mormon prophet and catholic pope

[FatherOfSix]

Originally Posted by Elgama

As I understand it the Pope does lead the Catholic Church through a form of revelation - I was always told by my RC relatives he was directed by God as to what is best for the Church, Hence changes over the years, Priests are now celibate and no longer marry etc

-Charley

The celibate priest issue is different - that is an administrative rule of the Church, not a dogmatic teaching. There are two married Roman Catholic priests in our local area - they were Anglican priests who converted to the Roman Catholic Church. The Pope is allowing them to stay priests even though they are married.

That would be different than something like saying birth control is suddenly permitted which is an extension of dogmatic teachings.

Catholics believe that Peter was made the head of Christ's Church while Jesus was here on Earth and that this authority granted to Peter has been handed down one leader after another all the way to the current Pope. Through this office, the Pope can have revelation and, through a formal process that involves the college of Cardinals, can introduce that private revelation into the dogma of the church.

There have also been private revelations to people that the Catholic Church has recognized and has accepted as Truth (with a capital T), but again that involves a very long investigation and approval process.

Does that help?

[abqfriend]

The Catholic Church has several different "Rites" or parts that make up the Church. The Roman "Rite" is by far the largest. There is also the Byzantine Rite and others. In the Byzantine Rite-Men may be married before entering the Priesthood. As married priests-they cannot achieve Bishop status nor can they re-marry should their wife die.
In the Roman Catholic Rite-Deacons can be married when entering the Diaconate-but should their wife die-they may not re-marry. Such is the same for a very small number of Priests who have entered the Catholic Church after converting from Anglican/Episcopal backgrounds.
The celibacy rules of the Church are teachings and not doctrine-which means that such a rule may be changed in the future. Doctrines do not change, but rules can be changed. So-a future Teaching Magesterium of the Catholic Church acting in council with the Pope's blessing-could change such a rule-although this is unlikely-at least in the near future.
-Carol

Originally Posted by FatherOfSix

The celibate priest issue is different - that is an administrative rule of the Church, not a dogmatic teaching. There are two married Roman Catholic priests in our local area - they were Anglican priests who converted to the Roman Catholic Church. The Pope is allowing them to stay priests even though they are married.

That would be different than something like saying birth control is suddenly permitted which is an extension of dogmatic teachings.

Catholics believe that Peter was made the head of Christ's Church while Jesus was here on Earth and that this authority granted to Peter has been handed down one leader after another all the way to the current Pope. Through this office, the Pope can have revelation and, through a formal process that involves the college of Cardinals, can introduce that private revelation into the dogma of the church.

There have also been private revelations to people that the Catholic Church has recognized and has accepted as Truth (with a capital T), but again that involves a very long investigation and approval process.

Does that help?

[Dove]

ABQ Friend, Ceeboo,

I've been reading through this whole thread, and frankly, as a latter-day saint, I am quite embarrassed as to how you're beliefs have been treated by other latter day saints as a whole on this thread. I do feel there has been disrespect, unkindness, and ingnorance displayed, for which I'm deeply sorry......I hope that I can consider all of you as friends, and would never want to say anything hurtful to you, or about you, or misrepresent/malign your religious beliefs. I'm not sure I would even have the right to tell anyone/represent to anyone what your religious beliefs are, as they are not mine to tell!!!

I appreciate your attempts to share what your beliefs here. ABQ friend, thank you so much for your studies of the LDS Religion. You have done far more than I have to find out about our doctrine.....Frankly, I am quite ignorant of the doctrine of catholicism, as I am about most other religions other than my own, embarrassing as it is to admit. I absolutely do agree though, that it is not correct to degrade or denigrate anyone because of their belief's!

Thank you both for your patience with all of us. We definately need lesson in Christ like attributes towards people of other faiths....perhaps your examples will help us out :-)

Take Care
Dove

[Faded]

First of all, I'm very happy to have two Catholics onboard to correct me if I'm wrong about anything. The conversation has been less than polite in this thread and it has wandered off the original topic.

