Revelation: Yea or Nah and Why?

[pablope]

TOmNossor:
Okay…so what is your understanding of this line from the book:

The fact is, 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 the heavenly reward, all the subsequent popes have had to do their job of teaching and preserving the deposit of faith the old fashioned way: They learned it.

How does it contradict what the CC teaches and what has been posted here?

 

[TOmNossor]

What Reuben J is saying is that you are relying on one Catholic’s writings, taken out of context from a larger work, so it might be best to drop it, unless you can post a link to the entire page so we can all read it in context. (Amazon doesn’t show it)

I think I have taken care of this now. Agreed?

TOmNossor;12845645:

In addition to this, you do not acknowledge or deny a key addition I am claiming is part of the Catholic faith as understood by me and Patrick Madrid.
My claim is Peter received revelation from God. Peter was inspired by God. Peter’s preaching and writing came via direct and positive inspiration from the Holy Spirit in a way that no Pope enjoys/possesses today. This is the Catholic teaching. Do I understand the Catholic teaching correctly?

That part of it, it seems, although you still don’t seem to realize that the most significant part of Peter’s knowledge came directly from the mouth of Jesus. And, you still seem to be under the impression that Catholics don’t believe the Holy Spirit still actively inspires faithful Catholics to the present day, which is a total misconception on your part. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are still with His Church, and always will be.

This is good!
It is not particularly important to my thesis the ration of inspiration Peter receives via Jesus’ words and via the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Only that “Direct Inspiration from the Holy Spirit” is part of what Peter received. And it is also of little importance to my thesis the part about the Roman soldier that you found extraneous or something.

I am happy that I have finally got someone to agree concerning: “Peter received revelation from God. Peter was inspired by God. Peter’s preaching and writing came via direct and positive inspiration from the Holy Spirit in a way that no Pope enjoys/possesses today.”

I will also tell you I have not in this thread denied that the Catholic believes that " the Holy Spirit still actively inspires faithful Catholics to the present day, which is a total misconception on your part. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are still with His Church, and always will be." (I presume you do not mean that the Pope teaches via inspiration or receives revelation concerning the divinely guided direction the church should head in. That is what I claim a Catholic should not believe).

I hope this means that I have gotten somewhere.
What do you think of the full context of the Patrick Madrid book?
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

It would be nice to read the continuation. I’ll see if the ebook is available.

At any rate, you’re still reading it as a Mormon, thinking that God left us as orphans because He doesn’t do what you want, or Patrick Madrid wants.

My view is, God gives us what we need, knows our needs better than ourselves, and does not withhold anything.

And before you go thinking that I’m talking about the LDS concept of line upon line, precept on precept, I’m not.

Our need is filled, entirely, in Christ! Please think seriously on that.

I do not say that Catholics believe God orphaned the Catholic Church. I keep saying that I do not believe that Catholics believe this. I as a LDS would not even say it like that.

I say that the Charism of preservation is different than the Charism of positive inspiration.
I then say, “why should I buy into the Catholic view that this change is necessary and fine rather than a loss?”
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Frankly, I don’t know what it is you want. Your reasoning is circulat to me.

As I said, I will ask again.
I have provided the full context of Patrick’s few pages as best I can.
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.

This comes from Dei Verbum one of the Vatican II documents.

Patrick Madrid in multiple places says that Peter’s reception of revelation and inspiration is categorically different than the Pope’s charisma to teach infallibly.

I cannot resolve what I see in the CCC and from Patrick Madrid and from Dave Armstrong with what I see from Catholic posters here.

Type in Google, “Can the Pope receive revelation”
You get:
#1
staycatholic.com/papal_infalibillity.htm
NO
#2
catholicfaithandreason.org/papal-infallibility.html
NO - Quotes Patrick Madrid.

Compare this to Peter receiving Revelation and Inspiration in Catholic thought.

If you can resolve it for me and explain how I misunderstand Patrick Madrid and how he means exactly what you mean, then I will listen.
Telling me I do not understand is not helping me anymore.

