Do You Think The Pope Was Foreordained?

[3DOP]

You are right, we are judging him based upon the Christian beliefs and principles that we believe in, and not upon the traditions and culture of the Catholic church.  I don't know a lot about what a pope should be like, but I wonder if a lot of the "should's" are not based purely on culture and tradition rather than doctrine.  Has he done anything contrary to what the doctrine of the church specifies a pope should be like?  I assume that the most qualifying characteristic of a pope is that he should be Christ-like.  This pope strikes me as very Christ-like.  He is not as concerned with the image of his position despite the expectations of men(much like Christ) as he seems to be about living like Christ lived. 

Thanks for the reply pogi. It is distasteful to me to speak this way about my Holy Father. I do so, with filial regard, and with the hope that I can explain to non-Catholics why a few of us Catholics have misgivings about his papacy to this point.

 

Non-Catholics don't appreciate the ceremonial significance of priestly garments. Christ didn't wear any. We know that. But it has been an important part of Catholic tradition to visibly elevate the office of the priest, and the bishop, and the pope in our ceremonies and worship. The priest is "alter Christus", another Christ, the bishops are the successors of the Apostles, and the popes are the vicars of Jesus Christ, the direct representative of Christ on earth. These are stupendous truth that can be difficult to believe. We will stop believing in the elevated status of the priest, bishop, or pope who insists upon being ordinary. They are not ordinary men. There is a need for them to appear before the faithful as a priest, bishop, or pope. Whatever their personal preference, they do not have the right to eschew what the wisdom of the Church has established. It is a serious mistake for the officers of Christ's Church to appear among men without any visible mark of their exalted status and our thankful reverence towards their offices.

 

But there is a precedent, and we find it in the priestly line of Aaron and the Jewish Temple. Jesus didn't come to condemn ceremonial garments and beautiful tabernacles that help us to look up and lift our hearts above this earth.

 

To reject this tradition strikes me as rash and unwise. He doesn't even explain why he does it. One suspects he doesn't appreciate the reasons the Church has maintained her ceremonial customs. His unwillingness to accept customary papal trappings and ceremony can seem like an expression of disdain for a past that modern people don't care about. It adds to his popularity because most modern people couldn't care less if all of the symbolism of Catholic ceremonial customs were lost forever.

[Calm]

This might be a little off the thread topic but I would like to make an observation about the love affair the world is having with Pope Francis.

 

It truly amazes me when non-Catholics speak like they have any idea about what makes a good pope. Having no attachment to Catholic Tradition, doctrines, practices, or customs how in the world can non-Catholics give a judgment on what a pope should be like? Non-Catholics just know they like a pope the less Catholic he seems and they dislike a pope that reminds them of the popes of the first 1,925 years of the Catholic Church. 264 popes and who is most popular among non-Catholics? The one that resembles the first 259 the least.

I've read a few Catholic blogs where they haven't been too happy...all words and no action, not dealing with the corruption was one of the complaints.

 

Does it make a difference to Catholics what nonCatholics think of their leaders?  Do you think it might hamper good actions if the press and others are in love with what a Pope says to the point it might encourage the Pope to be distracted from what he actually needs to be doing?

[Calm]

 

 

Clearly, these non-Catholic supporters of the present pope don't like the pre-Vatican II popes. They don't even like Pope Benedict! The enthusiasm with which non-Catholics and liberal Catholics praise this pope raises red flags for me. 

 

I think for a lot of them it is more they are unaware of other popes and what they have done.

 

The Press isn't addressing what the Pope does in regards to his duties towards the Church.  They are just covering speeches for the most part...and someone can be seen as a great empathizer and thus have people fall in love with him for that quality...but that doesn't say much about whether or not he is good at the nitty grittiness of work...of course, the Press isn't interested in that and most nonCatholics wouldn't be either.

[The Nehor]

Any pope with a popemobile is a good pope.

[pogi]

Thanks for the reply pogi. It is distasteful to me to speak this way about my Holy Father. I do so, with filial regard, and with the hope that I can explain to non-Catholics why a few of us Catholics have misgivings about his papacy to this point.

