Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
It’s news to me that phrases have definitions. Where do I look up the definitions of “God guiding” and “written revelations”?
- Status
C
CatholicGuyNY
Guest
I find that the belief that public revelation (according to the Catholic understanding of the phrase) ended with the death of the last apostle makes perfect sense. Catholics believe that all things necessary for our salvation have already been revealed, and is found in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Salvation history is therefore contained in Scripture and Tradition, and that is the definition of public revelation for Catholics: it is what is necessary for salvation, and is really the history of salvation, culminating with Jesus Christ and His atonement.
When we understand this, we see that Mormons have a different view of what “public revelation” means, which is why I don’t think this current discussion is going anywhere. In addition to what I have said above, Catholics also believe in private revelations. These are revelations given to individuals from God (or other Heavenly persons). Since Catholics believe that all that is necessary to believe in relation to our salvation has been revealed, these private revelations are not binding, and we do not have to believe in the private revelations of others.
Catholics also believe that God inspires Church leaders in certain situations, such as in the Ecumenical Councils. Now, Catholics do not believe that these Councils come up with entirely new doctrines. Instead, it is believed that they further clarify and define what has already been revealed. The Bible is not a Catechism or a systematic theology for one, and this helps us to see why such clarifications would be important.
So, Catholics believe that all that is necessary for salvation, public revelation, was given anciently. We already have the “deposit of faith”. This is the definition of public revelation that Catholics are using. Which is also why Catholics ask Mormons what else is needed that was forgotten?
When we understand this, we see that Mormons have a different view of what “public revelation” means, which is why I don’t think this current discussion is going anywhere. In addition to what I have said above, Catholics also believe in private revelations. These are revelations given to individuals from God (or other Heavenly persons). Since Catholics believe that all that is necessary to believe in relation to our salvation has been revealed, these private revelations are not binding, and we do not have to believe in the private revelations of others.
Catholics also believe that God inspires Church leaders in certain situations, such as in the Ecumenical Councils. Now, Catholics do not believe that these Councils come up with entirely new doctrines. Instead, it is believed that they further clarify and define what has already been revealed. The Bible is not a Catechism or a systematic theology for one, and this helps us to see why such clarifications would be important.
So, Catholics believe that all that is necessary for salvation, public revelation, was given anciently. We already have the “deposit of faith”. This is the definition of public revelation that Catholics are using. Which is also why Catholics ask Mormons what else is needed that was forgotten?
S
SteveVH
Guest
Nicely put. It seems that we are speaking different languages when conversing with Mormons. I was of the opinion for a long time that most of our differences were simply a communication problem. I hope you can get further with this than I did. If, everytime a Bishop or even a lay person shed new light on one doctrine or another, we referred to it as “revelation”, then I suppose you could say that we have continuing revelation. But that simply is not the case. Receiving new understanding does not constitute new revelation. This is something the Mormons simply cannot grasp for some reason.
Pope John Paul, II wrote an incredible book called “Theology of the Body”. It is a new and unique look at human sexuality and how it relates to the Trinity (very simply put). The Church has never received a teaching like this before. But we do not call it new revelation. It is simply a greater understanding of revelation we have already received.
This is where we part company with Mormon teaching of continued revelation I think.
Anyway, great post:thumbsup:
D
dianaiad
Guest
Ok, you tell me:
What do you call it when God gives you direct information for you to use to guide your life?
…whatever terms you might use, isn’t 'private revelation" one of the mandatory ones? Is private revelation anything BUT that?
What do you call it when God does this, and tells you to tell other people about what He had to say?
…whatever terms you might use, isn’t public revelation" one of the mandatory ones? Is public revelation anything BUT that?
If God tells you something, and you write it down, and can honestly say 'Thus saith the Lord" when you do, what is that writing called?
…whatever terms you might use, isn’t “scripture” one of the mandatory ones? Is scripture anything but that?
S
SteveVH
Guest
Diana, I know this post was not directed toward me, but I can’t help but comment. Maybe we’re getting close to an understanding.
As we speak, there is a Catholic woman who lives in this country who claims to be receiving daily messages directly from Jesus. She is referred to as Anne the lay apostle. The Church has not spoken one way or the other. If you read these “messages”, it is clear that Jesus wants her to spread them, thus she is publishing them. Neither she, nor anyone else in the Church considers this “new” revelation. He wants her to let people know how much He loves us, the sadness He feels when people reject Him, the importance of returning to Him, etc…
Assuming Jesus’ appearances to be valid, there is still no new revelation, no new doctrine, no new truth that the Church did not previously possess. He is giving us a genlte nudge, a reminder to hold to the truth he has already given.
I hope this helps you understand the Catholic view of this.
God bless.
