sacred in Mormonism

[twopekinguys]

I’m sorry, but this is too much. Ex-Mormons, some disgruntled, do not provide the most unbiased view. I hope even people from other religions can see this. I’m not saying Marie’s, Rebecca’s, or TexanKnight’s views are always invalid but they definitly have a negative bent. The views they express often give some information while hiding other parts. They come at it as deeply unbelieving and so will feed you information in a certain way and of a certain type.

They may say the reverse about me but you must hear both sides. Particularly on issues that are so close to the heart. If you want to know about Catholicism at least talk to a practicing Catholic, if you want to know about Mormonism at least spend some time talking to an active Mormon. It’s just common sense.

You sound very much like someone we had posting here(since banned) that said they wouldn’t believe anything an ex-mormon had to say, based solely on the fact they were ex-mormon. While you have given a little bit of latitude there, you haven’t given any to work with.

Let me ask you this, Would you rather find something out from someone who has experienced both sides of an issue, or just one?

I particularly like this portion of your statement. " so will feed you information in a certain way and of a certain type." Have you heard of “milk before meat”, or “lying for the lord”?

There is an old saying that goes something like this. There are 3 sides to every story. Your side, my side, and the truth.

I don’t take anything any poster says as 100% true, and nobody else should either. That is the reason references are given, and expected. It helps eliminate feelings, as well as other types of bias.

I have family that recently resigned from the mormon church, and hold no anger towards them at all. I do at times bounce things off of them for verification of what is said here,

Personally, I am tired of hearing “ask a practicing _________”. Do you realize how many practicing Catholics don’t even understand Church teachings?

Check out the liturgies and sacraments forum, or even the ask the apologist forum. There are alot of people around here that are identifying as Catholic, that simply don’t have a clue. The same goes for mormons. I can’t tell you how many times a simple question has been asked, and you get 5 different answers from the mormon participants.

Nobody is immune to this.

One of the big problems is that mormon doctrine is so fluid and changing, along with no definitive direction given from the church leadership. You’ve got everybody using their own interpretation of what is or isn’t. There is no central teaching.

You’ve got a bunch of guys “called” to be bishops that have no theological training or understanding, trying to raise a family, work, and run their local church. So many distractions lead away from any serious theological research. The next thing you know, 2 or 3 yrs down the road, someone else is “called” to be bishop. Maybe his understanding is different.

There is no consistency.

The Catholic Church (in my opinion) is on the other end of the spectrum. Priests (most) make life long commitments to the Church. They have a Master’s in theology. They celebrate the Mass every single day. We have the magesterium, we have the Pope, the College of Cardinals, etc. etc. all dedicated to the Gospel, and making sure everyone is on the same page with the same understanding. We have the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which lays all of this out in plain language, complete with references for where the teaching comes from.

I could go on an on, but I think I’ve said enough. I need my soap box back.

Chances are, you’re not going to change my mind about the mormon church, and I’m not going to change yours. I do however expect honest and open dialogue, and when something is “claimed”, a reliable source should be provided.

In my personal experience, the former mormon posters have provided very accurate information on the issues being discussed.

 

[Janderich]

Let me ask you this, Would you rather find something out from someone who has experienced both sides of an issue, or just one?

It is alway good to get information from two or more sides. However, it has been my experience that the best way to get all sides is to ask a cross section of individuals. If I were Catholic trying to get an LDS perspective I would like information from an active LDS, other Catholics, and an ex-Mormon. I would not focus on one group. However, it is extremely important with religion to understand a persons perspective. I do not mean this specifically about anyone on this site, but ex-Mormons can be particularly harsh and one sided. I suspect, but don’t know, if it is this same way with former Catholics.

 

[twopekinguys]

It is alway good to get information from two or more sides. However, it has been my experience that the best way to get all sides is to ask a cross section of individuals. If I were Catholic trying to get an LDS perspective I would like information from an active LDS, other Catholics, and an ex-Mormon. I would not focus on one group. However, it is extremely important with religion to understand a persons perspective. I do not mean this specifically about anyone on this site, but ex-Mormons can be particularly harsh and one sided. I suspect, but don’t know, if it is this same way with former Catholics.

Try talking to a Catholic that has gone Baptist

 

[Quaesitor]

Just to clarify also, the LDS temples are not always closed to everyone. Right after the construction or remodeling of a temple, the church opens them up for an open house, that anyone of any faith can go and take a tour of during that time period. After the open house the temples are blessed and set aside for work they do in it and therefore closed to non-members. The local LDS temple here in Boise has been going through remodeling for the last year and will be opening up for its open house sometime soon.

