The Definitive Comparative Differences Between Mormonism And Other Major/Biblical Religions

[zerinus]

This is an offshoot from this thread which was not the best place to post it. So I am answering it by starting a new thread, since the poster does not have enough posts to start new threads.

Can some people here explain to me what the definitive comparative differences [is] in mormonism compared to any other major/biblical religion? Like what is the fundamental beliefs of this religion that makes it separate from others? I used to be mormon but I converted to Islam several years ago and I'm doing a lot of comparative studies.

The most fundamental difference between Mormonism and other Biblical religions is the belief in continuing revelation, and the Restoration of the gospel through a modern day prophet. Whereas others Christian churches believe that revelation stopped with Jesus and His Apostles (and Islam teaches that it ended with the Prophet Mohammad), Mormonism teaches that it is an ongoing process, starting with Joseph Smith, who was the first prophet and founder of the new dispensation.

For example in modern "Christianity" the biggest difference compared to Islam is that Jesus, peace be upon him, is taken as the literal son of God whereas Islam says he is a prophet and the messiah. Catholics see God as the trinity (which is really confusing) seeing Jesus, peace be unto him as God and same as Gabriel (Holy Spirit).

Mormonism also teaches that Jesus was literally the Son of God. However, I wouldn’t say that is the biggest difference between Christianity and Islam. The biggest difference is that Christianity recognizes the need for a Savior and Redeemer to redeem mankind from the Fall of Adam; whereas Islam does not recognize the need for a Savior or Redeemer. That Savior and Redeemer is Jesus Christ. In Christianity, Jesus had to be divine in order to perform that Atonement (which Islam does not recognize). I would say that is the biggest theological difference.

What is mormonism fundamentally? I have a book of mormon (with my name on it :]) and references are highly welcome.

Mormonism is a nickname for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The word church means congregation. Church of Jesus Christ means a group of people who share a common faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and as the Savior and Redeemer of the world, through the Atonement which He performed by the shedding of His blood on the cross. They share a common commitment to living by His laws, and keeping His commandments. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints means a group of believers in Christ who also believe in the Restoration of the gospel in the latter days.

Thanks,

Abdullah (translation: abdu = slave/servant, lah = God. grammar = slave to God)

“Slave of God” is not really a good translation of “Abdullah” into English. While literally it may be correct; it does not really convey the same meaning. In Arabic “abd” (literally slave) doesn’t have quite the same meaning as “slave” does in English. In Arabic “abd” conveys the meaning of an ultra obedient servant. He is someone who serves and obeys his master willingly and faithfully with all his heart. In English, the word “slave” has almost the opposite meaning. It conveys the idea of servitude and bondage. It means somebody who is obliged to serve because he has no other choice; and given the opportunity he would stop serving. In English the word “slave” conveys the idea of an unwilling servant; whereas in Arabic “abd”conveys the idea of an ultra willing servant. So “Abdullah” = “servant of God” is a better translation than “Abdullah” = “slave of God”. In the Bible, too, I am reliably informed, the word that is often translated “servant” in English, in the original Hebrew literally meant “slave”. But it has been correctly rendered into KJV English as servant rather than slave. Islamic religious scholars often seem to be ignorant of these nuances, and in some of the most reputable translations of the Koran into English, “abd” has been translated into English as slave rather than servant.

Edited May 25, 2012 by zerinus

[theplains]

The most fundamental difference between Mormonism and other Biblical religions is the belief in continuing revelation

From what I have read in Mormon Church publications, Heavenly Father being an exalted man would probably

top the list of differences. But I'm not sure how many of the present-day saints still worship this version of the

Person.

Regards,

Jim

[CV75]

From what I have read in Mormon Church publications, Heavenly Father being an exalted man would probably

top the list of differences. But I'm not sure how many of the present-day saints still worship this version of the

Person.

Regards,

Jim

I would put this under the rubric of "continued revelation" as probably everything else that came from the latter-day prophets.

[Areabird]

I would put this under the rubric of "continued revelation" as probably everything else that came from the latter-day prophets.

What does that mean? Are you saying his understanding is correct?

[Storm Rider]

From what I have read in Mormon Church publications, Heavenly Father being an exalted man would probably

top the list of differences. But I'm not sure how many of the present-day saints still worship this version of the

Person.