 

Non-Catholics don't appreciate the ceremonial significance of priestly garments. Christ didn't wear any. We know that. But it has been an important part of Catholic tradition to visibly elevate the office of the priest, and the bishop, and the pope in our ceremonies and worship. The priest is "alter Christus", another Christ, the bishops are the successors of the Apostles, and the popes are the vicars of Jesus Christ, the direct representative of Christ on earth. These are stupendous truth that can be difficult to believe. We will stop believing in the elevated status of the priest, bishop, or pope who insists upon being ordinary. They are not ordinary men. There is a need for them to appear before the faithful as a priest, bishop, or pope. Whatever their personal preference, they do not have the right to eschew what the wisdom of the Church has established. It is a serious mistake for the officers of Christ's Church to appear among men without any visible mark of their exalted status and our thankful reverence towards their offices.

 

But there is a precedent, and we find it in the priestly line of Aaron and the Jewish Temple. Jesus didn't come to condemn ceremonial garments and beautiful tabernacles that help us to look up and lift our hearts above this earth.

 

To reject this tradition strikes me as rash and unwise. He doesn't even explain why he does it. One suspects he doesn't appreciate the reasons the Church has maintained her ceremonial customs. His unwillingness to accept customary papal trappings and ceremony can seem like an expression of disdain for a past that modern people don't care about. It adds to his popularity because most modern people couldn't care less if all of the symbolism of Catholic ceremonial customs were lost forever.

 

I can understand your position from a Catholic perspective.  From an LDS perspective however, the current pope's style falls more in-line with the teachings of a certain Book of Mormon prophet named King Benjamin who taught about how leaders should serve. 

 

It would be dangerous for me to be overly connected with the customs and traditions of Mormonism which are not tied to doctrine because they are prone to evolve and change over time. Anything that is not doctrinal are simply the traditions of men.  While they can be enriching and edifying at times, they are ultimately non-essential.  The doctrines, on the other hand, are your only safe anchor in the gospel.  To me, Christ is found in the simplicity of the word and the intents of the heart, rather than the outward appearances and honors of men. 

 

Here is one of my favorite quotes from Joseph Smith on the matter of traditions:

 

I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions: they cannot stand the fire at all. How many will be able to abide a celestial law, and go through and receive their exaltation, I am unable to say, as many are called, but few are chosen. (20 January 1841,  Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith [1938], p. 331)

[Mudcat]

Do you think that say Pope Francis or Pope John Paul ll or really any of them were foreordained to do that? When I say foreordained to me that means God wants them to do that role or calling and sets up their life to make it so-thank you

For readership sake, let me say I am not LDS. I am an evangelical Christian.

 

I believe all events that occur are foreordained.

[3DOP]

So, the Catholic church does not believe in continuing revelation?  That some traditions can be wrong, without the Church being in apostasy?  Is it impossible that sometimes in the past, the Catholic church 'saw through a glass darkly'?

 

I'm not trying to make an argument in favor of such, i'm just really trying to understand how this all works in the Catholic church, as I really have no idea.

 

The Catholic Church holds that "continuing revelation" can expand on what has been taught before, but it will always compliment what was said previously. (I speak qualifiedly when I use the expression "continuing revelation". I have argued elsewhere that for sake of discussion with LDS, it is misleading for us to say that we are without continuing revelation. To speak more would be for another thread.)

 

I asked if you think Pope Francis' popularity stems from his firm adherence to Catholic Tradition. I don't think anybody would like him for that reason. In my opinion, his extremely popularity with all kinds of people is because he gives the appearance of loosening Church teachings that non-Traditional Catholics and non-Catholics dislike.

 

1) There has been speculation about female cardinals.

2) There has been speculation about encouraging the divorced and remarried (which has always been considered adulterous) to receive Holy Communion, even if they can't get an annulment.

3) There has been an authoritarian crackdown against an order of Franciscans attached to the Traditional Mass.

4) The pope has observed that the Church overemphasizes sexual sin.

