Revelation: Yea or Nah and Why?

[eddie_too]

Divine Revelation ended with Jesus’ Ascension.

Inspiration is ongoing but is particular to each and every person who believes in Jesus and repents of his or her sins.

private revelations are not the same thing as the Divine Revelation that is the Word. private revelations are substantively different from Divine Revelation.

Jesus creating the Church, giving it a magisterium, sending it the Holy Spirit to indwell within it so as to preserve the truth and completeness of Divine Revelation until the end of the world are all elements of Divine Revelation. these elements, but not limited to these elements, are neither the result of private revelations nor the result of holy inspiration.

Peter and the Council of Jerusalem were under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit when they decided that all food, except for … , and circumcision was not necessary. Their decision was not a Divine Revelation.

the primary difference, if there is any difference and that is open to speculation I believe, between the inspiration given to the apostles and that given to the rest of Jesus’ followers is that the apostles were taught directly by the Word for the explicit purpose of establishing the Church. this prepared their souls in a unique way to receive holy inspiration, not to mention Pentecost Sunday where upon this unique blessing was made evident.

to expound just a little more, the sacraments of the Church give specific graces to those who receive them. consequently, the magisterium receives graces that are particular to the sacrament of Orders. because of Divine Revelation we also know that the office of Peter was given a particular grace that is not given to anyone else in the Church. however, holy inspiration and grace are not exactly the same thing. when we participate in the sacraments, we receive specific graces. these graces are intended to enhance our ability to receive holy inspiration.

I know this is not the best explanation and it is certainly incomplete. but, this is not the forum for a long dissertation on the subject.

in any respect. there is no way for any of us to read the bible and a few other books and then conclude that our understanding is adequate. these are mysteries of the faith. we can only probe them.

 

[eddie_too]

the Church evaluates private revelation.

the Church preaches Divine Revelation.

the Church continuously receives and acts upon holy inspiration.

holy inspiration guides. Divine Revelation provides.

 

[LivingWaters7]

T
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.

I believe this has been explained multiple times in this thread, as well as others, by Catholics. I also believe that the Catholic view has been adequately substantiated by references from official Catholic documents, right in this thread. We do not deny the belief that the Catholic Church does not receive revelation. The question is, what does that mean to a Catholic when they say that? As has already been explained, this means that we believe that public revelation is complete. The next question would be, what does public revelation mean, to a Catholic? That has been explained as well. The Catechism is quite clear on the fact that Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, that our leaders can receive Divine assistance, and that the Holy Spirit guides these leaders in expounding on the Faith already given once and for all. Therefore, there is no contradiction, if we understand what these terms mean to those using them.

 

[SteveVH]

I believe this has been explained multiple times in this thread, as well as others, by Catholics. I also believe that the Catholic view has been adequately substantiated by references from official Catholic documents, right in this thread. We do not deny the belief that the Catholic Church does not receive revelation. The question is, what does that mean to a Catholic when they say that? As has already been explained, this means that we believe that public revelation is complete. The next question would be, what does public revelation mean, to a Catholic? That has been explained as well. The Catechism is quite clear on the fact that Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, that our leaders can receive Divine assistance, and that the Holy Spirit guides these leaders in expounding on the Faith already given once and for all. Therefore, there is no contradiction, if we understand what these terms mean to those using them.

Yes, this gets to be very frustrating. One wonders if there is any point in engaging in a conversation in which words mean whatever one chooses them to mean, which renders them meaningless.

Tom, the Catholic position is really, very, very simple. I find it difficult to believe that it is beyond your comprehension.

1. We have no need for further revelation because we have received the fulfillment of all revelation - the Person of Jesus Christ. We have received, in the Deposit of Faith given once to the Church by the Apostles, all that God has chosen to reveal of himself to mankind. It is the mission of the Church to protect this one Deposit of Faith for each generation. To expect further revelation is to deny the divine mission of Christ. He is everything and we have no need for anything in addition to him.
2. This does not in any way mean that the Church is not constantly guided and enlightened by the Holy Spirit so that it may peer deeper into this most glorious mystery, this fulfillment of all revelation and further clarify the one truth that lies within.

