Why No Revelation or Prophets in Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter thecourt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thecourt

Guest
If Catholicism professes something I do not believe or see in scriptural evidence for, namely the true church of Jesus Christ, how do explain your lack of revelation or prophets?
Do not tell me that Benedict XVI is your prophet, because as far as I am concerned he is not, since the scriptures show nothing about a election of those who hold the priesthood. My key word there is election. My reading of the scriptures states nothing about the first twelve apostles being elected, so Catholics explain that.

Further, since his will, relative to his Church comes through revelation, Catholics explain why that is not in existence in the Roman Catholic church?

I could list other characteristics of the Church of Jesus Christ that Catholicism lacks — I will await your explanation of these two foundational principles.
 
If Catholicism professes something I do not believe or see in scriptural evidence for, namely the true church of Jesus Christ, how do explain your lack of revelation or prophets?
Do not tell me that Benedict XVI is your prophet, because as far as I am concerned he is not, since the scriptures show nothing about a election of those who hold the priesthood. My key word there is election. My reading of the scriptures states nothing about the first twelve apostles being elected, so Catholics explain that.

Further, since his will, relative to his Church comes through revelation, Catholics explain why that is not in existence in the Roman Catholic church?

I could list other characteristics of the Church of Jesus Christ that Catholicism lacks — I will await your explanation of these two foundational principles.
Jesus is the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End, the Alpha and the Omega. And what needed to be revealed had been revealed. There is no new different revelation from what had been revealed. Anything new and different that does not confirm what had been revealed would be antithesis to the word of God.

The Catholic Church is the visible Church that Jesus builds on earth. Her priests and Bishops were merely carrying out what had been promised and taught by the Lord Jesus. Taken in this context, your question is not relevant but then I may miss your point.

The Pope has its beginning that reaching back to the apostle Peter. The apostles were hand picked by Jesus but after the Ascension, replacement of the twelve was done by election. So yes, an apostle was elected.

God bless you.
 
If Catholicism professes something I do not believe or see in scriptural evidence for, namely the true church of Jesus Christ, how do explain your lack of revelation or prophets?
Do not tell me that Benedict XVI is your prophet, because as far as I am concerned he is not, since the scriptures show nothing about a election of those who hold the priesthood. My key word there is election. My reading of the scriptures states nothing about the first twelve apostles being elected, so Catholics explain that.

Further, since his will, relative to his Church comes through revelation, Catholics explain why that is not in existence in the Roman Catholic church?

I could list other characteristics of the Church of Jesus Christ that Catholicism lacks — I will await your explanation of these two foundational principles.
Yes, please list other characteristics of the Church of Jesus Christ that Catholicism lacks. I’d be very interested.

Who said that we lack revelation or prophets? We have both. Firstly, in the context of what Reuben J stated, every single person can receive “personal revelation” (what we Catholics call “private revelation”) from God. Many other Heavenly beings have also visited Catholics. Also, for any revelation to be deemed as something to be known by all, it cannot contradict what has already been revealed, as Reuben J states.

Many of our canonized saints were also prophets and prophetesses (yes, female prophets are found in the Bible).

Why would Pope Benedict XVI need to be a prophet?

Why would it matter if the apostles were not elected? Catholics do not hold our bishops and the bishop of Rome, the Pope, to be apostles, so I’m not sure what your point is here.

Please browse this website:
catholicrevelations.org/
It is aptly called “The Catholic Prophets Encyclopedia”
 
