Revelation: Yea or Nah and Why?

[TOmNossor]

Hi Tom, I read the other responses and they are basically saying the same thing though mine in more laymans terms…

I’ll try to help you see again in more of a laymans terms…

The Holy Spirit of God that was breathed upon the Church is unchanging. God never changes but people do… and so God cannot contradict Himself…We believe the bible to be the inspired word of God so that is true so is the teaching of those scriptures which the Church holds true…The scriptures themselves aren’t the teacher, the Church is the teacher of the truths of God and these truths can be found in the Catechism so we all share in the same faith as the Apostles holding to the truths of the faith taught by Jesus Christ and given to the Apostles and passed down through the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit who is the advocate keeping the truths of our faith… The scriptures themselves support the beliefs of the Church in order to increase the faith of those who read it…

Sooo… if whatever revelations come to people after the scriptures were written contradicts the scriptures or the belief contradicts the faith of the Apostles and the holy men of the Church who were inspired to put the bible together, than it is unreliable prophesy and would not be acceptable as public prophesy of the Church or a doctrinal belief… But if you have many many many people of the Church who believe in something and it is inline with the basic beliefs of the apostolic faith and it bears fruit…Like the apparitions of Mary which have shown to have caused people to heal or change in a positive way and does not contradict the basic beliefs of the Church from the start, than that prophesy can be of merit as a true prophesy of God and may be added as a doctrinal belief… If one person experiences some revelation, it wouldn’t be an acceptable public prophesy of the Church but a revelation of that persons alone… So might be considered unreliable because the personal thoughts of that individual man came into play which could interfere with Gods revelation…All that said, each person has the ability to prophesy on any of the mysteries of God, like the trinity, the Eucharist, delving them deeper into the spirit of God and allowing them to see more than they could into Gods life if they didn’t have the eyes of faith (while still holding onto the basic truths found in the Church)…So prophesy without denying the basic truths of our faith can lead us more into Gods life so we have a relationship with Him with our being able to see the truths of God more clearly and deeply…

Oh I know that was a mouthful… I hope you can understand what I am saying…

Karen,
Thank you very much. I understood what you said much better this time.
My understanding of Catholic teaching aligns well with all you said here with one area in which I either disagree or do not understand.

Like the apparitions of Mary which have shown to have caused people to heal or change in a positive way and does not contradict the basic beliefs of the Church from the start, than that prophesy can be of merit as a true prophesy of God and may be added as a doctrinal belief…

I question the statement “be added as doctrinal belief.”
I understand that some miracles like “Our Lady of Lourdes” can receive official approval from the church (I am certain that local Bishops approve of such things, I am certain that Popes speak approvingly of such things, but I am not sure the Pope’s approval is as formal as the local Bishop’s approval. However assuming it is). Even when officially approved a miracle like Our Lady of Lourdes is not “added as a doctrinal belief” in that it becomes part of the faith. It can become a feast day or …

It IMO would be unfair to say that Catholics who believe in Marian and Eucharistic miracles believe “the heavens are closed.” That being said, I still believe what Patrick Madrid said in Pope Fiction is true:
From Apologist Patrick Madrid (Pope Fiction p. 140):

The only pope who was inspired and who received revelation from God to be given to the whole Church was Simon Peter. After he went home to his heavenly reward, all the subsequent popes have had to do their job of teaching and preserving the deposit of faith the old fashion way: They learned it.

To the extent that ANYONE thinks there is a contradiction between the acceptance of Eucharistic or Marian Miracles with the statement in Patrick Madrid’s book I would align them as follows. The Catholic authority (local Bishop and even Pope) can approve a miracle, but they do not do so via divine inspiration for the whole Church. This is true in two ways. First, the faithful are not required to believe these approved apparitions are truly from God. And second the approval of these apparition is by study of the miracles not by revelation from God concerning the validity of the miracles.