Ceeboo, implying that Joseph Smith was an adulter and that he should have been excommunicated, and not explaining yourself better -- That strikes me as picking a fight. You already knew full well that LDS doctrine does not view anything that Joseph Smith ever did as adulterous. If you want to go through that discussion, Private Message me and I'll do my best to establish the LDS point of view on the matter.

As for LDS posts, there have been too many to count that have been very disrespectful. The original post sounded like a question and not a call for trading insults between LDS and non-LDS forum members. Learn some tact or learn to be silent.

So to the point of the original question:

Originally Posted by shadowhunter

So i am wondering what are the differences and simlirates between the prophets and the popes

There are two things that are easily misunderstood by anyone coming from an LDS background.

1.) The Pope doesn't mean the same thing to Catholics as the Prophet means to the LDS Church. On the surface they seem to be exactly the same thing, so it's easily misunderstood, but there are some important differences to be aware of.

2.) Catholic Doctrine and Dogma must be understood as being fluid. It can and will change drastically over time.

3.) There are varying interpretations within Catholicism that often will be opposite views on any given subject. Such disagreements are generally tolerated and sometimes even encouraged.

4.) Eclesiastical leaders disagreeing with the Pope on doctrinal matters is commonplace -- everyone remains respectful of his position, but they can and do completely disagree with him on certain matters both in belief and in practice. As long as the deviation from "official doctrine" is not too extreme, this sort of thing is simply tolerated. Within that framework, Archbishops and Cardinals disagreeing with the Pope on minor issues is commonplace. This is certainly not true of the LDS faith.

5.) The highest authority and ultimate word on any major change in doctrine or practice in the LDS faith would come directly from the Prophet. In the Catholic Church, the highest authority for significant change is an Ecumenical council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia of Bishops -- I believe the minimum is 200 Bishops. While the Pope traditionally calls for such councils, they can be convened without his consent and he does not dictate what happens in them. The first Ecumenical Council was the First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The most recent was the Second Vatican Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is the most recent example of such a council.

6.) The Pope's authority needs to be understood as being location based -- he is the Bishop of Rome and as such is considered the direct successor to the Apostle Peter. Being the LDS prophet does not specify a location.

7.) As a result of number 6, the Pope is elected by a voting body of the eclesiastical leaders of the Holy See of Rome. Today they are known as Cardinals. The choice is said to be endorsed and validated directly by the Holy Spirit, but an LDS observer would probably find the process to be very politically driven. Naturally, that is simply a matter of perspective.

8.) The Pope is not an Apostle in the true sense of the word. The wording gets confusing here as Catholics refer to the line of Popes and "Apostolic Succession." The Catholic point of view, the 12 Apostles were never intended to continue on beyond the first century (or so) when the Apostles died out. The original 12 Apostles would be viewed as superior in authority to that of a Pope. The Papal Succession became the highest authority in the Church only after the last of them was dead. For an example, don't expect to see any new additions to the New Testament written by the Pope. The LDS Prophet, on the other hand, is viewed as Senior Apostle in every sense of the word. It would be perfectly acceptable for additional written revelation to be given to President Monson and according to the LDS point of view, that writing would be no less authoritative than the writings of Peter, James, John, Paul, etc.

9.) There have been some Popes in the past that have been absolutely despicable human beings. Pope Alexander VI - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia would be a specific example. They are still Popes despite their many misdeeds, and it is by no means a requirement for a Pope to necessarily be a good person. The modern Catholic would view this as an embarrassment to the Papacy that they will work dilligently to avoid repeating in the future. If an LDS Prophet were guilty of Alexander VI's list of sins and crimes, he would be excommunicated and replaced. The Papal succession, on the other hand, will just be seen as having survived a bad Pope. Modern circumstances of the Papacy have made the likelihood of another Alexander VI highly unlikely and Catholic leaders will no doubt be very dilligent to that end.

