Revelation: Yea or Nah and Why?

[pablope]

Rebecca,
Peter received revelation to be delivered to the entire church.
The Pope does not receive revelation to be delivered to the entire church.
Why?
And is there any revealed truth that explains that while God revealed truths to human church leaders throughout the Old and New Testaments including for many years after Christ’s ascension, He would from the death of John or … NOW lead the church by protecting the deposit of faith via some non-revelation principle (maybe Papal or Conciliar infallibility).
Charity, TOm

I will add some qualifiers to your statements above:
Peter (and the other 11 Apostles) received revelation to be delivered to the entire church.*
Paul received revelation directly from Christ…but he was inspired by the HS to validate his teachings with the Apostles in Jerusalem:

Gal 2: 2 I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain.

The Pope does not receive revelation to be delivered to the entire church.

Correct, but he does receive “inspiration” via the Holy Spirit to protect what has been delivered by Peter and the Apostles.

Examples of this today:

The issuance of Humanae Vitae (1968) by Paul VI, going with the minority view, that reiterated the CC stance against articificial birth control

The issuance of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (1994) by John Paul II on why the CC cannot ordain women to the priesthood.

As you can see from above, there was no change in the stance of the CC, but a reiteration and a making clearer the CC teaching.

And this is why the CC (and the Orthodox) are viewed as bulwarks against gay marriage…the CC will not change its stance on it.

 

[SteveVH]

This goes against Jesus teaching that He had “many more things to say to you but you cannot bear them now”

Hi, Servant.

This seems to be one of your favorite Bible verses and no matter how many times it is explained, you continue to use it out of context and apply a meaning that doesn’t exist. Jesus, himself, explains what he means by this verse.

In Chapter 15 he begins to tell them about the Holy Spirit who is to come to them (and who does come to them at Pentecost). That is the context. In Chapter 16 he continues, telling them that they will suffer persecution and even death. He then begins to tell them that he must go away before he returns and that unless he goes away he cannot send the Holy Spirit. This is what they were not ready to bear; that he would have to suffer and die and go away from them. He is telling them this just prior to being arrested in the Garden. When the Holy Spirit comes, they will understand why he had to suffer and die, something they were not prepared to hear at that time. It would mean that they also would suffer and die.

It doesn’t mean that Jesus was holding back some greater truth that would later be revealed by the likes of Muhammad or Baha’u’llah.

Peace.

Steve

 

[TOmNossor]

All,
I said in the beginning I had a point. I really heard people saying that “revelation to be delivered to the entire church continued” for many pages.
I still have never seen anyone acknowledge that whatever is delivered to the entire church out of a council or a Papal statement is not revelation because it is said for the purpose of delivering it to the entire church. But let me conclude if I can.

What was not my point, but I will say:
#0.1
The idea that Public Revelation is Jesus Christ is “the Deposit of Faith, all that is necessary for salvation” is strained some by the history of the Catholic Church. The necessity or lack of necessity of circumcision could be part of Public Revelation = Jesus Christ but there is some explanation need. Some of Trent’s distinctions on faith/works could be Jesus Christ = Public Revelation = “the Deposit of Faith, all that is necessary for salvation” but some explanation is needed. The Fourth Lateran Councils declaration the creation is “ex nihilo” could be part of Public Revelation = Jesus Christ but there is some explanation need. Ultimately I will acknowledge that the explanation is capable of bridging the gaps. I personally see the practice of cutting off (anathematizing) beliefs held by folks who previously were in the fold to be problematic, but it is clearly the practice of almost all councils (I do not see evidence of this in the Jerusalem Council or Vatican II for that matter).

My point in starting this thread:
#1
God lead his church in the Old Testament by persons who received “revelation to be delivered to the entire church” in the New Testament by persons who received “revelation to be delivered to the entire church” (including the time in the New Testament after Christ no longer walked the earth), but today the Catholic does not believe the church is led by persons who receive “revelation to be delivered to the entire church.” The strength of this point is MITIGATED (but not rendered null IMO) by the Catholic believe that REVELATION = Jesus Christ and is complete and is mitigated by the clear teaching that the Holy Spirit still guides the church towards all truth. That being said, I do not believe the statement that the folks who received “revelation to be delivered to the entire church” lead the SAME way the folks who do not receive “revelation to be delivered to the entire church.” There is a difference in the way God interacted with the church leaders IMO. For the LDS this can be boiled down to a simple and obvious statement, but the truth is that things are more complex when the Catholic position is pursued. More complex, yes, but devoid of difficulty IMO no.
#2
The next thing that I believe is worth pointing to concerning this is that wither this difference is expressed in a simple 20 words masking the complexity or a thorough 5000 words, it is a difference understood over decades and centuries not a difference clear in the “revelation to be delivered to the entire church.” One explanation is that like many things the church worked out its understanding of the divine plan by utilizing the guidance of the Holy Spirit which is the divine plan unperturbed by the rebellion of humans. The explanation that I think works better (and surely no Catholic will agree) is that the rebellion of humans (foreseen by God of course, but ) resulted in the removal of the ability to receive “revelation to be delivered to the entire church.” Folks like Titus and Timothy continued on and over time the Catholic understanding of this absence of “revelation to be delivered to the entire church” developed to explain why this was not a product of human rebellion and a loss, but was the divine plan all along.