So please, please stop calling this a contradiction. We will have no further revelation, but we will continue to be guided by Jesus through the Holy Spirit as he has not ceased building his Church.

 

[iepuras]

Yes, this gets to be very frustrating. One wonders if there is any point in engaging in a conversation in which words mean whatever one chooses them to mean, which renders them meaningless.

Tom, the Catholic position is really, very, very simple. I find it difficult to believe that it is beyond your comprehension.

1. We have no need for further revelation because we have received the fulfillment of all revelation - the Person of Jesus Christ. We have received, in the Deposit of Faith given once to the Church by the Apostles, all that God has chosen to reveal of himself to mankind. It is the mission of the Church to protect this one Deposit of Faith for each generation. To expect further revelation is to deny the divine mission of Christ. He is everything and we have no need for anything in addition to him.
2. This does not in any way mean that the Church is not constantly guided and enlightened by the Holy Spirit so that it may peer deeper into this most glorious mystery, this fulfillment of all revelation and further clarify the one truth that lies within.

So please, please stop calling this a contradiction. We will have no further revelation, but we will continue to be guided by Jesus through the Holy Spirit as he has not ceased building his Church.

I think TOm has made his purpose clear in post #98. Emphasis mine.
TOmNosser:

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.

 

[XuDan]

I believe this has been explained multiple times in this thread, as well as others, by Catholics. I also believe that the Catholic view has been adequately substantiated by references from official Catholic documents, right in this thread. We do not deny the belief that the Catholic Church does not receive revelation. The question is, what does that mean to a Catholic when they say that? As has already been explained, this means that we believe that public revelation is complete. The next question would be, what does public revelation mean, to a Catholic? That has been explained as well. The Catechism is quite clear on the fact that Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, that our leaders can receive Divine assistance, and that the Holy Spirit guides these leaders in expounding on the Faith already given once and for all. Therefore, there is no contradiction, if we understand what these terms mean to those using them.

Yes, this gets to be very frustrating. One wonders if there is any point in engaging in a conversation in which words mean whatever one chooses them to mean, which renders them meaningless.

This is what I pointed out in post #26 and clarified in post #39. It is clear that the OP has an understanding that is different to how a Catholic would view it. By continuing to reject all attempts to provide a Catholic understanding by willfully using definitions and vocabulary only accepted by his own denomination and not the Catholic church the OP demonstrates an implicit agenda not of understanding (despite repeated claims) but of refutation as pointed out by iepuras as part of the author’s self expressed intent.

I think TOm has made his purpose clear in post #98. Emphasis mine.
TOmNosser:

TOmNosser
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.

Arbitrary redefinition is a type of equivocation that, in my opinion, is not worth the time to dialogue with.

 

[Stephen168]

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.

 

[XuDan]

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

Guess that makes a lot of them as non-prophets - I mean how many didn’t contribute to the the D&C (which is the easy out since it is intended to be a growing body of “scripture”)

 

[TOmNossor]

A bit I just found on “private revelation.”
This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm

All subsequent revelations conferred by God are known as private revelations, for the reason that they are not directed to the whole Church but are for the good of individual members alone

I will await to see what is made of this, but “private revelation” is contrasted with corporate/public revelation in that it is SPECIFICALLY PRIVATE and not “directed to the whole Church.” This has been my position all along and I have repeatedly been told I was wrong. Will anyone recant?

So revelation “directed to the whole Church” has ended. Correct?
Peter and the Apostles received revelation “directed to the whole Church.” Correct?

It would also seem my interpretation of my hypothetical is exactly correct. The Pope cannot receive corporate revelation because he can only receive “private revelation” and not revelation “directed to the whole Church.”

Can anyone acknowledge that this section from the Catholic Encyclopedia vindicates my position in multiple ways and undermines many of the statements made by others here?

Maybe after acknowledging this we can get to the next part of my question.
I am truly not crazy and I can read as good as the next guy. Denying that “corporate revelation” has ended is an error put forth by numerous Catholics on this thread.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

A bit I just found on “private revelation.”
This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm

I will await to see what is made of this, but “private revelation” is contrasted with corporate/public revelation in that it is SPECIFICALLY PRIVATE and not “directed to the whole Church.” This has been my position all along and I have repeatedly been told I was wrong. Will anyone recant?