5) The pope has observed that the Church overemphasizes the abortion holocaust.

6) The pope seems to think he is unqualified to judge whether homosexual acts are sinful.

 

It seems like every time the pope speaks, it gives rise to the encouragement of some new orientation in the Church that can't be acceptable without condemning our Fathers in the faith. He does very little to squelch most of the wild speculations. I did see this weekend where he finally said that it wouldn't be happening that we would have female cardinals saying something about how that would be a form of clericalism. I think he meant that women need to be leaders in the Church while bypassing the clerical offices, diminishing the importance of the cardinalate. I suppose that is a little better, but not much.

[Tacenda]

Deleted

Edited December 19, 2013 by Tacenda

[3DOP]

I can understand your position from a Catholic perspective.  From an LDS perspective however, the current pope's style falls more in-line with the teachings of a certain Book of Mormon prophet named King Benjamin who taught about how leaders should serve. 

 

It would be dangerous for me to be overly connected with the customs and traditions of Mormonism which are not tied to doctrine because they are prone to evolve and change over time. Anything that is not doctrinal are simply the traditions of men.  While they can be enriching and edifying at times, they are ultimately non-essential.  The doctrines, on the other hand, are your only safe anchor in the gospel.  To me, Christ is found in the simplicity of the word and the intents of the heart, rather than the outward appearances and honors of men. 

 

Here is one of my favorite quotes from Joseph Smith on the matter of traditions:

 

I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions: they cannot stand the fire at all. How many will be able to abide a celestial law, and go through and receive their exaltation, I am unable to say, as many are called, but few are chosen. (20 January 1841,  Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith [1938], p. 331)

 

Hi again pogi.

 

I appreciate your reply again. I see your point from an LDS perspective too. However, I would not concede that our ceremonial worship customs are "not tied to doctrine." It is because there is doctrinal significance that I insist that worship ceremonies which symbolize that doctrine be maintained. It is my position that the doctrinal truths connected to the offices of priest, bishop, and pope are easily compromised. The Protestants so emphasized the "priesthood of every believer" that they no longer believe in ordained priests. Not surprisingly, in most Protestant churches, the non-priestly leader foregoes clerical garments in favor of appearing to be merely the presiding priest among many. I don't want my priest dressed like everybody else at the altar. It would be unbecoming and an obstacle to what we are supposed to believe he is. That is not the Catholic faith. We do not teach our young and we subconsciously fool ourselves if we Catholics think it will have no affect on our beliefs if our priests, bishops, and popes forego the ceremonial garments which churchmen have worn for century after century.

 

Besides the symbolism of the colors used depending on the liturgical season or other circumstances, every article of clothing has rich doctrinal significance.

The priests and other ministers of the Catholic Church have their distinctive dress, when taking part in the liturgical offices. These vestments have a deep significance expressed in the prayers which the priest says while vesting, and a relation to our Lord's Passion.     

 

I Pray the Mass Sunday Missal, 1947, Catholic Book Publishing Co., p. 9. 

 

Then it explains how one garment relates to our Lord before Herod, another the cords with which He was bound, and so on. It IS the Holy Sacrifice of Calvary which is being offered to the Father according to the Catholic faith, and it is appropriate that the garments of him that becomes "another Christ" should symbolize the Passion of Jesus. I don't think those who find it refreshing that the pope seems to be trying to liberate the Church from what they naively think of as excessive clericalism appreciate the reasons for our customs and traditions.

Edited December 19, 2013 by 3DOP

[The Nehor]

For readership sake, let me say I am not LDS. I am an evangelical Christian.

 

I believe all events that occur are foreordained.

 

So before the world was God calculated that embarrassing incident in Middle School.......not sure how I feel about that.......

[Calm]

The Catholic Church holds that "continuing revelation" can expand on what has been taught before, but it will always compliment what was said previously. (I speak qualifiedly when I use the expression "continuing revelation". I have argued elsewhere that for sake of discussion with LDS, it is misleading for us to say that we are without continuing revelation. To speak more would be for another thread.)