This may be a problem of my non-trusting soul. If so I am sorry.
I will not believe that I cannot read and understand what Patrick Madrid has said because people tell me I do not understand. I will seek another cause for this disconnect.

I am happy that Telestar has now acknowledged what I said.

Let me say again, I am not accusing the Catholic of believing that the Catholic Church has been orphaned, is not guided by the Holy Spirit, or …
I am saying that the positive inspiration delivered to Peter has been replaced by a Holy Spirit derived ability to preserve truth not to receive positive inspiration for the body of the Church.

Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

As I said, I will ask again.
I have provided the full context of Patrick’s few pages as best I can.
The CCC under the heading, “There will be no further Revelation.” Says:

This comes from Dei Verbum one of the Vatican II documents.

Patrick Madrid in multiple places says that Peter’s reception of revelation and inspiration is categorically different than the Pope’s charisma to teach infallibly.

I cannot resolve what I see in the CCC and from Patrick Madrid and from Dave Armstrong with what I see from Catholic posters here.

Type in Google, “Can the Pope receive revelation”
You get:
#1
staycatholic.com/papal_infalibillity.htm
NO
#2
catholicfaithandreason.org/papal-infallibility.html
NO - Quotes Patrick Madrid.

Compare this to Peter receiving Revelation and Inspiration in Catholic thought.

If you can resolve it for me and explain how I misunderstand Patrick Madrid and how he means exactly what you mean, then I will listen.
Telling me I do not understand is not helping me anymore.

This may be a problem of my non-trusting soul. If so I am sorry.
I will not believe that I cannot read and understand what Patrick Madrid has said because people tell me I do not understand. I will seek another cause for this disconnect.

I am happy that Telestar has now acknowledged what I said.

Let me say again, I am not accusing the Catholic of believing that the Catholic Church has been orphaned, is not guided by the Holy Spirit, or …
I am saying that the positive inspiration delivered to Peter has been replaced by a Holy Spirit derived ability to preserve truth not to receive positive inspiration for the body of the Church.

Charity, TOm

I don’t have a problem with anything you’ve written in this post. Your previous posts take your ideas further into conclusions I don’t agree with.

Except one point here, the Holy Spirit does not replace prophecy. Prophecy is a gift of the Holy Spirit. The inspiration that Peter was given was from the Holy Spirit.

687 “No one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.” Now God’s Spirit, who reveals God, makes known to us Christ, his Word, his living Utterance, but the Spirit does not speak of himself. The Spirit who “has spoken through the prophets” makes us hear the Father’s Word, but we do not hear the Spirit himself. We know him only in the movement by which he reveals the Word to us and disposes us to welcome him in faith. The Spirit of truth who “unveils” Christ to us “will not speak on his own.” Such properly divine self-effacement explains why “the world cannot receive [him], because it neither sees him nor knows him,” while those who believe in Christ know the Spirit because he dwells with them.

Christ after His ascension sent an Advocate, not OT style prophets. The positive inspiration we receive today is of and about Christ, so that we may know Him and that He is the Son of God.

Jesus sent the Apostles to teach about Himself, commissioning them to teach the Gospel to all nations, baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Soirit. In this way, they and all the baptized (us) participate in the prophecy and Prophethood of Jesus Christ.

 

[Stephen168]

Okay…so what is your understanding of this line from the book:

The fact is, 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 the heavenly reward, all the subsequent popes have had to do their job of teaching and preserving the deposit of faith the old fashioned way: They learned it.

How does it contradict what the CC teaches and what has been posted here?

Are you asking me?

 

[Stephen168]

If you can resolve it for me and explain how I misunderstand Patrick Madrid and how he means exactly what you mean, then I will listen.
Telling me I do not understand is not helping me anymore.

Patrick Madrid is Catholic and what he says is consistent with the CCC.

God, revelation, and inspiration and used and/or defined in the CCC the same way he uses them. You can’t understand when you hang on to Mormon ideas of God, revelation, and inspiration. You have not shown me at least that you have a desire to understand these terms as Catholics use them, so trying to help you understand his quote seems impossible to me.