So revelation “directed to the whole Church” has ended. Correct?
Peter and the Apostles received revelation “directed to the whole Church.” Correct?

It would also seem my interpretation of my hypothetical is exactly correct. The Pope cannot receive corporate revelation because he can only receive “private revelation” and not revelation “directed to the whole Church.”

Can anyone acknowledge that this section from the Catholic Encyclopedia vindicates my position in multiple ways and undermines many of the statements made by others here?

Maybe after acknowledging this we can get to the next part of my question.
I am truly not crazy and I can read as good as the next guy. Denying that “corporate revelation” has ended is an error put forth by numerous Catholics on this thread.
Charity, TOm

This is no such thing as “corporate revelation” in the history of Christianity. It is an invention of Joseph Smith.

 

[Telstar]

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.

TOm, perhaps we’re a bit closer, but still miles apart.

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.

Exactly my point. But, you’ve been given direct quotes from the CCC as to what Catholics believe, yet still keep asking the same questions and expecting different answers.

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 …

I know.

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.

The Catholic Church does not receive any NEW revelation that would effect any change in the doctrines or beliefs found in the original Deposit of Faith (i.e. Scripture or Holy Tradition), that was given by Jesus Christ to His Church. That is the difference between “public revelation” (directly from Jesus and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles) that can never** be changed, and “private revelation” (personal inspiration) through the Holy Spirit, for the purpose of edification or clarification of those doctrines, to the people of His Holy Church. Special spiritual Graces are given to the leaders of the Church, but not just to them alone. All Catholics receive inspiration, graces and gifts from the Holy Spirit in varying degrees, through their participation in the Sacraments of the Church.

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

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

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).

Nothing is impossible with God, but the likelihood that any change would happen that way, is slim to none. The subject matter alone makes it even less likely that it would ever happen, at all. Jesus was very clear on His condemnation of divorce, because marriage is a sacred vow made between a man, a woman, and God.

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.

As I said, there is nothing that says the Pope can’t be inspired by the Holy Spirit in his decision making process. He just can’t claim to have new ‘revelations’ in order to attempt to make any changes in doctrine or dogma, that conflict with the Deposit of Faith. Period.

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

If it didn’t make any changes in the DoF, then anything is possible.

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.

No, it really isn’t.

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.

Huh?? I’m not exactly sure what you mean by all this. The first sentence is especially confusing. :hypno:

BTW, the Catholic Church is not a ‘corporation’, so your terminology of anything being a “corporate problem” is inappropriate. We’re not talking about a board of directors and a CEO, here. The Catholic Church is a purely spiritual entity, not a business. It doesn’t have any other purpose than to preach the Gospel and save souls.

 

[Stephen168]

Denying that “corporate revelation” has ended is an error put forth by numerous Catholics on this thread.

I have proved that corporate revelation never was. I have proven it never was, but you choose to ignore it.

You are starting to sound like a crazy person running around in circles yelling, “I told you the unicorn has gone extinct.”

I’m sure you will continue to ignore the posts that challenge your argument. It makes it easier to be a Mormon that way.

 

[Stephen168]

Guess that makes a lot of them as non-prophets - I mean how many didn’t contribute to the the D&C (which is the easy out since it is intended to be a growing body of “scripture”)

Yep, so much for “corporate revelation” in Mormonism.

 

[TimothyH]

What do you mean when you say Public Revelation ended?

Jesus was the fullness of God’s revelation of himself to man. Jesus fully revealed himself only to the Apostles.

-Tim-

 

[XuDan]

The Catholic Church does not receive any NEW revelation that would effect **any change in the doctrines or beliefs found in the original Deposit of Faith (i.e. Scripture or Holy Tradition), that was given by Jesus Christ to His Church. That is the difference between “public revelation” (directly from Jesus and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles) that can never be changed, and “private revelation” (personal inspiration) through the Holy Spirit, for the purpose of edification or clarification of those doctrines, to the people of His Holy Church. Special spiritual Graces are given to the leaders of the Church, but not just to them alone. All Catholics receive inspiration, graces and gifts from the Holy Spirit in varying degrees, through their participation in the Sacraments of the Church.