Anyway, when I started this thread I expected Catholics to agree that “Public Revelation” = “Corporate Revelation” = “Revelation to be delivered to the entire church.” (point #1) I knew that some folks had problems with this, but the passionate Catholic defenders in my life have never had problems with it (most of them are Vatican II deniers as these folks seem to have more passion than most of the non-Vatican II deniers I know IRL, but I like them am suspicious of a different belief post Vatican II concerning something as fundamental as this), and I didn’t expect the problems I encountered.
I never expected any Catholic would agree with point #2, but the earliest point I can see it observed in the ECF is at Clement of Alexandria (I am far from a thorough review of all of the Patristic record though).
Anyway, I truly wish I could have presented a lot of things differently here than I did. I am sure I frustrated folks. I also am sure little (or none) of that frustration was the “challenge” that I had hoped it to be. I apologize for my part in that unneeded frustration. (And my apology is sincere, but I have little confidence that I can avoid such things in the future unless I choose to not post and I am not ready to never post yet - hope that can be appreciated - BTW, Jimmy Akin says I get the grace now, but if I flaunt it I am sinning - oh darn!!!).
Charity, TOm

 

[pablope]

All,
I said in the beginning I had a point. I really heard people saying that “revelation to be delivered to the entire church continued” for many pages.
I still have never seen anyone acknowledge that whatever is delivered to the entire church out of a council or a Papal statement is not revelation because it is said for the purpose of delivering it to the entire church. But let me conclude if I can.

• oh darn!!!).
  Charity, TOm

Hi, Tom,

I think this is where you are getting confused.

What comes out of a council or a papal statement, that is delivered to the entire church, is not a new revelation but a “Clarification” or “reiteration” of what has been previously revealed to the Church by Peter and the Apostles. It is intended to make clear what has been revealed by Jesus to the Apostles.

Examples are in my prior post #181:

Examples of this today:

The issuance of Humanae Vitae (1968) by Paul VI, going with the minority view, that reiterated the CC stance against articificial birth control

The issuance of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (1994) by John Paul II on why the CC cannot ordain women to the priesthood.

As you can see from above, there was no change in the stance of the CC, but a reiteration and a making clearer the CC teaching.

And this is why the CC (and the Orthodox) are viewed as bulwarks against gay marriage…the CC will not change its stance on it.

The Ecumenical councils and papal statements are convened or made, not to issue a new revelation, but because there is a misunderstanding of what has been revealed to the Church. Example of this is the clarification of the Trinity, at Nicea I.

 

[SteveVH]

All,
I said in the beginning I had a point.

That’s always a good thing when starting a thread.

I really heard people saying that “revelation to be delivered to the entire church continued” for many pages.

Then you should be able to provide evidence of this through quotes, right?

I still have never seen anyone acknowledge that whatever is delivered to the entire church out of a council or a Papal statement is not revelation because it is said for the purpose of delivering it to the entire church.

Not sure what you are trying to convey here. Are you trying to say that we do have continuing revelation or are you saying that we do not have continuing revelation? The fact that the Church makes doctrine that all the faithful (the whole Church) are obligated to accept and believe does not mean it is new revelation. It is only a teaching on the one revelation of Jesus Christ. Not sure what is so hard to understand about that. If I find a treasure that I have been seeking all of my life, I no longer need to seek it. I don’t need anyone’s theories or opinions on how to find it. I am done searching. Now comes the task of exploring the great treasure I have found.

The idea that Public Revelation is Jesus Christ is “the Deposit of Faith, all that is necessary for salvation” is strained some by the history of the Catholic Church. The necessity or lack of necessity of circumcision could be part of Public Revelation = Jesus Christ but there is some explanation need. Some of Trent’s distinctions on faith/works could be Jesus Christ = Public Revelation = “the Deposit of Faith, all that is necessary for salvation” but some explanation is needed. The Fourth Lateran Councils declaration the creation is “ex nihilo” could be part of Public Revelation = Jesus Christ but there is some explanation need.

And that is called doctrine; an authoritative explanation and defense of our belief in the Deposit of Faith given once to the saints, which is guided and informed by the Holy Spirit.

I personally see the practice of cutting off (anathematizing) beliefs held by folks who previously were in the fold to be problematic, but it is clearly the practice of almost all councils (I do not see evidence of this in the Jerusalem Council or Vatican II for that matter).

What is problematic about guarding and protecting the truth received from the Apostles? This is the Church’s duty and obligation. The fact that one has previously been “in the fold” has no bearing on this. We call out error whether it is from within or from without.

My point in starting this thread:
#1
God lead his church in the Old Testament by persons who received “revelation to be delivered to the entire church” in the New Testament by persons who received “revelation to be delivered to the entire church” (including the time in the New Testament after Christ no longer walked the earth), but today the Catholic does not believe the church is led by persons who receive “revelation to be delivered to the entire church.”

Once again, if one has already found the treasure why does one need to continue to be pointed to its location? Continuing revelation is simply no longer needed. What we have been seeking has been revealed in its fullness. As has been explained over and over and over again is that we will continue to uncover the depth and worth of this treasure for the rest of human history. That is not new revelation.