 

I asked if you think Pope Francis' popularity stems from his firm adherence to Catholic Tradition. I don't think anybody would like him for that reason. In my opinion, his extremely popularity with all kinds of people is because he gives the appearance of loosening Church teachings that non-Traditional Catholics and non-Catholics dislike.

 

1) There has been speculation about female cardinals.

2) There has been speculation about encouraging the divorced and remarried (which has always been considered adulterous) to receive Holy Communion, even if they can't get an annulment.

3) There has been an authoritarian crackdown against an order of Franciscans attached to the Traditional Mass.

4) The pope has observed that the Church overemphasizes sexual sin.

5) The pope has observed that the Church overemphasizes the abortion holocaust.

6) The pope seems to think he is unqualified to judge whether homosexual acts are sinful.

 

It seems like every time the pope speaks, it gives rise to the encouragement of some new orientation in the Church that can't be acceptable without condemning our Fathers in the faith. He does very little to squelch most of the wild speculations. I did see this weekend where he finally said that it wouldn't be happening that we would have female cardinals saying something about how that would be a form of clericalism. I think he meant that women need to be leaders in the Church while bypassing the clerical offices, diminishing the importance of the cardinalate. I suppose that is a little better, but not much.

I am trying to imagine what I would feel like if our prophet went to the extremes that you have described here with our traditional beliefs...especially without indicating that new revelation had been given to go in these new directions.

 

Considering how many members are totally flustered by just the statements that have been given in the new Gospel Topics topic (as in 'how can we trust them any more?'), it must be a very unsettled time for a great many Catholics these days.

 

One blog expressed real disdain and almost hatred for a previous pope (I am not suggesting your disapproval of his positions to come anywhere close to such, you sound compassionate in your frustration even as you disagree with him and point out the turmoil that goes in his wake).  For someone whose faith institution is a living entity, if they see it being attacked, I can see why they would feel towards that individual the same way they would feel towards someone who was abusing their child or another loved one.  It would be so hard to watch, a real trial of faith I suspect.  And if I understand in the slightest how Catholics may feel towards their Church, that is identified as the Body of Christ and the Bride of Christ....what could be a more personal and meaningful relationship for an individual devoted to Christ?  Every Catholic should be very protective of his or her faith and the Church that protects and serves and shares it.

[Robert F. Smith]

With the definition used by LDS, no. With your definition, a definite maybe.

Foreordination is limited to Priesthood holders. It does not necessarily imply foreordination to every office and priesthood calling you ever hold. It does mean that if you hold the Priesthood in this life there was an ordinance performed before you were born to qualify you for the priesthood.

LDS theology makes it abundantly clear that many not part of the formal Church (Kingdom of God on Earth) and not holding the priesthood are foreordained and called to important status in life in many cultures.  This includes men like Martin Luther, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and women like Mary the Mother of God (Jesus), the Elect Lady Emma Smith, Mother Theresa, and many others.  God has no dearth of followers both inside and outside His Church.  Thus, even though we might rightly see the twin foci of modern Salvation History (Heilsgeschichte) in the Restoration Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and within Rabbinic Judaism, there are many other key elements of the mighty acts of God (Magnalia Dei) on the Earth outside those primary foci.  To argue otherwise is to ignore history and Mormon theology.

 

I see Pope Francis as foreordained and called by God.  Not as the head of His Church, nor as his Deputy on Earth, but rather as a man dedicated to Godly principles and a great and holy man who understands and teaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  His tremendous influence for good in a very dangerous and troubled world is much needed.  I would say the same of the Dalai Lama and of Mohandas K. Gandhi.  We need to respect and listen to such noble and great ones, rather than reject them from narrow ideological motives.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

For readership sake, let me say I am not LDS. I am an evangelical Christian.

 

I believe all events that occur are foreordained.

Yes, Mudcat, "the powers that be are ordained of God" (Romans 13:1).

 

The opinions of Godly men and women, even if they are evangelicals, ought to be listened to.

