Help with debating a Mormon

[dianaiad]

I hope this isn’t one of those leading questions. There are examples in the Bible (and also the BoM) where God commands to kill and they kill. Or he commands people to kill, they don’t kill, and he’s unhappy they disobeyed him. The particular passage I’m referring to here is somewhere in - I think - Judges? - the Israelites have repossesed land from the original inhabitants - God has told them to mass-slaughter them, but since they do not, in punishment, he prophecies these same neighbors will vex and punish Israel for years to come for their disobedience. The famous example in the Book of Mormon involves something that shows up later in the BoM narrative, the Sword of Laban. Early on in Jerusalem, the spirit constrains Nephi to cut off the head of the drunken, sleeping Laban with his own sword, whose death made it possible retreive the family geneologies and religious scriptures to take to them on their journey to America.

Anyway, short answer, if God commands it, it can’t be evil. Is that where your question is leading?

Not really, but your response works.

In any case, “Gospel Principles” is problematic because it makes the kind of exceptions that it does on abortion, and it definitely differs from the unequivocal Catholic stance. Note, Gospel Principles is a basic catechetical text that can be found in multiple LDS homes, with introductions to most of the basic LDS beliefs. A basic text of this is online if someone hasn’t included it before:

lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-49,00.html

I will admit that it is leading…in a Socratic sort of way. If ending a human life is intrinsically evil, then, by the same logic as Stephen’s stand regarding abortion as intrinsically evil, there can never, ever, be a good enough excuse to end a human life. However, as you have just mentioned there are times when even God commands it. There are also times when mere mortals must do it–and it is not evil.

I am willing to concede that abortion is intrinsically evil–to the exact degree that ending a human life is intrinsically evil, especially since at the bottom that is precisely what abortion is; the ending of a human life. It seems to me that the same things that justify ending the life of a human born would justify ending an unborn life.

 

[Arandur]

No, actually. Anybody can speak ‘Truth,’ prophets and non-prophets alike. However, in order to be a prophet, and to be speaking as one, God must speak directly to you, and give you a message for the direction and edification of the church…and the world. Prophets receive direct revelation from God. That’s what makes them prophets, and not simply good (or even great) teachers.
…
Do Catholics believe that God speaks directly to their leaders? As in direct revelation, 'thus saith the Lord" sort of stuff?

God speaks directly in many ways, not all of which are booming voices and direct apparitions–though there have been these experiences recorded within our Church. To think otherwise, though, goes against Scripture’s “still, small voice” and the evidence of the apostolic experience, recorded in the NT and in contemporary works. The Spirit moves within the congregation and with special provision among the apostolic offices; it is known by the unity of those so ordained.

Any lunatic can rave about God speaking directly to them (and many thousands do); and more can claim the same from supernatural experiences (Muhammed and Smith being among the most enduring). How do we know the difference between the truth of these and falsehood? We follow the pattern set down in Scripture and affirmed in the earliest age of our Church, finding the confirmation of truth in its consistency with the unified consensus of the apostolic offices in agreement with Scripture and Tradition.

I will admit that since people have been emphasizing the role of Sacred Tradition in the doctrine and dogma of the church, I am coming to believe that you may be claiming exactly that…but if so, it does beg a question.

What question?

You are quite right. I, at least, don’t understand it. Isn’t Sacred Tradition an ongoing thing?

Yes, in the sense of the continuing unfolding of our understanding and the guidance of the Spirit in our daily lives and the moral issues of the times. What sense do you mean it in?

I don’t get it. Honestly. As I have written before, if all truth were revealed during Christ’s incarnation, then how come we know anything about Him? How could anyone have the nerve to claim continuing revelation FROM Him? Yet you do.

This statement is bewilderingly nonsensical to me. Please explain further.
If something is revealed and then taught/transmitted to others, the initial revelation occurred. What happens later is just passage of that truth down, and probably gaining increased understanding of it and pondering it to figure out how it applies to life.

You know many things without Jesus having to come down from heaven and meet you personally, demonstrate that it’s really Him, and tell you what you need to know.

But nothing that results in scripture. Nothing that is put down in words, combined in the canon…it is a curious thing, to me.

