Paul's Epistles and Private Revelation

[cornbread_r2]

[bibledrb]Galatians 1:12[/bibledrb]

Are Paul’s epistles an example of private revelations that are binding?

 

[thistle]

[bibledrb]Galatians 1:12[/bibledrb]

Are Paul’s epistles an example of private revelations that are binding?

Revelations in Scripture are public revelations to us. Private revelations are those after the death of the last Apostle.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I suppose, if you think about it, all of the knowledge that the Apostles had was private revelation (which, I think, includes small group revelation). When Jesus told Peter that he would deny him three times, this was (I suppose) private revelation. But I don’t think it’s the same thing that the Church usually means by “private revelation.”

 

[cornbread_r2]

Thanks for the responses.

As I understand it then: Even though Paul’s was a private revelation, since it’s part of the scriptures, it becomes public revelation as well.

 

[pablope]

[bibledrb]Galatians 1:12[/bibledrb]

Are Paul’s epistles an example of private revelations that are binding?

Paul’s gospel was also submitted to the Apostles for confirmation:

Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

 

[Fidelis]

Thanks for the responses.

As I understand it then: Even though Paul’s was a private revelation, since it’s part of the scriptures, it becomes public revelation as well.

That’s essentially correct. The writings found in the canon of Sacred Scripture is completely unique among all other types of revelation in that it is divinely inspired. This is not to downplay Sacred Tradition or the Magisterium (teaching authority of the Church) which Sacred Scripture itself makes clear is all part of God’s plan for the fulness of the “deposit of faith.” All three together are often compared to a 3-legged stool-- one cannot stand without the other.

 

[NHInsider]

That’s essentially correct. The writings found in the canon of Sacred Scripture is completely unique among all other types of revelation in that it is divinely inspired. This is not to downplay Sacred Tradition or the Magisterium (teaching authority of the Church) which Sacred Scripture itself makes clear is all part of God’s plan for the fulness of the “deposit of faith.” All three together are often compared to a 3-legged stool-- one cannot stand without the other.

In fact, Scripture is PART OF Sacred Tradition - a uniquely significant part, but part of Tradition, nevertheless.

Sally

 

[Fidelis]

In fact, Scripture is PART OF Sacred Tradition - a uniquely significant part, but part of Tradition, nevertheless.

Sally

Properly speaking, that’s not correct. From Dei Verbum:

1. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.

So, even though it can be said that sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture “spring from the same wellspring” of the Word of God, one is not a part of the other or derived from the other, although (while remaining distinct) they “merge into a unity of truth”.

 

[Christ_is_Risen]

[bibledrb]Galatians 1:12[/bibledrb]

Are Paul’s epistles an example of private revelations that are binding?

The true Gospel comes from no man, but directly from Christ. Paul simply received his instruction post-Pentecost. The entire tone of Galatians is Paul trying to assert his Apostolic authority to an unruly audience that he felt was drifting away from the true Gospel.

As such, Paul starts his Epistle with the Truth that his Apostolic authority comes from Christ, just like the other Apostles.

 

[cornbread_r2]

The true Gospel comes from no man, but directly from Christ. Paul simply received his instruction post-Pentecost. The entire tone of Galatians is Paul trying to assert his Apostolic authority to an unruly audience that he felt was drifting away from the true Gospel.

As such, Paul starts his Epistle with the Truth that his Apostolic authority comes from Christ, just like the other Apostles.

While Paul would seem to agree, it’s noteworthy that the early church placed a premium on first-hand, eye-witness experience of Christ exalting those who actually walked and talked with Jesus. It forms the basis for claims to apostolic succession.

---

According to the church, public revelation ended with the death of the last of the twelve apostles. Apparently, then, the church knows which of the twelve was last to die and when he died. Can anyone point me to a definitive church statement regarding both the who and the when and which sources it used to determine those things?

 

[cornbread_r2]

Bumping this up to try to get answer to this slightly reworded question. TIA

According to the church, public revelation ended with the death of the last of the twelve apostles. Apparently then, the church knows which of the twelve was last to die and when he died. Can anyone point me to a official church statement regarding both the who and the when and which sources it used to determine those things?