If the church was in hiding ...

[placido]

Placido,
We’re talking about men to lead the church in the waning days as apostles were being killed and hunted down (not women since they would not have the priesthood).

The bottom line is: the apostles apparently failed to “produce” such “men”, but Joseph Smith succeeded. Joseph Smith did a better job. At least that is what you believe, and that is what I reject.

We’re talking about men who would have the complete understanding of the communication from God by the spirit of revelation or in other words, the “still small voice” of the Spirit. Men who would not flinch when the whole world said they were teaching the wrong thing, and that tradition must be followed. Men who would not be influenced one iota by the desire for power or prestige or fame or having a lot of believers following them.

Christ’s apostles failed to “produce” such “men”, but Joseph Smith succeeded. Joseph Smith did a better job. At least that is what you believe, and that is what I don’t believe.

Men who would be willing to stand before kings and law-givers and the learned and say, “This is what I know to be true, because God has revealed these truths” and not compromise even a tiny bit when that king or those law-givers or those learned people say, “What about this?” or “What about our sacred traditions?”

Christ’s apostles failed to “produce” such “men”, but Joseph Smith succeeded. Joseph Smith did a better job. That is what you believe. That is what I don’t believe.

placido

 

[placido]

A door needed to be opened, Placido, a door to understanding.

And John the apostle failed to open that door, while Joseph Smith succeeded, right? You are saying John is a failed apostle while Joseph Smith is a successful apostle.

Until that door was re-opened, men may have wondered and wished, but until they actually trusted that God would talk to men in a way that is unmistakeable and secure and absolutely real, they were as “sheep having no shepherd” because of how they had been taught to believe.

John failed to produce a single convert whom God could trust with authority, but Joseph Smith succeeded … that is what you are saying.

Once the door of understanding was opened, then yes, men could begin to trust that God would actually communicate openly with them, and they in turn could be trusted by God to keep completely pure the truths that God would communicate by the Holy Spirit or by visions or by angels visiting the earth.

You are saying John the apostle failed to open the door of understanding, but Joseph Smith succeeded.

Why such a long time with none of that authority on the earth? Why didn’t God raise up someone until the 1800’s? Well, is that my business or is that God’s business? Is God in charge of His purposes on earth, or are men in charge?

According to you, men are in charge. You have been saying all along that the authority was withdrawn from the earth because of lack of trust – and God could apparently do nothing about that. So, don’t turn around now and blame God.

Placido

 

[placido]

Every single person who has ever lived will have the full blessings of Christ’s atonement extended to them, for them to accept either fully or partially or to reject if they so choose. The man-made constraint that all the believing had to be done during the period of mortal life, is merely a man-made constraint which is untrue. God’s ways are not man’s ways.

The one thing I appreciate you for, is when you talk on and on without quoting Scripture, making it appear (and rightly so) that what you say is nothing more than Parker’s private opinion.

placido

 

[placido]

Placido,
A prophet is not a redeemer of humanity.

Oh yes. Neither can a prophet be or do better than the Redeemer. But what you are continuously saying in this thread blasphemously implies that a prophet (Joseph Smith) did succeed where the Redeemer (Jesus Christ) failed:

1. After Christ – no trustworthy person could be found on earth;
2. After Joseph Smith – a lot of trustworthy people are roaming the earth.
   CONCLUSION: Joseph Smith is better than Jesus.

Christ is the Redeemer of humanity.

You believe that in theory only, but in practice you believe Christ failed miserably so much so that what He did (founding His Church) needed to be re-done 1 700 years later.

A prophet testifies of Christ’s redemptive power, and leads people to God, without flinching when the whole world is against them.

And Christ’s redemptive power (note: Power) included the founding of His everlasting Church, the same church you now claim apostatized within 100 years, leaving humanity without Christ’s Church for close to 1 700 years – and Christ was apparently so powerless to do anything about it.

placido

 

[rinnie]

Hi Parker you know I have great love and respect for you and your love for God.

BUt as hard as I try parker and trust me I want to see the truth that you think you do buddy, BUt it is just not there.

Jesus did not give the keys to anyone but Peter. I am sorry.

I even looked up the word thee in the dictionary to give you the benefit of the doubt. But it said it is the objective case of thou. Which translates into you. You Could can check it out yourself Parker I would not try to mislead you.

Parker you must know deep in your heart that many many things in the bible just do not line up with your Church’s teachings. I know myself Parker that is the main reason I am RC. Because I am a stuborn sort and I must see the truth all of it, and cannot ignore truth that I do not understand.

