Tradition, Canon, the Gift of Prophesy, and Continuing Scripture

[Cowboy_Pete]

On this thread, Soren asked some interesting questions, made some points that deserve their own thread. It amazes me how much I’ve learned here in a few days, with regards to the difference between some Catholic and some LDS assumptions.

Soren:

Rather, there is warrant from Scripture itself so show that the presence of continual scriptural revelation is not intrinsic to the operations of divine authority. For instance, we have no reason to believe that there was any Scripture in the time of the patriarchs or before them.

Job’s story seems to pre-date Abraham & Genesis itself shows strong textual evidence of having been transmitted as oral tradition prior to being written down.

Soren:

There were divine covenants and valid priestly offerings, but no special texts

Yes, but an oral tradition in a sophisticated preliterate society can serve some of the functions of a scriptural text.

Soren:

(Of course, Mormonism claims Abraham wrote scripture,

True. We believe even Adam was taught to read & write a record, although we do not have it. But please note that I haven’t used my own beliefs as a premise to argue anything. At one point, I did ask some questions about the priesthood and baptism, and I found in the course of my discussion that my questions were premised on LDS assumptions, i.e. that Baptism required priesthood authority. I don’t know how I would have learned that without engaging in discussion & asking honest questions.

Soren:

Moreover, even on Mormon assumptions, we know that there was a Levitical priesthood operating in Israel during the so-called intertestamental period. This is clear from the fact that Zacharias not only serves in the Temple but gets a revelation there in Luke 1.

I tentatively agree with your conclusion, but receiving revelation does not require priesthood; indeed, Mary received revelation, & there’s no indication that she had the priesthood.

Soren:

Moreover, the New Testament teaches that “The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached.” (Luke 16:16) This passage poses a problem for anyone who thinks that the same rules that make scriptural revelation normative in the Church would be the same in the new covenant as in the old.

Why so? Luke 16:16’s about the message itself, not about the manner of delivery. I do not understand how you distinguish the oracles and visions of Peter, John, and Paul, from those of Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah. And Paul is quite clear (some time after the death of John the Baptist) that the gift of Prophesy exists in the church.

Soren:

According to Catholicism, the reason there does not need to be new Scripture is that the definitive revelation of God is not a text but the person of Christ himself. The Incarnation as such contains all the truth that God has for man. This is not to say that it exhausts the truth and limits our potential knowledge, but the exact opposite: it points out that an infinite content has already been communicated by God. That is why the author of Hebrews writes, “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.” Clearly a change in the mode of divine speech is indicated here, and no theology about the nature of revelation can afford to overlook it.

I thank you for the clarity of the last paragraph, and for enlightening me as to the Catholic perspective. That’s one of the reasons I come here. If the epistles had indicated that gift of prophesy had ceased after Jesus’ resurrection, then I would find that a solidly persuasive argument.

Soren:

Yet your assumptions demand that we overlook it

Not at all. I hope that you will continue to challenge my assumptions. And I’m beginning to see that some of what I thought was malicious fabrications about LDS doctrine, seems to be honest misunderstandings based on different premises, i.e. similar terms that mean drastically different things in our community than in yours, e.g. excommunication, priesthood, etc.

Soren:

for you are claiming a kind of eternal necessity for new scripture that does not fit with the Biblical teaching.

I don’t know about eternal. When Jesus rules on earth during the Millenium, will we email him our prayers Who knows? Certainly the need for scripture might diminish if God himself were in our midst. Do you believe that the Pope will continue to act as Christ’s vicar during the Millenium?

Soren:

This does not mean God is silent, since he certainly speaks through the Church in the person of Christ, or that he is powerless, since he could hypothetically inspire more text. It does mean we have no right to assume that he must do so …

Would you please elaborate on the following sentence?

Soren:

The real issue about the canon, after all, has never been about whether God still speaks, but how he does so.

Thank you,

Pete.

---

Kathleen:

Tradition is the authentic understanding Jesus Christ given us not just one person, but 12 apostles who were witnesses to Christ, tradition the manner of interpreting Scripture and how it is lived out in the history of salvation history.

Well-said and Amen.

 

[ltwin]

Well, coming from a Pentecostal perspective I would say that prophecy does continue within the church, but it is not on the same level as canonical scripture. This can be seen in the New Testament quite clearly and early Christian literature quite clearly.

 

[Christian_polk]

Hello

The brief summery of all that was disclosed from above, seem`s to be an objective but reverent want, from a catholic perspective. I would assume here is the right place to receive such information, hopefully you now have such better insight.

Prophecy is such a private matter and mysteriousness of faith is also confusing for other`s, so is usually avoided as a conversational topic.

Self control is last in the line of fruits of the holy < Spirit > but without it the other`s could demise in effect, prophecy is to be sought after but without self control such could not really be fertile for truth.

Subduing that which is around you as history would present itself, is dangerous without your eye`s wide open.

Hope you understand___________Hail …

 

[SteveVH]

Pete, thanks for moving this to its own thread. It does deserve its own place. This is an area that I find extememly interesting and believe that many of our differences arise from misunderstanding. It would be good to identify those areas, I think, so that the true areas of disagreement can be dicussed without distractions.

First I think it is important that you know that Catholics do believe in continuing revelation from several different standpoints. We read the lives of the saints and leaders of our Church and what God has revealed to them. Theology of the Body, by Blessed John Paul, II, is a good example. John Paul, II has definitely shed new light on the nature of God by studying the nature of man. Is this revelation? In a sense it is. Could it ever change the doctrines the Church has held and taught for 2000 years. No. It is light given to us so that we may further uncover and more clearly see the one revelation of Jesus Christ.

In another category altogether we have the Marian doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. While these doctrines were always believed, with varying degrees of understanding, they did not become official doctrine until much later. They had no affect on existing doctrine, however, but actually (especially in the case of the Immaculate Conception) bolstered existing doctrine concerning the nature of Jesus Christ and that he had to be born of a woman free of the stain of sin.

So, at least from my understanding, we believe that God continually uncovers the mystery of himself which was given in its entirety in the person of Jesus Christ. If one wishes to classify this as “continuing revelation” then so be it. We would not look at it in the same sense for the simple reason that once the fulness of truth has been revealed (Jesus Christ) there simply is nothing left to be revealed. Helping us understand the fulness of that truth (through insights given via the operation of the Holy Spirit) is not considered “new” or “continuing” revelation within our Church. Very simply, God has spoken one Word, and he has no other.

 

[campeador]

Pete, to clarify this specific part of your post,

I don’t know about eternal. When Jesus rules on earth during the Millenium, will we email him our prayers Who knows? Certainly the need for scripture might diminish if God himself were in our midst. Do you believe that the Pope will continue to act as Christ’s vicar during the Millenium?

From The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.

The Antichrist’s deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the “intrinsically perverse” political form of a secular messianism.