LDS: Why try to convert Catholics, what do we lack for salvation?

[lax16]

Not…quite.

What has been done ‘many times on these threads’ is that evidence has been presented that confirms to YOU that no apostasy happened. That’s not the same thing as proving it to anybody else.

Have you ever seen me resort to the 'scriptures weren’t translated correctly" argument? I have presented my reasoning for believing in an apostasy, and to me, that reasoning is good. It ‘proves’ to me that there was…and the only evidence y’all have for me that there was not is that there has been a continuous Christian belief. well, I don’t argue with that one bit. There has been.

My argument is that (something we both agree upon) public revelation stopped. I can’t see anywhere in the scriptures that say where it was supposed to stop. The argument made that ‘well, it stopped, and therefore it was supposed to…’ is really begging the question, don’t you think?

All other arguments to the side, the above one is the biggie. Can you show me, anywhere in the scriptures, where public revelation really was supposed to STOP less than a century after Christ died? That no more real, honest to goodness SCRIPTURE was to be written?

The answer I keep getting is, well…we’re still here, and we didn’t get any, so obviously it was supposed to. The problem is, yes, y’all are still here, but our claim is that the whole LOT of you went off the rails together (well, not quite, but again the winners do get to write the history…) and that was the problem.

the other problem I run up against is a simpler one; the organization of the church as Christ had it. The very early Christians attempted to keep it…but you notice that they didn’t manage it. No more apostles.

Now WE believe that it requires public revelation, to apostles/prophets, to keep the train on the track; to keep the priesthood authority here. Since public revelation stopped, and there were no apostles, I personally do not see how the priesthood could possibly have remained.

Y’all claim that since you can trace the line of people back that far, that the authority remains…and therefore there was no apostasy. However, that continuation of people, does not mean that all those people passed on Truth OR authority.

So, what you have to do, in order to prove to me that there was no apostasy, is give me a VALID and reasonable explanation as to why public revelation stopped; something you can point to in SCRIPTURE as to why the entire organization and method of running the church changed, and that so quickly and so completely.

…and yes, it would have to be from scripture, because of course anything from Holy Tradition would be post apostasy from my POV. , and again, begging the question. Holy Tradition explains the doctrines you have…but it does not explain its own presence in the entire religious context. You know…why go with Holy Tradition (without public revelation) rather than revealed scripture, as was done previously.

Dianaiad -

Please explain the LDS definitions of: apostle and public revelation.

Also, do the LDS apostles have public revelations? If so, what are they like?
Do they see or hear them(or both)?
What would be an example of one of their most well-known revelations?
Do all of them receive p.r. or just the president?

Thanks!

 

[dianaiad]

Diana, I’m curious, where did Christ ever say any further revelation to His church would be needed? I don’t recall Him saying that either; so if that’s the case, what’s your point?

(check out Hebrews 1)

Truthsilence, this is exactly the problem I’m stuck with. Here you have Paul, a man who did NOT follow Jesus during His lifetime, who actually recieved the very sort of revelation (classic OT stuff) that you claim is no longer supposed to be happening, and BECAUSE of this revelation Paul is speaking to the Hebrews about Christ.

…as he should be. After all, HE is speaking as one who did recieve revelation FROM Christ about Christ.

If this chapter means what you think it does, then it is a problem because of who is speaking; the man who actually got the continuing revelation you think he is saying stopped with Jesus.

There aren’t many choices here: If you are right, and Paul IS saying that revelation ceased with Jesus, then…why are we paying attention to anything Paul said? After all, if there is a more concrete example of continuing revelation after Jesus’ life, death and resurrection than Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus, I don’t know what it could be. If Paul DID recieve that revelation, and he is honestly telling us that revelation ceased with Jesus, then he’s lying, isn’t he…because of course he did indeed recieve it.

Unless of course everybody is wrong and he didn’t, in which case he’s a fraud and the whole thing goes down the tubes.

The only thing that reconciles all this is…those who interpret Paul’s words as meaning that revelation was to cease are wrong, because of course it did NOT cease. Nor is there any reason to suppose that it should.

 

[lax16]

Truthsilence, this is exactly the problem I’m stuck with. Here you have Paul, a man who did NOT follow Jesus during His lifetime, who actually recieved the very sort of revelation (classic OT stuff) that you claim is no longer supposed to be happening, and BECAUSE of this revelation Paul is speaking to the Hebrews about Christ.