 

[HonoraDominum]

I can only speak for myself. I feel I am pretty just pointing out error on both sides when it comes to Mormonism.

When other speak of Mormonism in error, Im just as comfortable as pointing that out.

Like when it was said that Mormon see themselves as Jews. They dont. That is simply error.

Nor is it accurate to say that they are a highly secretive group, they arent. They certainly dont speak about the temple and all associated with it, but I wouldnt say that qualifies Mormons as highly secretive.

Again I can only speak for myself. I dont qualify as a disgrunted former Mormon. Not by a long shot. When I left, I left with fond memories etc. Some of the qualities that made me a good Mormon make me a good Catholic (love of scripture, daily living a life a disciple, etc)

I’m the same way - I have no problem pointing out when a never-Mo Catholic claims an untrue or misguided belief of the LDS church. Of course, I also tend to point out that the real belief is often worse than the incorrectly understood belief.

While I am not disgruntled, I am very protective of my Catholic brethren and sisters, and do everything I can to keep things as honest as possible, like you do. I’ll also call out any overly emotional pleas for “understanding” by LDS members, and have no problem calling out a Double-Bind or mental gymnastics argument used.

I too maintain virtues that I learned as a Mormon, like vigilance in church activity, and constant evangelization of my faith. I also color up my bible and missal with markers and red pens like I did in the Seminary days, and every once in a while I get a hankering for Jello. I remember being taught as a Mormon that Catholics make great Mormons. Well, Mormons make great Catholics, too.

I also have many relatives that are still active Mormons, and pray every day for the conversion of souls, especially those who have been deceived by the lies of the LDS church.

 

[HonoraDominum]

However, I will NOT allow the whitewashing of the LDS history or doctrine. That is not called disgruntled, that is called honest.

Also, this.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

As others have stated, the Latter-day Saints that you are talking to are not representative, nor are they being told by “the Church” to say what they are saying. As a Latter-day Saint, I am comfortable saying that I wear garments to those that ask about it, and that they remind me of the covenants I have entered into with God. I don’t discuss specifics about them, beyond saying that they are white, consist of a shirt and bottom, and have symbols on them that remind me of various things related to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

They are primarily Masonic symbols.

As far as specifics about what goes on in temples, there is a great deal that we often freely talk about about what goes on in temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Much of this can be found in various Church related publications. For example, I am comfortable saying that in a temple marriage, the couple kneels at an altar facing each other and are married “for time and all eternity”. In baptism for the dead, we stand in the baptismal font, and are baptized “for and in behalf of” deceased persons to offer the blessings of baptism to them (to accept or reject). In the Endowment, we are instructed on various aspects of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, beginning with the Creation, the Fall. In most temples, this includes the use of video. We enter into various covenants, put on ceremonial clothing, and at the conclusion, we pass through a veil in to the Celestial Room, entering into the presence of God. There is a prayer circle where we stand around an altar in ceremonial clothing and pray for the sick.

You said at the beginning that there is a “great deal” you talk about. However, what you state here is basically nothing compared to the rituals themselves, especially the Endowment (including the washing/annointing). What you freely talk about sounds very benign and simple, such as instruction in the Gospel. However, as you well know, the ritual is much more complex, in-depth, and dare I say stranger than what you present. Most people wouldn’t think that “instruction in the Gospel,” as you describe the ceremoney, would include the learning of multiple secret handshakes, signs, tokens, passwords, etc. I remember my own confusion when I first went to the temple – I had no idea that the endowment ceremony was going to be so incredibly different. In fact, there seems to be a huge difference in the feeling of Mormonism as experienced at the local chapel and the Mormonism of the temple ceremonies. I wonder how many Mormons are confused about the strange things in the endowment ceremony, since they are not allowed to talk about it. Some of the handshakes are explained in the ceremony, but has anyone figured out why you have to hold your hands in certain positions? Or what the hats/strings are about? The symbolism of ritual loses its power if there is no explanation behind it. This is contrast to Mass, especially the Traditional Latin Mass, where every vestment, word, gesture, and action has multiple symbolic meanings that are easily researched and understood.

Interesting story: my father told me that when he was younger, the character of Satan in the temple wore a Roman collar.

