 |
| Illustration from Bamberg Apocalypse (1000-1030) |
ANGELISM
“Some people tend to go to one extreme or the other on private
revelation; they either completely reject the concept or they consider private
revelation their chief rule of faith. The original sixteenth century Protestant
Reformers denied all private revelation.”
—“What the
Early Church Believed: Private Revelations,” Catholic Answers
“Angelism” the way I use the term refers to the following:
“Some people tend to go to one extreme...on private revelation;...they
consider private revelation their chief rule of faith.”
Private revelation morally binds only the person who receives the
revelation. It does not morally obligate the entire Church. We Roman Catholics
are free, for example, not to believe in the apparitions at Lourdes (although
I, personally, do not see a good reason not to).
The term “angelism” according to the above meaning originates from this
Biblical verse:
But even if...an angel from heaven should preach [to you] a gospel
other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!
(Galatians 1:8)
The dictionary meaning of “angelism” is different from the foregoing
but related:
“the regarding of human affairs from an unrealistically sanguine point
of view as though human beings were angels”
—“angelism,”
Merriam-Webster
Notably, Saint Josemaria Escriva extends to members of Opus Dei the
moral obligation—it is represented as a matter of conscience—to abide by, that
is, to believe in his own private revelation and to obey its encompassing
ramifications.
Claiming to be the fountainhead of divine knowledge about the “path” of
Opus Dei members, Escriva required of them religious obedience either to
himself or to the Opus Dei directors to whom he delegated his authority.
Note: Excerpts below are from Opus
Dei as Divine Revelation (2016) by E. B. E.—it is an English translation
from the Spanish, not fully corrected, so I have made appropriate corrections
of my own.
begin block quote Go away doubts, vacillations, and hesitations! I saw
the path, I undertook it, and I keep on it. [J. M. Escriva, “Instruction,” May
1935] end block quote (page 196)
begin block quote I know very well, my children, what is the path you
have chosen after being selected by the Lord. …You have not chosen the path.
You must answer the call from God by telling him: Ecce ego quia vocasti me!”
[J. M. Escriva, quoted in “Meditaciones,” I, page 287] end block quote (page
197)
Maria del Carmen Tapia, Beyond
the Threshold (1998), testifies:
“...No divergence from [Escriva’s] opinion was allowed. Dialogue does
not exist in Opus Dei. You do things because they are done ‘just so.’ ‘Just so’
means that everything is carried out according to the instructions sent by the
Father. No one with ‘good spirit’ dares to deviate a fraction of an inch when
the Father gives suggestions. ...Everything is always based on the claim that
‘God wants things thus.’” (page 146)
Thomas Merton alludes to aggressive proponents of their own private
revelations in New Seeds of Contemplation
(1972):
“The most dangerous man in the world is the contemplative who is guided
by nobody. He trusts his own visions. He obeys the attractions of an interior
voice but will not listen to other men. He identifies the will of God with
anything that makes him feel, within his own heart, a big, warm, sweet interior
glow. The sweeter and the warmer the feeling is the more he is convinced of his
own infallibility. And if the sheer force of his own self-confidence
communicates itself to other people and gives them the impression that he is
really a saint, such a man can wreck a whole city or a religious order or even
a nation. The world is covered with scars that have been left in its flesh by
visionaries like these.” (pages 194-95)
Significantly, Escriva repudiated the spiritual authority of his own
spiritual director and confessor when it suited him:
“Fr. Sanchez—who up to that point had always encouraged our Father
[Escriva] to remain faithful to his founding charism—declared rather curtly
that the Holy See could never approve the Work, and cited as proof the numbers
of several canons. Then he handed back the documents and dismissed us.
“…By way of response [Escriva] simply reiterated his confidence that
since the Work had come from God, God would keep it safe and bring it to
fruition. He then added, gently but firmly, that he could no longer go to
confession to Fr. Sanchez, because he no longer had confidence in him.”
—Cesare Cavalleri, Immersed in
God: Blessed Josemaria Escriva, founder of Opus Dei, as seen by his successor,
Bishop Alvaro del Portillo (1996), page 104
Escriva’s autocratic, domineering character suggests that the above is
not an isolated case.
Ironic that Escriva should require the blind, absolute obedience of
Opus Dei members to religious and spiritual authority in the organization when
he allowed himself the freedom to discern for himself his own decisions
concerning his own spiritual life and to act accordingly.
Public domain image
ReplyDeleteImage link:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BambergApocalypseFolio025vAngelWithLittleBook.JPG
Gonzalinho
Not everything we are taught has its origins in the bedrock of our being—in God. Much of it is imposed by man-made institutions, whether social, political, or ecclesiastical, with very human and sometimes very questionable motives. As I sift through some of the received ‘truths’ of our society, or the doctrines, rules, and regulations that have been built into the edifice of the organized religions, the line from Porgy and Bess wafts through my mind: ‘It ain’t necessarily so!’
ReplyDeleteIf you find yourself in this place of questioning, wondering increasingly just how much of what is being received has its origins in God and how much is coming from very flawed and human agents, then you may want to spend quality time sifting through your own experience, asking for the grace to discern what to keep, what to set aside, and what to resist. No one can do this for you, though such a discernment process is best carried out with an understanding, non-judgmental, and non-directive listening companion alongside you.
