Stephen168
New member
But Joseph Smith didn’t
- Status
Stephen168
New member
Its not scripture, it is a historical, rational fact that Jesus Christ; the Word; is the only revelation.
AND the Mormon Creed is not based on scripture.
J
JMM1957
Guest
Very good!
God has revealed himself to his people and instructed them in his ways since the very beginning of the creation of man, Adam. In the OT we see God the Father communicating with his people, and there is the promise and prophecies of a coming Messiah who will save God’s people. In the NT, Jesus comes, fulfilling those prophecies by revealing that He was sent by the Father for our salvation. Before his death, Jesus establishes his Church on earth, and promises to send the Holy Spirit to teach, guide, and remind them of all he said. The Holy Spirit does indeed come as promised, as can be seen in the Book of Acts. So, we can see that all three persons of the Holy Trinity revealed themselves since the beginning, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The revelation of these three completes the public revelation of God to His people, and puts in our minds and hearts the necessary ingredients for salvation. As LivingWaters7 indicated above very well, God is still with us in many ways, we are not orphaned.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I do not believe scripture teaches what MODERN Catholics claim it teaches.* The ECF are on my side of this issue.* Do you not believe that the interpretation of scripture by the ECF (Irenaeus and Tertullian) should guide MODERN Catholic interpretation?
What I said was that the ECF expected there to be revelation after the close of the New Testament.* They did not see what MODERN Catholic see in scripture.* Irenaeus called the “Visions of the Pastor of Hermas” scripture. He might be right, and I think the Pastor shows that Christ’s Church would be replaced by something lesser SOON. Tertullian expected revelation to continue.* He saw in the Montanus revelation, continuing revelation.* I lean away from believing Tertullian was completely correct about what was revelation.* The reason I mention St. Irenaeus and Tertullian is not because what they believed to be revelation was surely revelation, instead I say it is clear they did not share the MODERN Catholic interpretation of Scripture offered here.* They expected continued revelation.* They did not share the MODERN Catholic interpretation that somehow because Christ was the greatest of God’s revelation to man (I agree), that after the end of the generation that could have known Christ in the flesh (Paul likely didn’t but was part of the generation) public revelation would end.
Receiving revelation is a messy business.* I have not been able to find the earliest conception of INFALLIBILITY, but I almost think (almost think) INFALLIBILITY and continued revelation are mutually exclusive.* It is clear that the Bishops of Tertullian’s day rejected Montanus.* I have vague memories of something from this time being written concerning “no continuing revelation.”* Thus, I point to this time or later as when the “orthodox” decided Public Revelation ended.* I think it quite possible that it was much later, but I know of no place earlier.
Why did the Bishops of Tertullian’s day or whatever day claim Public Revelation ended when Tertullian, Irenaeus, and others didn’t believe this?* I have two thoughts.* First, all of human history is part of God’s plan.* God’s plan includes, “Christ was born, Christ was killed, Christ was resurrected.” AND it includes, “The Bride of Christ (the Church) was initiated, The Bride of Christ apostatized, The Bride of Christ was restored.”* How human agency played into these and how God guided them I do not know.* In addition to this, I think human agency is always involved.
You asked how much “public revelation” was present from the 2nd Century until the early 1800’s.* Well, as a LDS I do not draw the dividing line between public and private revelation the SAME way Catholics do.* I believe LDS deal with our Montanus folks by explaining that AUTORITY means that revelation for the entire church comes to “General Authorities.”* This means when a lady in ward is inspired of God just as surely and just as powerfully as any General Authority and she initiates that LDS primary program, the General Authority may seek God’s will and recognize it and then it become an inspired program throughout the church.* When John Delhin claims to know the path the church should take on Homosexual marriage, the General Authority my evaluate, pray, and offer God’s will for the entire church.