Careful here, part of this equivocation game that is being played here is that personal inspiration within LDS terminology is different than personal revelation. The LDS have about as many terms dividing up revelation as the Eskimos have for snow (the example is hyperbole, but hopefully the point is understood).

LDS Personal Inspiration = being moved by the spirit to get up and give your testimony during the Fast and Testimony Meeting. Another example would be inspiration to call someone only to find out that they were in need.

LDS Personal Revelation = this means the same as what is being spoken about here and how Catholics understand it.

While the terms may be used interchangeably in most Christian denominations they are not by the LDS. Part of the communication problem here is that the OP is not speaking in terms familiar to Catholics and vice versa.

BTW, the Catholic Church is not a ‘corporation’, so your terminology of anything being a “corporate problem” is inappropriate. We’re not talking about a board of directors and a CEO, here. The Catholic Church is a purely spiritual entity, not a business. It doesn’t have any other purpose than to preach the Gospel and save souls.

You have to understand, in the LDS church the “prophet/seer/revelator/translator” is the head of the church and is called “President” much like a CEO. The very feel of attending an LDS service is corporate in nature. My wife has often compared them sitting in board meeting at work. So it’s really of no surprise that he is trying to understand the Catholic church through that paradigm.

 

[Reuben_J]

A bit I just found on “private revelation.”
This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm

And note this from that link, NewAdvent:

*It remains here to distinguish the Christian Revelation or “deposit of faith” from what are termed private revelations. This distinction is of importance: for while the Church recognizes that God has spoken to His servants in every age, and still continues thus to favour chosen souls, she is careful to distinguish these revelations from the Revelation which has been committed to her charge, and which she proposes to all her members for their acceptance. That Revelation was given in its entirety to Our Lord and His Apostles. After the death of the last of the twelve it could receive no increment. It was, as the Church calls it, a deposit — “the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude, 2) — for which the Church was to “contend” but to which she could add nothing,

Thus, whenever there has been question of defining a doctrine, whether at Nicæa, at Trent, or at the Vatican, the sole point of debate has been as to whether the doctrine is found in Scripture or in Apostolic tradition. *

I will await to see what is made of this, but “private revelation” is contrasted with corporate/public revelation in that it is SPECIFICALLY PRIVATE and not “directed to the whole Church.” This has been my position all along and I have repeatedly been told I was wrong. Will anyone recant?

Also this:

*All subsequent revelations conferred by God are known as private revelations, for the reason that they are not directed to the whole Church but are for the good of individual members alone, they may indeed be a legitimate object for our faith; but that will depend on the evidence in each particular case. The Church does not propose them to us as part of her message. It is true that in certain cases she has given her approbation to certain private revelations. This, however, only signifies:

that there is nothing in them contrary to the Catholic Faith or to the moral law, and,

that there are sufficient indications of their truth to justify the faithful*

So revelation “directed to the whole Church” has ended. Correct?

If you mean ‘revelation “directed to the whole Church”’ as the Revelation (capital T) that formed the Deposit of Faith, then it is correct, because Revelation has ended; there will be NO new ones.

Peter and the Apostles received revelation “directed to the whole Church.” Correct?

The Revelation they received that formed the Deposit of Faith, yes, correct. Mainly these Revelations were revealed to them by Jesus Christ in person.

However, Peter and the Apostles also received revelation (your term) and inspiration (our term for the sake of this discussion) from time to time, from the Holy Spirit, to help them making decisions.

This may need further elaboration, if needed.

It would also seem my interpretation of my hypothetical is exactly correct. The Pope cannot receive corporate revelation because he can only receive “private revelation” and not revelation “directed to the whole Church.”

Correction: There is no further Revelations other than contained in the Deposit of Faith, that is, in the Scripture and the Tradition of the Apostles (which are explained in the Magisterium).

