Revelation: Yea or Nah and Why?

[Stephen168]

As I said, Tom is giving a performance.

This is helpful.
I read his post #109 as dialogue and was honestly embarrassed for him. But thinking of it as theater it makes more sense. Any response to his posts are just another heckler and the play continues uninterrupted.

 

[RebeccaJ]

His audience is TK, is what I deduce.

As pointed out already, the interest in Catholic truth is a ruse. The interest is justifying Mormonism, and if that has to be done by using Catholic teaching in a distorted manner, no problem for Mormons. It is what they’ve done since Joseph Smith.

Why I said, don’t give the devil his due.

Or, as my dad would tell me, don’t take any wooden nickels.

 

[TOmNossor]

LivingWaters and Stephen168 and many other posters,
You have insisted upon a definition for “public revelation” in contrast to the definition that I have said Catholics have always used. I have equated “public revelation” with “corporate revelation” (not to imply that the Catholic Church is a corporation - do I even need to say this - but to indicate “public revelation” is “directed to the whole Church.”)
In my quote from last night, the Catholic Encyclopedia (written in 1917 and online since 1997) not only made clear that my definition was the one they used, but also made clear that the first part of my thesis (regardless of what term you used for “public revelation”) was entirely correct. That is that the Catholic Church teaches that there is no more revelation “directed to the whole Church.” That revelation “directed to the whole church” ended with the death of the last apostle.
Stephen168 has now quoted that post and continued to assert that that I still do not know what I am talking about.
A handful of posters have said that I have lifted Patrick Madrid’s comments out of context, misquoted Patrick Madrid, or Patrick Madrid is/was just wrong. Now we can add the Catholic Encyclopedia to the list of outside of this thread Catholic resources that support my OP. It has been 8 pages where I have been told I do not know what I am talking about. After my quoting of the Catholic Encyclopedia it has continued. Will you now say the Catholic Encyclopedia also misunderstands the Catholic faith?
Here is the quote 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

This quote by itself makes the point I have been offering for 8 pages.
I have never said, the Catholic should believe the Catholic Church was abandoned by God, I have never said the Catholic should believe the Holy Spirit is not active in the leadership of the Catholic Church. Some of the last 8 pages have been about accusing me of saying this and me denying that it is true. I have not said it!

Peter received revelation “direct to the whole Church.”
The Pope cannot receive revelation “direct to the whole Church.”
I have been saying this for 8 pages and have been told I do not understand the Catholic faith, I am following the devil, I am only interested in “performance,”

I would very much like to receive some confirmation that I have well explained the Catholic faith for the last 8 pages in contrast to many on this thread.
Alternatively, we can discuss if the Catholic Encyclopedia is also wrong in its understanding.
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

Public revelation is catholic revelation. Universal, not just for the church but for everyone.

 

[Stephen168]

You have insisted upon a definition for “public revelation” in contrast to the definition that I have said Catholics have always used. I have equated “public revelation” with “corporate revelation” (not to imply that the Catholic Church is a corporation - do I even need to say this - but to indicate “public revelation” is “directed to the whole Church.”)

We have insisted on the Catholic definition of public revelation. You have not given a succinct explanation of your understanding of Catholic public revelation until now. You are now claiming that when you say “corporate revelation” you mean what a Catholic would mean by public revelation. Yes, Jesus Christ was public revelation, He is the Word of God, the second person of the trinity; God. God gave the world his revelation (deposit of faith) in the words of Jesus Christ.

In my quote from last night, the Catholic Encyclopedia (written in 1917 and online since 1997) not only made clear that my definition was the one they used, but also made clear that the first part of my thesis (regardless of what term you used for “public revelation”) was entirely correct. That is that the Catholic Church teaches that there is no more revelation “directed to the whole Church.” That revelation “directed to the whole church” ended with the death of the last apostle.

Jesus Christ taught all his disciples, so yes he gave revelation is his whole Church.

