Catholic Church and Prophets

[Jason_J]

One of the foundational claims of the restored Church is that our Church is led by revelation, just like the New Testament Church. The apostles that lead our Church are regarded as being prophets, men who receive revelation from God to guide God's people. The President, the presiding high priest of the Church, is also regarded as "The Prophet". Therefore, we disagree with the Catholic belief that revelation has ended. We believe that the Heavens are open, and God still speaks. We can also receive revelation from God to guide our own lives and those we have stewardship over (such as in our families or in our ward and stake callings, etc), to answer questions, etc.

In response to posts in another thread:

If you will look a little closer you will see that I qualified my definition of prophet, when used in connection with the Pope, to one who interprets divine truth. In that sense, and in that sense only, is the Pope a prophet. In a general sense we are all "prophets, priests and kings" by virtue of our Baptism. No, we do not believe in continued prophecy. We believe that God has said all he has to say in his Son, Jesus Christ.

"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2Has in these last days spoken to us by his Son, whom he has appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;" (Hebrews 1:1-2)

We are no longer in need of prophets for the purpose of receiving further revelation. We are in great need of prophets who can interpret the truth given to us in light of our current time, culture and issues. The fullness of God's truth has already been given to us. We only await his return.

So does God inspire the leaders of your Church? Are they guided by the Holy Ghost? How is "development of doctrine" understood in light of no further revelation?

The Pope and the bishops have a prophetic role in the Church by virtue of their teaching authority. Again, they interpret the divine will of God. That is the first definition of a prophet. Here is a quote from the Catechism concerning the Magisterium's role in interpreting private revelation:

"67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church."

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 67)

You will certainly find no reference to a bishop as a prophet in the Mormon sense of the word.

What is the difference between private and public revelation?

What is "the Mormon sense of the word"?

Also, where is this definition of prophet that you are referring to coming from?

For comparison, here's how Latter-day Saints understand prophets:

"As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we are blessed to be led by living prophets—inspired men called to speak for the Lord, as did Moses, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, Nephi, Mormon, and other prophets of the scriptures. We sustain the President of the Church as prophet, seer, and revelator—the only person on the earth who receives revelation to guide the entire Church. We also sustain the counselors in the First Presidency and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators.

Like the prophets of old, prophets today testify of Jesus Christ and teach His gospel. They make known God's will and true character. They speak boldly and clearly, denouncing sin and warning of its consequences. At times, they may be inspired to prophesy of future events for our benefit."-http://www.lds.org/topics/prophets?lang=eng

Prophet - The Encyclopedia of Mormonism

So if you would, I'd be interested in learning how you as a Catholic view revelation, prophets, and their role in the Church.

[SteveVH]

One of the foundational claims of the restored Church is that our Church is led by revelation, just like the New Testament Church. The apostles that lead our Church are regarded as being prophets, men who receive revelation from God to guide God's people. The President, the presiding high priest of the Church, is also regarded as "The Prophet". Therefore, we disagree with the Catholic belief that revelation has ended. We believe that the Heavens are open, and God still speaks. We can also receive revelation from God to guide our own lives and those we have stewardship over (such as in our families or in our ward and stake callings, etc), to answer questions, etc.

Because this is a new thread I will respond with the Catholic position concerning revelation so that both positions are clear:

"'In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son.' (Heb 1:1-2) Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father's one, perfect, and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:

'In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in his sole Word - and he has no more to say... because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some new vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty,' (St. John of the Cross, Ascent of Mt. Carmel)

"The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 65, 66)

So does God inspire the leaders of your Church? Are they guided by the Holy Ghost?

Yes, God inspires the leaders of our Church and yes they are guided by the Holy Spirit; one and the same thing.

When Christ began to build his Church he made certain promises and gave amazing authority to that Church. He first gave the keys to the kingdom of God, entrusted to Peter. He then gave the power to bind and loose, the authority to legislate. What the Church does here is binding even in heaven. He then promised to remain with his Church until the end of time and to send the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth.

Instead of waiting for new revelation, the leaders of our Church, the bishops, are here to teach the Apostolic truth through the guidance of the Holy Spirit and in doing so are prevented from error by that same Holy Spirit. That is where infallibility is so misunderstood. It is due to the action of the Holy Spirit, not the brilliance of a man.

How is "development of doctrine" understood in light of no further revelation?

It means a greater understanding of a doctrine; a clearer way of expressing it. Doctrines can never change. Our understanding, however, and our ability to express the mysteries of God can grow and develop over the centuries.

What is the difference between private and public revelation?

Public revelation is found in the Sacred Scriptures which were canonized by the Catholic Church, and in the oral transmission of the Apostolic Tradition. Examples of pubic revelation would be doctrines such as the Trinity, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the resurrection, original sin... those things that we are obligated to believe if we call ourselves Catholic.

As for private revelation, this is the teaching, as I have already quoted:

"67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations." (CCC par 67)

Examples of private revelation would apparitions from Mary, or someone receiving a locution from Jesus. Many of these are approved of as authentic, but many more are not. In any case we are not bound to believe any of them, though I find those that have been approved to be most fascinating. In any event, they can never replace, change or supersede the deposit of faith we received from the Apostles.

What is "the Mormon sense of the word"?

The sense that a prophet will receive new revelation from God.

I will have to answer the rest of your post tomorrow. It is getting way to long and I am beat.

Thanks for your questions.

