Is "Modern" or "Continuing" Revelation necessary?

[SteveVH]

As most are aware, there are several religious organizations whose hallmark is continuing or “modern” revelation. I came across the following statement from St. John of the Cross which is referenced in the Catechism:

"In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in the 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, The Ascent of Mount Carmel

For those of you who base your faith and doctrines on continuing revelation, how would you answer St. John of the Cross?

 

[jlmagee]

I hardly subscribe to modern or continuing “revelation”, however, I do not think those who do will not be too concerned with St. John of the Cross.

Although I may be reading something into his statement, would this statement not put to question any doctrine not specifically called out in inspired scripture? Not to get into a different debate, but it would then be an argument for “sola scriptura” would it not?

I am not one who subscribes to “sola scriptura”. I find this an interesting quote to use against revelation apart from scripture. If I am wrong, please explain. I will try to find the quote so I can see it in context to understand it better.

 

[SteveVH]

I hardly subscribe to modern or continuing “revelation”, however, I do not think those who do will not be too concerned with St. John of the Cross.

Although I may be reading something into his statement, would this statement not put to question any doctrine not specifically called out in inspired scripture? Not to get into a different debate, but it would then be an argument for “sola scriptura” would it not?

I am not one who subscribes to “sola scriptura”. I find this an interesting quote to use against revelation apart from scripture. If I am wrong, please explain. I will try to find the quote so I can see it in context to understand it better.

If your point is that St. John of the Cross would be speaking against Sacred Tradition within the Catholic Church as new revelation I would disagree. Being Catholic himself, he recognized that Sacred Traditional and Sacred Scripture are one and the same as far as the one revelation of Jesus Christ is concerned. Sacred Scripture is only that part of Sacred Tradition committed to writing. They both flow from the same well.

Do I understand you correctly?

 

[jlmagee]

I see your point. I am not Catholic and at times have trouble understanding some of the terminology and context within these statements. Thank you for your reply and understanding.

My first statement does still stand. As someone who has dealt with those who believe in continuing “revelation”, they know no boundaries at all for a new “revelation”. Therefore, I do not think St. John’s statement and inclusion in the catechism is going to convince any of them.

In fact they would probably say that their “revelation” is from God, even if it is in direct contradiction to His Word! Very unfortunate.

 

[thirddec]

Its tricky but clearly the apostles were functioning on Continuing revelation so when does did the work of the Holy Spirit and continuing revelation end ? If you believe Jesus completed the revelation.

 

[SteveVH]

Its tricky but clearly the apostles were functioning on Continuing revelation so when does did the work of the Holy Spirit and continuing revelation end ? If you believe Jesus completed the revelation.

As Catholics, we believe, as St. John of the Cross stated, that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of all revelation. God revealed Himself slowly, over time. He came in a cloud, a pillar of fire, a burning bush. He revealed His mysterious name “I AM WHO AM”. It is in Jesus that God was fully revealed and we look for no other revelation until He comes again.

If you look at the writings of the Apostles, they all centered on this one revelation of Jesus Christ. We should not confuse continued understanding and enlightenment of the one revelation found in Jesus with “new” revelation. Hopefully the Church will continue to peel away the skin of the onion and we will continue to have a deeper understanding, but this is not “new” revelation.

We should also not confuse this with private revelation which has been given to many people within our Church and continues today. God has not stopped communicating with His Church. But this private revelation is only for the purpose of unfolding the mystery of the revelation of Jesus Christ.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I hardly subscribe to modern or continuing “revelation”, however, I do not think those who do will not be too concerned with St. John of the Cross.

Although I may be reading something into his statement, would this statement not put to question any doctrine not specifically called out in inspired scripture? Not to get into a different debate, but it would then be an argument for “sola scriptura” would it not?

I am not one who subscribes to “sola scriptura”. I find this an interesting quote to use against revelation apart from scripture. If I am wrong, please explain. I will try to find the quote so I can see it in context to understand it better.

If it is a agument for sola scriptura we would have to disreguard the New Testement. as it was written after Christ, and I just do not think that is what he was referring to.

 

[1voice]

I see your point. I am not Catholic and at times have trouble understanding some of the terminology and context within these statements. Thank you for your reply and understanding.

My first statement does still stand. As someone who has dealt with those who believe in continuing “revelation”, they know no boundaries at all for a new “revelation”. Therefore, I do not think St. John’s statement and inclusion in the catechism is going to convince any of them.

In fact they would probably say that their “revelation” is from God, even if it is in direct contradiction to His Word! Very unfortunate.

Anybody can say anything and attribute it to revelation from God. The media beats up on Christianity every time some crazed person says god told me to do it. Jesus said ‘many will come in my name’ Paul the Apostle said ‘test the word’ … at the same time he said that Jesus appointed preachers, teachers, prophets … etc.

