CCC Discussion: Christ Jesus -- Mediator and Fullness of All Revelation

[Stylteralmaldo]

Continuing with Chapter Two (God Comes to meet Man):

Previous topics can be found at the following links:

CHAPTER ONE (Man’s Capacity for God):

CCC Discussion: The Desire For God
CCC Discussion: Ways of Coming to Know God
CCC Discussion: The Knowledge of God according to the Church
CCC Discussion: How can we speak about God?

CHAPTER TWO (God Comes to meet Man):

CCC Discussion: God Reveals His Plan of Loving Goodness
CCC Discussion: The Stages of Revelation

The purpose of this thread is to dialogue with others to see if we can at the very least understand each others points of view more clearly, or perhaps come closer together as people learning to seek the truth about ourselves and/or God.​

**III. CHRIST JESUS – “MEDIATOR AND FULLNESS OF ALL REVELATION”**25
God has said everything in his Word
65 “In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son.” Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on *Hebrews *1:1-2:

In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty. (St. John of the Cross)
**
There will be no further Revelation**
66 “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church. Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Continuing with Chapter Two (God Comes to meet Man):

Previous topics can be found at the following links:

CHAPTER ONE (Man’s Capacity for God):

CCC Discussion: The Desire For God
CCC Discussion: Ways of Coming to Know God
CCC Discussion: The Knowledge of God according to the Church
CCC Discussion: How can we speak about God?

CHAPTER TWO (God Comes to meet Man):

CCC Discussion: God Reveals His Plan of Loving Goodness
CCC Discussion: The Stages of Revelation

The purpose of this thread is to dialogue with others to see if we can at the very least understand each others points of view more clearly, or perhaps come closer together as people learning to seek the truth about ourselves and/or God.​

**III. CHRIST JESUS – “MEDIATOR AND FULLNESS OF ALL REVELATION”**25
God has said everything in his Word
65 “In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son.” Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on *Hebrews *1:1-2:

In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty. (St. John of the Cross)
**
There will be no further Revelation**
66 “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church. Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

I couldn’t agree with the last, because I do not believe in private revelations at all. Although I think the CCC article is good to carefully point out the limits of such things.

 

[Izdaari]

For the first time in this series, we come to one I don’t agree with. Like Triune Unity, but for a different reason, I can’t agree with the last statement, #67. I do believe in private revelations (duh, I’m Pentecostal ), but I don’t believe in the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

 

[benidict]

i agree with all the Church teaches and try to comform to Her teachings. peace

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

"TriuneUnity:

I couldn’t agree with the last, because I do not believe in private revelations at all…

Why do you not believe in them?

…I do believe in private revelations (duh, I’m Pentecostal ), but I don’t believe in the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

I was hopeful your streak would have continued unscathed Izdaari.

My question to you is absent a magisterium, how do you discern whether a private revelation is truly of the Holy Spirit?

 

[chaunceygardner]

#65 Two thoughts on this paragraph. First, it seems to somewhat downplay the revelations that occur in what we call the Old Testament. “In him he has said everything” is not an accurate portrayal of the history of revelation. Also, this paragraph and #66 both emphasize that there will be no further revelation (“no further word”). That seems presumptuous and assumes that everything that needs to be revealed has been. But how can we know that? Jews at the time of Moses probably assumed that God had revealed everything to them at that point, but then we have the prophets and wisdom authors, followed by the revelations of Jeus. It could happen again. I do agree with par #66 that we still have not completely grasped the meaning and significance of God’s revelations.

Par. #67 warns about those who claim private revelation that extends, expands or changes the message of God. Being cautious regarding “false prophets” is certainly an appropriate warning, but one must keep in mind that some of the revelations of Jesus were initially “private” and only later became public as they were proclaimed by his disciples. So a “private” revelation could develop into a public revelation over time.

Finally, Par. 67 seems to partly contradict the other two. After saying in those that there will be no new revelation, Par. 67 allows for revelations that “constitute an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.” That also seems to imply that revelations could come from the “saints” who lived after Jesus, which I think is true. Prophets are not relegated to just Old Testament times.