S
StevieD
Guest
This is the ONLY reason that Mormonism found a ready audience. Joseph Smith lived in a place and time in which religious disagreements and controversies abounded among the various Protestant sects and new ones were being founded all the time as factions disagreed and split. How could Sidney Rigdon convince the world that HIS interpretation was superior to everyone else’s? (views he had already espoused before the golden plates ‘came to pass’). Well, he could claim that his views were all contained in a new Scripture that God had handed down and which clarified all the controversies. (Strange that God didn’t do so 2,000 years earlier).
What he didn’t reckon with was his ‘front man’ Joseph subsequently deciding that HE was the only prophet of the new dispensation and then having revelations/inspirations that contradicted some of the BoM’s contents.
Mormonism is just one of the uglier fruits of the Protestant confusion of the 19th century along with Christian Science and the JW’s.
D
dianaiad
Guest
I guess it is a divide, indeed. I think that Mormons believe that we don’t have the right to decide, when God speaks Personally to us, whether what He has to say is ‘new’ or not. That’s HIS call.
M
Mike2010
Guest
Very true - it was a religious “free for all” in the early colonial days. I forget the guys name, but there was a man in the US that already had a theory that people from Israel came to America a long time ago (not exactly sure of the date). One has to wonder if Joseph Smith’s story was heavily influenced by his times… probably.
S
SteveVH
Guest
The problem also lies in the fact that there are many who have a difficult time discerning the voice of God from their own.
God speaks to me all the time. He comforts me. He leads me in directions I never would have chosen. This occurs in a profound way when I receive the Eucharist. His voice is unmistakeable and His mercy and love indescribable. I cannot even imagine my life without my Church, in which I enter into a relationship, an intimate relationship, with my God and Savior. What more could I possibly want or need?
You would no doubt tell me that you have a testimony, a burning in the bosom, that testifies to the truth of the Book of Mormon. Yet our faiths could not be further apart doctrinally.
Truth is truth. One of us is being duped. The purported validity of your Church rests upon the purported invalidity of my Church. For you to accept what I have offered in the way of explaining the Catholic view of revelation would mean knocking out the one leg of the stool that your Church rests upon.
The Catholic Church has countless examples of God speaking to it through various Saints over the years. God did not stop communicating with the Catholic Church after the death of the last Apostle. Jesus and His mother have appeared to many Catholic Saints over the centuries, appearances that the Church officially recognizes. He has shed new light on the Revelation given to the Church in Jesus Christ. You may consider each of these as a revelation, but we would not. He allows us to view Revelation from various depths, with greater clarity, thereby increasing our understanding. We do not consider it new revelation because it all centers on the one, final Revelation from God; His Son Jesus Christ.
Please tell me that you understand what I am saying even if you do not agree. I would love to break through this communication barier.
Thanks.
C
CatholicGuyNY
Guest
This is odd. If God has revealed certain things in the past, it is quite easy to believe that authorized leaders can know whether something that is being claimed as a revelation is “new” or not, if we know what already has been revealed.
When God speaks to us personally, or in “private revelation”, that is another issue. Catholics believe that such private revelations are not binding on all, since what is binding on all, what is required for salvation and is part of salvation history, has already been revealed. When the Catholic Church evaluates certain private revelations, such as the Marian apparitions, it is stating that that revelation is consistent with what has been revealed in public revelation (the Deposit of Faith), and that others can believe in them if that want. The issue here of course is false prophets, angels of light, etc.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
What was it you had to say on the subject of definitions??? Oh yes here’s what you said:
Seems when it comes to defintions you are trying to have it both ways and giving a snooty dismissal of all definitions other than your own.This begs a very big question: who gets to determine the definitions? Words mean what the people who use them think they mean, and very few, if any, words mean the same thing to two people. For instance…define ‘people.’
Have fun with that.
The problem comes with this idea you seem to have that YOU get the final word on the definition of something, and that anyone who has a different view of it is, necessarily, decieved or deliberately deceitful.
I solve the problem by going to a dictionary (except when you want to define phrases to your liking), figuring that the dictionary generally gives the definition the MOST people agree upon. If yours is different, then it is your responsibility to let us know what you mean. Insisting that, when we use a word, that we are being deceitful, or are ‘really’ claiming to believe something we do not if our definition doesn’t march with yours is a particularly biased way to go…especially if your definition has elements that are not in the dictionary (like your definitions of revelation, scripture and oh apostasy). A wonderful example of this is “Christian.”
Nobody can argue that Mormons do not fit the dictionary definition of “Christian.” It is only when different Christians add things to the definition that the problems come in…and then y’all expect us to agree that YOU are correct in defining the word. Why in the name of all that his holy should we do that? We don’t believe you are as correct in your beliefs ABOUT Christ as we are–can you give me one logical reason why we should tamely accept your definition of a word that excludes us?
Isn’t that a little like asking Catholics to accept Islam’s version of the catechism? C’mon.