Regards,

Jim

This is one of the great myths that is spread ad nauseum by anti-Mormon "scholars". It would be helpful if you would just read the Articles of Faith to begin with, then the Book of Mormon, and Doctrine & Covenants. The context is also important and the limitations of what was stated in the KFD are important also.

[Storm Rider]

I would put this under the rubric of "continued revelation" as probably everything else that came from the latter-day prophets.

Deleted my edit. No need to say anything.

Edited April 19, 2012 by Storm Rider

[Calm]

deleted

Edited April 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[Storm Rider]

????? Are you sure you are confused with someone else?

Hey Cal, I was deleting as you were commenting. I felt there could have been confusion on my part, but more importantly, I didn't need to say anything. As you see above, I deleted my comment. Chalk it up to waking up with a fuzzy mind and acting before thinking.

[selek1]

Deleted- let sleeping dogs lie.

Edited April 19, 2012 by selek1

[theplains]

This is one of the great myths that is spread ad nauseum by anti-Mormon "scholars".

Why do you consider this a great myth when the Mormon Church still teaches it?

Thanks,

Jim

[Brade]

The most fundamental difference between Mormonism and other Biblical religions is the belief in continuing revelation, and the Restoration of the gospel through a modern day prophet. Whereas others Christian churches believe that revelation stopped with Jesus and His Apostles (and Islam teaches that it ended with the Prophet Mohammad), Mormonism teaches that it is an ongoing process, starting with Joseph Smith, who was the first prophet and founder of the new dispensation.

I'd be interested to hear Daniel Peterson's view on this as it relates to Islam. It's my understanding that Islam teaches that prophethood ended with Mohammad, but revelation did not; and that since Mohammad, a type of prophethood, though not in the same sense as used when speaking of Mohammad, is available to all saints. Specifically, angelic visitations ceased with Mohammad, but revelation from the Holy Spirit, dreams, visions, and audible declarations did not cease. In this light, it is not correct to say that Islam teaches that revelation stopped with Mohammad. Rather, a specific mode of revelation, and a specific type of calling ceased with Mohammad, but, again, it isn't the case that all modes of revelation ceased, nor is it the case that all types of revelatory callings ceased.

I'd also be interested to see citations from the leaders of major contemporary Christian religions that state clearly and unambiguously that revelation (as in all revelation) stopped with Jesus and his apostles. Additionally, I think these statements by former Church President Gordon Hinckley are relevant:

Let me say first that we have a great body of revelation, the vast majority of which came from the prophet Joseph Smith. We don't need much revelation. We need to pay more attention to the revelation we've already received.

Now, if a problem should arise on which we don't have an answer, we pray about it, we may fast about it, and it comes. Quietly. Usually no voice of any kind, but just a perception in the mind. I liken it to Elijah's experience. When he sought the Lord, there was a great wind, and the Lord was not in the wind. And there was an earthquake, and the Lord was not in the earthquake. And a fire, and the Lord was not in the fire. But in a still, small voice. Now that's the way it works.

Interview by Don Lattin for the San Francisco Chronicle - April 13, 1997.

Now we don’t need a lot of continuing revelation. We have a great, basic reservoir of revelation. But if a problem arises, as it does occasionally, a vexatious thing with which we have to deal, we go to the Lord in prayer. We discuss it as a First Presidency and as a Council of the Twelve Apostles. We pray about it and then comes the whisperings of a still small voice. And we know the direction we should take and we proceed accordingly.

Interview by David Ransom for ABC's Compass program - Aired November 9, 1997.

Hinckley's statements sound, to me, a lot like Islam as I described it above, and more like what most other religions believe - that at some time in the past God delivered some great revelations and that such revelations are now very infrequent, but that revelation still can and does occur, and that God continues to speak to people through various means to give them revelation relevant to their time. This, and not the extreme view you attribute to Christians, is what all of my non-Mormon Christian friends actually believe. The jargon between various religions is different (one religions' "Saint" is anothers' "Prophet", and so on), but I challenge you to show that most, or any, Christian religions teach what you claim they teach about revelation.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Brade

[Calm]