…as he should be. After all, HE is speaking as one who did recieve revelation FROM Christ about Christ.

If this chapter means what you think it does, then it is a problem because of who is speaking; the man who actually got the continuing revelation you think he is saying stopped with Jesus.

There aren’t many choices here: If you are right, and Paul IS saying that revelation ceased with Jesus, then…why are we paying attention to anything Paul said? After all, if there is a more concrete example of continuing revelation after Jesus’ life, death and resurrection than Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus, I don’t know what it could be. If Paul DID recieve that revelation, and he is honestly telling us that revelation ceased with Jesus, then he’s lying, isn’t he…because of course he did indeed recieve it.

Unless of course everybody is wrong and he didn’t, in which case he’s a fraud and the whole thing goes down the tubes.

The only thing that reconciles all this is…those who interpret Paul’s words as meaning that revelation was to cease are wrong, because of course it did NOT cease. Nor is there any reason to suppose that it should.

Who said that conversions, such as Paul’s, are the same as public revelations?
I guess I need to wait for your definition of public revelation.

 

[dianaiad]

Dianaiad -

Please explain the LDS definitions of: apostle and public revelation.

Also, do the LDS apostles have public revelations? If so, what are they like?
Do they see or hear them(or both)?
What would be an example of one of their most well-known revelations?
Do all of them receive p.r. or just the president?

Thanks!

“Apostle” is a calling in the church…we have at least twelve of them at all times, as it was when Jesus called His twelve, and vacancies within those ranks were filled. They do recieve public revelation, which is written down, and when canonized, becomes scripture. We have an open canon…that’s what the Doctrine and Covenants is.

We believe that there was a LOT of it in the early days, when the church was restored. It slowed down a lot. We believe that our prophets and apostles recieve revelation frequently as they seek to guide the church today, and when such revelation needs to be canonized, it is.

As to what they are like…well, you will have to ask them. Joseph Smith got the whole enchelada; face to face meetings and the whole bit. So did many of the early leaders…and from what I understand, it’s not exactly unheard of even now. However, the form of it isn’t as important as the FACT of it, and the results. We believe that there is formal public revelation, and very few other Christian churches believe that.

In fact, I find this disconnect really hard to wrap my mind around: how can Christians claim that God guides the church—when they refuse to accept any form of public revelation? After all, if God guides the church, that IS public revelation, by definition! To deny it seems to be to say that a cup will keep you hydrated if you sip from it–but there is no liquid in it.

 

[dianaiad]

Who said that conversions, such as Paul’s, are the same as public revelations?
I guess I need to wait for your definition of public revelation.

Point…except that Paul recieved more than that, because he CLAIMED more than that…and he was told to stop fooling around and to teach the church. His words are scripture, and that alone means that it is the result of public revelation. If they are not, then you have to put them somewhere other than the bible, for they are no more important then than the comments of the local store front minister; his opinion only, and something we can not use as proof text for any doctrinal issue.

In other words, the fact that we all accept his words AS scripture is proof that they are the result of exactly that public revelation; revelation from God meant to guide the church.

 

[lax16]

Point…except that Paul recieved more than that, because he CLAIMED more than that…and he was told to stop fooling around and to teach the church. His words are scripture, and that alone means that it is the result of public revelation. If they are not, then you have to put them somewhere other than the bible, for they are no more important then than the comments of the local store front minister; his opinion only, and something we can not use as proof text for any doctrinal issue.

In other words, the fact that we all accept his words AS scripture is proof that they are the result of exactly that public revelation; revelation from God meant to guide the church.

(I googled private and public revelations on the CAF search engine)
Private Revelation

Public revelation is binding on all Christians, but private revelation is binding only on those who receive it. The Catholic Church teaches that public revelation was completed, and therefore was concluded, with the death of the last apostle (Vatican II, Dei Verbum 4), but private revelation has continued.

“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 [collective sense of the faithful] 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’” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 67).

Some people tend to go to one extreme or the other on private revelation; they either completely reject the concept or they consider private revelation their chief rule of faith. The original sixteenth century Protestant Reformers denied all private revelation—they had to, for all the miracles that had occurred and all the private revelations that had been received over the previous fifteen hundred years had confirmed rather than attacked the Catholic faith. The original Reformers’ actions were in direct disobedience to the binding command of the New Testament: “Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophetic utterances. Test everything; retain what is good” (1 Thess. 5:19–21).