[Anddenex]

"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2Has in these last days spoken to us by his Son, whom he has appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;" (Hebrews 1:1-2)

We are no longer in need of prophets for the purpose of receiving further revelation. We are in great need of prophets who can interpret the truth given to us in light of our current time, culture and issues. The fullness of God's truth has already been given to us. We only await his return.

This scripture and interpretation, as I have studied and read, is one of the most misinterpreted verses of scripture when other faiths converse with members of the Church.

Without revelation, we would not have the majority of the New Testament, which wasn't spoken by Jesus, but through prophets and apostles, as inspired by the Holy Ghost.

God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. His manner in speaking to us has not changed. What I find most interesting is when people quote this verse they seem to forget it was spoken by Paul, who was called after Jesus had been crucified. Thus negating the idea that further revelation had become unnecessary. The Lord wasn't upon the earth when Paul was speaking?

[Jason_J]

Whoops, looks like we won't be continuing the conversation...hopefully another Catholic poster will share their view (and hopefully StephenVH will post over at Mormon Dialogue and Discussion, where his posting interests/style are more appropriate).

[livy111us]

This scripture and interpretation, as I have studied and read, is one of the most misinterpreted verses of scripture when other faiths converse with members of the Church.

Without revelation, we would not have the majority of the New Testament, which wasn't spoken by Jesus, but through prophets and apostles, as inspired by the Holy Ghost.

God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. His manner in speaking to us has not changed. What I find most interesting is when people quote this verse they seem to forget it was spoken by Paul, who was called after Jesus had been crucified. Thus negating the idea that further revelation had become unnecessary. The Lord wasn't upon the earth when Paul was speaking?

In context, this verse says something very different.

This is an epistle possibly written by Paul (and was according to Joseph Smith) to converts from Judaism. You must remember the background of these people. They grew up without Prophets and only going by what uninspired rabbis said and also the Old Testament which the last book was written about 450 years prior. So their entire life was taught this was the only way to know truth. So of course they would have a tough time adjusting to the change and say that even though He spoke to man in the past through Prophets has in these days spoke through His Son. He stressed the importance of modern revelation than that of old time (we have the same problems today). He’s not saying that there is no need for them because this same author says just the opposite in Eph. 3:5-6 he says that He speaks through Prophets in those days after Christ.

Eph. 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

6 That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

Also in Acts 21:10 which was written after the letter to the Hebrews speaks of a Prophet named Agabus. So if Prophets were no longer needed, then there would be no need to speak about their need in Ephesians as well as having Agabus as an active Prophet.

[Anddenex]

In context, this verse says something very different.

This is an epistle possibly written by Paul (and was according to Joseph Smith) to converts from Judaism. You must remember the background of these people. They grew up without Prophets and only going by what uninspired rabbis said and also the Old Testament which the last book was written about 450 years prior. So their entire life was taught this was the only way to know truth. So of course they would have a tough time adjusting to the change and say that even though He spoke to man in the past through Prophets has in these days spoke through His Son. He stressed the importance of modern revelation than that of old time (we have the same problems today). He’s not saying that there is no need for them because this same author says just the opposite in Eph. 3:5-6 he says that He speaks through Prophets in those days after Christ.

Eph. 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

6 That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

Also in Acts 21:10 which was written after the letter to the Hebrews speaks of a Prophet named Agabus. So if Prophets were no longer needed, then there would be no need to speak about their need in Ephesians as well as having Agabus as an active Prophet.

I am not sure I am seeing the difference between your post and mine, except you are providing historic context.

[madeleine1]

All prophecy regarding our salvation, as found in the OT and prophesied by John the Baptist (the last prophet) is fulfilled in and through Jesus Christ. He is God's Word, perfectly revealed.

Prophecy is a gift of the Holy Spirit, which is still given to some. However, the need for a prophet to lead us to God, and to Salvation, is not necessary as we have Jesus Christ. The call of a Christian is to follow Him. He is the Way.

Hebrews chapter 3 is an excellent exhortation to take head to the words of Jesus Christ. We are in partner with Him, and all the baptized share in His prophetic ministry.

Jesus gave to His Church, the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is by the Holy Spirit that people are led to Christ, not by people with messages rooted in novelty.

Edited July 2, 2013 by madeleine1

[livy111us]

I am not sure I am seeing the difference between your post and mine, except you are providing historic context.

My post was not a disagreement to yours, but to the contrary, I thought you did a great job on explaining the issue. I just thought I'd add my two cents on the issue as well.

[Anddenex]

My post was not a disagreement to yours, but to the contrary, I thought you did a great job on explaining the issue. I just thought I'd add my two cents on the issue as well.

Sorry, I misunderstood your first statement, and was a little confused as I read your post because it seemed as you say, "was not a disagreement." :)

[livy111us]

Sorry, I misunderstood your first statement, and was a little confused as I read your post because it seemed as you say, "was not a disagreement." :)

Lol! I'm having a hard time tonight! I have been in the hospital all day with my wife who is about to deliver a baby after being up last night, so the synapses apparently are not firing right :)

(BTW, we still have SEVERAL hours before delivery so I don't want people to think she's pushing a baby out while I'm on the internet :) )

[Anddenex]

Lol! I'm having a hard time tonight! I have been in the hospital all day with my wife who is about to deliver a baby after being up last night, so the synapses apparently are not firing right :)

(BTW, we still have SEVERAL hours before delivery so I don't want people to think she's pushing a baby out while I'm on the internet :) )

Congrats!