 

[TexanKnight]

Interesting story: my father told me that when he was younger, the character of Satan in the temple wore a Roman collar.

That is partially true. Satan was Satan, he used, as his agent, a man dressed like a Catholic Priest.

 

[Lodro]

However, as you well know, the ritual is much more complex, in-depth, and dare I say stranger than what you present.

If you think those are weird, you should see some of the rituals we have in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition. But actually, you can’t.

Seriously, there are many traditions where spiritual practices are preserved by not having it revealed to non-practitioners. There could be many reasons for this, such as that the power and mystery of a teaching would be diminished if people were freely discussing it, that people outside will mis-interpret things, or that the power of the ritual will be misused. Secrecy is a way to preserve something precious. I’d just suggest that people could respect that and move on. Frankly there are a number of legitimate critical questions that people could ask about the LDS church’s role. But I don’t see how this matters, unless your intention is simply to criticize something just because it isn’t the way that you would do things.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

If you think those are weird, you should see some of the rituals we have in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition. But actually, you can’t.

I’ve heard bits and pieces, and see statues representing the lovely yab-yum. Sounds like you guys have a wild time

Seriously, there are many traditions where spiritual practices are preserved by not having it revealed to non-practitioners. There could be many reasons for this, such as that the power and mystery of a teaching would be diminished if people were freely discussing it, that people outside will mis-interpret things, or that the power of the ritual will be misused. Secrecy is a way to preserve something precious.

I agree with what you are saying when it comes to non-Christian traditions (and Mormons shouldn’t be afraid to use the word secret, because that is what it is). But it is also important to note that secret rituals necessary for salvation have been condemned in Christianity over and over (see the gnostic heresies). This is just another (!) place where Mormonism and Christianity diverge.

But I don’t see how this matters, unless your intention is simply to criticize something just because it isn’t the way that you would do things.

Religion is not a matter of choice, but of truth, so the question ultimately is not the way I or we would do things, but what is the way that God wants things to be done. The issue becomes more complicated since Mormons continue to claim to be Christian, so they open themselves up to criticism from a Christian perspective.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

That is partially true. Satan was Satan, he used, as his agent, a man dressed like a Catholic Priest.

Thanks for the clarification. He told me this probably 15 years ago, so I probably remembered it wrong.

 

[Lodro]

But it is also important to note that secret rituals necessary for salvation have been condemned in Christianity over and over (see the gnostic heresies)…

I didn’t know that. So it’s none of my business, but I guess I can sort of see the logic from a monotheistic perspective. For one thing, if you could only achieve salvation through private ceremonies, that would mean that only people who shared your belief system could achieve it. You’d kind of be saying that you had a special “in” with God or something like that.

 

[Traditionalism]

They are primarily Masonic symbols.

That’s what I thought they were, never got an answer, but it’s what I though. Thanks for the answer

 

[CyberAngel]

The only thing that they are not allowed to discuss outside of the temple is the temple ceremony.

really?

How about the belief that their Heavenly Father has also a wife
the Heavenly Mother - she is so sacred that she is not discussed of
actually
when you think about the most high exaltation
he needs many wives … ad infinitum
yes, but of course the Heavenly Father is a polygamist**** - he needs to be!

 

[RebeccaJ]

Marie is a former mormon. So is RebeccaJ, TexanKnight, and several others. Trust them, they won’t steer you wrong.

As far as them not talking about their garments (which is their underwear), they receive them in the temple, and that is why they won’t discuss them.

You will get very little information about what goes in in a temple, other than simple things like: That is where they get their endowments, sealings, baptisms for the dead. You won’t get any real details of what actually goes on from an active mormon.

Hi TPG,

I’ll only add that even as a member of the LDS church, if/when you were to ask about anything re: Mormon temple ceremonies or clothing you will not get an answer. All you will get are short, or lengthy, replies about how special and sacred it is.

Personally, having a not-so-special experience while at a Mormon temple to do baptisms for the dead, I needed some answers before I’d step foot in that place again. I asked. No one would answer. I was done.

During my conversion to Catholicism I was on the lookout for secrets that were being hidden from catechumens. If there were such things, I would have been done there too. There are things that are very sacred to me as a Catholic, but what is sacred can be discussed.

There is nothing more sacred than Jesus, his Incarnarion, death and resurrection. Not only is it OK to talk about these sacred things, Jesus tells us to.

Secrets are meant to give people a sense of specialness. It is a sign of a cult.

