Recent Posts

Saturday, 7 July 2012

Private Revelations and the Protestant Mind-Set

The mind-set of the Protestant is one of, simply, "protest". When a question arises to the Protestant mind as to accepting a decision or doctrine of the Church, and if this item conflicts with that person's own interpretation, he chooses his own wisdom over that of the Church. This is the way of the arch-liberals in the Church, but it is also a mind-set found among some so-called trad Catholics. And, the mind-set is causing great separations in communities and families. The problem is the proliferation and popularity of private revelations, which we do not need. Most of the appeal is emotional, even sentimental and many times the seers or visionaries pull a person away from the Church rather than into union with the Church.

One of the problems with following seers and visionaries is that the followers create division in parishes and communities. Obedience creates an atmosphere of unity and humility. Fanatic following of these visionaries seems to create a blindness and unwillingness to learn what the Church is really stating on a subject.

I have written between 11-12 posts on private revelations, which I believe are separating the Church in much the same way as the proliferation of Protestant denominations did in the 15th and 16th centuries. That people who follow these refuse to submit to the CDF or other levels of hierarchy shows that Satan, who is the Father of Deceit, is having a hay-day. In every parish I have attended in Europe, such followers of those persons, seers, or visionaries-- already either seriously warned against or condemned-- reveal a rebellious attitude no different than that of the arch-liberals. Disobedience is disobedience. Christ Himself warned us that if we cannot be trusted in small things, how can we be trusted in great?

The CDF has made three definitive statements on Vassula Ryden. Some of the criticisms deal with doctrine. I shall put the links here, as I did in a previous post, but also quote from the documents. These cannot be ignored.

First, in 1995, the Vatican stated thus:
Among other things, ambiguous language is used in speaking of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, to the point of confusing the specific names and functions of the Divine Persons. These alleged revelations predict an imminent period when the Antichrist will prevail in the Church. In millenarian style, it is prophesied that God is going to make a final glorious intervention which will initiate on earth, even before Christ's definitive coming, an era of peace and universal prosperity. Furthermore, the proximate arrival is foretold of a Church which would be a kind of pan-Christian community, contrary to Catholic doctrine.


In addition, the document added that: The fact that the aforementioned errors no longer appear in Ryden's later writings is a sign that the alleged "heavenly messages" are merely the result of private meditations.

Moreover, by habitually sharing in the sacraments of the Catholic Church even though she is Greek Orthodox, Mrs. Ryden is causing considerable surprise in various circles of the Catholic Church. She appears to be putting herself above all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and every canonical norm, and in effect, is creating an ecumenical disorder that irritates many authorities, ministers and faithful of her own Church, as she puts herself outside the ecclesiastical discipline of the latter.
Given the negative effect of Vassula Ryden's activities, despite some positive aspects, this Congregation requests the intervention of the Bishops so that their faithful may be suitably informed and that no opportunity may be provided in their Dioceses for the dissemination of her ideas. Lastly, the Congregation invites all the faithful not to regard Mrs. Vassula Ryden's writings and speeches as supernatural and to preserve the purity of the faith that the Lord has entrusted to the Church.
The link for that is here. A second warning in general  came out in 1996.


The interpretation given by some individuals to a Decision approved by Paul VI on 14 October 1966 and promulgated on 15 November of that year, in virtue of which writings and messages resulting from alleged revelations could be freely circulated in the Church, is absolutely groundless. This decision actually referred to the "Abolition of the Index of Forbidden Books", and determined that -after the relevant censures were lifted-the moral obligation still remained of not circulating or reading those writings which endanger faith and morals.
2) It should be recalled however that with regard to the circulation of texts of alleged private revelations, canon 823 §1 of the current Code remains in force: "the Pastors of the Church have the ... right to demand that writings to be published by the Christian faithful which touch upon faith or morals be submitted to their judgement".
3) Alleged supernatural revelations and writings concerning them are submitted in first instance to the judgement of the diocesan Bishop, and, in particular cases, to the judgement of the Episcopal Conference and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Another warning against Mrs. Ryden came out in 2007. Here is the link, and a quotation regarding: 