I hope that makes sense. Do I understand correctly? And if not, what is Patrick Madrid just wrong or ?
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

This passage may help you understand about prophesizing a little better… Now St. Paul is speaking to the body of Christ which is the Church… He’s not speaking about one person individually but all collectively…

Humble Service in the Body of Christ
Romans 12:3 For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you. 4 For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, 5 so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. 6 We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith; 7 if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; 8 if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead,** do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully.

We all have different gifts, but one faith (not many faiths) that’s why it says ‘your faith’… So we must stay inline with the truths of our One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church…

Love in Action**
The Catholic believes in the gift of prophesy, but not the gift of prophesy for the purpose of leading the Catholic Church toward all truth. This is a gift of prophesy that is “non-corporate revelation.”
That is how I understand this.
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

I noticed but I’m not sure what recent events have caused it.

A friend commented recently, it’s best to not give the devil his due.

 

[TOmNossor]

Why?

Because I have been learning about the Catholic faith through reading books written by Patrick Madrid (in fact given to me by Patrick Madrid), listening to Patrick Madrid on the radio an average of about 1 hour a week for many years (I catch him whenever I can), and listening to him speak in person once. I have never met Dave Armstrong, but I have dialogued with him before on his board and on my friends board.
If I am given the choice of who to believe him or you concerning the true understanding of the Catholic faith I choose him.
Furthermore, dismissing what I say as “Straw-man” here seems effective. If however you can get me to see this or that understanding of my is wrong and I shouldn’t share it, I will not continue propagating it places other than this board. Places where arguments are evaluated and “straw-man” is not an evaluation.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

If Tom wants an honesty conversation about revelation with an honest desire to “present … the condition of the Catholic Church today as espoused by the Magisterium…” he would use the present definitions of terms as used by the Catholic Church. He would accept what he is told by the Catholics on this forum as supported by the CCC.

If Tom wants to proselytize, then he would insist on using his definitions for terms all the while feigning a desire AGAIN to understand Catholicism.

TOm chooses to hold as few mutually contradictory truths in his head at any given time as he can. If he is told something on this board that does not align with what he has learned from Patrick Madrid, he will not believe both are true.
Just because a Catholic says it is true about Catholicism does not mean I should jettison everything I have tried to learn from other Catholics about Catholicism.
And yes, “poisoning the well” works here. TOm is “feigning a desire.” But I do not think you are correct.
Can you align what Patrick Madrid said and what is being said by those on this board? I cannot.

In fact so far nobody has even acknowledge that a rational person might see a contradiction in what is being said here and what I quoted from Patrick Madrid. This is a red flag for me.
Charity, TOm

 

[XuDan]

If I am given the choice of who to believe him or you concerning the true understanding of the Catholic faith I choose him.

Then why should it matter if she explains anything at all? As you stated, you find him to be more credible than her, so it doesn’t really matter what she has to say. If you find what she has to say to be differing from your understating of what your source has to say, then it will be dismissed as incredible or as a misunderstanding of true catholic beliefs. At that point what is a person’s incentive to dialogue on the subject?

 

[TOmNossor]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Yes, maybe it is coincidence, but seems to me the long silent Mormon posters have followed TK here, or they came as one. I sense a performance, encouraged by recent events.

Hmm!
My current flurry of posts began on Friday. TK hadn’t posted since December at that point in time.
You are welcome to believe there was some non-supernatural coordination between him and I, but I know there was not.
Alternatively, you might mean other “long silent” because my previous flurry was late Feb.

And I am far more interested in your response to my posts than your theories about my purposes.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Then why should it matter if she explains anything at all? As you stated, you find him to be more credible than her, so it doesn’t really matter what she has to say. If you find what she has to say to be differing from your understating of what your source has to say, then it will be dismissed as incredible or as a misunderstanding of true catholic beliefs. At that point what is a person’s incentive to dialogue on the subject?

Exactly. He wants to know the teaching of the Catholic Church but rejects a Catholic quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church. He acts as if Patrick Madrid is the magisterium.
He also rejects Catholic definitions while insisting on his own. He doesn’t want to dialogue, he want to proselytize while feigning a desire to understand Catholicism.

