Do You Think The Pope Was Foreordained?

[The Nehor]

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?

 

Yep, it is my use of the word and the one used in the D&C and by Prophets and Apostles in General Conference. You can have your own if you want but I have no desire to join you.

 

I have no idea what a disquisition is so I have no idea if it matters to me or not.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Yes, Rory,

Mormonism has a recent but deep tradition of sacraments, liturgy, and symbolism which informs everything taking place within our Church.  Roman Catholicism is very familiar to us -- and even moreso in the wake of your comments in various threads here.

 

I agree on the limits of ecumenism.  Mormons have a similar view.  I was thinking more of other sorts of cooperative endeavors which could be pursued without damage to one's conscience and religious fidelity.  LDS attendance at Mass (but not the actual taking of the Eucharist), use of Catholic Relief as the vehicle for LDS financial aid where needed (and where the LDS Church has no organization on the ground), convivial relations between LDS leaders and Roman Catholic leaders (including lay leadership), invitations to Roman Catholic leaders to speak at LDS venues (especially scholarly symposia), local interfaith cooperation on matters of mutual concern, etc.  All these take place nowadays, and I have fortunately been involved in some of it myself.

 

From time to time, I have been deeply moved by Roman Catholic efforts to do good in the world, and have heard and read wonderfully positive expositions on the Gospel from Roman Catholic clergy and laymen.  I have had the good fortune to have had Roman Catholic friends and associates who demonstrated to me what real Christianity should mean.  I have learned from them and am much in their debt.

I am in your debt as well.

Thanks,

Bob

[Robert F. Smith]

Yep, it is my use of the word and the one used in the D&C and by Prophets and Apostles in General Conference. You can have your own if you want but I have no desire to join you.

 

I have no idea what a disquisition is so I have no idea if it matters to me or not.

I hope that you are not saying:  "Don't confuse me with the facts."  Unlike you, I don't adopt the narrowest possible range of facts, but consider the broadest possible range.  I had hoped that you might do likewise, and engage in a real discussion here.  However, if that discomfits you, Nehor, so be it.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[3DOP]

Yes, Rory,

Mormonism has a recent but deep tradition of sacraments, liturgy, and symbolism which informs everything taking place within our Church.  Roman Catholicism is very familiar to us -- and even moreso in the wake of your comments in various threads here.

 

I agree on the limits of ecumenism.  Mormons have a similar view.  I was thinking more of other sorts of cooperative endeavors which could be pursued without damage to one's conscience and religious fidelity.  LDS attendance at Mass (but not the actual taking of the Eucharist), use of Catholic Relief as the vehicle for LDS financial aid where needed (and where the LDS Church has no organization on the ground), convivial relations between LDS leaders and Roman Catholic leaders (including lay leadership), invitations to Roman Catholic leaders to speak at LDS venues (especially scholarly symposia), local interfaith cooperation on matters of mutual concern, etc.  All these take place nowadays, and I have fortunately been involved in some of it myself.

 

From time to time, I have been deeply moved by Roman Catholic efforts to do good in the world, and have heard and read wonderfully positive expositions on the Gospel from Roman Catholic clergy and laymen.  I have had the good fortune to have had Roman Catholic friends and associates who demonstrated to me what real Christianity should mean.  I have learned from them and am much in their debt.

I am in your debt as well.

Thanks,

Bob

 

Well said. Maybe I can be quiet and go to bed now!

 

Thanks,

 

Rory

[canard78]

Depends on the definition of "foreodained" - I'm interested to know why Nehor thinks only priesthood can be foreodained.

 

Consider:

 

"Perhaps the Lord needs such men on the outside of His Church to help it along... They are among its auxiliaries, and can do more good for the cause where the Lord has placed them, than anywhere else. … Hence, some are drawn into the fold and receive a testimony of the truth; while others remain unconverted … the beauties and glories of the gospel being veiled temporarily from their view, for a wise purpose. The Lord will open their eyes in His own due time. God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of His great and marvelous work. The Latter-day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous for any one people."

Elder Orson F. Whitney of the Quorum of the Twelve

Quoted by President Ezra Taft Benson in 1972:
https://www.lds.org/ensign/1972/07/civic-standards-for-the-faithful-saints?lang=eng

And more recently here on the church interfaith page:
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interfaith

[Tacenda]

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?

Oh my, CFR. I think I'm going to be sick, if this is true. I want to throw up when I think about ever quoting that @$&, if true.