I would merely leave you with one little litmus test: ‘Does this (doctrine, rule, practice, etc.) stem from fear or from love? Is it leading to an increase of love, trust, and hope for myself and for the entire community of the human family and all creation, or is it leading to division, distrust, and despair?’
In Margaret Silf, Companions of Christ: Ignatian Spirituality for Everyday Living (2007), pages 80-81
Gonzalinho
We have to be careful that the call to faith does not become the excuse of the credulous, unreasoning, or craven. Genuine faith is based on the power of God. “If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God who gives to all generously and ungrudgingly, and he will be given it. But he should ask in faith, not doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed about by the wind.” (James 1:5-6) The gift of unerring discernment is as a rule rare. In the final analysis, we should profess unwavering faith only in that which is the object of unerring discernment.
ReplyDeleteGonzalinho
PAPA FRANCESCO’S PRAYER INTENTION FOR MARCH 2018
ReplyDeleteThe times in which we live demand that we develop a profound capacity of discernment… To discern, from among all the voices we hear, which is the Lord’s voice, which is the voice of Him who guides us to the Resurrection, to Life, and the voice that frees us from falling into the “culture of death.”
Every Christian ought to grow in the ability to “read within” his or her life, and to understand where and to what he or she is being called by the Lord, in order to carry on his mission.
Let us pray together that the Church may appreciate the urgency of formation in spiritual discernment, both on the personal and communitarian levels.
Link: http://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2018-03/pope-francis--prayer-intention-for-march.html
Gonzalinho
THE GURU’S CAT
ReplyDeleteWhen the guru sat down to worship each evening
the ashram cat would
get in the way and distract the
worshipers. So he ordered that
the cat be tied during evening
worship.
After the guru died the cat
continued to be tied during evening
worship. And when the cat
expired, another cat was
brought to the ashram so that it
could be duly tied during evening
worship.
Centuries later learned treatises
were written by the guru’s scholarly disciples
on the liturgical significance
of tying up a cat
while worship is performed.
In Anthony de Mello, S.J., The Song of the Bird (1984), page 63
Gonzalinho
Private Revelation Does Not Guarantee Truth or Rectitude
ReplyDeletePosted on Amazon.com on September 7, 2000
Minor editing on original post
It is more accurate to say that Opus Dei is a mixture of what is good and holy, along with beliefs and practices that are not only questionable but arguably immoral. No one can quarrel, for example, with the value of prayerful devotion or the practice of Christian asceticism. However, the outright deception of parents in the name of the virtue of prudence clearly transgresses the eighth commandment against lying. The practice of taking parents’ possessions and transferring them to the Opus Dei centers without the parents’ knowledge, a practice that during my stay in Opus Dei was encouraged directly in writing by Father Alvaro del Portillo, citing “the example of our holy Founder,” the then deceased Msgr. Josemaria Escriva, also transgresses the seventh commandment against stealing. What are patently immoral practices can only be justified by misguided casuistry.
The notion that Opus Dei ideology and praxis is entirely the product of divine inspiration is, in my opinion, theologically insupportable. Much of Opus Dei ideology and praxis originates from Blessed Escriva, if we are to believe historical testimony as well as the practice among Opus Dei directors of citing Blessed Escriva to justify what is often called the Opus Dei “spirit.” Yet we must acknowledge that the source of this spirit is Blessed Escriva’s claim to private revelation, which belongs to a very different category of truth from the depositum fidei of the Church. Indeed, in many cases it seems that Opus Dei beliefs and practices, as is evident from Ms. Tapia’s account, may just as well be the product of human judgment, preference, and opinion.
Father Escriva’s beatification and probable canonization do not alter this equation because the papal act of beatification does not necessarily sanction Blessed Escriva’s claim when he was alive that he, as the Founder of Opus Dei, is the sole source and arbiter of a divinely communicated system of belief and practice. One has only to read the history of the Church and peruse copies of original documents to realize that in notable instances, the saints made mistakes that in the context of current knowledge and modern mores might very well be regarded as disgraceful. Some of the saints’ mystical writings also show them to be recipients of private revelations that turned out to be false.
Instead of assuming that what has been passed on from Blessed Escriva is divinely inspired in its entirety, I believe that it is a more accurate theology to recognize that the truth and value of private revelation is manifest in its effects: “By their fruits you shall know them” (Matthew 7:20). It goes without saying that systemic aspects of Opus Dei ideology and praxis have had very negative effects on individuals who joined the organization under the impulse of unknowing idealism, including Ms. Tapia.
Therefore, to cite or criticize the negative aspects of Opus Dei does not necessarily constitute “slander,” an emotionally charged word that tends to obfuscate the issues raised by what may very well be legitimate criticism. Insofar as Ms. Tapia testifies to harmful aspects of Opus Dei that are consistently confirmed by many former members, including myself, she is simply telling the truth.
