The Pope Vs. The Prophet-

[bluebell]

A friend of mine, who is just trying to find out a bit more about the church, recently asked me how the LDS prophet is different (or similar) to the Catholic pope.

And i don't feel i know enough about the pope to give a good response. Any help with this will be greatly appreciated.

I'll ask a few questions myself-

Does the pope receive revelation for the Catholic church? (the world)? What does He do (job requirements i guess). and anything else....

thanks!

[captain-jack]

A friend of mine, who is just trying to find out a bit more about the church, recently asked me how the LDS prophet is different (or similar) to the Catholic pope.

And i don't feel i know enough about the pope to give a good response. Any help with this will be greatly appreciated.

I'll ask a few questions myself-

Does the pope receive revelation for the Catholic church? (the world)? What does He do (job requirements i guess). and anything else....

thanks!

I'm actually quite curious to know their similarities and differences as well. I know they're pretty much the same type of position, leader of their church, but beyond that it's all been seen on TV so there's no use it taking any of that information with anything more than a grain of salt. I know it's garbage and meant to mock.

[PacMan]

I'm obviously not a RCCer, but what I've been told is that the Pope can receive revelation to expand on known doctrines, and make such authoritative statements on things already said...but he can't reveal new doctrines because the Bible's it. In my conversations with Catholics, he seems that the "heaven's are closed" idea has loosened up a bit, but still pretty much the party line.

The title of the Pope is obviously 'The Bishop of Rome,' insinuating the inheritance of Peter's seat (which is such a fun topic). He's just the lead Bishop chosen from among the Bishops. But on that note, RCCers differentiate between saying something that's infallible, only if it's said specifically with the seal of Peter's chair...in other words, when the Pope is saying the equivalent, "Thus saith the Lord," type of thing. It makes it easier to go back and condemn the wicked Popes for saying tremendous things because they were speaking of themselves, not their position.

PacMan

[Pantsman]

I'm obviously not a RCCer, but what I've been told is that the Pope can receive revelation to expand on known doctrines, and make such authoritative statements on things already said...but he can't reveal new doctrines because the Bible's it. In my conversations with Catholics, he seems that the "heaven's are closed" idea has loosened up a bit, but still pretty much the party line.

The title of the Pope is obviously 'The Bishop of Rome,' insinuating the inheritance of Peter's seat (which is such a fun topic). He's just the lead Bishop chosen from among the Bishops. But on that note, RCCers differentiate between saying something that's infallible, only if it's said specifically with the seal of Peter's chair...in other words, when the Pope is saying the equivalent, "Thus saith the Lord," type of thing. It makes it easier to go back and condemn the wicked Popes for saying tremendous things because they were speaking of themselves, not their position.

PacMan

Request for documentation please...

[PacMan]

We hold to the same idea...a Prophet speaks prophetically only when he speaks as a prophet. BY's call to arms is a great example of this.

As for your CFR, what do you want? What point do you disagree wiht? That there were wicked popes? That Popes have said things that are not RCC canon? Or that wicked popes have themselves said non-canonical things?

PacMan

[Pantsman]

We hold to the same idea...a Prophet speaks prophetically only when he speaks as a prophet. BY's call to arms is a great example of this.

As for your CFR, what do you want? What point do you disagree wiht? That there were wicked popes? That Popes have said things that are not RCC canon? Or that wicked popes have themselves said non-canonical things?

PacMan

I want you to show where a wicked Pope attempted to change doctrine and prove that we believe in infallibility when speaking from the chair of Peter on matters of faith and morals because "It makes it easier to go back and condemn the wicked Popes for saying tremendous things because they were speaking of themselves, not their position." I want examples of the "tremendous" things these wicked Popes apparently taught but wasn't canonized...

[PacMan]

Pants,

I want you to show where a wicked Pope attempted to change doctrine...

Strawman... I didn't say that.

...and prove that we believe in infallibility when speaking from the chair of Peter on matters of faith and morals because "It makes it easier to go back and condemn the wicked Popes for saying tremendous things because they were speaking of themselves, not their position."

Strawman... My point was that, "it makes it easier..." All the other stuff before that is creative proof-texting.

I want examples of the "tremendous" things these wicked Popes apparently taught but wasn't canonized...

Just so I understand you correctly...are you suggesting that non-doctrinal things have not been said by such Popes?