[The Nehor]

I hope that you are not saying:  "Don't confuse me with the facts."  Unlike you, I don't adopt the narrowest possible range of facts, but consider the broadest possible range.  I had hoped that you might do likewise, and engage in a real discussion here.  However, if that discomfits you, Nehor, so be it.

I prefer disquisitions myself. I am generally against broadening definitions as in my experience it tends to lead to vapidness and vague speech. Is not Priesthood centered around the service of others? Then do we not all hold the Priesthood? Makes sense but then another word is diluted to meaninglessness.

Oh my, CFR. I think I'm going to be sick, if this is true. I want to throw up when I think about ever quoting that @$&, if true.

I cannot access much of the web here at work but yeah, this is pretty much true. Run a search for gandhi and wife or gandhi and grandniece and you should find lots of references.

Gandhi became popularized in the US mostly due to the Civil Rights movement using him as a kind of icon. The leaders of that movement had no real contact with him and did not have access to enough information about his life to realize what he was like. It was an honest mistake but the false image of Gandhi has been perpetuated anyways.

[The Nehor]

Depends on the definition of "foreodained" - I'm interested to know why Nehor thinks only priesthood can be foreodained.

 

Consider:

 

Elder Orson F. Whitney of the Quorum of the Twelve

Quoted by President Ezra Taft Benson in 1972:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1972/07/civic-standards-for-the-faithful-saints?lang=eng

And more recently here on the church interfaith page:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interfaith

Do not deny a thing there but ordination involves Priesthood. Many were given diverse assignments and responsibilities on earth and were placed in specific circumstances for important reasons and will do great things. Many of them are much greater in importance and do more service to the building up of God's kingdom then many priesthood holders but they were not ordained to do that in the LDS sense.

[thesometimesaint]

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'm not Catholic, but deeply admire the Popes I have known anything about(other than they were Popes). Who knows but after nearly two thousand years and as many Prophets MAYBE nonLDS will like our Prophets too.

[Nofear]

Oh my, CFR. I think I'm going to be sick, if this is true. I want to throw up when I think about ever quoting that @$&, if true.

 

I tend to hold such sensationalistic accounts with a bit of skepticism. http://www.hoaxorfact.com/Politics/untold-truths-about-gandhi.html

speaks to many of the points and suggests that they are rather skewed presentations at best. That is not to say Ghandi is by any means a saint by contemporary standards... but that's all off topic.

[theplains]

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.

 

I use as a reference the Gospel Topics for foreordination on the lds web site

 

"The doctrine of foreordination applies to all members of the Church, not just to the

Savior and His prophets. Before the creation of the earth, faithful women were given

certain responsibilities and faithful men were foreordained to certain priesthood duties.

As people prove themselves worthy, they will be given opportunities to fulfill the

assignments they then received".

 

Since the pope does not have a valid priesthood (no authority or power to act in God's

name) and he is not a member of the 'Church' (which I assume is The Church of Jesus

Christ of Latter-day Saints), can foreordination apply to him?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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!

"Many are called, but few are chosen"...so could very well have been. Also God calls all men to be good and charitable, and he is both. Also being foreordained does not just mean religion or more importantly not just our religion.

[Robert F. Smith]

I use as a reference the Gospel Topics for foreordination on the lds web site

 

"The doctrine of foreordination applies to all members of the Church, not just to the

Savior and His prophets. Before the creation of the earth, faithful women were given

certain responsibilities and faithful men were foreordained to certain priesthood duties.

As people prove themselves worthy, they will be given opportunities to fulfill the

assignments they then received".

 

Since the pope does not have a valid priesthood (no authority or power to act in God's

name) and he is not a member of the 'Church' (which I assume is The Church of Jesus

Christ of Latter-day Saints), can foreordination apply to him?

 

Thanks,

Jim

I see that you are still reading only a limited and narrow range of material, Jim.  You might try Holy Scripture, as I have suggested.

 

Meantime, here is another reason I like Pope Francis:  http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/even-pope-cool-public-breastfeeding-171000877.html .

[Stone holm]

No.

Sure sounded that way. It amazes me that the Catholics finally have a Pope to be proud of, and the conservative Catholics don't exactly warm up to him.

[3DOP]

Sure sounded that way. It amazes me that the Catholics finally have a Pope to be proud of, and the conservative Catholics don't exactly warm up to him.

 

What sounded what way?

 

You're amazed that Catholics could be proud of popes before Francis. Nice.