And sometimes even in my own faith Parker I do not understand, And people on this thread and Father in person, can tell you they get frustrated with me until I do. (even though he tries to hide it) But Parker in time sometimes longer than others I do SEE IT!

The keys Parker, this has to bother you, deep down it has to, and the laying of hands Parker direct decent of Peter, history can prove its the Pope, That also has to bother you.

I understand you feel JS was given the power of the HS. But then Parker that would make the work of God false. Jesus said his Church would prevail, and it has. That also must bother you deep down Parker.

I can see that you are ready to leave this thread, and I understand. But Please Parker do this one thing for ME. And I will also do it for you. I will pray for you to see what Gods really needs you to see. And you pray for me Parker. I know we have different beliefs but I do see you love God and we agree there is only one God.

Now we must pray that you can see that in order for there to be one God, there can only be one Church. And just like the bible said ONE HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH.

God and peace be with you Parker. And please just investigate what I asked you. Your church must show you where JS got his authority. And you can trace it back Parker it did not come from the laying of the hands of the Apostles and their successor’s. So Parker it could not have come from God. Do you see Parker God does not hide thing’s from us, that is why we cannot get lost.

If you read the bible Parker Jesus warn’s us that people will try to sway us from the truth. That is why he made the succession a sacrament Parker. (AN OUTWARD SIGN). For all to see Parker. Ask yourself this Parker why would God all this time do it this way and the turn around and change it on us? It makes no sense Parker. Jesus build the Church on Peter and the Sacraments. 2 outward signs Parker. Why would he hide the anointing of JS. Common Sense Parker (I call that God’s sense) He wouldn’t Parker. Even for someone as foolish as I can see that.

 

[placido]

This in itself is the nutshell of why there is so much confussion rendered from the word of God since someone many moon ago came up with this “new” “truth”…

In all of scripture (NT).there is only two more apostles added and there was more than one witness, that witness not being in the new apostles themsleves,
The first time is was the eleven voting and the second one Christ Himself appointed.

Not only that. There were the men who jouneyed with him (Acts 9:7); there was Ananias (Acts 9:10-12) and Jthere was udas and his household as witnesses.
But no, in the case of the LDS, everything happens secretly, leaving the seer as the only witness.

placido

 

[rinnie]

Wait, are you saying that this website (CAF) says not to pray for personal revelation? That is false. Catholics believe that all people have private revelation, and some even have visits from various Heavenly peoples. We also pray for God’s guidance in reading Scripture. In fact, there is an entire devotion associated with this, called Lectio Divina (divine reading).

That is the word I was looking for. Lectio Divina! Thank-you!

 

[ParkerD]

Not only that. There were the men who jouneyed with him (Acts 9:7); there was Ananias (Acts 9:10-12) and there was Judas and his household as witnesses.
But no, in the case of the LDS, everything happens secretly, leaving the seer as the only witness.

placido

Placido,
I’ll get back to you on some of what you wrote earlier, but this has a quick answer.

The Holy Spirit provides the perfect, sure, uncontestable witness, besides which Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were both witnesses of receiving the priesthood from Peter, James, and John, besides which the Book of Mormon provides the opportunity for anyone to read, think, pray, and receive a perfect, sure, uncontestable witness about this whole issue of loss and restoration of authority and “another angel fly in the midst of heaven having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on earth.” (Rev. 14:6)

I had already cited verses dealing with Christ bringing the gospel to those who have died (1 Peter 3:18-20, 1 Peter 4:6, Isaiah 61:1-3).

Have a good day.

Rinnie,
You have been kind. Thank you. I think I needn’t pray for you, since you have exactly the truths you want and they have brought you both peace and charity. (It would be wrong of me to pray for something you don’t want, because that would be going against your own free will.) But I will pray for your dad, since he would be the one who will eventually need the additional understanding that may become important to you someday, and he taught you so well and you have followed his example so well. Perhaps he is still inclined to learn and grow, where he’s at. Perhaps not, but perhaps. Have a wonderful day.

 

[placido]

Hi, FBL9.
Simple answer: who is to say? God Himself.
How? By revelation and by consistency with what He has already revealed.
How does one get revelation? Through sincere personal prayer.
What does this website say about doing that kind of praying? It says, “don’t do it. You can’t trust yourself to understand an answer from God. Trust ‘us’ instead.” (Why might that be?)

Might be because of Luke 10:16: “Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."

I simply disagree.

Then you simply disagree with Jesus. “Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."