Also, a fellow Catholic, 3DOP, posts over on the Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board. They recently had a thread called “Why do most Christian church’s (sic) reject Prophets today?”. 3DOP gave a great response on the Catholic position, which I repost here, and link to:
I have to demur. The Catholic Church has always held that the gift of prophecy extends into the post-Apostolic Age. Inspired by the admonition of St. Paul to the Thessalonians to “not despise prophesyings”, the Apostle also warns us in the same passage to “prove all things, hold fast that which is good.” We require a standard by which to “prove” any prophecy and that would have been the Catholic Tradition communicated orally and in written form by the Apostles. On a hierarchical level, post-apostolic prophecy will never rise to a level of equality with the inspired Scriptures upon which the faith was founded. If there is ever a conflict, we place our confidence not in the prophet, but in the Scripture.
I understand that this position is not highly regarded in LDS circles, as being tantamount to putting a lid on the heavens, but I believe I can briefly illustrate that this is far from the case, and that the supernatural gift of prophecy, compatible with Holy Scripture, continues unto every age and is frequently used by God to inform His people of coming events. Nor is this a mere acknowledgement of the hypothetical possibility of something that seldom happens. I don’t think anyone has ever catalogued the scores of volumes it would take to record the written and spoken prophecies of canonized and uncanonized Catholic saints. It seems strange to have to prove that we believe in prophecy when we live in an era in which “the Third Secret of Fatima”, if non-Catholics don’t what it is, have heard of it.
I’ll close with some excerpts from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"The prophetic spirit did not disappear with the Apostolic times, but the Church has not pronounced any work prophetic since then, though she has canonized numberless saints who were more or less endowed with the gift of prophecy. The Church allows freedom in accepting or rejecting particular or private prophecies according to the evidence for or against them. We should be slow to admit and slow to reject them, and in either case treat them with respect when they come to us from trustworthy sources, and are in accordance with Catholic doctrine and the rules of Catholic morality.
Some prophetic spirits were prolific in the forecasts of the future. The biographer of St. Philip Neri states that if all the prophecies attributed to this saint were narrated, they alone would fill entire volumes. It is sufficient to give the following as examples of private prophecies."
newadvent.org/cathen/12473a.htm
I can certainly acknowledge that our systems of understanding the gift of prophecy differ and you understandably prefer your system as the most reliable, while we prefer our own. But it doesn’t seem profitable for Latter Day Saints to understand the answer to the question why most Christian churches reject prophecy as being “that it has something to do with the Catholic Church rejecting prophets.” It seems to me that in no way do the churches which reject prophesy follow the example of the Catholic Church.
mormonapologetics.org/topic/45561-why-do-most-christian-churchs-reject-prophets-today/page__st__20__p__1208727053&#entry1208727053

3DOP later said in the thread:
I do not see a conflict. You ThurifAcolyte: 3DOP was responding to a non-Mormon in this post who questioned the Catholic position, perhaps a Protestant] suggested that the post-Apostolic gift of prophecy couldn’t be properly termed revelation. I don’t think Catholics can take the position that they are exclusive of each other. I cited the Catholic Encyclopedia to give evidence that at least a few Catholics hold that prophecy is also revelation. I think the conflict is resolved by distinguishing between the kinds of supernatural revelation. The post-Apostolic gift of prophecy does not and never will carry the same weight of authority as that upon which the Church is founded. If ever a conflict arises between the two, Apostolic revelation is always favored. An indication that a post-apostolic prophecy is false would be if it could not be reconciled with Apostolic revelation.
As you know, the Latter-day Saint tends to believe that since we jold that the canon is closed, that God does not speak to us in this age. I am eager to demonstrate that it be to gain a mistaken impression to judge the Catholic view of matters solely on the fact that we are not open to adding to the Apostolic deposit. To that end, I quoted the citation which affirms that in a very complete sense, the post-apostolic gift of prophecy is supernatural revelation in which God imparts new information to the faithful by means of prophets/prophetesses to the Church. Since the Church teaches that we cannot “despise prophesying”, we continue to consider the messages that God has for our own times.
mormonapologetics.org/topic/45561-why-do-most-christian-churchs-reject-prophets-today/page__view__findpost__p__1208728447
 
If Catholicism professes something I do not believe or see in scriptural evidence for, namely the true church of Jesus Christ, how do explain your lack of revelation or prophets?
Do not tell me that Benedict XVI is your prophet, because as far as I am concerned he is not, since the scriptures show nothing about a election of those who hold the priesthood. My key word there is election. My reading of the scriptures states nothing about the first twelve apostles being elected, so Catholics explain that.

Further, since his will, relative to his Church comes through revelation, Catholics explain why that is not in existence in the Roman Catholic church?

I could list other characteristics of the Church of Jesus Christ that Catholicism lacks — I will await your explanation of these two foundational principles.
As an avid critic of Catholicism I would say the last pope John Paul was a prophet.
 
<<I could list other characteristics of the Church of Jesus Christ that Catholicism lacks — I will await your explanation of these two foundational principles.>>

The Mormonoid Church and its various schisms have NO true revelation or true prophets, nor has it ever had. You are not so naive or foolish or ignorant as to think it does, do you?

All it did was to reinvent the Pope and College of Cardinals, simply using different terms, claiming even MORE infallibility for its “Living Prophets” (including the deceased ones) than Pio Nono ever dreamed.

Its temple rituals can offer neither health to the sinews nor marrow in the bone, because there is no power in its priesthood for itself or its descendants or anyone else forever.

Furthemore, Pay Lay Ale is, at best, a beer named for a Brazilian soccer star.