her messages, which do not present themselves as divine revelations but, rather as personal meditations (cf. attachment 2: Letter of April 4th 2002 published in the True Life in God vol. 10). From the normative point of view, then, after the above mentioned clarifications, it is advisable to make a prudent evaluation, case by case, taking into account the concrete possibilities for the faithful in reading these writings within the framework of such clarifications.
3) Finally, it is reminded that the participation of Catholics in prayer groups organized by Mrs Vassula Ryden is not advisable. In the cases of ecumenical encounters, the faithful should comply with the provisions given by the Ecumenical Directory, the Code of Canon Law (can. 215; 223 §2, 383 §3) and the diocesan Ordinaries.


A huge problem with this seer is her misunderstanding of ecumenism. False ecumenism glosses over differences, which is the heresy of "eirenism".  If one continues to go to her groups prayer meetings, one is disobeying the guidelines above. Why would any good  and sensible Catholic choose private revelation over the Teaching Magisterium of the Church? I do not know. I do not have a Protestant mind-set. I have also written on The Warning on this blog, and one can use the find link on the side-bar by typing in Private Revelations. I find that people who follow these have not read the CCC or the encyclicals of Blessed John Paul II or Benedict XVI or even the Bible. If a lay person wants to improve their daily meditations, use the Breviary and the daily Mass readings, as well as the Bible and the lives of the saints.


