Replies

I see no benefit for the church in "approved" or "unapproved" revelations

Harley expresses a similar thought.

Assuming we all agree that some private revelations (let us include miraculous healing and apparitions in this term) are true and others are false, as explained in the article, I find your position strange. A revelation, true or false, cannot stay private in the ordinary sense of the word: it is sensational, shrines are erected etc. A revelation is called "private" as opposed to the revealed truths proclaimed by the Church without reservation as part of its teaching, or, as a Protestant would insist, revealed as scripture.

Moreover, if a private revelation is true, it ought to be communicated as a voice of God, ought it not? Since when is the church in the business of suppressing truth? It is not an issue of "benefit to the church", it is an issue of truth. I don't see how the process of objective discernment by some authority can be avoided.

For example -- intentionally avoiding Catholic coloration of the phenomenon -- let us suppose a prayer chain is formed and prayers are offered for the healing of a parishioner, which indeed occurs without a medical explanation. How do you propose such miracle is to remain private and why should it?

Harley expresses a similar thought. Assuming we all agree that some private revelations (let us include miraculous healing and apparitions in this term) are true and others are false, as explained in the article, I find your position strange. A revelation, true or false, cannot stay private in the ordinary sense of the word: it is sensational, shrines are erected etc. A revelation is called "private" as opposed to the revealed truths proclaimed by the Church without reservation as part of its teaching, or, as a Protestant would insist, revealed as scripture.

First off, house Keeping thingys...Dangus: Thank you for your invitation to this particular thread, i deeply appreciate the concern for these matters shown here. It is of deep concern to both the Protestant and Catholic manifestations of the Church.

Annalex: Since i'm responding to your post, i'll be directing the lion's share of my comments to you.

While i'm not familiar with official Catholic doctrine on this matter, much of what we are pondering is definitional. Please forgive me as i speak for Reformed Protestantism. i'm not really qualified to speak to Catholic Doctrine, but i'd be willing to wager that we would have similar views.

DEFINITIONS

GENERAL/NATURAL REVELATION:
The revelation of the existence of God as well as certain facts about His character through the media of creation. This knowledge is not salvific. That is to say it is not sufficient for a saving faith. This is, i believe, Catholic Dogma, and can also be established from a Protestant Sola Scriptura perspective. General Revelation is UNIVERSAL. That is to say that every person has knowledge of the existence of God, and certain aspects of His character.

SPECIAL REVELATION:
This will necessitate a dichotomy between Catholicism and Protestantism. Catholisism would believe special revelation to be the content of Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition preserved by the Church. This revelation is Universal in that is applicable to THE ENTIRE CHURCH.

Protestantism would hold that the scriptures are the sum total of the Apostolic tradition, yet hold to the idea that special revelation is universal in that it is applicable to THE ENTIRE CHURCH.

"OTHER" REVELATIONS:
These external to scripture (and/or in the case of Catholicism, the Apostolic Tradition), are, if true, relevant only to A SPECIFIC SEGMENT of the church. THEY ARE NOT TO BE UNIVERSALLY APPLIED TO THE ENTIRE CHURCH.

Examples of such 'revelation' abound. It is manifested in an individual's call to a vocation, (the Sacriment of Holy Orders in the Catholic Church), or the 'illumination' of the minister of the Gospel as he prepares to proclaim that message to the assembly (the Homily in the celebration of the mass). Many other examples abound, and can (or have) include(d) the miraculous.

This kind of 'revelation' is limited in it's scope. It can refer to a single individual, a single congregation, several congregations, or perhaps a geographaical region, or a culture.

In the book of I Corinthians, Judas and Silas, being prophets preached to the Corinthians, yet their words are not recorded in the scriptural record...ever wonder why?

The canon of Scripture, and in the case of Catholicism, the Apostolic Tradition is a closed matter. As such, There will be no subsequent universal special revelation.

Moreover, if a private revelation is true, it ought to be communicated as a voice of God, ought it not? Since when is the church in the business of suppressing truth? It is not an issue of "benefit to the church", it is an issue of truth. I don't see how the process of objective discernment by some authority can be avoided.

i see no problem to the logic presented here. The only question i have would be "is the revelation universally true"? That is to say, Is God speaking to the ENTIRE church? It is the testimony of BOTH Scripture and Tradition that God has spoken to individuals. From a Sola Scriptura orientation, i'd refer you to Revelation 10:3-4. John is about to write what the Seven Thunders have uttered, yet is told not to do so. From a Catholic perspective, i'd refer you to the third secret of Fatima, which was not revealed until the papacy of JPII. If these things are true, why inded are THEY not revealed?

For example -- intentionally avoiding Catholic coloration of the phenomenon -- let us suppose a prayer chain is formed and prayers are offered for the healing of a parishioner, which indeed occurs without a medical explanation. How do you propose such miracle is to remain private and why should it?

i believe you've explained the answer in your question. ...for the healing of a parishioner

The eyewitnesses of the healing are present to see the manifestation of God's power. Why would such a thing affect outsiders any differently than the docummented miracles of scripture? It begs the question of what God is saying TO THOSE PRESENT. The message to the church universal is the same as it has always been, that God Heals.

i am not, my dear Annalex, argueing against the entirety of your position, you've brought up some interesting questions. My intention is to merely expand upon your excellent observations, and offering an explanation of why things may be as they are.

"Moreover, if a private revelation is true, it ought to be communicated as a voice of God, ought it not? Since when is the church in the business of suppressing truth?"

No, this is not what Paul states. I would suggest reviewing 1 Cor 14 but here is an excerpt:

1Co 14:27-30 If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent.

Paul is very specific on the gifts. It must be accepted and edify the church. If not than one is to keep silent.

I personally think it leads to division having witness this several times first hand. And God is not the author of division. That is why I believe revelations are for edification of your own personal self. Thank God and go on your way.