The reason why spiritual gifts have ceased is simple and reasonable. First of all, the revelation of God has been completed and confirmed. God has revealed what He has done for our sins and what we must do to be saved. No further revelation could explain it better. The pattern for the Lord’s church is recorded in written form; thus, there is no new revelation to be confirmed by miraculous signs.

https://doc-00-4o-docsviewer.googleusercontent.com/viewer/securedownload/2rpj13q6ldeclidim42cu0qa2llu8teg/rf2rh1iumnslk5d1nqf6ldqlsh4inahe/1334907900000/Ymw=/AGZ5hq8drXzoqCWTRv6CggnHNYUH/QURHRUVTaTNpS2dqUEh1M3lIWTYzcTJyVExQVTE4aEMyMnRYZ0FmY1NXUm1sclc4dFFLYzNRajRyRFhUQm4ydHgwZ0F1RnhoYTIwa1ZVYXl4X0ZBd1phTm1hWHNuRjE0VXd3cmpVdFhmV21QSFV6dUk3Z3NfYXhiODA4R090U0FuSG5uVm1TSzlRTWw=?docid=19c226d9288f3ed083a9e933bae2714c&chan=EQAAANLcvdAv6EpWIjMW1FmB5Xm%2BAjk80sMd6EOGPiej2meZ&sec=AHSqidaVZ5Px4GgTgzX_UJ1xW8wg5p0yAYg39gaRgA-v1m7MZoybxBORADwZZUUFOp-CLZs865ZEwyaFu6DEQTF0nj6K-ebeAFSbZrDyd_T4Xm2jEIUlV1YeRiK9Imq9UIoyUWlUkjwyR124tufdsvW5QDI5VlF-751k6wTqzupKSPiwDrrbXRW26nFtKlSBG4_Be57LdEQ7WmFn-kCMj1rYzBZxJ304HENI2Rq2sOD2v4AT76w0HN5lD2Rh6FYVtOaNOALmAthuRkPumsxHujZoPOPbbP3xjyRT5E2_ZNUrW4ywTjuMqrc5DkME7_EvSl6MHa3NZ0Q8p-Fo8nuTWmavdZiGvA3KCD0ZfRKQgZb_W-yBWvOjgsbBxotbrW2nQZnCfwwXUwaXxyXmtQSUgxGnsgRFBZl1Fw&a=gp&filename=BT_205.pdf&nonce=rq1b197kjqcfq&user=AGZ5hq8drXzoqCWTRv6CggnHNYUH&hash=oskt9fn7n2jsmb6uvcvm42m4d9ek5ksh

65 "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." 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 this 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 vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behaviour but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.

There will be no further Revelation

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PH.HTM Edited April 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Traditionally, Lutherans hold the Bible of the Old and New Testaments to be the only divinely inspired book, the only source of divinely revealed knowledge, and the only norm for Christian teaching.

The Bible was written by divine inspiration.... it is the only infallible source and norm of doctrine[5] and rule of life.[6].....The sufficiency of the Bible is that perfection according to which the Bible contains all that is necessary for the achievement of the end and aim of the Holy Scriptures.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060712193848/http://showcase.netins.net/web/bilarson/bibliology.txt

====

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html?body=/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_I.html

The Bible contains everything that one needs to know in order to obtain salvation and to live a Christian life.^[26] There are no deficiencies in Scripture that need to be filled with by tradition, pronouncements of the Pope, new revelations, or present-day development of doctrine.^{[27]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura#Divine_authority (more on Lutheran)}

[Brade]

https://doc-00-4o-do...cvm42m4d9ek5ksh

http://www.vatican.v...NG0015/__PH.HTM

And again, here we run into the problem of words having different meanings across different faiths. Notice that in the link you provide to the Catholic catechism we also find this, which you've chosen not represent:

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.

There is here, as I have suggested of most religions, the sense of a great Revelation (big R) or collection of Revelations that are foundational to the religion, and it is not expected that some new revelation (little r) will replace or contradict these foundational Revelations. However, it is allowed that revelation continues "to help live more fully by [Christ's definitive Revelation] in a certain period of history". Huh? Where have we heard that idea before?

Certainly Mormonism places a high emphasis on continuing revelation, but I suspect its uniqueness is overemphasized, and I suspect that a lot of this other-religions-are-dead stuff that's often trotted out turns on uncharitably interpreting other religions' claims by doing something like using the Mormon sense of a term to attempt to render the meaning of an expression issued by another religion when, in fact, there's a sense unique to that religion that ought to fairly be used instead.