So, while I see nothing glaringly wrong with these three paragraphs, some ambiguity seems to exist in them and between them, at least to this reader.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

#65…it seems to somewhat downplay the revelations that occur in what we call the Old Testament. “In him he has said everything” is not an accurate portrayal of the history of revelation…

I read this paragraph as meaning that the Old Testament prophets had a partial revelation which was then later revealed in full by Christ. This is how I read the following sentence in paragraph 65:

“In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one.”

chaunceygardner:

…#65] and #66 both emphasize that there will be no further revelation (“no further word”)…

The paragraph actually emphasizes there will be no further “public” revelation.

chaunceygardner:

…That seems presumptuous and assumes that everything that needs to be revealed has been. But how can we know that? Jews at the time of Moses probably assumed that God had revealed everything to them at that point, but then we have the prophets and wisdom authors, followed by the revelations of Jeus. It could happen again…

Unlike Moses who had a revelation about God, Jesus is in fact God. Jesus revealed completely who he is when he was here. Nothing additional is necessary since Jesus completely revealed Himself to his Apostles.

chaunceygardner:

…Par. #67…one must keep in mind that some of the revelations of Jesus were initially “private” and only later became public as they were proclaimed by his disciples. So a “private” revelation could develop into a public revelation over time…

If by private revelation you mean some new truth about the Christian faith that has never been revealed before, I would not accept such new revelations as being necessary to faith.

chaunceygardner:

…Par. 67 seems to partly contradict the other two. After saying in those that there will be no new revelation, Par. 67 allows for revelations that “constitute an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.” That also seems to imply that revelations could come from the “saints” who lived after Jesus, which I think is true. Prophets are not relegated to just Old Testament times.

The extent the Catholic Church will recognize revelations from the saints is what has already been publically revealed through Jesus Christ. In the Old Testament, the Prophets revealed who was coming - Jesus Christ. Jesus then revealed himself in full during the Apostolic age. Since then, our knowledge of what has been publically revealed is gradually being understood by the faithful (the saints) throughout the centuries. Private revelation is acceptable as long as it doesn’t contradict what has already been revealed by Christ during the Apostolic age.

 

[Izdaari]

I was hopeful your streak would have continued unscathed Izdaari.

It did run for a long time, didn’t it?

But I knew it would end when it came to something declaring the authority of the Catholic Church. As much as we’ve agreed so far, I am not Catholic.

My question to you is absent a magisterium, how do you discern whether a private revelation is truly of the Holy Spirit?

Mostly I’d just have to go by my favorite tool, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral:

• Scripture
• Tradition (a magisterium, if I had one, would be part of the Tradition category; and I do believe in consulting Tradition – I just don’t consider it authoritative in the same way Scripture is)
• Reason
• Experience (private revelation would itself be part of the Experience category)

And I would consult my pastor, a learned and wise man of sound doctrine.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

…But I knew it would end when it came to something declaring the authority of the Catholic Church. As much as we’ve agreed so far, I am not Catholic.

Mostly I’d just have to go by my favorite tool, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral:

I was hopeful that the only disagreement you had with the paragraph was the authority aspect. In some cases, it’s the authority itself which is rejected rather than the teaching. But alas, the Wesleyan Quadilateral method of discernment is not consistent with the Catholic discernment.

Izdaari:

• Scripture
• Tradition (a magisterium, if I had one, would be part of the Tradition category; and I do believe in consulting Tradition – I just don’t consider it authoritative in the same way Scripture is)
• Reason
• Experience (private revelation would itself be part of the Experience category)

And I would consult my pastor, a learned and wise man of sound doctrine.

I read the wiki-link you provided and what I gather is that Tradition, Reason, and Experience all take a back-seat to Scripture. If the experience (i.e. private revelation) is contrary to Scripture, then it is rejected. If it is not contrary to Scripture, then it is accepted.

Let’s say you personally have a private revelation (experience) that to you seems reasonable. You consult Scripture and do not find it to be contrary to it. Your experience is consistent with your understanding of church tradition. You consult your pastor who agrees with you that your experience is consistent with Christianity. Do you take it much further than that or does that pretty much sum up how something like this is discerned? Who ultimately accepts or rejects the private revelation as true (you, your pastor, someone else)?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Why do you not believe in them?

I hold that all forms of revelation, both private and public, have ceased with the end of the apostolic era. We have one witness of revelation in the present era, and that is prophetic and apostolic Scripture. Scripture provides no promise of such private revelations to individuals.

 

[Izdaari]

I was hopeful that the only disagreement you had with the paragraph was the authority aspect. In some cases, it’s the authority itself which is rejected rather than the teaching. But alas, the Wesleyan Quadilateral method of discernment is not consistent with the Catholic discernment.
I read the wiki-link you provided and what I gather is that Tradition, Reason, and Experience all take a back-seat to Scripture. If the experience (i.e. private revelation) is contrary to Scripture, then it is rejected. If it is not contrary to Scripture, then it is accepted.

That’s correct. All those other factors are considered (and personally, I tend to lean on Reason, being by nature a rationalist-skeptic type), but Scripture is primary. A private revelation would have to pass the Scripture test first of all - if it didn’t, I’d consider it a wild imagination or a deception rather than a valid revelation; though I would double check the possibility that I may have misunderstood the Scripture. It’d have to pass the other tests as well, but they’re secondary… and so is the revelation itself, being part of the Experience category.