But, for example: Pope Innocent IV, way back when, issued a papal bull entitled Ad exstirpanda, which authorized inquisitors to use torture. Now...given that it was written and authorized with the seal of the Pope, does the Catholic Church condemn or condone torture (in my book, a procomation versus "saying" holds a little more weight), and it was certainly tremendous.

PacMan

[PacMan]

Pants,

With the discussion, an honest question:

Are the following ex cathedra statements?

"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved" (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff" (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

"[The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that none of those who are not within the Catholic Church, not only Pagans, but Jews, heretics and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into the eternal fire 'prepared for the devil, and his angels' (Mt. xxv. 41), unless before the close of their lives they shall have entered into that Church; also that the unity of the Ecclesiastical body is such that the Church's Sacraments avail only those abiding in that Church, and that fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of piety which play their part in the Christian combat are in her alone productive of eternal rewards; moreover, that no one, no matter what alms he may have given, not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ's sake, can be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Mansi, Concilia, xxxi, 1739.) (Pope Eugene IV, The Bull Cantate Domino, 1441).

How do those jive with the concept of salvation...for those having received Christ but not members of the RCC (i.e., EV's, Baptists, Methodists...Protestants in general).

PacMan

[Pantsman]

Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation, that still is and always has been doctrine. I have no problem with any of that. Perhaps it's your understanding of it that's "tremendously" in error? Read the Catechism on the matter, or propose the question on a Catholic message board like Catholic Answers and get back to me. As for the inquisition, very tough matter, you're talking about a brutal time, in an area that just freed itself from brutal Muslim rule, things were done to excess, but largely exagerated today and like you've done here oversimplified the situation. All in all the inquistion was necessary to save Christendom in Europe, there was a legitimate threat to the Church in Europe that was rooted out.

[PacMan]

Pantsman,

Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation, that still is and always has been doctrine. I have no problem with any of that. Perhaps it's your understanding of it that's "tremendously" in error?

Cute!

Strawman! If you did read my question, is was certainly....a quesiton. Please...how does my understanding of asking you a question stand in some 'tremendous' error. Well, if you don't know the answer, then I'd suppose ye'd be right...

Read the Catechism on the matter, or propose the question on a Catholic message board like Catholic Answers and get back to me.

Why? Don't you know the answer?

As for the inquisition, very tough matter, you're talking about a brutal time, in an area that just freed itself from brutal Muslim rule, things were done to excess,

True...kinda like BY and the pioneers.

...but largely exagerated today and like you've done here oversimplified the situation.

Oversimiplified? A Pope sends a papal order for torture...and I contend it wasn't ex cathedra but a "tremendous" proclomation by a single, fallible Pope. How's that oversimplified? Moreover, address the issue. I still don't see how I'm incorrect...but at least you have your reequested example.

All in all the inquistion was necessary to save Christendom in Europe, there was a legitimate threat to the Church in Europe that was rooted out.

So you're supporting the inquisition and the papal degree for torture? Are you serious? Do you believe it was honestly ordained by God? I'm going to call you "Pants the Catholic Jihadist" from now on...

PacMan

[Pantsman]

Pantsman,

Cute!

Strawman! If you did read my question, is was certainly....a quesiton. Please...how does my understanding of asking you a question stand in some 'tremendous' error. Well, if you don't know the answer, then I'd suppose ye'd be right...

Why? Don't you know the answer?

True...kinda like BY and the pioneers.

Oversimiplified? A Pope sends a papal order for torture...and I contend it wasn't ex cathedra but a "tremendous" proclomation by a single, fallible Pope. How's that oversimplified? Moreover, address the issue. I still don't see how I'm incorrect...but at least you have your reequested example.

So you're supporting the inquisition and the papal degree for torture? Are you serious? Do you believe it was honestly ordained by God? I'm going to call you "Pants the Catholic Jihadist" from now on...

PacMan

I see your posts they ramble on and on and on, my statement that "outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation" is a perfect anwser to your question, if you need it explained further feel free to visit a Catholic site, I don't feel like a 400 page back and forth with you I don't have the time, I rarely post here anymore.

I don't have any real issues with the inquisition, or the Papal Bull you refer to, the middle ages were dangerous times, a tough hand was necessary. As the head of the Church the Pope was obliged to protect it, God has used war on unbelievers before, I wish we had another inquisition for those trying to subvert the Church from the inside today, which is what the inquisition was for.

[PacMan]

Pants,

I see your posts they ramble on and on and on, my statement that "outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation" is a perfect anwser to your question, if you need it explained further feel free to visit a Catholic site, I don't feel like a 400 page back and forth with you I don't have the time, I rarely post here anymore.