This Catholic case is a good example. When the catechism says "There will be no new Revelation" it does not mean this - God will not speak to anyone anymore. Instead, it means something like this: Through Christ, God has revealed the way to heaven, and there isn't another way than through His son and by his church. That view is consistent with and allows for revelations (little r) to guide the church and individuals based on the circumstances. But, Mormons often claim that it means that God will not speak to anyone anymore, and that's just being uncharitable. When you parse out all the meanings of the terms, as each user intends, you find, I think, that the Catholic view and the Mormon view aren't so different.

And for reference, I'll go ahead and post Hinckley's comments again:

Let me say first that we have a great body of revelation, the vast majority of which came from the prophet Joseph Smith. We don't need much revelation. We need to pay more attention to the revelation we've already received.

Now, if a problem should arise on which we don't have an answer, we pray about it, we may fast about it, and it comes. Quietly. Usually no voice of any kind, but just a perception in the mind. I liken it to Elijah's experience. When he sought the Lord, there was a great wind, and the Lord was not in the wind. And there was an earthquake, and the Lord was not in the earthquake. And a fire, and the Lord was not in the fire. But in a still, small voice. Now that's the way it works.

Interview by Don Lattin for the San Francisco Chronicle - April 13, 1997.

Now we don’t need a lot of continuing revelation. We have a great, basic reservoir of revelation. But if a problem arises, as it does occasionally, a vexatious thing with which we have to deal, we go to the Lord in prayer. We discuss it as a First Presidency and as a Council of the Twelve Apostles. We pray about it and then comes the whisperings of a still small voice. And we know the direction we should take and we proceed accordingly.

Interview by David Ransom for ABC's Compass program - Aired November 9, 1997.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Brade

[zerinus]

I have discussed this subject with Christians of other faiths lots of times on other forums, and the argument usually goes as follows: They make a distinction between what they call "public revelation" and "private revelation". By "public revelation" they mean the kind of revelation that is in the Bible, that is binding on all the faithful. That kind of revelation they say has come to an end. By "private revelation" they mean the kind that has been received by Christian saints and mystics throughout Christian history. Christian history is littered with examples of saints and mystics receiving all kinds of visions, revelations, apparitions of Mary etc., which are considered inspirational and faith promoting, but are not binding on all Christians. You are free to make up your own mind about them. You are not damned for rejecting them, nor saved for accepting them. The situation with Islam is almost identical to that. A similar distinction is applied to the revelations of the Koran, and those of the Islamic saints and mystics (which are as numerous as those of their Christian counterparts).

With regard to the LDS Church, however, the situation gets a bit more complicated. They tend to speak out of both sides of their mounts sometimes, which is not very helpful. When LDS claim a superior position for being able to receive revelation, they usually refer to what the other Christians call "public revelation" (e.g. Book of Mormon or Doctrine and Covenants); but when they are quizzed more closely (as in the case of examples quoted from Gordon B. Hinckley), they appear to speak of the kind of revelation that other Churches claim to be receiving too. When the Catholic Church is faced with a problem, and the Pope meets in council with his cardinals to resolve the issue, are they not entitled to a measure of inspiration from the Holy Spirit to guide them in their decisions, and reach conclusions that are in the best interest of their members? I think that they are. So what is the difference between Mormon revelation and Catholic revelation, if that is how the LDS Church receives its revelations too?

In practice, however, the LDS Church has demonstrated its ability to receive revelations of the other kind when needed. Two typical examples are sections 136 and 138 of the Doctrine and Covenants. The first is the revelation received by Brignham Young after the death of Joseph Smith, when he was President of the Twelve; and the second is the vision of the redemption of the dead received by Joseph F. Smith. The latter revelation was published and was in the pubic domain for many years before being canonized. Similarly, there are several other revelations by past Presidents of the Church which have been published and are in the public domain, but which have not yet been canonized. I know of around ten revelations received by President John Taylor which have been published, or are in the pubic domain, but have not been canonized. These are as good and genuine as anything found in the D&C, but they just haven't been canonized. So the LDS Church can rightly claim a superior position to other Churches for being able to receive revelations of the kind that they are not able to receive; but prefers to keep a low profile over the issue.