The strength of this point is MITIGATED (but not rendered null IMO) by the Catholic believe that REVELATION = Jesus Christ and is complete and is mitigated by the clear teaching that the Holy Spirit still guides the church towards all truth. That being said, I do not believe the statement that the folks who received “revelation to be delivered to the entire church” lead the SAME way the folks who do not receive “revelation to be delivered to the entire church.”

Very true. Our dogmas and doctrines cannot and will not ever be changed and LDS doctrines change on a regular basis. You can’t be sure that what you believe today is true because it might change tomorrow. Yes, this definitely changes the way one leads their Church. The leaders of the LDS church must always find new and innovative ways to explain away what they previously held because of “new revelation” that contradicts the “old revelation”.

 

[Stephen168]

My point in starting this thread:
#1
God lead his church in the Old Testament by persons who received “revelation to be delivered to the entire church” in the New Testament by persons who received “revelation to be delivered to the entire church” (including the time in the New Testament after Christ no longer walked the earth), but today the Catholic does not believe the church is led by persons who receive “revelation to be delivered to the entire church.” The strength of this point is MITIGATED (but not rendered null IMO) by the Catholic believe that REVELATION = Jesus Christ and is complete and is mitigated by the clear teaching that the Holy Spirit still guides the church towards all truth. That being said, I do not believe the statement that the folks who received “revelation to be delivered to the entire church” lead the SAME way the folks who do not receive “revelation to be delivered to the entire church.” There is a difference in the way God interacted with the church leaders IMO.

Yes, I knew your point in starting this thread:

A Mormon wants to see Peter as a Christian Prophet like their Mormon “prophets.” Peter received revelation, and he wrote scripture to guide the whole church; just like the first Mormon prophets. Because Linus did not write scripture or receive divine revelation, authority must have been lost, and the Great Apostasy was underway.

The case falls apart when we note that Peter was never called a prophet but other non-Popes were Christian Prophets (Acts 13:1 for example). And many disciples received divine revelation, and non-Popes wrote scripture. Clearly the charisms of prophecy and the inspiration to write scripture are gifts of the Holy Spirit that anyone could receive, and are not associated with the leader of the Church.

Off topic thoughts:

I find it interesting that a Mormon would claim Peter guides the whole Church as the Bishop of Rome; and then claim that days later Linus had no idea he guided the whole Church as the Bishop of Rome.

A Mormon “prophet” who never writes scripture would not have been a Mormon prophet.

For the LDS this can be boiled down to a simple and obvious statement, but the truth is that things are more complex when the Catholic position is pursued. More complex, yes, but devoid of difficulty IMO no.

Mormons follow a prophet. A prophet has never lead the Christian Church. It is an invention of Joseph Smith.

You have not been able to refute the Catholic belief because it is biblical and historically accurate. I believe that is why you have ignored posts which refute your case to post again your case. And asking the same questions over and over and over and over again. You seem to be hoping we would accept your false assumptions but it never happened.

#2
The next thing that I believe is worth pointing to concerning this is that wither this difference is expressed in a simple 20 words masking the complexity or a thorough 5000 words, it is a difference understood over decades and centuries not a difference clear in the “revelation to be delivered to the entire church.” One explanation is that like many things the church worked out its understanding of the divine plan by utilizing the guidance of the Holy Spirit which is the divine plan unperturbed by the rebellion of humans. The explanation that I think works better (and surely no Catholic will agree) is that the rebellion of humans (foreseen by God of course, but ) resulted in the removal of the ability to receive “revelation to be delivered to the entire church.” Folks like Titus and Timothy continued on and over time the Catholic understanding of this absence of “revelation to be delivered to the entire church” developed to explain why this was not a product of human rebellion and a loss, but was the divine plan all along.

AND you try to make your case again which has already been refuted. It is not based an anything historical or biblical.

Making stuff up is the basis of Mormonism. If it feels good it must be true; regardless of the facts.

Anyway, when I started this thread I expected Catholics to agree that “Public Revelation” = “Corporate Revelation” = “Revelation to be delivered to the entire church.” (point #1) I knew that some folks had problems with this, but the passionate Catholic defenders in my life have never had problems with it (most of them are Vatican II deniers as these folks seem to have more passion than most of the non-Vatican II deniers I know IRL, but I like them am suspicious of a different belief post Vatican II concerning something as fundamental as this), and I didn’t expect the problems I encountered.
I never expected any Catholic would agree with point #2, but the earliest point I can see it observed in the ECF is at Clement of Alexandria (I am far from a thorough review of all of the Patristic record though).

Actually I did agree with your premise that Corporate revelation equal public revelation in post #125. I then went on to define public revelation which you cannot agree too. In Fact you ignored it. Basically I agree that X=Y but you won’t agree that X=3. You want Y to equal 5.

Public revelation is Jesus Christ; and the Apostles and disciples received revelation from God personally face to face through the incarnation. Do you agree?

 

[Telstar]

All,
I said in the beginning I had a point.

You keep saying that, but what that point is, still continues to be as clear as mud to the rest of us.

