Are They Really "prophets, Seers & Revelators?"

[MiserereNobis]

The Catholic position is that the pope is the presiding bishop of Rome, or more particularly a "set apart" (as in holy) part of Rome called the Vatican, and that since the headquarters of the Catholic church is in Rome, the pope presides over not just Rome but also the whole world since the headquarters of the Catholic church is in Rome and Catholics believe God presides over the whole world through their church headquarters.

 

I want to begin by pointing out that Mormons often get annoyed when non-Mormons tell them what they believe or what their position is.  I'm not annoyed with you for claiming that you know the Catholic position.  I'm actually a bit amused, because it is clear you do not.

 

Ahab, you do not understand Catholic ecclesiology.  For starters, the Pope is not the Bishop of the Vatican (Vatican City didn't exist until 1929).  He is the Bishop of the diocese of Rome, also known as the Church of Rome.  Calling him a "presiding" bishop is redundant.  All bishops preside in their diocese.  That is what it means to be a bishop in a diocese.  Now, in Catholicism, Rome is a special diocese, a special Church.  The Church of Rome has primacy and supremacy over all of the other Churches in Christiandom.  So, the Pope, as Bishop of Rome, is the also the primal and supreme Bishop.  Where other bishops have jurisdiction only in their diocese, the Pope has jurisdiction in every diocese all over the world.  It's not that he has jurisdiction because the Church headquarters (a term not used in Catholicism) is in Rome.  The Church headquarters are in Rome because that is where the Pope is.

 

If the stake president is the presiding high priest in a stake (I have that right, yes?) and the president is the presiding high priest for the LDS church, then you can have a parallel in Catholicism.  Bishops are the presiding priesthood authority in their diocese (like a stake president) and the Pope is the presiding authority for the entire Church.

 

You may not find the idea expressed by someone else in exactly those words, but that is the same idea most Catholics will share with anyone who wants to know what they believe, even if you are an exception.

 

I'm not an exception (except for posting regularly on an LDS board, ha!).  I'm stating the Catholic position.

 

 

The "not even close" part is what tells me you don't know what you're talking about, and I'm not even saying it is an exact match. But at least both of them are bishops and not an apostle.

 

Oh, c'mon Ahab, don't be so pompous.  I'm a knowledgable, educated, faithful Catholic.  I know my religion better than you know my religion.  I wouldn't presume to know your religion better than you.  Please give me similar respect and don't act like the anti-Mormons act by telling me I don't know my own religion. (or if you do, don't complain when anti-Mormons do the same to you).

 

 

This just shows me you didn't realize I said that.

 

Well, yes, I did ask you to explain it, because it didn't make much sense to me.  Catholics don't claim that "Peter rose through the ranks."  Jesus set him apart and told him he would be the prime Apostle.

 

 

 

Peter didn't ordain Clement as an apostle,.though. Clement was only a bishop and the keys Peter gave him were only for that bishopric, in Jerusalem. You may think otherwise but that's what makes the pope more like a Presiding Bishop than like the Presiding High Priest.

 

We can disagree on whether or not the Catholic position is true, but let's at least understand the Catholic position.  Take a look at Ran's post.  In Catholicism, Bishops are almost identical to the Apostles, except that they are not direct witnesses to Christ's resurrection.  However, their authority, their keys (I'm trying to use LDS terms here) are the same as the Apostles.  In Catholicism, bishops are the successors to the Apostles.  Now, don't use the LDS definition of bishop in that sentence, because the LDS definition of bishop and the Catholic definition are different.

 

For Catholics, the Pope is not like the LDS presiding bishop.  Not at all.  Research the characteristics of the Catholic Pope and compare that to the LDS presiding bishop and you will see that there is basically no comparison.  The closest parallel is the president of the LDS church.

 

By the way, there is some controversy over who the second Pope was.  It is generally accepted that Clement was not second, but fourth.

 

 

 

 

Let me know if you still don't understand me.

 

Let me know if you still don't understand the Catholic position

Edited April 17, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[Bikeemikey]

I want to begin by pointing out that Mormons often get annoyed when non-Mormons tell them what they believe or what their position is. I'm not annoyed with you for claiming that you know the Catholic position. I'm actually a bit amused, because it is clear you do not.