A handful of posters have said that I have lifted Patrick Madrid’s comments out of context, misquoted Patrick Madrid, or Patrick Madrid is/was just wrong. Now we can add the Catholic Encyclopedia to the list of outside of this thread Catholic resources that support my OP.

Your OP suggested that Simon Peter was a Christian Prophet and no Pope after him was a Prophet; and Patrick Madrid’s quote supports that view. You were wrong. Christianity has NEVER had a prophet. See posts #90, 107, 110, and 112.
Most posters said they would reserve comment until they could see the quote in context which you provided in post #73.
I explained what I thought Patrick Madrid meant in post #90 but you choose to ignore it.

Peter received revelation “direct to the whole Church.”
The Pope cannot receive revelation “direct to the whole Church.”
I have been saying this for 8 pages and have been told I do not understand the Catholic faith, I am following the devil, I am only interested in “performance,”
I would very much like to receive some confirmation that I have well explained the Catholic faith for the last 8 pages in contrast to many on this thread.

You have not explained the Catholic faith for the last 8 pages. See Posts #90, 107, 110, and 112.

 

[TOmNossor]

Public revelation is catholic revelation. Universal, not just for the church but for everyone.

This was denied earlier in this thread by you. And not by saying that “public revelation” is revelation for the whole world rather than revelation for the Church. You and LivingWaters insisted upon a definition of “public revelation” as revelation that ended and is all that is necessary for salvation (and you excluded the component of the definition that is “directed to the whole Church.”) The Catholic Encyclopedia says “directed to the whole Church,” but I agree here “whole Church” and “whole world” are interchangeable. Here is the exchange where you and LivingWaters and Stephen claim I use the term wrong:

LivingWaters7;12843907:

The first issue would be defining “public revelation”. Please establish that your definition of public revelation ("revelation for the corporate leading / teaching of the church

.") is the definition that is being used by Catholics. To me, it is not, and is therefore the foundational problem with your argument.

Others can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that “public revelation” is referring to the Deposit of Faith, all that is necessary for salvation. You can find this definition reflected here, here, and in the Catechism definition of public vs private revelation, stating that private revelation does not belong to the Deposit of Faith. Catholics believe that the Deposit of Faith is complete, and nothing else will be added to it. As you can see, your definition of public revelation is not the Catholic understanding.
…

Yes, the opening argument is a strawman. Good reply.

I responded:

LivingWaters and Rebecca,
Thank you for your reply.
First, I read your two links that you use to derive the Catholic specific definition of “public revelation.” I do not dispute any aspect of that definition, I just expect that the term “public revelation” when contrasted with “private revelation” contains a connotation similar to the one I offer IN ADDITION to the “inside baseball” definition you insist upon.

Stephen168 then quotes my passage and accuses me of dishonesty for trying to use the definition of Public Revelation that you and LivingWaters claim is flawed.

TOmNossor;12844345:

LivingWaters and Rebecca,
Thank you for your reply.
First, I read your two links that you use to derive the Catholic specific definition of “public revelation.” I do not dispute any aspect of that definition, I just expect that the term “public revelation” when contrasted with “private revelation” contains a connotation similar to the one I offer IN ADDITION to the “inside baseball” definition you insist upon.

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.

Later I came even closer to words used by the Catholic Encyclopedia:

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.

RuebenJ then quotes these words and says:

TOmNossor;12844591:

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.

I promised that if my research indicated that I was wrong in my understanding I would return and offer a “Mea Culpa.” My research has supported my understanding IMO. I see little way this can be a difficulty with terms, but I really do not care. Just say, “lets ignore the earlier part of this thread and move forward from here, using the definition of ‘Public Revelation’ offered from the Catholic Encyclopedia.”
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

This was denied earlier in this thread by you. And not by saying that “public revelation” is revelation for the whole world rather than revelation for the Church. You and LivingWaters insisted upon a definition of “public revelation” as revelation that ended and is all that is necessary for salvation (and you excluded the component of the definition that is “directed to the whole Church.”) The Catholic Encyclopedia says “directed to the whole Church,” but I agree here “whole Church” and “whole world” are interchangeable. Here is the exchange where you and LivingWaters and Stephen claim I use the term wrong:

I responded:

Stephen168 then quotes my passage and accuses me of dishonesty for trying to use the definition of Public Revelation that you and LivingWaters claim is flawed.