I repeat one of the excuses I hear from traddies, that is that bishops who are liberal are condemning or at least, not approving, certain seers. Well, either we believe that the Holy Spirit is working through the hierarchy, or we do not. Just because we disagree with a particular bishop does not make the decision regarding private revelations wrong. This is pride on the part of the laity--spiritual pride, the first sin.
If people who read this post, as they did my list of errors on The Warning, are offended, I suggest they consider whether they are true Catholics, choosing to follow the Church in matters which are too difficult for them to discern, or whether they are endangering their souls by "protesting".
As to the false ecumenism, I refer the readers to Humani Generis, which I have before. Here is a long, but necessary quotation, which includes a reference to the Modernist heresy of eirenism-the forgotten heresy.
Now if these only aimed at adapting ecclesiastical teaching and methods to modern conditions and requirements, through the introduction of some new explanations, there would be scarcely any reason for alarm. But some through enthusiasm for an imprudent "eirenism" seem to consider as an obstacle to the restoration of fraternal union, things founded on the laws and principles given by Christ and likewise on institutions founded by Him, or which are the defense and support of the integrity of the faith, and the removal of which would bring about the union of all, but only to their destruction.
13. These new opinions, whether they originate from a reprehensible desire of novelty or from a laudable motive, are not always advanced in the same degree, with equal clarity nor in the same terms, nor always with unanimous agreement of their authors. Theories that today are put forward rather covertly by some, not without cautions and distinctions, tomorrow are openly and without moderation proclaimed by others more audacious, causing scandal to many, especially among the young clergy and to the detriment of ecclesiastical authority. Though they are usually more cautious in their published works, they express themselves more openly in their writings intended for private circulation and in conferences and lectures. Moreover, these opinions are disseminated not only among members of the clergy and in seminaries and religious institutions, but also among the laity, and especially among those who are engaged in teaching youth.
14. In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.
15. Moreover, they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism or any other system. Some more audacious affirm that his can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. They add that the history of dogmas consists in the reporting of the various forms in which revealed truth has been clothed, forms that have succeeded one another in accordance with the different teachings and opinions that have arisen over the course of the centuries.
16. It is evident from what We have already said, that such tentatives not only lead to what they call dogmatic relativism, but that they actually contain it. The contempt of doctrine commonly taught and of the terms in which it is expressed strongly favor it. Everyone is aware that the terminology employed in the schools and even that used by the Teaching Authority of the Church itself is capable of being perfected and polished; and we know also that the Church itself has not always used the same terms in the same way. It is also manifest that the Church cannot be bound to every system of philosophy that has existed for a short space of time. Nevertheless, the things that have been composed through common effort by Catholic teachers over the course of the centuries to bring about some understanding of dogma are certainly not based on any such weak foundation. These things are based on principles and notions deduced from a true knowledge of created things. In the process of deducing, this knowledge, like a star, gave enlightenment to the human mind through the Church. Hence it is not astonishing that some of these notions have not only been used by the Oecumenical Councils, but even sanctioned by them, so that it is wrong to depart from them.
17. Hence to neglect, or to reject,or to devalue so many and such great resources which have been conceived, expressed and perfected so often by the age-old work of men endowed with no common talent and holiness, working under the vigilant supervision of the holy magisterium and with the light and leadership of the Holy Ghost in order to state the truths of the faith ever more accurately, to do this so that these things may be replaced by conjectural notions and by some formless and unstable tenets of a new philosophy, tenets which, like the flowers of the field, are in existence today and die tomorrow; this is supreme imprudence and something that would make dogma itself a reed shaken by the wind. The contempt for terms and notions habitually used by scholastic theologians leads of itself to the weakening of what they call speculative theology, a discipline which these men consider devoid of true certitude because it is based on theological reasoning.
18. Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily pass from despising scholastic theology to the neglect of and even contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself, which gives such authoritative approval to scholastic theology. This Teaching Authority is represented by them as a hindrance to progress and an obstacle in the way of science. Some non-Catholics consider it as an unjust restraint preventing some more qualified theologians from reforming their subject. And although this sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith - Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition - to be preserved, guarded and interpreted, still the duty that is incumbent on the faithful to flee also those errors which more or less approach heresy, and accordingly "to keep also the constitutions and decrees by which such evil opinions are proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See,"[2] is sometimes as little known as if it did not exist. What is expounded in the Encyclical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs concerning the nature and constitution of the Church, is deliberately and habitually neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they profess to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks. The Popes, they assert, do not wish to pass judgment on what is a matter of dispute among theologians, so recourse must be had to the early sources, and the recent constitutions and decrees of the Teaching Church must be explained from the writings of the ancients.
