Revelation: Yea or Nah and Why?

[TOmNossor]

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. Were you there? No. How do you know about this Revelation: the Apostles and the Church that Christ established.
I don’t know how many times or ways this can be said.

Rebecca,
Some of your post says nothing I don’t think Catholic do and should believe. But it is not responding to my post.
If it is important to you for other reasons, I can point to what I think the Bible makes clear concerning the “Council of Jerusalem” and what I infer (contra what you state) from Patrick Madrid’s comment upon “inspiration” for the Pope.
My post however builds upon what we now agree on completely.
Peter received revelation to be delivered to the entire church.
The Pope does not receive revelation to be delivered to the entire church.
Why?
And is there any revealed truth that explains that while God revealed truths to human church leaders throughout the Old and New Testaments including for many years after Christ’s ascension, He would from the death of John or … NOW lead the church by protecting the deposit of faith via some non-revelation principle (maybe Papal or Conciliar infallibility).
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Peter received revelation to be delivered to the entire church.
The Pope does not receive revelation to be delivered to the entire church.
Why?

The second person of the triune God, Jesus Christ, the Word, and Revelation no longer walks the earth.

 

[TOmNossor]

Stephen,
Thank you for attempting to deal with my thesis.
I will point to an error in your attempt that I see. Perhaps you will agree and make a modification.

TOmNossor;12850955:

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.

No, you have misunderstood the Bible. Paul did not walk with Christ. Paul received “revelation to be given to the whole church,” but he did not walk with Christ. Paul without walking with Christ according to Catholic teaching still possesses the ability to receive “revelation to be given to the whole church” that the Pope lacks.
I can take some correction from the rest of your post (the place where I am most convinced I misspoke was in calling the Old Testament Judaism a “Church.”).
I do believe the words of the Bible support “direct revelation” as the source of the Council of Jerusalem’s decision, but part of my reason for believing this were I Catholic is that “direct revelation to be given to the whole church” was POSSIBLE then and is not now.
I am not correct to call the Old Testament people of God a church proper. Would you not agree with me that Moses received “revelation to be given to the whole” WORLD? Or if not that Moses received “revelation to be given to the whole” body of God’s chosen people?
Next, I am not sure why it is important to you to distinguish the “plenary inspiration” given to the authors of the New Testament from “revelation to be given to the whole church” but are you saying that the words authored by Peter and Paul were not “Public Revelation” received via direct POSITIVE inspiration the type that definitions of Papal Infallibility carefully deny?
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

The second person of the triune God, Jesus Christ, the Word, and Revelation no longer walks the earth.

Peter’s vision in Acts 10 came long after Jesus walked the earth.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

No, you have misunderstood the Bible. Paul did not walk with Christ. Paul received “revelation to be given to the whole church,” but he did not walk with Christ. Paul without walking with Christ according to Catholic teaching still possesses the ability to receive “revelation to be given to the whole church” that the Pope lacks.

My first thought is that Paul was never a Pope which supports my claim; the gifts of the Holy Spirit are not unique to the Papacy.
My second thought is that Paul was taught the deposit of faith by the Twelve and other Christians, Paul did not receive public revelation.

I do believe the words of the Bible support “direct revelation” as the source of the Council of Jerusalem’s decision, but part of my reason for believing this were I Catholic is that “direct revelation to be given to the whole church” was POSSIBLE then and is not now.

I do not read in the Bible anything about public revelation in regard to the Council of Jerusalem.
It is very dishonest of you to say, “were I Catholic is that “direct revelation to be given to the whole church” was POSSIBLE then and is not now.” Because the whole point of this thread is Catholic, after Catholic, after Catholic telling you the opposite of that.

I am not correct to call the Old Testament people of God a church proper. Would you not agree with me that Moses received “revelation to be given to the whole” WORLD? Or if not that Moses received “revelation to be given to the whole” body of God’s chosen people?