So, my post that poses a straight forward question is an example of "rambling on and on and on," and your evasive response full of run-on sentences is something different?

Just answer the question! How do the two jive...I really don't know the RCC doctrine on the issue.

Glad we are in agreement that Popes HAVE said some non ex-cathedra, tremendous things (or at least proclaimed them). I just can't believe that you might actually agree with them--particularly since (I believe) the RCC has a strict 'no-torture' policy. Darn those 2 non-ex cathedra, contradictory positions!

PacMan

[Smith]

A friend of mine, who is just trying to find out a bit more about the church, recently asked me how the LDS prophet is different (or similar) to the Catholic pope.

Well, ours doesn't get to wear a load of cool robes and tall hats and walk around with a shepherds crook and live in a huge palace. He also has a lot less people to look after in terms of membership.

[Pantsman]

I can answer it here but it would take me a long time, then I have to deal with you slicing my posts up, condescendign and critiquing my run on sentences. Meanwhile at Catholic Answers there are probably no fewer than 500 discussions on this topic with links and everything for you. Why would it be needed for me to spoon feed it to you when I'm telling you where the information is readily available? And you'll find hundreds of would be apologists ready to eagerly answer all your questions. I'm not big on "pissing matches" or trying to "win" debates, I don't care really, but if you need an answer go ahead and get the explanation from where I told you, or don't I don't care either way.

My answer to you is those quotes stated that "outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation", and I tell you that is still doctrine to this day...

[Doctor Steuss]

Hi Bluebell,

I guess one of the similarities would be that both are believed (by their respective followers) to hold the keys of the priesthood.

[PacMan]

Pants,

I can answer it here but it would take me a long time...

Goodness. Then tell me this so I can at least have my assumptions right, and I'll go elswhere to see how they all jive. Is it the stand of the RCC that protestants can be saved as members of their protestant churches? Isn't that the idea behind accepting their baptisms, etc.? Doesn't a baptism of desire extend to those beyond the walls of the RCC?

PacMan

[TOmNossor]

I will try to answer this in a mostly fact based way and then I will enter the fray a little with Pac/Pants-Man (that was fun). I am a former Catholic, but knew very little of what I think I know now. I am a present LDS so a Catholicâ??s view is to be preferred to mine IMO.

The LDS Prophet/President receives supernatural public revelation without a charism of infallibility. This is my meaning.

1. The source of the revelation is beyond-natural or so LDS would claim. This does not mean that political currents do not initiate questions to God, but it means that God reveals truth directly to the prophet.

2. The revelation is â??publicâ? in that it is specifically for the guidance of the world and/or Godâ??s church as a whole. The prophet has stewardship over the world and can receives revelation in accordance with this stewardship.

3. The President of the Church does not have the ability to infallibly declare truth. There is a long list of statements by past leaders beginning with Joseph Smith who said, â??a prophet is only a prophet â?¦â? that suggest infallibility is not something that should be expected. This does not mean that revelation and inspiration are absent, and it IMO is not a excuse to disregard the direction of the prophet, but it does not make past teachings of prophets either purely from God or irreformable.

I would say that the Catholic believes that supernatural public revelation is not a charism of the Pope. The Pope may infallibly determine truth in accordance with the truth once delivered via Tradition and the Bible. This is certainly a charism and could be called revelation. It is clear to me from studying the trajectory of doctrine that without this charism (also present in a world wide council), developed Catholic doctrine could not be defined as it is. Sometimes the less prevalent view is preferred to the more prevalent view and if this is truth, it seems that one must acknowledge Godâ??s hand (this is one reason I couldnâ??t be Protestant). Still, the outward witness of these decisions involves consulting of past views and vigorous discussion/debate (I am quite certain such debate happens in the Q of the 12 too so this is not too concerning). But the claim to be determining the deposit of faith contained in the Bible and Tradition IMO is different than the claim of receiving supernatural revelation.

Concerning the â??publicâ? aspect. Private revelation is part of Catholicism. One can receive guidance for ones life through communication with Mary or Christ or â?¦, but this is not guidance that demands universal assent within the church. It is private not public revelation.

Finally, the infallible charism is a negative protection. That which has been infallibly declared is free from error. It is eternally irreformable because truth does not change, but once declared infallibly it is known more clearly and irreformable. Being a negative protection is interesting. My favorite example is what if the Pope was infallible in math, what grade would he get on a 20 question test. The Pope may get any grade, but any answer he provides is not incorrect (there may be 1-20 unanswered questions).