19. Although these things seem well said, still they are not free form error. It is true that Popes generally leave theologians free in those matters which are disputed in various ways by men of very high authority in this field; but history teaches that many matters that formerly were open to discussion, no longer now admit of discussion.
20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.
21. It is also true that theologians must always return to the sources of divine revelation: for it belongs to them to point out how the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition.[4] Besides, each source of divinely revealed doctrine contains so many rich treasures of truth, that they can really never be exhausted. Hence it is that theology through the study of its sacred sources remains ever fresh; on the other hand, speculation which neglects a deeper search into the deposit of faith, proves sterile, as we know from experience. But for this reason even positive theology cannot be on a par with merely historical science. For, together with the sources of positive theology God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church. But if the Church does exercise this function of teaching, as she often has through the centuries, either in the ordinary or in the extraordinary way, it is clear how false is a procedure which would attempt to explain what is clear by means of what is obscure. Indeed, the very opposite procedure must be used. Hence Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, teaching that the most noble office of theology is to show how a doctrine defined by the Church is contained in the sources of revelation, added these words, and with very good reason: "in that sense in which it has been defined by the Church."
22. To return, however, to the new opinions mentioned above, a number of things are proposed or suggested by some even against the divine authorship of Sacred Scripture. For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council's definition that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters. They even wrongly speak of a human sense of the Scriptures, beneath which a divine sense, which they say is the only infallible meaning, lies hidden. In interpreting Scripture, they will take no account of the analogy of faith and the Tradition of the Church. Thus they judge the doctrine of the Fathers and of the Teaching Church by the norm of Holy Scripture, interpreted by the purely human reason of exegetes, instead of explaining Holy Scripture according to the mind of the Church which Christ Our Lord has appointed guardian and interpreter of the whole deposit of divinely revealed truth.
23. Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church's vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual. By means of this new exegesis of the Old Testament, which today in the Church is a sealed book, would finally be thrown open to all the faithful. By this method, they say, all difficulties vanish, difficulties which hinder only those who adhere to the literal meaning of the Scriptures.
24. Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the principles and norms of interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII in his Encyclical "Providentissimus Deus," and Benedict XV in the Encyclical "Spiritus Paraclitus," as also by Ourselves in the Encyclical "Divino Afflante Spiritu."
25. It is not surprising that novelties of this kind have already borne their deadly fruit in almost all branches of theology. It is now doubted that human reason, without divine revelation and the help of divine grace, can, by arguments drawn from the created universe, prove the existence of a personal God; it is denied that the world had a beginning; it is argued that the creation of the world is necessary, since it proceeds from the necessary liberality of divine love; it is denied that God has eternal and infallible foreknowledge of the free actions of men - all this in contradiction to the decrees of the Vatican Council.[5]
26. Some also question whether angels are personal beings, and whether matter and spirit differ essentially. Others destroy the gratuity of the supernatural order, since God, they say, cannot create intellectual beings without ordering and calling them to the beatific vision. Nor is this all. Disregarding the Council of Trent, some pervert the very concept of original sin, along with the concept of sin in general as an offense against God, as well as the idea of satisfaction performed for us by Christ. Some even say that the doctrine of transubstantiation, based on an antiquated philosophic notion of substance, should be so modified that the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist be reduced to a kind of symbolism, whereby the consecrated species would be merely efficacious signs of the spiritual presence of Christ and of His intimate union with the faithful members of His Mystical Body.
27. Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[6] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith.
28. These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of Our sons who are deceived by imprudent zeal for souls or by false science. To them We are compelled with grief to repeat once again truths already well known, and to point out with solicitude clear errors and dangers of error.
29. It is well known how highly the Church regards human reason, for it falls to reason to demonstrate with certainty the existence of God, personal and one; to prove beyond doubt from divine signs the very foundations of the Christian faith; to express properly the law which the Creator has imprinted in the hearts of men; and finally to attain to some notion, indeed a very fruitful notion, of mysteries.[7] But reason can perform these functions safely and well only when properly trained, that is, when imbued with that sound philosophy which has long been, as it were, a patrimony handed down by earlier Christian ages, and which moreover possesses an authority of an even higher order, since the Teaching Authority of the Church, in the light of divine revelation itself, has weighed its fundamental tenets, which have been elaborated and defined little by little by men of great genius. For this philosophy, acknowledged and accepted by the Church, safeguards the genuine validity of human knowledge, the unshakable metaphysical principles of sufficient reason, causality, and finality, and finally the mind's ability to attain certain and unchangeable truth.