The Reformers’ eradication of all new revelation led people to forget the distinction between public and private revelation. Thus when people appeared claiming to have new revleation, Protestants were left vulnerable to thinking any new revelations would be binding on all Christians. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, religious organizations which claim such new revelations have evolved in Protestant circles; for example, the Irvingites, the Mormons, the Seventh-Day Adventists, and the current “Word Faith” or “Prosperity Gospel” movement.

When the Pentecostal movement started in 1900, it faced the problem of explaining why private revelations had ceased for so many centuries, as the original Protestant Reformers claimed, only to begin again during this century. The correct answer, as the following passages from the early Church Fathers show, is that private revelation never did stop.

Patrick of Ireland

“And there truly [in Ireland] one night I heard in my sleep a voice saying to me, ‘You fast well; soon you will go to your fatherland.’ And again, after I very short time, I heard the heavenly voice saying to me, ‘Lo, your ship is ready.’ And it was not near at hand, but was distant, perhaps two hundred miles. And I had never been there, nor did I know any person living there. And thereupon I shortly took flight and left the man with whom I had been for six years. And I came in the strength of God, who prospered my way for good; and I met with nothing to alarm me until I reached that ship” (Confession of St. Patrick 17 [A.D. 452]).

“And once more, after a few years, I was in Britain with my family. . . . And there indeed I saw in a vision of the night a man whose name was Victoricus coming as it were from Ireland with countless letters. He gave me one of them, and I read the beginning of the letter, which was entitled ‘The Voice of the Irish.’ And while I was reading aloud the beginning of the letter, I thought that at that very moment I heard the voices of those who dwelt beside the Wood of Foclut [in Ireland], which is nigh unto the Western Sea. And thus they cried, as with one mouth, ‘We beseech you, holy youth, to come and walk once more among us!’” (ibid., 23).

“Let those who will, laugh and mock. I shall not be silent nor conceal the signs and wonders which were shown to me by the Lord many years before they came to pass, since he knows all things even before the world’s beginnings” (ibid., 45).

Dianaiad-
Great questions regarding public and private revelations.

I included the example of St. Patrick (there were others) because he received a private revelation that led him to take action, which eventually led to Ireland becoming Catholic/Christian. He was bound by private revelation that ended up impacting others.

This is very similar to St. Paul, meaning his private revelation (conversion) prompted him to change his ways and lead many to Christ. However, you are making the case because his experiences were recorded, after the death of Jesus, into what would eventually become the New Testament, that this moves the events of St. Paul into the category of public revelations. Am I stating this correctly?

Please provide your feedback. Thanks!

 

[AMDGtoo]

We believe that the apostasy began very, very early. In fact, we believe that there were germs of it referred to in the NT: Paul wrote to the Galatians “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:” (Gal. 1:5)

And we believe that one apostasy was even earlier than that. The Scriptures mention it in John chapter 6 when many that walked with Jesus walked away from Him when He told them that He is real food and real drink. That is an apostasy, but there are no records of a total apostacy, in fact the Church was told to protect against “itching ears” and she did so with Councils (you can see the first one mentioned in Act).

 

[AtticusFinch]

Not…quite.

What has been done ‘many times on these threads’ is that evidence has been presented that confirms to YOU that no apostasy happened. That’s not the same thing as proving it to anybody else.

Actually, it has been proven nicely that no Apostasy occurred.

Have you ever seen me resort to the 'scriptures weren’t translated correctly" argument? I have presented my reasoning for believing in an apostasy, and to me, that reasoning is good. It ‘proves’ to me that there was…and the only evidence y’all have for me that there was not is that there has been a continuous Christian belief. well, I don’t argue with that one bit. There has been.

Ok, so give me the date of the Apostasy. There should be a date for such a great occurance, right? Give me the date so I can put it on my calendar

My argument is that (something we both agree upon) public revelation stopped. I can’t see anywhere in the scriptures that say where it was supposed to stop. The argument made that ‘well, it stopped, and therefore it was supposed to…’ is really begging the question, don’t you think?

Not really. You can’t show me where it says they were supposed to continue, either. Jesus was not stupid. He knew there would be a lot of people like mohammed, Joseph Smith, Mary White, Jim Jones all proclaiming they were receiving revelation. Jesus also knew that the fact that people like Joseph Smith would claim there were men on the moon, that the world would end in the 1800s, etc etc would never be a clue to some people that he was a fraud. So, to make it eaier, there is simply no public revelaiton. That protects us from folks like Joseph Smith, Mary White, Jim Jones, etc.