I really heard people saying that “revelation to be delivered to the entire church continued” for many pages.
I still have never seen anyone acknowledge that whatever is delivered to the entire church out of a council or a Papal statement is not revelation because it is said for the purpose of delivering it to the entire church. But let me conclude if I can.

What was not my point, but I will say:
#0.1
The idea that Public Revelation is Jesus Christ is “the Deposit of Faith, all that is necessary for salvation” is strained some by the history of the Catholic Church. The necessity or lack of necessity of circumcision could be part of Public Revelation = Jesus Christ but there is some explanation need. Some of Trent’s distinctions on faith/works could be Jesus Christ = Public Revelation = “the Deposit of Faith, all that is necessary for salvation” but some explanation is needed. The Fourth Lateran Councils declaration the creation is “ex nihilo” could be part of Public Revelation = Jesus Christ but there is some explanation need. Ultimately I will acknowledge that the explanation is capable of bridging the gaps. I personally see the practice of cutting off (anathematizing) beliefs held by folks who previously were in the fold to be problematic, but it is clearly the practice of almost all councils (I do not see evidence of this in the Jerusalem Council or Vatican II for that matter).

My point in starting this thread:
#1
God lead his church in the Old Testament by persons who received “revelation to be delivered to the entire church” in the New Testament by persons who received “revelation to be delivered to the entire church” (including the time in the New Testament after Christ no longer walked the earth), but today the Catholic does not believe the church is led by persons who receive “revelation to be delivered to the entire church.” The strength of this point is MITIGATED (but not rendered null IMO) by the Catholic believe that REVELATION = Jesus Christ and is complete and is mitigated by the clear teaching that the Holy Spirit still guides the church towards all truth. That being said, I do not believe the statement that the folks who received “revelation to be delivered to the entire church” lead the SAME way the folks who do not receive “revelation to be delivered to the entire church.” There is a difference in the way God interacted with the church leaders IMO. For the LDS this can be boiled down to a simple and obvious statement, but the truth is that things are more complex when the Catholic position is pursued. More complex, yes, but devoid of difficulty IMO no.

#2
The next thing that I believe is worth pointing to concerning this is that wither this difference is expressed in a simple 20 words masking the complexity or a thorough 5000 words, it is a difference understood over decades and centuries not a difference clear in the “revelation to be delivered to the entire church.” One explanation is that like many things the church worked out its understanding of the divine plan by utilizing the guidance of the Holy Spirit which is the divine plan unperturbed by the rebellion of humans. The explanation that I think works better (and surely no Catholic will agree) is that the rebellion of humans (foreseen by God of course, but ) resulted in the removal of the ability to receive “revelation to be delivered to the entire church.” Folks like Titus and Timothy continued on and over time the Catholic understanding of this absence of “revelation to be delivered to the entire church” developed to explain why this was not a product of human rebellion and a loss, but was the divine plan all along.

Anyway, when I started this thread I expected Catholics to agree that “Public Revelation” = “Corporate Revelation” = “Revelation to be delivered to the entire church.” (point #1) I knew that some folks had problems with this, but the passionate Catholic defenders in my life have never had problems with it (most of them are Vatican II deniers as these folks seem to have more passion than most of the non-Vatican II deniers I know IRL, but I like them am suspicious of a different belief post Vatican II concerning something as fundamental as this), and I didn’t expect the problems I encountered.
I never expected any Catholic would agree with point #2, but the earliest point I can see it observed in the ECF is at Clement of Alexandria (I am far from a thorough review of all of the Patristic record though).
Anyway, I truly wish I could have presented a lot of things differently here than I did. I am sure I frustrated folks. I also am sure little (or none) of that frustration was the “challenge” that I had hoped it to be. I apologize for my part in that unneeded frustration. (And my apology is sincere, but I have little confidence that I can avoid such things in the future unless I choose to not post and I am not ready to never post yet - hope that can be appreciated - BTW, Jimmy Akin says I get the grace now, but if I flaunt it I am sinning - oh darn!!!).
Charity, TOm

The biggest problem in coming to any real understanding between Catholics and LDS on this subject and others, is because our definitions and uses of terms like “revelation”, “inspiration”, “prophet”, etc., are sometimes worlds apart. Mormons tend to make up their own definitions and rules for usage of those terms, that are not always in agreement with mainstream Christianity. That’s why this thread keeps going in circles, because we’re not really speaking the same language, even though we all speak English.

 

[Horton]

You keep saying that, but what that point is, still continues to be as clear as mud to the rest of us.

The biggest problem in coming to any real understanding between Catholics and LDS on this subject and others, is because our definitions and uses of terms like “revelation”, “inspiration”, “prophet”, etc., are sometimes worlds apart. Mormons tend to make up their own definitions and rules for usage of those terms, that are not always in agreement with mainstream Christianity. That’s why this thread keeps going in circles, because we’re not really speaking the same language, even though we all speak English.

Exactly - Plus the fact the Tom really doesn’t desire understanding of the Catholic Church. I think he may be having doubts of the LDS and is desperately seeking anything to support the LDS fallacy of the great apostasy.