Jesus Christ started a Church and they are Christians. The people you are talking about are Jews. Muslims also worship the same God, but they are not Christian either.

Next, I am not sure why it is important to you to distinguish the “plenary inspiration” given to the authors of the New Testament from “revelation to be given to the whole church” but are you saying that the words authored by Peter and Paul were not “Public Revelation” received via direct POSITIVE inspiration the type that definitions of Papal Infallibility carefully deny?

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and Peter were inspired to write, and hundreds of years later the Magisterium was inspired to select their writings. Revelation is Jesus Christ the living Word of God who gave us the deposit of faith.

Peter’s vision in Acts 10 came long after Jesus walked the earth.

Yep, and nothing was added to the deposit of faith. Paul also had a vision but nothing was added to the deposit of faith. Catholics have visions all the time, but we hold onto the deposit of faith.

 

[eddie_too]

of course all of the twelve apostles received Direct and Public Revelation. they all spent approximately three years, twenty-four seven with the Incarnate Word with a primary purpose of being taught the truth about reality. revelation does not get any more direct and public than spending three years with the Source of Perfect Revelation.

so, all twelve received Divine Revelation in a manner no other human beings, except Mary and Joseph, received.

however, what occurred after the Lord’s Ascension is not properly called divine revelation or public revelation or direct revelation. it is more aptly called divine inspiration provided through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit within the Roman Catholic Church.

everything Jesus said and did is Public and Divine and Direct Revelation. and, unlike the revelation experienced by the O.T. prophets, the Revelation that is the Incarnation is both complete and perfect. after the Ascension, there was NOTHING LEFT TO BE REVEALED. but there was much left to be more deeply understood and applied. in fact, all of the perfect and complete revelation that was the Lord’s life and teachings was left to be more deeply understood and applied.

it seems as though this whole thing is about defining words. for a catholic, there are no new revelations to be revealed. all was revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ. to a catholic, it is obvious that the Person of Jesus Christ becomes more real and understandable through faith, repentance, prayer, almsgiving, charitable acts, the seven sacraments and study. so, whatever you read and understand about revelation, only the two facts that Divine, Public Revelation ended with the Ascension. everything that occurs after the Ascension, cannot in catholic terms, properly be called Public Revelation.

 

[eddie_too]

look, if the whole point of tomprossers efforts here are to point out that not all catholics use the precise definitions that he seeks when they speak of revelation, private or public, and inspiration, then I agree completely.

if that is the whole point of the thread, it could have been made quite easily by saying that not all catholics use the exact same definitions of words but instead tend to put the terms in to their own definitions.

however, all catholics would yield there definitions to the teachings of the Church and its definitions.

but, seriously, using all of this time and effort to make the point that all catholics have not received exactly the same education is reasonable?

all you needed to do was say that all catholics do not have the same level of knowledge and understanding of their faith. we know that. we speak to each other all of the time. even the leaders of the Church have disagreements. catholic theologians have made their livings for hundreds of years by discussing the meaning of the Incarnation and everything related to it.

and besides, whatever the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about it is the final word for us regular catholics. i have not read one post from a catholic who said they do not accept the definitions found in the Catechism.

it seems to be that the whole thread is some petty little game of gotcha.

what point is tomprosser trying to make? the fact that no one knows for sure speaks volumes about tomprosser.

 

[Stephen168]

it seems to be that the whole thread is some petty little game of gotcha.

what point is tomprosser trying to make? the fact that no one knows for sure speaks volumes about tomprosser.

I believe I’ve identified Tom’s ultimate “gotcha” in posts 107 and 117.