 

[EllieH]

Check out the liturgies and sacraments forum, or even the ask the apologist forum. There are a lot of people around here that are identifying as Catholic, that simply don’t have a clue. The same goes for Mormons. I can’t tell you how many times a simple question has been asked, and you get 5 different answers from the Mormon participants.

Nobody is immune to this.

One of the big problems is that Mormon doctrine is so fluid and changing, along with no definitive direction given from the church leadership. You’ve got everybody using their own interpretation of what is or isn’t. There is no central teaching.

This observation bears more consideration than I think it may have been given.

I’d like you to image that you are alive somewhere around 33 BC. Lets put you in your late twenties. You are a devout Jew and have been living the Mosaic law as have your Fathers and their Fathers and the Fathers of your Fathers for generations back to the days of Moses. Then people begin to declare that because another young man has died the Law is fulfilled. This man, Jesus Christ, declared that was his purpose, to fulfill the law and after he does so, his absence passes the torch of leadership to Peter. When the Master was alive, his word was law but now he has left a new leader to guide his church.

Now these, mostly Jews of the time, have taken hold of this new Gospel but the retain certain prejudices concerning missionary work to the Gentiles. This prejudice seems to go up the ranks, all the way to the top. Peter himself was a bit reluctant not fully understanding the infinite nature of the atonement.

Now I can tell that some do not understand what is required here because in this group of people, there were many who had trouble with changing things up a bit. Perhaps they might have said this new church, the “doctrine is so fluid and changing” all the time.

However, note carefully how God guides his church. Peter, reluctant as any, is given a vision and he has revealed to him the will of the Lord. Acts 10 is fluidity of doctrine in its perfection. The lead prophet in the church is given revelation and the church changes direction to conform to Christ’s instruction and will.

The change is a radical change. There are many, many amongst them that do not understand the process of revelation and how it permits what you call fluid doctrine. Some do, and solely because enough in the church are willing to live by the revelation that Peter has received and accept this state of fluid doctrine, the gospel is carried to the Gentiles. From that fluid state of doctrine you owe your very existence as a religious organization.

So now there are those who cry out against changing doctrine…again pretend it is you serving as a follower of Peter the new leader of the Church. You claim to follow him now as a member of his 21st century flock, but clearly it seems possible that the acts of revelation that he claimed would have been confusing to you back then and his fluid doctrinal changes would have found you in rebellion and cast from the flock.

Revelation is another one of those things consider sacred in Mormonism. We recognize that without this principle it is impossible from our perspective to guide a church through the ever changing demands of society and the world. It is why we understand the necessity of a living prophet. While I am not sure why you characterize “no definitive direction” as the state of the church, I can only guess you are chalking this up to a misunderstanding of how things can change when a prophet speaks as did Peter so many years ago.

The principle of revelation is what makes the difference. If the Heavens are now closed, I guess, we should praise the Lord that they were not closed to Peter – where would you be without him and the revelation he received in your behalf.?

 

[RebeccaJ]

The principle of revelation is what makes the difference. If the Heavens are now closed, I guess, we should praise the Lord that they were not closed to Peter – where would you be without him and

               the revelation he received in your behalf.?

Catholics do not believe the “Heavens are now closed”.

I recommend you read this.

 

[twopekinguys]

This observation bears more consideration than I think it may have been given.

I’d like you to image that you are alive somewhere around 33 BC. Lets put you in your late twenties. You are a devout Jew and have been living the Mosaic law as have your Fathers and their Fathers and the Fathers of your Fathers for generations back to the days of Moses. Then people begin to declare that because another young man has died the Law is fulfilled. This man, Jesus Christ, declared that was his purpose, to fulfill the law and after he does so, his absence passes the torch of leadership to Peter. When the Master was alive, his word was law but now he has left a new leader to guide his church.

Now these, mostly Jews of the time, have taken hold of this new Gospel but the retain certain prejudices concerning missionary work to the Gentiles. This prejudice seems to go up the ranks, all the way to the top. Peter himself was a bit reluctant not fully understanding the infinite nature of the atonement.

Now I can tell that some do not understand what is required here because in this group of people, there were many who had trouble with changing things up a bit. Perhaps they might have said this new church, the “doctrine is so fluid and changing” all the time.

However, note carefully how God guides his church. Peter, reluctant as any, is given a vision and he has revealed to him the will of the Lord. Acts 10 is fluidity of doctrine in its perfection. The lead prophet in the church is given revelation and the church changes direction to conform to Christ’s instruction and will.