 

[zaffiroborant]

In Peter’s case, if you look at Acts 10 and 11, it was revealed to Peter that Gentiles should be accepted to the Church, which means the necessity of this revelation to Peter was to make sure the teaching of Christ that the Church to be built on Peter would be universal and would not just be for the Jews. It was to make clear to Peter what Jesus had previously taught Peter, it was not a new revelation in a sense. I think this is what Patrick Madrid is implying in the quote you have cited.

 

[Telstar]

Exactly - Plus the fact the Tom really doesn’t desire understanding of the Catholic Church. I think he may be having doubts of the LDS and is desperately seeking anything to support the LDS fallacy of the great apostasy.

If TOm is looking for something to support the ‘great apostasy’ that was invented by Joseph Smith, then the last place he would ever find it is in the Catholic Church, because it doesn’t exist. The only thing he would find in the Catholic Church is positive proof that Joseph Smith made it all up, because he knew nothing about what the Catholic Church actually taught back then, and still teaches to this day.

The only thing JS knew about the subject were the prevailing claims about what Catholics believed, that were spread by many Protestants of that time period. Sadly, many of those same misconceptions are still believed and spread by many non-Catholics, even today. That’s why there are so many different denominations of Christianity. Everyone wants to believe what they feel comfortable with, so they keep searching for a church that fits their own ideas and beliefs of what it should be like.

 

[Reuben_J]

What was not my point, but I will say:
#0.1
The idea that Public Revelation is Jesus Christ is “the Deposit of Faith, all that is necessary for salvation” is strained some by the history of the Catholic Church.

Public Revelation (Deposit of Faith) is ‘not strained’ by history of the Catholic Church. It is still intact and pure; and nothing has been added or subtracted.

The necessity or lack of necessity of circumcision could be part of Public Revelation = Jesus Christ but there is some explanation need. Some of Trent’s distinctions on faith/works could be Jesus Christ = Public Revelation = “the Deposit of Faith, all that is necessary for salvation” but some explanation is needed. The Fourth Lateran Councils declaration the creation is “ex nihilo” could be part of Public Revelation = Jesus Christ but there is some explanation need. Ultimately I will acknowledge that the explanation is capable of bridging the gaps.

The decisions of those Councils were explained, you just need to read them. That was exactly their purposes - to explain the Revelation. So its contents were nothing new that had not been revealed.

They were not just good or bad men, but were there for a purpose, occupying the seat of Peter and successors to the apostles, led and inspired by the Holy Spirit to lead the Church.

My point in starting this thread:
#1
God lead his church in the Old Testament by persons who received “revelation to be delivered to the entire church”* in the New Testament by persons who received “revelation to be delivered to the entire church” (including the time in the New Testament after Christ no longer walked the earth)*, but today the Catholic does not believe the church is led by persons who receive “revelation to be delivered to the entire church.” The strength of this point is MITIGATED (but not rendered null IMO) by the Catholic believe that REVELATION = Jesus Christ and is complete and is mitigated by the clear teaching that the Holy Spirit still guides the church towards all truth.

in the New Testament by persons who received “revelation to be delivered to the entire church” (including the time in the New Testament after Christ no longer walked the earth)

Correction: Revelation ended after Jesus’ ascension. From that point onwards the apostles were carrying out this Revelation, not new ones.

That being said, I do not believe the statement that the folks who received “revelation to be delivered to the entire church” lead the SAME way the folks who do not receive “revelation to be delivered to the entire church.” There is a difference in the way God interacted with the church leaders IMO. For the LDS this can be boiled down to a simple and obvious statement, but the truth is that things are more complex when the Catholic position is pursued. More complex, yes, but devoid of difficulty IMO no. #2

You are entitled to your belief, of course.

That is why you are LDS, not Catholic.

The next thing that I believe snip.

Your belief*. Thanks for sharing it here in CAF.

Anyway, when I started this thread I expected Catholics to agree that “Public Revelation” = “Corporate Revelation” = “Revelation to be delivered to the entire church.” (point #1)

If Corporate Revelation (the Deposit of Faith) is the Revelation of the person of Jesus and that it is delivered to the entire Church, then why not, we agree with that.

However, “to be delivered to the entire church” can be in two forms:

(i) Corporate Revelation (the Deposit of Faith) as mentioned by you, which contained in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and

(ii) the Magisterium or Church Teachings derived from the Popes or Councils, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Both Revelations are to be delivered to the entire church. (ii) are teachings or proclamations that arise from (i).

God bless.

Reuben.

 

[eddie_too]

tomprosser,

you are right, the RCC teaches that no one has ever received any new divine or if you prefer corporate revelation since the Ascension. no one, not any pope, not any saint. the reason the apostles and their successors teach this is because Jesus is the fullness of revelation.

accordingly, whatever else you might read or understand, it all must be interpreted in light of the first paragraph. call it or understand it as you will, the RCC teaches that there is nothing more to be revealed than what was revealed in the Person of the Incarnate Word.

 

[eddie_too]

so tomprosser, if you want to introduce other religions’ ideas of divine public revelation and contrast them with the RCC’s teachings, fine; but, we catholics know there are errors in anything that contradicts the Church’s teachings in this area. we catholics know that there is nothing in other religions that adds to the public revelation that is the Incarnate Word. that is why we reject such concepts fully and with holy faith. remember, public revelation ended with the Ascension of the Lord.

