The Bible Is Not Enough For Salvation

[kassie]

Perhaps I have misunderstood you, but there are handwritten texts that date much closer to the death of Christ than 1527 AD. The Letters of Paul and others and the Gospels were written down, not transmitted orally. And if by the "Bible" you mean the canon of scripture, that was in place a lot earlier as well, off the top of my head about 400 years after Christ.

My research has led me to I believe that the Catholic Church gave the world the Bible. The Church was established by Jesus Christ around 33 AD, and the New Testament was not finalized in its present form until 382 AD, about 350 years later. Pope St. Damasus I, at the Council of Rome, in 382, proposed the current canon of scripture with 73 books (46 OT + 27 NT). Subsequent councils at Hippo in 393 AD, and at Carthage in 397 AD, ratified this canon as being inspired and complete. Pope Innocent I sent a letter out in the year 405 AD that listed all 73 books as being the total and complete canon of the Christian Bible. The Catholic Bibles of today still have all of these 73 books. All of these books were printed up in the mid fifteenth century in the first printed bible, the Gutenberg Bible. Martin Luther, in the following century, disagreed with the 1100 year old canon of scripture and removed 7 books from his version of the Bible that he didn't agree with, so the Protestant Bible only has 66 books as a result of his editing. Following the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent re-ratified the 1100 year old Canon of scripture with all 73 books.

[boulder257]

My research has led me to I believe that the Catholic Church gave the world the Bible. The Church was established by Jesus Christ around 33 AD, and the New Testament was not finalized in its present form until 382 AD, about 350 years later. Pope St. Damasus I, at the Council of Rome, in 382, proposed the current canon of scripture with 73 books (46 OT + 27 NT). Subsequent councils at Hippo in 393 AD, and at Carthage in 397 AD, ratified this canon as being inspired and complete. Pope Innocent I sent a letter out in the year 405 AD that listed all 73 books as being the total and complete canon of the Christian Bible. The Catholic Bibles of today still have all of these 73 books. All of these books were printed up in the mid fifteenth century in the first printed bible, the Gutenberg Bible. Martin Luther, in the following century, disagreed with the 1100 year old canon of scripture and removed 7 books from his version of the Bible that he didn't agree with, so the Protestant Bible only has 66 books as a result of his editing. Following the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent re-ratified the 1100 year old Canon of scripture with all 73 books.

So if they had the ability to compile the texts as late as that, then when did the apostasy occur? Why wouldn't they have the authority today to continue to interpret scripture?

[canard78]

My research has led me to I believe that the Catholic Church gave the world the Bible. The Church was established by Jesus Christ around 33 AD, and the New Testament was not finalized in its present form until 382 AD, about 350 years later. Pope St. Damasus I, at the Council of Rome, in 382, proposed the current canon of scripture with 73 books (46 OT + 27 NT). Subsequent councils at Hippo in 393 AD, and at Carthage in 397 AD, ratified this canon as being inspired and complete. Pope Innocent I sent a letter out in the year 405 AD that listed all 73 books as being the total and complete canon of the Christian Bible. The Catholic Bibles of today still have all of these 73 books. All of these books were printed up in the mid fifteenth century in the first printed bible, the Gutenberg Bible. Martin Luther, in the following century, disagreed with the 1100 year old canon of scripture and removed 7 books from his version of the Bible that he didn't agree with, so the Protestant Bible only has 66 books as a result of his editing. Following the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent re-ratified the 1100 year old Canon of scripture with all 73 books.

So how does the chronology you've just listed fit with what you said before:

There was no bible until Gutenberg invented the printing press. For 1494 years after the death of Christ it was all oral stories.

[Programmer]

There isn't any need for OT prophets anymore.

All whole other subject worthy of discussion. But which there is no scriptural support for.

John the Baptist was the last one.

And Peter, James, John, Paul, Andrew, Phillip etc... were not prophets?

The book of Acts refers to Agabus as a prophet (21:10).

Even the book of Revelations (16:6) says there will be prophets in the latter days (Who will be killed along with other saints: a scary thought).

Now, the spirit resides in all believers through the work that Jesus did.

As to your last question, the moment we are free from this body we will know, as we are known.

Jesus has already forgiven us, and we stand before God with his righteousness now.

