Karl Rahner S.J. - The Theology of Private Revelations

Karl Rahner in 1974

Karl Rahner, born March 5, 1904, in Freiburg im Breisgau (German Empire) and died March 30, 1984, in Innsbruck (Austria), was a German Jesuit priest, writer, and professor of theology, recognized as one of the most eminent Christian theologians of the 20th century. He had a great influence on the Second Vatican Council, of which he was one of the experts. Arriving in Rome as a theologian for Cardinal Franz König, Archbishop of Vienna in Austria, he was appointed in 1962 by John XXIII as an expert (peritus) to the Theological Commission of the Second Vatican Council, where he played an important role in the preparation of the major conciliar texts Lumen gentium and Dei Verbum, partly on the thorny question of the relationship between Scripture and Tradition: it was important to substitute the traditional Catholic language of the 'Two Sources of Revelation' with that of a single reference to the 'Word of God'.

He did not speak directly about the work of Maria Valtorta, but his note on the theology of private revelations was selected by Brother Chrysostom Castel (ocso) to appear at the head of his website and recommended by Mgr Roman Danylak who emphasized its importance.

PRIVATE REVELATIONS - Original English Text

SOME THEOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONSKARL RAHNER, S. J.

WE treat here of those "private revelations" which are not only related to the spiritual life of a particular individual, but which, however "private" they may be, are addressed to the Church or to an important part of the Church through the intermediary of their direct beneficiary: that is, private revelations which represent a new devotion, exhort us to penitence, communicate certain instructions, put us on guard against some Doctrine, recommend a spiritual instruction or a kind of spirituality, etc. Such revelations have existed in the course of the Church's history, and they have certainly exercised an important influence.

Ordinarily, when one talks of these revelations in Catholic milieus, only their psychological aspect is fastened upon, or the problem of the criteria of authenticity and the truth of their content.

No one would dream of fighting with the legitimacy of these considerations or even calling them into doubt. We believe, however, that such a study stops short at only one aspect of the problem. It should be completed by a theological study.

It is true that it will be said, perhaps, that theology does study the problem; that it takes on all its value partly in fundamental theology and partly in mystical theology. Undoubtedly. But these studies are insufficient and do not touch upon the point of view which we want to underline here.

Mystical theology treats only of the psychological aspect of the genesis of a private revelation, its modes and its criteria of authenticity and truth. In addition, mystical theology, like fundamental theology, affirms only this: God can reveal Himself -- in the strict sense of verbal revelation -- and give to the beneficiary of the revelation a sufficient certitude of the Divine origin of his or her personal experience through some internal or external criteria. Private revelations, then, are possible; and to recognize their authenticity and the truth of their content is the work of the immediate recipient first of all; and then, if there exist any external criteria, it is the work also of others. The immediate recipient, at least, can have the right and even the duty of adhering by an act of faith to their content.

Theology, let us add, still insists on the fact that "official revelation", public revelation, was completed with the death of the last apostle; posterior revelations, then, do not belong to the revealed deposit of the Church; they are "private" revelations. There cannot be any obligation of giving to them an adherence of "Catholic faith".

In principle, the Church could not and ought not to occupy herself with them except in the measure in which she decides if these revelations are reconcilable with her deposit of revealed faith, in order to leave them subsequently to the free "human faith" of the faithful.

1 - Traditional positions

Now this traditional opinion, however just in its positive aspect, is from two points of view, incomplete.

On the one hand, this "theology" of private revelations remains in fact too negative. Because when one takes as a point of departure the fact that "public" revelation is closed, revelations called "private" are only defined then negatively. Consequently, it is difficult to develop a strictly theological theory of their meaning and necessity in the Church -- a meaning which they have certainly had throughout history. The outlines only sketched by Scripture of a theology of prophetism within the Church and for the Church are, on the whole, not developed.