 

[pablope]

Are you asking me?

Oppss…no…it was for Tom, the OP.

 

[SteveVH]

You misunderstood the initial conditional statement, “if the Pope was infallible in math.” Or so it seems to me.
I have no way to parse your statement to understand it (other than that)

No, I understood it. And if the pope was exercising the gift of infallibility when taking a math test he should answer none of the questions. You do not understand what is meant by 'infallible". From your position you assume that in order for the Pope to be infallible when answering a math question that he somehow should be getting the answers from the Holy Spirit. Infallibility does not mean that the pope knows everything there is to know about anything. What it means is that error will never enter into the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church. This may even require that a pope remain silent on a given issue.

Maybe you believe the pope is infallible in some thing unequal to “faith and morals,” but when he speaks on “faith and morals” this is when that infallibility is realized.

No, I do not believe that at all because that just isn’t the reality of the situation.

So if that thing unequal to “faith and morals” became “math” the pope would still only be infallible when he spoke concerning “faith and morals.”
I do not understand your objection.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

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).

I propose:
The condition of the Catholic Church today is that the Pope, the college of the Cardinals, the Magisterium, and any Catholic authority (Bishops gathered in an Ecumenical or Local Council or dispersed throughout the world) are not inspired (and do not receive public revelation) for the teaching of the faith and resolving controversies within the church. BTW, I use the term “public revelation” to mean revelation for the corporate leading / teaching of the church. If you want to use a different term for the “revelation for the corporate leading / teaching of the church” we can explore that term.
I am not suggesting that apparitions of Mary or Eucharistic miracles are incongruent with the Catholic faith. I am not suggesting that a Catholic cannot pray to know what job to take and be inspired by God to choose this or that. Even a Pope may have a vision that helps him (but were he to have a vision, he would be incorrect if he believed it was divine revelation delivered to him as the Vicar of Christ for the purpose of leading the Catholic Church, he could believe it was God strengthening him for his tasks or … but not revelation for the purpose of leading the Catholic Church).
I am saying that the inspiration/revelation evident in the New Testament, the Council of Jerusalem, and the Old Testament; is absent in the Catholic Church today.

“Corporate Revelation” was never a part of the Christian Church which is why it does not exist in the Catholic Church. Prophesy is a give of the spirit to individuals not necessarily a leader. See post #11
“Revelation,” as used by the Catholic Church, is God’s word through the incarnation, the second person of the trinity, Jesus Christ. While revelation may not be completely understood, it is complete and there is no more public revelation. Private revelation is still possible and some of it might be recognized by the magisterium. See post #63
God, the third person of the trinity, the Holy Spirit still guides the church through the magisterium. See post #7.
This is Catholic belief according to the Catholic Church.

My point from the OP was that the inspiration/revelation Peter received was of a different sort than the inspiration/revelation that Catholics believe the Pope receives.This change is ONLY evidenced in the ceasing of revelation/inspiration (in this different way).

No, you have a Mormon view which was never part of Christianity, it was an invention of Joseph Smith. There was never a change.

Please align for me what you say with the quotes I offer from Patrick Madrid.

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.

Peter knew the incarnation personally. He got revelation from the Word, the second person of the Holy Trinity, Jesus Christ, face to face in person. No other Pope has been in that position.

God, the third person of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit, inspired a very few people the ability to write God’s word which were later selected by the Catholic Church as scripture. Peter is the only Pope with this charism of the Holy Spirit.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul had the same charism but were never Popes.

You do not mean that the “Deposit of Faith” came from Jesus to the Apostles solely by their human interactions in Palestine??? I expect not.
I believe that Catholics believe that the Apostles received revelation via means beyond their human contact with Jesus. Peter had visions. The writers of the New Testament were directly inspired by God to record what they recorded (not as automatons, but not as humans who try to recall what Jesus said 2 and 2000 days before). The Council of Jerusalem was decided by revelation/inspiration and the words recorder about it were revealed by God not merely the product of the memory of someone who happened to be there.

