REVELATION
REVELATIONS
claim of certain Modernist writers that their views
on the evolution of dogma were connected with New-
man's theory of development is the merest figment.
Ottiger, Theologia fundamentalis (FreihuTg, 1897) ; Vacant, Eludes Theologiques sur le Concile du Vatican (Paris, 1895) ; Lebachelet, De I'apologetique traditionelle et I' apologelique mo- derne (Paris, 1897) ; Db Brogue, Religion et Critique (Paris, 1906) ; Blondel, Lettre sur les Exigences de la Pensee moderne en matiire apologetique in Annales de la Philos: Chretienne (Paris, 1896). On private revelations: Suarez, De Fide, disp. Ill, sect. 10; Franzelin, De Scriptura et Traditione, Th. xxii (Rome, 1870); PouLAiN, Graces of Interior Prayer, pt. IV, tr. (London, 1910). On development of doctrine: Bainvel, De magislerio vivo et traditione (Paris, 1905) ; Vacant, op. cit., II, p. 281 seq.; Pinard, art. Dogme in Diet. Apologetique de la Foi Catholique, ed. d'Al^s (Paris, 1910); O'Dwyer, Cardinal Newman and the Encyclical Pascendi (London, 1908).
Among those who from one point of view or another have con- troverted the Christian doctrine of Revelation the following may be mentioned: Paine, Age of Reason (ed. 1910), 1-30; F. W. Newman, Phases of Faith (4th ed., London, 1854); Sabatier, Esquisse d'une philosophic de la religion, I, ii (Paris, 1902); Pfleiderer, Religionsphilosophie auf geschichtlicher Grundlage (Berlin, 1896), 493 seq.; Loisy, Autour d'un petit livre (Paris, 1903), 192 sqq.; Wilson, art. Revelation and Modern Thought in Cambridge Theol. Essays (London, 1905); Tyrrell, Through Scylla and Charybdis (London, 1907), ii; Martineau, Seat of Authority in Religion, III, ii (London, 1890).
G. H. Joyce. Revelation, Book of. See Apocalypse.
Revelations, Private. — There are two kinds of revelations: (1) universal revelations, which are con- tained in the Bible or in the depositum of Apostolic tradition transmitted by the Church. These ended with the preaching of the Apostles and must be be- lieved by all; (2) particular or private revelations which are constantly occurring among Christians (see Contemplation). When the Church approves pri- vate revelations, she declares only that there is nothing in them contrary to faith or good morals, and that they may be read without danger or even with profit; no obligation is thereby imposed on the faith- ful to believe them. Speaking of such revelations as (e. g.) those of St. HiMcgard (;ii)pr()ved in part by Eugcnius III), St. Bridget (by Boniface IX), and St. Catherine of Siena (by (Iregory XI) Benedict XIV says: "It is not ol)ligatory, nor even possil)le to give them the assent of Catholic faith, but only of human faith, in conformity with the dictates of prudence, which presents them to us as probable and worthy of pious belief" (De canon., Ill, liii, 15; II, x.xii, II).
Illusions connected with private revelations have been explained in the article Contemplation. Some of them are at first thought suri)rising. Thus a vision of an historical scene (e. g., of the life or death of Christ) is often only approximately accurate, although the visionary may be unaware of this fact, and he may be misled, if he believes in its absolute historical fidel- ity. This error is quite natural, being bused on the assumption that, if the vision comes from (lod, all its details (the landscape, dress, words, a(;tions, etc.) should be a faithful reproduction of the historic past. This assumption is not justified, for accuracy in secondary details is not necessary; the main point is that the fact, event, or communication revealed be strictly true. It may be objected that the Bible con- tains historical books, and that thus God may some- times wish to reveal certain facts in religious history to us exactly. That doubtless is true, when there is question of facts which are necessary or useful as a basis for religion, in which case the revelation is accompanied by proofs that guarantee its accuracy. A vision need not guarantee its accuracy in every detail. One should thus beware of concluding without examination that revelations are to be rejected; the prudent course is neither to believe nor to deny them unless there is sufficient reason for so doing. Much less should one suspect, that the saints have been al- ways or very often deceived in their vision. On the contrary, such deception is rare, and as a rule in un- important matters only.
There are cases in which we can be certain that a
revelation is Divine. (1) God can give this certainty
to the person who receives the revelation (at least
during it), by granting an insight and an evidence so
compelling as to exclude all possibility of doubt. We
can find an analogy in the natural order: our senses
are subject to many illusions, and yet we frequently
perceive clearly that we have not been deceived. (2)
At times others can be equally certain of the revela-
tion thus vouchsafed. For instance, the Prophets of
the Old Testament gave indubitable signs of their
mission; otherwise they would not have been believed.
There were always false prophets, who deceived some
of the people, but, inasmuch as the faithful were
counselled by Holy Writ to distinguish the false from
the true, it was possible so to distinguish. One incon-
trovertible proof is the working of a miracle, if it be
wrought for this purpose and circumstances show this
to be so. A prophecy reaHzed is equally convincing,
when it is precise and cannot be the result of chance
or of a conjecture of the evil spirit.
Besides these rather rare means of forming an opinion, there is another, but longer and more intricate method: to discuss the reasons for and against. Practically, this examination will often give only a probability more or less great. It may be also that the revelation can be regarded as Divine in its broad out- lines, but doubtful in minor details. Concerning the revelations of Marie de Agreda and Anne Catherine Emmerich, for example, contradictory opinions have been expressed: some believe unhesitatingly every- thing they contain, and are annoyed when anyone docs not share their confidence; others give the revelations no credence whatsoever (generally on a priori grounds) ; finally there are many who are sym- pathetic, but do not know what to reply when askc^d what degree of credibility is to be attributed to the writings of these two ecstatics. The truth seems to be between the two extreme opinions indicated first. If there is question of a particular fact related in these books and not mentioned elsewhere, we cannot be certain that it is true, expecially in minor details. In part icular instances, these visionaries have been mis- taken: thus Marie de Agreda tcac^hes, like her con- temi)oraries, the existence of cry.slal lieavens, and de- clares that one must believe every) liing slie says, al- though such an obligation exists only in tlie case of the Holy Scriptures. In 1771 Clement XIV forbade the continuation of her process of l)eaf ilicalion "on account of the book". Catherine Emmerich has like- wise given expression to false or unlikely oj)inions: she regards the writings of the pseudo-Dionysius as due to the Areopagite, and says strange things about the terrestrial Paradise, which, according to her, exists on an inaccessible mountain towards Tibet. If there be question of the general statement of facts given in these works, we can admit with probability that many of them are true. For these two vision- aries led liv(>s that wcsre rcigarded as very holy. Com- petent authorities liave judged their ecsta.sies divine. It is therefore prudent to aclmit that they received a special aissistance from God, preserving them not absolutely, but in the main, from error.
In judging of revelations or visions we may proceed in this manner: (a) get detailed information about the person who believes himself thus favoured; (b) also about the fact of the revelation and the circumstances attending it. To prove that a revelation is Divine (at least in its general outlines), the method of exclu- sion is sometimes employed. It consists in proving that neither the demon nor the ecstatic's own ideas have interfered (at, least on important points) with God's action, and that no one has retouched the revela- tion after its occurrence. This method differs from the preceding one only in the manner of arranging the information obtained, but it is not so convenient. To judg(^ revelations or vision.s, we must be acqviainted with the character of the person favoured with them