Do not tell me that your present President is your prophet, because as far as I am concerned he is not, since the scriptures show nothing about a election of those who hold the Living Prophecy.

I could list other characteristics of the Catholic Church that Mormoidism lacks — I will await your explanation of these two foundational principles.
 
We don’t need prophets. Public revelation ended with the death of John.
 
If Catholicism professes something I do not believe or see in scriptural evidence for, namely the true church of Jesus Christ, how do explain your lack of revelation or prophets?
Do not tell me that Benedict XVI is your prophet, because as far as I am concerned he is not, since the scriptures show nothing about a election of those who hold the priesthood. My key word there is election. My reading of the scriptures states nothing about the first twelve apostles being elected, so Catholics explain that.

Further, since his will, relative to his Church comes through revelation, Catholics explain why that is not in existence in the Roman Catholic church?

I could list other characteristics of the Church of Jesus Christ that Catholicism lacks — I will await your explanation of these two foundational principles.
First of all, no election for those who hold the priesthood in Scripture? The 12 apostles were priests in the line of Jesus, were they not?

Acts 1:21-26 - *"Wherefore of these men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.

And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles." *

Sounds a lot like an election to me. Notice that Judas was not just one of Jesus’ apostles: he *held the office *of apostle, as it says right in Acts 1:20. This is very important, as his office did not die with him but Matthias was elected to hold that same office that was vacated by Judas. The same is true of the other 11 apostles; they were not merely people Jesus liked to hang out with, they were people that held the offices of apostle that He created. See the Old Testament precedent in Isiah 22:15-24 (the same language that Jesus uses to establish Peter’s office as the Bishop of Rome in Matthew 16:18, not coincidentally). Likewise, the New Testament is littered with examples of new offices being created (1 Tim 1:18, 1 Cor 4:17, 2 Tim 2:22, Titus 1:5-7, any many others). So I don’t see how you can say that Scripture is silent on the election of those who hold the priesthood. It quite clearly shows that just the opposite it true - this is the way the expansion of the church was designed to happen.

Second of all, not everything we believe is contained in Scripture. As a Mormon with your own book and laws/traditions outside of the Bible, you are pretty much bound to agree with this. The Holy Spirit guides His church throughout the ages with divine revelation. The fact that something we believe isn’t explicitly spelled out in the Bible doesn’t make it wrong. In this way, your argument doesn’t have a strong base when you make absence from Scripture such a big part of it (which, again, is not true anyway).

Having said all that, if you really need something to hang on to with this prophesy thing, Pope Paul VI foretold all of the negative effects that on-demand birth control would bring to society in *Humane Vitae *back in 1968. Like others have said, numerous Catholic saints have been prophets and prophetesses. I’m not sure exactly what you are trying to get at with your questions there…
 
My reading of the scriptures states nothing about the first twelve apostles being elected, so Catholics explain that.
I guess you have never read Acts 1:15-26
Acts 1:15-26 (King James Version)
15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
Matthias was elected by the remaining 11 under the inspirartion of the Holy Spirit, just as the pope is elected by the bishops, who have apostolic authority.

Note that verses 21 and 22 lay out the requirements to be one of the 12. No modern man meets those requirements, so there can be no modern 12.
Further, since his will, relative to his Church comes through revelation, Catholics explain why that is not in existence in the Roman Catholic church?
“No revelation in the Catholic Church” is one of those persistent Mormon lies. Every council of the church has credited the Holy Spirit with inspiring the decisions made at those councils, just as the Holy Spirit inspired the councils in Acts 1 and Acts 15. If that’s not revelation, I don’t know what is.

And Catholics get personal, private revelation all the time. We just don’t brag about it all the time like Mormons do, because it is personal and private.

What there is not in the Catholic Church is public revelation of new doctrines that replace or add to the doctrines that Jesus and the apostles taught.

By the way, when was the last time we ever heard a revelation from the Mormon leaders? These days you get “official declarations” but no revelations. Why is that?
 
Read Pope Paul VI’s encyclical “Humanae Vitae”. If that’s not prophecy,I don’t know what is,

Paul
 
Oh and by the way, just for reference, no one is ordained “Pope”. In the Catholic Church, there are only three “orders” in the priesthood: deacon, priest, and bishop. The Pope is first and foremost, a bishop, specifically the bishop of Rome. There are various titles and roles given to those that have been ordained to a specific order, such as Patriarch, Cardinal, etc. No one is ordained a cardinal, pope, patriarch, etc. These are merely roles within the three priesthood orders of deacon, priest, and bishop.
 