Yes, the Catholic Church has real history. God sent his Word, who chose disciples, and gave them the Gospel, the good news, the deposit of faith, which has been guarded and passed down through the magisterium for 2000 years. From one human to the next. There was nothing at the Council of Jerusalem that wasn’t at the Council of Nicaea or Vatican II.

Simon was the Rock on which Christ built his Catholic Church.

 

[Reuben_J]

I am happy that I have finally got someone to agree concerning: “Peter received revelation from God. Peter was inspired by God. Peter’s preaching and writing came via direct and positive inspiration from the Holy Spirit in a way that no Pope enjoys/possesses today.”

So do the other Popes and therefore Patrick Madrid was in error. See the problem there (if the word revelation is not agreed to in this discussion)?

Let’s make this even simpler. There is no new revelation, meaning that, for the Protestants there is no new Bible other than what they have now. For the Catholics it means there are no new Bible and the Tradition other than what we have now. That means, the Quran and Islam for example, are not divine revelation.

Now God can reveal to us his revelation (if you insist on using this term in your context) by the power of the Holy Spirit which is a private revelation. It has to be discerned and most important, it should not contradict the Deposit of Faith. So it is not a new revelation.

My use of the term 1st Century was to suggest that the ministry of the Apostles ended at this time.
Your post here APPEARS to says something that I think you do not mean.
You do not mean that the “Deposit of Faith” came from Jesus to the Apostles solely by their human interactions in Palestine??? I expect not.
I believe that Catholics believe that the Apostles received revelation via means beyond their human contact with Jesus. Peter had visions. The writers of the New Testament were directly inspired by God to record what they recorded (not as automatons, but not as humans who try to recall what Jesus said 2 and 2000 days before). The Council of Jerusalem was decided by revelation/inspiration and the words recorder about it were revealed by God not merely the product of the memory of someone who happened to be there.

So thus ended divine revelations that form the Deposit of Faith.

They were Jesus’ teaching or the deeds in his life or arise from them, like the Trinity. How did the apostles know that God is a Trinity since the word Trinity is not in the Bible? There were two possibilities – Jesus told them and/or they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

God continues to inspire the successors of the apostles in their own ways and the Pope as the successor of Peter, the chief apostle.

The men who were apostles and who wrote scripture were inspired directly by God not just through their human interaction with the man Jesus.
It is clear that some Roman soldiers heard the words of Jesus. They could write them and relay them in a book. This would not be the inspiration evident in sacred scripture.

Which meant what they wrote were the truth and written in a way to bring forth the truth.

The Roman soldiers could also write the scripture, if they were so inspired, as too was Paul.

The apostles were in greater position to disburse the truth since they were disciples, who heard and saw what Jesus taught and did. So what’s in the Scripture since not all could fit in? The inspiration of the Holy Spirit guided them.

My claim is Peter received revelation from God. Peter was inspired by God. Peter’s preaching and writing came via direct and positive inspiration from the Holy Spirit in a way that no Pope enjoys/possesses today. This is the Catholic teaching. Do I understand the Catholic teaching correctly?

True and not true. As been said, Peter and the apostles had the benefit of being disciples. One cannot discount what they were privy to Jesus. Their knowledge stemmed from them, not from nowhere, and the Holy Spirit helped them in using this knowledge.

The reason why the other Popes do not receive such revelations because there is no new revelation needed; all been revealed already. And if you believe that, then you are right.

But as you said and what we believe too, the Holy Spirit still does inspire and guide them with teachings that are necessary for the church. And these are not new revelations being added to the Deposit of Faith but rather arise from them.

What do you think of the full context of the Patrick Madrid book?

Personally I have not read that book. The author has done some good work, and I personally doubt he disagrees on the official church’s teaching. Thus context is important and his explanation to the statement that he made.

Still the best reference to Catholic’s belief is the CCC though you still need someone to explain them to you.

God bless.

Reuben.