But the moment we are free from this body? We will know as we are known?

Sorry, but I have no idea how that relates to what I asked.

[kassie]

So if they had the ability to compile the texts as late as that, then when did the apostasy occur? Why wouldn't they have the authority today to continue to interpret scripture?

They believe they do. They don't believe in an apostacy.

[kassie]

So how does the chronology you've just listed fit with what you said before:

I misspoke! I meant that until the Gutenberg Bible was printed that it was not available to "the general public."

[Calm]

My research has led me to I believe that the Catholic Church gave the world the Bible. The Church was established by Jesus Christ around 33 AD, and the New Testament was not finalized in its present form until 382 AD, about 350 years later. Pope St. Damasus I, at the Council of Rome, in 382, proposed the current canon of scripture with 73 books (46 OT + 27 NT). Subsequent councils at Hippo in 393 AD, and at Carthage in 397 AD, ratified this canon as being inspired and complete. Pope Innocent I sent a letter out in the year 405 AD that listed all 73 books as being the total and complete canon of the Christian Bible. The Catholic Bibles of today still have all of these 73 books. All of these books were printed up in the mid fifteenth century in the first printed bible, the Gutenberg Bible. Martin Luther, in the following century, disagreed with the 1100 year old canon of scripture and removed 7 books from his version of the Bible that he didn't agree with, so the Protestant Bible only has 66 books as a result of his editing. Following the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent re-ratified the 1100 year old Canon of scripture with all 73 books.

Just a heads up, when you copy and paste material, you need to provide a link to the site you got it from so that if people want to learn more or read it in context they are able to do so...unless that site has temple content on it and then just naming the site is enough to give them credit for the work.

[Calm]

I misspoke! I meant that until the Gutenberg Bible was printed that it was not available to "the general public."

Kids making too much noise in the background?

[kassie]

Just a heads up, when you copy and paste material, you need to provide a link to the site you got it from so that if people want to learn more or read it in context they are able to do so...unless that site has temple content on it and then just naming the site is enough to give them credit for the work.

T

Thanks for the correction. I will be sure to do that in the future. I have gobs and gobs of stuff bookmarked but will be sure to post the site in the future! I'm new here,...bear with me! Thanks!

[kassie]

Kids making too much noise in the background?

You got that right! I can't wait for school to start in a week!!!!!

[canard78]

T

Thanks for the correction. I will be sure to do that in the future. I have gobs and gobs of stuff bookmarked but will be sure to post the site in the future! I'm new here,...bear with me! Thanks!

And it's also handy if you put the quote into a quotation box

Like this

If you're on a computer it's one of the editing options on the second row... looks like a speech bubble.

If you're on a phone, put the quote 'tags' before and after, like this (take out the dots, I have to put them in else they'll get converted to code:

[.quote.]

Insert your quote here

[./.quote.]

[Calm]

It starts in a week? Sheesh! So much for summer vacation when about a third of summer one is in school.

I cannot emotionally get into the idea of starting school in August...school starting is supposed to mean the weather is beginning to cool down, not continue to torture us.

[canard78]

I misspoke! I meant that until the Gutenberg Bible was printed that it was not available to "the general public."

Ahah

[3DOP]

Ironically it's at the end of the LDS edition of the KJV of the Bible:

Thanks canard. Ironic indeed.

I had forgotten about this thread. The problem with putting "The End" at the end of the book of Revelation is that there is nothing inspired about the order in which the books are traditionally placed. There is a school of thought to which I have some sympathy which argues that Revelation was written before 70 AD. "The End" is not a part of the Book of Revelation. Here is how the translation I prefer reads:

He that giveth testimony of these things, saith, Surely I come quickly: Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

[Samlam]

Your comparison between Infinite and finite authors is apt and mirrors my own pov. I see no reasonableness in the assertion that there are "hidden meanings" in the scriptures and the temple ordinances. Once you've got them down, even memorized, any "hidden meaning", or "greater knowledge" comes from your own mind pondering where those words/ordinances lead you. The words themselves are simply the same old words. New words would be "nice". I'm not waiting anymore, though....

Are you stating then that the results of pondering where you receive as you write it "hidden meaning", or "greater knowledge" are self derived and without added meaning by the spirit?

[Samlam]

Thanks canard. Ironic indeed.