You don’t seem to understand the importance we place on the teachings of the Magisterium. First, Scripture has its own special place because of its manner of origin and pre-eminence in Tradition. Sort of like the Book of Mormon has for you. But ecumenical documents are really quite similar to your Doctrine and Covenants, encyclicals similar to pronouncements by your prophets or perhaps like the Pearl of Great Price.

What’s mystifying to me is that Mormons attack the Church and the Magisterium and the doctrine of infallibility, when your own version of it mimics it and indeed only makes more grandiose and expansive claims.

But you don’t claim that it is. WE claim that ongoing revelation to prophets must result in scripture, as the ongoing revelation to Peter, James, John and Paul was included in scripture: writings about revelation that happened after the death and resurrection of Jesus.

We do hold Magisterial teachings to be sacred, like Scripture in many ways. See above. Not all of what the original Apostles taught was written down in Scripture. That’s a really weird claim coming from a Mormon since most Mormons think the early Church was structured in a way more similar to your current structure, with “stakes” and similarly defined roles and what not, none of which is in Scripture.

Why were they included in the canon, but the stuff you claim is the same thing (the ecumenical councils, et.al) is not?

It’s not included in yours, either. Your “Prophet” does not add to the Book of Mormon. He adds to the D&C, if anything. You all abide by the D&C as coming from God. So do we abide by our Church’s teachings from the Councils.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

From the Catechism:

884 "The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council."405 But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor."406

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The entry on Tradition and the Living Magisteriaum in the original Catholic encyclopedia is excellent.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

 

[dianaiad]

,SNIP TO HERE>
This statement is bewilderingly nonsensical to me. Please explain further.,snip to end.

I’m going to address this statement specifically. It was in response to this quote from me:

I don’t get it. Honestly. As I have written before, if all truth were revealed during Christ’s incarnation, then how come we know anything about Him? How could anyone have the nerve to claim continuing revelation FROM Him? Yet you do.

(I kept the "bolded’ text the way you had it)

The claim seems to be that all revelation, and all truth, was contained in the mortal incarnation of Jesus Christ, and that no additional truth needed to be said after His death and resurrection.

The problem with that position is—nobody wrote anything about Him until well after His death and resurrection. Everything, and I do mean everything, we know of Christ, we know from men who knew Him, and who received revelation from Him. For anyone to claim that there was no revelation after Christ, and no new things to be taught after Him, is to deny the very men who are telling His story. You certainly cannot deny the principle of ongoing revelation that results in scripture when you accept the apostle PAUL as a prophet (and since he had divine revelation and wrote scripture, he most certainly was a prophet.)

So…what is it about Paul that makes him acceptable, but nobody after him?

Now the Catholic claim seems to be that Sacred Tradition, the men meeting in ecuminical councils and the like, were indeed receiving revelation–whether it was the loud herald angel sort or the 'still small voice." The problem, of course, is that you don’t treat it as revelation. You don’t add it to the canon.

It seems to me, then, that there is something different about revelation–or inspiration or whatever you want to call it, given to the ecumenical councils and more modern Catholic leaders; not the same thing as revelation as given to Paul, or Peter. Certainly it’s not scripture, or it would be in the canon. “Lesser?” perhaps not…but certainly not the same thing, and that is our claim; When God speaks to a man with a message for the world, it is scripture. EXACTLY the same way that the writings of the old and new Testament are scripture, and should be treated exactly the same way.

And that is what I meant. The very fact that we KNOW what Christ taught means that ongoing revelation was meant to continue, else we wouldn’t know of Him. We wouldn’t know of the Acts of the apostles, or the miracles of Pentacost, or the book of Revelation, or the Pauline letters…none of that.

 

[Arandur]

The claim seems to be that all revelation, and all truth, was contained in the mortal incarnation of Jesus Christ, and that no additional truth needed to be said after His death and resurrection.

Depends on what you call “additional truth.” Jesus left nothing necessary for salvation out of His teachings or else none could have been saved. That alone is proof of what we Catholics mean in saying that all revelation necessary for salvation was completed in Christ.