Far more: it could be said -- with a little exaggeration, perhaps -- that the history of mystical theology is a history of a "devaluing" of prophetism, at least speculatively, and of putting the value on infused contemplation: that is, a "pure", not a prophetic, contemplation. As a result of unfortunate experiences, and so not completely without reason, we are more distrustful in regard to this prophetic mysticism which appeals to revelations and oracles from on high to assign itself a Mission or right in the Church, and to exercise an influence therein by its warnings and directives. More distrustful, at least, than in regard to that mysticism of pure contemplation, "without images" and "ineffable". Because the first is more dangerous than the second, since it more easily risks entering into conflict with the official, permanent organisms of the Church. Yet it too has its foundation in Scripture and, in fact, its own great history in the Church; although the theorists strive to demonstrate that even without these prophets posterior to Christ, we already know all that they reveal.

Still, there is never any orthodox theology which does not interest itself in the existence of these prophets in the post-apostolic Church, as well as in the manner in which one recognizes and distinguishes their character, in the essential importance of their function, in their position with regard to the Hierarchy, and in the meaning of their Mission for the interior and exterior life of the Church.

In a theology of prophetism in the Church, there should certainly be more than one useful element of a general mystical theology, and particularly, of its teaching on private revelations. Since up till now, however, mystical theology does not consider these phenomena except under their "private" aspect, neglecting the ecclesial aspect, one could not claim that it is a theology of prophetism.

In the middle ages, there was certainly a theology of "charisms"; but because there was not yet an awareness of the meaning of history, one could hardly posit with precision the question of the significance, for the birth and growth of the Church, of prophetism as a living manifestation of the Spirit.

Prophetism has existed at all times in the Church. But, as on the other side, there is danger of seeing the Spirit "quenched" if one does not take care; so theology, though incapable of giving existence to this prophetism (which has no need of theology in order to exist and act), does not prove to be a sterile reflection. It could rather be a safeguard for not allowing the Spirit to be quenched or room to be given to the complaint of the psalmist: "There is no longer any prophet." (Ps. 74: 9)

The traditional theology of private revelations is, furthermore, too affirmative.

It does not see with sufficient clarity and depth the fundamental difference between revelations anterior to Christ and those which are posterior to Him. When this traditional theology considers revelations posterior to Christ, it only applies to them the general theory of revelation such as developed by fundamental theology. It treats revelations in general with the restriction -- purely intrinsic -- that private revelation has no character of universal obligation which the recipient was transmitting to all.

This conception thus sees no intrinsic difference between revelations anterior and those posterior to Christ: the psychological process, content and criteria of authenticity are all studied perhaps in an identical manner on both sides. A reservation is made only for the case of the recipient, although this reservation is not imposed with that much legitimate evidence.

In accordance with the usual principles of theology, we cannot quite see why a "private revelation" does not impose itself on the faith of all those who have knowledge of it and admit with sufficient certitude that it comes from God; for we cannot demand for a private revelation a greater certitude than what is judged sufficient to guarantee an official revelation.

For the authenticity of the Divine origin of private revelations posterior to Christ, it is unjustified, illogical and dangerous to demand -- as is often done -- a degree of certitude such that if it were demanded for the official revelation, all reasonable basis for faith in Christian revelation would be rendered impossible.

But if, in order to admit the certitude of the existence of a revelation posterior to Christ, no more is demanded than for the common Christian revelation, we cannot understand why the Divine origin of a number of these private revelations could not be recognized by everyone; nor why this recognition would not entail, for all, the right and duty of an adherence of faith, Divine faith [fide divina].

The adherence of faith flows naturally from the fact that it is a Divine word, without failing for all that to cause a special positive obligation to intervene on the part of God. In the present case, we would not have to distinguish anymore between a general obligation and an individual obligation in the common revelation and in private revelation. The distinction would be only in this: that in the second case, private revelation, the guarding of what was revealed would not be confided to the official Church. Consequently, if the common faith, which is possible and under certain conditions even obligatory, in the content of a private revelation, was not Catholic faith, it would however always be possible and obligatory as Divine faith.

Since theologians in general admit that the immediate recipient of private revelations can adhere to the communications of God with Divine faith, "fide divina", and even ought to if there is sufficient certitude about the authenticity of the recipient's experience, we cannot see why that experience would not be worthy of Divine faith for others who have acquired the same certitude about the reality of the revelation -- a certitude which in principle is not impossible to acquire.