 

[Karen107]

The full context of Patrick Madrid’s book (I think).
I finally found almost the entire few pages online. Here it is:

cont …

Please provide the link where you got that book and what is the name of the book?..

 

[Karen107]

Is this what you claim is Patrick Madrids book???

kuro5hin.org/story/2002/4/29/154834/252

 

[Telstar]

I think I have taken care of this now. Agreed?

Yes you have, sorry. I started writing my post long before you posted those pages, and got distracted a few times during the process.

By reading the rest of the context written by Patrick Madrid, I can easily see that he is correct in his assessment. But, he is speaking strictly about infallibility and how it is used by the Pope and the Magisterium in the teaching capacity of the Church. In those instances, he is absolutely correct to say that direct ‘revelation’ from the Holy Spirit is not what the Pope depends upon to make his decisions.

This is an example of where the Pope’s knowledge of the Deposit of Faith comes into play. If there is a question regarding faith or morals that he feels needs to be addressed, he first has to research the subject to see if it’s something that’s been studied in the past, and what conclusions or actions might have been taken at that time. Then he would likely confer with other Bishops, Cardinals, Priests, or anyone else that might have some insight into the subject, especially if they have a high level of expertise. I would certainly not discount the fact that the Holy Spirit would most likely have some influence over their studies, but it’s not like the Pope waits to hear an audible voice speaking in his ear to make his final decision. It would be nice to think it would happen that way, but it’s not what really happens. His position as Pope gives him the responsibility to study the question in great depth before ever making any official pronouncement to the whole Church. As someone stated, the last time an ‘ex cathedra’ announcement was made by any Pope, was well over 60 years ago. It’s certainly not something that happens very often.

This is good!

Don’t get too excited. I still think you are very confused about the whole process, especially the part about the role of the Holy Spirit then, and now. Most of that confusion comes from your Mormon definitions of the terminology we use as Catholics, which I think have a slightly different definition than ours.

It is not particularly important to my thesis the ration of inspiration Peter receives via Jesus’ words and via the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Only that “Direct Inspiration from the Holy Spirit” is part of what Peter received.

See, this is one thing that is very problematic, because it is of great importance from the Catholic perspective. The main reason that revelation is now closed, is because Jesus was the object of all previous revelation and prophecy throughout the entire Old Testament. His coming into the world was the fulfillment of all that revelation. There is nothing left for God to reveal to us that is necessary for our salvation, that Jesus hasn’t already revealed to us through His hand picked Apostles that He taught, Himself. He is the Word of God that came down from Heaven. Nothing else needs to be said that He hasn’t already said.

And it is also of little importance to my thesis the part about the Roman soldier that you found extraneous or something.

Actually, I thought it was just meant to be a tongue in cheek scenario. A Roman soldier would not be likely to write anything about something that they probably saw as a routine occurrence.

I am happy that I have finally got someone to agree concerning: “Peter received revelation from God. Peter was inspired by God. Peter’s preaching and writing came via direct and positive inspiration from the Holy Spirit in a way that no Pope enjoys/possesses today.”

As I said, the most important point to remember is that Peter was taught directly by Jesus, face to face. That makes a huge impact on the reason why the Catholic Church teaches that “public revelation” is closed. There are no more eyewitnesses to the events that happened during Jesus’ life on this earth. But, the entire Church’s history is full of evidence of “private revelations” that have filled many thousands of volumes, because the Holy Spirit has never stopped inspiring the Body of Christ, Jesus’ Church on earth.

I will also tell you I have not in this thread denied that the Catholic believes that " the Holy Spirit still actively inspires faithful Catholics to the present day, which is a total misconception on your part. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are still with His Church, and always will be." (I presume you do not mean that the Pope teaches via inspiration or receives revelation concerning the divinely guided direction the church should head in. That is what I claim a Catholic should not believe).
I hope this means that I have gotten somewhere.

But, I can’t help but see the unwritten caveat in your posts, that you still don’t believe any of it. And, your presumption is slightly off track, because I do believe that the Pope and the entire Church Body is inspired, in some degree, by the Holy Spirit.