I think truth was revealed to one of the greatest Catholic minds ever in a vision he had.* After the vision, he claimed everything he had written was “straw.”* I believe what he wrote was a brilliant distilling of what was supposedly INFALLIBLE truth, and I believe he knew it was.* Thus there was no way to redo his brilliant text to align INFALLIBLE truth and the revelation of God he received.* So this brilliant man claimed all he had written was “straw,” didn’t write again, and never explained himself.* I suspect other Catholic clergy receive revelation like this from the 2nd – 19th century and even today.* I suspect Catholic laity receive revelation like this too.* But, nobody can claim it is “public revelation” due to the errors (sealed as infallible, irreformable) in the past.* BTW, the straw is Summa Theologica and the great Catholic mind is of course Thomas Aquinas.
While I see “Authority” as restored in the restoration, I think the recognition of just how involved God is in His Church is of huge importance too. God leads His Church today as He lead His Church/People in the New Testament and Old Testament times.
Is it infallible truth that those who die “with original sin only” are forever denied the Beatific Vision?* It is quite clear that the Bishops at the Council of Florence and Lyons (and also Trent) claimed it was.* They were wrong. **Revelation could have prevented this mistake and if men determined to be men didn’t allow God to distill truth upon them, Public revelation could correct this mistake, but Public Revelation was denied.
I do not believe God restored public revelation so we can debate if God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are homoousian in the generic sense (I believe this) or homoousian in the numeric sense (Augustine believed this).* Important things like how we lead our lives and how God is active in the life of His Church were the reasons for the restoration, IMO.
Charity, TOm
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
That is of course the scripture refence that Jane Doe is looking for, but it doesn’t say what she wants the Mormon church to say.
Until Mormons can get past this idea that prophets are required to hear the Word of God, and as long as they cannot or are unable to recognize Jesus Christ as the Word of God, fully Revealed…they’re just going to keep chasing novelties.
Jesus Christ is our living mediator. HE is our Prophet, and He is Prophecy itself. The fullness of truth dwells in Him! I agree that Mormons can’t seem to grasp the significance.
J
JMM1957
Guest
TOm,
Some ECF’s, as you say, did believe that the writings of the Hermas visions were inspired, however, it was written during the time period of canonizing the NT, and this and many other writings eventually were rejected as being not being canonical Scripture. Basically, the same thing happened with the Montanus revelation, without going into more detail. I guess if you want to believe that Irenaeus and Tertullian are on your side of the issue, fine, but understand that the CC had plenty to contend with back in the first couple centuries, sorting out the canon and dealing with heresies, persecution, etc. It is true some ECF’s saw things somewhat differently than we see them today as Catholics. That is why the Church today may seem at odds with some of the statements made by some in the first century. This is why it is common for some non-Catholics to use some of the ECF’s words to try to prove us wrong today. Generally, the ECF’s theology is in line with historical and current Catholic teaching, some of it was a bit non-conforming though for sure. The Holy Spirit was working with imperfect people.
Some ECF’s, as you say, did believe that the writings of the Hermas visions were inspired, however, it was written during the time period of canonizing the NT, and this and many other writings eventually were rejected as being not being canonical Scripture. Basically, the same thing happened with the Montanus revelation, without going into more detail. I guess if you want to believe that Irenaeus and Tertullian are on your side of the issue, fine, but understand that the CC had plenty to contend with back in the first couple centuries, sorting out the canon and dealing with heresies, persecution, etc. It is true some ECF’s saw things somewhat differently than we see them today as Catholics. That is why the Church today may seem at odds with some of the statements made by some in the first century. This is why it is common for some non-Catholics to use some of the ECF’s words to try to prove us wrong today. Generally, the ECF’s theology is in line with historical and current Catholic teaching, some of it was a bit non-conforming though for sure. The Holy Spirit was working with imperfect people.
