U
Upgrade25
Guest
Such as, the Baha’i claim that it was revealed as according to our time? I have been lurking a few debate threads between Catholic and Baha’i, and am curious, because of the similarities.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
G
grannymh
Guest
The basic answer is that Divine Revelation has been completed. Modern claims of new or better Divine Revelation are not accepted.Such as, the Baha’i claim that it was revealed as according to our time? I have been lurking a few debate threads between Catholic and Baha’i, and am curious, because of the similarities.
The position of the Catholic Church is explained in paragraphs 66-67 in the universal *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. *Note: it is important to understand the use of small print. Please first read paragraphs 20-21.
**20 **The use of small print in certain passages indicates observations of an historical or apologetic nature, or supplementary doctrinal explanations.
21 The quotations, also in small print, from patristic, liturgical, magisterial or hagiographical sources, are intended to enrich the doctrinal presentations. These texts have often been chosen with a view to direct catechetical use.
**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.
Note: Paragraph 67 is in small print.
**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”.
Links to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
S
St_Francis
Guest
The way I think about this is that we learn about some aspect of the faith more deeply, but we do not learn new or different things. The Catholic Church teaches that revelation ended when the last Apostle (John) died, but it takes us a long time to understand or learn to explain all the Christ taught.
L
littlestsouls2
Guest
‘Jesus advanced in wisdom’ (Lk. 2:52). Something analogous occurs in the Mystical Body of Christ. This allows of no contradiction.
D
DCNBILL
Guest
I
Iron_Donkey
Guest
The thing about development of doctrine is that it doesn’t contradict itself. A math example (because I’m a math nerd):
Development of doctrine: Suppose some people are trying to find an approximation of pi. The first one says “it’s a little more than 3”. The next says " it’s a little more than 3.1". The next says “The first three didgits are 3.14, no idea what’s next.” Etc. None of the further claims contradicts or goes back on what was said before - more information is just available.
Insofar as I understand it, the Baha’i say something that initially sounds similar, until they get to the point of “Thus religious truth is seen to be relative to its recipients and not absolute”. That is, from what little I have read, they say both that future revelations build upon previous ones with the previous ones still being true, but also seem to say that there can be contradictory changes. It is hard for me to tell from what I’ve read whether or not they explicitly say that contradiction can happen, but it seems that at least assume that it can implicitly. (For example, they take many religious figures, several of whom directly contradicted multiple points of Baha’i teaching, and say that they were prophets who taught religious truth.)
That the first three digits of pi are “3.14,” for example, is an absolute. It’s not all of the information about pi, but no additional information will contradict it. The next guy can say that the first four digits are 3.141, but he can’t say that they’re 3.139.
Likewise, the Baha’i say that both Buddha and Jesus were prophets. But Jesus did not merely expand upon the teachings of Buddhism, He contradicted such teachings. He didn’t say that all people are stuck in a cycle of birth and rebirth and should break free, and also should love each other and stuff, He said that all people die once and are judged.
So yeah, there is some truth to what the Baha’i say. God does reveal more as time goes on. But the key there is “more.”
Development of doctrine: Suppose some people are trying to find an approximation of pi. The first one says “it’s a little more than 3”. The next says " it’s a little more than 3.1". The next says “The first three didgits are 3.14, no idea what’s next.” Etc. None of the further claims contradicts or goes back on what was said before - more information is just available.
Insofar as I understand it, the Baha’i say something that initially sounds similar, until they get to the point of “Thus religious truth is seen to be relative to its recipients and not absolute”. That is, from what little I have read, they say both that future revelations build upon previous ones with the previous ones still being true, but also seem to say that there can be contradictory changes. It is hard for me to tell from what I’ve read whether or not they explicitly say that contradiction can happen, but it seems that at least assume that it can implicitly. (For example, they take many religious figures, several of whom directly contradicted multiple points of Baha’i teaching, and say that they were prophets who taught religious truth.)
That the first three digits of pi are “3.14,” for example, is an absolute. It’s not all of the information about pi, but no additional information will contradict it. The next guy can say that the first four digits are 3.141, but he can’t say that they’re 3.139.
Likewise, the Baha’i say that both Buddha and Jesus were prophets. But Jesus did not merely expand upon the teachings of Buddhism, He contradicted such teachings. He didn’t say that all people are stuck in a cycle of birth and rebirth and should break free, and also should love each other and stuff, He said that all people die once and are judged.
So yeah, there is some truth to what the Baha’i say. God does reveal more as time goes on. But the key there is “more.”
J
JimG
Guest
No. Development of doctrine refers to increased understanding of existing revelation. There is no new revelation, no progressive revelation.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.