Jesus said 'greater works than these … you will do … people slice and dice the meaning of the words of Jesus all the time… but Jesus said … “My sheep know my voice” … The Bible also asserts… Let the tares grow up with the wheat and let God sort em out… The only way to sort out this life is through God (Christ in me the only hope of glory) … and, in myt experience, that takes the ability to hear and trust the truth that becomes innate through the transformation that comes through the hearing and application of the word of God. To me “revelation” is like a sixth sense that reminds me what is right and wrong … a conscience trained by study and experience.
I think the problem is the understanding of what prophecy is and how to truly discern.

 

[rinnie]

Its tricky but clearly the apostles were functioning on Continuing revelation so when does did the work of the Holy Spirit and continuing revelation end ? If you believe Jesus completed the revelation.

The way that I understand Revelation has ended. Jesus said it all. There is nothing that he lets say forgot to tell us.

But the work of the Holy Spirit will end when Jesus comes back and at the end of age as the gospel tells us.

The Holy Spirit will continue to teach until the end of time. But here is the tricky part. All Revelation has been revealed but there is much more that is to be revealed.

What I mean by that is simply Jesus told us everything. But the Holy Spirit has not revealed what exactly everything means yet to the CHurch. But when he does we will all u nderstand.

Like the teachings of unbaptised babies. Do they enter heaven or not? The Church does not have a clear understanding on this yet. All they can tell us is what Jesus said. He said heaven is for Children as these, and with Gods mercy all things are possible.

But does that say Baptism is not necessary to enter heaven? Not according to scripture. See what I am saying. All that we need to know is in the word of God. So all revelation has been revealed. But not all the meaning has been yet! The Holy Spirit continues to reveal things as it feels we are ready to accept it.

But as far as Baptism the Church cannot teach that Baptism is not necessary for heaven simply because that is the word of God.

But I think I got it all figured out. Wanna hear it. Sure you do Who can say what Jesus can and can not do and when he can and cannot do it? No One. So at the time of an infants death if baptism is not possible Jesus does it. But as I said we do not know until the Holy Spirit reveals it to the Church.

But for now there is no definite teachings. Sorry to de-rail but had to find a way to explain my point. But please lets not make this into infant baptism. That was my easiest example.

But that is what we call continuing Revelation. We will continue to learn by the Power of the Holy Spirit every single teaching of Christ when he feels we are ready. And it will come through the word of God and through the Church. If it isn’t taught by Christ it is not Revelation.

 

[SteveVH]

My first statement does still stand. As someone who has dealt with those who believe in continuing “revelation”, they know no boundaries at all for a new “revelation”. Therefore, I do not think St. John’s statement and inclusion in the catechism is going to convince any of them.

They may very well not be convinced and many may not know who St. John of the Cross is. I’m only asking what they would have to say about his remarks as I would find them very hard to argue against. God has spoke only one Word. He does not have “many Words”, He has one Word, Jesus Christ. That is the point. Anyone seeking other “Words” (revelations) is denying the only Word God possesses.

 

[rinnie]

Anybody can say anything and attribute it to revelation from God. The media beats up on Christianity every time some crazed person says god told me to do it. Jesus said ‘many will come in my name’ Paul the Apostle said ‘test the word’ … at the same time he said that Jesus appointed preachers, teachers, prophets … etc.

Jesus said 'greater works than these … you will do … people slice and dice the meaning of the words of Jesus all the time… but Jesus said … “My sheep know my voice” … The Bible also asserts… Let the tares grow up with the wheat and let God sort em out… The only way to sort out this life is through God (Christ in me the only hope of glory) … and, in myt experience, that takes the ability to hear and trust the truth that becomes innate through the transformation that comes through the hearing and application of the word of God. To me “revelation” is like a sixth sense that reminds me what is right and wrong … a conscience trained by study and experience.
I think the problem is the understanding of what prophecy is and how to truly discern.

I think you have a good point. Anyone can have the honor of the Holy Spirit entering into their soul and revealing something from God.

But if it is as you state a truth that comes from God it must be okayed by the Church. The church must make sure that it is completely on every level in line with the word of God. If it is, then it is indeed the teaching of the Holy Spirit.

God never said that all teaching comes from the Church itself as a rule. What I mean by that is someone outside of the Church can have the Holy Spirit reveal a truth. But it has to be okayed by the Church for it to be a true teaching. If the Church agrees then its the truth and will never change.

But God can choose who he wants and how he wants to reveal things. But until it has the approval of the Church it is not official.

 

[SteveVH]

I think you have a good point. Anyone can have the honor of the Holy Spirit entering into their soul and revealing something from God.

But if it is as you state a truth that comes from God it must be okayed by the Church. The church must make sure that it is completely on every level in line with the word of God. If it is, then it is indeed the teaching of the Holy Spirit.

God never said that all teaching comes from the Church itself as a rule. What I mean by that is someone outside of the Church can have the Holy Spirit reveal a truth. But it has to be okayed by the Church for it to be a true teaching. If the Church agrees then its the truth and will never change.