The problem with that position is—nobody wrote anything about Him until well after His death and resurrection. Everything, and I do mean everything, we know of Christ, we know from men who knew Him, and who received revelation from Him. For anyone to claim that there was no revelation after Christ, and no new things to be taught after Him, is to deny the very men who are telling His story.

So if you receive a revelation and tell that to someone and that person tells it to someone else or writes it down, that final link in the chain is receiving “new” revelation? What language are you speaking?

You certainly cannot deny the principle of ongoing revelation that results in scripture when you accept the apostle PAUL as a prophet (and since he had divine revelation and wrote scripture, he most certainly was a prophet.)

Paul was a contemporary of Christ. He knew Christ, he just didn’t accept him. As for “revelation” and “Scripture” and “prophet,” again, you use terms in nonstandard ways. Catholics and most Christians use “Inspiration” and “author” to refer to the transmission (almost always not direct transcription of God’s actual spoken words) of Scripture.

You don’t add it to the canon.
…
When God speaks to a man with a message for the world, it is scripture. EXACTLY the same way that the writings of the old and new Testament are scripture, and should be treated exactly the same way.

Neither do you! The original Scriptural canon is held separate from later authoritative writings, in a manner similar to how your Book of Mormon is not added to but you do keep adding to the D&C. So stop repeating this nonsense of not “adding to the canon.”

And that is what I meant. The very fact that we KNOW what Christ taught means that ongoing revelation was meant to continue, else we wouldn’t know of Him. We wouldn’t know of the Acts of the apostles, or the miracles of Pentacost, or the book of Revelation, or the Pauline letters…none of that.

So…because we have received this knowledge of Christ means that ongoing revelation did continue? Sounds like you just defeated your own gripe against non-Mormon churches. Everyone who’s teaching any of Christ’s teachings are apparently benefiting from “ongoing revelation.” If not, please be more careful in how you define your terms. You say on the one hand that revelation does not mean transmission of truth, and then you turn right around and say that it DOES mean transmission of truth already revealed.

As for how the Catholic Church views the Magisterium, look at the Catechism paragraphs Thurifer posted earlier, and Rebecca’s link. Pay particular attention to this part:
"When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.“420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421”

 

[RebeccaJ]

We certainly do treat it as revelation.

There is no rule in the Catholic Church that all revelation is canonized.

 

[dianaiad]

Depends on what you call “additional truth.” Jesus left nothing necessary for salvation out of His teachings or else none could have been saved. That alone is proof of what we Catholics mean in saying that all revelation necessary for salvation was completed in Christ.

So if you receive a revelation and tell that to someone and that person tells it to someone else or writes it down, that final link in the chain is receiving “new” revelation? What language are you speaking?

Paul was a contemporary of Christ. He knew Christ, he just didn’t accept him. As for “revelation” and “Scripture” and “prophet,” again, you use terms in nonstandard ways. Catholics and most Christians use “Inspiration” and “author” to refer to the transmission (almost always not direct transcription of God’s actual spoken words) of Scripture.

There is no, repeat, NO, evidence that Paul knew Jesus Christ. He certainly never said so, and given his repentance and willingness to accuse himself of all manner of things before his conversion experience, it seems odd that he would have forgotten that. He admits to having persecuted, jailed and voted for the execution of Jesus’ followers–if he didn’t mind mentioning that, why would he mind talking about meeting Jesus in the flesh, if he had done so?

Oh, yes, Paul did indeed eventually meet Jesus–on the road to Damascus. But that event is what qualified him to be a prophet; Jesus was dead and resurrected; any appearance by Him to His followers after that IS divine revelation, by definition.

Neither do you! The original Scriptural canon is held separate from later authoritative writings, in a manner similar to how your Book of Mormon is not added to but you do keep adding to the D&C. So stop repeating this nonsense of not “adding to the canon.”

Oh, now, that’s just silly. You don’t confuse the Old Testament with the New Testament, yet you hold both collections as scriptural, part of the scriptural canon. In EXACTLY the same way, we don’t confuse the Bible with the Book of Mormon, or either one with the Pearl of Great Price or the Doctrine and Covenants, but we hold them all as equal in terms of being scripture. So yes, we do…and you don’t. You do not hold later authoritative writings to the same level as the bible; you do not say that they are scripture.