[CV75]

What does that mean? Are you saying his understanding is correct?

I'm saying that any unique LDS doctrine is the result of continuing revelation. Whether people understand, explain, and align properly with the doctrine is another issue.

[Calm]

When you parse out all the meanings of the terms, as each user intends, you find, I think, that the Catholic view and the Mormon view aren't so different.

Excluding the idea of Scripture/Holy Writ, I would agree that they are much closer than often represented. I had no intention to suggest otherwise, was merely focusing on what was said about Scripture in order to attempt to get a simple 'variable' to compare across denominations and since scripture is where the debate usually focuses..... Middle of the night, almost asleep, probably made too narrow of an attempt.

IIRC, Rob Bowman has discussed this topic, you might want to read that to find out how different or not he is willing to judge our faiths.

Edited April 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Two typical examples are sections 136 and 138 of the Doctrine and Covenants.

Wouldn't the First Vision itself, the creation of any new Scripture/Holy Writ such as the BoM, BoA, BoMoses, the entirety of the D&C also qualify?

Protestants do come out and state that there will be no new Scriptures; Catholics, while allowing for additional doctrinal clarification like the publication on limbo, would not call that clarification Holy Writ (Catholics, please correct if I have misunderstood).

I do think that is a significant difference, that LDS believe that we will continue to get Revelation/Holy Writ/Scripture as the Lord sees fit which may include new information, not just clarification of what has been already received. We are missing that limit, though when it comes to personal nonbinding, ie "private" revelation we are relatively consistent with others though some may be reluctant to call it revelation.

Edited April 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[zerinus]

Wouldn't the First Vision itself, the creation of any new Scripture/Holy Writ such as the BoM, BoA, BoMoses, the entirety of the D&C also qualify?

* * *

The point here is that all of those revelations were received by the Prophet and founder of the religion, Joseph Smith. His successors do not have a lot to show for it. So a Mormon critic could argue that Mormonism is not much different from Christianity or Islam. In Islam there is a whole bunch of revelations received by its founding prophet, and not much to show for it since. The Catholics are in the same situation. They have a whole bunch of revelation by their founding prophets and Appstles, and not much to show for it afterwards. The Mormons likewise have a whole bunch of revelations by their founding prophet, and not much to show for it afterwards. So "What is the difference," a critic might argue? The point I was making was that it doesn't quite work like that. The LDS Church has a better track record of receiving revelation than a critic might want to argue against.

Edited April 21, 2012 by zerinus

[jstarrs8]

I would say the biggest difference between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other churches would be the Priesthood.

[Calm]

The Catholics have a priesthood (claimed to be authorized by God) though. Are you saying we differ because ours is the true Priesthood of God (we have the authority of God given us) that no other church has even if they claim it or that there is some quality of our priesthood that no other church has (apart from the concept of being appointed by God)?

Edited April 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[3DOP]

Wouldn't the First Vision itself, the creation of any new Scripture/Holy Writ such as the BoM, BoA, BoMoses, the entirety of the D&C also qualify?

Protestants do come out and state that there will be no new Scriptures; Catholics, while allowing for additional doctrinal clarification like the publication on limbo, would not call that clarification Holy Writ (Catholics, please correct if I have misunderstood).

I do think that is a significant difference, that LDS believe that we will continue to get Revelation/Holy Writ/Scripture as the Lord sees fit which may include new information, not just clarification of what has been already received. We are missing that limit, though when it comes to personal nonbinding, ie "private" revelation we are relatively consistent with others though some may be reluctant to call it revelation.

Cal...I tend to believe in limbo today, properly understood. I see no evidence that the Church has defined limbo away. There are opinions against what the common speculation used to be. There is nothing to which I have to give the assent of faith.

God has never stopped speaking to holy men and women. But because hoaxes and false visions exist alongside true post-apostolic revelation, Catholics must always judge any revelatory claims according to that which is definitive, the apostolic deposit. It seems to me like LDS have always misunderstood this position to mean that no further information is forthcoming from God. It is way too simplistic. I can supply you with lots of post-apostolic revelation that has been approved by the Church. Yes they are always judged by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and never the other way round. But that is only to assure that they are reliably from heaven. I have to admit that I find post-apostolic revelations, especially in the last six or seven hundred years, to be a vital component toward building my own confidence in the Catholic faith.