To be continued
Private Revelation Does Not Guarantee Truth or Rectitude
ReplyDeletePosted on Amazon.com on September 7, 2000
Minor editing on original post
Continued
I emphatically attest that numerous beliefs and practices of Opus Dei have worked to the harm, at times severely damaging, of many former members, including Ms. Tapia, as well as their families, and that this abuse is insupportably justified by invoking a divine mandate. In consequence, it is my sincere desire that Opus Dei reform itself in specific aspects, for the sake of many aggrieved persons and for the protection of the next generation. Reform entails the rejection of important aspects of Blessed Escriva’s idiosyncratic legacy. I earnestly hope that the little I have written will work toward enlightenment and genuine reform. We should not have to wait as long as Galileo did for rectification.
Gonzalinho
“There is much room for error in private revelations, even when they are given to Saints (cf. file on discernment of spirits). Canonization of a Saint does not at all guarantee the truth of alleged private revelations.”
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/public-and-private-revelation-12423
—Father William Most, “Public and Private Revelation,” EWTN: Global Catholic Network
Gonzalinho
There is a large quantity of private revelation swimming around the world. As a result, our understanding of sound criteria for dealing with them assumes no small importance. In this application the religious and spiritual authority of the Roman Catholic Church plays a critical role. At the same time we have to be constantly aware that the exercise of this unique authority is rarely infallible and that it is subject to abuse.
ReplyDeleteBeloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.—1 John 4:1
Gonzalinho
Escriva’s claims of divine revelation are highly problematic. I would say that in some cases the devil co-opts Opus Dei beliefs and practices directly deriving from Escriva. His canonization makes the issue even more problematic than it already is. The fact that Opus Dei by its own admission has made changes in beliefs and practices that were originally derived from Escriva—also, by Opus Dei's own admission—only serves to confirm the critical point that I am making.
ReplyDeleteGonzalinho
ARE WE OBLIGED TO BELIEVE PRIVATE REVELATIONS?
ReplyDeleteThe texts cited below come from this source:
https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/our-obligation-towards-private-revelations/
—Thomas V. Mirus, “Our obligation toward private revelations,” Catholic Culture, December 20, 2023
To cite the most authoritative teachings on our obligation to believe private revelations, we should reference ecumenical councils or popes.
The first two citations below are from ecumenical councils. They basically say that officially appointed authorities in the Church should be tasked to judge the genuineness of the private revelations.
Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 12:
“It is not only through the sacraments and the ministries of the Church that the Holy Spirit sanctifies and leads the people of God and enriches it with virtues, but, ‘allotting his gifts to everyone according as He wills, He distributes special graces among the faithful of every rank. By these gifts He makes them fit and ready to undertake the various tasks and offices which contribute toward the renewal and building up of the Church, according to the words of the Apostle: ‘The manifestation of the Spirit is given to everyone for profit’. These charisms, whether they be the more outstanding or the more simple and widely diffused, are to be received with thanksgiving and consolation for they are perfectly suited to and useful for the needs of the Church. Extraordinary gifts are not to be sought after, nor are the fruits of apostolic labor to be presumptuously expected from their use; but judgment as to their [genuineness] and proper use belongs to those who are appointed leaders in the Church, to whose special competence it belongs, not indeed to extinguish the Spirit, but to test all things and hold fast to that which is good.”
Lateran V (1516), Session 11a:
“If the Lord reveals to certain of them, by some inspiration, some future events in the church of God, as he promises by the prophet Amos and as the apostle Paul, the chief of preachers, says, Do not quench the Spirit, do not despise prophesying, we have no wish for them to be counted with the other group of story-tellers and liars or to be otherwise hindered. For, as Ambrose bears witness, the grace of the Spirit himself is being extinguished if fervour in those beginning to speak is quietened by contradiction. In that case, a wrong is certainly done to the holy Spirit. The matter is important inasmuch as credence must not be easily given to every spirit and, as the Apostle states, the spirits have to be tested to see whether they come from God. It is therefore our will that as from now, by common law, alleged inspirations of this kind, before they are published, or preached to the people, are to be understood as reserved for examination by the apostolic see. If it is impossible to do this without danger of delay, or some pressing need suggests other action, then, keeping the same arrangement, notice is to be given to the local ordinary so that, after he has summoned three or four knowledgeable and serious men and carefully examined the matter with them, they may grant permission if this seems to them to be appropriate. We lay the responsibility for this decision on their consciences.”
To be continued
Gonzalinho
ARE WE OBLIGED TO BELIEVE PRIVATE REVELATIONS?
DeleteContinued
We agree with the theological view below.
Cardinal Lambertini (Pope Benedict XIV), Heroic Virtue, Vol. 3 (1738), p. 394:
“What is to be said of those to whom the revelations are directed…he to whom that private revelation is proposed and announced, ought to believe and obey the command or message of God, if it be proposed to him on sufficient evidence; for God speaks to him, at least by means of another, and therefore requires him to believe; hence it is, that he is bound to believe God, Who requires him to do so.”
Apparently, Cardinal Lambertini was not pope yet at the time he wrote the above text.
The key qualifier in the text is “on sufficient evidence.” In other words, the obligation to believe in the private revelation depends on the evaluation of the evidence by those who have received the private revelation and by those to whom it is directed.
Gonzalinho