Toward A Precise Vocabulary On The Subject Of Revelation

[3DOP]

I have urged for over a decade now that the English words Catholics use to distinguish between various kinds of revelation can be misleading, not only to others trying to understand us from the outside, but even among fellow Catholics. It has been because of my interaction with LDS Restoration theology that I have arrived at this point of view. I have already shared my own arguments for why the expression "private revelation" is inadequate to convey what the Catholic Church means in regards to the authority and importance of every kind of true revelation which has been received since the death of the last Apostle.

In the last few days I have encountered a Catholic author, Frere Michel de la Sainte Trinite, who expressed a similar opinion about thirty years ago regarding the need to revise what has remained the continuing ambiguity that exists for expressing Catholic beliefs on the subject of post-Apostolic revelation.

There is a custom of confusing all revelations, and placing them in the category of "private revelations", to distinguish them from the primary, essential and sufficient Revelation: the total Revelation accomplished in Jesus Christ and closed on the death of the last of the Apostles, who passed it on to us infallibly. This being quite clear we can add that not all subsequent revelations are identical among themselves: "What we must revise in the classical vocabulary," R. Laurentin justly notes in a study on The Status and Function of Apparitions, "is the designation of all subsequent revelations as 'private revelations'. In fact, some of them are private, but some of them are public. The revelations of St. Bridget or the message of Lourdes were destined for a very large audience. One should therefore speak of particular revelations, some of them private...and others public..." Although there are apparitions which are destined first of all and principally for the personal sanctification of the beneficiary, there are others whose primary end is directly apostolic, ecclesial, through the transmission of a public message, the foundation of a great pilgrimage or the accomplishment of an extraordinary mission...always for the good of souls and the realization of a great providential design.

---The Whole Truth About Fatima, Vol. 1, pp. 417, 418, Immaculate Heart Publications, 1983, (English Translation 1989)(all emphases are the author's)

Apparently the problem of vocabulary exists for French Catholics too. The context is Frere Michel's concern that Catholics mistakenly excuse themselves from responsibility in investigating and heeding approved private revelations, because they wrongly assume that only the individuals to whom they are given are accountable to heed them. This can be a most serious error. Frere Michel attempts to make a case in his book which I have attempted with limited success to make here at this board and at ZLMB years ago. We are trying to show that merely because the apostolic deposit is distinct and finished, it does not mean that faithful Catholics may freely ignore "heavenly updates", revelations that are suited for the times and spoken directly to the Church as a whole. The reason I do it is because I sometimes perceive that Mormons are correctly taken aback at the idea that suddenly, with the death of the last Apostle, there is no need of further public revelation. I want you to see why and how I can agree with that. Frere Michel is frying other fish as you see. But it seems significant that for different reasons he also sees that the current vocabulary is inadequate.

I would not imagine to argue to Latter-day Saints that Catholic revelation is true. But I am arguing that although for Catholics, the biblical canon is closed, "Latter-day Revelation" continues and for us, words that have been communicated throughout the entire post-Apostolic era right up to the present, have often I daresay, had impact and practical importance that exceeds many revelations that are part of the Bible. I was particularly struck with the author's suggestion of referring to "particular revelations", some being private, such as a revelation assuring someone that they would be healed or go to heaven, but others being public. Upon approval by the Catholic Church, a "particular public revelation" often implies a degree of obligation upon the part of at least some faithful Catholics if not all, depending on the nature of the communication. Properly understood, a closed Catholic canon of Scripture can never define the end of public revelation.

Thanks for your interest and consideration. If it is not provocative enough to generate discussion, maybe I will have occasion to refer back to this opening post sometime in the future here.

3DOP

Edited May 16, 2012 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

I have urged for over a decade now that the English words Catholics use to distinguish between various kinds of revelation can be misleading, not only to others trying to understand us from the outside, but even among fellow Catholics. It has been because of my interaction with LDS Restoration theology that I have arrived at this point of view. I have already shared my own arguments for why the expression "private revelation" is inadequate to convey what the Catholic Church means in regards to the authority and importance of every kind of true revelation which has been received since the death of the last Apostle.

In the last few days I have encountered a Catholic author, Frere Michel de la Sainte Trinite, who expressed a similar opinion about thirty years ago regarding the need to revise what has remained the continuing ambiguity that exists for expressing Catholic beliefs on the subject of post-Apostolic revelation.