Tom also has a habit of quoting out of context, so who knows what Patrick Madrid’s point was about revelation and the Papacy. As a Catholic I could hazard a guess but Tom would not care and would most probably raise the same question again 6 months from now.

 

[LivingWaters7]

In relation to what Patrick Madrid said, I would obviously have to see the context of his statement. I do not own his book (though I do have another one of his books), and don’t see any online previews, so I cannot see the surrounding context.

However, I have already posted multiple excerpts from an official Catholic document, the Catechism of the Catholic Church. From the Catechism, it is readily apparent that the official Catholic view is that God is intimately involved in the workings of the Catholic Church, that the Magisterium guards and expounds on the Deposit of Faith at the Divine command and with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, that Divine assistance is given to the successors of the apostles (including in a particular way to the Pope) when they propose a teaching that leads to better understanding of the Deposit of Faith, etc. All of what I just said is directly from the Catechism.

So, if that conflicts with what Patrick Madrid has said (again, I would need to see the context), then who should we believe, the Church, or Patrick Madrid?

 

[TOmNossor]

Then why should it matter if she explains anything at all? As you stated, you find him to be more credible than her, so it doesn’t really matter what she has to say. If you find what she has to say to be differing from your understating of what your source has to say, then it will be dismissed as incredible or as a misunderstanding of true catholic beliefs. At that point what is a person’s incentive to dialogue on the subject?

In your post is a tacit agreement with my premise that what RebeccaJ and LivingWaters are claiming is the Catholic faith is at odds with what Patrick Madrid claims is the Catholic faith.
Until your post there was NO HINT that ANYONE other than me saw this contradiction.
It is clear to me that it exists.
I would suggest that the reason to dialogue is that RebeccaJ and LivingWaters should be very concerned if their understanding of the Catholic faith contradicts the understanding of Patrick Madrid.
Scoring rhetorical points by claiming my arguments are a “Straw-man” or “I am the devil” may win the day here, but there is much more to our sojourn in mortality than who wins the day at Catholic Answers forum.

Also, when I began this thread I truly expected the discussion to focus on why the Council of Jerusalem was led by inspiration/revelation and the subsequent councils were not and how this is as one would expect God’s church to work.

Charity, TOm

 

[Karen107]

What don’t you understand about that??

Quote:
The only pope who was inspired and who received revelation from God to be given to the whole Church was Simon Peter. After he went home to his heavenly reward, all the subsequent popes have had to do their job of teaching and preserving the deposit of faith the old fashion way: They learned it.

Yes that’s what we do, we learn about our faith in the Catechism in order to have life with God as God prescribed…

Let me explain this again so you might understand better…First look to this scripture…

Jesus said to His disciples in Matthew 28:20 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Simon Peter was living with Jesus (God) for a long time and so learned first hand from Jesus about what he meant about faith… Jesus is the Master!! … The others learned from Simon Peter but that doesn’t mean they didn’t have faith but the teaching was passed to them through the Church… It means that when they prophesized they had to keep inline with the basic teachings taught to Peter and the Apostles by Jesus, like a chain, Simon Peter learned from Jesus and then taught others, who taught others…who wrote the bible based on Jesus original teachings to the Apostles… and so what Jesus taught to Simon Peter was spread through the Church so that explains why the Popes had to learn what they believe like any of us but that doesn’t mean they have no inspirations from God… no no no… God speaks to us all the time…That’s what it means to prophesy… It’s visions or thoughts we receive from God but that doesn’t destract from our faith, rather our faith helps us learn about God and grow in our love for God… The Popes are Catholic as I am Catholic, we believe in the same things that the Apostles did though we may now understand them better and enter into these mysteries further but they are the same basic apostolic beliefs that was taught by Jesus…Some people believe that the Holy Spirit as the Advocate will teach us the truths of our faith, but then they leave the “Master” Jesus out of the picture who is Our Teacher of the original apostolic faith we share even to this day…

 

[phil19034]