All other arguments to the side, the above one is the biggie. Can you show me, anywhere in the scriptures, where public revelation really was supposed to STOP less than a century after Christ died? That no more real, honest to goodness SCRIPTURE was to be written?

Can you show me where there was?

the other problem I run up against is a simpler one; the organization of the church as Christ had it. The very early Christians attempted to keep it…but you notice that they didn’t manage it. No more apostles.

lol…funn y how you rely so heavenly on your line of authority but believe the Catholic Church could not manage one. Every Priest can trace their line of authority back to Jesus. That is 2000 years. Your folks can trace it back to the 1830s. Yes, there is still the organization, which grew as the Church grew.

Now WE believe that it requires public revelation, to apostles/prophets, to keep the train on the track;

yeah, like the revelaiton that Adam is really our God? That God was once a sinful man? That there are men on the moon? That blacks could not hold the priesthood? That if blacks were good, they would turn white?

to keep the priesthood authority here. Since public revelation stopped, and there were no apostles, I personally do not see how the priesthood could possibly have remained.

That’s ok that you can;t see it, Jesus can

Y’all claim that since you can trace the line of people back that far, that the authority remains…and therefore there was no apostasy. However, that continuation of people, does not mean that all those people passed on Truth OR authority.

Actually, just because you claim you the authority does not mean you have it either. I would, however, put more confidence in the line of authority from Jesus till now than from the 1800s till now

…and yes, it would have to be from scripture, because of course anything from Holy Tradition would be post apostasy from my POV. ,

Wow…the Bible says to hold on to Tradition and Diana says not to…who should we listen to?

Diana believes that Jesus was a liar and/or very weak. For there to be an Apostasy, Jesus would have to be a liar, since Jesus said the gates of hell would NEVER prevail. Jesus would also have to be pretty weak if He could not keep His Church going after he left. Further, Jesus would have to be very, very, very cruel. IF we believe Jesus is all-knowing, then Jesus KNEW there would be this Apostasy. Further, He KNEW his best friends, the Apostles, would all suffer horrible deaths. Yet, knowing these two things, Jesus sent them out to their deaths for a Church Jesus KNEW was going to die in a few years, sending them out for nothing.

The only way for there to be an Apostasy like Diana suggests and the LDS Church preaches is for Jesus to be a liar, weak, and very cruel.

The Jesus I believe in was, and is, none of those.

 

[lax16]

(I googled private and public revelations on the CAF search engine)
Private Revelation

Public revelation is binding on all Christians, but private revelation is binding only on those who receive it. The Catholic Church teaches that public revelation was completed, and therefore was concluded, with the death of the last apostle (Vatican II, Dei Verbum 4), but private revelation has continued.

“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 [collective sense of the faithful] 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’” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 67).

Some people tend to go to one extreme or the other on private revelation; they either completely reject the concept or they consider private revelation their chief rule of faith. The original sixteenth century Protestant Reformers denied all private revelation—they had to, for all the miracles that had occurred and all the private revelations that had been received over the previous fifteen hundred years had confirmed rather than attacked the Catholic faith. The original Reformers’ actions were in direct disobedience to the binding command of the New Testament: “Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophetic utterances. Test everything; retain what is good” (1 Thess. 5:19–21).

The Reformers’ eradication of all new revelation led people to forget the distinction between public and private revelation. Thus when people appeared claiming to have new revleation, Protestants were left vulnerable to thinking any new revelations would be binding on all Christians. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, religious organizations which claim such new revelations have evolved in Protestant circles; for example, the Irvingites, the Mormons, the Seventh-Day Adventists, and the current “Word Faith” or “Prosperity Gospel” movement.

When the Pentecostal movement started in 1900, it faced the problem of explaining why private revelations had ceased for so many centuries, as the original Protestant Reformers claimed, only to begin again during this century. The correct answer, as the following passages from the early Church Fathers show, is that private revelation never did stop.