---The Whole Truth About Fatima, Vol. 1, pp. 417, 418, Immaculate Heart Publications, 1983, (English Translation 1989)(all emphases are the author's)

Apparently the problem of vocabulary exists for French Catholics too. The context is Frere Michel's concern that Catholics mistakenly excuse themselves from responsibility in investigating and heeding approved private revelations, because they wrongly assume that only the individuals to whom they are given are accountable to heed them. This can be a most serious error. Frere Michel attempts to make a case in his book which I have attempted with limited success to make here at this board and at ZLMB years ago. We are trying to show that merely because the apostolic deposit is distinct and finished, it does not mean that faithful Catholics may freely ignore "heavenly updates", revelations that are suited for the times and spoken directly to the Church as a whole. The reason I do it is because I sometimes perceive that Mormons are correctly taken aback at the idea that suddenly, with the death of the last Apostle, there is no need of further public revelation. I want you to see why and how I can agree with that. Frere Michel is frying other fish as you see. But it seems significant that for different reasons he also sees that the current vocabulary is inadequate.

I would not imagine to argue to Latter-day Saints that Catholic revelation is true. But I am arguing that although for Catholics, the biblical canon is closed, "Latter-day Revelation" continues and for us, words that have been communicated throughout the entire post-Apostolic era right up to the present, have often I daresay, had impact and practical importance that exceeds many revelations that are part of the Bible. I was particularly struck with the author's suggestion of referring to "particular revelations", some being private, such as a revelation assuring someone that they would be healed or go to heaven, but others being public. Upon approval by the Catholic Church, a "particular public revelation" often implies a degree of obligation upon the part of at least some faithful Catholics if not all, depending on the nature of the communication. Properly understood, a closed Catholic canon of Scripture can never define the end of public revelation.

Thanks for your interest and consideration. If it is not provocative enough to generate discussion, maybe I will have occasion to refer back to this opening post sometime in the future here.

3DOP

I have referred to this article before but I think it has a lot of relevance here- it is discussing changes in the Catholic church's view of "limbo":

The new document repeats traditional Catholic teaching that all salvation is through Christ and has a relationship with the church. But it emphasizes more than once that God's saving ways are ultimately mysterious and that the holiness that resides in the church can reach people outside "the visible bounds of the church."

The modern theologians cited by the document include the late Jesuit Father Karl Rahner and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, both of whom had presented arguments for abandoning the concept of limbo.

It also cited a collection of Catholic doctrinal documents edited by the late Jesuit Father Jacques Dupuis, recipient of some criticism by the Vatican's doctrinal congregation in the late 1990s when Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, was its head.

But the document goes beyond strictly theological opinions. It repeatedly refers to the "sensus fidelium" -- the sense of the faithful -- to illustrate how Christians increasingly reject the idea that the vision of God would be denied to innocent babies.

One reason the Second Vatican Council rejected attempts to strengthen teaching against the salvation of unbaptized infants was that bishops felt it was "not the faith of their people," the document said.

It referred to an important teaching of Vatican II, which said that the whole body of the faithful shares in Christ's prophetic office and "cannot err in matters of belief."

To support its conclusions on limbo, the theological commission's document also cited the need for the church to read the "signs of the times" in order to better understand the Gospel.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702310.htm

One might compare this to the timing of our change in doctrine on Blacks in the priesthood and one might wonder about how much "the times" has to do with revelation.

I don't think you will have problems getting comments on that topic!

[3DOP]

mfbquote

The new document repeats traditional Catholic teaching that all salvation is through Christ and has a relationship with the church. But it emphasizes more than once that God's saving ways are ultimately mysterious and that the holiness that resides in the church can reach people outside "the visible bounds of the church."

3DOP

Do God's saving ways reach all people outside the Church? Does it reach every unbaptized baby? Have missionaries risked death on hostile mission fields when all along God's saving ways reach many of these people anyway, and 100% of their babies? The fact that the Apostles were primarily missionaries, in dangerous circumstances, and that tradition tells us that they all suffered martyrdom with the possible exception of St. John, means that we have to believe that the salvation of most eternal souls urgently depends upon conversion to the true faith.

mfbquote

The modern theologians cited by the document include the late Jesuit Father Karl Rahner and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, both of whom had presented arguments for abandoning the concept of limbo.

It also cited a collection of Catholic doctrinal documents edited by the late Jesuit Father Jacques Dupuis, recipient of some criticism by the Vatican's doctrinal congregation in the late 1990s when Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, was its head.