What do you think of the full context of the Patrick Madrid book?
Charity, TOm

Already addressed, above.

 

[Reuben_J]

Yes you have, sorry. I started writing my post long before you posted those pages, and got distracted a few times during the process.

By reading the rest of the context written by Patrick Madrid, I can easily see that he is correct in his assessment. But, he is speaking strictly about infallibility and how it is used by the Pope and the Magisterium in the teaching capacity of the Church. In those instances, he is absolutely correct to say that direct ‘revelation’ from the Holy Spirit is not what the Pope depends upon to make his decisions.

This is an example of where the Pope’s knowledge of the Deposit of Faith comes into play. If there is a question regarding faith or morals that he feels needs to be addressed, he first has to research the subject to see if it’s something that’s been studied in the past, and what conclusions or actions might have been taken at that time. Then he would likely confer with other Bishops, Cardinals, Priests, or anyone else that might have some insight into the subject, especially if they have a high level of expertise. I would certainly not discount the fact that the Holy Spirit would most likely have some influence over their studies, but it’s not like the Pope waits to hear an audible voice speaking in his ear to make his final decision. It would be nice to think it would happen that way, but it’s not what really happens. His position as Pope gives him the responsibility to study the question in great depth before ever making any official pronouncement to the whole Church. As someone stated, the last time an ‘ex cathedra’ announcement was made by any Pope, was well over 60 years ago. It’s certainly not something that happens very often.

Don’t get too excited. I still think you are very confused about the whole process, especially the part about the role of the Holy Spirit then, and now. Most of that confusion comes from your Mormon definitions of the terminology we use as Catholics, which I think have a slightly different definition than ours.

See, this is one thing that is very problematic, because it is of great importance from the Catholic perspective. The main reason that revelation is now closed, is because Jesus was the object of all previous revelation and prophecy throughout the entire Old Testament. His coming into the world was the fulfillment of all that revelation. There is nothing left for God to reveal to us that is necessary for our salvation, that Jesus hasn’t already revealed to us through His hand picked Apostles that He taught, Himself. He is the Word of God that came down from Heaven. Nothing else needs to be said that He hasn’t already said.

Actually, I thought it was just meant to be a tongue in cheek scenario. A Roman soldier would not be likely to write anything about something that they probably saw as a routine occurrence.

As I said, the most important point to remember is that Peter was taught directly by Jesus, face to face. That makes a huge impact on the reason why the Catholic Church teaches that “public revelation” is closed. There are no more eyewitnesses to the events that happened during Jesus’ life on this earth. But, the entire Church’s history is full of evidence of “private revelations” that have filled many thousands of volumes, because the Holy Spirit has never stopped inspiring the Body of Christ, Jesus’ Church on earth.

But, I can’t help but see the unwritten caveat in your posts, that you still don’t believe any of it. And, your presumption is slightly off track, because I do believe that the Pope and the entire Church Body is inspired, in some degree, by the Holy Spirit.

Already addressed, above.

Well said. Thanks.

Reuben.

 

[Telstar]

Well said. Thanks.

Reuben.

Thanks!

i2.photobucket.com/albums/y39/Telstars/Smilies/curtsy-1.gif

 

[pablope]

Tom…

After many posts from us catholics…so what is your understanding of this line from the book now:

The fact is, 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 the heavenly reward, all the subsequent popes have had to do their job of teaching and preserving the deposit of faith the old fashioned way: They learned it.

Has your understanding changed at all?

 

[TOmNossor]

Telstar,
Thank you for your response. I think my “gray area” below is an area you consider clearly not gray at all but fine. Aside from this I am thinking we are getting closer.

But, I can’t help but see the unwritten caveat in your posts, that you still don’t believe any of it. And, your presumption is slightly off track, because I do believe that the Pope and the entire Church Body is inspired, in some degree, by the Holy Spirit.