Patrick of Ireland

“And there truly [in Ireland] one night I heard in my sleep a voice saying to me, ‘You fast well; soon you will go to your fatherland.’ And again, after I very short time, I heard the heavenly voice saying to me, ‘Lo, your ship is ready.’ And it was not near at hand, but was distant, perhaps two hundred miles. And I had never been there, nor did I know any person living there. And thereupon I shortly took flight and left the man with whom I had been for six years. And I came in the strength of God, who prospered my way for good; and I met with nothing to alarm me until I reached that ship” (Confession of St. Patrick 17 [A.D. 452]).

“And once more, after a few years, I was in Britain with my family. . . . And there indeed I saw in a vision of the night a man whose name was Victoricus coming as it were from Ireland with countless letters. He gave me one of them, and I read the beginning of the letter, which was entitled ‘The Voice of the Irish.’ And while I was reading aloud the beginning of the letter, I thought that at that very moment I heard the voices of those who dwelt beside the Wood of Foclut [in Ireland], which is nigh unto the Western Sea. And thus they cried, as with one mouth, ‘We beseech you, holy youth, to come and walk once more among us!’” (ibid., 23).

“Let those who will, laugh and mock. I shall not be silent nor conceal the signs and wonders which were shown to me by the Lord many years before they came to pass, since he knows all things even before the world’s beginnings” (ibid., 45).

Dianaiad-
Great questions regarding public and private revelations.

I included the example of St. Patrick (there were others) because he received a private revelation that led him to take action, which eventually led to Ireland becoming Catholic/Christian. He was bound by private revelation that ended up impacting others.

This is very similar to St. Paul, meaning his private revelation (conversion) prompted him to change his ways and lead many to Christ. However, you are making the case because his experiences were recorded, after the death of Jesus, into what would eventually become the New Testament, that this moves the events of St. Paul into the category of public revelations. Am I stating this correctly?

Please provide your feedback. Thanks!

Dianaiad- I am re-posting my post from the other day because I have a little more to add.
In speaking with someone who teaches Bible study at my church, he explained St. Paul’s private revelation did not “add on” to anything that Jesus Christ said or did, therefore it is not considered public revelation.

The Catholic Church believes in private revelation as long as it does not ADD TO or CHANGE anything that Jesus Christ taught during his ministry. Therefore, St. Paul, St. Patrick etc are considered to have had private revelations, not public, even if they were recorded in the Bible, as in the case of Paul.

I look forward to your response.

 

[TheosisM]

Dianaiad- I am re-posting my post from the other day because I have a little more to add.
In speaking with someone who teaches Bible study at my church, he explained St. Paul’s private revelation did not “add on” to anything that Jesus Christ said or did, therefore it is not considered public revelation.

The Catholic Church believes in private revelation as long as it does not ADD TO or CHANGE anything that Jesus Christ taught during his ministry. Therefore, St. Paul, St. Patrick etc are considered to have had private revelations, not public, even if they were recorded in the Bible, as in the case of Paul.

I look forward to your response.

This is not correct. The Catholic Church teaches that public revelation includes Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, therefore the revelations to St. Paul are part of public revelation. Catholicism teaches that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. Private Revelation is not binding on Catholics. For example, one does not have to believe in the Marian apparitions. Public Revelation is binding on Catholics, which includes Paul’s writings and revelations. You can’t disbelieve in Paul’s revelations and still be Catholic. You can disbelieve in Fatima or Lourdes and still be a Catholic. That is the difference between public and private revelation in Catholicism.

 

[lax16]

This is not correct. The Catholic Church teaches that public revelation includes Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, therefore the revelations to St. Paul are part of public revelation. Catholicism teaches that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. Private Revelation is not binding on Catholics. For example, one does not have to believe in the Marian apparitions. Public Revelation is binding on Catholics, which includes Paul’s writings and revelations. You can’t disbelieve in Paul’s revelations and still be Catholic. You can disbelieve in Fatima or Lourdes and still be a Catholic. That is the difference between public and private revelation in Catholicism.

TheosisM - This is a mind bender…like who’s on first…I’ll have to think about this one for a while and get back to you!

 

[dianaiad]

This is not correct. The Catholic Church teaches that public revelation includes Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, therefore the revelations to St. Paul are part of public revelation. Catholicism teaches that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. Private Revelation is not binding on Catholics. For example, one does not have to believe in the Marian apparitions. Public Revelation is binding on Catholics, which includes Paul’s writings and revelations. You can’t disbelieve in Paul’s revelations and still be Catholic. You can disbelieve in Fatima or Lourdes and still be a Catholic. That is the difference between public and private revelation in Catholicism.