Let’s say you personally have a private revelation (experience) that to you seems reasonable. You consult Scripture and do not find it to be contrary to it. Your experience is consistent with your understanding of church tradition. You consult your pastor who agrees with you that your experience is consistent with Christianity. Do you take it much further than that or does that pretty much sum up how something like this is discerned? Who ultimately accepts or rejects the private revelation as true (you, your pastor, someone else)?

Right, that’d be pretty much the path I’d follow. Of course I’d pray about it, but that’s probably assumed already. If it had already passed those tests, and it were something that affected just me, it would be totally up to me. If it were something I wanted to pass on to the church, I’d leave it in my pastor’s hands - I totally trust his judgment and he’s influential in the denomination (which is Assemblies of God, btw).

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

"TriuneUnity:

I hold that all forms of revelation, both private and public, have ceased with the end of the apostolic era. We have one witness of revelation in the present era, and that is prophetic and apostolic Scripture. Scripture provides no promise of such private revelations to individuals.

Is this consistent with Lutheran theology and/or is this your personal opinion on this matter? I am convinced that private revelation exists in the post-apostolic era. I don’t believe Scripture holds to the idea that God will cease revealing His truth after apostolic times. When I say this, I am not suggesting that new truth will be revealed, but the Truth that has been taught since Jesus was here will be reiterated and/or expressed more clearly through private revelations to assist the faithful.

I am slightly uneasy with the term “so-called” private revelations in paragraph 67 if only for the sense that it is almost as if it says ‘well, there are those who claim private revelation, but…’. I understand that the faithful are not required to believe private revelation as part of the deposit of faith, but I do not automatically discount what is revealed through private revelation. I do take it with a cautionary eye in my personal discernment process.

…If it were something I wanted to pass on to the church, I’d leave it in my pastor’s hands - I totally trust his judgment and he’s influential in the denomination (which is Assemblies of God, btw).

It sounds like you are not opposed to trusting an outside authority in helping in your discernment. This is similar to Catholic teaching. In Catholicism, a private revelation pertaining to the Church would normally be brought to the pastor’s attention. From there the pastor could refer the matter to the local bishop, perhaps all the way to the Pope. There’s no hard fast rule that says that someone who has experienced a private revelation needs to go through the pastor first, but it is probably the normal way.

I’m unfamiliar with Assembly of God’s structure, so I’m curious if the pastor can proclaim a private revelation as worthy of belief on his own or would he need to consult an assembly (for lack of a better term) of pastors to assist in the discernment process?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Is this consistent with Lutheran theology and/or is this your personal opinion on this matter? I am convinced that private revelation exists in the post-apostolic era. I don’t believe Scripture holds to the idea that God will cease revealing His truth after apostolic times. When I say this, I am not suggesting that new truth will be revealed, but the Truth that has been taught since Jesus was here will be reiterated and/or expressed more clearly through private revelations to assist the faithful.

Consistent with Lutheran teaching. You’re correct that we will better understand divinely revealed truth in the Scriptures; I wouldn’t deem this a private revelation, however. It is illumination of a truth that is already established. A revelation would be something completely new.

 

[Izdaari]

It sounds like you are not opposed to trusting an outside authority in helping in your discernment. This is similar to Catholic teaching. In Catholicism, a private revelation pertaining to the Church would normally be brought to the pastor’s attention. From there the pastor could refer the matter to the local bishop, perhaps all the way to the Pope. There’s no hard fast rule that says that someone who has experienced a private revelation needs to go through the pastor first, but it is probably the normal way.

I’m unfamiliar with Assembly of God’s structure, so I’m curious if the pastor can proclaim a private revelation as worthy of belief on his own or would he need to consult an assembly (for lack of a better term) of pastors to assist in the discernment process?

Right, the process sounds similar. And no, I’m not opposed to trusting my pastor or others older and wiser in the church. I know I don’t know everything, and those with more education and experience, or perhaps just more spiritually advanced, may understand things I don’t.

AG structure is very loose, similar to Baptists. But we have a central organization which has authority over doctrine. A pastor can change doctrine for the local church only, but only within the bounds of official AG doctrine. If we had bishops, I’m pretty sure my pastor would be one. He has the seniority, the respect and the leadership ability for it. He would be able to bring it to the denominational leadership’s attention.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

…A revelation would be something completely new.

What do you think of the case of Joan of Arc?

Her revelations weren’t adding to the deposit of faith, but you could make the argument that they were ‘completely new’ in the sense that they pertained to that time period.