 

[eddie_too]

now, on another subject that is unrelated, or if related only most tangentially, the fullness of public revelation is continuously understood and grows both corporately, meaning within the Church as a whole, and on an individual level. this is necessary because the revelation that is the Incarnate Word contains mysteries that will not be fully understood until our souls are in perfect communion with the Holy Trinity.

the Church’'s growth in understanding of what Jesus revealed is led by the Holy Spirit through His indwelling within the RCC. as a consequence, through this indwelling, the Church’s magisterium is lead to develop deeper understanding of how the revelation is to be understood and applied within the current era. this growth in understanding and application has been continuous down through the centuries. this growth in understanding and application is not new public revelation. it does not matter what you have read, what you have been told, what you believe. the RCC teaches that public revelation ended with the Ascension.

so, like I said, contrast what you believe and understand about public revelation to your heart’s content, until the cows come home. do not expect your beliefs and musings to impact the teachings of the RCC. I understand that the RCC teaching on public revelation is different from that of the LDS. for me, that is to be expected because the Holy Spirit only indwells in the Church Jesus set up. Jesus gave it only to His Church on Pentecost Sunday. that indwelling is what gives us confidence that the Church has never taught the faith in error. the absence of that indwelling in all other human organizations is why we catholics know not to rely on those other human organizations for spiritual guidance.

the LDS believes in continuous public revelation. I understand that. i totally and completely reject that LDS belief for all the reason(s) stated above.

the RCC’s development of doctrine and application of the moral law is not the same as public divine revelation. that does not make it less true. that does not allow RC’s to decide to pick and choose what parts of the RCC’s teachings they can belief and disbelieve. this teaching is totally reasonable because through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and Jesus’ creation of the magisterium and the papacy, the successors of the apostles are given special graces for the leading and governance of the Church.

now my questions to you. first, do you understand that the RCC teaches that all public revelation ended with the Ascension of the Lord? if so, can you please stop restating and re-asking whether public revelation is ongoing?

second, do you understand that the RCC teaches that through the Lord’s establishment of the papacy and magisterium and through graces it receives through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the RCC and it alone, has the sole authority to develop doctrine and interpret and apply the moral law? in other words, do you understand that while public revelation ended, the RCC, and it alone, has the authority to continually grow its understanding of that public revelation and to teach it to the world?

I am not asking if you agree with the RCC’s teachings in this area. I am asking if you understand what it teaches in this area.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I’m always stunned when LDS go on about how God always used prophets in the OT and say that God will always do the same. When the whole story in the NT is about God doing something different when interacting with humanity. They ask why would God change His interaction with people. But changing the way he interacted with humanity is the whole point. God never came down and lived as a human being for 33 years before did He? It was a fundamental change. LDS don’t really live in awe of God living with us, Jesus the Christ’s life on this planet was just not that much, God comes down, lives as one of us, teaches a group of people and the LDS say meh, what do you have to say to me now, where is that man who’s suppose to say something? God Himself has spoken and LDS want men to talk, I don’t get it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ,
I am glad that I have approached an understanding in 155. I will offer a points of contrast to what I hear you saying is Catholicism (in correction to what I thought).

I believe that the Old Testament is revelation to all mankind and not to a group, “a family , a tribe, a city.” I believe that there are SOME aspects of the Old Testament that one could rightly believe are fulfilled/completed in Christ and could be viewed as not for the world today, but it is a superior view to claim that the Old Testament is fulfilled than to claim it is not for the entire world.
Let me stop here for now with my thoughts. These may be thoughts you embrace as a Catholic or they may be an example of something that I believe is superior (better supported, more likely to be true, and more able to glorify God).
Charity, TOm

I didn’t impose an either/or view, that’s your doing.

When the revelation of God’s covenant with humanity was given, it was to the head of a family, Noah. According to Genesis there wasn’t anyone else but this family to receive this revelation, but Noah and his family.

When Moses received the Law, it was for a tribe of people, called the Hebrews. He received it and delivered it to them, and not to anyone else.

When the revelation of God’s covenant was given to Abraham, it was to Abraham and his progeny. Not to any other group of people, which eventually became a city and then nation(s).

At the time these revelations were received, God explicitly defined the.group of people for who they were for, by who He gave the revelations to. Of course, I am not implying that these revelations are irrelevant to all other people now. However, they are made relevant to all by people by the Revelation of Jesus Christ. Before the Incarnation, Hebrew scripture was for Jews only. No other people found it relevant but the chosen people of God. To this day, Jews hold the covenants in Hebrew scripture as relevant to Jews only, and not to non-Jews. Again, it is Christ that the relevance of the OT is revealed to all people. That relevance is Him.

What we see, as Catholics, is God revealing Himself over time, with Jesus Christ being the who and when, of God revealing Himself fully.

God made a New Covenant with all people. That Covenant is Jesus Christ.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Tom, also in relationship of Revelation and delivery. The Revealtion of Jesus had many participants. He knew, taught, loved and even mourned, many people. All who were participants and witnesses to God’s Word.