Thank you, Theosis…I’m definitely bowing to you as the expert on this!

Diana

 

[lax16]

Thank you, Theosis…I’m definitely bowing to you as the expert on this!

Diana

Dianaiad- I was hoping to continue the discussion we had already started regarding private and public revelation.

Also, please state Theosis’ area of expertise.

 

[TheosisM]

Dianaiad- I was hoping to continue the discussion we had already started regarding private and public revelation.

Also, please state Theosis’ area of expertise.

Perhaps what dianaiad meant was that my explanation of public vs. private revelation re: Paul simply made sense, especially because it would be erroneous to call Paul’s writings/revelations Private Revelation, since they must be accepted by all Catholics, in contrast to Marian apparitions, which are popular examples of private revelation.

 

[dianaiad]

Dianaiad- I was hoping to continue the discussion we had already started regarding private and public revelation.

Also, please state Theosis’ area of expertise.

Theosis has been around awhile, arguing with me…he has been on the side of Catholicism and has been very helpful in explaining Catholic matters to me. In all the time he’s been here, explaining Catholic Doctrine, I’ve never seen a Catholic tell him that he is wrong. I can tell you this: if a Catholic chimes in on an explanation regarding Catholic doctrine, I will not (well, usually not…) tell him that he’s incorrect.

Theosis is also, I think…one of the very few (darned near unique and the only reason I don’t say “absolutely unique” is because I hold out eternal hope that another one like him will show up) people who actually get MY beliefs right, almost all the time. You have no idea how rare THAT one is!

I will admit that I have, when I hear something that has me flurmuggled, argue some matter of doctrine with the Catholic TELLING me about it, but I’m not going to go telling everybody ELSE that “hey, this is what Catholics really believe.”

Besides.

He just explained things so that they not only made sense, but also in a way that supported my point. I’d be a right idiot to argue with him about it, wouldn’t I?

 

[dianaiad]

Perhaps what dianaiad meant was that my explanation of public vs. private revelation re: Paul simply made sense, especially because it would be erroneous to call Paul’s writings/revelations Private Revelation, since they must be accepted by all Catholics, in contrast to Marian apparitions, which are popular examples of private revelation.

They DO make sense that way…but I wouldn’t have been able to explain it that succinctly. I was trying to dance around it, but that’s all I was doing.

 

[SteveVH]

Now WE believe that it requires public revelation, to apostles/prophets, to keep the train on the track; to keep the priesthood authority here. Since public revelation stopped, and there were no apostles, I personally do not see how the priesthood could possibly have remained.

Why do you believe that? Why would you not believe that a bishop, validly ordained by one of the Apostles, would not in turn be able to validly ordain others? We believe our Bishops are Apostles, in a sense. They, of course are not the twelve Apostles, but then neither are yours. Our bishops are the successors to the original twelve. That is the unbroken line that we can prove and which you do not dispute. The Apostles held the office of bishop.

“APOSTLE: A term meaning one who is sent as Jesus was sent by the Father, and as he sent his chosen disciples to preach the Gospel to the whole world. He called the Twelve to become his Apostles, chosen witnesses of his Resurrection and the foundation on which the Church is built. The apostolic office is permenant to the Church, in order to ensure that the divine mission entrusted to the Apostles by Jesus will continue to the end of time. The bishops receive their office as successors of the Apostles through the sacrament of Holy Orders.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church - Glossary)

I’m not sure where the notion comes from that the apostolic office ever ended. We certainly believe that it continues within our Church.

Y’all claim that since you can trace the line of people back that far, that the authority remains…and therefore there was no apostasy. However, that continuation of people, does not mean that all those people passed on Truth OR authority.

Well, actually it isn’t just a line of people but rather a line of validly ordained bishops going back to the original twelve. You say that "the continuation of people, does not mean that all those people passed on Truth OR authority. Nor does it mean that they did not and you have nothing to prove that it did not. It is simply a claim.

So, what you have to do, in order to prove to me that there was no apostasy, is give me a VALID and reasonable explanation as to why public revelation stopped; something you can point to in SCRIPTURE as to why the entire organization and method of running the church changed, and that so quickly and so completely.

…and yes, it would have to be from scripture, because of course anything from Holy Tradition would be post apostasy from my POV. , and again, begging the question. Holy Tradition explains the doctrines you have…but it does not explain its own presence in the entire religious context. You know…why go with Holy Tradition (without public revelation) rather than revealed scripture, as was done previously.