Originally Posted by Faded

First of all, I'm very happy to have two Catholics onboard to correct me if I'm wrong about anything. The conversation has been less than polite in this thread and it has wandered off the original topic.

Ceeboo, implying that Joseph Smith was an adulter and that he should have been excommunicated, and not explaining yourself better -- That strikes me as picking a fight. You already knew full well that LDS doctrine does not view anything that Joseph Smith ever did as adulterous. If you want to go through that discussion, Private Message me and I'll do my best to establish the LDS point of view on the matter.

As for LDS posts, there have been too many to count that have been very disrespectful. The original post sounded like a question and not a call for trading insults between LDS and non-LDS forum members. Learn some tact or learn to be silent.

So to the point of the original question:




There are two things that are easily misunderstood by anyone coming from an LDS background.

1.) The Pope doesn't mean the same thing to Catholics as the Prophet means to the LDS Church. On the surface they seem to be exactly the same thing, so it's easily misunderstood, but there are some important differences to be aware of.

2.) Catholic Doctrine and Dogma must be understood as being fluid. It can and will change drastically over time.

3.) There are varying interpretations within Catholicism that often will be opposite views on any given subject. Such disagreements are generally tolerated and sometimes even encouraged.

4.) Eclesiastical leaders disagreeing with the Pope on doctrinal matters is commonplace -- everyone remains respectful of his position, but they can and do completely disagree with him on certain matters both in belief and in practice. As long as the deviation from "official doctrine" is not too extreme, this sort of thing is simply tolerated. Within that framework, Archbishops and Cardinals disagreeing with the Pope on minor issues is commonplace. This is certainly not true of the LDS faith.

5.) The highest authority and ultimate word on any major change in doctrine or practice in the LDS faith would come directly from the Prophet. In the Catholic Church, the highest authority for significant change is an Ecumenical council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia of Bishops -- I believe the minimum is 200 Bishops. While the Pope traditionally calls for such councils, they can be convened without his consent and he does not dictate what happens in them. The first Ecumenical Council was the First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The most recent was the Second Vatican Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is the most recent example of such a council.

6.) The Pope's authority needs to be understood as being location based -- he is the Bishop of Rome and as such is considered the direct successor to the Apostle Peter. Being the LDS prophet does not specify a location.

7.) As a result of number 6, the Pope is elected by a voting body of the eclesiastical leaders of the Holy See of Rome. Today they are known as Cardinals. The choice is said to be endorsed and validated directly by the Holy Spirit, but an LDS observer would probably find the process to be very politically driven. Naturally, that is simply a matter of perspective.

8.) The Pope is not an Apostle in the true sense of the word. The wording gets confusing here as Catholics refer to the line of Popes and "Apostolic Succession." The Catholic point of view, the 12 Apostles were never intended to continue on beyond the first century (or so) when the Apostles died out. The original 12 Apostles would be viewed as superior in authority to that of a Pope. The Papal Succession became the highest authority in the Church only after the last of them was dead. For an example, don't expect to see any new additions to the New Testament written by the Pope. The LDS Prophet, on the other hand, is viewed as Senior Apostle in every sense of the word. It would be perfectly acceptable for additional written revelation to be given to President Monson and according to the LDS point of view, that writing would be no less authoritative than the writings of Peter, James, John, Paul, etc.

9.) There have been some Popes in the past that have been absolutely despicable human beings. Pope Alexander VI - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia would be a specific example. They are still Popes despite their many misdeeds, and it is by no means a requirement for a Pope to necessarily be a good person. The modern Catholic would view this as an embarrassment to the Papacy that they will work dilligently to avoid repeating in the future. If an LDS Prophet were guilty of Alexander VI's list of sins and crimes, he would be excommunicated and replaced. The Papal succession, on the other hand, will just be seen as having survived a bad Pope. Modern circumstances of the Papacy have made the likelihood of another Alexander VI highly unlikely and Catholic leaders will no doubt be very dilligent to that end.