Clearly, it is not necessary for all Catholics to believe in ongoing messages and miracles. But God continues to confirm the true faith through miracles of all sorts with wise and prophetic messages to fit the times and seasons. I find the records of the lives and communications from God to Sts. Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Thomas Aquinas, Margaret Alacoque, Bernadette Soubirous, Juan Diego of Guadalupe, the saintly children of Fatima, and many others to be so supernaturally attested and confirmed that except when I forget about them, (which is too often), I could never be tempted to disbelief. 21st Century Catholics have been being prepared for centuries for the trials and tribulations that have decimated the Church and civilization in the the last 100 years. Nothing is happening that has not been forecast. In fact, everything seems to be going remarkably according to how modern seers and revelators have suggested they would go.

Edited April 22, 2012 by 3DOP

[Calm]

What is the difference then between apostoiic and postapostolic revelation? Is it simply that one is required to believe in (in the sense of this is the doctrine of the Church) what was revealed in the first and in the second, it is one's choice what to accept or is postapostolic also divided into required to believe and not?

[3DOP]

Hi again cal.

I believe strongly in the importance of post-apostolic revelation in the life of the Church.

Assuredly, we cannot suggest that any truths essential for salvation were omitted during the Apostolic Age. But there is nothing in that revelation, as Catholics understand it, to suggest that miracles and prophecies would cease. How convincing to men today is the Red Sea miracle of Moses? Not very. One already needs faith. I cannot truly say if I would believe in the Catholic Church if miracles had ceased and true prophecies had ceased at the death of the Apostles. Miracles and revelations that are convincing and pertinent to this generation may always need repeated for a future generation:

Nevertheless, in order that the submission of our faith should be in accordance with reason, it was God's will that there should be linked to the internal assistance of the holy Spirit external indications of his revelation, that is to say divine acts, and

first and foremost miracles and prophecies,

which clearly demonstrating as they do the omnipotence and infinite knowledge of God, are

the most certain signs of revelation and are

suited to the understanding of all.

---First Vatican Council, Session Three, April 24. 1870

The same session of the Council went so far as to condemn positions which deny that miracles are sure signs of supernatural revelation:

If anyone says that

all miracles are impossible, and that therefore

all reports of them, even those contained in sacred scripture, are to be set aside as fables or myths; or that

miracles can never be known with certainty,

nor can the divine origin of the christian religion be proved from them:

let him be anathema.

Now assuredly, it is a more grievous offense to faith to deny the miracles or prophecies found in Scripture. This is absolutely unacceptable. But if you note the reading, "even those [miracles] contained in sacred scripture", clearly the Church encourages us to recognize extra-biblical miracles as a way to confirm our faith in Holy Mother Church. It is seldom that heaven sends words aside from miracles of some kind. If one believes the miracle, the word naturally follows.

So we must take a position that states that apostolic revelation is an adequate bare minimum that any faithful Catholic must believe. But the way is encouraged and most open to believe far more than that. When the Church approves of a particular post-apostolic miracle or prophecy, it is with a little reluctance, allowed that an individual Catholic may for any reason, give it no heed. But there is a bare minimum, and that, as you can see, is the Apostolic record. No true Catholic can be skeptical, according to these declarations, of biblical prophecy and miracles. But under no circumstance may any faithful Catholic chide another for accepting the sundry miracles and prophecies the Church has approved from Apostolic times to the present. My understanding is that the Church wants to be distanced from those sects which affirm that miracles and prophecies have ceased with the Apostles.

In closing, I would mention the Shroud of Turin. A good and faithful priest was with us for dinner last night and the subject came up. He mentioned how his own father doubted that the Shroud was authentic. But I was struck by the reasoning that his dad used to give when he was alive. Mr. _____ would note that a 20th Century miracle worker and stigmatist, Padre Pio, had received the wounds of Christ in his palms, whereas the Shroud seems to indicate that the nails pierced our Lord in the wrists. In this instance, he believed one miracle conflicted with another and chose to be convinced of the most recent, which is indeed difficult to deny. We have photographs of it as well as living eyewitnesses. It seems impossible that a priest of such apparent holiness and virtue, would betray God by somehow painting his hands every day to make it appear that he had Christ's wounds in them. His dad thought he had to choose. But our priest friend and us are convinced that there is reconciliation of the miracles. However that may be, Catholics are permitted to pick and choose between approved post-apostolic miracles and revelations. Strictly speaking, they are permitted even to reject them. But honestly, I have never known a Catholic who seemed imbued with an evangelical fervor, whose faith was not fueled with firm belief in post-apostolic miracles and revelations. It seems like the "minimalists" (who try to believe only the barest details of Scripture), don't persevere.

