible.'
