Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Open Question: Where Do We Stand?


First a note to Marko, who asked for an exposé on the un-Romanized Cistercian Missal. I found a scan of a Missale Cisterciense from 1606, thirty-one years prior to the Romanization. The text is very legible and I could certainly do a series on it after I finish the Gallican rites and a short series of posts I have planned on a few early figures in the emerging traditionalist movement. 

Now, where do we stand with regard to private apparitions? The Rad Trad asks because these apparitions have proliferated in the last two centuries and, with very few exceptions, all seem to follow a particular pattern: the Blessed Virgin Mary comes to someone young, tells him or her that God wants something to happen, there is a word about the Pope, and, sometimes, instructions to institute some sort of devotion on a specific day of the week or month.

A common feature of these apparitions is that people use them as banners for their own political causes or theological opinions. Case in point, Fatima. Everyone who has spent time with traditionalist Roman Catholics knows that a significant portion of them have a strong penchant for Fatima and has realized that the message of Fatima is somewhat fungible. Everyone from the respectable "indult" Mass goer to the FSSPX "hardliner" to the sedevacantist can reasonably lay claim the general points of Fatima, that God is punishing the Church by taking away the Mass for the failure of Popes Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI etc. to compel the bishops of the world to do some sort of consecration regarding Russia. Traditionalists look to Fatima to explain bad bishops and the absence of 1962 Masses, but they are not alone in looking to Fatima. More mainstream Catholics occasionally countenance Fatima for violence in the world and the spread of Communism. Recently I was treated to an apocalyptic sermon by a Ukrainian deacon certain that Russia's theft of Crimea pointed to the immanence of the last days.

Another issue with these apparitions is that they can be coupled together to create new messages. Archbishop Lefebvre was fond of La Salette ("Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of anti-Christ") and his ordinand, Richard Williamson, favors Akita. To a baroque minded Roman Catholic the relationship between Fatima and La Salette would be self-evident: the Pope did not carry out the Russia request, so God has punished the Church by allowing Rome—and hence the Church, because in the baroque perspective there is little distinction on this matter—to lose the faith and the Mass. To a Ukrainian Catholic, or a Melkite, or someone with a medieval mindset this interpretation would not work. And to a mainstream Roman Catholic La Salette would be "approved," but also "far off" or "not happening now."

So which is it? Who is right? Are any of them right? Does it even matter to us? Opinions on the nature of apparitions even varies. The Church calls them "private" revelations because they are not part of the deposit of faith and because Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, who according to tradition was St. John the Evangelist. I have heard one priest say that while Fatima is optional, it is not really optional. Another took a middle ground, almost to say "Whatever helps you." Recently I was told of a very medieval priest named Ronald Silk who absolutely refused these sorts of devotional apparitions.

Some readers might be aware of a lesser known approved apparition in Knock, Ireland. It is compelling both in what it is and what it is not. As the story goes, a dozen or so people witnessed several radiant white figures: a lamb on a table-like altar with a cross behind it, and to the left Ss. Mary, Joseph, and John; moved, the seers prayed the Rosary in the rain for hours. No end times messages, no popes, no new devotions. Just prayer. Does the Rad Trad believe it? No idea, but the circumstances and non-message were certainly counter-cultural at the time.

One last time: where do we stand on this?

10 comments:

  1. I'm a bit iffy about apparitions, even having had in my "own backyard". For some reason, I can't figure them into my spiritual life. The more "modest" sort, like Nock or Pont-Main, I can understand and more easily "accept" (though they still won't enter into any meaningful way to my spiritual life). Nock, for example, isn't about any end-time scenario, or impending doom. It just seems to be a "response" to the faith of the local community; Pont-Main is somewhat the same. No "scaring", no insisting on implementing a devotion, nothing. Perhaps it is the insistence on implementing certain devotions which makes them uncongenial to me, as there's a tendency to supercede them over the Liturgy, and for me the Liturgy takes first place. Not that I believe that devotions don't foster liturgical "life", but in practice it hardly ever seems that way. Am I making any sense?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I notice you didn't include Medjugorje in your remarks. Am I right in assuming that those who read
    this blog would consider it very problematic, perhaps even spurious. For myself, I do not think about
    them much and do not see myself having more than a passing interest in them. At one of the two
    churches I attend they have Fatima devotions after Mass on the first Saturday and I participate, but
    that is about it. I am a somewhat sporatic prayer of the Rosary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Medjumania has produced some very bad fruit, so I personally cannot consider its tree rooted in Our Lord. It is probably either evil or a tourist-driven hoax, so I did not group it together with other apparition which, regardless of their veracity and popularity, have at least been met with a general sense of approval.

      I pray the Rosary, but consider it something of a meditation, a lectio divina with a regular schedule. Catholics of earlier times had no issue with it and did not find it conflicted with the Liturgy or substituted for more accepted prayers. What I termed "devotionalism"—and apparitions with their prescriptions are part of that—is really a post-Trent phenomenon.