Private revelations (see explanation as in New Advent above), though private, where applicable, can be the messages for the whole Church since they are authentically from God which do not contradict public Revelation or the Deposit of Faith. This is a way how the Holy Spirit guides the Church.

Can anyone acknowledge that this section from the Catholic Encyclopedia vindicates my position in multiple ways and undermines many of the statements made by others here?

Hope the above helps.

I am truly not crazy and I can read as good as the next guy. Denying that “corporate revelation” has ended is an error put forth by numerous Catholics on this thread.

You are introducing terms, your words, which do not fit into Catholic belief. You are definitely not crazy, just making a simple discussion difficult.

I quote SteveVH post which I think what you really want to know on this subject:

SteveVH:

We will have no further revelation, but we will continue to be guided by Jesus through the Holy Spirit as he has not ceased building his Church.

God bless.

Reuben.

 

[Stephen168]

Careful here, part of this equivocation game that is being played here is that personal inspiration within LDS terminology is different than personal revelation. The LDS have about as many terms dividing up revelation as the Eskimos have for snow (the example is hyperbole, but hopefully the point is understood).

LDS Personal Inspiration = being moved by the spirit to get up and give your testimony during the Fast and Testimony Meeting. Another example would be inspiration to call someone only to find out that they were in need.

LDS Personal Revelation = this means the same as what is being spoken about here and how Catholics understand it.

While the terms may be used interchangeably in most Christian denominations they are not by the LDS. Part of the communication problem here is that the OP is not speaking in terms familiar to Catholics and vice versa.

You have to understand, in the LDS church the “prophet/seer/revelator/translator” is the head of the church and is called “President” much like a CEO. The very feel of attending an LDS service is corporate in nature. My wife has often compared them sitting in board meeting at work. So it’s really of no surprise that he is trying to understand the Catholic church through that paradigm.

This misunderstanding in terms seems to me to be intentional on Tom’s part. He is using revelation in a way never used in Christianity, but used in Mormonism. In a way that presupposes that Christ started a Church and left a Prophet to rule over the Church. A prophet who writes scripture and receives revelation.

So when a Catholic says The Pope does not receive revelation, he ays “ah ha, see there has been a change.” When in reality there has been no change at all. The Catholic Church is the same as it has been since Christ started it.

Tom also doesn’t understand how the Catechism of the Catholic Church used the word, “inspiration” and doesn’t seem to care to know. Mainly because he typed the Catholic use of the word inspiration into his post #73 and still claims to not understand it.

I can see by your explanation of LDS person inspiration how a Mormon would be confused, but Tom has claimed he is seeking understanding. And I’ve tried to explain it to him, so I think his ignorance is intentional on the matter as well.

Considering all that has been explained on this thread, If I was Tom, I’d be embarrassed by his post #109

 

[XuDan]

This misunderstanding in terms seems to me to be intentional on Tom’s part. He is using revelation in a way never used in Christianity, but used in Mormonism. In a way that presupposes that Christ started a Church and left a Prophet to rule over the Church. A prophet who writes scripture and receives revelation

That’s why I suggested caution in words used interchangeably within the broader scope of Christianity,because they are not used interchangeably by the LDS and we are seeing a grade A example of the issues it causes in interdenominational dialogue.

So when a Catholic says The Pope does not receive revelation, he ays “ah ha, see there has been a change.” When in reality there has been no change at all. The Catholic Church is the same as it has been since Christ started it.

This is because the intention is not to understand Catholicism as a Catholic does, instead, the intention is to understand it as a Mormon so that the second phase of fault finding and nitpicking can occur. This is a common practice in proselytizing, speak in familiar terms, redefine them, so that others come to see things your way and not their way. It’s called High definition,which is a type of arbitrary redefinition that takes a broad term and narrows it down with the intention of excluding things that normally are included. It is often mixed with a low redefinition with is the exact opposite, magnifying the scope of the definition to include things that it should not. You think X equals Y and Z,but it only means Y and W means Z. This way they now control the terms and thus the conversation. It is equivocation is a logical boobytrap which is defined as “a linguistic snare which is not itself fallacious, but may cause someone to inadvertently commit a fallacy.” More can be read about that here (link).