If by “unwritten caveat” you mean that I as a non-Catholic do not believe all things I think Catholics believe about the Catholic Church, then that is true. Some of my posts are for the purpose of understanding better what the truth claims of the CC are, others are for pointing to issues here or there with the truth claims of the Catholic Church. But, if I do not understand what Catholicism is, I cannot adequately weigh its truth claims.

This post was born from a thread started the premise of which was that the purported existence of Apostles/Prophets in the CoJCoLDS has not produced a unity of the faith and a consistency of belief (and this former LDS current Catholic believes this is a negative for the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS). My initial response was that I thought the presence of Apostles/Prophets and their ability to received revelation/inspiration as Peter did and as Moses did and as … was the most clear apologetic to be tied to the existence of Apostles/Prophets in the CoJCoLDS. I contrasted the “condition” of the Catholic Church where public/corporate revelation/inspiration for the purpose of leading the church to all truth had ceased with what I claimed was a DIFFERENT condition in the New Testament and Old Testament times (and for the purported condition of the CoJCoLDS where such continues). The response was twofold, the difference was not there AND take off topic discussions to a different thread. This is the different thread.

I have seen in Patrick’s book, writings of Dave Armstrong, and in a handful of places online where Catholics assure Protestants that the Catholic Church does not receive revelation. I have now seen where Catholics like the posters on this thread assure me that the Catholic Church received revelation just like Peter and Moses did. I do not believe both can be true.

Let me ask you a question I have asked in the past.

I believe the following could happen (could it?):
Hypothetical Situation:

There is a question on the situation of the re-married receiving communion.
The Pope calls for Bishops and/or scholars to prepare information for him.
He studies the information and is truly conflicted about making annulments MUCH easier or keeping things as they are (in fact making it clear that many parishes are not handling this situation properly).
As he is pondering it he has a vision. Maybe it is like Peter’s vision and there is some allegorical content or maybe it is 100% clear. Annulments will be made easier and faithful but remarried Catholic may petition there local bishop (or his designated representative) in a 1 hour meeting for an annulment. If the petitioner is sincere, committed to the new marriage, repentant for the previous marriage and maybe xyz, the bishop can grant the annulment at the conclusion of the meeting and then give the petitioner absolution, and the Eucharist.
The Pope presents this to the Bishops and the church, and the church moves forward.
The Pope believes and/or mentions to his confessor and/or shares with many folks that he received revelation from God for the church to solve this problem.

So, I believe the above could happen as I understand Catholic teachings on Papal perfection/lack of perfection (the Pope is not perfect), and … Could it happen?
I think it is unlikely to happen partially because it would involve a theological error in the Pope’s understanding of the Catholic Church. Popes can have mistaken thoughts so such is possible. The Pope’s error above is when he claimed that it was a reception of revelation from God for the purpose of solving this problem. Such is IMPOSSIBLE (as I understand Catholic teaching).
I consider it a gray area were the Pope to claim that he received comfort/inspiration as he intellectually weighed this issue and this helped him personally make a decision, but the claim that his vision was revelation that came from God for the purpose of solving this corporate/public problem is false per my understanding of Catholic teaching on the ceasing of revelation at the death of the last apostle.
So, I asked “could it happen?” I also want to ask, “if it did happen, would it be true per Catholic teaching that the Pope received revelation to decide this issue?” My answer is no it would not. What do you think?
Charity, TOm
P.S. So there will be no “gotcha” let me state a few things. If you agree with me that such would not be revelation for the purpose of solving a public/corporate church issue, I have thoughts on this. First, this is different from the way God lead His church in the Old and New Testament. Second, this difference is born of the ceasing of such revelation/inspiration not of a supernaturally revealed piece of data that claimed the ceasing was to obtain shortly. Finally, I believe such a change is a discontinuity that bears negatively upon Catholic truth claims, but it is not a fatal flaw the presence of which proves the Catholic Church is not God’s church. And for point of reference, I believe there are pieces of data that bear negatively upon LDS truth claims, but none that are fatal flaws the presence of which proves the CoJCoLDS is not God’s church.