I think …

Yes, you think, but …

… one can pray and trust that God will answer a sincere prayer by each person who has studied the Bible with sincere intent to find out what it really does say, and to be able to figure out that sincere prayer asking God for guidance is entirely appropriate.

… the problem starts immediately after those who claim to have prayed sincerely, each “receives” an answer that contradicts the “answer” given to the next person who also claims to have prayed sincerely.

placido

 

[rinnie]

Placido,
I’ll get back to you on some of what you wrote earlier, but this has a quick answer.

The Holy Spirit provides the perfect, sure, uncontestable witness, besides which Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were both witnesses of receiving the priesthood from Peter, James, and John, besides which the Book of Mormon provides the opportunity for anyone to read, think, pray, and receive a perfect, sure, uncontestable witness about this whole issue of loss and restoration of authority and “another angel fly in the midst of heaven having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on earth.” (Rev. 14:6)

I had already cited verses dealing with Christ bringing the gospel to those who have died (1 Peter 3:18-20, 1 Peter 4:6, Isaiah 61:1-3).

Have a good day.

Rinnie,
You have been kind. Thank you. I think I needn’t pray for you, since you have exactly the truths you want and they have brought you both peace and charity. (It would be wrong of me to pray for something you don’t want, because that would be going against your own free will.) But I will pray for your dad, since he would be the one who will eventually need the additional understanding that may become important to you someday, and he taught you so well and you have followed his example so well. Perhaps he is still inclined to learn and grow, where he’s at. Perhaps not, but perhaps. Have a wonderful day.

Thank-you Parker and you have also have been kind. And thank-you for your prayers for my Dad. I know he indeed looked into the eyes of my Dear Jesus and was told come your place is ready. I know this with all my being. He did everything right as far as the teachings of the Apostles he went to confession 3 times that week before he met God.

And I agree that I do have the truths I want, but not only want Parker need. I need the truth I can accept no less. And I have found that truth in the Church. But please never reject prayers for anyone. Because no one could pray for someone and make that wrong. God has opened my eyes and I pray you to will find your answers.

But trust me my Dad had all of the understanding that was left in this world. The ten commandments and the teaching’s of the Apostles and I am sure God knows he did his best to follow them. As a RC I will never assume that he could not be in purgatory so I will continue to pray for him and my Brother until God takes me out. But I know one thing for sure he has eternal life and it is with my dear Lord Jesus Christ.

But please remember Parker praying for someone will never take away free will. It will only help them to help spread the truth of our Lord Jesus Christ. God promised us that. As he said I AM THE WAY, THE LIGHT AND THE TRUTH!

 

[rinnie]

Also Parker where did the Church ever teach us that God does not talk to us. I talk to Jesus every day parker, and he talks to me. How through my heart. Since the first breath I ever took he was there. I felt him.

You feel because we are Catholic that we do not accept private revelation.

Let me give you the quote parker

ccc Throughout the ages there has 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 Christs definitive Revelation but ot help live more fully it in a certain period of history. Guided by the magisterium of the Church the SENSUS FIDELIUM know 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 in the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such REVELATIONS. unquote

So See Parker that is JS. He was doing this, that is why he is not nor will ever be accepted by the RCC. If his revelations were true the Church would indeed recognize him. But his teachings were too different from the teachings of our Dear Lord and Savior.

I am sorry Parker, while I admire you zest for God, you are struggling here constantly and you know in your heart you know you are. I pray for you my friend. And if that teaching that I quoted you from the CCC does not fit JS nothing does.

You are a good person, and Jesus loves you and I pray someday you can receive a Private Revelation to open your eyes and send you home to the RCC. That is not talking away your free will to pray for you, it is asking God to reveal to you the Truth. And when you are ready to accept it and hear it he will. All I ask if for is the holy Spirit to guide you in the truth.

 

[ParkerD]

Also Parker where did the Church ever teach us that God does not talk to us. I talk to Jesus every day parker, and he talks to me. How through my heart. Since the first breath I ever took he was there. I felt him.

You feel because we are Catholic that we do not accept private revelation.

Let me give you the quote parker

ccc Throughout the ages there has 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 Christs definitive Revelation but ot help live more fully it in a certain period of history. Guided by the magisterium of the Church the SENSUS FIDELIUM know how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an AUTHENTIC CALL OF CHRIST or his saints to the Church.

Rinnie,
Thanks again for your kindness. What you may have perceived as a struggle on my part is the question of “How much should I tell them?” I have enjoyed answering honest questions, and giving honest responses where I tried to build a framework for being understood, or to clarify when needed.