30. Of course this philosophy deals with much that neither directly nor indirectly touches faith or morals, and which consequently the Church leaves to the free discussion of experts. But this does not hold for many other things, especially those principles and fundamental tenets to which We have just referred. However, even in these fundamental questions, we may clothe our philosophy in a more convenient and richer dress, make it more vigorous with a more effective terminology, divest it of certain scholastic aids found less useful, prudently enrich it with the fruits of progress of the human mind. But never may we overthrow it, or contaminate it with false principles, or regard it as a great, but obsolete, relic. For truth and its philosophic expression cannot change from day to day, least of all where there is question of self-evident principles of the human mind or of those propositions which are supported by the wisdom of the ages and by divine revelation. Whatever new truth the sincere human mind is able to find, certainly cannot be opposed to truth already acquired, since God, the highest Truth, has created and guides the human intellect, not that it may daily oppose new truths to rightly established ones, but rather that, having eliminated errors which may have crept in, it may build truth upon truth in the same order and structure that exist in reality, the source of truth. Let no Christian therefore, whether philosopher or theologian, embrace eagerly and lightly whatever novelty happens to be thought up from day to day, but rather let him weigh it with painstaking care and a balanced judgment, lest he lose or corrupt the truth he already has, with grave danger and damage to his faith.
31. If one considers all this well, he will easily see why the Church demands that future priests be instructed in philosophy "according to the method, doctrine, and principles of the Angelic Doctor,"[8] since, as we well know from the experience of centuries, the method of Aquinas is singularly preeminent both of teaching students and for bringing truth to light; his doctrine is in harmony with Divine Revelation, and is most effective both for safeguarding the foundation of the faith and for reaping, safely and usefully, the fruits of sound progress.[9]
32. How deplorable it is then that this philosophy, received and honored by the Church, is scorned by some, who shamelessly call it outmoded in form and rationalistic, as they say, in its method of thought. They say that this philosophy upholds the erroneous notion that there can be a metaphysic that is absolutely true; whereas in fact, they say, reality, especially transcendent reality, cannot better be expressed than by disparate teachings, which mutually complete each other, although they are in a way mutually opposed. Our traditional philosophy, then, with its clear exposition and solution of questions, its accurate definition of terms, its clear-cut distinctions, can be, they concede, useful as a preparation for scholastic theology, a preparation quite in accord with medieval mentality; but this philosophy hardly offers a method of philosophizing suited to the needs of our modern culture. They allege, finally, that our perennial philosophy is only a philosophy of immutable essences, while the contemporary mind must look to the existence of things and to life, which is ever in flux. While scorning our philosophy, they extol other philosophies of all kinds, ancient and modern, oriental and occidental, by which they seem to imply that any kind of philosophy or theory, with a few additions and corrections if need be, can be reconciled with Catholic dogma. No Catholic can doubt how false this is, especially where there is question of those fictitious theories they call immanentism, or idealism or materialism, whether historic or dialectic, or even existentialism, whether atheistic or simply the type that denies the validity of the reason in the field of metaphysics.
33. Finally, they reproach this philosophy taught in our schools for regarding only the intellect in the process of cognition, while neglecting the function of the will and the emotions. This is simply not true. Never has Christian philosophy denied the usefulness and efficacy of good dispositions of soul for perceiving and embracing moral and religious truths. In fact, it has always taught that the lack of these dispositions of good will can be the reason why the intellect, influenced by the passions and evil inclinations, can be so obscured that it cannot see clearly. Indeed St. Thomas holds that the intellect can in some way perceive higher goods of the moral order, whether natural or supernatural, inasmuch as it experiences a certain "connaturality" with these goods, whether this "connaturality" be purely natural, or the result of grace;[10] and it is clear how much even this somewhat obscure perception can help the reason in its investigations. However it is one thing to admit the power of the dispositions of the will in helping reason to gain a more certain and firm knowledge of moral truths; it is quite another thing to say, as these innovators do, indiscriminately mingling cognition and act of will, that the appetitive and affective faculties have a certain power of understanding, and that man, since he cannot by using his reason decide with certainty what is true and is to be accepted, turns to his will, by which he freely chooses among opposite opinions.
34. It is not surprising that these new opinions endanger the two philosophical sciences which by their very nature are closely connected with the doctrine of faith, that is, theodicy and ethics; they hold that the function of these two sciences is not to prove with certitude anything about God or any other transcendental being, but rather to show that the truths which faith teaches about a personal God and about His precepts, are perfectly consistent with the necessities of life and are therefore to be accepted by all, in order to avoid despair and to attain eternal salvation. All these opinions and affirmations are openly contrary to the documents of Our Predecessors Leo XIII and Pius X, and cannot be reconciled with the decrees of the Vatican Council. It would indeed be unnecessary to deplore these aberrations from the truth, if all, even in the field of philosophy, directed their attention with the proper reverence to the Teaching Authority of the Church, which by divine institution has the mission not only to guard and interpret the deposit of divinely revealed truth, but also to keep watch over the philosophical sciences themselves, in order that Catholic dogmas may suffer no harm because of erroneous opinions.