The best way to do this is to be kind to one another; realize that (for instance) ‘excommunication’ to a Catholic doesn’t mean quite the same thing as it does to a Mormon, but that once both know what the OTHER means, a meaningful conversation can ensue anyway.
A snooty dismissal of all definitions of concepts other than one’s own won’t get you anywhere at all. It especially won’t get you listened to.
W
why_me
Guest
The above post has a lot of holes in it. Sidney was a popular preacher already. In fact, when he joined the mormon church some of his flock followed him. Sidney didn’t need a new book or a new religion. He was successful already as a preacher. And he was doing just fine. His problems began when he joined the lds church. He was eventually dragged out of his home, beaten, and left for dead by roaming mobs out to get mormons. Poor sidney. If he would have stayed a protestant preacher, he would have lived and happy and contented life.
If sidney wrote the book, he had plenty of time to disown that book and the movement that he would have started especially since he was turned down as leader after JS was murdered. In fact, on his deathbed when asked by his son if he wrote that book, Sidney denied it and bore his testimony of how the mormons came to him and converted him. Now that is interesting.
But missing from the summation by Stevie.
E
evanfaust
Guest
Are you saying that Christ will not return? I think most Christians believe in the second coming of Christ. Who is going to prepare the way for the second coming of Christ?
Are you misinterpreting the scripture like many Jews in the time of Christ? They expected a Messiah that would free them from their bondages. They did not expect someone who would take upon himself their sins and free them from spiritual death. They were diligent students of the Bible and many of them missed it. They missed it so badly that they decided to kill Him.
The Bible speaks of an apostasy and a restoration before the second coming of Christ and you don’t seem to see it. Christ Himself speaks of a restoration of everything and you still don’t acknowledge it.
“Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.” (Matthew 17:3-13)
A messenger was to come before the second comming of the Lord to prepare the way. This is about Elijah, who appeared to Joseph and Sidney Rigdon in the Temple of Kirtland on 3 April 1836. The interesting thing is that Jewish have a tradition where they reserve a plate and a cup for Elijah during the passover. That same night Elijah came, not to the Jewish, but the Joseph Smith and Sidney Ridgon in the Temple of Kirtland.
“Behold, **I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, **even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.” Mal 3:1
The Bible talks about a restorarion or restitution of all things before the second comming:
“And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.” Acts 3:19-21
The apostasy was to happen before the second coming of Christ. Paul told the Thessalonians not to worry about Christ coming back anytime soon saying,
“Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away [Greek apostasia] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.” (2 Thessalonians 2:3)
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Mormons are always so confused.
Jesus was speaking of John the Baptist. The writer of the Gospel says so, right there in verse 13.
They are talking about the OT prophesy of the coming of the Messiah, which is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. It is Christ who has restored all things. Not Joseph Smith.
Jesus was speaking of John the Baptist. The writer of the Gospel says so, right there in verse 13.
They are talking about the OT prophesy of the coming of the Messiah, which is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. It is Christ who has restored all things. Not Joseph Smith.
C
CatholicGuyNY
Guest
Who is “that man of sin…the son of perdition”?
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
Did you even read what he said??? You used the same words he did exclaiming he doesn’t think Christ will return.
Shrieking lightweight
W
why_me
Guest
Aren’t we all.
It is a sign of the times that there is confusion. But it is across the board and not just limited to one group.
S
SirThomasMore
Guest
Perhaps, but it is much easier to be confused when you follow a false prophet. We need to pray for the real Holy Spirit to bring these brothers from a false church into the TruthAren’t we all.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Mormons tend to explain so much away. Seriously, I don’t know how it can get any clearer. When the OT is prophesying of Who will bring restitution to all things, that they don’t recognize Jesus in this statement. As though the Jews are waiting for anyone else, but the Messiah.
Throughout the NT, Jesus shows that He fulfills the signs that point to Who He IS. This is but one of those times.
P
pinay
Guest
Is it just a Filipino thing then that the Catholics believe in Marian revelations?
It is quite a big thing in the Philippines. So big, that my parents spent oodles of money to travel to Lourdes. Anything to do with Marian apparitions usually come with a message from the Blessed Virgin Mary to the church. Is this not revelation?
The practice of praying the rosary, for example, is not something the apostles instructed. This, therefore, is continuing revelation.
So, yeah, the Catholics say that revelation ended at the death of the apostles but even in the Catholic church there is Mary who continues to guide. Did Bernadette talk about a different Jesus than the apostles?
It is quite a big thing in the Philippines. So big, that my parents spent oodles of money to travel to Lourdes. Anything to do with Marian apparitions usually come with a message from the Blessed Virgin Mary to the church. Is this not revelation?
The practice of praying the rosary, for example, is not something the apostles instructed. This, therefore, is continuing revelation.
So, yeah, the Catholics say that revelation ended at the death of the apostles but even in the Catholic church there is Mary who continues to guide. Did Bernadette talk about a different Jesus than the apostles?
- Status