The quote you noted came from a non-Biblical source, but tries to be as “authoritative” as it can. It is exactly the kind of quote that I was talking about previously, done by men to preserve their role and their unquestioned authority–no questions asked. It is simply not true. But I understand that it works for you, and that’s OK. My delight is in the Bible itself and the scriptures themselves and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in day-to-day interactions and decisions.

Based on the CCC position, Eli should have told Samuel, “You were hearing things–go back to bed and forget it.” But Eli knew the source of revelation, and knew that Samuel could learn the source of revelation, could understand it, could understand the message, and should learn to trust in that message. That’s why Samuel could be called as a prophet–because he was prepared to listen to the Holy Spirit without having been told, “No–only I get all the answers” by Eli.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

ThuriferAcolyte,
I would think that an objective person would see that such a foundational belief as you noted here, is completely insular. Your statement that “it would not make sense to pray to God to find out whether the Church lost its authority” means that a person, however sincere in their desire to please God or to find the “hidden truths” talked about by Paul in his epistles, would never pray in sincerity about the one basic question that God might actually want them to ask, which has to do with what this entire thread has been about: whether leaders of a church could lose the trust God had placed in them because of their actions and could thus lose the authority to act in His name.

It makes absolutely no sense for a Catholic to pray to find out something that they already know. A Catholic would not pray to God to know whether adultery is okay, or whether lying is okay. Likewise, a Catholic would not pray to God to know whether the Church’s authority was taken away, because that goes against the fundamental basis of the Church, namely, that the authority on earth can never be taken away from the earth. Likewise, I do not expect a Mormon that has a “testimony” to pray to God to know whether authority was taken away from the LDS Church. However, I can actually see that happening, since the Mormon worldview believes that God can take the authority off of the earth, whereas that is not possible in Catholic ecclesiology. It does not make sense to pray for the answer of a question that we already know the answer to, as a believing Catholic. Therefore, it would also make no sense for a Catholic to pray to know whether the Book of Mormon is true scripture, since we already know the answer to that.

Further to the discussion of whether prayer for “personal revelation” is understood correctly within the beliefs you noted, here is another quote from the article you already cited which I had quoted from before:

What that says to me is that the people who wrote that article have never experienced personal revelation themselves, and have never had occasion to feel as described in the following examples from the Bible:

(Luke 24:30-32) 30 “And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?”

(1 Kings 19:11-13) 11 “And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord. And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake:
12 And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.
13 And it was so, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out…”

(Hebrews 11:5) “By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.”

(Ephesians 1:17-18) 17 "That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,

(1 Samuel 3: 6-11) 6 "And the Lord called yet again, Samuel. And Samuel arose and went to Eli, and said, Here am I; for thou didst call me. And he answered, I called not, my son; lie down again.
7 Now Samuel did not yet know the Lord, neither was the word of the Lord yet revealed unto him.
8 And the Lord called Samuel again the third time. And he arose and went to Eli, and said, Here am I; for thou didst call me. And Eli perceived that the Lord had called the child.
9 Therefore Eli said unto Samuel, Go, lie down: and it shall be, if he call thee, that thou shalt say, Speak, Lord; for thy servant heareth. So Samuel went and lay down in his place.
10 And the Lord came, and stood, and called as at other times, Samuel, Samuel. Then Samuel answered, Speak; for thy servant heareth.
11 And the Lord said to Samuel, Behold, I will do a thing in Israel, at which both the ears of every one that heareth it shall tingle.

Those instances of communication from God had to do with a “burning in the heart” or a “still small voice” or “eyes of understanding being enlightened” or “ears shall tingle.”

The writers of that article evidently would scoff at such communication from God, but I absolutely know that such communication is central to personal revelation and the way God wants to communicate with us by the power of the Holy Spirit. We can access that communication through sincere prayer, but not if we have doubts and fears and misunderstanding. If that be the case, our prayer would be full of doubt and could not be answered. God communicates to those who have faith and who exercise that faith by doing something about their faith and asking for His guidance.

I don’t know what the authors of that article have and have not experienced from God, and it is really sad and judging of you to say that, just like how you do not like that they are judging the Mormon “burning in the bosom”. Now, what the authors further emphasize is that we cannot be overrun by “feelings”. There is something unique about personal revelation, and it is not just a feeling. My “ears can tingle” for many reasons. My heart can “burn” for many reasons. The authors emphasize that it is not just about these feelings, and that the witness of the Holy Spirit may include such feelings, but that is not the totality of such an experience. Otherwise, whenever we had such similar feelings, we’d think we were having a revelation from God.