In brief, from this perspective we cannot find any fundamental difference between the official revelation, and private revelation posterior to Christ.

A fundamental difference does exist however; but to see it, we must pause for another consideration.

2 - Private revelations before and after Christ

In what regard could a revelation posterior to Christ be relevant? Since Revelation is itself a history, the Truth which God reveals to us through His word possesses a temporal dimension which is essential to it. Time is not a sort of indifferent space at each point of which everything could always happen, and where everything could always be revealed.

Before Christ, in that historical dialogue between God and man which we call the history of salvation, all remains open to each moment; all was thereby oriented toward the free historical realization of God's design, a realization not yet revealed to man and always awaited. Before Christ, there could still take place within history and without suppressing it, an event of the history of salvation as yet novel and capable of essentially modifying the situation of man toward God. A new law, a covenant concluded or announced: anger or grace -- which are free acts of God and not the simple metaphysical consequence of His nature -- could be manifested in an unexpected and unforeseeable manner. Briefly, from the unfathomable possibilities of a free God -- "of the God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, not of the God of the philosophers"-- either anger or grace, sometimes the one, sometimes the other, could be realized in "revelation". These possible manifestations of the Divine activity remained unforeseeable for men, and demanded of them, in return, an always ready obedience. Man had to keep himself always ready for a new revelation of God, who could give a completely new orientation to his situation relative to salvation. However, this revelation, once given, appeared to man in retrospect as already contained in the hidden plan of God, so much so that the previous conduct of God was coherent with that which followed it.

Now, however, with Christ and since Christ, the "end of the times" has arrived; the Divine economy of the salvation of humanity has entered into its decisive, definitive, unsurpassable phase. With Christ, the "end of the times" is realized; it is not provisory but definitive; in the age of Christ we cannot wait any longer for our situation relative to salvation to be fundamentally modified. While for men who preceded Christ, such a modification not only could, but had to be awaited; the Christian can only await the revelation that will burst forth on the last day which will unveil the completion of the drama between God and man.

The existential theology of a revelation of God that was possible and to be realized within history for men before Christ, is now replaced by a theological eschatology for men who come after Him: their theology of revelation has now but one meaning -- undoubtedly important -- that of a retrospective study; not that of a tendency toward the future. The waiting for a revelation of God within history is now replaced by a waiting for the revelation of God who will suppress history.

3 - Meaning and nature of private revelations posterior to Christ

In this "end of the times", however, there are still some revelations of God. They are not addressed only to particular individuals; they are destined for the Church, at least in this sense, that the charism of a member should serve for the good of the whole body.

Great as the resemblances may be, from a psychological point of view, between the revelations of the present, those anterior to Christ, and the revelation of Christ Himself: there should still be an essential and qualitative difference between revelations posterior to Christ and those anterior to Him, since it is necessary to maintain the proper character of the "end of the times" which can no longer admit of a revelation modifying our situation relative to salvation.

We should be quite precise about the nature of these private revelations posterior to Christ, and which have value for the Church and not just for the recipient; because these revelations should be perfectly inserted into this final phase of the economy of salvation. Is this possible?

We have seen that it is not sufficient to say: private revelations are not addressed to the Church or humanity taken as a whole, and their content is not positively guaranteed by the Church's Magisterium. To content oneself with affirming that the content of these revelations has only an accessory and quasi-insufficient relationship with the Christian public revelation, would raise the question: Can anything that God reveals be insignificant? or else, how can we know that what is revealed, if inserted into the deposit of Divine faith, will not result in fundamentally modifying the present economy of salvation? Again, to say that private revelations never contain anything but truths which one could know through the common revelation and, hence, independently of these revelations -- for example, the possibility and utility of a new devotion -- this is to pose yet another question: Why then does God reveal it, and not rather leave to the intelligence of theologians the concern of making explicit this new aspect of revelation?