 

[eddie_too]

if tomprossers point is that the Catechism of the Catholic Church contradicts itself, tell us the paragraphs where this occurs and maybe we can help him understand.

but, do not introduce the works of theologians and commentators and the bible. doing so only serves to muddy the waters because whatever anyone else says, it must be understood, if catholic, in light of the teachings of the Catechism. if it is not catholic, then it says NOTHING reliably true about the teachings of the Church, no matter what the subject.

reading a multitude of sources, finding them confusing and then introducing them into what is claimed to be a discussion of catholic teaching is pointless. the Catchism speaks for the Church. discuss what it teaches, but do not be introducing unofficial sources as though they represented any definitive teachings of the Church. they do not and that includes the Bible and what is found in it.

the whole point of the Church is to preserve and proclaim the truth about Jesus. the whole point of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is to provide a definitive source for understanding the teachings of the Church…

 

[LivingWaters7]

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.

No, we have insisted on the Catholic definition of “public revelation”, and I cited articles that support that definition form the Catholic perspective. “Public revelation” is in reference to the Deposit of Faith, all that is necessary for salvation, which is summated in the Divine person of Jesus Christ. That is the Catholic definition, and you have not demonstrated others.

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.”)

And as we have seen in multiple instances, from multiple Catholic posters in this thread, citing multiple Catholic documents, your definition is not the Catholic definition. Public revelation for Catholics is not in reference to corporate revelation.

Further, we have seen, in multiple quotations from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, an official document of the Catholic Church, that Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church into unfolding the Deposit of Faith, and that the Divine assistance is given to the leaders of the Church in expounding on matters of the Faith. As well, we have seen in Dei Verbum an official document of the Second Vatican Council, that Catholics believe that God continuously converses, to this day, with the Church. That is more than enough to refute your erroneous understanding of the Catholic teaching on “public revelation”.

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.

Here is the post where you cited the Catholic Encyclopedia. Nowhere does it demonstrate that your definition is the one they use. This stems from the fact that you are imposing a Mormon understanding of these terms on how Catholics understand them, which has already been demonstrated as incorrect. Quite amusingly, that very same article supports what I and others have been saying this entire time! From that article:
**
“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.”**

Here is the Catholic definition of “public revelation”, from the very article you cited, and right before the part you referenced. This is what we Catholics have been saying to you this entire time.

So, we see here again the actual fact of the matter from the Catholic perspective, which I will reiterate yet again: Catholics believe that “public revelation”, the Deposit of Faith, is complete. We believe that yes, there are private revelations that are given to individuals, however there is also guidance from God by the Holy Spirit in guiding the unfolding of the Deposit of Faith, furthering our understanding of it, and for our leaders when expounding and defining the Faith. Divine assistance is given to those individuals in that formal defining, including in Ecumenical Councils, which we believe are protected and guided by the Holy Spirit, just like the Council of Jerusalem in the Bible, which we believe was the first Council of the Church (since we’re citing apologists in this thread, check out this article from Dave Armstrong’s website that clearly teaches the continuity between the Jerusalem Council and later Catholic Councils, and that these Councils are led by the Holy Spirit). See the excerpts from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that I have already provided in further support of all of this.

As we see, the Catholic Encyclopedia actually supports what the Catholics in this thread have been saying this whole time.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,
Some of your post says nothing I don’t think Catholic do and should believe. But it is not responding to my post.
If it is important to you for other reasons, I can point to what I think the Bible makes clear concerning the “Council of Jerusalem” and what I infer (contra what you state) from Patrick Madrid’s comment upon “inspiration” for the Pope.
My post however builds upon what we now agree on completely.
Peter received revelation to be delivered to the entire church.
The Pope does not receive revelation to be delivered to the entire church.
Why?
And is there any revealed truth that explains that while God revealed truths to human church leaders throughout the Old and New Testaments including for many years after Christ’s ascension, He would from the death of John or … NOW lead the church by protecting the deposit of faith via some non-revelation principle (maybe Papal or Conciliar infallibility).
Charity, TOm

You still aren’t getting that Christian Revelation is Jesus Christ. Period.

Peter did not deliver Revelation to the entire Church, other than the Revelation of Jesus Christ. Peter TAUGHT this Revelation.