J
JMM1957
Guest
Continued from last post:
TOm, according to the CC,there are two kinds of divine revelation that come to us, public and private. Public revelation ceased at some point just after the Apostolic age, as the NT Scriptures had all been written at that point, but even more importantly, Jesus was the final fulfillment of the OT prophesies of a Messiah who would restore what was lost. Private revelation continues, but whatever is revealed to individual persons in this way, is for the benefit of those who get it, and those they care to share it with. Private revelation does not and cannot change or add to divine public revelation, nor does it alter established Church doctrine, which is unchangeable.
TOm, according to the CC,there are two kinds of divine revelation that come to us, public and private. Public revelation ceased at some point just after the Apostolic age, as the NT Scriptures had all been written at that point, but even more importantly, Jesus was the final fulfillment of the OT prophesies of a Messiah who would restore what was lost. Private revelation continues, but whatever is revealed to individual persons in this way, is for the benefit of those who get it, and those they care to share it with. Private revelation does not and cannot change or add to divine public revelation, nor does it alter established Church doctrine, which is unchangeable.
J
jane_doe
Guest
Except you believe God doesn’t talk to the world anymore… that’s something about the Catholic position that totally baffles me.
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
Except we don’t believe that.
J
JMM1957
Guest
Post #146. Its ongoing, but only private revelation. Public and private revelation are both initiated by God, so why do you say we believe in no continuing revelation?
J
jane_doe
Guest
You do not believe that God may speak to the whole world.
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
Except I do believe that God may speak to the whole world.
But please do keep telling me what I believe.
J
jane_doe
Guest
I meant no mis-representation, and apologize that I misunderstood.Except I do believe that God may speak to the whole world.
But please do keep telling me what I believe.
So, how may God speak to the whole world?
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
Through His Church.
See again my post about what “Public Revelation” is actually talking about. Also note that the Catholic definitions of public and private revelation are technical terms, definitions which may not be the same as others who may employ those terms.
Catholics believe that although Public Revelation is complete, it is through God the Holy Spirit that the Church continues, down to this day, to unfold the depths of Public Revelation. This is accomplished through Ecumenical Councils, Papal Infallibility, etc.
As the Church’s Catechism teaches, God still converses with His Church, as He always has:
79 The Father’s self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: “God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church—and through her in the world—leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness.
Also:
**81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”
“And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound, and spread it abroad by their preaching.”**
Then of course there are the various Heavenly visions, visitations, etc. received by Catholics, individually and as groups, many of which have been formally recognized by the Church.
So yes, Catholics believe that God still speaks, is not mute, and Heaven is intimately involved in our lives and the life of the Church. We have visions, visitations, miracles, etc. God is still, down to this day, involved with His Bride, His Church, and never stopped. He still converses with the Church, and through the Church, the world.
J
jane_doe
Guest
I’m struggling to understand you LW7. Statements like “Public Revelation is complete” point to God is silent. Then “it is through God the Holy Spirit that the Church continues, down to this day, to unfold the depths of Public Revelation” point to God still talks.
The world can either listen/learn more things from God, or not. There is revelation, or there is not. And yet it looks like you’re talking about a third option, which I am struggling to follow.
Then why no revelation?
Then why no revelation? If God is not mute where are His words He says today?
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I asked you about this earlier in the thread and I didn’t see an answer.
Do you believe God reveals truth at an Ecumenical Council (of which Catholics agree there have been 21) or to the Pope for the purpose of Papal Infallible statements (of which there have been only two IMO, but Catholics have all sorts of opinions)?
If you do, you are at odds with I think every scholarly discussion of these issues I have every read.
God does not reveal anything for the purpose of guiding the Catholic Church to “all truth.”
As I mentioned in my last post, I do not know when Catholics first decided that God guiding to “all truth” meant that the Church was infallible and the Ecumenical Council specifically was infallible, but the dual commitment to infallibility AND no Public Revelation has led to a very unusual way of explaining how God works in an Ecumenical Council (or in Papal Infallibility).
If a Pope or an Ecumenical Council stumbles upon falsity and are tempted to offer it as truth, the Catholic teaches that God will prevent it.* I am sure I have seen online Catholics claim that a particular Pope died before he could do something that would have compromised truth.* I have yet to see a scholarly explanation as to how this works, but it is called a “negative protection.”