However, it was the Twelve to whom the Revelation of Jesus was given fully. It was the Twelve, to whom Jesus commissioned to deliver the Revelation of Himself, the Good News, to all nations and people. It is why they are called Apostles, as it was they who received the fullness of God’s Word and were sent, by God, to deliver the Revelation of Jesus Christ, to everyone.

Never does Jesus call the Twelve Prophets. The Father did not speak the Revelation of His Word through Prophets, but did so through the Son. The second Person of the Trinty. God, Incarnate. The Word of God, self-revealed.

 

[Stephen168]

All,
I am going to present what I THINK is the condition of the Catholic Church today as espoused by the Magisterium and interpreted by Catholic scholars and apologists (again from my understanding). After this, I will ask why I should believe this “condition” is a condition that should exist in God’s church.

The condition of the Catholic Church today is espoused in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which reflects the Magisterium. What a Catholic “scholar”, “apologist”, Bishop, Priest, Father of the Church says does not reflect the condition of the Catholic Church today.

Before we get to the Catholic Church today, we should review the Catholic Church 2000 years ago so we can compare the “condition.”

Jesus Christ is the Word of God made flesh. He was God fully revealed; the revelation. (John 1:1-18, Eph 1:9, Hebrews 1:1-2)

He revealed the Gospel and the Deposit of Christian Faith. He revealed it to the Twelve, the Apostles, and disciples. (Matthew 4:23, 7:29, Mark 1:21-27, Luke 10:39, 19:47, John 7:14)

God’s Church was establish by Jesus Christ at Pentecost, 50 days after his resurrection. In Christ’s body and blood a new covenant with God is made (Jeremiah 31:31, Mark 14:23-25, Luke 22:20, 1 Cor 11:24-26) and the old covenant is no more (Hebrews 7:11, 8:7-8, 8:13, 2 Cor 3:6). The new covenant is to be sent to the world (Matthew 28:19, Acts 9:15)

After Judas’ apostasy and suicide, Peter wanted to restore the twelve. Because the Twelve were witnesses to the resurrection, Peter said the man must have walked with Christ since the baptism of John. They picked two. They prayed to have God show them who it should be. This was not revelation but the Holy Spirit working through the Church. There was no addition to the Deposit of Faith and we learn the title Apostle could not be passed on forever.

At the Council of Jerusalem, the disciples gathered to decided whether circumcision would be requirement for Church membership. They debated the issue and decided it was an unnecessary yoke to put on the Gentiles. James as the Bishop of Jerusalem made the final announcement. They had been taught by Christ the law of Moses under the old covenant had been fulfilled. There was no change to the Deposit of Faith.

Saul heard Jesus’ voice on the way to Damascus, which converted him to Christianity. But Paul did not receive revelation or any addition to the deposit of faith. The disciples taught him in Damascus. (Acts 9:19, Gal 1:17) And His understanding was blessed by Peter (Gal 1:18, 2:9) and he submitted to the Church (Acts 15:2)

After Jesus was crucified, two women had a vision that Christ was alive. Peter had a vision reminding him that the good news was for all nations, not just the Jews. Nothing new was added to the Deposit of Faith.

All the Apostles were not ‘The Twelve.’ The Twelve were the foundation of his Church (Eph 2:19-22), but not just any 12 but THE Twelve (Rev 21:14). The corner stone and the foundation are laid once. Just as Christ is eternally the head of the Church, The Twelve are the eternal foundation.

In New Testament times, many people were called prophets (Luke 2:36, Acts 13:1, Acts 21:10), but Simon Peter was never called a prophet.

Peter and other men wrote about Jesus Christ and the new covenant. In the 4th century, the Catholic Church declared 27 of the writings to be scripture.

Prophecy, the inspiration to write scripture, and visions are all gifts of God; the Holy Spirit. They are not associated with a position within the Church of God.

Peter received revelation from the Word of God, he wrote scripture, and we was one of the Twelve Apostles; witnesses to the resurrection. Peter’s successor could not have been an apostle because he did not witness the resurrection or were sent out (apostles) by Christ. Linus could not receive revelation because Christ no longer walked the earth. Linus could have wrote scripture, had visions, or been a prophet, but it was not a requirement of his position as the Bishop of Rome and holder of the keys.
That was the condition of the Church 2000 years ago

The Catholic Church today has a Pope who is the successor of Simon Peter, holder of the keys, as the head of the Church. Except for not walking the earth with Christ and witnessing his resurrection, he is the same as Simon Peter. Like Linus and everyone born after the ascension, he does not receive public revelation. Like Linus and everyone who is not the Twelve, he is not an Apostle.

That is the condition of the Catholic Church today same as 2000 years ago.

Mormons believe Peter was an Apostle, prophet, revelator, and President of his Church. They believe all four are required to lead the church. As we see in scripture and the historical record. This is not true. It was made up by the Mormon Church. The Mormon Church originally claimed the Apostasy to have taken place in 570 AD. This means at that time all the Popes would have been rightful leaders of the Church. Mormons would have accepted the trinity as defined at the Council of Nicaea, which they did until Joseph Smith led them into apostasy.