After properly reflecting on it, the satisfactory answer to the question of the theological nature of "private" revelations posterior to Christ and addressed to the Church, would be this: the essential point of a private revelation does not consist in an affirmation about the content of the common revelation, a sort of accidental determination of this common revelation, and/or materially identical with it. Rather, private revelations have by nature an imperative character: namely, what is the conduct to be taken by Christendom in a given historical situation. This kind of revelation is not essentially an affirmation, but an order.

With regard to what is affirmed by such revelations, they do not say anything more, in fact, than what we already know through faith and theology. They are not, however, superfluous. They are not presented as a sort of celestial "repetition" of the common revelation, or as a maieutic for our intelligence in order to discover that which theoretically could be discovered without their help. In such a situation, what is to be realized as being the will of God cannot be deduced logically and without ambiguity from dogmatic or moral principles, not even by analyzing the concrete situation in which one is engaged.

Theoretical considerations could limit the field of a human action that is good in itself and along the lines required, even to the point that in many cases, doubtless, the "how" of acting is practically clear. Hence, such considerations are always necessary. But they cannot, in principle, pronounce which one of the decisions possible within a quite delimited field of action, is in fact the will of God and to be chosen.

A contrary conception would entail the mistake of causing the unforeseeable Concrete of a man's free conduct to be determined in the Universal, and a concrete mind would become a simple case of the Universal.

With St. Ignatius, in order to know the will of God in view of a "choice", there are, in the light of faith, "times of choice" which are without reflection and before it. In such "times of choice" a man, under a special movement of God, becomes conscious of the Divine will; while reflection with the help of moral theology is only a sort of makeshift last-resort reserved for moments when the Divine movement seems to be lacking, and when the soul does not perceive clearly enough. This last-resort should not be considered as the normal case for making a choice.

By analogy, the Church receives a Divine impulse when she finds that she must make a "choice". This impulse cannot be replaced by theoretical considerations and the deductions of theologians and moralists, nor by a simple "negative per se assistance of the Holy Spirit", which would not protect these theologians from error except only by keeping them faithful to the principles of theology and to the concrete givens of the situation.

The charism of discernment of spirits in the Church should doubtless be bound to the Magisterium and to the pastoral function of the official Church. But as regards the point of application for this Divine movement through which God manifests His imperative will on the precise conduct to be taken by the Church or part of the Church: it cannot be maintained a priori that this must always come from the Hierarchy. In principle, the Spirit of God can address Himself to any one of her members in order to act upon the Church, to make known what He expects, and what precise task He assigns to her at such a moment.

Here then is what seems to us the characteristic of a private revelation posterior to Christ: an order of God inspired in a member of the Church so as to regulate the conduct of the Church in a concrete situation.

How, it may be asked, will such a private revelation addressed to a particular individual act upon the Church, or upon a great part of the Church? Will this be through a formal declaration: "The Lord says this"? or by a "living" example? or otherwise? That is a secondary question.

Just as, according to the classic teaching of the ancients, a particular individual should not be content to ask himself in his "choice": what is the reasonable thing, here and now, among the universal principles of dogma and morality, but rather should ask: what is the meaning of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; so likewise in the decisions of the Church, one should pose the question: is there not here some prophet of the Lord, that we may ask through him? (1 Kgs 22: 7)

By no means should we admit too hastily that the charism of prophetism is a privilege, now lapsed, of the primitive Church. The social and psychological forms of the prophetic charism and its intervention in the course of the Church's history can vary. But besides the official power transmitted by the imposition of hands, there should always be in the Church the humanly untransmittable vocation of the prophet. Neither of the two gifts can replace the other. Wherever in the Church, after Christ, the prophet exercises his or her specific action and communicates a Divine imperative in view of a determined situation, one has "private revelation".

All this could seem quite abstract and not very practical. However it suffices to lend an ear, for example, to the watchwords, the propositions, etc., aimed at what is considered as the more urgent work at present in the Church, in order to decipher the quite diverse tendencies and directions at play. In all these questions, those who are most conscientious, upright, and most concerned with their responsibilities will preach the precious "via media" or middle-of-the-road of Catholic synthesis. But is this not to raise the delicate question: can an imperative which bears upon a determined action, still make itself heard without ambiguity in a theoretical synthesis which integrates all? since this action, which cannot be everything at once, must choose and decide in a manner that clearly has very little synthesis?