Later I came even closer to words used by the Catholic Encyclopedia:

RuebenJ then quotes these words and says:

I promised that if my research indicated that I was wrong in my understanding I would return and offer a “Mea Culpa.” My research has supported my understanding IMO. I see little way this can be a difficulty with terms, but I really do not care. Just say, “lets ignore the earlier part of this thread and move forward from here, using the definition of ‘Public Revelation’ offered from the Catholic Encyclopedia.”
Charity, TOm

You ignore most of my posts, which aren’t meant to preach but to put public revelation in context of the whole.

I already said, I agree with your point, and, what I don’t agree with is your conclusions and your premise.

You’re still churning on something that I see as settled.

LW7 also already asked, what is public revelation, what is private revelation, what is inspiration. You’ve put a premise to these Catholic concepts that redefine them, using the terms with a Mormon definition. Which, is understandable since you are Mormon. But until you address them with Catholic eyes, your conclusions and premises about Catholicism are off.

Public revelation is for everyone. You, me, our neighborhoods, cities, states, nations. All people. In context of the Church, it is for the baptized, but being universal, it is not only for the baptized.

 

[Stephen168]

Just say, “lets ignore the earlier part of this thread and move forward from here, using the definition of ‘Public Revelation’ offered from the Catholic Encyclopedia.”

You’ve been doing a lot of ignoring in this thread as I said in post #125 and I expect that you will continue.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Tom, the main point we get stuck on is that we’re discussing Public Revelation and the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Particularly you focus on the the charism of the Pope.

I already said, way back on page one, that Patrick Madrid was referencing Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, which is the Deposit of Faith, which is Public Revelation, which is JESUS CHRIST.

What I see as your argument, is this means that the Holy Spirit cannot inspire the Pope and all our Bishops to lead the Church. Which, is not what it means. Not to a Catholic. The Holy Spirit provides inspiration in leading the Church to all truth. And I already said if you don’t want to call this Public Revelation, I’m fine with that. I’m fine with it because the Public Revelation is Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit inspires all towards Him, including the Church, so any inspiration from the Holy Spirit is a participation in the one Public Revelation of Jesus Christ.

The Holy Spirit is not going to inspire something different from Jesus Christ, aka, a new public revelation.

So it is we live in freedom, in the Revelation of Jesus Christ, not seeking any more than Him to be bound to.

 

[rinnie]

While I agree yes there will be no new revelation, anotherwords God told us all we need to hear and know.

With that said, God did not reveal to us the true meaning of all that he taught us. It will be revealed slowing and when we are ready to hear it through the RCC.

He said he would send the Advocate the Holy Spirit to teach and preach the good news.

So there are times you can ask the Church, even the Pope what something means that is written in the bible. And until it is revealed through the Holy Spirit to him, we will not know.

But we do know there is a answer and God will reveal it when he is ready to reveal it.

Like why do people suffer? We can give you some answers that we have had revealed to us, but not all.

We only know that when there is a truth to be revealed it will be revealed to the Church through the Holy Spirit the Advocate as Christ has promised.

If you look through time the Church has shown when it has been revealing more and more though time as the Holy Spirit choose to reveal.

I think what you are getting confused is while there is no new revelation, there is a continuing teaching of prior revelation, done by the Holy Spirit.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Just one more thing…

Infallibility is limited to faith and morals because these are the things that keep us centered on Christ. The Holy Spirit will not lead us from faith in Christ, but always towards Him. The Holy Spirit will not lead us from the love of God, into sin, but always towards Him. The charism of infallibility is a description of an action of the Holy Spirit, who leads us towards Christ, not away from Him.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Oh yeah, and mathematics, does not lead us to or from Christ. ie, if you don’t know you’re times tables, you aren’t sinning and you aren’t demonstrating a lack of faith in God. If you do know the right math answers, that won’t gain you heaven.