3DOP

Rahner's influence upon Fr. Ratzinger and modern Catholic theology has been regrettable. That one of the theologians cited could have come under the censure of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith shows just how radical he must have been. Most conservative Catholics today would acknowledge their dismay at the novel teachings of Karl Rahner which I could enumerate, forgetting that Fr. Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI was his protege. Assuredly, I hold that over time, Ratzinger's thinking developed toward Tradition, but even as Pope, one can best explain some of his actions and teachings by recalling his first teacher. To cite Karl Rahner as a moving force behind this new development raises the red flag for me.

mfbquote

But the document goes beyond strictly theological opinions. It repeatedly refers to the "sensus fidelium" -- the sense of the faithful -- to illustrate how Christians increasingly reject the idea that the vision of God would be denied to innocent babies.

3DOP

Never in 2,000 years has the "sensus fidelium" of the Catholic Church been less reliable. A poll of the billion plus baptized Catholics in the world would undoubtedly reveal that the "sensus fidelium" would also deny that the pope is infallible, or that Christ is present in the Holy Eucharist. Small wonder that they would fail to appreciate Catholic distinctions regarding original sin and the reasons why without enduring the any sense pains in Hell, the unbaptized could never find happiness in Heaven. The Catholic Church is in a state of crisis and the documented beliefs of a large proportion of members might be better described as "sensus infidelium".

mfbquote

One reason the Second Vatican Council rejected attempts to strengthen teaching against the salvation of unbaptized infants was that bishops felt it was "not the faith of their people," the document said.

It referred to an important teaching of Vatican II, which said that the whole body of the faithful shares in Christ's prophetic office and "cannot err in matters of belief."

3DOP

The claim that the Council Fathers wanted to discuss Limbo sounds like pure speculation. I have read only one book on the history of the Council and I don't recall that anyone was wanting to go down that road. I would be interested to discover any efforts that were made along that line. To further an agenda, churchmen have had a sad habit of referring to "Vatican II" when Vatican II never taught what they say. They know that most people won't trouble themselves to plow through the seemingly endless verbiage of a Council that was primarily pastoral and according to its promulgating Pope, "defined no new doctrine".

Since Vatican II defined no new dogma, faithful Catholics may need to respectfully deny as true, this particular teaching. The majority of baptized Catholics have not been properly catechized. Catechism is a shambles. I could not trust what the majority of the faithful believes. But wait. The teaching regards "the whole body of the faithful". There are signifcant numbers of faithful Catholics who doubt that babies who die unbaptized can enjoy the bliss of Heaven. I am an example.

------------------

I am open to the idea that there is no Limbo. But I find the reasons proposed above to be wholly inadequate. I have other reasons for leaning toward belief in the salvation of all babies.

Thanks for the reply mfbukowski. There is a relation between doctrinal development and revelation. The argument above seems to require a very dubious form of development which I could easily see as corruption. On the other hand, I think there might be revelation that explains why, if we cannot be certain, we may certainly hope as Catholics that every dead baby goes to heaven.

3DOP

Edited May 17, 2012 by 3DOP

[BCSpace]

Revelation 19:10. Prophecy is not the predicting the future but the teaching of the Gospel, that which God wants us to hear now, and which may or may not include new reveled information or future predictions.

Edited May 17, 2012 by BCSpace

[mfbukowski]

mfbquote

The new document repeats traditional Catholic teaching that all salvation is through Christ and has a relationship with the church. But it emphasizes more than once that God's saving ways are ultimately mysterious and that the holiness that resides in the church can reach people outside "the visible bounds of the church."

3DOP

Do God's saving ways reach all people outside the Church? Does it reach every unbaptized baby? Have missionaries risked death on hostile mission fields when all along God's saving ways reach many of these people anyway, and 100% of their babies? The fact that the Apostles were primarily missionaries, in dangerous circumstances, and that tradition tells us that they all suffered martyrdom with the possible exception of St. John, means that we have to believe that the salvation of most eternal souls urgently depends upon conversion to the true faith.

mfbquote

The modern theologians cited by the document include the late Jesuit Father Karl Rahner and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, both of whom had presented arguments for abandoning the concept of limbo.

It also cited a collection of Catholic doctrinal documents edited by the late Jesuit Father Jacques Dupuis, recipient of some criticism by the Vatican's doctrinal congregation in the late 1990s when Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, was its head.

3DOP

Rahner's influence upon Fr. Ratzinger and modern Catholic theology has been regrettable. That one of the theologians cited could have come under the censure of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith shows just how radical he must have been. Most conservative Catholics today would acknowledge their dismay at the novel teachings of Karl Rahner which I could enumerate, forgetting that Fr. Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI was his protege. Assuredly, I hold that over time, Ratzinger's thinking developed toward Tradition, but even as Pope, one can best explain some of his actions and teachings by recalling his first teacher. To cite Karl Rahner as a moving force behind this new development raises the red flag for me.

mfbquote

But the document goes beyond strictly theological opinions. It repeatedly refers to the "sensus fidelium" -- the sense of the faithful -- to illustrate how Christians increasingly reject the idea that the vision of God would be denied to innocent babies.