I had forgotten about this thread. The problem with putting "The End" at the end of the book of Revelation is that there is nothing inspired about the order in which the books are traditionally placed. There is a school of thought to which I have some sympathy which argues that Revelation was written before 70 AD. "The End" is not a part of the Book of Revelation. Here is how the translation I prefer reads:

Is it possible that, though it appears a random order, there is actually an inspired reason for the Book of Revelations being the final book? For instance is it possible that as is common in LDS circles, when the presiding person speaks there are no further speakers. Recognizing the various and sundry duties of those that preside as they represent the final voice in a meeting to expound or correct doctrine that may have been presented as well as providing the final opportunity for the Lords inspired words to be delivered in that event etc... I suspect there may be a similar pattern in Catholicism. Is the fact that John the Revelator represents the presiding voice of his dispensation perhaps a pattern consistent with typical functions of the Lord where the final speaker represents the end inspirations that the Lord deems appropriate for the venue in question? It is interesting to me that Johns final words are concerning the end of times and they are the final words until the dispensation of the ends of times of which we are now participants. It seems more than coincidence to me.

[3DOP]

Is it possible that, though it appears a random order, there is actually an inspired reason for the Book of Revelations being the final book? For instance is it possible that as is common in LDS circles, when the presiding person speaks there are no further speakers. Recognizing the various and sundry duties of those that preside as they represent the final voice in a meeting to expound or correct doctrine that may have been presented as well as providing the final opportunity for the Lords inspired words to be delivered in that event etc... I suspect there may be a similar pattern in Catholicism. Is the fact that John the Revelator represents the presiding voice of his dispensation perhaps a pattern consistent with typical functions of the Lord where the final speaker represents the end inspirations that the Lord deems appropriate for the venue in question? It is interesting to me that Johns final words are concerning the end of times and they are the final words until the dispensation of the ends of times of which we are now participants. It seems more than coincidence to me.

Hi Cucumber,

As a Catholic I could not agree that the ordering of the books of the New Testament are inspired. I could go so far as to say that it is fitting to place the book most preeminently about the end times last, especially since the majority school of thought also thinks it was written last.

The implication of the original poster, if I correctly understood him, is that the non-LDS Christians, due to our alleged hatred for the idea of post-apostolic revelation, have included the words, "The End", at the end of the Book of Revelation. I have difficulty taking that post seriously on a number of levels. I only mentioned that the problem is nullified if he can't produce a non-LDS text where it says "The End".

Secondly, no one, at least no one Catholic is saying that prophecy has ceased. I have before me as I type a book called The Prophets and Our Times by Fr. R. Gerald Culleton. I haven't read it, but it is composed almost exclusively of accepted post-Apostolic revelation. Many of the prophets and prophetesses have been canonized as saints. The cover page quotes the book of Acts and St. Thomas Aquinas:

And it shall come to pass, in the last days, (saith the Lord,) I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.

---Acts 2:17, 18

In all ages men have been divinely instructed in matters expedient for the salvation of the elect...and in all ages there have been persons possessed of the spirit of prophecy...

---Summa Theo. II, II, 174: Res. et ad 3

He might have added St. Paul's admonition:

Despise not prophesies.

---I Th. 5:20

The only reason Mormons don't have any respect for the amazingly cohesive and instructive body of post apostolic Catholic prophecy is because we cannot raise it to the dignity of Scripture. We don't think it is infallible. If there appears to be a conflict between the apostolic teachings and a new revelation, the new revelation is not authentic. But Mormons don't think Scripture is infallible anyway, so for the purpose and utility of Mormon inquiries, post-Apostolic Catholic prophecy shouldn't be pooh poohed by Mormons. Especially when the Church formally canonizes the prophet/prophetess, theologians quote the writings, or the writings are separately judged to be authentic, our post-apostolic prophecies might be as true to us as all Scripture is to you. The only note missing is verbal inspiration and infallibility, which you guys reject anyway.

Because there is a need to distinguish the supreme authority of the Apostolic witness, doesn't mean that we think God is finished revealing truths "expedient for the salvation of the elect". No one that is Catholic to my knowledge has ever appended "the End" to St. John's Apocalypse or suggested contrary to Scripture and Catholic Tradition, that prophecy ends with the Book of Revelation, or that we have now entered a new age wherein we may safely despise prophecies. There is not a hint of that; In fact the prophetic word as St. Thomas says has not ceased, and accordingly, the book I reference contains only brief excerpts of scores of prophetic texts covering all of the ages since the death of St. John the Apostle.

