Private revelation and traditionalism

[WalkingWounded]

Hello all.

I have, through a series of misadventures in the diocesan Church, ended up traditional Catholicism. This has been like jumping out of the window of a burning house, expecting to hit the ground, and instead landing on a cloud. Very nice.

I have participated around the edges of traditional Catholicism for a long time. Being a convert I was always seeking truth and firm doctrine and high liturgy, so I always had high regard for tradition. But, now that I need tradition, I am so glad for it.

As I fit myself into it, I have a few problems. One thing I was extremely glad for as a diocesan Catholic was the freedom given by the Church in matters of private revelation. During my conversion, for example, I dug into the histories of some famous apparitions and came away not convinced that all of them were historical events.

Now, I do not wish to debate the historicity of these events, I have done that in the past and it was never pleasant, and (here's my point) the problems always boiled down to what the people in the conversation considered a "Catholic" treatment of historical data.

When I was in the process of conversion, I was comfortable to maintain a high bar of skepticism, on the grounds that God's true Church would meet and surpass it. When I encountered a difficulty, it was never over a critical, central matter. I became Catholic after trusting that if I tested everything, the good would surface and I could hold onto it.

But to become Catholic, I had to fully utilize the distinction between that which is proposed for belief, and that which is private revelation or secondary to private revelation. Traditional Catholicism seems to, in the main, handle these things differently.

One of my first unpleasant experiences in Traditionalism, this was years ago now while I was still going to the NO, was talking to traditionalist friends and mentioning some severe historical issues with an apparition story. Their reaction was swift, negative, and decisive. I had this experience a few more times.

I think the issue is rooted in a lack of specific teaching, or lack of knowledge on the part of some party in this drama, over the responsibilities of Catholics toward private revelations, and what guidance is given on how Catholics may reconcile private revelation with historical information.

I'd like for traditional Catholics to explain this to me.

Thanks.

[Elizabeth]

Maybe you should pray the Litany of Humility.

Immediate results are guaranteed. 

[Greg]

Private revelations appear to pre-date and therefore warn of a time when the Church would go through an absolutely terrible trial and would appear to all rational viewpoints to have abadoned its mission or indeed never have had that mission divinely given in the first place.  In short, that rationalism had finally showed the Church's claims to be fabrications.

Traditionalism is so small that it seems impossible it could grow back to dominate as a global force for hundreds of years.  And even if that were to happen, how would the Church account for a 60 to 100/200 year period of apostasy and heresy taught and widely practiced in its ranks GLOBALLY?

Alongside this there is a technological advance and bio-tech advance that threatens to argument humans with technology.

It seems both reasonable and hopeful that God will in some way intervene.  The methods of which are roughly speaking outlined in these apparitions.

So for Traditionalists they are useful crutches to maintain hope in what would otherwise be hopeless times.

[WalkingWounded]

Maybe you should pray the Litany of Humility.

Immediate results are guaranteed. 

Thanks for this. Humility is always needed and the Litany is pretty much always a good idea, as far as I can tell.

I have a particular interest in this suggestion, as well. When I was in the process of my conversion, I was questioning the assumptions of Protestantism. Being rather young and naive, I would go to elders and experts and ask them about these inconsistencies and problems. They'd converse for a while, but when I pressed, in every case they either counseled more humility or scolded for a lack of humility. I came to connect these suggestions and scoldings with a sure feeling of being over the target.

Then, during my time in the Diocesan Catholic Church, as my knowledge of Catholicism steadily grew, I began to ask questions of the NO priests and laypeople about liturgy, the Council, ecumenism, obedience. I'm sure most of us have been exactly there. It was immediately familiar territory. If I pushed on some topic, they started to counsel humility.

I'm also the kind of person who invites Mormons into the house when they stop by. You guessed it. Push too hard on the Kinderhook Plates or the Abraham Papyri, and they young "elders" start to counsel humility.

So, reflecting on all of these experiences, I think what is important is to have a really, really clear understanding of what intellectual humility is, because the world would try to confuse you about it.

Thanks!

[Vox Clara]

I recommend the article on private revelations from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Here are some relevant excerpts:

When the Church approves private revelations, she declares only that there is nothing in them contrary faith or good morals, and that they may be read without danger or even with profit; no obligation is thereby imposed on the faithful to believe them.[...]

Illusions connected with private revelations have been explained in the article CONTEMPLATION. Some of them are at first thought surprising. Thus a vision of an historical scene (e.g., of the life or death of Christ) is often only approximately accurate, although the visionary may be unaware of this fact, and he may be misled, if he believes in its absolute historical fidelity. This error is quite natural, being based on the assumption that, if the vision comes from God, all its details (the landscape, dress, words, actions, etc.) should be a faithful reproduction of the historical past. This assumption is not justified, for accuracy in secondary details is not necessary; the main point is that the fact, event, or communication revealed be strictly true.[...]