Now, to enter the fray between the two man-s, I must admit I lean closer to Pantsmanâ??s position. Cardinal Newman (not a cardinal at the time) was quite opposed to Vatican Iâ??s declaring the Pope infallible. He found that such a question was premature (though Newman believed in Papal Infallibility all along). He also recognized that numerous Papal â??errorsâ? would be paraded about. Newman was ultimately happy with the muted form the definition took. I verbalize it like this:

â??The Pope is infallible when speaking from the Chair of Peter, concerning faith and morals, and in accordance with tradition.â?

Things like Pope Liberiusâ??s coerced Arian confessions or Honeriousâ??s freely taught heresy can be excused because there is question if they were exercising their â??universal teaching authority.â?(speaking from the Chair)

Such qualifications were never enough for one of the premier Catholic Historians of the day, Dollinger who left the Catholic Church over infallibility in Vatican I. A whole group of Catholic traditionalist also departed and are today called â??Old Catholics.â? (Similar â??traditionalistsâ? question or reject Vatican II today).

It seems to me that councils and papal decrees are infallible in a backward looking way. John Paul II made a very bold statement about woman holding the priesthood that seemed to me to be clearly infallible, but Cardinal Ratzinger (the current Pope, but before he was Pope) said that JPIIâ??s statement was not an exercise of Papal Infallibility.

I think it was Constantinople that only was viewed by Rome as a infallible council much latter (and they still rejected a canon, but perhaps not one concerning faith and morals).

Concerning "Extra Ecclesiam Nullus Salus"

The way Vatican II defined "no salvation outside the Catholic Church" was somewhat revolutionary. Ideas like â??Baptism of Desireâ? and â??Baptism of Bloodâ? do in some ways require truth not immediately apparent in previous Papal statements so one can certainly maintain that such statements in the environment that included â??Baptism of Desireâ? must be open to expansion as done in Vatican II. But, Vatican II did revision some of the more clear early Papal statements.

Anyway, these are some of my thoughts.

Charity, TOm

[PacMan]

Tom,

Thanks for the chime.

Now, to enter the fray between the two man-s, I must admit I lean closer to Pantsmanâ??s position.

I'm a bit confused...what position is that? I made a statement, Pants asked me to back it up, then I did. Then I asked Pants a question, and he said to go somewhere else to get an answer because he apparently didn't feel like answer it.

Do this...so I can know where your disagreements are, why don't you copy paste where my position differs from your own. Thanks!

PacMan

[TOmNossor]

PacMan,

Here is the statement that it seemed began some back and forth (I had not and have not yet read all of your discussions):

It makes it easier to go back and condemn the wicked Popes for saying tremendous things because they were speaking of themselves, not their position.

The group that initiated the discussion on Papal Infallibility at Vatican I certainly seemed to favor a more bold definition than the one that was ultimately agreed upon. It is my perception (and I mentioned some of Newmanâ??s thoughts) that the more muted definition allows for ways to explain some heretical positions held/taught RARELY by past Popes (in my mind this was a point you made with which I agreed).

I do not think the muted definition has anything to do with justifying wicked Popes. The few wicked Popes seemed more interested in being wicked than in pronouncing theological positions (though if I recall there was a wicked Pope who was known for doing a good job solidifying the roles of the Pope and those around him, but this is not strictly associated with doctrine).

I do not think â??there is no salvation outside the Catholic Churchâ? is necessarily something from the â??wickedâ? that is â??tremendous.â? I am a committed LDS. I see only two ways I could be clearly heading to hell and one I can do nothing about (being non-elect). If there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church as Vatican II affirms, then I may be outside the Catholic Church and I thus hell bound (especially sense I am a former Catholic and I am now well informed about the strengths â??and weaknesses- of the Catholic position).

While LDS are accused of believing there is no Salvation outside Temple ordinances, I do instead believe, â??There is no salvation outside the CoJCoLDSâ? in about the same way Vatican II proclaimed for the Catholic Church. I do not consider either the pre or the post Vatican II perspective to be particularly wicked/tremendous if they are true.

I hope I have explained where I agree and where I disagree.

