An EV comments on the ongoing struggle between Catholics and LDS.

[SteveVH]

Steve, the gospel of Christ was given to us in, well, the GOSPELSHis words. Nothing that the apostles said after Christ appeared to them changed the gospel basics…that’s not what public revelation was for. How many of the epistles actually changed what Jesus had to say, anyway? All their letters were to people who needed guidance regarding how to live the gospel in their lives, not what it actually was; the gospel is Jesus, and Him Crucified, yes? The Atonement and all that means to us; the simple truths of it.

Thank you for proving my point. They are all speaking of the one revealed truth found in Jesus. Everything else emanates from that one revealed truth.

That makes it public revelation, by definition. Yet…you claim that it no longer exists–because another part of public revelation is this: writing it down makes it scripture by definition, exactly like the letters in the NT.

It only makes it public revelation by YOUR definition, not ours.

It confuses the heck out of me, Steve, I’m sorry.

Public revelation is that revelation directly by God (or His Son) TO church leaders for the express purpose of leading the church; it applies to everybody IN the church. That’s what it is.

Diana, again this is your definition. The following is our definition:

"God’s communication of himself, by which he makes known the mystery of his divine plan, a gift of self-communication which is realized by deeds and words over time, and most fully by sending us his own divine Son, Jesus Christ" (CCC Glossary)

"By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works. But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation. Through an utterly free decision, God has revealed himself and given himself to man. This he does by revealing the mystery, his plan of loving goodness, formed from all eternity in Christ, for the benefit of all men. God has fully revealed this plan by sending us his beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit." (CCC par. 50)

Once something has been fully revealed, there is nothing left to be revealed in terms of God’s divine plan. His plan was and is Jesus Christ who came to save us. This is the fullness of divine revelation and there is nothing more that can be revealed to man in that regard. Our destiny lies in Christ and nowhere else. It has nothing to do with continued communication surrounding this truth.

One cannot get something like that and decide that it’s ‘private revelation’ rather than ‘public revelation’ simply because public revelation isn’t supposed to happen any more, it seems to me. That’s a little like putting wings on a cat and calling it a bird because cats are supposed to be extinct.

You keep saying this but you apparently have not been listening to me. This has nothing to do with what is “suppose to happen” or not happen anymore. It has to do with what did happen. Jesus Christ happened. He is the end of the story of salvation (and the beginning).

But…if God actively makes it impossible for a Pope to be incorrect about matters of ‘faith and morals,’ then that is about as ‘public revelation’ as I can imagine.

Like I said, if we are forced to use your definition then I agree.

Ah, but we claim that it is the Catholic church that kept coming up with new doctrine, and fiddling with it to change it. Our claim is that public revelation restored the simple and clear doctrines of the gospel back to what it was before it got messed with.

Yes I realize that you claim this. Any true study of the early Church would prove you wrong, but I’m willing to listen. What are these “new doctrines” that were “fiddled with” and changed? And what did you make “simple and clear” that was apparently complicated and muddy?

 

[SteveVH]

Steve, I disagree with a questioning mind (open to clarification).

• I thought the CC felt the Bible (sacred scripture) was based on public revelation.
• I thought subsequent doctrine and dogma, such as from the Councils, is official doctrine but is not public revelation.

The Bible is not just based on public revelation it is public revelation, authored by God himself through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But you must remember that the same truth existed in Sacred Tradition for nearly 400 years before the New Testament was proclaimed “Sacred Scripture” by the Church. The books to be included in the canon of Sacred Scripture were measured against Sacred Tradition in order to guaranty their authenticity. As I have said in other threads, nothing was written down for at least a few decades after Christ, but the truth of the fullness of divine revelation remained in the Church nevertheless. I think it is our modern notion of the word “tradition” that confuses many people.

So, I thought the key difference being whether something was Public revelation or not, and public rev stopped after the apostles died…

The communication of divine revelation from one man to another did not stop. The Apostles were commanded to spread it to the four corners of the earth. The Apostles did not give us “many” revelations. They all speak of the one revelation of Jesus Christ. Maybe I’m misunderstanding your comment.

If I’m hearing your right, the bible was passed down through oral tradition and though inspired is not considered public revelation by the apostles. I hear you stating that everything that has been written down by the CC has moved from 'Tradition" to be ‘Scripture’.

The truth of divine revelation, finding its fullness in Jesus Christ, was passed down through Tradition and is the same truth which was written down in the books of the Bible. I’ll give you the official version:

"In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways: orally by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit; in writing by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing." (CCC par. 76)

"In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them ‘their own position of teaching authority’. Indeed, the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time." (CCC par. 77)

"This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes. The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of the Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayers." (CCC par. 78)

Hope this helps.

Blessings.

 

[SteveVH]

According to Peter there are two requirements to be a member of the Twelve. The two requirements are:
a) Witness the resurrected Lord
b) Been in the company of the twelve while the Lord walked on earth.
These requirements limit the council membership to the first century. After all the men that walked with the twelve, while the Lord walked the earth, died; no one else qualified. The Twelve was never meant to be on going. This was the only time eleven selected a twelfth; one apostasy, one replacement. Revelation 21:14: Peter/Cephas/Rock, James son of Zebedee, John the Evangelist, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Jude, Simon the Zealot, and Matthias.
Just as there was no need to replace Christ as the head of Church after the crucifixion, or replace The Twelve as the foundation after their deaths; the Twelve were not replaced after their deaths. If Apostle was only an office to be filled, they could have easily been replaced; just like Bishops have been replaced for almost 2000 years.

Stephen, thanks for this. I had forgotten that the requirements are clearly spelled out in Scripture. Following the LDS viewpoint, there should never have been a last Apostle. They certainly didn’t die at the same time, therefore if this was an “office” to be filled they had plenty of opportunity to do just that. But they didn’t, and couldn’t based upon their own requirements. Great point.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

no, our belief is that Christianity abandoned Him.

That’s a nice evasion, but it doesn’t explain away the promise of Jesus that he would be with the Church until the end of time.

This sounds like a cheap insult, but it is a sincere question.

Do you acknowledge that Joseph Smith had sex with the wives of other men?

I believe that the evidence is overwhelming that he did. I don’t think that this is consistent with Christian teaching, regardless of what Joseph Smith claimed at the time.

 

[Todd520]

Hope this helps.

Blessings.

Steve, now I’m more confused.
Yoor CCC quotes seem to confirm what I oringinally said. My summary of your CCC quotes are:
Sacred Scripture is the message of the Apostles committed to writing. While passed down orally in the beginning, there is no mention of ‘Tradition’

Tradition is obviously connected BUT “is distinct from Sacred Scripture”.

Egro, Sacred Scripture was never Sacred Tradition

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Steve, now I’m more confused.
Yoor CCC quotes seem to confirm what I oringinally said. My summary of your CCC quotes are:
Sacred Scripture is the message of the Apostles committed to writing. While passed down orally in the beginning, there is no mention of ‘Tradition’

Tradition is obviously connected BUT “is distinct from Sacred Scripture”.

Egro, Sacred Scripture was never Sacred Tradition

Wrong.

When Paul wrote this, the gospels had not yet been written:

2 Thes 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

 

[Todd520]

Wrong.

When Paul wrote this, the gospels had not yet been written:

2 Thes 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

But Chester, you quoted the Catechism right? which was just updated again in the last 20 years. Are you certain you are not in error vs what the Church defines?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

:

But Chester, you quoted the Catechism right? which was just updated again in the last 20 years. Are you certain you are not in error vs what the Church defines?

Yes, I am certain. You misunderstand the catechism, among other things.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

But Chester, you quoted the Catechism right? which was just updated again in the last 20 years. Are you certain you are not in error vs what the Church defines?

---

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition. ***

 

[catholic-rcia]

thank you for proving my point. They are all speaking of the one revealed truth found in jesus. Everything else emanates from that one revealed truth.

It only makes it public revelation by your definition, not ours.

Diana, again this is your definition. The following is our definition:

"god’s communication of himself, by which he makes known the mystery of his divine plan, a gift of self-communication which is realized by deeds and words over time, and most fully by sending us his own divine son, jesus christ" (ccc glossary)

"by natural reason man can know god with certainty, on the basis of his works. But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: The order of divine revelation. Through an utterly free decision, god has revealed himself and given himself to man. This he does by revealing the mystery, his plan of loving goodness, formed from all eternity in christ, for the benefit of all men. God has fully revealed this plan by sending us his beloved son, our lord jesus christ, and the holy spirit." (ccc par. 50)

once something has been fully revealed, there is nothing left to be revealed in terms of god’s divine plan. His plan was and is jesus christ who came to save us. This is the fullness of divine revelation and there is nothing more that can be revealed to man in that regard. Our destiny lies in christ and nowhere else. It has nothing to do with continued communication surrounding this truth.

You keep saying this but you apparently have not been listening to me. This has nothing to do with what is “suppose to happen” or not happen anymore. It has to do with what did happen. Jesus christ happened. He is the end of the story of salvation (and the beginning).

Like i said, if we are forced to use your definition then i agree.

---

yes i realize that you claim this. Any true study of the early church would prove you wrong, but i’m willing to listen. What are these “new doctrines” that were “fiddled with” and changed? And what did you make “simple and clear” that was apparently complicated and muddy?

---

 

[Todd520]

**. . . is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. . . ** (CCC par. 78)

This is pretty specific in stating the proper definition of “Tradition” excludes “Sacred Scripture”

Are you mixing up the colloquial use of Tradition with the official CCC definition?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

This is pretty specific in stating the proper definition of “Tradition” excludes “Sacred Scripture”

Are you mixing up the colloquial use of Tradition with the official CCC definition?

You are wrong.

Move on to another point.

And while your at it, please explain why multiple sexaul partners for Joseph Smith was “true” Christianity.

 

[Esdra]

…his religion says “Catholic”…
**
81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44 **

Is then the ST that has been enthrusted to the Apostles and handed down through the Apostolic Succession written down? Or how does a bishop or a cardinal or a priest learn it then?
Is the ST still orally (for example taught when studying theology) or is it the Catechism?
What would be examples of ST?
I have never understood this thing with the ST…

Esdra

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Is then the ST that has been enthrusted to the Apostles and handed down through the Apostolic Succession written down? Or how does a bishop or a cardinal or a priest learn it then?
Is the ST still orally (for example taught when studying theology) or is it the Catechism?
What would be examples of ST?
I have never understood this thing with the ST…

Esdra

Much of it is written down, but not all of it is contained in scripture.

For example:

3After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

Everything that Jesus taught the apostles over these 40 days is not in scripture.

Here’s one possible teaching that may have come from this time:

“And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, ‘I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.’…** Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate.** For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.” Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

 

[Todd520]

This is pretty specific in stating the proper definition of “Tradition” excludes “Sacred Scripture”

Are you mixing up the colloquial use of Tradition with the official CCC definition?

Since Chester has resorted to vulgar comments to deflect, I’ll repost for a response from another Catholic.

I read the CCC as stating Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are related but seperate.
Yes, SS was passed down orally but it was never considered “sacred tradition”

. . . is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. . . (CCC par. 78)

 

[Esdra]

Much of it is written down, but not all of it is contained in scripture.

For example:

3After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

Everything that Jesus taught the apostles over these 40 days is not in scripture.

Here’s one possible teaching that may have come from this time:

“And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, ‘I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.’…** Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate.** For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.” Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

You have not answered my questions.

And I think you mixed up what we call now SC (the Holy Bible) and the so famous and so often mentioned ST here in this forum!

I am aware that the SC is only a part of the ST (the Tradition which was written down and canonized by the Church through the Holy Spirit is know our Bible!)

Please, you, or anyone, answer my questions: here.

Esdra

 

[flyonthewall]

That’s a nice evasion, but it doesn’t explain away the promise of Jesus that he would be with the Church until the end of time.

This sounds like a cheap insult, but it is a sincere question.

Do you acknowledge that Joseph Smith had sex with the wives of other men?

I believe that the evidence is overwhelming that he did. I don’t think that this is consistent with Christian teaching, regardless of what Joseph Smith claimed at the time.

Holy “nice evasion” batman!
I guess it would be fair to say that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David & Solomon were not Christian either.
But this isn’t really on topic is it.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Since Chester has resorted to vulgar comments to deflect, I’ll repost for a response from another Catholic.

"

Joseph Smith lived a vulgar life. Accurately describing his life is not making a vulgar comment.

Do you think Joseph Smith was listening to Jesus when he deemed it approptiate to have sex with the wives of other men?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Holy “nice evasion” batman!
I guess it would be fair to say that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David & Solomon were not Christian either.
But this isn’t really on topic is it.

No, it is on topic.

Mormons claim that Joseph Smith rediscovered Christianity.

Does this new Christianity include the permission for adultery?

i4m.com/think/history/joseph_smith_sex.htm

 

[Tmaque]

You have not answered my questions.

And I think you mixed up what we call now SC (the Holy Bible) and the so famous and so often mentioned ST here in this forum!

I am aware that the SC is only a part of the ST (the Tradition which was written down and canonized by the Church through the Holy Spirit is know our Bible!)

Please, you, or anyone, answer my questions: here.

Esdra

From catholic.com

What is Tradition?

"In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

They have been handed down and entrusted to the Church. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13)."

I’m no expert but I would assume that the sacred tradition is now encompassed in the catechism. The point of here on sacred tradition is understanding that sacred scripture does not contain everything that was intended to be passed down and carried on by the Church.