Now that I am off my phone I thought I would add a small bit in that might be germane to what I am reading from Living Waters.
10 years ago as I was researching Papal Infallibility I was taught an important and interesting concept that aligns well with what you have said here.
I was asked by a Catholic friend, “If the Pope was infallible in Math, what grade would he get on a Math test?”
I said 100%.
He said, “No, the Pope could get any grade from 0% to 100% on the test, but ANY answer he provided (did not leave blank) would be correct. He may know zero answers, but if he choose to answer any question and did, it would be correct.”
If I can get some more time tonight I will try to provide an answer to LivingWaters and other posts.
Charity, TOm

While this might not be the best analogy, I understand what you are trying to say.

But let’s give this an example: Let’s assume that Pope A has doctorate degrees in Canon Law, Pastoral Care, Divinity, and the Scriptures.

Let’s assume his successor Pope B has the degrees, plus a doctorate in Sacred Theology and wrote several books/papers on Sacred Theology before his pontiff.

Now, let’s assume that Pope A starts some theological discussions with the Orthodox in an attempt for reunification. The discussions get stuck on a particular theological misunderstanding. Pope A believes that he doesn’t have all the information necessary to make a decision, so he calls a synod. The synod advises him, yet he still doesn’t believe he has all the information available, so he prays on the topic more and finally says something like, “While we agree an the overwhelming number of theological points, at this time we still do not agree on X & Y.” After he dies and Pope B comes along, after working with the Orthodox, Pope B infallibly proclaims that “the Catholic Church accepts the Orthodox position on X & Y because we find no contradiction between the Catholic Understanding and the Orthodox understanding.”

Does this mean that Pope A was wrong and Pope B was right (or vice versa)? No. It simply means that Pope A did not have all the information and did not dogmatically rule on the subject. Pope B on the other hand had different information and perhaps a different environment and the Holy Spirit was able to help clear up the misunderstanding.

This is not a contradiction as some people would incorrectly assume.

The Holy Spirit doesn’t tell the Popes what to do. But The Holy Spirit does guide the Church and most importantly (in terms of Papal Infallibility) makes sure the Pope doesn’t dogmatically accept and/or teach heresy.

 

[TOmNossor]

In relation to what Patrick Madrid said, I would obviously have to see the context of his statement. I do not own his book (though I do have another one of his books), and don’t see any online previews, so I cannot see the surrounding context.

However, I have already posted multiple excerpts from an official Catholic document, the Catechism of the Catholic Church. From the Catechism, it is readily apparent that the official Catholic view is that God is intimately involved in the workings of the Catholic Church, that the Magisterium guards and expounds on the Deposit of Faith at the Divine command and with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, that Divine assistance is given to the successors of the apostles (including in a particular way to the Pope) when they propose a teaching that leads to better understanding of the Deposit of Faith, etc. All of what I just said is directly from the Catechism.

So, if that conflicts with what Patrick Madrid has said (again, I would need to see the context), then who should we believe, the Church, or Patrick Madrid?

Pope Fiction is available for limited preview on Amazon. This page is available. You will need to log into a free Amazon account (I doubt this link will work perfectly, but search for “inspired”).
amazon.com/reader/0964261006?_encoding=UTF8&query=inspired#reader_0964261006
I read your quote of the Catechism. In responses I said:

I also read your excerpt from the CCC. I am not trying to introduce a trick into this conversation. I will concede that the Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit protects the Catholic Church from error. That it would be inappropriate to say that God has abandoned the Catholic Church and is not active in her continued teaching and decisions.
What I am saying is that if Catholicism is God’s church, there is a NEW form of interaction between God and His Church that is not IMO evident in the Bible. This interaction is different than what happened at the Council of Jerusalem, it is different from the inspiration Peter as the head of God’s church after Christ’s ascension received.
I will concede that if what Catholicism claims to be true is true this is not a situation that is insufficient to facilitate the salvation of Catholics or the guidance of the church towards truth. But, if I understand well, it is DIFFERENT than what happened in the New Testament and in the Old Testament Church.

