mormon prophet and catholic pope

[HiJolly]

Originally Posted by abqfriend

You must be a prophet-correct? You know what will happen to the Pope in a given future circumstance--wonderful!
You know more than I do.
-Carol

As a member of the LDS church, it is perfectly acceptable for me to be a prophet...

But I am speaking not of the discussions in the two churches amongst the leadership, the inevitable discussions of consequences or appropriate censure and so forth, but rather of the historical record concerning disciplinary actions of leaders of the two institutions.

Do you disagree?


HiJolly

[abqfriend]

As the Catholic Church believes in Apostolic succession, we believe the Bishop of Rome/The Pope is also an "Apostle." We sometimes use that term to designate the 12 original Apostles. We do not use that term as much as Pope or Bishop of Rome-which was his original title and still true today. -His formal Church/Cathederal is St. John Latern-in Rome
CHURCHES OF ROME

Do a search on Apostle at the following link and you will find dozens of parts from our Catechism on Apostle and what that means to us.
English Translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church with Search Utility
-Great question-Thank You
-Carol

Originally Posted by Misshalfway

I think the Pope must be one of the most influential religious leaders. From what I can tell, the recent Popes (I am familiar with the last two) have done much good in the world. And I know that our two churches have stood in support of each other on key moral issues.

I believe that the prophet or President of the church (as we call the senior Apostle of the twelve today) has the priesthood authority that Peter and the other apostles had which makes him more than a prophet. He is a prophet, a seer, and a revelator.

When my Catholic friends say that the Pope has the authority of Peter, I used to think that they viewed the Pope in the same light. I thought that he was viewed as some version of an Apostle. After a few conversations on this board, I think I understand differently. That the pope is not a prophet and not an Apostle. But he does retain the authority from Peter and is considered the Father over the whole church. And while he may not be a seer or a revelator, he is inspired and led by God.

Is this understanding correct? I hope I am getting it right. Which brings me to my next Catholic question: if Peter was an Apostle, why isn't the Pope if he has the same authority?

And as always, simply trying to understand how my Catholic friends see this issue. I am afraid I do see it thru Mormon eyes as was my upbringing.

[HiJolly]

Originally Posted by ceeboo

Hi Hijolly,

Was Joseph Smith excommunicated?? HUH I didn't know that.
You have an excommunicated prophet who will judge you at the end????

God bless,
Carl

Nice thing about an open canon, ceeboo. Joseph was not excommunicated, and for good reason. I suppose you disagree.

And no, Joseph will not judge me, or you, regardless.


HiJolly

[abqfriend]

The Catholic Church has 2000 years of history-many times/places.
I can only deal in the present and I cannot predict the future based on the past.
So-yes-I disagree-as I cannot predict the future.
I am glad you are a prophet-congratulations to you.

-Carol

Originally Posted by HiJolly

As a member of the LDS church, it is perfectly acceptable for me to be a prophet...

But I am speaking not of the discussions in the two churches amongst the leadership, the inevitable discussions of consequences or appropriate censure and so forth, but rather of the historical record concerning disciplinary actions of leaders of the two institutions.

Do you disagree?


HiJolly

[jimuk]

Originally Posted by ceeboo

Hi Hijolly,

Was Joseph Smith excommunicated?? HUH I didn't know that.
You have an excommunicated prophet who will judge you at the end????

God bless,
Carl

I am getting confused lol, who said JS was excommunicated

Originally Posted by jimuk

Hi Carl, what part has Changed got wrong, i dont know a lot about Catholic church, but i do hope its the part about Little Babies.

Hi jimuk,

I see Carol gave you a link as to the Catholic teaching of unbaptized infants, I will just add that the following is a teaching as well: With respect to children who have died without baptism, the liturgy of the Church tells us to trust Gods mercy. In addition, it also teaches that ALL those, without knowing, who act with the inspiration of God, seek God in sincerity and strive to fullfill his will, are saved.

I have never heard the mass in Latin ( although I would like to ) It is offered in Latin " special masses and such.

Latin is the very ancient language ALL the saints spoke and is considered by many Catholics as revered, sacred, respectfull, traditional. This ancient language ( now extinct )
is the very language our brothers and sisters in Christ spoke in the Early Church days.
SO, these reasons ( and many more ) are why I thought the previous post was nothing short of disrespectfull, bias, and certainly unChristian.

God bless,
Carl

[HiJolly]

Originally Posted by abqfriend

The Catholic Church has 2000 years of history-many times/places.
I can only deal in the present and I cannot predict the future based on the past.
So-yes-I disagree-as I cannot predict the future.
I am glad you are a prophet-congratulations to you.

-Carol

I see that I have offended you. I am sorry for that. I do not intend to insult nor denigrate, but to show a difference between the institutions in relation to the role of the leading position, Prophet and Pope. I think the original context of my first comment shows no hard feelings or negativism toward your church. Indeed, I truly do respect the Catholic church.

I do not feel it takes a prophet to see that due to the oppositional doctrinal positions of the two churches regarding Donatism, that these scenarios are reasonable and, in fact, have occurred and will most likely continue to occur, as circumstances arise, based on well accepted doctrine.

I'm sorry you object.


HiJolly

Originally Posted by changed

sorry, did not mean to get anyone up in a dander. Have the beliefs of Catholics changed sense the dark ages? If so, why would a church change what they believe?



And before then?
Perhaps you should read about William Tyndale...
William Tyndale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He was killed by the Catholic church for translating the Bible into a language that commoners could read... Why would any church not want it’s members to read the Bible?


sorry, but why are they baptized at all then? If you don’t think the baptism saves them why do it?

OK - I really don't want to get into any bashing stuff Really, Mother T - great lady. I love Saint Frantis, etc... great beautiful people...

Hi again changed,

You dont want to get into any bashing I think you have already done so, this post is another illustration of that.

I will not respond in kind

I will simply and kindly suggest that you do not have a full understanding of what Catholic baptism means. Because you have already demonstrated you can " google things "
Maybe you can google " Catholic baptism" also

God bless,
Carl

Originally Posted by HiJolly

Nice thing about an open canon, ceeboo. Joseph was not excommunicated, and for good reason. I suppose you disagree.

And no, Joseph will not judge me, or you, regardless.


HiJolly

Hello again HiJolly,

Agree about what, an open canon or JS was not excommunicated ?

Peace,
THE CEEBOO

[HiJolly]

Originally Posted by jimuk

I am getting confused lol, who said JS was excommunicated

Perhaps ceeboo is alluding to the accusations of various people, both in and out of the Church, that Joseph was guilty of adultery. If he had been guilty of it, he would have been excommunicated, per the rules in the Church. The Lord said as much by revelation through Joseph in the Doctrine and Covenants (!).

Some don't regard Joseph's revelations and teachings concering polygamy and polyandry as valid, which would likely lead to this sort of view. I on the other hand feel that I understand (mostly) Joseph's teachings, views and intent on this and thus I support his actions and teachings as not being adulterous.

Some fascinating history is involved, here. Unfortunately the evidences are not perfect nor conclusive in all this, so we will probably have to wait for the next life to get the whole story. Some folks are not willing to be patient. I have to admit I'd rather know now rather than later, myself. (sigh)


HiJolly