3DOP

Never in 2,000 years has the "sensus fidelium" of the Catholic Church been less reliable. A poll of the billion plus baptized Catholics in the world would undoubtedly reveal that the "sensus fidelium" would also deny that the pope is infallible, or that Christ is present in the Holy Eucharist. Small wonder that they would fail to appreciate Catholic distinctions regarding original sin and the reasons why without enduring the any sense pains in Hell, the unbaptized could never find happiness in Heaven. The Catholic Church is in a state of crisis and the documented beliefs of a large proportion of members might be better described as "sensus infidelium".

mfbquote

One reason the Second Vatican Council rejected attempts to strengthen teaching against the salvation of unbaptized infants was that bishops felt it was "not the faith of their people," the document said.

It referred to an important teaching of Vatican II, which said that the whole body of the faithful shares in Christ's prophetic office and "cannot err in matters of belief."

3DOP

The claim that the Council Fathers wanted to discuss Limbo sounds like pure speculation. I have read only one book on the history of the Council and I don't recall that anyone was wanting to go down that road. I would be interested to discover any efforts that were made along that line. To further an agenda, churchmen have had a sad habit of referring to "Vatican II" when Vatican II never taught what they say. They know that most people won't trouble themselves to plow through the seemingly endless verbiage of a Council that was primarily pastoral and according to its promulgating Pope, "defined no new doctrine".

Since Vatican II defined no new dogma, faithful Catholics may need to respectfully deny as true, this particular teaching. The majority of baptized Catholics have not been properly catechized. Catechism is a shambles. I could not trust what the majority of the faithful believes. But wait. The teaching regards "the whole body of the faithful". There are signifcant numbers of faithful Catholics who doubt that babies who die unbaptized can enjoy the bliss of Heaven. I am an example.

------------------

I am open to the idea that there is no Limbo. But I find the reasons proposed above to be wholly inadequate. I have other reasons for leaning toward belief in the salvation of all babies.

Thanks for the reply mfbukowski. There is a relation between doctrinal development and revelation. The argument above seems to require a very dubious form of development which I could easily see as corruption. On the other hand, I think there might be revelation that explains why, if we cannot be certain, we may certainly hope as Catholics that every dead baby goes to heaven.

3DOP

Just for sake of clarification, those "mfbquotes" above were not quotes of anything I said, but quotes I posted from the Catholic News Service.

3DOP said:

Thanks for the reply mfbukowski. There is a relation between doctrinal development and revelation. The argument above seems to require a very dubious form of development which I could easily see as corruption. On the other hand, I think there might be revelation that explains why, if we cannot be certain, we may certainly hope as Catholics that every dead baby goes to heaven.

Since this thread is about revelation changing doctrine and not about Limbo per se, I just want to say that your above comment is highly interesting, in that it seems to take the LDS view almost in opposition to the Catholic view, calling the Catholic argument " a very dubious form of development which I could easily see as corruption", and various other of your comments.

Our view of course is compatible with the idea that your personal feelings, if truly testified to you by the Holy Ghost, are in fact correct and God's will and that personal revelation on such matters is perfectly "valid".

In fact I would argue that though our critics argue that our lack of a comprehensively defined dogma is a short coming, I find it a strength in precisely cases like this, where each of us can decide what is right for us and what counts as "revelation" and what does not, according to our individual testimonies.

We have no "Magesterium", just 14 million people following their hearts within fairly loosely-defined boundaries.

This is what in fact defines our "vocabulary of revelation"- one word: testimony. If the Holy Ghost tells you the principle is true, and you believe it in your heart, it is true. God teaches us all individually and our understandings vary so at times such revelations may appear to be in conflict, but I know that from His perspective, they are not- they are leading us all in the same direction- toward the truth.

So I think that the Catholic prohibition against "private revelation" in fact prohibits what is most important. I don't think that governments should decide what is moral, and I don't think churches - since both are ultimately man-directed organizations- should tell you what to believe, and I say that as a true-believing-LDS.

Heck if I didn't have a testimony, do you think I would swallow the gold plates and angels and some kid who believed he was a prophet? I readily admit that sounds like some looney cult, but guess what? God told me it was true and I know it was God speaking to me- so what are you supposed to do when God tells you something? Do it!!

That's about all the "vocabulary of revelation" there is, in my opinion. It's the vocabulary of the heart.