I also started by quoting the Catechism:

The CCC under the heading, “There will be no further Revelation.” Says:

The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

You seem to be responding to a claim I am not making. In fairness, I think it is a claim that is heard in LDS circles.
I am not claiming that Catholics believe God has abandoned the Catholic Church. I am saying that Catholics believe that God leads the Catholic Church via a method distinct and different from the inspiration/revelation Peter and the Council of Jerusalem received.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

The Holy Spirit doesn’t tell the Popes what to do. But The Holy Spirit does guide the Church and most importantly (in terms of Papal Infallibility) makes sure the Pope doesn’t dogmatically accept and/or teach heresy.

Your extended explanation and this align well with my understanding.
Papal Infallibility per Catholic teaching is a negative protection. It PREVENTS error.
Pope A’s reasoning and study may have lead him to be uncomfortable proclaiming what Pope B did. Pope B however was comfortable and when he declared it, assuming he did so “from the chair of Peter,” “concerning faith and morals,” and in alignment with Tradition; the Holy Spirit protected his proclamation from error. I do not know what it would look like if a Pope believed error and sought to teach it infallibly, and to my understanding there is no definitive understanding of how such a thing would be prevented by God.
Anyway, that is my understanding too.
Charity, TOm

 

[phil19034]

Your extended explanation and this align well with my understanding.
Papal Infallibility per Catholic teaching is a negative protection. It PREVENTS error.
Pope A’s reasoning and study may have lead him to be uncomfortable proclaiming what Pope B did. Pope B however was comfortable and when he declared it, assuming he did so “from the chair of Peter,” “concerning faith and morals,” and in alignment with Tradition; the Holy Spirit protected his proclamation from error. I do not know what it would look like if a Pope believed error and sought to teach it infallibly, and to my understanding there is no definitive understanding of how such a thing would be prevented by God.
Anyway, that is my understanding too.
Charity, TOm

A Pope who tried to teach error would die. There was a Pope (his name is escaping me) who had commissioned a rushed translation of the Bible. It was filled with tons of errors. Translation errors are not anything new, however, this Pope wanted to declare that this error filled translation to be the sole, official Bible of the Catholic Church and that no other bible would be used. The night before he was going dogmatically declare it, he died.

The Holy Spirit ended his life to prevent Heresy.

Now, in regards to your “negative protection” comment; please also keep in mind that The Holy Spirit still plays a major hand in the Church. We would not have our Sacraments without the Holy Spirit. Also the Holy Spirit flows though our deacons, priests & bishops as they give homilies and has they give sermons outside of mass (the Pope and Bishops do this all the time). We also wouldn’t have miracles without the Holy Spirit.

But God also grants us humans free will and he does not control us nor his clergy. But God does protect His Church. Individual clergy may be able to speak and teach heresy (except the Pope), but the Magisterium of the Church and her official teaching are part of the Body of Christ and cannot be in error due to the Church being connected with the Body of Christ.

 

[TOmNossor]

What don’t you understand about that??

Quote:
The only pope who was inspired and who received revelation from God to be given to the whole Church was Simon Peter. After he went home to his heavenly reward, all the subsequent popes have had to do their job of teaching and preserving the deposit of faith the old fashion way: They learned it.

Yes that’s what we do, we learn about our faith in the Catechism in order to have life with God as God prescribed…

Let me explain this again so you might understand better…First look to this scripture…

Jesus said to His disciples in Matthew 28:20 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Simon Peter was living with Jesus (God) for a long time and so learned first hand from Jesus about what he meant about faith… Jesus is the Master!! … The others learned from Simon Peter but that doesn’t mean they didn’t have faith but the teaching was passed to them through the Church… It means that when they prophesized they had to keep inline with the basic teachings taught to Peter and the Apostles by Jesus, like a chain, Simon Peter learned from Jesus and then taught others, who taught others…who wrote the bible based on Jesus original teachings to the Apostles… and so what Jesus taught to Simon Peter was spread through the Church so that explains why the Popes had to learn what they believe like any of us but that doesn’t mean they have no inspirations from God… no no no… God speaks to us all the time…That’s what it means to prophesy… It’s visions or thoughts we receive from God but that doesn’t destract from our faith, rather our faith helps us learn about God and grow in our love for God… The Popes are Catholic as I am Catholic, we believe in the same things that the Apostles did though we may now understand them better and enter into these mysteries further but they are the same basic apostolic beliefs that was taught by Jesus…Some people believe that the Holy Spirit as the Advocate will teach us the truths of our faith, but then they leave the “Master” Jesus out of the picture who is Our Teacher of the original apostolic faith we share even to this day…