When the synthesizing theory is itself perplexed, then, among the many possibilities equally good in principle, should not the Christian's choice be made with the help of lights other than theoretical principles? Why could these lights not be that very enlightenment and that word of the Lord which we call -- too carelessly perhaps and with a certain disdain -- "private revelations", and which we consider as a luxury left to certain pious souls? Then it is that the theology and the psychology of these revelations -- each as indispensable as the other to a true discernment of spirits -- will take on all their practical significance.

Innsbruck (Tyrol)

RÉVÉLATIONS PRIVÉES

SOME THEOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS — KARL RAHNER, S. J. —

(ChatGPT automatic translation - unofficial French translation).

We treat here of "private revelations" which are not only related to the spiritual life of a particular person, but which, however "private" they may be, are addressed to the Church or to an important part of the Church through the intermediary of their direct beneficiary: that is to say, private revelations which represent a new devotion, exhort us to penitence, communicate certain instructions, put us on guard against a Doctrine, recommend a spiritual instruction or a type of spirituality, etc. Such revelations have existed in the history of the Church, and they have certainly exerted an important influence.

Ordinarily, when one speaks of these revelations in Catholic circles, one only retains their psychological aspect or the problem of criteria of authenticity and the truth of their content.

No one would think to contest the legitimacy of these considerations or even to question them. However, we believe such a study only addresses one aspect of the problem. It should be completed by a theological study.

It is true that one might say that theology already studies the problem; that it takes its full meaning partly in fundamental theology and partly in mystical theology. Without any doubt. But these studies are insufficient and do not address the point of view we wish to emphasize here.

Mystical theology deals only with the psychological aspect of the genesis of a private revelation, its modes and its criteria of authenticity and truth. Moreover, mystical theology, like fundamental theology, simply affirms this: God can reveal Himself—in the strict sense of verbal revelation—and give to the beneficiary of the revelation sufficient certitude of the divine origin of their personal experience through some internal or external criteria. Private revelations, therefore, are possible; and recognizing their authenticity and the truth of their content is first of all the work of the immediate recipient; and then, if external criteria exist, it is also the work of others. The immediate recipient, at least, may have the right and even the duty to adhere by an act of faith to their content.

Let us add that theology always insists on the fact that "official revelation," public revelation, ended with the death of the last apostle; subsequent revelations, therefore, do not belong to the revealed deposit of the Church; they are "private" revelations. There can be no obligation to adhere to them by an act of "Catholic faith".

In principle, the Church could not and should not deal with these revelations except insofar as it decides if these revelations are compatible with its deposit of revealed faith, then leaving them subsequently to the free "human faith" of the faithful.

1 - Traditional positions

Now, this traditional opinion, however just in its positive aspect, is incomplete in two respects.

On the one hand, this "theology" of private revelations remains in fact too negative. Because when one takes as starting point the fact that "public" revelation is closed, the so-called "private" revelations are then defined only negatively. Consequently, it is difficult to develop a rigorous theological theory of their meaning and necessity in the Church — a meaning they certainly have had throughout history. The broad outlines sketched by Scripture of a theology of prophetism within the Church and for the Church are, for the most part, undeveloped.

Worse still: one could say — with slight exaggeration, perhaps — that the history of mystical theology is a history of the "devaluation" of prophetism, at least speculatively, and of the valorization of infused contemplation: that is, a "pure", non-prophetic contemplation. Following unfortunate experiences, and thus not without reason, we are more wary of this prophetic mysticism which appeals to revelations and oracles from on high to give itself a mission or right in the Church, and to exercise influence there by its warnings and directives. More wary, at least, than of the mysticism of pure contemplation, "without images" and "ineffable." For the former is more dangerous than the latter since it more easily risks conflicts with the permanent, official organs of the Church. Yet it too has its foundation in Scripture and, in fact, its own great history in the Church; although theorists strive to demonstrate that even without these prophets post-Christ, we already know all that they reveal.