Edited August 15, 2013 by 3DOP

[Samlam]

3DOP, on 15 Aug 2013 - 5:24 PM, said:

 

As a Catholic I could not agree that the ordering of the books of the New Testament are inspired.

 

 

While I have interacted and studied a fair bit of Catholicism, I have never read or had anyone explain to me why the state of being Catholic would preclude considering the order inspired.  I can possibly extrapolate that since it is a product of the Church of England a Catholic might question an inspired rendition from an unrecognized authority. However that seems questionable as the Latin Vulgate also places Apocalypsis or Revelations at the end as well.  Please share with me your perspective as this is very interesting.

 

 

3DOP, on 15 Aug 2013 - 5:24 PM, said: The implication of the original poster, if I correctly understood him, is that the non-LDS Christians, due to our alleged hatred for the idea of post-apostolic revelation, have included the words, "The End", at the end of the Book of Revelation. I have difficulty taking that post seriously on a number of levels. I only mentioned that the problem is nullified if he can't produce a non-LDS text where it says "The End".

 

 

I cannot argue the point you make as far as “The End” being worthy of little comment.  However, I do not feel the emphasis of the OP was on the words “the end” as much as the emphasis was on the desire to partake of more scripture experience. Still perhaps the question following was in a “they” and “us” mentality which also does not warrant much commentary.

 

 

3DOP, on 15 Aug 2013 - 5:24 PM, said:Secondly, no one, at least no one Catholic is saying that prophecy has ceased. I have before me as I type a book called The Prophets and Our Times by Fr. R. Gerald Culleton. I haven't read it, but it is composed almost exclusively of accepted post-Apostolic revelation. Many of the prophets and prophetesses have been canonized as saints. The cover page quotes the book of Acts and St. Thomas Aquinas:

---Acts 2:17, 18

---Summa Theo. II, II, 174: Res. et ad 3

He might have added St. Paul's admonition: ---I Th. 5:20

The only reason Mormons don't have any respect for the amazingly cohesive and instructive body of post apostolic Catholic prophecy is because we cannot raise it to the dignity of Scripture. We don't think it is infallible. If there appears to be a conflict between the apostolic teachings and a new revelation, the new revelation is not authentic. But Mormons don't think Scripture is infallible anyway, so for the purpose and utility of Mormon inquiries, post-Apostolic Catholic prophecy shouldn't be pooh poohed by Mormons. Especially when the Church formally canonizes the prophet/prophetess, theologians quote the writings, or the writings are separately judged to be authentic, our post-apostolic prophecies might be as true to us as all Scripture is to you. The only note missing is verbal inspiration and infallibility, which you guys reject anyway.

Because there is a need to distinguish the supreme authority of the Apostolic witness, doesn't mean that we think God is finished revealing truths "expedient for the salvation of the elect". No one that is Catholic to my knowledge has ever appended "the End" to St. John's Apocalypse or suggested contrary to Scripture and Catholic Tradition, that prophecy ends with the Book of Revelation, or that we have now entered a new age wherein we may safely despise prophecies. There is not a hint of that; In fact the prophetic word as St. Thomas says has not ceased, and accordingly, the book I reference contains only brief excerpts of scores of prophetic texts covering all of the ages since the death of St. John the Apostle.

 

 

Relative to your comments on Prophecy...

 

Being LDS and staunchly so, I think it is less about respect for post apostolic Catholic prophecy and simply a question of authority on two fronts. One is the authority to speak in behalf of God to all the world and the second is the degree or requirement to recognize all apostolic prophecy as equally binding upon the LDS membership versus a tentative individualistic response to later prophecy from a Catholic perspective.     

 

Thus whether we as members of a religious sect can receive revelation for the nature of our duties relative to God’s will is a moot point to me. I am sure that as individuals and even along lines of authority in other religious organizations that direct guidance from heaven is possible and probable.  Thus, I can agree that members of the LDS community can be well served to be less critical of the inspired writings of religious leaders of any organization to one degree or another.