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom…

After many posts from us catholics…so what is your understanding of this line from the book now:

The fact is, 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 the heavenly reward, all the subsequent popes have had to do their job of teaching and preserving the deposit of faith the old fashioned way: They learned it.

Has your understanding changed at all?

I think Telestar has claimed a much greater role for what I consider a “gray area.”
I am expecting that Telestar will absolutely claim that the Pope receiving inspiration/comfort as he wrestles intellectually with a public/corporate issue for the church is to be expected and is well within Catholic teaching. I currently expect that the claim to direct revelation/inspiration to provide the solution for a public/corporate issue for the church will be judged to be not a true claim, not part of the Catholic faith or the Pope’s charism.

One of the things I bring to this discussion that I have not been able to reproduce in great volumes is Catholic/Protestant discussions were the Catholic assures that Protestant that the Catholic Church is not receiving revelation. Then when I a LDS who cannot have a problem with continuing revelation address the question, the response becomes 180 degrees out, “No, the Catholic Church does receive revelation.” I do not believe both can be true.
I have seen some less dramatic shifts when

1. The LDS talks to the Catholic about faith/works AND when the LDS talks to the Protestant about faith/works.
2. The Catholic talks to the LDS about faith/works AND when the Catholic talks to the Protestant about faith/works.

This less dramatic shift should be hammered out as should the more dramatic shift (revelation/no revelation) I mention above.

Hope that helps explain my mindset and …

In short, my mindset may have moved a tiny bit, but I do not currently believe a Catholic should claim that direct revelation/inspiration from God answers questions for the leadership of the Church (for public/corporate question that are promulgated to the entire CC).

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

This post was born from a thread started the premise of which was that the purported existence of Apostles/Prophets in the CoJCoLDS has not produced a unity of the faith and a consistency of belief (and this former LDS current Catholic believes this is a negative for the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS). My initial response was that I thought the presence of Apostles/Prophets and their ability to received revelation/inspiration as Peter did and as Moses did and as … was the most clear apologetic to be tied to the existence of Apostles/Prophets in the CoJCoLDS. I contrasted the “condition” of the Catholic Church where public/corporate revelation/inspiration for the purpose of leading the church to all truth had ceased with what I claimed was a DIFFERENT condition in the New Testament and Old Testament times (and for the purported condition of the CoJCoLDS where such continues). The response was twofold, the difference was not there AND take off topic discussions to a different thread.

“Corporate Revelation” was never a part of the Christian Church which is why it does not exist in the Catholic Church. Prophesy is a give of the spirit to individuals not necessarily a leader. See post #11
“Revelation,” as used by the Catholic Church, is God’s word through the incarnation, the second person of the trinity, Jesus Christ. While revelation may not be completely understood, it is complete and there is no more public revelation. Private revelation is still possible and some of it might be recognized by the magisterium. See post #63
God, the third person of the trinity, the Holy Spirit still guides the church through the magisterium. See post #7.
This is Catholic belief according to the Catholic Church.

No, you have a Mormon view which was never part of Christianity, it was an invention of Joseph Smith. There was never a change.

Peter knew the incarnation personally. He got revelation from the Word, the second person of the Holy Trinity, Jesus Christ, face to face in person. No other Pope has been in that position.

God, the third person of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit, inspired a very few people the ability to write God’s word which were later selected by the Catholic Church as scripture. Peter is the only Pope with this charism of the Holy Spirit.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul had the same charism but were never Popes.

Yes, the Catholic Church has real history. God sent his Word, who chose disciples, and gave them the Gospel, the good news, the deposit of faith, which has been guarded and passed down through the magisterium for 2000 years. From one human to the next. There was nothing at the Council of Jerusalem that wasn’t at the Council of Nicaea or Vatican II.

Simon was the Rock on which Christ built his Catholic Church.

In short, my mindset may have moved a tiny bit, but I do not currently believe a Catholic should claim that direct revelation/inspiration from God answers questions for the leadership of the Church (for public/corporate question that are promulgated to the entire CC).

Because it is not Christian as explained about.