So…because we have received this knowledge of Christ means that ongoing revelation did continue?

Sounds like you just defeated your own gripe against non-Mormon churches. Everyone who’s teaching any of Christ’s teachings are apparently benefiting from “ongoing revelation.”

Spoke too soon. Darn…

If not, please be more careful in how you define your terms. You say on the one hand that revelation does not mean transmission of truth, and then you turn right around and say that it DOES mean transmission of truth already revealed.

Ok, you blew that one on two counts. First, I did NOT say that revelation does not mean transmission of truth. I would hope that God would refrain from lying to His prophets; direct revelation must, if it is from God, be truth. Second, I did NOT mean that direct revelation means ‘transmission of truth already revealed." I suppose that it could mean that, but it could also mean the transmission of truth that hasn’t been revealed yet…as some of the truths given to the apostles after Jesus’ death and resurrection were truths that had not yet been revealed to the church at the time.

As for how the Catholic Church views the Magisterium, look at the Catechism paragraphs Thurifer posted earlier, and Rebecca’s link. Pay particular attention to this part:
"When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.“420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421”

Then why isn’t all this stuff treated the same way scripture is? Why isn’t it CALLED scripture? Why aren’t the authors of it viewed in the same way the apostles and prophets of old are?

You can’t have this both ways, y’know.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

It seems like if everyone needs to define the words we’re using here. For example, what do these words mean?

-Scripture
-Sacred Tradition
-Revelation
-Public Revelation vs. Private Revelation
-Continuous Revelation

Obviously the Ecumenical Councils are as binding on Catholics as what is found in the Bible. Why do we not call the results of such Councils or Papal Infallibility “scripture”? Does it matter? Does this go back to the definition of Scripture?

Things to think about, and I too will think about the above.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It seems like if everyone needs to define the words we’re using here. For example, what do these words mean?

-Scripture
-Sacred Tradition
-Revelation
-Public Revelation vs. Private Revelation
-Continuous Revelation

Obviously the Ecumenical Councils are as binding on Catholics as what is found in the Bible. Why do we not call the results of such Councils or Papal Infallibility “scripture”? Does it matter? Does this go back to the definition of Scripture?

Things to think about, and I too will think about the above.

Yeah, I don’t think it is understood that by Sacred Tradition, we’re not talking turkey and football.

 

[Stephen168]

WE claim that ongoing revelation to prophets must result in scripture, as the ongoing revelation to Peter, James, John and Paul was included in scripture: writings about revelation that happened after the death and resurrection of Jesus.

In EXACTLY the same way, we don’t confuse the Bible with the Book of Mormon, or either one with the Pearl of Great Price or the Doctrine and Covenants, but we hold them all as equal in terms of being scripture.

Which documents contain the revelations banning polygamy and allowing black men to hold the priesthood?

 

[dianaiad]

Which documents contain the revelations banning polygamy and allowing black men to hold the priesthood?

That would be the Doctrine and Covenants, Stephen.

 

[Stephen168]

I am willing to concede that abortion is intrinsically evil–to the exact degree that ending a human life is intrinsically evil, especially since at the bottom that is precisely what abortion is; the ending of a human life. It seems to me that the same things that justify ending the life of a human born would justify ending an unborn life.

Too bad the Mormon Church doesn’t agree with you anymore.

 

[dianaiad]

It seems like if everyone needs to define the words we’re using here. For example, what do these words mean?

-Scripture
-Sacred Tradition
-Revelation
-Public Revelation vs. Private Revelation
-Continuous Revelation

Obviously the Ecumenical Councils are as binding on Catholics as what is found in the Bible. Why do we not call the results of such Councils or Papal Infallibility “scripture”? Does it matter? Does this go back to the definition of Scripture?

Things to think about, and I too will think about the above.

OK, I’ll start with what I believe the above words mean:

Scripture: the dictionary defines this word as 'the sacred writings of a religion" or “a passage from such a writing or book.”

I have always understood (and from this discussion, that understanding may be in error) that Christians other than Mormons restrict ‘scripture’ to the OT and the NT.