[The Nehor]

LDS theology makes it abundantly clear that many not part of the formal Church (Kingdom of God on Earth) and not holding the priesthood are foreordained and called to important status in life in many cultures.  This includes men like Martin Luther, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and women like Mary the Mother of God (Jesus), the Elect Lady Emma Smith, Mother Theresa, and many others.  God has no dearth of followers both inside and outside His Church.  Thus, even though we might rightly see the twin foci of modern Salvation History (Heilsgeschichte) in the Restoration Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and within Rabbinic Judaism, there are many other key elements of the mighty acts of God (Magnalia Dei) on the Earth outside those primary foci.  To argue otherwise is to ignore history and Mormon theology.

 

I see Pope Francis are foreordained and called by God.  Not as the head of His Church, nor as his Deputy on Earth, but rather as a man dedicated to Godly principles and a great and holy man who understands and teaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  His tremendous influence for good in a very dangerous and troubled world is much needed.  I would say the same of the Dalai Lama and of Mohandas K. Gandhi.  We need to respect and listen to such noble and great ones, rather than reject them from narrow ideological motives.

 

It makes it perfectly clear that many people were assigned specific roles.......nothing about foreordination.

 

Oh, and I am not sure I would call Gandhi a great influence for good. He was more of a git if you ask me.

[Robert F. Smith]

The Catholic Church holds that "continuing revelation" can expand on what has been taught before, but it will always compliment what was said previously. (I speak qualifiedly when I use the expression "continuing revelation". I have argued elsewhere that for sake of discussion with LDS, it is misleading for us to say that we are without continuing revelation. To speak more would be for another thread.)

 

I asked if you think Pope Francis' popularity stems from his firm adherence to Catholic Tradition. I don't think anybody would like him for that reason. In my opinion, his extremely popularity with all kinds of people is because he gives the appearance of loosening Church teachings that non-Traditional Catholics and non-Catholics dislike.

 

1) There has been speculation about female cardinals.

2) There has been speculation about encouraging the divorced and remarried (which has always been considered adulterous) to receive Holy Communion, even if they can't get an annulment.

3) There has been an authoritarian crackdown against an order of Franciscans attached to the Traditional Mass.

4) The pope has observed that the Church overemphasizes sexual sin.

5) The pope has observed that the Church overemphasizes the abortion holocaust.

6) The pope seems to think he is unqualified to judge whether homosexual acts are sinful.

 

It seems like every time the pope speaks, it gives rise to the encouragement of some new orientation in the Church that can't be acceptable without condemning our Fathers in the faith. He does very little to squelch most of the wild speculations. I did see this weekend where he finally said that it wouldn't be happening that we would have female cardinals saying something about how that would be a form of clericalism. I think he meant that women need to be leaders in the Church while bypassing the clerical offices, diminishing the importance of the cardinalate. I suppose that is a little better, but not much.

Hi Rory,

It is merely my opinion, but perhaps the thing which many of us like about Francis is his catholicity (with small "c") rather than Catholicity.  Tradition can be useful and helpful (whether Rabbinic or Catholic), but Jesus  taught that it can also mask or detract from the purpose it is designed to serve.  Thus, although many Protestants have thrown out the baby with the bathwater, one must ask after the ultimate purpose served by the priesthood, liturgy, symbol, and tradition -- whether Rabbinic, Muslim, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, or Mormon.  Before all else comes the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

I think that we all have much to learn from each other, and ecumenical cooperation (within certain limits) is much favored by the Lord.  However, we all need to be very sensitive to the different traditions we encounter, and you certainly provide a welcome perspective.  Thank you.

Bob

[Robert F. Smith]

It makes it perfectly clear that many people were assigned specific roles.......nothing about foreordination.

 

Oh, and I am not sure I would call Gandhi a great influence for good. He was more of a git if you ask me.

I'm not acquainted with the term "git."  Perhaps you could explain how Babu fit that nomenclature.

 

Aside from that, you may have a very narrow interpretation of "foreordination."  How do you imagine, for example, that St Paul meant "the powers that be are ordained of God" to be taken, since he meant it to apply to secular powers and rulers on this Earth? 