There is more. If one has time to read private revelation, one has time to read the real deal....

11 comments:

Ramona said...

Any chance that with all the excellent posts you've written on the danger of private revelations you could compile them together on the side-bar somewhere? Your posts are effective when I pass them on to others who insist I need to check out a new 'seer'. A single link to them all would be much appreciated on my end. In my experience letting people read for themselves the danger of these 'seers' is far more effective than verbalizing the argument against them.

Thank-you and God bless you for taking the time to put in words what many of us can't (because we don't have the gift to do so) or don't have the time while we are raising up the next generation of Church Militant!

Supertradmum said...

Ramona, if you type private revelations in my search bar towards the top of the page on the side, most of the twelve articles come up. You can print them off. Let me know if that works. I shall do that when I have time.

Supertradmum said...

There are I think twelve articles.

Supertradmum said...

Ramona,

I just did what you suggested, but not all. The Quietism posts are not on the list, but you can put that in search as well.

Just scroll down and you will see links.

Hope this helps

Anita Moore said...

You could add labels to your posts, with a list of labels in your sidebar. Then a person could click on the label "Private Revelations," say, and up would pop all the posts on private revelations.

In re the content of this post: speaking of the Index of Forbidden Books, do you know where one can actually find the Index, current as of the time it was abolished? If one is still morally bound by it, it would help to know what's on it! I have yet to find anything authoritative online.

P.S. I understand Poem of the Man-God was put on the Index, yet there are many Catholics who think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Supertradmum said...

Anita, you are correct, of course, that I should be using labels, but I simply forget to do it. However, now I have that partial list at the side bar on this theme. I shall try and remember the labels... As to Maria Valtorta, there seems to be confusion as to the acceptance or rejection of her work. All I know for sure are two things. One, I started the book years ago and got that icky feeling and stopped reading it. Yes, her work was on the list and was not to be read at all, which I did not know at the time. Index Librorum Prohibitorum must be requested through the Archive of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, unless someone knows another way. I had an old paper copy of the list made shortly before the list was suppressed in 1966, but no longer have it. I do not even know why I had a copy, as I was so young, but wish I had it now.

As far as I am concerned, the Poem of the Man-God should not be read by serious Catholics, as it was on the list and we should still honor that list. However, as we no longer know what was on it, the question is up to our individual sensitivity to books. My rule is quite simple. If a seer's book is not approved by Rome, I do not read it. If it has been condemned and I know it, I do not read it. Because of my own strict standard, I do not and have not followed Medjugorje. I intend to agree with E. Michael Jones and others on this long series of "apparitions". If and when the Vatican approves it, then I shall think about the visions, maybe.

Anita Moore said...

I agree about Medjugorje. The "seers" were told by their bishop years ago to stop disseminating messages, and they continue to disobey. I think that tells us everything we need to know.

New Sister said...

I had noticed a military chaplain (charismatic priest) in Afghanistan who had set out, in the chaplain's corner, a stack of books of someone's private revelations, free for the taking. I had had run-ins with Father and wanted to be respectful, support him, but after flipping through one of them (in which the author claims the Holy Spirit spoke to her daily and told her what to write) I couldn't but cart the whole lot of them off to a dumpster where they'd never be found.

Chaplains receive many such donations on deployments. This same chaplain received a lovely case of pristine Latin Mass magazines (my favorite pub) from some anonymous Patriot, but decided to withhold them for the good of the faithful--he perceived them as "disrespectful to John Paul II and new Mass."
I would have cherished having them. :-( sad.

JonathanCatholic said...

Three things:

1) I would love to have the Index as well, and I think I shall request it if I ever can, or would that be superfluous? Do you think it's even possible to request it from the Archive of the CDF?

2) Incidentally, I started to read the Poem as well, and experienced the same inner sense that something was not right that Supertradmum felt. Many of the things that are said of the Blessed Mother in the poem do not flow from a legitimate and holy piety, ie one that makes Jesus Christ the sole end of all devotions and for this reason honors His Mother so highly, but rather are borderline heretical, such as the comments that Mary was the "only-begotten Daughter of God," and other such things. I say leave it alone, even if only on the principle that it is forbidden.

3) I so appreciate your private revelation series as well, Supertradmum. It is so necessary in our Catholic culture these days that is obsessed with private revelation, and I admire and share your healthy skepticism. I doubt I will ever sign on to the Medj. apparitions even if they were approved of. The disobedience associated with it gives me the willies.

Supertradmum said...

JonathanCatholic and Anita, I cannot agree with you more. It is strange that these revelations take away from the real business of religion, which is to save souls through the sacramental life of the Church.Hmmm

As to the Index, I would write to the CDF. It would not hurt to try.

Ramona said...

Thanks a bunch! I shall continue to forward your articles on as you make the most definitive case for necessary caution I've seen anywhere. Your words do bear fruit.