With all due respect…and I do respect Theosis VERY much, none of what I wrote came from his post. I was simply explaining the LDS point of view on this matter.
I guess I misunderstood?
I see…I guess I misunderstood?
Okay, Diana, what I am about to say is certainly NOT going to be a perfect analogy to what you’ve said above (especially since US history wasn’t my favorite subject), but I think that it may have enough basic similarity to be useful…I am aware that you do…which is the major difference in claims between Catholicism and Mormonism.
(And I get frustrated when obviously intelligent Christians say they don’t “understand” the LDS claim, when I often think that they DO understand it, at least academically, rather, it is that they don’t agree with it.)You make the assumption that Apostle = Public Revelation, that you can’t have one without the other. Why do you believe that? Where does the Bible say that? Can you understand that we, as Catholics, believe that no further public revelation will be given because no further public revelation is necessary? Jesus is God’s final revelation because God Himself has been revealed through him. What more can we possibly need? The Apostles were given the command to “teach all nations” and to “baptize”. To teach all nations about what? JESUS. And how were they to teach all nations if their authority would stop at the moment of their deaths? Successors were absolutely necessary in accomplishing that goal, that command. Also necessary was the authority of the Apostles; not to bring NEW revelation, but to guard and to teach the truth they received from Jesus Himself.I am aware that you do…which is the major difference in claims between Catholicism and Mormonism.
Maybe I haven’t adequately communicated my thoughts. The Gospels center completely on the person of Jesus Christ. The Epistles as well. They all center on the revelation of the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Savior of the world. What other “revelation” do you find in the NT apart from Jesus. That is my whole point. All revelation is summed up in Christ. We can comment on His life, we can discuss the meaning of His words, the implications of His suffering, death and resurrection. But that is not new revelation.
Please tell me what NEW revelation Paul gave us? He preached salvation through Jesus Christ and did a great job of explaining it to the gentiles. Paul understood very well that Jesus was God’s final revelation.
I love your analogy…Okay, Diana, what I am about to say is certainly NOT going to be a perfect analogy to what you’ve said above (especially since US history wasn’t my favorite subject), but I think that it may have enough basic similarity to be useful…
Eventually, the “era” of the framing of the US Constitution ended. (Akin to public revelation). Yet the leadership of the US (akin to “apostolic office”) was somehow able to continue, based on the (somewhat) “closed” US Constitution. (I guess that in this analogy the Bill of Rights would be akin to developing dogma as more of the deposit of faith became understood).
Again, the above is not a perfect analogy and I don’t wish to go down a rabbit hole here trying to revise it to make it perfect. My main point here in using this (imperfect) analogy is to show a way that I do think LDS could at least understand (though not agree with) the Catholic teaching that public revelation ended, but that early Christianity continued (without going into apostasy as the LDS claim.)
To me, the concept is no harder to comprehend than the LDS claim that the early church went into apostasy and was restored. I happen to not have a testimony of that claim, thus I cannot say that I would affirm it, but I do nonetheless understand what it means.
Probably for the same reason CAtholics do, Steve. Since there was no more public revelation after the death of the apostles…it does sort of follow. And yes, as far as I am aware Catholics and other Christians agree that no more public revelation happened after that. That is, after all, what is MEANT by 'closed canon."
I would accept that if there WERE no more public revelation after Jesus’ death, resurrection and ascension into heaven, but, well…there was. In fact, everything in the NT is exactly the sort of public revelation that you claim ceased. Without it, we wouldn’t know anything about Jesus or His role in our salvation.
And for which purpose they continued to receive revelation FROM Jesus, and they wrote it down as scripture. What in the world do you think those appearances to the Apostles by the Resurrected Christ WERE, if they were not revelation? What about Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus? Revelation in the most classic sense! Every single time Christ spoke to His apostles; every time they wrote something down that we consider to be scripture; every vision…the Book of Revelation itself…it is REVELATION. …and it happened AFTER Christ died and was resurrected again. It came FROM Him.
Then you are willing to discard everything written by the apostles after His death? Because everything we know of Him is the direct result of exactly the sort of revelation that you are here claiming didn’t happen!