"In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a son." (Heb 1:1-2)

In other words, whereas continuous public revelation was necessary before the coming of
Jesus, there is nothing more to say after His coming. He is it. He is sufficient, the final piece of the puzzle. The story is now complete. If you will allow me, St. John of the Cross explains it much better than I.

“In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say… because what he spoke 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)

When Paul received revelation from Jesus Hmself, it was not different from the revelation the other Apostles received. The revelation Paul received was JESUS. He preached Jesus crucified. He had nothing new to say; he had become a witness to the resurrected Jesus and wished to tell the world. God fully revealed Himself in His Son, Jesus Who established the “new and everlasting covenant”. There is no more to be revealed, that is why public revelation stopped, not because of a loss of authority. What else is there to be revealed after Jesus, the fulfillment of all of scripture?

Diana, we both must realize that when we use words like “Apostle” and “bishop” we are very likey confused by the difference in our definitions and understanding of the “office”. They are one and the same in our definition, with the difference that the Twelve were actual witnesses to His earthly life. But the apostolic office never ceased and there is no indication that it ever did.

 

[dianaiad]

Why do you believe that? Why would you not believe that a bishop, validly ordained by one of the Apostles, would not in turn be able to validly ordain others? We believe our Bishops are Apostles, in a sense. They, of course are not the twelve Apostles, but then neither are yours. Our bishops are the successors to the original twelve. That is the unbroken line that we can prove and which you do not dispute. The Apostles held the office of bishop.

“APOSTLE: A term meaning one who is sent as Jesus was sent by the Father, and as he sent his chosen disciples to preach the Gospel to the whole world. He called the Twelve to become his Apostles, chosen witnesses of his Resurrection and the foundation on which the Church is built. The apostolic office is permenant to the Church, in order to ensure that the divine mission entrusted to the Apostles by Jesus will continue to the end of time. The bishops receive their office as successors of the Apostles through the sacrament of Holy Orders.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church - Glossary)

I’m not sure where the notion comes from that the apostolic office ever ended. We certainly believe that it continues within our Church.

I am aware that you do…which is the major difference in claims between Catholicism and Mormonism. You believe that it 'never ended…" and yet y’all have this concept of public revelation ceasing after the death of the last apostle. Can you see where we would have a problem reconciling these two positions…that the last of the apostles died, and thus ended the era of public revelation, and yet the 'apostolic office [n]ever ended?"

Well, actually it isn’t just a line of people but rather a line of validly ordained bishops going back to the original twelve. You say that "the continuation of people, does not mean that all those people passed on Truth OR authority. Nor does it mean that they did not and you have nothing to prove that it did not. It is simply a claim.

"In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a son." (Heb 1:1-2)

I have commented on the irony of the use of THIS verse to justify the end of public revelation before, y’know.

1. Who wrote this verse?
   Answer…Paul.
2. Was Paul one of the original apostles?
   Answer…no.
3. Was Paul an apostle?
   Answer…well, yeah…
4. Did Paul receive direct revelation from Christ, with information that he was directed to tell the church?
   Answer…well, yeah…
5. Would we know anything at all about what happened to Jesus after His death and Resurrection if Jesus’ apostles did NOT recieve direct revelation from Him?
   Answer…well, no…

Given the above, either Paul was lying through his teeth when he said there wouldn’t be more revelation, or he was lying through his teeth when he had the nerve to claim that he RECIEVED revelation and was empowered to teach the early church what he learned from it…or that verse doesn’t mean what you think it does.

In actuality, it means that all further revelation would come by MEANS of the Son…for He ‘bought us with a price.’ In other words, Jesus, the Messiah and Savior of the world, is the giver of revelation. Paul did NOT mean that there wouldn’t be any revelation…that would be an assinine thing to say, given the experiences Paul had. He meant that all future revelation would come from Jesus.

And it has.

cont on next post

 

[dianaiad]

cont. from previous post;

In other words, whereas continuous public revelation was necessary before the coming of
Jesus, there is nothing more to say after His coming. He is it. He is sufficient, the final piece of the puzzle. The story is now complete. If you will allow me, St. John of the Cross explains it much better than I.

Nice idea, if indeed there had been no further revelation after His coming–and His death, resurrection and assencion. The problem is, of course, there was. the NT is full of exactly the sort of revelation you are claiming ceased upon the coming of Jesus to the earth.