However, there is no orthodox theology that is uninterested in the existence of these prophets in the post-apostolic Church, as well as in how to recognize and distinguish their character, the essential importance of their function, their position vis-à-vis the Hierarchy, and the meaning of their mission for the internal and external life of the Church.

In a theology of prophetism within the Church, there should certainly be more than one useful element of a general mystical theology, and particularly, of its teaching on private revelations. But until now, mystical theology only considers these phenomena under their "private" aspect, neglecting the ecclesial aspect; thus one cannot say it constitutes a theology of prophetism.

In the Middle Ages, there was certainly a theology of "charisms"; but because there was not yet a clear awareness of the meaning of history, one could hardly accurately address the question of the significance of prophetism as a living manifestation of The Spirit, for the birth and growth of the Church.

Prophetism has existed at all times in the Church. But, just as there is danger of quenching The Spirit if one is not careful; similarly, theology, although incapable of producing this prophetism (which does not need theology to exist and act), does not prove to be sterile reflection. It could rather be a safeguard to prevent The Spirit from being quenched or to avoid the complaint of the psalmist: "There is no longer any prophet." (Ps. 74:9).

The traditional theology of private revelations is, furthermore, too affirmative.

It does not see with sufficient clarity and depth the fundamental difference between revelations prior to Christ and those after Him. When this traditional theology considers revelations after Christ, it only applies to them the general theory of revelation as developed by fundamental theology. It treats revelations in general with a restriction — purely intrinsic — that private revelation does not have the universal obligation character that the recipient should transmit to all.

This conception therefore sees no intrinsic difference between revelations before and after Christ: the psychological process, content, and criteria of authenticity are perhaps studied identically on both sides. A reservation is made only regarding the recipient, although this reservation is not imposed with that much legitimate evidence.

According to usual theological principles, it is difficult to understand why a "private revelation" would not be imposed on the faith of all those aware of it and who accept with sufficient certainty that it comes from God; for we cannot demand a greater certainty for a private revelation than that judged sufficient to guarantee an official revelation.

Regarding the authenticity of the divine origin of private revelations after Christ, it is unjustified, illogical, and dangerous to demand — as is often done — a degree of certainty such that, if it were required for official revelation, all reasonable basis for faith in Christian revelation would become impossible.

But if, for admitting the certainty of the existence of a revelation after Christ, no more is demanded than for the common Christian revelation, one cannot understand why the divine origin of a number of these private revelations could not be recognized by all; nor why this recognition would not entail, for all, the right and duty of adherence of faith, a divine faith [fide divina].

Adherence of faith naturally flows from the fact that it is a divine word, without requiring a special positive obligation to intervene from God. In this case, we would no longer distinguish between a general obligation and an individual obligation in common revelation and private revelation. The distinction would lie only in the fact that, in the second case, private revelation, the guarding of what was revealed would not be entrusted to the official Church. Therefore, if the common faith, which is possible and under certain conditions even obligatory in the content of a private revelation, were not Catholic faith, it would nevertheless always be possible and obligatory as divine faith.

Since theologians generally admit that the immediate recipient of private revelations can adhere to God's communications with divine faith, "fide divina", and indeed ought to do so if there is sufficient certainty about the authenticity of the recipient's experience, we see no reason why this experience would not deserve divine faith for others who have acquired the same certainty about the reality of the revelation — a certainty which, in principle, is not impossible to acquire.

In short, from this point of view, we find no fundamental difference between official revelation and private revelation after Christ.

However, a fundamental difference exists; but to perceive it, we must pause on another consideration.

2 - Private revelations before and after Christ

In what respect could a revelation after Christ be relevant? Since Revelation itself is a history, the Truth that God reveals to us through His Word possesses a temporal dimension essential to it. Time is not a kind of indifferent space at each point of which everything could always happen, and where everything could always be revealed.