If Catholicism professes something I do not believe or see in scriptural evidence for, namely the true church of Jesus Christ, how do explain your lack of revelation or prophets?
Do not tell me that Benedict XVI is your prophet, because as far as I am concerned he is not, since the scriptures show nothing about a election of those who hold the priesthood. My key word there is election. My reading of the scriptures states nothing about the first twelve apostles being elected, so Catholics explain that.

Further, since his will, relative to his Church comes through revelation, Catholics explain why that is not in existence in the Roman Catholic church?

I could list other characteristics of the Church of Jesus Christ that Catholicism lacks — I will await your explanation of these two foundational principles.
don’t feed the troll people
 
If Catholicism professes something I do not believe or see in scriptural evidence for, namely the true church of Jesus Christ, how do explain your lack of revelation or prophets?
Do not tell me that Benedict XVI is your prophet, because as far as I am concerned he is not, since the scriptures show nothing about a election of those who hold the priesthood. My key word there is election. My reading of the scriptures states nothing about the first twelve apostles being elected, so Catholics explain that.

Further, since his will, relative to his Church comes through revelation, Catholics explain why that is not in existence in the Roman Catholic church?

I could list other characteristics of the Church of Jesus Christ that Catholicism lacks — I will await your explanation of these two foundational principles.
Could you show me where in scripture this is given as the method for coming up with a prophet:

“Succession is done in an orderly fashion, with the most senior apostle becoming the new president and prophet”
 
"Where are your prophets and where is the Pope?"

The fourth argument you’ll come against is that the Church has no more prophets and that the office of Pope isn’t biblical. While the Church dose come before the Bible, it is enough to refute this argument with Scriptures. For the Scriptures show that one gift of the Holy Spirit is prophesy, and Jesus promised His Apostles that the Spirit of Truth would lead them into all truths, and His promise came true on Pentecost, and He further promised that He would be with them always, even unto the end of the ages (e.g., “the end of the world”). Now, if Christ’s promise of the Spirit came true, than His promise of never leaving the Church can be believed to be true too, especially in light of His identity as the Truth, and, moreover, if the Spirit is always with the Church, than the gift of prophesy is likewise always with the Church - and it is not necessary to even list saints with the gift of prophesy, although if you wish to do so, it will only harm the credibility of the arguer, who will not be able to give substantial proof that his church has true prophets.

On the contrary, in fact, Jesus Christ warns against false prophets and false messiahs, saying a bad tree bears bad fruit. You may use this to prove that the so-called “prophets” are liars and decievers.

As for the office of the Pope, just point to the verses wherein Jesus calls Peter a shepherd ("tend my flock, “feed my shep”). Jesus would certainly know what a shepherd is. And the term shepherd is used not only for the bishops but especially for the Pope, who is a vicar of Christ, the Good Shepherd. This is made clear by Peter laying down his life for the Christians in Rome.
 
If Catholicism professes something I do not believe or see in scriptural evidence for, namely the true church of Jesus Christ, how do explain your lack of revelation or prophets?
Do not tell me that Benedict XVI is your prophet, because as far as I am concerned he is not, since the scriptures show nothing about a election of those who hold the priesthood. My key word there is election. My reading of the scriptures states nothing about the first twelve apostles being elected, so Catholics explain that.

Further, since his will, relative to his Church comes through revelation, Catholics explain why that is not in existence in the Roman Catholic church?

I could list other characteristics of the Church of Jesus Christ that Catholicism lacks — I will await your explanation of these two foundational principles.
How do you explain that your prophet, seer and revelator hasn’t done any of those things for who knows who long?
 
If Catholicism professes something I do not believe or see in scriptural evidence for, namely the true church of Jesus Christ, how do explain your lack of revelation or prophets?
Do not tell me that Benedict XVI is your prophet, because as far as I am concerned he is not, since the scriptures show nothing about a election of those who hold the priesthood. My key word there is election. My reading of the scriptures states nothing about the first twelve apostles being elected, so Catholics explain that.

Further, since his will, relative to his Church comes through revelation, Catholics explain why that is not in existence in the Roman Catholic church?

I could list other characteristics of the Church of Jesus Christ that Catholicism lacks — I will await your explanation of these two foundational principles.

Protestants make the erroneous assumption that the Church is based on the Scriptures. What about the early years? At first, there was only Tradition and the Old Testament.​

Every writer of the New Testament was Catholic. Read the early Church Fathers. Start with Polycarp or Ignatius. Both were disciples of John the Apostle.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Trallians, 2-3 (ANF, Vol. I)

Be subject to the bishop as to the Lord, for “he watches for your souls, as one that shall give account to God.” Wherefore also, you appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order that, by believing in His death, you may by baptism be made partakers of His resurrection. It is therefore necessary, whatsoever things you do, to do nothing without the bishop. And be subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ, in whom, if we live, we shall [at last] be found.