Good morning Faded,

WOW!!!! where to start ( I do not have 3 hours available right now )

You offer that this thread is less than polite and has strayed off topic . I would suggest your post is less than polite and has also staryed off topic.

As to your suggestion that Ceeboo implied that JS was an adulterer and should have been excommunicated. NO, Ceeboo was having a back and forth with HiJolly who suggested that ( from page 2 of this thread and yes Ceeboo's OPINION is that he was an adulterer ( amomg other things )
To be clear with you ( and following your lead of Popes being" absolutely dispicable human beings ") ( Your opinion of course ). Understand that some non LDS folk would place that label of dispicable human beings on others ( to be fair )

I am sure glad we are back on track with this thread ( being polite and staying on topic ). Thank you for steering the bus back on the road.

Peace,
Ceeboo

Originally Posted by Faded

9.) There have been some Popes in the past that have been absolutely despicable human beings. Pope Alexander VI - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia would be a specific example. They are still Popes despite their many misdeeds, and it is by no means a requirement for a Pope to necessarily be a good person.

This must be an example of a very polite and " on topic " post that you speak of.

You know, you forgot to link the " wikipedia " info on LDS history. Maybe you can share some of those " not so pleasant " events in the LDS past as well.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[FunkyTown]

Originally Posted by ceeboo

This must be an example of a very polite and " on topic " post that you speak of.

You know, you forgot to link the " wikipedia " info on LDS history. Maybe you can share some of those " not so pleasant " events in the LDS past as well.

Peace,
Ceeboo

I still love you, Ceeboo!

Though my favourite Catholic is still St. Joan of Arc. Oooh! Oooh! And St. Nicholas. And St. George.

Wait... Wait... I take it back. St. Patrick is my favourite Catholic of all time.

If any man says St. Patrick isn't the greatest Catholic Saint of all time, I will fight you. And that's no lie.

Originally Posted by FunkyTown

I still love you, Ceeboo!

Love u back FunkyTown !!!!


Won't you take me to, Funkytown. Won't you take me to, Funkytown!!!!!!!!!

[Faded]

Originally Posted by ceeboo

This must be an example of a very polite and " on topic " post that you speak of.

You know, you forgot to link the " wikipedia " info on LDS history. Maybe you can share some of those " not so pleasant " events in the LDS past as well.

Peace,
Ceeboo

As to the idea of all Popes being despicable people, I hope nobody got that impression. The significant majority were good men who stood for good things. Alexander VI was Pope in the era of -- surprise, surprise -- The Protestant Reformation!!

I think one of the matters that was mentioned was that if a Pope were a sinful man, he would not be removed. Pope Alexander VI the best example of this in the entire history of the Catholic Church and it provides a useful example of the differences between how Catholics view their Pope and how Latter Day Saints view their prophet. There is level of tolerance for a Pope that was a very very bad person. A few bad apples in the list compared to a large majority of Popes that were good men is something Catholics have deemed acceptable. The LDS Church would not be so forgiving.

There is are all sorts of implications hanging over virtually every single LDS prophet, but nothing completely outrageous has ever been proven. The fact that those implications continue to hang over us is understandable -- turns out that a lot of people out there hate Mormons. The worst thing that can easily be proven was Polygamy because there wasn't any real effort to hide it for the majority of the time it was practiced. The Bible does not support the contention that Polygamy is immoral, so that becomes a dead end as far as I'm concerned.

FYI -- taking a break and may not be able to reply.

[Dove]

I'm sorry to see that the sniping at each other's religion has continued.....and have reported this thread to the moderator's for their review and to hopefully close this permanently.

There have been many things said here that have been said in direct conflict of the site rules, which are there for good reason. It's not such a bad idea to read them from time to time...