Charity, TOm

[Pantsman]

O.K. so people don't get their feelings hurt, TOm you sound pretty faithful and I'm sure you're not going to hell. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Essentially we believe IF you are saved by the mercy of God it is because of the Body of Christ which is the Catholic Church. The people who go to hell for being outsied the Catholic Church are those refuse the Church even though they know it to be true. Basically if a Muslim, Jew etc... is saved, it is because of Chirst and his Body which is one the One, Holy, Catholic,a dn Apostolic Church. Vatican II upheld the doctrine that salvation is not outside the Church, it's just the interpretation of what exactly that entails was clarified, and this idea didn't just begin at Vatican II, it was theological speculation for some time.

As for the statements above by pacman it hasn't been shown that "wicked Popes" make pronouncements on doctrine. The way it was stated makes it sound like wicked Popes were making pronouncements left and right to change and mold doctrine to benefit themselves, which simply isn't the case, although it would be expected since some Popes (not many though) were real characters, they didn't, they simply reveled in their decadence, but didn't change any doctrine or really make any major pronouncements at all.

[Jan]

The title of the Pope is obviously 'The Bishop of Rome,' insinuating the inheritance of Peter's seat (which is such a fun topic). He's just the lead Bishop chosen from among the Bishops. But on that note, RCCers differentiate between saying something that's infallible, only if it's said specifically with the seal of Peter's chair...in other words, when the Pope is saying the equivalent, "Thus saith the Lord," type of thing. It makes it easier to go back and condemn the wicked Popes for saying tremendous things because they were speaking of themselves, not their position.

PacMan

I don't see how this is that different from our "the prophet is only a prophet when acting as such" and how later prohets can refine or change what previous prophets have said.

[PacMan]

Pants,

The people who go to hell for being outsied the Catholic Church are those refuse the Church even though they know it to be true.

That's only part of what was quoted. There was also the need to subject themselves to the Pope...even shedding blood for Christ's cause is not enough without the subjection.

As for the statements above by pacman it hasn't been shown that "wicked Popes" make pronouncements on doctrine.

Strawman.

The way it was stated makes it sound like wicked Popes were making pronouncements left and right to change and mold doctrine to benefit themselves...

Ahhh...it may sound like that, but that's not what I said. Read what I said, please.

Jan,

I don't see how this is that different from our "the prophet is only a prophet when acting as such" and how later prohets can refine or change what previous prophets have said.

Sorry...I already beat you to the punch. Go back and read my posts...I've already addressed that.

PacMan

[bluebell]

thanks so far to those of you who have answered the questions and given details-it was very interesting.

I hope others who are knowledgable will respond soon with their thoughts on it.

[johnny]

bluebell,

The President of the Mormon is very different than the Pope, the Mormon President is fallible and the Pope enjoys infallibility. The charism of infallibility is the supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ. This infallibility is also present in the body of bishops when they together with Peter's successor exercise the supreme Magisterium. The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes truths contained in divine Revelation. The Lord has entrusted the keys of the Church to the Pope, Peter's successor. The Pope is pastor of the whole Church, he is the Vicar of Christ. As the Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church the Pope has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church.

The Magisterium of the Catholic Church exercises an essential part of its prophetic office when proclaiming to men. The supreme Magisterium proposes doctrines for belief as being divinely revealed. 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. The Pope and the bishops are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ. The living teaching office has been entrusted the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God. Guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium) the People of God receives the faith, once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

Divine assistance is given to the successors of the apostles when they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and moral. 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, the Magisterium listens to this devotedly, guards the Word of God with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from a single deposit of faith.

The Father's self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Catholic Church. God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with today's Catholic Church. "Public" revelation is complete but it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries. Throughout the ages there have been "private" revelations which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. "Private" revelations do not improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation. The Catholic Church knows how to discern these "private" revelations. Catholics believe all that which is contained in the word of God, written or handed down, and that which the Catholic Church proposes for belief as divinely revealed.

See the link below for some official Catholic Church teachings related to this topic.

Prophets of God

http://comparing-views.com/book/c01prop.htm

[PacMan]

The President of the Mormon is very different than the Pope, the Mormon President is fallible and the Pope enjoys infallibility.

I don't think I've ever agreed with Jonny before...but I do now.

President Hinckley is certainly fallibel--he'd tell you himself.

Whereas the Popes of the centuries have certainly "enjoyed" the Catholic dogma of infallibility. Let's be sure, however, that this dogma doesn't have any actual effect on the Popes as being infallible persons. They can simply make ex cathedra statements...which simply don't exist in the Church of Jesus Christ.

PacMan