[Duncan]

LDS theology makes it abundantly clear that many not part of the formal Church (Kingdom of God on Earth) and not holding the priesthood are foreordained and called to important status in life in many cultures.  This includes men like Martin Luther, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and women like Mary the Mother of God (Jesus), the Elect Lady Emma Smith, Mother Theresa, and many others.  God has no dearth of followers both inside and outside His Church.  Thus, even though we might rightly see the twin foci of modern Salvation History (Heilsgeschichte) in the Restoration Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and within Rabbinic Judaism, there are many other key elements of the mighty acts of God (Magnalia Dei) on the Earth outside those primary foci.  To argue otherwise is to ignore history and Mormon theology.

 

I see Pope Francis are foreordained and called by God.  Not as the head of His Church, nor as his Deputy on Earth, but rather as a man dedicated to Godly principles and a great and holy man who understands and teaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  His tremendous influence for good in a very dangerous and troubled world is much needed.  I would say the same of the Dalai Lama and of Mohandas K. Gandhi.  We need to respect and listen to such noble and great ones, rather than reject them from narrow ideological motives.

 

 

so what makes them not fit for the gospel in this life but others like me who were born in the Church? if what you say is true, it's like they get a pass in this life and hopefully accept the gospel in the next. I don't know why God would manufacture life where he doesn't want some to accept the Gospel here only to get it in the next life, actually I don't know why God would set up life where 99.9% of the world won't have a chance to even hear the true gospel until the next life but that is another question!

[3DOP]

calmoriah

I am trying to imagine what I would feel like if our prophet went to the extremes that you have described here with our traditional beliefs...especially without indicating that new revelation had been given to go in these new directions.

 

3DOP

There was under Benedict, a growing recognition that legitimate progress has its limits. Pope Benedict talked about a "hermeneutic of continuity" meaning that any changes of today had to show development from doctrines of the past. I don't think he always succeeded in demonstrating that continuity. But at least he believed in it. Not surprisingly, he was probably the least popular of post-conciliar popes. That kind of wary approach to new orientations seems forgotten already.

 

A bad pope in my lifetime could not disturb my peace of mind any more than would a bad pope in history. But that is because I have already accepted a minimalistic view of papal infallibility which recognizes that we are sometimes required to doubt, disobey, or with fraternal charity, rebuke the pope, (if you are St. Paul or Catherine of Siena). If we are comfortable with bad popes in history, does it not follow that we can have bad popes in our own times? There are still conservatives that insist for practical purposes that every word or act of every modern pope is necessarily virtuous and true. I know that way of understanding is contrary to how the Church has traditionally believed regarding the papacy. I suppose for some of those good and serious Catholics, Pope Francis may present a challenge. People like me will be there to remind them that the Church put John XXII on trial for false doctrine, and he repented before he died the next day.

 

Currently, there is a false and ultra-radical view of papal authority that is shared by conservative Catholics that really needs to be re-evaluated. Many theologians going back at least to St. Thos. Aquinas have spoken about what the faithful are supposed to do in the possible eventuality of a rascally pope. In the respect that it may result in the faithful learning of these things, this papacy might be a blessing. It is God's will. God is in control. I can see possible silver linings through all of the confusion.

 

Its foreordained! Heh.

 

Thanks for your words of support cal.

 

R. 

Edited December 19, 2013 by 3DOP

[Robert F. Smith]

According to lds.org, the definition of to ordain is-to appoint or confer authority or office.  It is always used in connection with getting the priesthood, so it makes sense that some people would interpret 'fore-ordination' as also dealing exclusively with the priesthood.

Based on this definition, the pope could not be foreordained in a valid way because,

according to LDS teachings, he has no authority to act in God's name because he

does not possess a valid priesthood.