So, we firmly believe in personal, private revelation, and we have since the beginning of the Church. There are many articles on that issue right on Catholic Answers.

 

[ParkerD]

…
I don’t know what the authors of that article have and have not experienced from God, and it is really sad and judging of you to say that, just like how you do not like that they are judging the Mormon “burning in the bosom”. Now, what the authors further emphasize is that we cannot be overrun by “feelings”. There is something unique about personal revelation, and it is not just a feeling. My “ears can tingle” for many reasons. My heart can “burn” for many reasons. The authors emphasize that it is not just about these feelings, and that the witness of the Holy Spirit may include such feelings, but that is not the totality of such an experience. Otherwise, whenever we had such similar feelings, we’d think we were having a revelation from God.

So, we firmly believe in personal, private revelation, and we have since the beginning of the Church. There are many articles on that issue right on Catholic Answers.

ThuriferAcolyte,
Your heart can “burn” and your ears can “tingle” for many reasons, yes. But one who has really experienced revelation by the Holy Spirit knows the difference, and is able to distinguish that difference so that they are not misguided. That has been one of my points that I have hoped to clarify. That revelation will be confirmed by pure Biblical truth (not catechisms), and can only be accessed by sincere prayer.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

ThuriferAcolyte,
Your heart can “burn” and your ears can “tingle” for many reasons, yes. But one who has really experienced revelation by the Holy Spirit knows the difference, and is able to distinguish that difference so that they are not misguided. That has been one of my points that I have hoped to clarify. That revelation will be confirmed by pure Biblical truth (not catechisms), and can only be accessed by sincere prayer.

-What is your point about “catechisms”? Seems like a tangental reference.

Yes, one who has experienced Divine revelation knows the difference, and I think the authors of that article are clearly emphasizing that we cannot think that every “feeling” is a sign from God.

 

[ParkerD]

-What is your point about “catechisms”? Seems like a tangental reference.

Yes, one who has experienced Divine revelation knows the difference, and I think the authors of that article are clearly emphasizing that we cannot think that every “feeling” is a sign from God.

ThuriferAcolyte,
My point about catechisms is taken from the following item posted so kindly by Rinnie:

Quote:
ccc "Throughout the ages there has 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 Christs definitive Revelation but ot help live more fully it in a certain period of history. Guided by the magisterium of the Church the SENSUS FIDELIUM know 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 in the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such REVELATIONS."

unquote

That is basically saying, “you can pray about anything you want to pray about, as long as you get an answer that agrees with the authority of the church–but it’s your own private thing. Always trust the magisterium of the church because they know how to discern.”

But you see, if the trust that God placed in men was lost because the men no longer were earning that trust by their actions and decisions, then such a catechism merely protects any member from finding that out for himself or herself. They won’t pray about it. They will assume it’s a “done deal”. That’s great for the leaders, but only because it allows them to control and define what is allowable to be prayed about.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

ThuriferAcolyte,
My point about catechisms is taken from the following item posted so kindly by Rinnie:

That is basically saying, “you can pray about anything you want to pray about, as long as you get an answer that agrees with the authority of the church–but it’s your own private thing. Always trust the magisterium of the church because they know how to discern.”

But you see, if the trust that God placed in men was lost because the men no longer were earning that trust by their actions and decisions, then such a catechism merely protects any member from finding that out for himself or herself. They won’t pray about it. They will assume it’s a “done deal”. That’s great for the leaders, but only because it allows them to control and define what is allowable to be prayed about.

Firstly, the role of Divine authority is clearly important in the Catholic Church. You are making a contrast that simply doesn’t exist between any churches. You cannot believe whatever you want and say that that’s your interpretation of Scripture, and continue to go against what a Church teaches.

The quote from Rinnie says that private revelations do not add to the Deposit of Faith. Such revelations may add to the lives of Catholics, but they do not add anything relevant to salvation, which has already been revealed. The Church therefore, with Divine authority, can say that certain private revelations are great examples for all Christians to know about, however none are binding on anyone (except of course the person that had the revelation). And of course, no revelation can surpass or contradict what has already been revealed. God does not contradict Himself.

Therefore, the quote does not say what you claim it says. It clearly says that you can receive revelation, however it is not binding on everyone. The first sentence clearly states that it is not discussing private revelations as a whole, but those private revelations that have been recognized by the Catholic Church.