Peter’s vision in Acts 10 does not deliver anything new. He had ALREADY been told by Jesus to teach all nations, kindreds tongues and people. Jesus had already taught, that there is no “other”. Jesus had already taught that who we view as the lowly, the poor, the unclean, is who, as His disciples, we serve.

Peter’s vision was not new revelation. It was for Peter’s benefit, because he was still holding to the law. He was inspired to teach the Revelation of Jesus Christ, as it was delivered, rather than placing Peter’s limitations on Revelation.

As you will recall, the Jew/Gentile question was problematic for Peter again at Antioch, when he refused to eat with gentiles and Paul chastised him for it. Historically speaking, there was a tension that existed at the time, that was resolved by looking to the Revelation of Jesus Christ, and finalized at the Council of Jerusalem.

“Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

Peter here, in Act 15, is referencing entirely the Revelation of Jesus Christ. Not his vision.

 

[TOmNossor]

It is very dishonest of you to say, “were I Catholic is that “direct revelation to be given to the whole church” was POSSIBLE then and is not now.” Because the whole point of this thread is Catholic, after Catholic, after Catholic telling you the opposite of that.

I assure you I was not trying to be dishonest.
Have we not agreed that “direct revelation to be given to the whole church” was possible during the New Testament times and that “direct revelation to be given to the whole church” is impossible today? Indeed per the CCC is impossible until the second coming of Christ?
How am I being dishonest?
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I assure you I was not trying to be dishonest.
Have we not agreed that “direct revelation to be given to the whole church” was possible during the New Testament times and that “direct revelation to be given to the whole church” is impossible today?

Tom, I really think you are embarrassing yourself by asking the same question over and over.

Yes, it was possible in New Testament times because the second person of the triune God, Jesus Christ, the Word, and Revelation walked the earth.

It is not possible today because the second person of the triune God, Jesus Christ, the Word, and Revelation no longer walks the earth.

TOmNossor:

In any case, can you say that you agree that the Catholic Church does not receive “revelation … directed to the whole Church” any longer.

 

[TOmNossor]

No, we have insisted on the Catholic definition of “public revelation”, and I cited articles that support that definition form the Catholic perspective. “Public revelation” is in reference to the Deposit of Faith, all that is necessary for salvation, which is summated in the Divine person of Jesus Christ. That is the Catholic definition, and you have not demonstrated others.

And as we have seen in multiple instances, from multiple Catholic posters in this thread, citing multiple Catholic documents, your definition is not the Catholic definition. Public revelation for Catholics is not in reference to corporate revelation.

Further, we have seen, in multiple quotations from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, an official document of the Catholic Church, that Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church into unfolding the Deposit of Faith, and that the Divine assistance is given to the leaders of the Church in expounding on matters of the Faith. As well, we have seen in Dei Verbum an official document of the Second Vatican Council, that Catholics believe that God continuously converses, to this day, with the Church. That is more than enough to refute your erroneous understanding of the Catholic teaching on “public revelation”.

Here is the post where you cited the Catholic Encyclopedia. Nowhere does it demonstrate that your definition is the one they use. This stems from the fact that you are imposing a Mormon understanding of these terms on how Catholics understand them, which has already been demonstrated as incorrect. Quite amusingly, that very same article supports what I and others have been saying this entire time! From that article:
**
“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.”

Here is the Catholic definition of “public revelation”, from the very article you cited, and right before the part you referenced. This is what we Catholics have been saying to you this entire time.

So, we see here again the actual fact of the matter from the Catholic perspective, which I will reiterate yet again: Catholics believe that “public revelation”, the Deposit of Faith, is complete. We believe that yes, there are private revelations that are given to individuals, however there is also guidance from God by the Holy Spirit in guiding the unfolding of the Deposit of Faith, furthering our understanding of it, and for our leaders when expounding and defining the Faith. Divine assistance is given to those individuals in that formal defining, including in Ecumenical Councils, which we believe are protected and guided by the Holy Spirit, just like the Council of Jerusalem in the Bible, which we believe was the first Council of the Church (since we’re citing apologists in this thread, check out this article from Dave Armstrong’s website that clearly teaches the continuity between the Jerusalem Council and later Catholic Councils, and that these Councils are led by the Holy Spirit). See the excerpts from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that I have already provided in further support of all of this.