Before Christ, in that historical dialogue between God and man which we call the history of salvation, all remained open at each moment; all was directed toward the free historical realization of God's plan, a realization not yet revealed to man and always awaited. Before Christ, there could still take place within history and without abolishing it, a new event in the history of salvation, capable of essentially altering man's situation toward God. A new law, a covenant concluded or announced: wrath or grace — which are free acts of God and not the mere metaphysical consequence of His nature — could manifest in an unexpected and unforeseeable way. In short, from the unfathomable possibilities of a free God — "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not the God of the philosophers" — either wrath or grace, sometimes one, sometimes the other, could be realized in "revelation". These possible manifestations of divine action remained unforeseeable to men and required of them, in return, constant readiness to obey. Man had to remain prepared always for a new revelation of God, who could give a completely new orientation to his situation relative to salvation. However, once this revelation was given, it appeared retrospectively to man as already contained in God's hidden plan, so that God's previous conduct was coherent with what followed it.

Now, with Christ and since Christ, the "end of times" has come; the divine economy of humanity's salvation has entered its decisive, definitive, unsurpassable phase. With Christ, the "end of times" is realized; it is not provisional but definitive; in Christ's age, we can no longer wait for our situation relative to salvation to be fundamentally changed. While for men preceding Christ, such a modification could and had to be awaited; the Christian can only await the revelation that will burst forth on the last day unveiling the fulfillment of the drama between God and man.

The existential theology of a revelation of God possible and to be realized within history for men before Christ is now replaced by eschatological theology for men who come after Him: their theology of revelation has now only one meaning — undoubtedly important — that of retrospective study; not that of a trend toward the future. The anticipation of a revelation of God within history is now replaced by awaiting the revelation of God who will end history.

3 - Meaning and nature of private revelations after Christ

In this "end of times", however, there are still revelations from God. They are not addressed solely to particular individuals; they are intended for the Church, at least insofar as the charism of a member should serve the good of the whole body.

As great as the psychological similarities may be between present-day revelations, those before Christ, and Christ's own revelation: there must remain an essential and qualitative difference between revelations after Christ and those before Him, since it is necessary to maintain the proper character of the "end of times", which no longer admits of a revelation modifying our situation relative to salvation.

We should be very precise about the nature of these private revelations after Christ, which have value for the Church and not only for the recipient; for these revelations should perfectly fit into this final phase of the economy of salvation. Is this possible?

We have seen that it is not enough to say: private revelations are not addressed to the Church or humanity as a whole, and their content is not positively guaranteed by the Church's Magisterium. To be content with affirming that the content of these revelations has only an accessory and almost insufficient relation to Christian public revelation would raise the question: can anything God reveals be insignificant? Or else, how can we know if what is revealed, once inserted into the deposit of divine faith, will not fundamentally modify the present economy of salvation? Furthermore, to say that private revelations contain only truths which could be known through common revelation and, therefore, independently of these revelations—for example, the possibility and usefulness of a new devotion—poses yet another question: why does God then reveal it, and not rather leave theologians the concern to make explicit this new aspect of revelation?

Upon reflection, a satisfactory answer to the question of the theological nature of "private" revelations after Christ and addressed to the Church would be this: the essential point of a private revelation does not consist in an assertion about the content of common revelation, a kind of accidental determination of this common revelation, and/or materially identical to it. Rather, private revelations have by nature an imperative character: namely, what conduct should Christendom adopt in a given historical situation. This kind of revelation is not essentially an assertion, but an order.

As for what is asserted by such revelations, they say nothing more, in fact, than what we already know through faith and theology. However, they are not superfluous. They are not presented as a kind of celestial "repetition" of common revelation, nor as a maieutic for our intelligence to discover what could theoretically be discovered without their help. In such a situation, what must be fulfilled as the will of God cannot be logically and unambiguously deduced from dogmatic or moral principles, not even by analyzing the concrete situation in which one is engaged.

Theoretical considerations might limit the field of a human action that is good in itself and according to required lines, even to the point where, in many cases, the "how" of acting is practically clear. Therefore, these considerations are always necessary. But they cannot, in principle, pronounce which of the possible decisions within a well-delimited field of action is in fact the will of God and must be chosen.

A contrary conception would entail the error of making the unpredictable Concrete of a man's free conduct be determined by the Universal, and a concrete mind would become a mere case of the Universal.