It seems evident to me based on the words of the 19th Century Vatican Council, that in an age of skepticism, it is more necessary than ever to believe that the heavens are open, and that God speaks to our generation specifically in regards to the needs and trials that we will specifically face.

[zerinus]

Hi again cal.

I believe strongly in the importance of post-apostolic revelation in the life of the Church.

Assuredly, we cannot suggest that any truths essential for salvation were omitted during the Apostolic Age. But there is nothing in that revelation, as Catholics understand it, to suggest that miracles and prophecies would cease. How convincing to men today is the Red Sea miracle of Moses? Not very. One already needs faith. I cannot truly say if I would believe in the Catholic Church if miracles had ceased and true prophecies had ceased at the death of the Apostles. Miracles and revelations that are convincing and pertinent to this generation may always need repeated for a future generation:

---First Vatican Council, Session Three, April 24. 1870

The same session of the Council went so far as to condemn positions which deny that miracles are sure signs of supernatural revelation:

Now assuredly, it is a more grievous offense to faith to deny the miracles or prophecies found in Scripture. This is absolutely unacceptable. But if you note the reading, "even those [miracles] contained in sacred scripture", clearly the Church encourages us to recognize extra-biblical miracles as a way to confirm our faith in Holy Mother Church. It is seldom that heaven sends words aside from miracles of some kind. If one believes the miracle, the word naturally follows.

So we must take a position that states that apostolic revelation is an adequate bare minimum that any faithful Catholic must believe. But the way is encouraged and most open to believe far more than that. When the Church approves of a particular post-apostolic miracle or prophecy, it is with a little reluctance, allowed that an individual Catholic may for any reason, give it no heed. But there is a bare minimum, and that, as you can see, is the Apostolic record. No true Catholic can be skeptical, according to these declarations, of biblical prophecy and miracles. But under no circumstance may any faithful Catholic chide another for accepting the sundry miracles and prophecies the Church has approved from Apostolic times to the present. My understanding is that the Church wants to be distanced from those sects which affirm that miracles and prophecies have ceased with the Apostles.

In closing, I would mention the Shroud of Turin. A good and faithful priest was with us for dinner last night and the subject came up. He mentioned how his own father doubted that the Shroud was authentic. But I was struck by the reasoning that his dad used to give when he was alive. Mr. _____ would note that a 20th Century miracle worker and stigmatist, Padre Pio, had received the wounds of Christ in his palms, whereas the Shroud seems to indicate that the nails pierced our Lord in the wrists. In this instance, he believed one miracle conflicted with another and chose to be convinced of the most recent, which is indeed difficult to deny. We have photographs of it as well as living eyewitnesses. It seems impossible that a priest of such apparent holiness and virtue, would betray God by somehow painting his hands every day to make it appear that he had Christ's wounds in them. His dad thought he had to choose. But our priest friend and us are convinced that there is reconciliation of the miracles. However that may be, Catholics are permitted to pick and choose between approved post-apostolic miracles and revelations. Strictly speaking, they are permitted even to reject them. But honestly, I have never known a Catholic who seemed imbued with an evangelical fervor, whose faith was not fueled with firm belief in post-apostolic miracles and revelations. It seems like the "minimalists" (who try to believe only the barest details of Scripture), don't persevere.

It seems evident to me based on the words of the 19th Century Vatican Council, that in an age of skepticism, it is more necessary than ever to believe that the heavens are open, and that God speaks to our generation specifically in regards to the needs and trials that we will specifically face.

That doesn't really answer Calm's question though. What she is basically asking is, What is the difference between public revelation and private revelation in Catholic theology? The question is not how important one or the other is in Catholicism, but what is the distinction between them.