Blog warning against a false 'visionary' Maria Divine Mercy and her cult



By David Moorcroft 

In every case of alleged private revelation, i.e., apparitions, visions, locutions and prophetic messages, the canonical authority for investigating and discerning such claims is the Ordinary of the Place, i.e., in nearly all cases the local Bishop. He has universal jurisdiction in such matters: his decision is binding in obedience on all Catholics. He may reach one of three judgments:

(1) ‘constat de supernaturalitate’ - it is established that these alleged events are supernatural, i.e., heavenly origin;

(2) ‘non constat de supernaturalitate’ - a supernatural source of these events has not been established;It is futile to wait for a Papal pronouncement to overrule these decisions: no Pope has ever ruled on any private revelation.

(3) ‘constat de non supernaturalitate’ – it is established that there is no supernatural source of these alleged events.

In all case where the local Bishop has not given a ‘constat’ judgment, the judicial position of the Church is:
Pope Paul VI

“The interpretation given by some individuals to a Decision approved by Paul VI on 14th October 1966 and promulgated on 15th November of that year, in virtue of which writings and messages resulting from alleged revelations could be freely circulated in the Church, is absolutely groundless. 

This decision actually referred to the ‘abolition of the Index of Forbidden Books’ and determined that – after the relevant censures were lifted – the moral obligation still remained of not circulating or reading those writings which endanger faith and morals.It should be recalled however that with regard to the circulation of texts of alleged private revelations, canon 623 #1 of the current Code remains in force:

The Pastors of the Church have the right to demand that writings to be published by the Christian faithful, which touch upon faith or morals, be submitted to their judgment

“Alleged supernatural revelations and writings concerning them are submitted in the first instance to the judgment of the diocesan Bishop, and, in particular cases, to the judgment of the Episcopal Conference and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.” (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 23rd October, 1995.)

In cases where the Local Bishop has returned a judgment of ‘non constat - ’, or ‘constat de non supernaturalitate’, the situation is clear. It is forbidden, therefore a sin, to propagate any alleged private revelation which has received a negative judgment from the local Bishop, an Episcopal Conference or the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. 

It is futile to wait for a Papal pronouncement to overrule these decisions: no Pope has ever ruled on any private revelation.

1 comment: