L
LivingWaters7
Guest
What is your understanding of the Catholic understanding of “public revelation”? What does it mean when Catholics state that “public revelation” is complete? What is “public revelation” to a Catholic?
- Status
P
pablope
Guest
Except the one making the declaration that no one is infallible…David,
This is a well thought out post.
I would only comment on the bolded, that the idea of sola scriptura, actually, is the premise that NO ONE is infallible.Jon
E
Erich
Guest
Infallibility is not a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true.
That said, infallibility does belong in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”
The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. We know this because there was no immediate outcry when, in Acts 10:28 Peter said, “You are well aware that it is against our law for Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean.” That said, there was some criticism of Peter when he went up to Jerusalem (Acts 11:2), but after Peter explained everything to them precisely as it had happened (Acts 11:4-17) there were no further objections.
S
SteveVH
Guest
Yes. A claim made without any evidence to back it up is just a claim.
Why? Once the ultimate truth (Jesus Christ) concerning our salvation has been revealed what need is there for anything else.? I think you are confusing “revelation” with “guidance” and we are speaking past one another.
Peace, my friend.
Steve
T
TOmNossor
Guest
understanding of “public revelation”? What does it mean when Catholics state that “public revelation” is complete? What is “public revelation” to a Catholic?
Truth be told, I think I could use some education on this topic.
My understanding is that “public revelation” is divine communication via inspiration for the purpose of guiding the entire church to truth. This means that in Catholic thought individuals can be guided via revelation/inspiration for their own lives (though it is less emphasized within Catholic practice than LDS practice). But that the Pope does not receive revelation to solve controversies concerning Marian doctrine or other things. I have in the past spoken of “Supernatural Public Revelation” to describe what happened when Peter received a vision to guide the church and not “Supernatural Public Revelation” to describe what happens when the Pope is protected by infallibility and declares a Marian doctrine.
There seems to be some disagreement among Bishops (in fact among Bishops who are Cardinals) concerning the boundaries of remarried divorcees receiving communion. All I understand about this subject suggest to me that it is IMPOSSIBLE for any ruling to be made that allows those in a SECOND marriage (not living as brother and sister) to validly receive communion. One possible solution that I currently do not see as impossible is a streamlining of the Annulment process, but I have not investigated how viable this solution is. I expect in the next 2-5 years (actually sooner, but …) a resolution to be reached and put forth via the Magisterium (I used this term without an adjective like “ordinary,” “universal,” or … as I am unsure what adjective to apply). The resolution will be said to be in accordance with Tradition. This resolution may be such that the Catholic believes that it is protected from error (which I couldn’t perfectly define) by God. That being said, the outward appearance of the resolution will be that intelligent and faithful men determining authoritatively what Tradition demands and what tradition allows and what is prudent and loving.
The Catholic Church has been very clear that exercises of Papal infallibility (2 Marian doctrines) are not revelation, but are nonetheless protected from error by God. I have never read any place where a Pope or a Bishop who was involved in a decision protected from error describes how this happens. LDS prophets speak less about how they are guided by revelation than I might like, but I have read more on this.
So on the one hand as an outside observer; I do not see much difference between a vigorous debate by well-meaning intelligent men and a process protected by the Holy Spirit. On the other hand what is the proper name for “protection by the Holy Spirit” if not some form or Revelation.
My Catholic friend Rory has tried to get me to see this, but I hear Catholics promising Protestants that the Pope does not lead by revelation and only guards the deposit of faith while an occasional voice to a LDS says well this is a kind of revelation. I am not as good at Both/And in my LDS faith/theology or in my conception of Catholic theology as I should be. Ultimately, as an Engineer the number is above 2 or below 2 not both and I struggle.
Charity, TOm
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
Tom does not understand how Catholics view the matters of “public revelation” and God’s guidance of His Church (but we’ll wait for his presentation of the Catholic understanding of “public revelation”). Catholics firmly believe in the Divine guidance of the Church, that God continues to guide the Church, just like He did with the New Testament Church.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Tom, you are the only one that assumes that on-going revelation is necessary as some sort of mark of the true Church. And as far as apostolic succession is concerned, you have nothing to offer other than a claim, while the Catholic Church, as can be objectively demonstrated by historical documentation, is the only Church (and I include the EO under the name “Catholic”) that can truly demonstrate apostolic succession. So I would say that the Mormon Church has NO POSSIBILITY of being successor to the Apostles. All it has is a very lame claim which is backed up by nothing.
How?
Yes. A claim made without any evidence to back it up is just a claim.
Because God finally revealed himself in the Person of Jesus Christ. This does not mean an end to this “Divine-Human partnership”, as you call it. It actually means the beginning of a relationship that did not exist prior to Jesus Christ. Nor does this mean an end to God’s guidance, as he sent the Holy Spirit to guide his Church into all truth. Our Church is guided on a daily basis and continues to contemplate and gain deeper understanding of this final revelation as it lives through each century. But there is no new revelation nor is there a need for new revelation. We have the “Pearl of Great Price”. It has been found and therefore we have no need to continue to have it revealed.
And what does this inspired writing point to? It all points to Christ; God’s final revelation.
Why? Once the ultimate truth (Jesus Christ) concerning our salvation has been revealed what need is there for anything else.? I think you are confusing “revelation” with “guidance” and we are speaking past one another.
Peace, my friend.
Steve
I wrote my above (now) response before I saw yours.
You are poking in the area that I cannot determine where the boundaries are.
When I am feeling contentious (too often) it is easy to focus on the difficulties here.
When I am feeling generous, it is clear to me that the Catholic Church is making many good decisions that I expect cause God to be pleased (edit- contentious comment -edit). And more importantly the Catholic Church is producing Saints!
I will look for you and Living Waters further comments, but thanks for your response.
Charity, TOm
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
Based on the above, I think that your arguments are based on flawed understandings of how the Catholic Church views the matter of “public revelation”, as well as the ongoing Divine guidance of the Church. For Catholics, “public revelation” is all that is necessary for salvation. All that is necessary for salvation has already been revealed, culminating in the incarnation, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. There is nothing more to be revealed that is required for our salvation. It is the Deposit of Faith. That is what is complete, or has ended.
However, our understanding of that Deposit of Faith is ongoing, and relies on the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Through the Holy Spirit, we come to deeper understandings of the Deposit of Faith. The Church itself is also believed to be Divinely guided, as it always has been since New Testament times. Public revelation ending has nothing to do with that (and this is the main reason why your arguments above don’t make sense, within the context of Catholic understanding). Inspiration from Heaven never ended, and is given to individuals and to the Church as a whole. Yes, the Pope can receive inspiration from God to guide a decision he makes, even a vision. Papal Infallibility, as well as the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils, is a result of the Divine protection of the Holy Spirit.
So, public revelation ending did not change how the Church operates under the guidance of God. It remains as it always has been, at least for Catholics.
No. I’m quite fallible.Except the one making the declaration that no one is infallible…
Jon
T
TOmNossor
Guest
LivingWaters,
Thanks for your response!
I have reason to believe you are mistaken, but that does not mean:
-you are mistaken
-I understand you correctly
And/or
-I have a correct understanding.
I think you said that Christ revealed all that is necessary for salvation so there is nothing necessary for salvation that must be revealed after that. But that as the church moves towards greater understanding it can receive revelation so that it better knows truth.
I have 2 queries about this.
My first concern is that this seems to imply to me that the movement towards truth that happens at Ecumenical Councils or via Infallible statements by the Pope are not necessary for salvation. I expect you cannot mean this but it sure seems as you have. Faithful Catholics lived and died with views on the Trinity that were the reason for excommunication in the 4th and 5th century. Excommunication was the method through which the church expressed its opinion that a particular incorrect belief had consequences on the salvation of this beliefs adherent. Do I misunderstand?
Second
You said:
Hypothetical Situation:
There is a question on the situation of the re-married receiving communion.
The Pope calls for Bishops and/or scholars to prepare information for him.
He studies the information and is truly conflicted about making annulments MUCH easier or keeping things as they are (in fact making it clear that many parishes are not handling this situation properly).
As he is pondering it he has a vision. Maybe it is like Peter’s vision and there is some allegorical content or maybe it is 100% clear. Annulments will be made easier and faithful but remarried Catholic may petition there local bishop (or his designated representative) in a 1 hour meeting for an annulment. If the petitioner is sincere, committed to the new marriage, repentant for the previous marriage and maybe xyz, the bishop can grant the annulment at the conclusion of the meeting and then give the petitioner absolution, and the Eucharist.
The Pope presents this to the Bishops and the church, and the church moves forward.
The Pope believes and/or mentions to his confessor and/or shares with many folks that he received revelation from God for the church to solve this problem.
The Pope is correct in his understanding.
Per what you said, I would expect that you would say the above is in accordance with Catholic truth claims.
I would say that all of the above could happen, but that per Catholic teachings the Pope would in fact be wrong when he claimed that he received revelation for the church. If all of the above happened and the reception of communion by the re-married and quickly annulled is a matter of faith and morals, was declared from the chair of Peter, and was in accordance with Tradition; then the declaration that this would be the practice of the church WOULD be true and protected by the Holy Spirit. But the Pope would still be incorrect when he claimed it was revelation for the church that he received. It MIGHT be a gray area if the Pope claimed it was personal revelation to help him make the decision, but I THINK this would still be a concern for some Catholic theologians. If the declaration was to be from the chair of Peter, concerned faith and morals, and was NOT in accordance with Tradition; the Pope could plan to declare, but something would preclude it from happening. Thus the church was protected from error.
I will await your thoughts, but I from my reading of a handful of sources and Vatican I, I think the Pope would be incorrect in his understanding.
Charity, TOm
Thanks for your response!
I have reason to believe you are mistaken, but that does not mean:
-you are mistaken
-I understand you correctly
And/or
-I have a correct understanding.
I think you said that Christ revealed all that is necessary for salvation so there is nothing necessary for salvation that must be revealed after that. But that as the church moves towards greater understanding it can receive revelation so that it better knows truth.
I have 2 queries about this.
My first concern is that this seems to imply to me that the movement towards truth that happens at Ecumenical Councils or via Infallible statements by the Pope are not necessary for salvation. I expect you cannot mean this but it sure seems as you have. Faithful Catholics lived and died with views on the Trinity that were the reason for excommunication in the 4th and 5th century. Excommunication was the method through which the church expressed its opinion that a particular incorrect belief had consequences on the salvation of this beliefs adherent. Do I misunderstand?
Second
You said:
Would the following scenario be in accordance with Catholic teaching:
Hypothetical Situation:
There is a question on the situation of the re-married receiving communion.
The Pope calls for Bishops and/or scholars to prepare information for him.
He studies the information and is truly conflicted about making annulments MUCH easier or keeping things as they are (in fact making it clear that many parishes are not handling this situation properly).
As he is pondering it he has a vision. Maybe it is like Peter’s vision and there is some allegorical content or maybe it is 100% clear. Annulments will be made easier and faithful but remarried Catholic may petition there local bishop (or his designated representative) in a 1 hour meeting for an annulment. If the petitioner is sincere, committed to the new marriage, repentant for the previous marriage and maybe xyz, the bishop can grant the annulment at the conclusion of the meeting and then give the petitioner absolution, and the Eucharist.
The Pope presents this to the Bishops and the church, and the church moves forward.
The Pope believes and/or mentions to his confessor and/or shares with many folks that he received revelation from God for the church to solve this problem.
The Pope is correct in his understanding.
Per what you said, I would expect that you would say the above is in accordance with Catholic truth claims.
I would say that all of the above could happen, but that per Catholic teachings the Pope would in fact be wrong when he claimed that he received revelation for the church. If all of the above happened and the reception of communion by the re-married and quickly annulled is a matter of faith and morals, was declared from the chair of Peter, and was in accordance with Tradition; then the declaration that this would be the practice of the church WOULD be true and protected by the Holy Spirit. But the Pope would still be incorrect when he claimed it was revelation for the church that he received. It MIGHT be a gray area if the Pope claimed it was personal revelation to help him make the decision, but I THINK this would still be a concern for some Catholic theologians. If the declaration was to be from the chair of Peter, concerned faith and morals, and was NOT in accordance with Tradition; the Pope could plan to declare, but something would preclude it from happening. Thus the church was protected from error.
I will await your thoughts, but I from my reading of a handful of sources and Vatican I, I think the Pope would be incorrect in his understanding.
Charity, TOm
T
Tarquin
Guest
No, my statement points out the fact that fiction writers contradict themselves in their writing. Hence, if someone contradicts himself in his writing, it is possible he is writing fiction. If what he is writing is about people for whom there is no evidence they existed other than his writing – such as Robert E. Howard’s Conan – then it is ever more probably that what he wrote is fiction.
The fact that Joseph Smith knew the Bible also makes the reconstruction (of Jerusalem) much easier. The fact that he made up “Nahom”, and that no such Nahom exists, makes the reconstruction impossible.
By “less said,” I was obviously referring to what Joseph Smith said in the Book of Mormon about Book of Mormon geography, not to what has been said nearly 200 years later. The less he said, the fewer details there are to mix up, thus the less difficult it is for him to maintain internal consistency (on that general topic; he does fail to maintain consistency several times in the Book of Mormon). Robert E. Howard gave a general plan for Hyborian geography, but no specifics about location of cities or shorelines. We can (pretend to) guess where those lie in our current world, but there would never be certainty. He never gave GPS coordinates and never precisely identified any location (as near as I can recall; if he did, that’s an exception) with any place in the world today, the real world. Applying my comment about “the less said” to modern Mormon Anthropologists/Archeologists is called building a straw man argument, as you well know.
The Book of Mormon geography is obviously centered around the Hill Cumorah in Palmyra, New York, where Joseph Smith lived for a decade and from where he allegedly obtained his first copy of the Book of Mormon. It is not a theory. There is nothing in the Book of Mormon, that I have yet discovered (and I continue to be open-minded about the more geographic part) that obviates this part of America from being the center of Book of Mormon geography, your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. You have read (some) Great Lakes “theories” of the 19th century (1800s). You should bring your reading up to date. I suspect you have, but simply misspoke.
Then I will rephrase: But places without names in 1830s United States have no real existence - no Ammonihah, no Zarahemla, no Lehi-Nephi, no Gadiandi, no Gadiomnah, no Gimgimno, no Jacobugath, no Kishkumen. And places without names in 1830s Arabian peninsula have no real existence – no Nahom.
I am sorry. But, yeah, I hate my blinders, too.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
My point is that the author of the BOM did not contradiction himself in his understanding of the geography he was describing. Joseph Smith’s statements (maybe writing) about BOM geography produce contradictions with the BOM and with themselves. He didn’t even know if the BOM described 100’s of miles or 1000’s of miles. But, the author of the BOM described a consistent geography.
Jerusalem is one point in the journey from Jerusalem to Nahom to Bountiful. The valley of Lemuel and other rivers and … are the other 50+ points of data in the walk along the Frankincense trail. Other than Jerusalem these are not in the Bible.
And of course you know I believe the alter inscribed before 600BC with NHM is as direct of a HIT as possible for the BOM considering it is in the correct relationship to Jerusalem AND Bountiful and the correct time (and any inscription would not have vowels). But I think you have subscribed to the “wrong vowel sounds and .” that discounts Nahom. I find this baffling, but perhaps such is my blinders.
Smith said in the Book of Mormon about Book of Mormon geography, not to what has been said nearly 200 years later. … … Applying my comment about “the less said” to modern Mormon Anthropologists/Archeologists is called building a straw man argument, as you well know.
I knew what you were referring too perhaps you misunderstood my response, but I am glad we agree that 600 is unequal to “less.” And I do not think I am building a strawman instead I think you merely misunderstood me (probably due to my poor communication).
600 is the number of geographical references Sorenson pulled out of the BOM. He then created what he called “Mormon’s Map” which consistently used these 600+ references. Then he searched for a real world location in which “Mormon’s Map” fit. One of the key things that I keep referring to is that the distances specified in the BOM (usually by time to travel) were not well understood by Joseph Smith. Had Joseph Smith been the author of a book that had 600 points of geographic reference it would seem he must have either created numerous errors or he used a real or fictitious map. The author of the book didn’t create numerous errors and Joseph Smith had little idea what a real or fictitious map of the BOM lands would look like because sometimes he spoke as if it was 1000’s of miles when it was not. So, my point is that the consistent geography points to an author who had a map in mind. Joseph Smith didn’t have a map in mind even after receiving the BOM and thus the consistency is some evidence against Joseph Smith as author.
There are two main categories of Great Lakes BOM geographies with which I have some familiarity with. The BOM is a fraud (19th century production) and Joseph Smith pulled names from around the Great Lakes to make it. And the BOM is real and we can fit it in this or that location near Palmyra.
I am not a fan of either as I suspect you know. Few LDS who have worked on these issues for 10-20 years embrace heartland models, but some folks do. I find them quite problematic. The 19th Century BOM production Great Lakes model IMO suffers from pulling any similar sounding name and declaring this is the source of this … Unlike Sorensen’s model the internal geography clues do not line up with these similar sounding points.
If you are open minded you should read Sorensons book Mormon Codex, and stop demanding the BOM took place in NY. I can acknowledge that the plates being in Palmyra I does nothing positive for the Mesoamerican theory. But 20+ years of fleeing with no geographic references is a naturalistic way to explain how Moroni might have gotten the plates to NY. I generally favor supernatural ways, but I really find neither problematic.
And I still cannot see how Nahom is not a powerful and profound HIT for the BOM, but I surely have some form of bias/blinders that try as I might (and I have) I cannot shed.
Charity, TOm
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
No, I’m not mistaken (and I invite any other actual Catholics to comment as to whether I am mistaken).
No, I said that public revelation contains all that is necessary for salvation. It is the Deposit of Faith, which reached its culmination/summation in Jesus Christ, His incarnation, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension.
Another way of putting the viewpoint is that there will never be a new revelation claiming that now, we must bathe in the blood of 3 pigs as a new sacrament to receive eternal life.
The Deposit of Faith has already been given. Through the Holy Spirit, Divine guidance, we come to understand it more fully, and the Church can formally define those things.
Catholics believe that formal definitions that arise from Ecumenical Councils and Papal Infallibility are explicit defining of things already believed. We do not believe that they are wholesale inventions out of thin air. As already mentioned, they are Spirit guided defining of that Deposit of Faith already given, not something separate from or added to the Deposit of Faith.
If a “faithful Catholic” held a view contrary to the revealed doctrine of the Trinity that is taught by the Church, which resulted in their excommunication, I’m not sure how “faithful” they were.
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
Stephen168
New member
Accepting change as a result of “continuing revelation” is accepting the natural result of continuing revelation. But while you claim here to accept change, the Mormon Church does not and after a review many of your posts including #20 on this thread, I don’t believe you truly accept change either.
Change has been touted by the Mormon Church and every Mormon as being the hallmark of the Great Apostasy. So while you claim to be free to judge by different standards; it is not true.
This error is recored in Mormon Scripture by the founder of the latter day saint movement, which mean Mormon scripture is in error. Scripture that has remained void of real additions since 1918.
Continuing revelation has become a mess for Mormonism which I believe is why there has been no new additions to Mormon scripture.
People like Joseph Smith and the peril of “continuing revelation” are not new, and are not part of Christianity.
Stephen168
New member
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I am not married to determining who is closer to a correct understanding. I have read your comments and elsewhere and I hope to agree with at least some folks here what the proper understanding of this concept is.
No, I said that public revelation contains all that is necessary for salvation. It is the Deposit of Faith, which reached its culmination/summation in Jesus Christ, His incarnation, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension.
{…} (added by me from first quote).
With your correction, let me try again.
For my below statement, “set” = a group of things (in the below case the things are “truths” or pieces of true information.
Public revelation is the set of truths that contain all that is necessary for salvation. Some necessary for salvation truths existed before Christ’s ministry, but the complete set of truths (Public Revelation) was deposited upon the human race after Christ’s “incarnation, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension.” The Catholic Church as Christ’s bridegroom guards this “deposit of faith” but does not add to it. The Catholic Church’s understanding of the deposit of faith may increase, but this addition to the set of all truths is not an increase in the “set of truths that contain all that is necessary for salvation.”
Hopefully you can agree or provide specific correction to my augmented statement above.
I must go, but finished the above so …
I will comment on your comment on my first point when I can.
You didn’t address my second point.
And I had read that vision you linked a long time ago. I will comment later. Did you read it? I do not think it has much to say about the discussion we are having AND it has always (in my experience) been used by critics of the Catholic Church lead by Pope Francis.
Charity, TOm
Stephen168
New member
If I were a Mormon in 1844, it would have been because I believed in the claims of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith claimed the authority of Mormonism was with the First Presidency; Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, and Sidney Rigdon. After the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith on June 27, 1844, the authority of the Church would have been in Rigdon. I would have been a Rigdonite because that is where Joseph Smith claimed the authority to be, and Rigdon also rejected Joseph Smith’s inventions which were inconsistent with the Bible and the Book of Mormon (e.g. polygamy, baptism of the dead, polytheism).
But now we know that many of Joseph Smith’s claims have been proven false. If his claims which are subject to third party verification, like the Book of Mormon, have been proven false, I see no reason to believe claims which can never be verified. Reason would have me conclude Joseph Smith was a false prophet, so I see no reason to move to Monongahela, Pennsylvania.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
LivingWaters7 (and All),
I hope my post #57 accurately expresses what you were trying to explain is the content of “public revelation.”
I think you misunderstood my first query. I am not asking about someone who chooses to reject the definitions that are produced at a council. I think it would be inappropriate to call Dollinger a faithful Catholic. His faith was not such that he embraced the results of Vatican I.
I am specifically speaking about a person who believed not-X. Who lived and died believing not-X. Then 100 or 1000 years later a council defined X. Folks who fought for not-X at the council either acquiesced or were excommunicated. History shows these folks are not excommunicated for the heresy of rejecting the infallibility of the council. They are excommunicated for the heresy of not-X. I am suggesting that because they are now excommunicated for the heresy of not-X, that to believe X is “De Fide.” Since the person who lived and died many years ago also believed not-X, we have 2 choices. Either the person who lived and died many years ago is also a heretic about whom the church has very little positive to say concerning their salvation OR there is some CHANGE/DEVELOPMENT in the “set of truths necessary for salvation.” Previous to this council that set did not include X, but it does today.
Could I speak of God the Son as “another God” and be a faithful Catholic?
This is my first query (it is not about Dollinger who lived through the council and rejected its decision). My second query you might have missed as it was in a quote box labeled “hypothetical”:
There is a question on the situation of the re-married receiving communion.
The Pope calls for Bishops and/or scholars to prepare information for him.
He studies the information and is truly conflicted about making annulments MUCH easier or keeping things as they are (in fact making it clear that many parishes are not handling this situation properly).
As he is pondering it he has a vision. Maybe it is like Peter’s vision and there is some allegorical content or maybe it is 100% clear. Annulments will be made easier and faithful but remarried Catholic may petition there local bishop (or his designated representative) in a 1 hour meeting for an annulment. If the petitioner is sincere, committed to the new marriage, repentant for the previous marriage and maybe xyz, the bishop can grant the annulment at the conclusion of the meeting and then give the petitioner absolution, and the Eucharist.
The Pope presents this to the Bishops and the church, and the church moves forward.
The Pope believes and/or mentions to his confessor and/or shares with many folks that he received revelation from God for the church to solve this problem.
The Pope is correct in his understanding.
Per what you said, I would expect that you would say the above is in accordance with Catholic truth claims.
I would say that all of the above could happen, but that per Catholic teachings the Pope would in fact be wrong when he claimed that he received revelation for the church. If all of the above happened and the reception of communion by the re-married and quickly annulled is a matter of faith and morals, was declared from the chair of Peter, and was in accordance with Tradition; then the declaration that this would be the practice of the church WOULD be true and protected by the Holy Spirit. But the Pope would still be incorrect when he claimed it was revelation for the church that he received. It MIGHT be a gray area if the Pope claimed it was personal revelation to help him make the decision, but I THINK this would still be a concern for some Catholic theologians. If the declaration was to be from the chair of Peter, concerned faith and morals, and was NOT in accordance with Tradition; the Pope could plan to declare, but something would preclude it from happening. Thus the church was protected from error.
Charity, TOm
I hope my post #57 accurately expresses what you were trying to explain is the content of “public revelation.”
If a “faithful Catholic” held a view contrary to the revealed doctrine of the Trinity that is taught by the Church, which resulted in their excommunication, I’m not sure how “faithful” they were.
I think you misunderstood my first query. I am not asking about someone who chooses to reject the definitions that are produced at a council. I think it would be inappropriate to call Dollinger a faithful Catholic. His faith was not such that he embraced the results of Vatican I.
I am specifically speaking about a person who believed not-X. Who lived and died believing not-X. Then 100 or 1000 years later a council defined X. Folks who fought for not-X at the council either acquiesced or were excommunicated. History shows these folks are not excommunicated for the heresy of rejecting the infallibility of the council. They are excommunicated for the heresy of not-X. I am suggesting that because they are now excommunicated for the heresy of not-X, that to believe X is “De Fide.” Since the person who lived and died many years ago also believed not-X, we have 2 choices. Either the person who lived and died many years ago is also a heretic about whom the church has very little positive to say concerning their salvation OR there is some CHANGE/DEVELOPMENT in the “set of truths necessary for salvation.” Previous to this council that set did not include X, but it does today.
Could I speak of God the Son as “another God” and be a faithful Catholic?
This is my first query (it is not about Dollinger who lived through the council and rejected its decision). My second query you might have missed as it was in a quote box labeled “hypothetical”:
There is a question on the situation of the re-married receiving communion.
The Pope calls for Bishops and/or scholars to prepare information for him.
He studies the information and is truly conflicted about making annulments MUCH easier or keeping things as they are (in fact making it clear that many parishes are not handling this situation properly).
As he is pondering it he has a vision. Maybe it is like Peter’s vision and there is some allegorical content or maybe it is 100% clear. Annulments will be made easier and faithful but remarried Catholic may petition there local bishop (or his designated representative) in a 1 hour meeting for an annulment. If the petitioner is sincere, committed to the new marriage, repentant for the previous marriage and maybe xyz, the bishop can grant the annulment at the conclusion of the meeting and then give the petitioner absolution, and the Eucharist.
The Pope presents this to the Bishops and the church, and the church moves forward.
The Pope believes and/or mentions to his confessor and/or shares with many folks that he received revelation from God for the church to solve this problem.
The Pope is correct in his understanding.
Per what you said, I would expect that you would say the above is in accordance with Catholic truth claims.
I would say that all of the above could happen, but that per Catholic teachings the Pope would in fact be wrong when he claimed that he received revelation for the church. If all of the above happened and the reception of communion by the re-married and quickly annulled is a matter of faith and morals, was declared from the chair of Peter, and was in accordance with Tradition; then the declaration that this would be the practice of the church WOULD be true and protected by the Holy Spirit. But the Pope would still be incorrect when he claimed it was revelation for the church that he received. It MIGHT be a gray area if the Pope claimed it was personal revelation to help him make the decision, but I THINK this would still be a concern for some Catholic theologians. If the declaration was to be from the chair of Peter, concerned faith and morals, and was NOT in accordance with Tradition; the Pope could plan to declare, but something would preclude it from happening. Thus the church was protected from error.
Charity, TOm
S
SteveVH
Guest
We would agree with this statement. What I don’t understand is if Public Revelation is the set of truths that contain all that is necessary for salvation then how can you believe in continuing revelation? Does that mean that you might not have all that is necessary for salvation right now? What about the poor folks 100 years ago? And if revelation always continues does anyone ever have all that is necessary for salvation? They can’t. That is an impossibility if you believe the definition you have given.
From the Christian point of view, Jesus revealed all that is necessary for our salvation which is exactly why we are in no need of further revelation.
- Status