Again, for Paul to say this, and mean it as you claim, make Paul a liar anyway you want to look at it, for if Paul did not receive public revelation, then he had absolutely no business claiming to be an apostle, nor we to put his words as scripture equal with anything that Mark, Luke, John or Mathew wrote…but you do put his words right up there, as being authoritative.
I am sure that Theosis is a very knowledgeable Catholic and his posts are deserving of respect. To call a person an expert on Catholicism is a very generous label though, to be reserved for those who are experts. Theosis, perhaps you are one, but I would have no way of knowing if someone is an expert if they don’t say it somewhere in their post.
You have lost me here.
Those Apostles who wrote scripture in the NT did so under the guidance of the Holy Spirit so that they would speak without error concerning the REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST, who they walked and lived with. The synoptic Gospels, for the most part, tell the same story, the same revelation. The Gospel of John contains some theology (“the Word was with God and the Word was God”, for example) not present in the synoptic Gospels, but necessary to complete the one revelation of Jesus Christ. Can you see that there is no revelation given apart from that of Jesus Christ? Yes, Christ revealed Himself to Paul on the road to Damascus but what did He reveal to Paul? He revealed Himself, not a new revelation. Christ chose Paul as a special instrument to bring the ONE REVELATION of Himself to the gentiles. Paul received the same revelation given to the Apostles before him. The revelation of Jesus Christ can and will be pondered by people throughout the centuries and new insights and understanding into this one revelation will certainly take place. Maybe you consider obtaining a greater understanding as a revelation, but we do not. We believe that our Pope and bishops are guided by the Holy Spirit and protected from bringing error into our understanding of the one revelation, the deposit of faith given to Peter and the other Apostles, including Paul. Their job is not to bring new public revealtion, but to protect and guard what they received from the Apostles.
But Diana, WHAT WAS BEING REVEALED? Jesus Christ, not something new.
There is nothing to indicate that any new revealtion was necessary either. As far as Holy Tradition is concerned, please tell me what “new revelation” comes from Holy Tradition that is not present in scripture? The inclusion of writings contained in thecanon of scripture chosen by the bishops of the Catholic Church were in large part based upon how they compared to Holy Tradition as a measure of their inspired nature.
Let me put it this way. If Jesus appeared to me today that would not constitute new revelation. When He appeared to his disciples after his resurrection and to Paul, it was the revelation of Himself, not something different. He did not reveal something different to each of them. We believe that Christ has appeared to various saints throughout history, but he has always pointed to the same revelation of Himself and has never given us new doctrine. It is the same revelation.
It is not new revelation, but a an explanation of the one revelation of Jesus. One may receive a new insight into the one revelation, but that does not constitute a new public revelation. That is the problem we have with Mormon theology. You do bring in something different (celestial marriage, polygamy, polytheism etc…) which was not “revealed” to the Apostles. We were warned not to accept a different gospel even if given to us by and angel. Our Church continues to guard and protect the truth given to us by the Apostles and nothing more, not because public revelation was cut off from the Church, but because there is no further revelation apart from the saving power of Jesus Christ.
I love your analogy…
Mostly because I can turn it around. (bigger grin…)
The Constitution was ratified…but only after there were ten rather important amendments. Since that time there have been 17 more amendments, the last one in 1992 (it took 202 years to get it ratified!). The Constitution is definitely not a ‘closed canon,’ much to the dismay of many on both ends of the political spectrum.
Indeed, if it HAD been a closed canon, we would still have slavery, women would not be able to vote, there would be no income tax, (wait…I have to think about the positive nature of that one for a minute…) Senators would be appointed by the states, not elected, the president could run for office as many times consequtively as s/he wanted to, and everybody would have to wait until they were 21 to vote. Among, of course, other things.
Oh, yeah, and congress could vote itself immediate raises.
If anything emphasizes the necessity for ongoing communication with the power that created something, the US Constitution does…a closed canon is, well…in all the history of the world, God has never, EVER, closed the canon. He has taken very long "vacations,’ of sorts, but He has never actually stopped talking.