A vision need not guarantee its accuracy in every detail. One should thus beware of concluding without examination that revelations are to be rejected; the prudent course is neither to believe nor to deny them unless there is sufficient reason for so doing. Much less should one suspect that the saints have been always, or very often deceived in their vision. On the contrary, such deception is rare, and as a rule in unimportant matters only.

[diaduit]

Hello all.

I have, through a series of misadventures in the diocesan Church, ended up traditional Catholicism. This has been like jumping out of the window of a burning house, expecting to hit the ground, and instead landing on a cloud. Very nice.

I have participated around the edges of traditional Catholicism for a long time. Being a convert I was always seeking truth and firm doctrine and high liturgy, so I always had high regard for tradition. But, now that I need tradition, I am so glad for it.

As I fit myself into it, I have a few problems. One thing I was extremely glad for as a diocesan Catholic was the freedom given by the Church in matters of private revelation. During my conversion, for example, I dug into the histories of some famous apparitions and came away not convinced that all of them were historical events.

Now, I do not wish to debate the historicity of these events, I have done that in the past and it was never pleasant, and (here's my point) the problems always boiled down to what the people in the conversation considered a "Catholic" treatment of historical data.

When I was in the process of conversion, I was comfortable to maintain a high bar of skepticism, on the grounds that God's true Church would meet and surpass it. When I encountered a difficulty, it was never over a critical, central matter. I became Catholic after trusting that if I tested everything, the good would surface and I could hold onto it.

But to become Catholic, I had to fully utilize the distinction between that which is proposed for belief, and that which is private revelation or secondary to private revelation. Traditional Catholicism seems to, in the main, handle these things differently.

One of my first unpleasant experiences in Traditionalism, this was years ago now while I was still going to the NO, was talking to traditionalist friends and mentioning some severe historical issues with an apparition story. Their reaction was swift, negative, and decisive. I had this experience a few more times.

I think the issue is rooted in a lack of specific teaching, or lack of knowledge on the part of some party in this drama, over the responsibilities of Catholics toward private revelations, and what guidance is given on how Catholics may reconcile private revelation with historical information.

I'd like for traditional Catholics to explain this to me.

Thanks.

Ok please don't take the tone in a bad way, its sharp and not meant to insult but  .... so what? you WILL meet that here.  There is nothing wrong with your scepticism and it is in line with Church teaching so this is why I don't get into a knot when someone says they don't believe in Fatima.  If I'm honest though, when someone criticises Fatima, sometimes it feels like a personal insult to Our Lady - not always but sometimes.  Its probably one of those subjects that is not central to anyone's faith so is it really necessary to tease it out? just like pants or homeschooling ....its one of those subjects that can be rankle people on both sides of opinion.

[WalkingWounded]

Ok please don't take the tone in a bad way, its sharp and not meant to insult but  .... so what? you WILL meet that here.  There is nothing wrong with your scepticism and it is in line with Church teaching so this is why I don't get into a knot when someone says they don't believe in Fatima.  If I'm honest though, when someone criticises Fatima, sometimes it feels like a personal insult to Our Lady - not always but sometimes.  Its probably one of those subjects that is not central to anyone's faith so is it really necessary to tease it out? just like pants or homeschooling ....its one of those subjects that can be rankle people on both sides of opinion.

Sure. And I get that. And your tone is perfectly fine!

But traditional Catholicism is something I hope to die in, many years from now, God willing. I have a ways to go in it. I'm learning how it works, culturally speaking. I currently find myself a little disjointed, but coping, because I'm not used to the conventions of it. It's only been a few years.

The parish I go to is pretty great, and I find myself in real kinship with the other lay people. They're my kind of people. Sure, a few of them go a little farther into politics than I do, but unlike the NO parishes I was in, none of them want to kill babies or promote gay marriage.

But, yeah, one of them called me a communist after I (unguardedly) admitted I was skeptical of a particular apparition. Not Fatima, btw. 

[Kaesekopf]

But to become Catholic, I had to fully utilize the distinction between that which is proposed for belief, and that which is private revelation or secondary to private revelation. Traditional Catholicism seems to, in the main, handle these things differently.

This is the fruit of a lot of traditionalism being dominated by pious laymen and laywomen, who have very very strong opinions.  I think, as well, that as traditionalism "becomes normalized" this phenomenon will lessen. 

Personally, I have some private revelations that I love and have a strong attachment to.  Then there are others that I really just don't care about.  To my mind, I approach the private revelations as a sort of dessert.  Some people love cannoli, some people love tiramisu.  That's fine and dandy, but I'm a cheesecake kinda guy. 