With St. Ignatius, to know the will of God regarding a "choice", there are, in the light of faith, "moments of choice" that are without reflection and before it. In such "moments of choice" a man, under a special movement of God, becomes aware of the Divine will; while reflection aided by moral theology is only a sort of last-resort expedient reserved for moments when the divine movement seems absent, and when the soul does not perceive clearly enough. This last resort should not be considered the normal case for making a choice.

By analogy, the Church receives a divine impulse when it must make a "choice". This impulse cannot be replaced by theoretical considerations and deductions of theologians and moralists, nor by a simple "negative per se assistance of the Holy Spirit," which would not protect these theologians from error except by keeping them faithful to the principles of theology and the concrete facts of the situation.

The charism of discernment of spirits in the Church must undoubtedly be linked to the Magisterium and the pastoral function of the official Church. But regarding the point of application for this divine movement whereby God manifests His imperative will on the precise conduct to be taken by the Church or part of the Church: it cannot be maintained a priori that this must always come from the Hierarchy. In principle, God's Spirit can address any of her members in order to act on the Church, to make known what He expects, and the precise task He assigns to her at such a moment.

Here then is what seems to us the characteristic of a private revelation after Christ: an order from God inspired in a member of the Church so as to regulate the conduct of the Church in a concrete situation.

How, it might be asked, will such a private revelation addressed to a particular individual act on the Church, or on a large part of the Church? Will it be through a formal declaration: "The Lord says this"? Or by a "living" example? Or otherwise? That is a secondary question.

Just as, according to the classic teaching of the ancients, a particular individual should not limit himself in his "choice" to asking: what is the reasonable thing here and now, among universal principles of dogma and morality, but rather should ask: what is the meaning of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; likewise in Church decisions one should ask: is there not here a prophet of the Lord, whom we may inquire? (1 Kings 22:7)

We should in no case admit too hastily that the charism of prophetism is a privilege, now extinguished, of the primitive Church. The social and psychological forms of the prophetic charism and its intervention in the course of Church history can vary. But, beyond the official power transmitted by the imposition of hands, there should always be in the Church the humanly untransmissible vocation of the prophet. Neither of the two gifts can replace the other. Wherever in the Church, after Christ, the prophet exercises his or her specific action and communicates a divine imperative in view of a determined situation, there is "private revelation".

All this may seem quite abstract and impractical. However, it suffices to listen, for example, to the watchwords, propositions, etc., aimed at what is considered the Church's most urgent work at present, to decipher the very diverse tendencies and directions at play. In all these questions, those who are most conscientious, upright, and concerned with their responsibilities will preach the precious "via media" or middle path of Catholic synthesis. But does this not raise the delicate question: can an imperative bearing on a determined action still be heard unambiguously in a theoretical synthesis that integrates everything? Since this action, which cannot be everything at once, must choose and decide in a manner which clearly has very little synthesis?

When the synthesizing theory itself is perplexed, then, among the many possibilities equally good in principle, should not the Christian's choice be made with the help of lights other than theoretical principles? Why could these lights not be that very enlightenment and that word of the Lord which we call — perhaps too carelessly and disdainfully — "private revelations," which we regard as a luxury reserved for certain pious souls? Then theology and the psychology of these revelations — each as indispensable as the other for true discernment of spirits — will take on all their practical significance.

Innsbruck (Tyrol)

Notes and references

Note: Quotations from the work of Maria Valtorta on this page currently use machine-translated text and will gradually be replaced by the official English translation. Until then, the official translation may be consulted through the reference link provided with each quotation.

In a Christian sense, study concerning God and divine things in the light of Revelation.

In-depth research on God, faith, religious Doctrine.

Manifestation of the Holy Spirit after the Bible to a person or particular group. It is individual and relative.

In a Christian sense, study concerning God and divine things in the light of Revelation.

Gift conferred by divine Grace for the common good.

Study of the last things of man and the world.

Gift conferred by divine Grace for the common good.

Authority in matters of faith and morals exercised over the Catholic faithful by the pope and all bishops in communion with the pope.