The new and long-awaited Vatican document laying out norms for discerning apparitions was released today. It at least appears free of some of the unmitigated disasters I was concerned it might contain (i.e., implications that messages speaking of chastisements must be false). There are, however, some major problems here nevertheless. Apparitions The new and long-awaited Vatican document laying out norms for discerning apparitions was released today. It at least appears free of some of the unmitigated disasters I was concerned it might contain (i.e., implications that messages speaking of chastisements must be false). There are, however, some major problems here nevertheless. Most significantly, there is essentially now no such thing as an approved apparition, and no Bishop may rule on an apparition without the Vatican’s own permission. Like “Traditionis Custodes,” wherein the Vatican moved against the Latin Mass–taking power away from individual Bishops, consolidating it in the Roman Curia, and presenting all sorts of obstacles to the celebration of the beautiful and holy Traditional Mass–this document does similar things to apparitions. “Constat de supernaturalitate” – “it is supernatural”– is no longer a permissible decree for any Bishop to give to an apparition, and all a Bishop can do is present his case, on discerning an apparition, to the Vatican. Also, instead of the traditional three judgments, there are now a full six, and “approved” is not one of them. Here are the traditional three: Constat De Supernaturalitate; i.e., approved: it is from Heaven, Non Constat de Supernaturalitate; i.e., it cannot be said one way or another (contrary to what most commenters seem to think, this is & was NOT a condemnation) Constat de Non Supernaturalitate; i.e., condemned; it is not from Heaven. Here are the new six: 1°. Nihil obstat 2°. Prae oculis habeatur 3°. Curatur 4°. Sub mandato 5°. Prohibetur et obstruatur 6°. Declaratio de non supernaturalitate As you can see, “it is supernatural” is now removed; the “best” conclusion is now “nihil obstat;” i.e., nothing obstructs. Here is how the document describes it: 17. Nihil obstat – Without expressing any certainty about the supernatural authenticity of the phenomenon itself, many signs of the action of the Holy Spirit are acknowledged “in the midst”[18] of a given spiritual experience, and no aspects that are particularly critical or risky have been detected, at least so far. The remaining five conclusions that a Bishop may come to, regarding an apparition, are each in their own way at least somewhat negative. The sixth option remains the same as the traditional third; “22. Declaratio de non supernaturalitate – In this situation, the Dicastery authorizes the Diocesan Bishop to declare that the phenomenon is found to be not supernatural.” Although the document of course does not say this bluntly, the take-away nevertheless seems clear enough to me: Bishops are encouraged to move against apparitions as quickly as possible, and they now have five separate ways of doing so; provided in hopes that they will feel comfortable with at least one of them. At the same time, they are reminded that they lack any real authority of their own here; their job is merely to do the grunt work of investigating apparitions, then submit their work to the Vatican, who can then graciously allow them to give some sort of a negative judgment or, at best (and I’m sure this will be exceedingly rare), give a “nihil obstat.” Many recent messages–that I am quite confident in the authenticity of–have warned that the Devil will soon act, in the Church, against the plans of God. I am not accusing this Vatican document of heresy and I am not saying it is directly opposed to God. But what I am concerned about is that it will be used for precisely this purpose; used for putting an end to all these pesky prophets through whom God calls the Church to holiness and faithfulness, not to worldliness and “synodality.” Indeed, the men in the Vatican today generally do not want to hear the message of the prophets. I am not hereby advocating for disobedience against norms clearly defined in formally promulgated Church decrees that may be imminent. (Though we must be careful to not exaggerate what exactly obedience requires in such cases.) The Church does indeed have the power to put a stop to the promulgation of private revelations. I am merely pointing out that if this happens—if the Vatican embarks upon a still more zealous program of silencing the prophets—then the mere fact it has done so is no indication that this is God’s Will. Obviously, the infallibility of the Church has nothing to do with such acts as that, which are often overturned later. If that is what happens–if we see these holy men and women who are hearing from Heaven moved against–then we should not be surprised, nor should we regard it as any refutation of what the prophecies have said. On the contrary, such actions will, themselves, merely be the immediate precursors to the long-prophesied events themselves unfolding. Heaven will not long tolerate being silenced. That much is certain. How my critics will respond to this is predictable: “But Daniel, you are referring to prophecies that haven’t been given a nihil obstat from this newly invented Vatican process!! Therefore, they–and you–must be wrong!” That is begging the question; it is circular reasoning. By saying such things as that, my critics are assuming that there cannot be a time wherein the Vatican moves against the authentic prophets… in their very attempt to argue that there cannot be a time wherein the Vatican moves against the authentic prophets. Such “reasoning” as that will doubtless flourish among certain career lay apologists who have long been foaming at the mouth against private revelation, but it will not work on people of good will. Criteria for Discernment The most important part of any document such as this may be the criteria considered positive and negative, in the process of discernment. Those seem mostly good in this document. However, there is one particularly strange item, and…