[awkward customer]

But to become Catholic, I had to fully utilize the distinction between that which is proposed for belief, and that which is private revelation or secondary to private revelation. Traditional Catholicism seems to, in the main, handle these things differently.

One of my first unpleasant experiences in Traditionalism, this was years ago now while I was still going to the NO, was talking to traditionalist friends and mentioning some severe historical issues with an apparition story. Their reaction was swift, negative, and decisive. I had this experience a few more times.

As a convert of over 20 years who found Tradition early on, this sounds very familiar to me.  I've also known a few converts who didn't find Tradition and didn't last long in the Novus Ordo.  So congratulations!

Having once been very open to the private revelations so beloved by Trads, I now ignore them completely.  When expressing doubts and raising questions about some points of the vision narratives, I've had the kind of reactions you describe. Now I simply can't accept them, not as they are interpreted and presented anyway.  But I no longer go into details about the doubts I have since it upsets people too much.  I just pay them no attention.

I think Trads can hardly believe what has happened to the Church since Vatican II and are looking for answers.  This is understandable.  For what it's worth my advice would be stick to Tradition and pray a lot.  The answers will definitely come.

[WalkingWounded]

Thank you everyone for weighing in. It seems like I'm not so odd as I thought. 

[diaduit]

Thank you everyone for weighing in. It seems like I'm not so odd as I thought.
[/quote

You said it better than my 'so what'....

[Michael Wilson]

I'm 100% for P.R. Before Vatican II; those afterwards not so much.
Secondly, as another poster stated, P.R. Are more like dessert after the solid meal of Catholic doctrine; I spend 99% of my time reading books from such great authors as Fr. Reginald Garigou Lagrange; the Catholic Manuals; Papal Encyclicals; traditional Catechisms. For some Catholics the apparitions become the "tail-waging the dog" i.e. They judge the faith through the lenses of the apparitions rather than the inverse. I will give two small anecdotes:
I was at a get together with some friends and one of the guests there told me about this apparition under Pius XII in Italy, which was approved; the seer reported that Our Lady said that "I am in the Blessed Trinity"; now I tried to get our friend to tell me what did that mean? Is our Blessed Mother part of the Blessed Trinity (a heresy, just in case) or what? They refused to tell me, but kept insisting that the Church approved the apparition so it must be true (???).
Second incident: another friend very attached to the writings of the visions of Ven. Catherine Emmerich; in which according to these, our Lady was conceived by Sts. Joachim and Anne not in the normal way, but in the way we would have been conceived if Adam and Eve hadn't sinned i.e. W/O Sex ??? Of course, it tried to argue that this is wrong, but alas all to no avail.

[Baylee]

I'm 100% for P.R. Before Vatican II; those afterwards not so much.
Secondly, as another poster stated, P.R. Are more like dessert after the solid meal of Catholic doctrine; I spend 99% of my time reading books from such great authors as Fr. Reginald Garigou Lagrange; the Catholic Manuals; Papal Encyclicals; traditional Catechisms. For some Catholics the apparitions become the "tail-waging the dog" i.e. They judge the faith through the lenses of the apparitions rather than the inverse. I will give two small anecdotes:
I was at a get together with some friends and one of the guests there told me about this apparition under Pius XII in Italy, which was approved; the seer reported that Our Lady said that "I am in the Blessed Trinity"; now I tried to get our friend to tell me what did that mean? Is our Blessed Mother part of the Blessed Trinity (a heresy, just in case) or what? They refused to tell me, but kept insisting that the Church approved the apparition so it must be true (???).
Second incident: another friend very attached to the writings of the visions of Ven. Catherine Emmerich; in which according to these, our Lady was conceived by Sts. Joachim and Anne not in the normal way, but in the way we would have been conceived if Adam and Eve hadn't sinned i.e. W/O Sex ??? Of course, it tried to argue that this is wrong, but alas all to no avail.

Yes, for some , private revelation becomes a religion.  I steer far, far away from them.

[Greg]

But to become Catholic, I had to fully utilize the distinction between that which is proposed for belief, and that which is private revelation or secondary to private revelation. Traditional Catholicism seems to, in the main, handle these things differently.

This is the fruit of a lot of traditionalism being dominated by pious laymen and laywomen, who have very very strong opinions.  I think, as well, that as traditionalism "becomes normalized" this phenomenon will lessen. 

Personally, I have some private revelations that I love and have a strong attachment to.  Then there are others that I really just don't care about.  To my mind, I approach the private revelations as a sort of dessert.  Some people love cannoli, some people love tiramisu.  That's fine and dandy, but I'm a cheesecake kinda guy.

40 years in the dessert.

[Greg]

Thank you everyone for weighing in. It seems like I'm not so odd as I thought.

Oh no, you are odd.

We are just odder in the most part.