Tom also doesn’t understand how the Catechism of the Catholic Church used the word, “inspiration” and doesn’t seem to care to know. Mainly because he typed the Catholic use of the word inspiration into his post #73 and still claims to not understand it.

As you pointed out, “doesn’t seem to care to know,” is correct. It seems there is more of an interest in telling Catholics what they believe than asking them and learning what they believe. That is my observation.

I can see by your explanation of LDS person inspiration how a Mormon would be confused, but Tom has claimed he is seeking understanding. And I’ve tried to explain it to him, so I think his ignorance is intentional on the matter as well.

There is no ignorance here, just an endgame, it is all a means to an end which his why I encourage people not to play the game.

Considering all that has been explained on this thread, If I was Tom, I’d be embarrassed by his post #109

Let me restate something I said earlier, the OP has an understanding from a source author. The OP is not interested in any other understanding from other sources, because the OP finds their understanding of the source author to be more credible, and refuses to entertain the premise that their understanding of the source author could be in anyway flawed. I suspect that this is not done in ignorance, but, because there is an agenda. That agenda seems clearly stated in post #98 and can be see below (emphasis mine).

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.

That is the actual agenda, the dialogue is under the premise of understanding the catholic catholic position so that it can be attacked. Anything that undermines the ability to attack the position will be nitpicked and debated until it can be attacked.

 

[Telstar]

Careful here, part of this equivocation game that is being played here is that personal inspiration within LDS terminology is different than personal revelation. The LDS have about as many terms dividing up revelation as the Eskimos have for snow (the example is hyperbole, but hopefully the point is understood).

I’m well aware that they have their own definitions of religious terminology that are, sometimes, completely different from Catholic usage. I usually like to post Dictionary definitions to make sure they agree to the proper usage that I’m referring to. Perhaps I should have done that, already, to be sure we’re on the same page. But, it seems to be such a waste of time to have to resort to teaching someone elementary vocabulary just to have a conversation, particularly when dealing with adults that should already know the definitions of simple words. It’s frustrating.

LDS Personal Inspiration = being moved by the spirit to get up and give your testimony during the Fast and Testimony Meeting. Another example would be inspiration to call someone only to find out that they were in need.

Yeah, that first part certainly isn’t my definition. To me, personal inspiration is those little interior promptings of the Holy Spirit that tell me that I should pray for someone that might need it at that particular time, or when I feel like I should call someone to see how they’re doing, and find out they really needed to talk to someone. Of course those are very minor occurrences, but that’s the kind of thing that I see as ‘inspirations’. Sometimes, I might be inspired to write something about a certain subject, and when I read it again, I’m actually surprised by what I wrote. That seems to happen to me a lot. The only time I’ve ever gotten up during Mass was to sing (either in my pew or in the choir). I don’t think I’d ever be prompted to get up during Mass to “give my testimony”.

LDS Personal Revelation = this means the same as what is being spoken about here and how Catholics understand it.

While the terms may be used interchangeably in most Christian denominations they are not by the LDS. Part of the communication problem here is that the OP is not speaking in terms familiar to Catholics and vice versa.

I have run into the problems of “Mormon speak” many times on this forum, and elsewhere. The Mormon speak is strong in ‘this one’, for sure.

You have to understand, in the LDS church the “prophet/seer/revelator/translator” is the head of the church and is called “President” much like a CEO. The very feel of attending an LDS service is corporate in nature. My wife has often compared them sitting in board meeting at work. So it’s really of no surprise that he is trying to understand the Catholic church through that paradigm.

I do understand that. Actually, it’s not surprising because there is a very fine line between the LDS church and LDS financial ventures. That has been the cause of much debate in the past, as to whether or not they should be defined as a religious entity or a business, for tax purposes. So, it’s that kind of mindset that makes them assume every other church must also have that same kind of structure, but it couldn’t be further from the truth with the Catholic Church.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I think TOm has made his purpose clear in post #98. Emphasis mine.

As I said, Tom is giving a performance.