 

Why would you make such an insulting comment?

 

Are you deliberately trying to be offensive, or is it just natural? Either way, be assured, I find you odious. 

Edited December 20, 2013 by 3DOP

[Stone holm]

What sounded what way?

 

You're amazed that Catholics could be proud of popes before Francis. Nice.

 

Why would you make such an insulting comment?

 

Are you deliberately trying to be offensive, or is it just natural? Either way, be assured, I find you odious.

Look at your posted comments about Pope Francis, if I made comments like that about Pres Monson I would get sliced and diced on this Board. Here we have Mormons praising the Pope and the Catholics are disagreeing. Well some of us are praising the Pope.

[Duncan]

I think Pope Francis is as popular with the people as Pres. Hinckley was with us when he was in office-he was just everywhere and there was all these Temples, Nauvoo, Ukraine, Hong Kong,  and appearances on Larry King and all this stuff and it was great!!

[Stone holm]

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.

Exactly what were you saying here because it certainly sounds like you don't like Pope Francis.

[Stone holm]

I think Pope Francis is as popular with the people as Pres. Hinckley was with us when he was in office-he was just everywhere and there was all these Temples, Nauvoo, Ukraine, Hong Kong,  and appearances on Larry King and all this stuff and it was great!!

Umh, seems like we are still sorting out some of the odd things said to Larry King...not sure I would rank them as his best performances.

[Duncan]

Umh, seems like we are still sorting out some of the odd things said to Larry King...not sure I would rank them as his best performances.

 

 

well, it's not like Howard W. Hunter was ever on the Muppet show or David O. McKay on Ed Sullivan, he broke new ground!!

Edited December 20, 2013 by Duncan

[ChristKnight]

Sure sounded that way. It amazes me that the Catholics finally have a Pope to be proud of, and the conservative Catholics don't exactly warm up to him.

 

I'm sure that actual Catholics would disagree with your assessment that they "finally have a Pope to be proud of".  I know for a fact that Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI (love his books!) were and are well loved.

 

I agree with 3DOP.

[Calm]

well, it's not like Howard W. Hunter was ever on the Muppet show

The image is sweet....

 

How about Pres. Utchdorf?  He could cook strudel with the Swedish chef.

[3DOP]

Look at your posted comments about Pope Francis, if I made comments like that about Pres Monson I would get sliced and diced on this Board. Here we have Mormons praising the Pope and the Catholics are disagreeing. Well some of us are praising the Pope.

 

You are not praising "the Pope". I admit to having misgivings about a handful of popes, including the one you adore for reasons that have nothing to do with the salvation of souls, but because you think he is a political liberal like you. Your so-called praise of Francis is the kind of backhanded compliment I always knew it was. Your "praise" is more of a smear on Francis' predecessors than anything else. You let it slip: "...the Catholics finally have a pope to be proud of..."

Edited December 20, 2013 by 3DOP

[Stone holm]

You are not praising "the Pope". I admit to having misgivings about a handful of popes, including the one you adore for reasons that have nothing to do with the salvation of souls, but because you think he is a political liberal like you. Your so-called praise of Francis is the kind of backhanded compliment I always knew it was. Your "praise" is more of a smear on Francis' predecessors than anything else. You let it slip: "...the Catholics finally have a pope to be proud of..."

I can see where that could be offensive, and I apologize. There are certain Prophets that I am not particularly crazy about, but the world tends to either ignore or condemn our Prophets. So am trying to imagine a Prophet who gained the type of popular acclaim that Pope Francis has. The last time I recall a Pope getting this much approval he died rather quickly. Unfortunately, I can't keep their names straight. Having spent three years as a full time graduate student at Notre Dame you would think I would be better at Papal names. What I am hearing from my sons about this Pope is basically, "Wow, a religious leader actually teaching and practicing what Christ taught." Which is very high praise coming from my sons, don't recall them ever saying that about a GA in our Church. So I find it curious that conservative Catholics are not particularly enthusiastic about this Pope who is inspiring so much interest in Catholicism and religion in general by non-Catholics. A Prophet who achieved such public acclaim, would have Mormons dancing in the streets.

 

Consider yourself warned. 

[Storm Rider]

As I look back on just the last hundred years I would be hard pressed to identify a pope that was not praiseworthy or one that did not engender pride among our Catholic brothers and sisters. This position may be a result of studying the CC, but I think it is accurate. These were not perfect men, but they were great men.