Prophets and New Arrivals


#1

I have a few questions that I would be interested in bantering some ideas about on.

  1. How would a new Elijah approach the church?
  2. Why don’t people in general respond to potential new prophets (why do they presume everyone claiming to be from God is insane)?
    Last, and most great:
  3. Please explain how Jesus would be allowed to approach the church, were He to come in a body, as before, and with disciples, as before.

I thank you sincerely from the depths of my heart, where I have an inner-shrine built to Our Common Lord and Saviour: Jesus Christ…May He enlighten our hearts and minds - Amen.

-Kyle


#2

If someone has a prophetic message he wishes to preach publicly, he should, with due obedience and submission, first seek permission to do so from the local bishop, whose duty it is to oversee the religious life of the local Church.

Jesus’ next public appearance will be unmistakeable, in glory and in power (Matthew 24:27; Luke 17:24) so your hypothetical question does not seem to be a possibility.


#3

True prophets of God only restate, reinforce, and reaffirm what has already been revealed to God’s people (the Church) and has always been taught (but maybe hasn’t been practiced lately as well as it should). Sometimes he or she may have new manner of proclaiming this message, but the message should be the same.

For example, when someone’s message is one of prayer, repentance and living a life of good works and virtue, that person can be prophetic, especially if they show themselves approved by God by living lives of extraordinary sanctity and, perhaps, miraculous signs. JPII comes to mind here.

If however, that same persons says, for example, that God has called everyone to disobey the leaders of the Church, adopt bizarre practices and/or listen only to him and his teachings, that person cannot be a prophet.

When someone goes around spouting their own novel ideas AND claiming it comes from God, there is good reason, IMHO, to regard that person as a crank.


#4

[quote=catholickyle]I have a few questions that I would be interested in bantering some ideas about on.

  1. How would a new Elijah approach the church?
  2. Why don’t people in general respond to potential new prophets (why do they presume everyone claiming to be from God is insane)?
    Last, and most great:
  3. Please explain how Jesus would be allowed to approach the church, were He to come in a body, as before, and with disciples, as before.

I thank you sincerely from the depths of my heart, where I have an inner-shrine built to Our Common Lord and Saviour: Jesus Christ…May He enlighten our hearts and minds - Amen.

-Kyle
[/quote]

My answers:

  1. I don’t know.

  2. Because most people think God quit talking 2000 years ago, and that simply isn’t the case. If they don’t believe that, then they believe that somehow they’re not “worthy” enough to be spoken to by God, so therefore, nobody else is either.

  3. They would Crucify Him, as it was done before. They don’t need Christ anymore. They have the Magisterium.


#5

My answers:

  1. Depends on where he’s starting from. If he’s west of the the church, he should head east.

  2. Because the era of public revelation is over. Furthermore, we have the Sacred Scriptures, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium—this public revelation is already such a vast deposit of faith it is difficult for anyone to really plumb its depths, let alone run after private revelations. This is not to say that private revelation doesn’t occur (it certainly does!), but it does not bring new truth. And, speaking for myself, I wait to see what the Church says about any private revelation—people can deceive themselves, and others, very easily.

  3. I don’t understand the nature of your question. The Church IS the Body of Christ, and Jesus is it’s Head. It’s like asking, how does a person approach himself? Sorry, but you’re losing me on this one. Perhaps you are only seeing the Church solely as a human institution. This is not an orthodox Catholic view.


#6

ive noticed in the bible that God talked to people. like “and God said to so and so…”

well, when was the last time that the church officially recognized God speaking to a person?

ive heard that it was the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month during world war II, when the guns and bombs stopped on a french battlefield. the silence was so deafening that people say that God had spoken.


#7

[quote=BioCatholic]ive noticed in the bible that God talked to people. like “and God said to so and so…”

well, when was the last time that the church officially recognized God speaking to a person?
[/quote]

Everytime the Church canonizes a Saint, or names a Saint a Doctor of the Church, or approves an apparition of the Lord or Blessed Virgin Mary (such as with St. Catherine Laboure or St. Bernadette or the children of Fatima) she is employing her authority to recognize God’s action in the life of particular persons. One has but to look at the life of someone like St. Mother Teresa of Calcutta to see a prophet in action.