The change is a radical change. There are many, many amongst them that do not understand the process of revelation and how it permits what you call fluid doctrine. Some do, and solely because enough in the church are willing to live by the revelation that Peter has received and accept this state of fluid doctrine, the gospel is carried to the Gentiles. From that fluid state of doctrine you owe your very existence as a religious organization.

So now there are those who cry out against changing doctrine…again pretend it is you serving as a follower of Peter the new leader of the Church. You claim to follow him now as a member of his 21st century flock, but clearly it seems possible that the acts of revelation that he claimed would have been confusing to you back then and his fluid doctrinal changes would have found you in rebellion and cast from the flock.

Revelation is another one of those things consider sacred in Mormonism. We recognize that without this principle it is impossible from our perspective to guide a church through the ever changing demands of society and the world. It is why we understand the necessity of a living prophet. While I am not sure why you characterize “no definitive direction” as the state of the church, I can only guess you are chalking this up to a misunderstanding of how things can change when a prophet speaks as did Peter so many years ago.

The principle of revelation is what makes the difference. If the Heavens are now closed, I guess, we should praise the Lord that they were not closed to Peter – where would you be without him and the revelation he received in your behalf.?

It would be so much easier if you would just get to the point that you are trying to make. Ever heard the phrase “Spit it out!”?

So, you are saying that the ever changing mormon doctrine is based upon “the ever changing demands of society and the world”?

That would explain the changing of the ban on blacks and the priesthood. It would explain polygamy no longer being practiced in the open. Needless to say, it explains alot of the shifts in mormonism over the years.

The thing is. God doesn’t change his mind. Christ fulfilled the prophesies, and he himself stated “It is finished”. He didn’t say it is finished for now.

 

[EllieH]

It would be so much easier if you would just get to the point that you are trying to make. Ever heard the phrase “Spit it out!”?

So, you are saying that the ever changing Mormon doctrine is based upon “the ever changing demands of society and the world”?

That would explain the changing of the ban on blacks and the priesthood. It would explain polygamy no longer being practiced in the open. Needless to say, it explains a lot of the shifts in Mormonism over the years.

The thing is. God doesn’t change his mind. Christ fulfilled the prophesies, and he himself stated “It is finished”. He didn’t say it is finished for now.

My apologies brevity is difficult for me as I like to make a complete point that can't be misunderstood.  However, I guess if it is too long that is about as bad.  I'll do better in this response to you.

Not my point concerning an ever changing society and world requiring the church to conform to its standards. That should be readily apparent to you as the LDS are known for their hard moral stance and objections to social customs of drinking etc. Instead I reference that societies ever changing face would provide further needed insight as to how to resist the influences and deceptions that might lead members astray.

Additionally, this link here is an example of where societies focus presented need for corrective and directional insight from our prophet and thus the Proclamation on the Family was given to all the world. The concept of Family Home Evening was instituted as a precursor to the decline of family values and is another example of God’s will revealed to a living prophet prior to the decline in recognition of its pending rise.

The Blacks issue is so very clear if you do your research. It was always known that when the Sons of Adam had their chance to receive and grow in the priesthood that then the blacks would be welcomed back into the Priesthood. From Joseph Smith on down this statements were made and as acts of prophecy they note the change would be. There were issues with people pronouncing mistaken perceptions of when this would be as in Bruce R. McConkie saying it would not be in his lifetime, but as he stated himself that he made a mistake and that is why the Lord has a living prophet - we follow the prophet. So-not a change but instead prophecy fulfilled.

Polygamy and God doesn’t change can be summed up by grasping the principle found in Mathew 19:7-8 or Mark 10:3-9. The essence being that while as you state God does not change, he nonetheless does make allowances to adjust for the weaknesses of men until they can finally learn to do the right thing. God never intended for there to be divorce he decries, denounces, condemns it completely. However it exists nonetheless and was changed by Moses at Gods command to permit this deviation from the former law. This is but an example but you could research priesthood authority, The Mosaic law itself and many other principles that all change and strictly the result of a prophet receiving revelation. In fact there have always been alterations in the law throughout the Old and New Testament as the result of a Prophet receiving revelation to adjust from a current practice to a new one for what ever reason. I’m trying to be brief so will not do my usual of illustrating with further example. Nonetheless it is this practice and observation from scripture that sustains the sacred nature and requirement of revelation from a LDS point of view.

