Personal Prophet

Candy's latest post is an elaboration on her views of prophesy and speaking in tongues. It doesn't directly relate to Catholicism in any way that I can see, nor is it something on which I have a strong opinion. But I read through Candy's post, and then I read through a translation of the Pope's Sunday homily, on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul, and they seemed such a sharp contrast, that I wanted to share some of my thoughts.

I read the Bible through several times before I had any type of real Doctrinal Teaching. That is a blessing, because that means I was able to read the Bible several times on my own, without anyone else's interpretations getting in the way. The first several to dozen times through the Bible, I used text only, or reference Bibles,- no study Bibles.

I cannot claim to have read the Bible dozens of times, but I have noticed that it speaks over and over of the wisdom of the aged and learned, of the importance of being open to instruction.

Proverbs 1:7: The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Proverbs 3:5: Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Job 12:12: With the ancient is wisdom; and in length of days understanding.

2 Peter 3:16: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Acts 8: 30-31: And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

Titus 2:3-5: The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

The last one isn't strictly on topic, but I notice that it speaks of the older women instructing the younger, not the young women instructing everyone else.

Some people have been taught that we can no longer have the gift of prophecy, because "we are not to add to the Word of God." Certainly we are not to add to the Word of God. However, prophesying is not adding to the Bible, but confirming it. All true prophecy will always line up with the Bible

This seems to me, to be a good defense of Tradition, if we replace the word "prophecy" with "Tradition." Let's try it:

Some people have been taught that we can no longer have the gift of Tradition, because "we are not to add to the Word of God." Certainly we are not to add to the Word of God. However, Tradition is not adding to the Bible, but confirming it. All true Tradition will always line up with the Bible.

See? Sounds good to me.

1 Corinthians 12 tells us that each Christian is a different part of the Body of Christ, with different gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Where I think Candy's view is so very different from the Catholic view is her supreme view of the individual. It is up to her alone to correctly interpret Scripture, and her view is equal, or greater, than that of those who might be more learned in the subject. She clearly feels that learning can be a disadvantage when it comes to Scripture. But I'm not sure this fits in with ALL of 1 Corinthians 12.

14For the body is not one member, but many.

15If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

16And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

17If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?

18But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

19And if they were all one member, where were the body?

20But now are they many members, yet but one body.

21And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

22Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:

23And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.

24For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked.

25That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

26And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

27Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

28And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

Rather than the importance of the individual, Paul emphasizes the unity of the body, that they all depend on each other. Jesus created a Church, and Paul indicates that it does have a hierarchy. So it isn't every man does his own thing independent of each other, and somehow, they are all collectively the body of Christ.

As I mentioned before, after I read Candy's post, I read the homily from the Pope. I immediately noticed how he seemed to stress unity and the Body of Christ as much as Candy stressed the individual.

Here are the excepts that stood out to me. At this Mass, the Pope bestowed the pallium on some Archbishops. For those of you reading along who aren't Catholic, you can find information on this topic here. It is a custom rich in Biblical symbolism.

But the pallium which you will receive ‘from’ the tomb of Peter has yet another significance, inseparably connected with the first. To understand this, a sentence from the First Letter of Peter may help us. In his exhortation to priests to pasture their flock in the correct way, he calls himself a synpresbýteros – co-priest (5,1). This formulation implicitly contains the principle of apostolic succession: the Pastors who follow are Pastors like him; together with him, they belong to the common ministry of the pastors of the Church of Jesus Christ, a ministry that continues in them.

But the prefix ‘con-’ has two other meanings. It also expresses the reality that we indicate today by the word ‘collegiality’ among bishops. We are all ‘con-presbiteri’. No one is a Pastor by himself. We are in the succession of the Apostles thanks only to being in communion with the college in which the College of Apostles finds its continuation. The communion - the ‘we’ - of Pastors is part of being a Pastor, because there is only one flock, the one Church of Christ.

It speaks to us of the one, holy, catholic, apostolic Church, and of course, in linking us to Christ, it also tells us that the Church is holy, and that our work is in the service of this holiness. . .

“Peter”, the pope explained, “. . . left the leadership of the Christian-Jewish Church to James the Less, in order to dedicate himself to his true mission: to his ministry for the unity of the one Church of God formed from Jews and pagans. St Paul’s desire to go to Rome emphasises - as we have seen - among the characteristics of the Church, above all the word ‘catholic’. St Peter’s journey to Rome, as representative of the peoples of the world, falls above all under the word ‘one’: his task was that of creating the unity of the catholica, of the Church made up of Jews and pagans, of the Church of all peoples.

And this is the permanent mission of Peter: to make it so that the Church never be identified with a single nation, with a single culture or a single state. That it always be the Church of all. That it unite humanity beyond all boundaries, and, in the midst of the divisions of this world, make present the peace of God, the reconciling power of his love”.