#8

[quote=mhansen]My answers:

  1. I don’t know.

  2. Because most people think God quit talking 2000 years ago, and that simply isn’t the case. If they don’t believe that, then they believe that somehow they’re not “worthy” enough to be spoken to by God, so therefore, nobody else is either.

  3. They would Crucify Him, as it was done before. They don’t need Christ anymore. They have the Magisterium.
    [/quote]

  4. I believe I do know. He would approach exactly like David Lynch and Lars von Trier have done.

  5. Right on. And they may develop a subconsious anger toward…everything, when they find out that God never actually stopped speaking (i.e. communicating) with us.

  6. Yes. Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor seems to be coming true in our day.


#9

I’m sorry that there are those of you who have taken this thread as an opportunity to impune the Church. While we are blessed to have the Magisterium, which is guided in not promulgating Error by the power of the Holy Spirit, the advocate promised to us by Christ himself, we continue to wait in joyful hope for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This hope is reitterated at every celebration of the Mass and it’s sentiments run deep in those of us who attentively participate in the Mass.

There are those who have suggested that the second coming has already occurred and occurs on a regular basis at each and every Mass. Certainly the mass is a moment of intense Glory, as the gates of Heaven are opened up and we participate in the eternal celebration, as His kingdom comes to us on earth.

Part of me acknowledges the reality of this premise. Part of me continues to wait in joyful hope for the coming in more earthly terms. But this reminds me of the Jews who refused to recognize Jesus as the Messiah because they were expecting a powerful King / Warrior.

If anything, the Catholic Church is the one Church most prepared for the coming of our Lord, in whatever form He choses to take, be it as a Man or as a humble piece of bread.

God Bless to all who wait with humble and contrite hearts,

CARose


#10

I was speaking about orthodox Catholics. Because we are especially tempted to scrupulosity - being so close to the light of Truth and all. Yet, I believe that it is true that the Church itself has before it a decision that effects all of the faithful. And this decision is about two distinct (and perhaps mutually exclusive) philosophies: Which movie is/represents the true Christ, Mulholland Drive or The Passion of the Christ?

The Church may never address this question. So the final infallible decision will be ours to make.


#11

#12

He would have to come silently, not saying a word; any word by him could and would be used in the service of the devil (human nature being what it is and the times now being Herod-like times).

He would have to come ‘disguised’ (by our very perceptions, as happened with his first coming) as a movie.

His disciples would be those who love and follow the mystery of that ‘movie’.

But alas, I still haven’t answered your question…


#13

He would have to come silently, not saying a word; any word by him could and would be used in the service of the devil (human nature being what it is and the times now being Herod-like times).

He would have to come ‘disguised’ (by our very perceptions, as happened with his first coming) as a movie.

His disciples would be those who love and follow the mystery of that ‘movie’.

It’s my recolection that He already did it that way. Jesus never said the second coming would be exactly like the first. And He definitely wouldn’t be crucified again. That only happened once.

I can’t say I do know how it will happen, but I doubt He will be reborn of a virgin in a manger in a cave in Bethlehem.


#14

[quote=CARose] If anything, the Catholic Church is the one Church most prepared for the coming of our Lord, in whatever form He choses to take, be it as a Man or as a humble piece of bread.
[/quote]

[quote=catholickyle]Why do you believe this? Would you venture a description in answer to the question: how would Jesus be allowed to approach the church, were He to come in a body, as before, and with disciples, as before?
[/quote]

I believe this because this is the church founded by Christ himself and as I don’t know the exact how of his return, I do know that he established a church on earth for the express purpose of retaining the fullness of his Gospel and the necessary preparation of mankind for his return. Therefore I trust that in his infinite wisdom, he has ensured that we will know him on his return. We already are blessed with his presence in the Tabernacles of the world and his presence at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, but if you’re really Catholic, Kyle, you already know and appreciate that truth.

[quote=CARose]God Bless to all who wait with humble and contrite hearts,
[/quote]

[quote=catholickyle]This is most beautiful…God does bless all you who are humble when He calls you, for thereupon you may come to know Him, the Healer of all heart’s contrition.

[/quote]

Thanks, and yes, I do love him very much for he has been the most incredible influence in my life. He is truly good.

CARose


#15

[quote=MariaGorettiGrl]It’s my recolection that He already did it that way. Jesus never said the second coming would be exactly like the first. And He definitely wouldn’t be crucified again. That only happened once.