      Delete
    2. Medjugorje is clearly a sham.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8EgdKhYPvE

      "[The Church] simply permits them [private revelations] to be published for the instruction and the edification of the faithful. The assent to be given to them is not therefore an act of Catholic Faith but of human faith, based upon the fact that these revelations are probable and worthy of credence.

      "St. John of the Cross asserts that the desire for revelations deprives faith of its purity, develops a dangerous curiosity that becomes a source of illusions, fills the mind with vain fancies, and often proves the want of humility, and of submission to Our Lord, Who, through His public revelation, has given all that is needed for salvation.

      "We must suspect those apparitions that lack dignity or proper reserve, and above all, those that are ridiculous. This last charcteristic is a mark of human or diabolical machination."

      -Pope Benedict XIV

      Delete
  3. 1606 missal is still slightly romanized. 1527 has no romanizations :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes, I agree that there is a "Magisterium or Canon of Private Revelation", and it is prevalent among Traditionalists. I see it as part and parcel of the post-Tridentine devotional domination as do you. In personal experience, one cannot discuss the Liturgy per se with Fatima devotees even though that is at the heart of what our "movement" is about. Inevitably, they will find a way to discuss Fatima in any conversation, be it liturgical, political, economic, or even superficial. However, I don't find the Fatima message et al. to be as prevalent or important to the younger generations of Traditionalists.

    If the private revelation is approved; I accept its validity and may assent to it as true personally, but I do not look for it, use it in discussion with others, or keep it at the forefront of my mind. I'd much rather be working on restoring the sung Divine Office on a given Saturday morning than trumpeting Marian devotions because Fatima demands it. Priorities are upside-down because of these private apparitions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "If the private revelation is approved; I accept its validity and may assent to it as true personally, but I do not look for it, use it in discussion with others, or keep it at the forefront of my mind. I'd much rather be working on restoring the sung Divine Office on a given Saturday morning than trumpeting Marian devotions because Fatima demands it. Priorities are upside-down because of these private apparitions."

      Very much in accord.

      Delete
  5. "So which is it? Who is right? Are any of them right? Does it even matter to us? Opinions on the nature of apparitions even varies. The Church calls them "private" revelations because they are not part of the deposit of faith and because Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, who according to tradition was St. John the Evangelist. I have heard one priest say that while Fatima is optional, it is not really optional. Another took a middle ground, almost to say "Whatever helps you." Recently I was told of a very medieval priest named Ronald Silk who absolutely refused these sorts of devotional apparitions."

    I think the point made about "optional" is that, from the standpoint of purity of doctrine one could not blame anyone who rejected any particular apparition, since it is not part of the deposit of faith, but that from the standpoint of natural justice one is obliged to give credence to those to whom credence is due. And to outright reject what has been historically established from credible witnesses without valid reasons or without giving reasons for the lack of credibility of the witnesses could then be considered a fault. I think Hilaire Belloc spoke of this principle in relation to the outcome of some historic battle which was so incredibly unprobable as to almost defy belief, but which was attested to by so many witnesses and historic records that it would have been folly to deny the sequence of events. He then concluded, that on the same grounds one should also believe in miracles if they were historically ascertainable. Or maybe it was Chesterton, they kind of melt together for me sometimes.

    As for Fatima, I do think it is a true apparition of Our Lady and pray daily for the Consecration of Russia. But, as with anything, it can become something that excludes all other facets of Christian life. I don't see it as an either/or though. I am mostly a Hullian in outlook, but still think that Fatima is important for our day and age, as a prophecy for our times. Just as social justice is a fundamental part of Catholic life, though not to the exclusion of Liturgy, which of course is intrinsically linked to the fabric of society, companionship and culture.

    David

    ReplyDelete
  6. I tend to believe in all apparitions which involve saints or approval by local bishops which occurred decades ago. I tend to have little interest in reading or knowing every detail of them. I lack personal devotion to any particular apparition.

    I do not entirely understand why apparitions are so popular, other than any sort of miracle or story of a saint is popular. I think that devotion to the Blessed Ever Virgin Mary tends to lead to sympathy toward some type of apparition to her. To some extent it is a natural outgrowth.

    I think that apparitions are also an outlet for involving oneself in mysticism when mysticism is less present in the novus ordo mass.

    So to a certain extent I believe that apparitions fill a void that was filled moreso by other devotions and aspects of worship or meditation centuries ago.

    I guess I respect all of them, and yet do not take the time to deeply research or involve myself in anyone in particular, but I do sample them all from time to time. There are too many other interesting things to do...

    I speculate that the Byzantine rite churches have a healthier view of apparitions than does the Latin rite church. But than again perhaps this is only a unique difference between them which is neither better or worse here or there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Historically apparitions have been occurring for over a thousand years, yet they were not quite as prominent in the middle ages as they have been lately. They did not stand apart as unique as much until now, since many other miracles occurred as well..Some change in them seems to have evolved over time, perhaps as personal devotions and theological emphasis evolved (for better or for worse.).

      Delete