Matthew 28:20 could be used to explain that while Patrick Madrid is correct that no Pope receives revelation/inspiration to lead the entire church, that this does not mean that Catholicism is not God’s church, because God is always with them.

That being said, Patrick Madrid claimed that the only Pope who was INSPIRED and who received REVELATION to be GIVEN TO THE WHOLE CHURCH was Peter. You said that … “doesn’t mean they have no inspiration from God… no no no.”
I am not claiming that post-Peter Popes do not receive personal inspiration. I am claiming that they do not receive inspiration/revelation to be given to the whole church like Peter did.

Are you claiming that current Popes receive inspiration/revelation to be given to the whole church?

In the past I offered this:
The Council of Jerusalem decided via inspiration/revelation that the “burden of circumcision” would not be placed upon the non-Jewish Christians.
The Catholic Church may decide something concerning annulments/remarriage/Eucharist in the next few years. This decision will not be via inspiration/revelation to be given to the whole church. It cannot be. If it concerns faith and morals, it might be sealed infallibly, but it will be arrived at via natural not supernatural means.
This is a different charisma.

Have I misunderstood?

Charity, TOm

 

[phil19034]

Your extended explanation and this align well with my understanding.
Papal Infallibility per Catholic teaching is a negative protection. It PREVENTS error.
Pope A’s reasoning and study may have lead him to be uncomfortable proclaiming what Pope B did. Pope B however was comfortable and when he declared it, assuming he did so “from the chair of Peter,” “concerning faith and morals,” and in alignment with Tradition; the Holy Spirit protected his proclamation from error. I do not know what it would look like if a Pope believed error and sought to teach it infallibly, and to my understanding there is no definitive understanding of how such a thing would be prevented by God.
Anyway, that is my understanding too.
Charity, TOm

Also, it’s very important to remember that the Pope is also a man of great faith and with a deep, deep prayer life. They also typically have many gifts of the Holy Spirit. Pope Benedict now spends the overwhelming amount of his time in prayer for the world. Pope Francis spends a majority of his time teaching on the Gospel and focused on Evangelization. These men are not bureaucrats or politicians. They are true servants of God and God uses their individual gifts as God sees fit.

 

[phil19034]

Matthew 28:20 could be used to explain that while Patrick Madrid is correct that no Pope receives revelation/inspiration to lead the entire church, that this does not mean that Catholicism is not God’s church, because God is always with them.

That being said, Patrick Madrid claimed that the only Pope who was INSPIRED and who received REVELATION to be GIVEN TO THE WHOLE CHURCH was Peter. You said that … “doesn’t mean they have no inspiration from God… no no no.”
I am not claiming that post-Peter Popes do not receive personal inspiration. I am claiming that they do not receive inspiration/revelation to be given to the whole church like Peter did.

Are you claiming that current Popes receive inspiration/revelation to be given to the whole church?

In the past I offered this:
The Council of Jerusalem decided via inspiration/revelation that the “burden of circumcision” would not be placed upon the non-Jewish Christians.
The Catholic Church may decide something concerning annulments/remarriage/Eucharist in the next few years. This decision will not be via inspiration/revelation to be given to the whole church. It cannot be. If it concerns faith and morals, it might be sealed infallibly, but it will be arrived at via natural not supernatural means.
This is a different charisma.

Have I misunderstood?