I guess that’s the thing; this unprecedented idea that He did, absent any indication from Him at all that He WOULD.
Diana
“Revelation:” direct communication from God to man,
The problem is that you are still considering the Person of Jesus to BE the revelation…but in the NT, He is the One who was the SOURCE of it. It is HE who guided Peter and Paul in their writings…and that was all revelation.
Honestly? I am beginning to see at least one view I didn’t see before. However, THAT view is looking very much like dodging the issue. It’s the idea that since Jesus is the culmination of all things, that nothing HE might say to prophets can be called revelation, because it’s not ‘new.’ Nothing can be new after Christ.
Please note once again, I don’t expect you to AGREE with the Catholic position, but I find it hard to believe that a person of obvious intelligence wouldn’t be able to grasp this notion. Understanding something conceptually and agreeing aren’t the same thing. I have no worries about saying that I understand the LDS claims…again, just because I understand them doesn’t mean I agree with them, and I don’t think that there is anything scandalous about saying that I understand them (which some on CAF seem to think, since they claim they “cannot understand” some LDS stuff.)
Honestly? I am beginning to see at least one view I didn’t see before. However, THAT view is looking very much like dodging the issue. It’s the idea that since Jesus is the culmination of all things, that nothing HE might say to prophets can be called revelation, because it’s not ‘new.’ Nothing can be new after Christ.
At least, that’s the impression I’m getting.
The problem, of course, is that this seems like a redefinition of the word…a difference in the ‘sound’ of the word, not the concept. Suppose we call that guidance that Christ gave to His apostles after His death and resurrection “flurple.” We still have the same problem; there is no hint in the NT that flurpleing would cease, but Catholics (and other Christians) contend that it did indeed cease upon the death of the last apostle. In other words, Jesus stopped guiding His church through 'flurpling." We were all left on our own, depending upon personal reve…er, sorry, flurpling. There is absolutly nothing WRONG with personal flurples, but such a thing is personal and not meant for anybody but the person who gets one. A flurple given to a man that he is supposed to impart to other people IS public reve…flurple, and the results are scripture. By definition.
Please pardon the 'flurple." My imagination is sadly lacking.
The other option, that ‘revelation’ means the same thing to both peoples but that it really was supposed to cease upon the death of the last apostle, well…I do understand it. It makes absolutely no SENSE to me, for the reasons I have given here and elsewhere, but I understand the concept!
I thought I did, yes, until Steve started writing. The thing is, I think I do understand; Catholics believe that there was no more public revelation after the last apostle died, but that apostolic succession continued without that public revelation, because there was no need for further revelation after the appearance of Jesus Christ.
Hmmn…well, I’m the Mormon, and I’m here to defend Mormonism.
I’m going to be more interested in explaining the LDS viewpoint than anything else. This is why, when Catholics or other Christians start quoting that verse in Hebrews from Paul, I guess I really don’t get the point.No worries, I didn’t think you were mocking at all, I apologize if my comments made it seem like I thought otherwise.
Well, yeah, fair 'nuf! Defending what you believe makes sense.Hmmn…well, I’m the Mormon, and I’m here to defend Mormonism.
Not sure what to tell you on that, for a coupla reasons. First, I see the point they are making and I also understand yours. And second, I really cannot comment on “Paul’s” statement because I don’t believe Paul is the author of Hebrews. You see, many biblical scholars (not just Catholic ones), don’t attribute Hebrews to Paul (there are other letters that are traditionally attributed to him that he didn’t write either, I would have to get my notes to tell you which ones as I don’t have them memorized). So, since I don’t believe Paul is the one who wrote the verses in question…well, it’s a non-starter for me.
No wonder you left the LDS church. You didn’t understand the doctrine then and you don’t understand it now. Of course all of the Bible is about Jesus Christ. That is better taught in Mormonism than in any other religion. Jesus Christ is Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He is in no way “only our spiritual elder Brother”–that is to not understand anything about His position in the pre-mortal world or His position in eternity. He was completely unique and was God the Son who became “God with us” on earth.