As we see, the Catholic Encyclopedia actually supports what the Catholics in this thread have been saying this whole time.

LivingWaters,
You specifically told me that “corporate revelation” is not a component of the definition of “public revelation” as I showed in post #126.
The Catholic Encyclopedia article made it clear that “public revelation” = “corporate revelation” = “revelation to be given to the whole church”=“revelation … directed to the whole Church.” ENDED.
I have read Dave’s website and almost cited it, but he only tacitly agrees with some of the points of James White that I thought were in dispute here.
BTW, my position has never been James White’s position. They agreed upon the points I was trying to make.
And the CCC was first quoted by me and I agreed with all that was said in your extended quote of the CCC (as it applies to what a Catholic should believe).
In any case, can you say that you agree that the Catholic Church does not receive “revelation … directed to the whole Church” any longer.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

RebeccaJ, Stephen168, LivingWaters, rinnie, and others:
I think it is not unreasonable to grant a lot more to me in this discussion than has been done, but it seems such will not be the case. …

The Catholic position (which I knew before starting this thread) is that Public Revelation (revelation to be delivered to the entire church) points to Jesus Christ. It did so when God’s leaders received it in the Old Testament and it did so when Church leaders received it in New Testament. Completion of Public Revelation is the person of Christ and His divine actions as delineated in the New Testament. There is no more “revelation to be delivered to the entire church” after the death of the last apostle because there is nothing more than Christ to know for our salvation (through God’s Church). This completion of revelation however does not mean that the understanding of this revelation would not develop over the centuries. This development is through the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, and infallibility protected via what is called the Charism of Infallibility (the Pope possesses this and the Bishops in union do as well).
Have I missed anything?
Charity, TOm

 

[XuDan]

The Catholic Encyclopedia article made it clear that “public revelation” = “corporate revelation” = “revelation to be given to the whole church”=“revelation … directed to the whole Church.”

Except that “corporate revelation” is non-catholic jargon introduced by you. As has been pointed out this is not a term accepted by Catholics or found within catholic doctrines. You are attempting to get people to accept a term foreign to them. If it really is the “same thing” as you insist then for the purpose of honest and accurate discussion you should have no problem using the term “public revelation” instead of “corporate revelation.” The fact that you are relentless in you insistence to repackage terminology is why people are suspicious of you motives. If looks like a bait and switch and sounds like a bait and switch, it probably is a bait and switch. It certainly feels like a bait and switch. If it is not, then you should have no problem speaking in terms Catholics use, as defined by the catholic church (since you seem to think they are the same thing), assuming it is understanding you are seeking. On the other hand, if you’re agenda is something else - as many here suspect - then of course you’ll continue with the equivocation.

So out with it already, if you have a point to make, let’s have it!

 

[Stephen168]

You still aren’t getting that Christian Revelation is Jesus Christ. Period.

I don’t think he wants to get it.

The Catholic position (which I knew before starting this thread) is that Public Revelation (revelation to be delivered to the entire church) points to Jesus Christ.

You’ve been told a dozen times that Revelation IS Jesus Christ. He is the WORD of God.
:tsktsk:

 

[Karen107]

RebeccaJ, Stephen168, LivingWaters, rinnie, and others:
I think it is not unreasonable to grant a lot more to me in this discussion than has been done, but it seems such will not be the case. …

The Catholic position (which I knew before starting this thread) is that Public Revelation of the Church (revelation to be delivered to the entire church) points to Jesus Christ. It did so when God’s leaders received it in the Old Testament and it did so when Church leaders received it in New Testament. Completion of Public Revelation is the person of Christ and His divine actions as delineated in the New Testament. There is no more “revelation to be delivered to the entire church” after the death of the last apostle because there is nothing more than Christ to know for our salvation (through God’s Church). This completion of revelation however does not mean that the understanding of this revelation would not develop over the centuries. This development is through the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, and infallibility protected via what is called the Charism of Infallibility (the Pope possesses this and the Bishops in union do as well).
Have I missed anything?
Charity, TOm

Yes…as I had said before.