 

[TOmNossor]

RebeccaJ and Stephen168,

You ignore most of my posts, which aren’t meant to preach but to put public revelation in context of the whole.
I already said, I agree with your point, and, what I don’t agree with is your conclusions and your premise.

I did miss this “I agree” unless you mean post: #124
I was not trying to ignore though sorry.

Your OP suggested that Simon Peter was a Christian Prophet and no Pope after him was a Prophet; and Patrick Madrid’s quote supports that view. You were wrong. Christianity has NEVER had a prophet. See posts #90, 107, 110, and 112.

I reread through 90,107, 110, and 112.
All of my insistence that “public revelation” = “corporate revelation” = “revelation to be given to the whole church”=“revelation … directed to the whole Church.” was in response to you and others saying what you said in those 4 posts.
Now, my OP did not say Simon Peter was a “Christian Prophet,” but perhaps we can move on.

Here is what I claim is “the condition:”
The Pope today cannot receive “revelation to be given to the whole church.”
The Apostles (including but not limited to Peter, and Including Paul and some others in the New Testament) received “revelation to be given to the whole church.” The Council of Jerusalem was decided via “revelation to be given to the whole church.” The Old Testament Prophets received “revelation to be given to the whole church.” The apostles continued to receive “revelation to be given to the whole church” after Christ’s ascension. The apostles received “revelation to be given to the whole church” through direct inspiration from the Holy Ghost not just through conversations/witnessing of Christ.

Today a Catholic believes that the Pope leads the Christian Church (the entire world as He is the Vicar of Christ) guided by the Holy Ghost. Two things Catholics teach about this guidance is that it is not via “revelation to be given to the whole church” and that the charism of infallibility protects him and the church from teaching error, “from the chair of Peter,” “concerning faith and morals,” and … This protection does not happen via positive inspiration/revelation but rather facts are derived via intellectual study and learning and if promulgated are protected from error by the charism of infallibility. The church moves towards greater understanding of the “public revelation” guided by the Holy Spirit and protected from error, but does not receive “revelation to be given to the whole church” as it moves towards this greater truth.
I submit that Catholics believe that God now leads via a Charism that involves the preserving of truth not via positive inspiration/revelation. Why? Is there any “public revelation” to be “given to the whole church” that explains that this “preserving of truth” would be the new way after such and such an event (presumably John’s death). Is there something from sacred Tradition that explains this is the new way? I think Clement of Alexandria (in the 3rd century) observed that revelation had ended during the first century, but he seems to be reporting as an observer of facts not as a documenter of “oral Tradition.”
Hope these make sense now.
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

Public Revelation is Jesus Christ, and is not going to be changed or added to. So no, the Pope and Bishops will not being giving new Public Revelation. If they did, we’d know to ignore them. (Also why we know to ignore Joseph Smith…new gospel and all that.)

The Pope and the Bishops do lead the Church, with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The Council at Jerusalem in an example of the Church being guided, not of new revelation.

The Apostles, are who received the Public Revelation of Jesus Christ and were inspired to teach the Gospel, including putting it in writing. Were you there? No. How do you know about this Revelation: the Apostles and the Church that Christ established. The Church that canonized that writings of the Apostles as Scripture and with Sacred Tradition, what was taught by the Apostles but not written, is in the Church that Christ established.

I don’t know how many times or ways this can be said.

 

[TOmNossor]

Rinnie,
Thank you for your post. I am hoping to not be confused, but I am trying to make an observation that IMO should challenge Catholics. This observation must first be a true Catholic observation however.

But we do know there is a answer and God will reveal it when he is ready to reveal it.