Ahab, you do not understand Catholic ecclesiology. For starters, the Pope is not the Bishop of the Vatican (Vatican City didn't exist until 1929). He is the Bishop of the diocese of Rome, also known as the Church of Rome. Calling him a "presiding" bishop is redundant. All bishops preside in their diocese. That is what it means to be a bishop in a diocese. Now, in Catholicism, Rome is a special diocese, a special Church. The Church of Rome has primacy and supremacy over all of the other Churches in Christiandom. So, the Pope, as Bishop of Rome, is the also the primal and supreme Bishop. Where other bishops have jurisdiction only in their diocese, the Pope has jurisdiction in every diocese all over the world. It's not that he has jurisdiction because the Church headquarters (a term not used in Catholicism) is in Rome. The Church headquarters are in Rome because that is where the Pope is.

If the stake president is the presiding high priest in a stake (I have that right, yes?) and the president is the presiding high priest for the LDS church, then you can have a parallel in Catholicism. Bishops are the presiding priesthood authority in their diocese (like a stake president) and the Pope is the presiding authority for the entire Church.

I'm not an exception (except for posting regularly on an LDS board, ha!). I'm stating the Catholic position.

Oh, c'mon Ahab, don't be so pompous. I'm a knowledgable, educated, faithful Catholic. I know my religion better than you know my religion. I wouldn't presume to know your religion better than you. Please give me similar respect and don't act like the anti-Mormons act by telling me I don't know my own religion. (or if you do, don't complain when anti-Mormons do the same to you).

Well, yes, I did ask you to explain it, because it didn't make much sense to me. Catholics don't claim that "Peter rose through the ranks." Jesus set him apart and told him he would be the prime Apostle.

We can disagree on whether or not the Catholic position is true, but let's at least understand the Catholic position. Take a look at Ran's post. In Catholicism, Bishops are almost identical to the Apostles, except that they are not direct witnesses to Christ's resurrection. However, their authority, their keys (I'm trying to use LDS terms here) are the same as the Apostles. In Catholicism, bishops are the successors to the Apostles. Now, don't use the LDS definition of bishop in that sentence, because the LDS definition of bishop and the Catholic definition are different.

For Catholics, the Pope is not like the LDS presiding bishop. Not at all. Research the characteristics of the Catholic Pope and compare that to the LDS presiding bishop and you will see that there is basically no comparison. The closest parallel is the president of the LDS church.

By the way, there is some controversy over who the second Pope was. It is generally accepted that Clement was not second, but fourth.

Let me know if you still don't understand the Catholic position

Great post! Thanks for the time to share the catholic perspective on revelation and priesthood in the church!

Well see if Ahab gets his whale.

[Ahab]

Catholics affirm that the aspect of being chosen witnesses of the Resurrected Christ that pertains to the office of the Twelve is not transmitted toy the bishops, and so in that sense Catholics do not mistake bishops as being equivalent to the Apostles.

That's only a partial explanation of why Catholic bishops are not equivalents to apostles. Christ did not choose them as his witnesses and they were not ordained as apostles by other apostles or by Christ himself.

Catholics do, however, find an association between the Apostles and bishops in Acts 1:20, where Judas' departure leaves vacant an ἐπισκοπή (episcope) — an office of oversight or episcopacy ("bishoprick") — which Matthias fills.

Matthias was ordained as an apostle by other apostles to fill the vacancy in (what we call the quorum of) 12 apostles, and yet, as stated before, Catholic bishops have not been chosen or ordained as apostles.

The presence of bishops in the New Testament suggests that this ἐπισκοπή was transmitted to co-laborers of the Twelve in their evangelical mission.

Apostles ordained bishops as local leaders over limited geographic areas while giving them keys in those jurisdictions, but the apostles did not ordain those men as apostles as they did with Matthias. Or at least not when they ordained them as bishops. Some bishops may have later been ordained as apostles but we have no record showing a bishop being ordained as an apostle.

These men, though not chosen witnesses of the Resurrected Christ, served as episcopal successors to the Apostles after their departure.

Yes, because they were as close to apostles as they had at that time, even though they had not been ordained as apostles. But at least they had keys over their limited geographic areas, and it was assumed that was enough to qualify those bishops as proper successors. The fact remains though that none of those bishops had been given the keys to govern the entire church, with each having keys over only a limited geographic area, and since not one of them had the keys to govern the entire church by himself they had to come up with some way to determine who would be at the head, under Christ. And that's when they decided that the bishop who had been given the keys to Jerusalem, the Church headquarters, should have the right to govern the entire church. He, Clement, had been given the keys to govern the church headquartered at Jerusalem by Peter, himself, and Peter had also taught him how to be a bishop.