Private revelation (meaning what God has revealed to one person) has not been included as Public revelation since the Apostle John wrote the book of revelation… Which is something 'revealed" to him… as opposed to what most protestants believe is always a future revelation.

The reason that private revelation has not been included as a ‘public revelation’ is that the further away one gets from the actual event of Jesus life on earth, the more ‘unreliable’ the information is. Case in point, Joseph Smith in the 1820s, or the revelations that the Jehovah Witnesses get which are contrary to the revelations that the Apostles received…The Church knows those revelations and what they mean, not some person with faith almost 2000 years later who interprets these scriptures without the Church teaching on them… The Church was there 2000 years ago because the Church was started by Jesus Christ and the Apostles…

Private revelation never stopped, God speaks to those who listen in prayer every day… God speaks to me so I can attest to that… I have revelations from God…!.. BUT, a persons private revelation is never to be considered a Public revelation because too much of "mans thoughts’ interfere and so that revelation is unreliable… Just think of all the would be prophets like Harold Camping who say they get messages from God only to be proven otherwise… SOOOO, if something is to be included as a Church Dogm or doctrine, it has to be proven by many who have the same revelation and that has revelation bears fruit…Such as an apparition of Mary… Unless it’s a proven apparition by the Church done by examining many witnesses testimonies… It can’t be an official revelation of the Church…we may believe, but there has to be a pretty good track record of many witnesses before something is deemed an approved miracle or a revelation from God…

Revelations of God received by the Apostles can’t be changed by a new revelation which contradicts it…

And the most important thing to remember about the Church who has always had the truth known to them, is God is ‘forever faithful’ to His Church so God never abandoned the Church contrary to what others say… It’s still here and thriving for 2,000 years!! I think it’s just silly to have people tell us that God left the Church…Obviously, they don’t know the Church very well…

 

[TOmNossor]

Except that “corporate revelation” is non-catholic jargon introduced by you. As has been pointed out this is not a term accepted by Catholics or found within catholic doctrines. You are attempting to get people to accept a term foreign to them. If it really is the “same thing” as you insist then for the purpose of honest and accurate discussion you should have no problem using the term “public revelation” instead of “corporate revelation.” The fact that you are relentless in you insistence to repackage terminology is why people are suspicious of you motives. If looks like a bait and switch and sounds like a bait and switch, it probably is a bait and switch. It certainly feels like a bait and switch. If it is not, then you should have no problem speaking in terms Catholics use, as defined by the catholic church (since you seem to think they are the same thing), assuming it is understanding you are seeking. On the other hand, if you’re agenda is something else - as many here suspect - then of course you’ll continue with the equivocation.

So out with it already, if you have a point to make, let’s have it!

As described in post #126 it was and is my perception that the aspect of public revelation that I claimed existed was excluded from the definition of “public revelation” by Catholics on this thread. I only introduced the term “corporate revelation” because regardless of the definition of “public revelation” agreed upon I knew that I had been regularly taught in Catholic circles that “revelation to be delivered to the entire church” had ceased.
Do you really read post #126 as delineating a bunch of folks clearly acknowledging that “public revelation” is “revelation to be delivered to the entire church” and me obtusely not recognizing what they were saying all along?
My initial OP made it clear where I was headed with this thread. I have never tried to “gotcha” people by getting them to deny Catholic teaching and then spring the Catholic Encyclopedia definition upon them.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I don’t think he wants to get it.

You’ve been told a dozen times that Revelation IS Jesus Christ. He is the WORD of God.
:tsktsk:

Did I properly describe the Catholic position in Post #155?
Charity, TOm