But God can choose who he wants and how he wants to reveal things. But until it has the approval of the Church it is not official.

All doctrine (Public Revelation) is based upon the one revelation in Jesus Christ. Private revelations may be approved by the Church but they are not required to be believed by the faithful. All approved private revelations are still centered on Jesus Christ and only shed light on the one revelation in Christ.

"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." (CCC par. 66)

 

[thirddec]

well im not as learned on history and theology so I’m fairly simplistic in my approach. But yes Christ is the ultimate Revelation ; the way the truth and the life and all of our faith must focus on him.

But how we live that faith in practice ; and our understanding of Christ needs guidance and this then developes into a religion.

What then when Christ says he will be with us until the end of Days, why and how?

What is the role of the Holy Spirit?

Is Christ GOD; is the Holy Spirit God?

Is the word of the Holy Spirit of less value than Christ?

Did the Holy Spirit speak to the apostles?

Has he finished speaking?

its all so confusing to a simple soul like me.

But could the original statement really be an attack on people that run after mystics; and apparitions and other events rather than learning about Christ and the Eucharist and the Mass as their primary spiritual centre and strength and not really a critique of how the Church doctrines are developed ?

 

[rinnie]

All doctrine (Public Revelation) is based upon the one revelation in Jesus Christ. Private revelations may be approved by the Church but they are not required to be believed by the faithful. All approved private revelations are still centered on Jesus Christ and only shed light on the one revelation in Christ.

"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." (CCC par. 66)

I agree. CCC tells it how I should have. But thats exactly what I meant. This is so much that God has revealed that we have yet to understand. But we will when he is ready to reveal it.

But I never meant to say that Private Rev. had to be believed. My bad if it went over that way.

 

[rmcmullan]

I hope all the Good Catholics posting here are in favour of continuing revelation. You ought to be, it’s part of your church’s teachings: catholic.com/library/Private_Revelation.asp

I think the discussion you mean to have is public vs. private revelation. Private revelation is on going so long as the Holy Ghost is present. The Catholic church considers all personal revelation to be private though and not binding on the church as a whole. I am sure that God does speak to individuals but he doesn’t give laws to individuals that bind other men.

 

[GaryTaylor]

BTW while Steve mentions St John of the Cross. Its worth noting his Literature of “Dark Night of the Soul” is considered a Masterpiece in Mysticism. And he is recognized as one the most important mystics in Christianity.

When you believe you really understand the Bible? Read what St John of the Cross has to say, and I’m postive you will walk away a deeper understanding.

God Bless, Gary

 

[SteveVH]

What then when Christ says he will be with us until the end of Days, why and how?

Why He is with us is because it is His Church, He is the Head. If He is not with us then there is no Church. How He is with us is most especially in the Eucharist, but also in all of the sacraments as well as in the Scriptures and the Tradition of the Church.

What is the role of the Holy Spirit?

We are sanctified by Christ, sent by the Father, through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Is Christ GOD; is the Holy Spirit God?

Yes. And they are one with the Father.

Is the word of the Holy Spirit of less value than Christ?

Christ is the WORD, of Whom the Holy Spirit testifies.

Did the Holy Spirit speak to the apostles?

Yes, but the Word spoken by the Holy Spirit was Christ.

Has he finished speaking?

Yes, but we have not stopped in our effort to fully understand His Word.

But could the original statement really be an attack on people that run after mystics; and apparitions and other events rather than learning about Christ and the Eucharist and the Mass as their primary spiritual centre and strength and not really a critique of how the Church doctrines are developed ?

Running after mystics and apparitions would probably qualify. So would those religions based upon “new” revelations which depart from the teachings handed down by the Apostles. Seventh Day Adventists, LDS (Mormons) and Jehovah’s Witnesses would also qualify.

 

[SteveVH]

I agree. CCC tells it how I should have. But thats exactly what I meant. This is so much that God has revealed that we have yet to understand. But we will when he is ready to reveal it.

But I never meant to say that Private Rev. had to be believed. My bad if it went over that way.

Not at all. Just wanted to be clear. I appreciate your comments.

 

[SteveVH]

BTW while Steve mentions St John of the Cross. Its worth noting his Literature of “Dark Night of the Soul” is considered a Masterpiece in Mysticism. And he is recognized as one the most important mystics in Christianity.

When you believe you really understand the Bible? Read what St John of the Cross has to say, and I’m postive you will walk away a deeper understanding.

God Bless, Gary

Amen to that. Pope John Paul, II learned Spanish for the sole purpose of reading “Dark Night of the Soul” in St. John of the Cross’ native language. He didn’t want to miss anything in the translation.

 

[flyonthewall]

In my mind, revelation is how God has always spoken to His children. To say that God has said all He is going to say, is very sad indeed.
If God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, then He will continue to communicate with His children, both individually and collectively.
So in answer to the OP, “modern” or “continuing” revelation IS necessary.