Unpacking Divine Revelation & a "new" revelation from Divine Revelation?

[GodHeals]

Hi,

Unpacking Divine Revelation & a “new” revelation from Divine Revelation?

How does the Church know the difference between the unpacking of Divine Revelation revealed through Public Revelation and a “new” revelation? I mean is there a time constraint on the unpacking of “new” revealed truths from the unpacking of Divine Revelation?

One person mentioned something had to be mentioned by the Church Fathers or tending towards a particular doctrine by Tradition. E.g. we cannot say there is a forth type of baptism that is revealed for the unborn; water, desire, blood.

I came about this question based on my seeking to understand if limbo was ever a retracted dogma, which would seem contrary to the Church, and I am still trying to understand.

God Bless You,
Brian

 

[Julia_Mae]

Hi,

Unpacking Divine Revelation & a “new” revelation from Divine Revelation?

How does the Church know the difference between the unpacking of Divine Revelation revealed through Public Revelation and a “new” revelation? I mean is there a time constraint on the unpacking of “new” revealed truths from the unpacking of Divine Revelation?

One person mentioned something had to be mentioned by the Church Fathers or tending towards a particular doctrine by Tradition. E.g. we cannot say there is a forth type of baptism that is revealed for the unborn; water, desire, blood.

I came about this question based on my seeking to understand if limbo was ever a retracted dogma, which would seem contrary to the Church, and I am still trying to understand.

God Bless You,
Brian

Limbo was never dogma, it was one Bishop’s explanation that became a popular.

**How does the Church know the difference between the unpacking of Divine Revelation revealed through Public Revelation and a “new” revelation? **

Greater understanding doesn’t mean something “new” but something inherent in the original teaching or writing that becomes more clear in time as God wills. Jesus said He had more to tell us, the Holy Spirit enlightens our understanding, IMO, in response to our tendency to stray from the Truth.

The Truth is actually simple, isn’t it? Love one another. Feed and clothe and care for one another. By doing these things, we follow Jesus. Put other’s ahead of ourselves.

But we’re arrogant and think there should be more. Or afraid and want every single thing explained so we don’t have to be responsible for our own decisions. We want to control everything. We’re a mess. The Holy Spirit comes and guides us away from our errors through a living Word.

 

[GodHeals]

Limbo was never dogma, it was one Bishop’s explanation that became a popular.

**How does the Church know the difference between the unpacking of Divine Revelation revealed through Public Revelation and a “new” revelation? **

Greater understanding doesn’t mean something “new” but something inherent in the original teaching or writing that becomes more clear in time as God wills. Jesus said He had more to tell us, the Holy Spirit enlightens our understanding, IMO, in response to our tendency to stray from the Truth.

The Truth is actually simple, isn’t it? Love one another. Feed and clothe and care for one another. By doing these things, we follow Jesus. Put other’s ahead of ourselves.

But we’re arrogant and think there should be more. Or afraid and want every single thing explained so we don’t have to be responsible for our own decisions. We want to control everything. We’re a mess. The Holy Spirit comes and guides us away from our errors through a living Word.

Thanks.

I guess my question is better stated, “Does a later developed dogma need to be tied to some similar Tradition the early church fathers discussed?” What makes a fuller development of divine revelation not a “new” revelation?

 

[pablope]

Thanks.

I guess my question is better stated, “Does a later developed dogma need to be tied to some similar Tradition the early church fathers discussed?” What makes a fuller development of divine revelation not a “new” revelation?

May take some reading…by John Henry Newman:

newmanreader.org/works/development/

 

[GodHeals]

May take some reading…by John Henry Newman:

newmanreader.org/works/development/

hahaha,… Thanks. Seems like everything else, no easy answer. This i am learning is a TRUTH in itself!!! But yet, God says:

In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; yea, Father, for such was thy gracious will. - Luke 10:21

I need to be praying more! What is the context of that verse?

 

[Julia_Mae]

Thanks.

I guess my question is better stated, “Does a later developed dogma need to be tied to some similar Tradition the early church fathers discussed?” What makes a fuller development of divine revelation not a “new” revelation?

I don’t think there is such a thing as a “later developed Dogma” to be honest. But there is fuller explication of Dogma.

If you read some church document, like INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA , wherein the practice of indulgences was changed, you will find the Dogmatic Truth of our Faith well explained with references, just like in the Catechism, though more completely.

**These references and explanations always refer back to previous writings and findings of Church Fathers, Doctors, Councils and of course, Scripture. **

There is nothing new dogmatically that is stand-alone. Revelation is complete but not fully comprehended. When we read something and think it’s “new” it just means we aren’t as well-versed in theology and salvation history as our Popes and theologians.