 

Regards,

Jim

With all due respect, Jim,

That definition is narrowly drawn and therefore not applicable to the instances under consideration.  The broader definition was understood by St. Paul (Rom 13:1).  One problem you might want to consider is that several different Hebrew and Greek terms were translated in the KJV "ordained" and "foreordained."  You might want to provide us with a learned and meaningful disquisition on those different terms.  And that doesn't even get us into the use of "predestined" in Romans 8:29-30 and Ephesians 1:5,11.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

so what makes them not fit for the gospel in this life but others like me who were born in the Church? if what you say is true, it's like they get a pass in this life and hopefully accept the gospel in the next. I don't know why God would manufacture life where he doesn't want some to accept the Gospel here only to get it in the next life, actually I don't know why God would set up life where 99.9% of the world won't have a chance to even hear the true gospel until the next life but that is another question!

Most people on this Earth have not and do not have a chance to hear the authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ preached in their lifetimes.  Salvation history encompasses both this life and the next, and they who have not the Law in this life will be judged both on how they respond to the understanding which they have (the light of Christ at their birth, and their own cultural traditions of right & wrong) as well as on their acceptance in the next life of the ordinances performed for them by proxy by the authentic priesthood of God.  This is a huge endeavor, and does not merely take into account the narrow and presentist concerns of a member of a ward in Panguitch, Utah -- no matter how well-meaning..  See Romans 2:4, John 1:9.

[Yirgacheffe]

Any pope with a popemobile is a good pope.

And the clothes make the Pope. 

[The Nehor]

I'm not acquainted with the term "git."  Perhaps you could explain how Babu fit that nomenclature.

 

Git is like "jerk" but is stronger and also implies stupidity. It is a wonderful British word.

 

Gandhi was the personification of the caricature many conservatives draw of liberals. That they profess their love of mankind but are horrible people in private and are basically pretty hateful.

 

Gandhi wrote quite a bit about his wife.....mostly comparing her to a cow. He also recorded how he beat her regularly and admitted that he was an adulterer. He referred to his first son as a "mistake" and forbid him to go to law school despite going himself. His first son died penniless trying to survive as a male prostitute. His wife died when Gandhi refused on moral grounds to let her have penicillin. Remarkably when Gandhi grew ill this prohibition no longer applied for some reason.

 

He wrote two letters to Hitler praising him and asking him to ease off a little while assuring Hitler he did not believe Hitler was the monster his opponents made him out to be. He wrote this in 1940 after the war started. He also wrote to the Jews encouraging them to go to their deaths peaceably under German rule.

 

Gandhi was big on tempting himself to sin to prove his virtue. He did this by having middle-school aged girls sleep with him every night nude including his grandniece. He also had a thing for enemas, both for them and him. Admittedly he insisted nothing ever happened. I don't want to think about the psychological damage he caused to the girls though.

 

He was probably gay. He had a live-in male German Jewish bodybuilder friend. Their letters are full of homoerotic tension including one of them being "upper house" and the other "lower house". Yeah, not very subtle.

 

He was also a disgusting racist. He fought for Indian Rights but despised the kaffirs. This word is not known to all Americans. It basically means "nigger" in other parts of the world with all the racism we put into the word. He was pleased when it was made clear they had no right to ride the tram (would not have gotten along with Rosa Parks), he complained that Indians were lumped in with the "degenerate kaffirs" and constantly made comments about how lazy and smelly they are. Mr. NonViolence even argued that violence against Black Africans didn't count.

 

Gandhi's campaign of nonviolence came into full swing during World War II when there was a real chance India could be conquered by the Japanese. Gandhi encouraged submission and weakened the war effort. While I do not want to defend Britain's occupation of India they were more moral on a rough level. Gandhi would have been shot had the Japanese been allowed to move in whereas the British left him alone.

 

Gandhi's campaign for independence was opposed by many British on moral grounds. The caste system was largely repressed under British rule and the upper classes could not torment the lower at will. The fear was that if the British pulled out the upper classes would take vengeance. Gandhi may have been dedicated to nonviolence but the end result of his campaign was the Indian Civil War where the untouchables (who he called brothers) were killed in large numbers by those he supported in their quest for independence. At least they got called brother I guess. Not like the black people he despised as uncivilized savages undeserving of equal rights.