LOL the magisterium does not control what we can pray about, and Rinnie’s quote does not say that at all. In fact, the quote is discussing the answers to prayers (i.e. revelations) and not what you can and cannot pray about.

 

[ParkerD]

Firstly, the role of Divine authority is clearly important in the Catholic Church. You are making a contrast that simply doesn’t exist between any churches. You cannot believe whatever you want and say that that’s your interpretation of Scripture, and continue to go against what a Church teaches.

The quote from Rinnie says that private revelations do not add to the Deposit of Faith. Such revelations may add to the lives of Catholics, but they do not add anything relevant to salvation, which has already been revealed. The Church therefore, with Divine authority, can say that certain private revelations are great examples for all Christians to know about, however none are binding on anyone (except of course the person that had the revelation). And of course, no revelation can surpass or contradict what has already been revealed. God does not contradict Himself.

Therefore, the quote does not say what you claim it says. It clearly says that you can receive revelation, however it is not binding on everyone. The first sentence clearly states that it is not discussing private revelations as a whole, but those private revelations that have been recognized by the Catholic Church.

LOL the magisterium does not control what we can pray about, and Rinnie’s quote does not say that at all. In fact, the quote is discussing the answers to prayers (i.e. revelations) and not what you can and cannot pray about.

ThuriferAcolyte,
If an authority figure one has been taught to respect all their life says “if you pray about such and such a thing, you’re foolish,” then that is a means of control of “what one can pray about.” It builds a box around what should be legitimately prayed about.

Why this whole question becomes important is notable in your statement, “they do not add anything relevant to salvation”. Christ and the Holy Ghost will offer a person many truths and insights including ways to become more like Christ and ways to serve others that are very much “relevant to salvation.” That was what the message of Christ and the apostles was all about–that following Christ leads to change, and He guides that change process by personal revelation through the Holy Spirit. That process is called sanctification, and it is specific to each individual. Sanctification is completely “relevant to salvation.”

 

[Bill_Pick]

We agree, sincere, heartfelt prayer is never a waste of time. Let us look at the entire quote:

"“Look, it is foolish to pray about things you know are not God’s will. It would be wrong of me to pray about whether adultery is right, when the Bible clearly says it is not. Similarly, it would be wrong of me to pray about the Book of Mormon when one can so easily demonstrate that it is not the word of God.” "

catholic.com/library/Problems_with_the_Book_of_Mormon.asp

From the Catholic perspective, it would be foolish for a believing Catholic to pray to know whether the Book of Mormon is true, since for us, it is not possible that it is scripture, or that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Likewise, it would be foolish for a believing Catholic to pray to know whether adultery is right, because we know, from the Bible and from other Church teaching, that it is false.

So, again, your original statement that this website says not to engage in sincere personal prayer for revelation is false. What it does say is that certain things we do not have to pray about. I don’t need to pray to know whether adultery is wrong. I don’t need to pray to know whether I should lie. And for a believing Catholic, I don’t need to pray to know whether the Book of Mormon is true scripture. That’s what the entire quote says.

Dear Parker, This is what you said “it is foolish to pray about things you know are not God’s will.”" What are you saying humans are to know God Will at all times

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

ThuriferAcolyte,
If an authority figure one has been taught to respect all their life says “if you pray about such and such a thing, you’re foolish,” then that is a means of control of “what one can pray about.” It builds a box around what should be legitimately prayed about.

Now please show us where in Rinnie’s quote the authority figure(s) said that it is foolish to pray about such and such a thing.

Why this whole question becomes important is notable in your statement, “they do not add anything relevant to salvation”. Christ and the Holy Ghost will offer a person many truths and insights including ways to become more like Christ and ways to serve others that are very much “relevant to salvation.” That was what the message of Christ and the apostles was all about–that following Christ leads to change, and He guides that change process by personal revelation through the Holy Spirit. That process is called sanctification, and it is specific to each individual. Sanctification is completely “relevant to salvation.”

Yes, God offers a person many truths and insights. However such truths and insights revealed through personal revelation are not binding on all. All that is necessary for salvation has already been revealed. Sure, personal revelation may help a person, however such revelations are not required, since God has already revealed the way to salvation. God might tell me to go to church everyday and pray and meditate before the Real Presence, however that is not binding on all people, nor does it add to what is necessary for salvation. Such revelations HELP us on that path, however they are not required. The rosary is nice to pray, however it is not required. The stations of the cross is nice to pray, however it is not required. It’s nice to read about the various Marian apparitions (personal revelations), however it is not required to believe in them.