I do not think you should say this like this.
Public Revelation = Revelation to be given to the whole church.
The Catholic should believe that the Church is guided towards all truth through the Holy Spirit, but the Catholic should not believe that this guidance involves “revelation to be given to the whole church.” Catholic authors explain how Papal Infallibility works and do so while specifically denying that the Pope receives “revelation to be given to the whole church.” Catholic authors explain that the Pope can intellectually learn something and that if/when this developed knowledge is “given to the whole church” it is infallibility protected by the Charism of Infallibility in very specific instances. But these Catholic authors are very clear that what is to be “given to the whole church” is not “revelation to be given to the whole church” because such is precluded in Catholic understanding.
So, I do not think you should say that “God will reveal it (an answer to a question asked of the Pope) when he is ready to reveal it.” God may reveal an answer to the Pope for the Pope’s personal edification, but God cannot reveal an answer to the Pope for the purpose of the Pope then presenting this revelation “to the whole church.”
This is my premise and I understand it requires very specific words. Catholic authors have been carefully developing these words for centuries because Catholics and non-Catholics have found contradictions when the words are not carefully offered.
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

The answers are part of the Revelation of Jesus Christ. NOT AN ADDITION OR SOMETHING NEW.

Truth does not change, is not added to, or diminished by what we understand.

Catholic speak of revelation in terms of revealing Christ. Time and circumstances make it necessary to address questions or issues.

Do we circumcise…how is that answered in the Revelation of Jesus Christ?
Do we use artificial birth control…how is that answered in the Revelation of Jesus Christ?
Do we believe Jesus is divine?..how is that answered in the Revelation of Jesus Christ?

All answers for question of faith and morals are found in the Revelation of Jesus Christ. When we say God will reveal something to us now, it is always: what does the Revelation of Jesus Christ tells us the answer is? The Spirit guides us, and the Church, to Him, what is revealed is Christ. Our understanding grows in the Spirit. He is not hidden and never has been.

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie,
Thank you for your post. I am hoping to not be confused, but I am trying to make an observation that IMO should challenge Catholics. This observation must first be a true Catholic observation however.

I do not think you should say this like this.
Public Revelation = Revelation to be given to the whole church.
The Catholic should believe that the Church is guided towards all truth through the Holy Spirit, but the Catholic should not believe that this guidance involves “revelation to be given to the whole church.” Catholic authors explain how Papal Infallibility works and do so while specifically denying that the Pope receives “revelation to be given to the whole church.” Catholic authors explain that the Pope can intellectually learn something and that if/when this developed knowledge is “given to the whole church” it is infallibility protected by the Charism of Infallibility in very specific instances. But these Catholic authors are very clear that what is to be “given to the whole church” is not “revelation to be given to the whole church” because such is precluded in Catholic understanding.
So, I do not think you should say that “God will reveal it (an answer to a question asked of the Pope) when he is ready to reveal it.” God may reveal an answer to the Pope for the Pope’s personal edification, but God cannot reveal an answer to the Pope for the purpose of the Pope then presenting this revelation “to the whole church.”
This is my premise and I understand it requires very specific words. Catholic authors have been carefully developing these words for centuries because Catholics and non-Catholics have found contradictions when the words are not carefully offered.
Charity, TOm

I really don’t understand what you are saying and I am not sure you understand what I am saying. So let me say it in a different way.

There are thing’s that are truths that are given, the Church is not just a Church where Priests etc teach us old things. The Church is continuing teaching things that WERE revealed by the Power of the HOLY SPIRIT and will continue to be revealed by the Power of the Holy Spirit.

The Pope has the authority to speak in 2 ways. On his own. And he also has the Power to speak in the voice of Christ.

If the Pope right this second speaks in the name of the Holy Spirit, it is indeed the true word of God and must be obeyed.

No one can do this EXCEPT the Pope. He can do it ALONE or with the Bishops.

But here is my largest point, the RCC is a continuing teaching Church. Nothing NEW will be taught, but as time goes on what Christ HAS taught becomes CLEARER by the Power of the Holy Spirit.