I believe that scripture is that which is written by prophets, instructions given to them, directly by God as by revelation, for the edification and governance of His people. If God says to a man 'go tell the church this thing or that thing," and the man writes that revelation down, it is scripture, and he, by virtue of having had that revelation and writing it down, is a prophet.

***Sacred Tradition: *** I haven’t got a clue. I get the impression that Sacred Tradition is a collection of written (and yes, it all gets written down and made permanent at some point, or nobody would know what it actually IS.) commentary upon Scripture, an exegesis of what Scripture means, and how it applies to the lives of all Catholics.

Revelation; For the purposes of producing scripture, revelation is something a little more definite than the 'still small voice." It is unmistakable for anything else, and, again for the purposes of producing scripture, is given to someone who has the authority to say 'thus saith the Lord" when telling the church about doctrine or practices, and making that stick. Everybody is entitled to personal revelation for their own lives and 'callings," as parents are entitled to it for their families.

Wait. I think that took care of “Public vs. private revelation” too.

Continuous Revelation I’m not certain that’s the right term, but hey, I’ll go with it. I figure that if God thought that the folks so close to Jesus’ time that many of them actually KNEW Him needed revelation continually (to Paul, Peter et.al) to guide them in learning about Christ, then what happened suddenly that they didn’t need it any more?

I think they did. They just…didn’t get it. Certainly not on the level that produced honest to goodness scripture.

I believe we do now, however.

 

[dianaiad]

We certainly do treat it as revelation.

There is no rule in the Catholic Church that all revelation is canonized.

OK, that’s the problem from my POV.

Y’see, we Mormons are criticized for ‘adding to’ the bible because we have the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. The Doctrine and Covenants would seem to be very similar to "Sacred Tradition,’ in terms of recognizing revelation that is not canonized in the NT or OT…but it IS in our scriptural canon, because we believe that revelation today is just as much from God, and is scripture just as the NT is.

Do you see a problem here?

 

[Stephen168]

The claim seems to be that all revelation, and all truth, was contained in the mortal incarnation of Jesus Christ, and that no additional truth needed to be said after His death and resurrection.

The problem with that position is—nobody wrote anything about Him until well after His death and resurrection. Everything, and I do mean everything, we know of Christ, we know from men who knew Him, and who received revelation from Him. For anyone to claim that there was no revelation after Christ, and no new things to be taught after Him, is to deny the very men who are telling His story. You certainly cannot deny the principle of ongoing revelation that results in scripture when you accept the apostle PAUL as a prophet (and since he had divine revelation and wrote scripture, he most certainly was a prophet.)

The Mormon understanding of revelation appears to be very odd. For example if a man dies and you move into town, a Mormon would think the only way you could learn what the man thought or believed would be through ‘revelation.’ Even though you could learn about him from neighbors, friends, and family a Mormon would think ‘revelation’ was involved.

 

[dianaiad]

That would be the Doctrine and Covenants, Stephen.

(addendum)

Actually, that would be Official declarations 1 and 2 in the Doctrine and Covenants, stephen.

 

[dianaiad]

Too bad the Mormon Church doesn’t agree with you anymore.

Oh, it does.

And so does the Catholic church. After all, Catholics are not pacifists. Catholics will defend their homes with deadly force. Catholics will go to war. Catholics will make difficult choices when life and death situations are in front of them.

It is not the ending of human life that is intrinsically evil, Stephen. It is the reason for doing so that can be.

 

[Arandur]

There is no, repeat, NO, evidence that Paul knew Jesus Christ. He certainly never said so, and given his repentance and willingness to accuse himself of all manner of things before his conversion experience, it seems odd that he would have forgotten that. He admits to having persecuted, jailed and voted for the execution of Jesus’ followers–if he didn’t mind mentioning that, why would he mind talking about meeting Jesus in the flesh, if he had done so?