 

Of course, the real issue is the degree of fealty LDS feel to apostolic writers where we include in the list the Apostles of our modern era.  For me the question becomes the degree of inspiration God will provide when it comes to the role of his church in speaking in his behalf to the entire world.  The distinction being that while all organizations may receive guidance specific to their populace, as LDS we claim that only those specifically authorized may speak in behalf of God to all of God’s children regardless of affiliation.   Thus the Proclamation to the Family is properly titled “The Family, A Proclamation to the World”, for the fact that we sustain the authority that is of God that requires The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to address all of God’s children whether they recognize that authority or not.

 

Thus, as always, the devil is in the details of how each of us reacts to principles of prophecy and the degree that those prophecies are binding upon the body of believers that form our respective disciplines. For the LDS we genuinely feel that the prophet speaks in God’s behalf and provides instruction that is vital and necessary to the administration of his church and His doctrine. This is somewhat different from my understanding of how Catholicism views prophecy versus the LDS viewpoint on prophecy.  From the Catholic answers website:

 

 

 

:

Public revelation is binding on all Christians, but private revelation is binding only on those who receive it. The Catholic Church teaches that public revelation was completed, and therefore was concluded, with the death of the last apostle (Vatican II, Dei Verbum 4), but private revelation has continued. 

 

"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[collective sense of the faithful] 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’" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 67). http://www.catholic.com/tracts/private-revelation

 

 

Thus what you class as a need to recognize the supreme authority of the Apostolic prophecies probably carries more significance than is first evident, in that, from my understanding, the apostolic writings are considered binding upon all Catholics, and later prophecies are only binding upon those that find it reasonable to believe in a particular subsequent prophecy. Thus Catholics could be said to sustain the greater authority of the early apostolic era as superior to the authority which produced any revelations that followed. This difference, unless carefully acknowledged and considered in our discussion may leave the wrong impression that concepts of prophecy and what constitutes such and the degree of requirement to accept them is much the same between our two organizations as we use the same word to describe a distinctly different set of beliefs.  Thus again, from my perspective the second response to authority really is a question of the authority each of us as members in our respective organizations feel towards the individuals who receive revelation. For LDS modern day revelation is of equal worth and requirement for acceptance as early Apostolic revelation and in some cases may supersede it if the nature of the prophecy is more particularly suitable for the conditions of the current church . 

 

Thus, once I have explained this in this fashion, I would agree that we look at the “cohesive and instructive body of post apostolic Catholic prophecy” in very similar fashion.  It is instructive and it is a valuable resource but we also would not elevate it to the level of the apostolic revelations any more than a Catholic is required to do.  However, the striking difference is that the LDS have no such view of modern apostolic efforts within our own organization and consider them binding and salvific.

 

Still, I would not consider the Catholic position one of “hatred for the idea of post-apostolic revelation”, however, I would also be disingenuous if I failed to acknowledge that LDS and Catholics do hold distinctly different perspectives on the potential worth and sustaining mandate associated with post-apostolic prophecy and revelation.  

Edited August 16, 2013 by Cucumber

[Samlam]

I'm not sure what has happened to the quote feature but I noticed everything did not come through quoted as I had intended.  Yet as I am unable to edit my posts, owing to my limited time on board.  I will have to leave it as is.  My apologies and I will try to figure this out for future posts.

[Samlam]

I'm not sure what has happened to the quote feature but I noticed everything did not come through quoted as I had intended.  Yet as I am unable to edit my posts, owing to my limited time on board.  I will have to leave it as is.  My apologies and I will try to figure this out for future posts.

 

This is a test...

 

this is a test also

 

 

This is a test as well...

[Samlam]

This is a test...

 

This is a test as well...

 

 

this is a final test for something I didn't test before

 

another line

 

another line

 

Please pardon my testing

[Calm]

Did you pass?

[ChristKnight]

...

Still, I would not consider the Catholic position one of “hatred for the idea of post-apostolic revelation”, however, I would also be disingenuous if I failed to acknowledge that LDS and Catholics do hold distinctly different perspectives on the potential worth and sustaining mandate associated with post-apostolic prophecy and revelation.  

 

While I agree with much of what you said, I do think the Catholic position is a little more nuanced.