 

[EllieH]

Catholics do not believe the “Heavens are now closed”.

I recommend you read this

.

RebeccaJ:
Thank you for the link - it was a tough read but enlightening nonetheless. Still it pretty well validates the point I am making and that Catholics consider the Heavens closed for the types of revelation that would be used to guide the church after the fashion of which I am making in my comparison. Where we would differ in our understandings between what is revelation and what is not revelation is probably related to the Catholic concept of public revelation - from your link:

The Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away and we now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ (see 1 Tim. 6:14 and Tit. 2:13). (vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html``)

In order to further understand this principle, I looked up the principle of “public revelation” and located this statement:

Public revelation is the special revelation which God began with His direct communication with His inspired prophets and which ended with the death of the last Apostle (Saint John the Evangelist, around 100 AD). This public revelation is also known as the deposit of faith. (catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/1i.htm)

Thus the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna and other early pseudipegriphical writings such as the Didache and Shepherd of Hermas which are traditionally perceived to be the writings of an unknown Apostolic are not consider public revelation.

A bit more research examines what is currently considered public revelation and more clearly defines what types of revelation are included in the term:

1. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort.

Please clarify if I am wrong, however it appears there are two components that rise to the standard of revelation and these include Sacred Scripture defined as: Sacred Scripture is one of the several names denoting the inspired writings which make up the Old and New Testament. (newadvent.org/cathen/13635b.htm)

Sacred Tradition or Divine Tradition, however reclaims the writings of the Apostalic Fathers and defines their origins back to Jesus Christ. It is not Public revelation but takes on sacred eminence by its origins as the exact traditions taught by Jesus Christ to his apostles and from these apostles to the early Apostolic Fathers.

The deposit of faith which Jesus Christ entrusted to the Church is made up of two parts: Holy Scripture, and Divine Tradition, this latter being composed of the truths passed down by word of mouth, and not written down till after the death of Christ’s Apostles and disciples, principally by the Fathers of the Church. (catholicbook.com/AgredaCD/MyCatholicFaith/mcfc007.htm)

Finally, for further emphasis of the current status of ongoing revelation since the time of Christ we can refer to this observation:

Divine Revelation was completed at the death of the last of the Apostles. Since that time no new revelation has been made for the instruction of the whole of mankind. Whenever the Church decides a point of faith, it does so according to Scripture or Tradition. It simply finds out what has been revealed from the beginning. catholicbook.com/AgredaCD/MyCatholicFaith/mcfc007.htm

Additionally, as to the current capacity of the Pope to declare doctrinal changes this falls under the definitions of Papal Infallibility:

Infallibility does not mean that the pope is inspired. Papal infallibility does not involve any special revelation from God. A pope learns about his faith in the same way that anyone else does–he studies.
Infallibility cannot be used to change existing doctrines or proclaim new ones. It can only be used to confirm or clarify what has always been taught. The teachings of Christ cannot change. As the Scripture says, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8).

So this puts everything in perspective so that we can make the comparisons, I was attempting to make in my post. However a brief mention of private revelation might be valuable so that we can clarify its implications to a member of the Catholic church as it relates to private revelation of individuals:

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 in attaching credence to them without being guilty of superstition or of imprudence.

So, distilling this down the church does accept some types of private revelation which upon review are found to be acceptable to validation:

The Church gives her approval to them only when she is satisfied after rigorous examination of their spiritual utility and of the evidence on which they depend. (catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7724)

Thus when we distill this material down, and again correct me if I am wrong, but while the Catholic Church may not approve of the term the Heavens are Closed to reference the cessation of active ongoing revelation it nonetheless is the fact that there is no room to accept that there is any chance of ongoing revelation since the times of the death of John the Apostle. I freely admit that I do not have a Catholics understanding of these things and so welcome your insight, but as I read the material this is what I have concluded.

However, I will concede that Peter makes it under the gun by your own definition. He could receive a divine revelation and actually change the direction and doctrine of the church as he falls inside the window of when revelation actually was permitted by Catholic definition. However, from an outsiders perspective and wading through all of the semantical implications I would still say that the statement the “Heavens are now closed” is a reasonable interpretation of the material from the Catholic resources you provided. If you would explain how that does not seem correct to you, I would appreciate it. Thank you for your insight, I believe I have a better handle on your understandings of when revelation ceased for the Catholic Church.