If the Pope were infallible in math, would he get a perfect score on a math test.* Not necessarily, he might leave the paper mostly blank (and get close to a 0), but if he answers a question it would be answered from his knowledge and study and ….* And because God offers the charism of infallibility, the answered questions would be answered correctly.
This is not the Revelation that Peter, James, John, and Paul possessed.* They received visions and divine truth.* This is not the inspiration of scripture whether you believe in “plenary inspiration” or some other form.*
I have also been party to Catholics ensuring Protestants that there is no continued revelation, do not worry.* I do not think you are presenting a solid picture of Catholic beliefs.* It is either truth when Catholics claim the development of doctrine is NOT via revelation from God, or it is untrue.* Protestants believe Catholicism has added to the gospel and must be reassured.** LDS believe you are not lead by revelation.* You cannot have it both ways.
Catholics believe that God can offer private revelation to the individual for their life and/or benefit, but God cannot guide the church in it PUBLIC declarations that must be believed by the faithful.* When Dogma is defined it is via study and HUMAN reckoning not divine revelation.
Also, St. Justin lived and died rejecting truth evidenced in the 4th Lateran Council.* Can I be a faithful Catholic and reject what was presented at the 4th Lateran Council?* Is the Dogma defined at the 4th Lateran Council necessary for salvation or is it just an option among many?* My understanding is that the 4th Lateran Council defined infallible dogma that cannot be rejected.* And yet Catholics teach that the dogma defined in the 4th Lateran Council was not revelation from God only protected from error in some way.
Have I misunderstood you or the literature?
Charity, TOm
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
I’m off to work right now, but in the meantime, see the post, in this thread, where I defined “Public Revelation”. As has been stated, Catholics believe that “Public Revelation” has a specific definition, that may not be shared by others that use that term (or those who try to use that term to define their own beliefs in comparison to what Catholicism is claiming). It is Public Revelation (again, the specific definition used by Catholics) that is complete. As I have shown, that does not mean that God is done speaking or doesn’t converse with the Church, which, as I showed, is what the Catholic Church teaches right in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
You must start with what Catholics mean by “Public Revelation” (again, see my earlier post) if you want to understand what we are talking about on this topic.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14162103&postcount=137
T
TOmNossor
Guest
TOm,
Some ECF’s, as you say, did believe that the writings of the Hermas visions were inspired, however, it was written during the time period of canonizing the NT, and this and many other writings eventually were rejected as being not being canonical Scripture. Basically, the same thing happened with the Montanus revelation, without going into more detail. I guess if you want to believe that Irenaeus and Tertullian are on your side of the issue, fine, but understand that the CC had plenty to contend with back in the first couple centuries, sorting out the canon and dealing with heresies, persecution, etc. It is true some ECF’s saw things somewhat differently than we see them today as Catholics. That is why the Church today may seem at odds with some of the statements made by some in the first century. This is why it is common for some non-Catholics to use some of the ECF’s words to try to prove us wrong today. Generally, the ECF’s theology is in line with historical and current Catholic teaching, some of it was a bit non-conforming though for sure. The Holy Spirit was working with imperfect people.
*JMM1957,
You have presented Catholicism as I understand it.* Thank you.
I believe there is a beauty associated with complete and unchangeable truth and I can respect the idea.
I also think some LDS forget that Catholics still believe in “private revelation.”* There is beauty in that as well, and as a LDS I agree it is wonderful and even agree that it happens for Catholics and LDS.
Charity, TOm
J
jane_doe
Guest
I’m not concerned with whether or not it is necessary for eternal life.
Ok. At what year was marriage proclaimed to be a sacrament?
Are you able to link some of His words given to the whole world in the last 100 years?
J
JMM1957
Guest
I’ll take the easy questions first. Answer: 1547
- Status