In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church. Concerning all this, I am persuaded that you are of the same opinion. For I have received the manifestations of your love, and still have it with me, in your bishop, whose very appearance is highly instructive, and his meekness of itself a power; whom I imagine even the ungodly must reverence.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians, 4,1 (ANF, Vol. I)

Wherefore I write boldly to your love, which is worthy of God, and exhort you to have but one faith, and one [kind of] preaching, and one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of the Lord Jesus Christ; and His blood which was shed for us is one; one loaf also is broken to all [the communicants], and one cup is distributed among them all: there is but one altar for the whole Church, and one bishop, with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants. Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being, God, even the Father; and one only-begotten Son, God, the Word and man; and one Comforter, the Spirit of truth; and also one preaching, and one faith, and one baptism; and one Church which the holy apostles established from one end of the earth to the other by the blood of Christ, and by their own sweat and toil; it behooves you also, therefore, as “a peculiar people, and a holy nation,” to perform all things with harmony in Christ.
**
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8-9 (ANF, Vol. I)**

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid… It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize, or to offer, or to present sacrifice, or to celebrate a love-feast. But that which seems good to him, is also well-pleasing to God, that everything you do may be secure and valid.

And say I, Honor God indeed, as the Author and Lord of all things, but the bishop as the high-priest, who bears the image of God—of God. inasmuch as he is a ruler, and of Christ, in his capacity of a priest. After Him, we must also honor the king. For there is no one superior to God, or even like to Him, among all the beings that exist. Nor is there any one in the Church greater than the bishop, who ministers as a priest to God for the salvation of the whole world. Nor, again, is there any one among rulers to be compared with the king, who secures peace and good order to those over whom he rules. He who honors the bishop shall be honored by God, even as he that dishonors him shall be punished by God. For if he that rises up against kings is justly held worthy of punishment, inasmuch as he dissolves public order, of how much sorer punishment, do you suppose, shall he be thought worthy, who presumes to do anything without the bishop, thus both destroying the[Church’s] unity, and throwing its order into confusion? For the priesthood is the very highest point of all good things among men, against which whosoever is mad enough to strive, dishonors not man, but God, and Christ Jesus, the First-born, and the only High Priest, by nature, of the Father. Let all things therefore be done by you with good order in Christ. Let the laity be subject to the deacons; the deacons to the presbyters; the presbyters to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as He is to the Father.
 
Tertullian, Prescription Against the Heretics, XX, 4 (ANF, Vol. III)

Immediately, therefore, so did the apostles, whom this designation indicates as “the sent.” Having, on the authority of a prophecy, which occurs in a psalm of David, chosen Matthias by lot as the twelfth, into the place of Judas, they obtained the promised power of the Holy Ghost for the gift of miracles and of utterance; and after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judea, and rounding churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner rounded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive Church, (rounded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, whilst they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion, and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality,—privileges which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery.

Tertullian then argues rhetorically in Ch, XVIII:

Grant, then, that all have erred; that the apostle was mistaken in giving his testimony; that the Holy Ghost had no such respect to any one (church) as to lead it into truth, although sent with this view by Christ (John 14.26) and for this asked of the Father that He might be the teacher of truth (John 15.26); grant, also, that He, the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ [that is, the Holy Spirit], neglected His office, permitting the churches for a time to understand differently, (and) to believe differently, what He Himself was preaching by the apostles,—is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? No casualty distributed among many men issues in one and the same result. Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition?

He continues in Ch. XXXII:

But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith.
 
The first poster after I started the thread has the guts to say, with no authority at all, that God has revealed all he is going to. Is that so? Of course it is not.

Prophets generally most people do not understand because their churches do not have any.

For me, the restoration, which I submit has happened, would not be necessary, if Catholicism did not result in such reformers as Martin Luther, attempting to have again or create again, the church of Jesus Christ as it was originally established.

Yet the numerous Protestant churches are clear evidence that Catholicism did move away from the original church of Jesus Christ. For me, the restoration was necessary and Issiah, for example, prophesied, of the soon to happen restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

All those of you who say I am foolish and whatever else can certainly continue say such. I am grateful the Holy Ghost revealed to me what is the true church of Jesus Christ and why I have continued to avoid and will continue Catholicism and my friends, who are Catholics efforts to have me come back to the Roman Catholic church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top