Seeing and meeting are rather different. We do know Paul was a contemporary and certainly knew of all the “trouble” Jesus was causing before His crucifixion. It is my understanding that such connection is understood in tradition, but it really doesn’t matter that much. Paul is normally referred to as “apostle,” but not one of the original Twelve Apostles or Judas’s appointed successor (Matthias certainly was a close disciple who knew Jesus personally prior to His crucifixion). Hopefully you know that we Catholics believe all bishops hold the apostolic office and are in that sense “apostles.” Paul is more of a problem for the Mormon view that there must be only 12 “Apostles” at any one time in the world, for he would mark the 13th (or 25th, considering the supposed institution of Christianity in parallel in the New World at this time). But that also matters little to this discussion.

Oh, yes, Paul did indeed eventually meet Jesus–on the road to Damascus. But that event is what qualified him to be a prophet; Jesus was dead and resurrected; any appearance by Him to His followers after that IS divine revelation, by definition.

Are you aware that the Catholic Church has records of many witnessing our Lord appearing to them through the centuries?

Oh, now, that’s just silly. You don’t confuse the Old Testament with the New Testament, yet you hold both collections as scriptural, part of the scriptural canon. In EXACTLY the same way, we don’t confuse the Bible with the Book of Mormon, or either one with the Pearl of Great Price or the Doctrine and Covenants, but we hold them all as equal in terms of being scripture. So yes, we do…and you don’t. You do not hold later authoritative writings to the same level as the bible; you do not say that they are scripture.

I thought you didn’t like it when people told you what you believe or don’t believe…and now you’re contradicting my words to do that to me?
Most Mormons and other Smithians I’ve known DO hold the various books in varying esteem, whether for their applicability, purpose, and uses, or even in their order of eminence or respect. Catholics give special honor to Scripture for its primary origin and recognize its special place as a standard and benchmark. That doesn’t mean that it is more authoritative than the Church–in fact, since Scripture (by which term we limit for purposes of convention and honor the OT and NT) is text and the Church is the living expression of Christ and the Spirit, and since the Church wrote and collected, approved and preserved Scripture, in that sense the Church is superior in authority. Degree of authority matters little, though, when all will always be in agreement, anyway.

So…because we have received this knowledge of Christ means that ongoing revelation did continue?

You confused me again with your response to this. You like this part, but all this was saying was that knowledge of Christ was transmitted. You agreed with that, but then you turned right around and said that transmission doesn’t mean “transmission of truth already revealed.”

it could also mean the transmission of truth that hasn’t been revealed yet…as some of the truths given to the apostles after Jesus’ death and resurrection were truths that had not yet been revealed to the church at the time.

What truths that are essential to salvation were not revealed by Christ?
If there were truths essential to salvation that were not revealed by Christ, then at what point are those essential truths all revealed?
If truths essential to salvation have not already been or never will be fully revealed, then how can anyone have ever possibly been saved by Jesus?

Unless you don’t think anyone has ever been saved, it is impossible to disagree with the basic Catholic position that all truths essential to salvation have been revealed by Christ.

Then why isn’t all this stuff treated the same way scripture is? Why isn’t it CALLED scripture? Why aren’t the authors of it viewed in the same way the apostles and prophets of old are?

You can’t have this both ways, y’know.

With you claiming that revelation is transmission of truth, but then again it’s not, I’m not the one trying to have it both ways

How aren’t we treating “all this stuff” as binding as Scripture? I thought you’ve been around CAF for a while. Catholics refer to Conciliar documents and encyclicals all the time, with reverence and respect for their binding nature and for their status as inerrant truth of God.

So unless we call it Scripture it’s not? Or, as you claim earlier with Tradition, if it’s not written down and called Scripture, it’s not binding truth? What about oral tradition? Tradition that is practiced?

We do see the “authors” of these in similar manner to those past authors. Have you missed on CAF the reverence given to bishops (including the pope) when they exercise their apostolic offices? Of course, time makes legends of the greatest, just as there are varying degrees among Scriptural authors. And of course there are our Saints, which are heroes of the faith, men and women who lived the Word in spectacular glory, the truest expression of God/the Spirit living through them. As another outward sign, many of these Saints have miracles observed in their lives, and many had what we would call private revelations (not just related to vocations and choices) of amazing nature.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Do you see a problem here?

You think the whole world should operate as mormons do?