 

Yes, Catholicism makes a distinction between "public" and "private" revelation.  I think that those words are a little unfortunate, since they don't really express what they mean in context, which leads to many misunderstandings (by both Catholics and Non-Catholics).  "Public Revelation" is basically what is needed to be known for salvation.  Catholics believe that all that we need to know about how to receive eternal life was Revealed anciently, reaching its high point in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ (and through Him and His ministry, we know who we receive eternal life from).  The way that we can receive eternal life will not change, and nothing can be added nor taken away from that.  "Private revelation" refers to revelations that not only individuals can receive for their own lives (Catholics believe that by virtue of baptism, all Catholics share in Christ's offices of Prophet, Priest, and King), but revelations from Heaven that can assist us in our journey to God, prophecies about the future, etc.  Catholic history, as 3DOP mentioned, is replete with prophets and prophetesses that have received revelations from Heaven, many of which have been approved by Catholic authority.

 

I also think it's important to point out that Catholics believe that inspiration and revelation are also given to the Catholic leadership, not only to guide them in governing the Church, but also in further understanding the "Deposit of Faith", the "Public Revelation" that has already been given.  By this revelatory experience, they are able to unfold the teachings contained within it, coming to deeper understandings and making the Public Revelation more explicit.  This can occur through Ecumenical Councils, an infallible declaration by the Pope by virtue of his office, etc.  So, Catholics accept not only private revelations that continue, but also the Divine guidance of the Church and its leadership, through their apostolic office, and the Divinely revealed/inspired unfolding understanding of the Revelation already given.  For Catholics, Heaven is not "closed", and has always been open. 

 

Also, I think that Catholics would similarly believe that the Pope, as Vicar of Christ, and all the Bishops as successors of the apostles, address all of God's children, and not just Catholics, and also desire all to come to Christ's Kingdom on earth, as they understand it.

 

So, while the Catholic and Latter-day Saint positions certainly aren't the same, I do think that the Catholic position is often misunderstood, by both Catholics and Non-Catholics.

 

On the topic of Revelation, I always recommend Dei Verbum, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, given at the Second Vatican Council, which might be helpful in further understanding the Catholic viewpoint.  I also find a few quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church to be helpful:

 

888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task "to preach the Gospel of God to all men," in keeping with the Lord's command.⁴¹⁵ They are "heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers" of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ."⁴¹⁶

 

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a "supernatural sense of faith" the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."⁴¹⁷

 

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

 

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.⁴¹⁸ When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"⁴¹⁹ and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."⁴²⁰ This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.⁴²¹

 

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"⁴²² which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

 

901 "Hence the laity, dedicated as they are to Christ and anointed by the Holy Spirit, are marvelously called and prepared so that even richer fruits of the Spirit maybe produced in them. For all their works, prayers, and apostolic undertakings, family and married life, daily work, relaxation of mind and body, if they are accomplished in the Spirit - indeed even the hardships of life if patiently born - all these become spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. In the celebration of the Eucharist these may most fittingly be offered to the Father along with the body of the Lord. And so, worshipping everywhere by their holy actions, the laity consecrate the world itself to God, everywhere offering worship by the holiness of their lives."

 

66 “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.”28 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.

 

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.

 

85      “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.”⁴⁷ This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

 

86      “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.

 

91      All the faithful share in understanding and handing on revealed truth. They have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them⁵³ and guides them into all truth.

 

93      “By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium),… receives… the faith, once for all delivered to the saints…. The People unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life.”

 

94      Thanks to the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the understanding of both the realities and the words of the heritage of faith is able to grow in the life of the Church

 

Hope that helps (way too long)!

[ChristKnight]

Hi Cucumber,

Secondly, no one, at least no one Catholic is saying that prophecy has ceased. I have before me as I type a book called The Prophets and Our Times by Fr. R. Gerald Culleton. I haven't read it, but it is composed almost exclusively of accepted post-Apostolic revelation. Many of the prophets and prophetesses have been canonized as saints. The cover page quotes the book of Acts and St. Thomas Aquinas:

---Acts 2:17, 18

---Summa Theo. II, II, 174: Res. et ad 3

 

 

Thanks for pointing out that book!  I've been thinking of finding a book on that very topic, so I'll add it to my wish list.

[Samlam]

Did you pass?

 

Actually no...I still do not have it figured out...