Christ told us EVERYTHING that we need to know, he left NOTHING out. But as time goes on our understanding of what he taught becomes more and more easier for us to see and understand.

But it is by the teaching of the Pope and his Church where the truth lies.

Example. God taught that sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin. I don’t care who tells you it is acceptable, the Church teaches and will always teach it is a mortal sin.

God taught sex with same sex partners is a abomination, and forbidden by the Church to marry. You will never see this in the RCC because it is protected by the Holy Spirit to be the Pilar of all Truth.

Another Church can claim to be led by the same Holy Spirit and claim same sex marriage is the word of God. They have no authority to do this. The Pope has authority to teach and preach in the name of God and will never say it is permitted by God, because the Holy Spirit does not allow this to be taught.

It is by their works in where the truth will be revealed to you. The Holy Spirit promises to lead the RCC into all truth until the end of age.

 

[Stephen168]

Now, my OP did not say Simon Peter was a “Christian Prophet,” but perhaps we can move on.

We will see.

Here is what I claim is “the condition:”
The Pope today cannot receive “revelation to be given to the whole church.”

Because they did not walk with Christ Reread post 90,107, 110, and 112.

The Apostles (including but not limited to Peter, and Including Paul and some others in the New Testament) received “revelation to be given to the whole church.”

Because they did walked with Christ, the revelation, the Word of God.

The Council of Jerusalem was decided via “revelation to be given to the whole church.”

False. It was decided by a gathering of the Bishops of the Church. Just like the Council of Nicaea or Vatican II.

The Old Testament Prophets received “revelation to be given to the whole church.”

Christ started his Church, so there was no Church for Old Testament Prophets to give revelation to.

The apostles continued to receive “revelation to be given to the whole church” after Christ’s ascension.

No. Revelation, the Word, left his revelation (deposit of faith) with his disciples.

The apostles received “revelation to be given to the whole church” through direct inspiration from the Holy Ghost not just through conversations/witnessing of Christ.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, and Paul received inspiration from God, the third person of the trinity, the Holy Spirit, to write scripture. Not all Apostles received inspiration.

I think you need to align “the condition” to reality before “we can move on.”

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie,
Thank you for your post. I am hoping to not be confused, but I am trying to make an observation that IMO should challenge Catholics. This observation must first be a true Catholic observation however.

I do not think you should say this like this.
Public Revelation = Revelation to be given to the whole church.
The Catholic should believe that the Church is guided towards all truth through the Holy Spirit, but the Catholic should not believe that this guidance involves “revelation to be given to the whole church.” Catholic authors explain how Papal Infallibility works and do so while specifically denying that the Pope receives “revelation to be given to the whole church.” Catholic authors explain that the Pope can intellectually learn something and that if/when this developed knowledge is “given to the whole church” it is infallibility protected by the Charism of Infallibility in very specific instances. But these Catholic authors are very clear that what is to be “given to the whole church” is not “revelation to be given to the whole church” because such is precluded in Catholic understanding.
So, I do not think you should say that “God will reveal it (an answer to a question asked of the Pope) when he is ready to reveal it.” God may reveal an answer to the Pope for the Pope’s personal edification, but God cannot reveal an answer to the Pope for the purpose of the Pope then presenting this revelation “to the whole church.”
This is my premise and I understand it requires very specific words. Catholic authors have been carefully developing these words for centuries because Catholics and non-Catholics have found contradictions when the words are not carefully offered.
Charity, TOm

I read again what you said, and have never heard where the Pope hides truth from the RCC.

Could you show me where the Church teaches this?

 

[Stephen168]

Your OP suggested

that Simon Peter was a Christian Prophet and no Pope after him was a Prophet; and Patrick Madrid’s quote supports that view. You were wrong. Christianity has NEVER had a prophet. See posts #90, 107, 110, and 112.
TOmNossor;12850955:

Now, my OP did not say

Simon Peter was a “Christian Prophet,”…I didn’t say you said it. I said you suggested it. And you are still suggesting it as I said in post #107.