 

India has been running a successful PR campaign to make Gandhi into some kind of quasi-Christian saint. He was more of a hypocritical misogynistic idiotic pervert by western standards. That movie about Gandhi a few years back that makes him seem so wonderful was mostly funded by the government of India. Cute huh?

[The Nehor]

With all due respect, Jim,

That definition is narrowly drawn and therefore not applicable to the instances under consideration.  The broader definition was understood by St. Paul (Rom 13:1).  One problem you might want to consider is that several different Hebrew and Greek terms were translated in the KJV "ordained" and "foreordained."  You might want to provide us with a learned and meaningful disquisition on those different terms.  And that doesn't even get us into the use of "predestined" in Romans 8:29-30 and Ephesians 1:5,11.

 

It is, however, the LDS use of the term. In a broader sense you could say anything God planned was foreordained or even anything that if ever happened is foreordained but at that point the word becomes almost meaningless.

[3DOP]

Hi Rory,

It is merely my opinion, but perhaps the thing which many of us like about Francis is his catholicity (with small "c") rather than Catholicity.  Tradition can be useful and helpful (whether Rabbinic or Catholic), but Jesus  taught that it can also mask or detract from the purpose it is designed to serve.  Thus, although many Protestants have thrown out the baby with the bathwater, one must ask after the ultimate purpose served by the priesthood, liturgy, symbol, and tradition -- whether Rabbinic, Muslim, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, or Mormon.  Before all else comes the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

I think that we all have much to learn from each other, and ecumenical cooperation (within certain limits) is much favored by the Lord.  However, we all need to be very sensitive to the different traditions we encounter, and you certainly provide a welcome perspective.  Thank you.

Bob

 

Hey Robert,

 

I agree with you. He gets rid of the Big C. Good way of putting it. That is what you like. I don't blame you guys. But you can't be surprised that Catholics wouldn't like it. 

 

Thanks for considering my perspective.

 

I must say that according to my perspective, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not something that I can ever separate from "priesthood, liturgy, symbol, and tradition". Christ established a priesthood and his priests repeat the words he used in the life giving Sacramental liturgy. The liturgical rites of the East and West, with the exception of the new fabricated Mass of Paul VI, use words and rubrics that come from traditions of apostolic origin. That is why there are schools of thought which raise doubt as to the question of when and if the pope himself even has the authority to completely suppress a liturgical rite. Pope Benedict, before his elevation wrote the preface for one book of that school. Presumably that is why he asserted in his July 2007 Motu Proprio that the Old Rite had never been suppressed and every Latin rite priest has the right to use that form. 

 

If it is ordinarily necessary as Traditional Catholics believe, that the one who would have eternal life, must eat Christ's Body and drink His Blood, this can only occur in the Eucharist, and we cannot admit that its safe to be in other churches. When Catholics cooperate in the worship of other religions, it gives a false impression. It makes it appear that we believe there is good hope for the salvation of those worshipping outside the Church without the priesthood and the Sacraments. This is why the popes up to modern times had always prohibited ecumenical practices where Catholics participated in non-Catholic worship as equals. If the Catholic faith is true, such sentimental acts might be "nice", but it isn't charity. It makes other souls think that we believe there is good hope for salvation where we only could have the barest hope.

 

The Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX consists of eighty condemnations of modern ideas, many of which seem acceptable to modern churchmen. #17 condemns this proposition: "Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ." 

 

No wonder non-Catholics prefer Francis I over Pius IX. But if the Catholic Church is true, it wouldn't be Francis telling the Jews that their Christless covenant is salvific that was the true friend of the Jews, but Pius.

Edited December 19, 2013 by 3DOP

[Robert F. Smith]

It is, however, the LDS use of the term. In a broader sense you could say anything God planned was foreordained or even anything that if ever happened is foreordained but at that point the word becomes almost meaningless.

Yes, it is your version of the LDS use of the term (not mine, and I'm LDS), and at that point the NT becomes meaningless.  Is that your version of a meaningful disquisition on the use of such terms in Holy Writ, or does that even matter to you?