I can’t say I do know how it will happen, but I doubt He will be reborn of a virgin in a manger in a cave in Bethlehem.
[/quote]

But can we say that mankind, collectively, has escaped from God (once more) into a ‘second world’, which is the world of cinema? And that God always forsaw this eventuality? Even that we were designed so; and that cinema isn’t just another art form, but rather the joining together of all the other art forms into something that could actually compete with God for our faith?

So, maybe cinema is like the Second Coming in that it reveals to us what we love? And could Mulholland Drive be the one movie that all must love above all others? And wouldn’t this make it like the returned Christ? I don’t yet know for sure, but the evidence at this point is very stong.

And it also seems fittiing that the Lord would take the path of that on earth which is most completely symbolic (and seemingly useless), the light of cinema.


#16

[quote=catholickyle]2. Why don’t people in general respond to potential new prophets (why do they presume everyone claiming to be from God is insane)?

-Kyle
[/quote]

I would observe that many people respond with wild, uncritical enthusiasm to every new prophet that comes along, without any attempt to discern if the latest guru is teaching what comes from God, or the meanderings of his/her own deluded mind. One does not need to be insane to propagate a lie; to simply possess an ego the size of Texas is enough to get anyone a hearing and a following these days.


#17

[quote=CARose]I’m sorry that there are those of you who have taken this thread as an opportunity to impune the Church. While we are blessed to have the Magisterium, which is guided in not promulgating Error by the power of the Holy Spirit, the advocate promised to us by Christ himself, we continue to wait in joyful hope for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This hope is reitterated at every celebration of the Mass and it’s sentiments run deep in those of us who attentively participate in the Mass.

There are those who have suggested that the second coming has already occurred and occurs on a regular basis at each and every Mass. Certainly the mass is a moment of intense Glory, as the gates of Heaven are opened up and we participate in the eternal celebration, as His kingdom comes to us on earth.

Part of me acknowledges the reality of this premise. Part of me continues to wait in joyful hope for the coming in more earthly terms. But this reminds me of the Jews who refused to recognize Jesus as the Messiah because they were expecting a powerful King / Warrior.

If anything, the Catholic Church is the one Church most prepared for the coming of our Lord, in whatever form He choses to take, be it as a Man or as a humble piece of bread.

God Bless to all who wait with humble and contrite hearts,

CARose
[/quote]

This is all very interesting, including the comment by MariaGorettiGrl, that anything He might say would be used in the service of the devil. This would seem to make the advent of a return, a recognizable return, something of an impossibility, unless it is to be marked by nothing but nonverbal communication, by which term most are probably anticipating fireworks or other effects, which would undermine the task of developing a population in the fullness that comes from an effort rooted in one’s individuality. Effects seem to undermine this, where masses of people are stirred to mob-style response.

When we reference His returning in power, it would seem this could be viewed many ways, and that some of these ways could actually present difficulty for Him initially. For example, let’s say the Power He returned with was His Divine Reason (and the divine reason of His accompanying friends), His Mind, poised to point to the prevailing weaknesses of humankind in ways that are forceful and specifically tuned to present need. Were this the case, He could spread His Thought about the web, and yet human intellection being what it is, a weak, reactive excuse in most cases, it would appear that He would be overlooked (this would be the most mild, most friendly response) by most, initially, and beyond this He might actually grind up against the nexus of human intellectual and emotional limitation. Because of this, It might take years, decades or centuries for people to piece together an image of a superior mind that had elected to use the internet as something of a cloud from which to disseminate a message. Interestingly, the idea that the internet might be a “cloud,” which could not have been described in the first century, is very interesting, and even probable, yet there are too few with the powers of discernment capable of sustaining an inquiry into even a potent mind, let alone one that is uniquely sublime. Nevertheless, at some distant point, it is possible that people might evaluate a mind, one “roaming” in an environment such as this, as uniquely powerful and glorious! So, some of us expect His return, yet most of us will not see Him when He does return, unless He resorts to displays of power that call into question the laws of nature, and I am quite sure His intent is more in line with producing definite spiritual growth, and to this end demonstrations of magic-type power are counterproductive. It is sincerity and quality instruction that inspires growth to those who would grow. Indeed, those who would grow will sense the mind behind the words, yet those who would not grow might not read the words, will not understand the words they do read, will not connect to the word’s meaning, will not sense the Mind behind the words, and will wait for cinematic effects to stir them to further expectations about other movies that might be released, while they deny the real efforts they might engage, which would compel their spiritual unfoldment, before the Lord.