Charity, TOm

TOm, I am following your thinking so far… So what is your question? Can we get to the root regarding why you started this tread? I sense a question in here somewhere.

What is it?

God Bless

 

[XuDan]

In your post is a tacit agreement with my premise that what RebeccaJ and LivingWaters are claiming is the Catholic faith is at odds with what Patrick Madrid claims is the Catholic faith.
Until your post there was NO HINT that ANYONE other than me saw this contradiction.
It is clear to me that it exists.
I would suggest that the reason to dialogue is that RebeccaJ and LivingWaters should be very concerned if their understanding of the Catholic faith contradicts the understanding of Patrick Madrid.

You can of course suppose anything you’d like out of my post and then conjecture a conclusion that supports your position, but stating that I implied an agreement is erroneous enough that I feel compelled to correct the claim…

What I said was (emphasis added this time):

XuDan:

If you find what she has to say to be differing from your understating of what your source has to say, then it will be dismissed as incredible or as a misunderstanding of true catholic beliefs.

What was implied is: that in your understanding of Madrid there is a contradiction when compared to your understanding of what Rebecca, LW, and others are stating to you. I have not spoken to (nor do I intend to) the clarity of your understanding.

I hope that clarifies any misunderstanding that you may have incurred by reading my statement.

 

[Reuben_J]

Matthew 28:20 could be used to explain that while Patrick Madrid is correct that no Pope receives revelation/inspiration to lead the entire church, that this does not mean that Catholicism is not God’s church, because God is always with them.
That being said, Patrick Madrid claimed that the only Pope who was INSPIRED and who received REVELATION to be GIVEN TO THE WHOLE CHURCH was Peter. You said that … “doesn’t mean they have no inspiration from God… no no no.”

This is not true. Either you misquoted Madrid or took his statement out of context or that he was plain wrong (which I doubt very much he was, in such a straight forward matter).

All Popes can be inspired, as God inspires them in their day to day walk with God as they lead the Church. It is the degree of their inspiration that may differ.

No, Peter was NOT the only Pope that was being inspired. Please do not put word into the Catholic Church’s doctrine.

Revelation came in the deposit of faith (I think that was mentioned earlier) and all the Popes have to do was to guard it. There is no new revelation in the sense that there is no new teaching which can be construed as contradicting the deposit of faith. For example, Mohammad as another prophet who contradicted the teaching of the Gospel is therefore false revelation. The deposit of faith says there is no NEW revelation other than what had been revealed by Jesus to the apostles and by God to the prophets of old.

I am not claiming that post-Peter Popes do not receive personal inspiration. I am claiming that they do not receive inspiration/revelation to be given to the whole church like Peter did.

This is a false premise being imputed on the Catholic Church as per explanation above.

Are you claiming that current Popes receive inspiration/revelation to be given to the whole church?

What revelation is there and necessary for the Church? Not totally new revelation that contradicts the deposit of faith. But a Pope can be inspired to give direction for the Church. Example, he can, if inspired, to declare the Church to focus on evangelization during his tenure or for a period of time, like declaring a certain year as the year of evangelization and thus putting more emphasis in that area.

In the past I offered this:
The Council of Jerusalem decided via inspiration/revelation that the “burden of circumcision” would not be placed upon the non-Jewish Christians.
The Catholic Church may decide something concerning annulments/remarriage/Eucharist in the next few years. This decision will not be via inspiration/revelation to be given to the whole church. It cannot be. If it concerns faith and morals, it might be sealed infallibly, but it will be arrived at via natural not supernatural means.
This is a different charisma.

And the Church still functions similarly today through ecumenical council, or the synod of bishops and cardinals where decision made could be endorsed by the Pope, who either can be together with the council members praying and coming to a decision or he can, if he wishes to, delegate them to his cardinals and bishops.

Have I misunderstood?

Yes, pretty much of it. I suggest you just simply ask questions and allow Catholic posters to answer them, if you need clarification. Or you can come up with opinions; put it on the table, for discussion. Trying to tell us what Catholics believe would be a waste of time.

God bless.

Reuben.