I believe the Mormon Church had to push back the date of the apostasy when they discovered there was too much written from 50AD to 570AD which proved Mormonism wrong as they moved away from Christianity. At some point, after the death of Joseph Smith, they decided it happened with the death of the last Apostle, and made up the story about a Church led by an apostle, prophet, and revelator,

 

[XuDan]

I’m always stunned when LDS go on about how God always used prophets in the OT and say that God will always do the same. When the whole story in the NT is about God doing something different when interacting with humanity. They ask why would God change His interaction with people. But changing the way he interacted with humanity is the whole point. God never came down and lived as a human being for 33 years before did He? It was a fundamental change. LDS don’t really live in awe of God living with us, Jesus the Christ’s life on this planet was just not that much, God comes down, lives as one of us, teaches a group of people and the LDS say meh, what do you have to say to me now, where is that man who’s suppose to say something? God Himself has spoken and LDS want men to talk, I don’t get it.

The most common arguments are based on the following scriptures, most commonly Amos 3:7.* “Despise not prophesyings.” Paul, in 1 Thessalonians 5:20

• “Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city…” - Jesus, in Matthew 23:34
• “Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.” - Amos 3:7
• “As my Father hath sent me, even so I send you.” - John 20:21
  The problem here is context and of course as is the issue with all LDS claims: definition of terms. Mormonspeak will have you believe that Prophets lead the church like the president of a nation leads people, but that isn’t exactly correct is it? Out side of Moses Prophets seem to not be in positions of political power.

Furthermore, to your point of gender issues - you’re right. In the old testament you have records of 6 specifically called prophetess: Deborah, Huldah, Isaiah’s wife, Anna, Philip’s daughters, Miriam and Noadiah. On occasion, other women in scripture also prophesied, but were not expressly described as prophesying. These women include: Rachel (Gen. 30:24), Hannah (1 Sam. 2:1-10), Abigail (1 Samuel 25:29-31), Elisabeth (Luke 1:41-45), and Mary, the mother of Jesus (Luke 1:46-55).

Paul’ words, “every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head” in 1 Corinthians 11:5 gives tacit permission for women to “prophesy,” meaning that even in the new testament it is accepted that women can/are prophets.

This all adds up to gender exclusivity regarding “prophethood” by the LDS church has no scriptural basis. But through mormonspeak AKA equivocation they convoluted it enough add their own scripture and then presto, it sorta makes sense in a confusing kinda way.

Mormons believe Peter was an Apostle, prophet, revelator, and President of his Church. They believe all four are required to lead the church. As we see in scripture and the historical record. This is not true. It was made up by the Mormon Church. The Mormon Church originally claimed the Apostasy to have taken place in 570 AD. This means at that time all the Popes would have been rightful leaders of the Church. Mormons would have accepted the trinity as defined at the Council of Nicaea, which they did until Joseph Smith led them into apostasy.

I believe the Mormon Church had to push back the date of the apostasy when they discovered there was too much written from 50AD to 570AD which proved Mormonism wrong as they moved away from Christianity. At some point, after the death of Joseph Smith, they decided it happened with the death of the last Apostle, and made up the story about a Church led by an apostle, prophet, and revelator,

You forgot “translator” and “seer” to that list of things they they think that the leader of a church should have the gifts of.

 

[SteveVH]

When the revelation of God’s covenant with humanity was given, it was to the head of a family, Noah. According to Genesis there wasn’t anyone else but this family to receive this revelation, but Noah and his family.

When Moses received the Law, it was for a tribe of people, called the Hebrews. He received it and delivered it to them, and not to anyone else.

When the revelation of God’s covenant was given to Abraham, it was to Abraham and his progeny. Not to any other group of people, which eventually became a city and then nation(s).

At the time these revelations were received, God explicitly defined the.group of people for who they were for, by who He gave the revelations to. Of course, I am not implying that these revelations are irrelevant to all other people now. However, they are made relevant to all by people by the Revelation of Jesus Christ. Before the Incarnation, Hebrew scripture was for Jews only. No other people found it relevant but the chosen people of God. To this day, Jews hold the covenants in Hebrew scripture as relevant to Jews only, and not to non-Jews. Again, it is Christ that the relevance of the OT is revealed to all people. That relevance is Him.

What we see, as Catholics, is God revealing Himself over time, with Jesus Christ being the who and when, of God revealing Himself fully.

God made a New Covenant with all people. That Covenant is Jesus Christ.

Tom, also in relationship of Revelation and delivery. The Revealtion of Jesus had many participants. He knew, taught, loved and even mourned, many people. All who were participants and witnesses to God’s Word.

However, it was the Twelve to whom the Revelation of Jesus was given fully. It was the Twelve, to whom Jesus commissioned to deliver the Revelation of Himself, the Good News, to all nations and people. It is why they are called Apostles, as it was they who received the fullness of God’s Word and were sent, by God, to deliver the Revelation of Jesus Christ, to everyone.

Never does Jesus call the Twelve Prophets. The Father did not speak the Revelation of His Word through Prophets, but did so through the Son. The second Person of the Trinty. God, Incarnate. The Word of God, self-revealed.

Excellent, Rebecca. And it even started before Noah. The first covenant was even a smaller group of people, a couple, Adam and Eve.