“In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say… because what he spoke 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)

When Paul received revelation from Jesus Hmself, it was not different from the revelation the other Apostles received. The revelation Paul received was JESUS. He preached Jesus crucified. He had nothing new to say; he had become a witness to the resurrected Jesus and wished to tell the world. God fully revealed Himself in His Son, Jesus Who established the “new and everlasting covenant”. There is no more to be revealed, that is why public revelation stopped, not because of a loss of authority. What else is there to be revealed after Jesus, the fulfillment of all of scripture?

Diana, we both must realize that when we use words like “Apostle” and “bishop” we are very likey confused by the difference in our definitions and understanding of the “office”. They are one and the same in our definition, with the difference that the Twelve were actual witnesses to His earthly life. But the apostolic office never ceased and there is no indication that it ever did.

Paul was not an 'actual witness to Jesus in his earthly life," Steve. There is absolutely no evidence to show that he ever met Jesus in life—all his experience with Christ was through interaction with His followers, and through precisely the sort of revelation you claim stopped.

But it did NOT stop. Christ appeared to His apostles. Apostles were replaced. They continued to receive revelation for the purpose of guiding His church…until, as you say, the last apostle died and public revelation ceased.

The problem here is that you are trying to have this both ways; you claim they all died, and thus revelation ceased, and yet you claim that the office continued. We agree with you; revelation ceased when they all died.

WE believe that without that constant touchstone with God, in terms of public revelation, that the priesthood line of authority also ceased upon the death of the last man who held it. Without an apostle on the earth WITH that communication link open, nobody had the authority to pass the priesthood on, and what happened was a an extended game of whispers…you know, where on person whispers into the ear of his neighbor, and on down the line so that what comes out at the end of this long string bears very little resemblance to what began it. Without that public revelation to keep things on track, how could the church NOT drift, doctrinally, no matter how hard it tries, or how dedictated the members and leaders were?

Public revelation, I believe, is an absolute requirement.

…and that, finally, is the sticking point for me; if Catholics maintained apostolic succession, then of course Mormonism (or Protestantism, for that matter) is not true. It’s just that I can’t see, for the life of me, how this line of apostolic succession can possibly have been kept, given that you yourselves agree that there is no public revelation to keep the line from breaking.

 

[lax16]

cont. from previous post;

Nice idea, if indeed there had been no further revelation after His coming–and His death, resurrection and assencion. The problem is, of course, there was. the NT is full of exactly the sort of revelation you are claiming ceased upon the coming of Jesus to the earth.

Paul was not an 'actual witness to Jesus in his earthly life," Steve. There is absolutely no evidence to show that he ever met Jesus in life—all his experience with Christ was through interaction with His followers, and through precisely the sort of revelation you claim stopped.

But it did NOT stop. Christ appeared to His apostles. Apostles were replaced. They continued to receive revelation for the purpose of guiding His church…until, as you say, the last apostle died and public revelation ceased.

The problem here is that you are trying to have this both ways; you claim they all died, and thus revelation ceased, and yet you claim that the office continued. We agree with you; revelation ceased when they all died.

WE believe that without that constant touchstone with God, in terms of public revelation, that the priesthood line of authority also ceased upon the death of the last man who held it. Without an apostle on the earth WITH that communication link open, nobody had the authority to pass the priesthood on, and what happened was a an extended game of whispers…you know, where on person whispers into the ear of his neighbor, and on down the line so that what comes out at the end of this long string bears very little resemblance to what began it. Without that public revelation to keep things on track, how could the church NOT drift, doctrinally, no matter how hard it tries, or how dedictated the members and leaders were?

Public revelation, I believe, is an absolute requirement.

…and that, finally, is the sticking point for me; if Catholics maintained apostolic succession, then of course Mormonism (or Protestantism, for that matter) is not true. It’s just that I can’t see, for the life of me, how this line of apostolic succession can possibly have been kept, given that you yourselves agree that there is no public revelation to keep the line from breaking.

It seems that much of what you are saying comes from the post of Theosis. I am waiting to hear from several experts before responding to your posts (and Theosis).

It is taking time to get calls/e-mails returned, but I will post their answers as they come available.

I am not an expert in Catholic theology and to answer your questions (that have arisen from the assumption that Theosis is correct), Dianaiad, I must defer to an expert.

Actually I found his post confusing, not clarifying.