Having received the consent of the person who posted this (MurphE), I would welcome some discussion from non-Catholics about the sensibility of this excellent explanation of Catholic belief regarding universal revelation and private revelations. The article is a tad long, but the doctrinal issues are covered early on,the latter material is just specifics.
I know you have excellent ping lists (of Calvinists and Anglicans, respectively). Would you kindly ping them, if you agree that they make for good discussion?
I am a member of the Calvinist Swarm, and these are my views after reading the article:
I am opposed to all these things precisely because I do believe in genuine private revelations and their role in the life of the Church.
What role do "revelations" serve in the life of the church? It wasn't clear to me from reading the article what benefit they serve. I see a lot of negatives, in that these "sightings," bring superstition and disbelief and take the focus away from true worship.
To know if something is false, it suffices to know that it says something contrary to the teaching of the Church....
For a Calvinist, it suffices to know that is says something contrary to the teaching of Scripture, as stated ...God does not contradict himself
No private individual has the authority to judge definitively and officially which private revelations are true and which are not. The authority to rule on the genuineness of a private revelation rests first with the local Bishop.
Of course, I disagree with this because as already stated, God does not contradict himself, so Scripture will suffice as the judge.
Can you say publicly that an approved revelation is not genuine? Yes, if you want to. The Church never orders you to accept any private revelation. But any such disagreement should be voiced respectfully.
With all due respect, I see no benefit for the church in "approved" or "unapproved" revelations.