Now, I am very sure that I am not the Christ, yet were He a Friend of mine, what would I need to do to make sense of Him to you, particularly if His chosen method of expression were limited to this realm…

Noetikos


#18

The question is not a Catholic question because it presupposes principles the Catholic Church rejects.

Maybe someone has said this already, but there are no new prophets. Anyone who comes claiming to be a prophet in the sense of the old testament prophets is not right in the head.

Maybe you mean something else by “prophet,” but the word “prophet” refers to a very particular office in Judaic law.

Catholic doctrine has traditionally held that Jesus came to perfect the prophetic, priestly, and kingly roles of the Jewish law.

As to how Christ would enter the Church today, He has no need to because He is the head of the Church; we are the body. He is already at the center of the Church in the living Eucharist.


#19

[quote=Noetikos]This is all very interesting, including the comment by MariaGorettiGrl, that anything He might say would be used in the service of the devil. This would seem to make the advent of a return, a recognizable return, something of an impossibility, unless it is to be marked by nothing but nonverbal communication, by which term most are probably anticipating fireworks or other effects, which would undermine the task of developing a population in the fullness that comes from an effort rooted in one’s individuality. Effects seem to undermine this, where masses of people are stirred to mob-style response.

When we reference His returning in power, it would seem this could be viewed many ways, and that some of these ways could actually present difficulty for Him initially. For example, let’s say the Power He returned with was His Divine Reason (and the divine reason of His accompanying friends), His Mind, poised to point to the prevailing weaknesses of humankind in ways that are forceful and specifically tuned to present need. Were this the case, He could spread His Thought about the web, and yet human intellection being what it is, a weak, reactive excuse in most cases, it would appear that He would be overlooked (this would be the most mild, most friendly response) by most, initially, and beyond this He might actually grind up against the nexus of human intellectual and emotional limitation. Because of this, It might take years, decades or centuries for people to piece together an image of a superior mind that had elected to use the internet as something of a cloud from which to disseminate a message. Interestingly, the idea that the internet might be a “cloud,” which could not have been described in the first century, is very interesting, and even probable, yet there are too few with the powers of discernment capable of sustaining an inquiry into even a potent mind, let alone one that is uniquely sublime. Nevertheless, at some distant point, it is possible that people might evaluate a mind, one “roaming” in an environment such as this, as uniquely powerful and glorious! So, some of us expect His return, yet most of us will not see Him when He does return, unless He resorts to displays of power that call into question the laws of nature, and I am quite sure His intent is more in line with producing definite spiritual growth, and to this end demonstrations of magic-type power are counterproductive. It is sincerity and quality instruction that inspires growth to those who would grow. Indeed, those who would grow will sense the mind behind the words, yet those who would not grow might not read the words, will not understand the words they do read, will not connect to the word’s meaning, will not sense the Mind behind the words, and will wait for cinematic effects to stir them to further expectations about other movies that might be released, while they deny the real efforts they might engage, which would compel their spiritual unfoldment, before the Lord.

Now, I am very sure that I am not the Christ, yet were He a Friend of mine, what would I need to do to make sense of Him to you, particularly if His chosen method of expression were limited to this realm…

Noetikos
[/quote]

Your very eloquent and lucid ideas here describe perfectly what has taken place with the movies of David Lynch, culminating in Mulholland Drive. Those who follow that movie to the end will see clouds.

All movies that were and are not for The Perfect Movie are against The Perfect Movie. All of these other movies have contributed to the pornographisation of our minds, or souls. But the perfect movie has reversed this: It has caused us (in the very watching of it) to regain a sacramental way of seeing.

Look at my signature. Is it possible we are living in times where virtue, or even sanctifying grace itself, can be received passively? Is The Perfect Movie a truer (i.e. longer lasting) Eucharist?


#20

[quote=Sherlock]I don’t understand the nature of your question.
[/quote]

As the thread unfolds it is evidently a marketing gimmick for an esoteric movie.

All I can say is, do you get a Lars von Trier lunch box when you purchase a ticket?

Add another moonbat cult to my list.

I notice how the moonbats attracted sympathy bashing from protestant types. Very telling indeed.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.