It would be interesting to examine the development in Catholic theology of the ἐπισκοπή from it being "universal" with regards to the Twelve to it being "particular" (tied to a specific geographic region like a city) with regards to the bishops.

The germ of the idea was planted in the fact that the apostles appointed men over local geographic areas, but while they (the apostles) still had jurisdiction over the whole world, generally. When the apostles were all killed and nobody else had been ordained as an apostle by the apostles then it was decided that bishops would be the proper successors, and thus the Catholic church was born. If only the apostles had continued to ordain other men as apostles the church would have then continued, as long as they continued to do what the apostles had taught them, but they decided that wasn't necessary and thought they had all that they needed to govern.

What's further interesting is that Christ is described as being ἐπίσκοπος (episcopos) — Bishop — in 1 Peter 2:25, from which one could derive further associations linking Christ with the Twelve and the bishops in the enduring mission of proclaiming the Gospel.

Yes, the Lord and bishops and apostles do share in the work but they do not have equal responsibilities, or bishoprics. Edited April 17, 2014 by Ahab

[why me]

It comes down to whether or not the priesthood was restored by john the Baptist and the 3 apostles to joseph and oliver. If so, then the lds have the line authority and the keys. If not, then the discussion needs to focus on who has the keys. Looking at the long history of Catholicism and the abuses of power and the corruption in the past, I could understand why god would withdraw the keys until the time was right to have them restored. However, either they were restored to joseph and oliver or they weren't. Now of course, oliver gave his deathbed testimony to his wife and daughter that what he experienced with the book of Mormon was true. And this would also confirm the line of authority of the keys to the priesthood. So who is correct, the lds or the other faiths?

[Senator]

Now of course, oliver gave his deathbed testimony to his wife and daughter that what he experienced with the book of Mormon was true. And this would also confirm the line of authority of the keys to the priesthood.

 

It would?

[ChristKnight]

Looking at the long history of Catholicism and the abuses of power and the corruption in the past, I could understand why god would withdraw the keys until the time was right to have them restored.

 

What about the Orthodox Church (the second largest Christian church after the Catholic Church), who have as much a reasonable claim to having priestly authority from Christ through the Apostles (indeed, the Catholic Church recognizes the priesthood, apostolic succession, and sacraments of the Orthodox Church), and who weren't part of the purported "abuses of power and the corruption in the past"?

[MiserereNobis]

That's only a partial explanation of why Catholic bishops are not equivalents to apostles. Christ did not choose them as his witnesses and they were not ordained as apostles by other apostles or by Christ himself.

 

 

For those who are interested, you can read the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on Apostles in order to understand how the Catholic idea of Apostle differs from the LDS one.  In short, we don't see the Apostolate as continuing after the death of the original Apostles.  The Apostles passed their authority to the Bishops, and the Episcopate is what then governs the Church.  The Apostles had universal jurisdiction.  Bishops do not, except for the Bishop of Rome (the Pope).

 

Yes, because they were as close to apostles as they had at that time, even though they had not been ordained as apostles. But at least they had keys over their limited geographic areas, and it was assumed that was enough to qualify those bishops as proper successors. The fact remains though that none of those bishops had not been given the keys to govern the entire church, with each having keys over only a limited geographic area, and since not one of them had the keys to govern the entire church by himself they had to come up with some way to determine who would be at the head, under Christ. And that's when they decided that the bishop who had been given the keys to Jerusalem, the Church headquarters, should have the right to govern the entire church. He, Clement, had been given the keys to govern the church headquartered at Jerusalem by Peter, himself, and Peter had also taught him how to be a bishop.

 

Just to clarify, Clement I was not the Bishop of Jerusalem.  He was the Bishop of Rome.  His act of writing to the Church at Corinth shows that the Bishop of Rome had authority to write to another Church outside of the territorial jurisdiction of Rome.  Remember, Corinth would have had its own Bishop.  This means that Clement, as Pope, was exercising his universal jurisdiction over the Christian Churches.  His letter was fully accepted in Corinth, being read frequently during Mass.

[ChristKnight]

For those who are interested, you can read the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on Apostles in order to understand how the Catholic idea of Apostle differs from the LDS one.  In short, we don't see the Apostolate as continuing after the death of the original Apostles.  The Apostles passed their authority to the Bishops, and the Episcopate is what then governs the Church.  The Apostles had universal jurisdiction.  Bishops do not, except for the Bishop of Rome (the Pope).

 

For Latter-day Saints, I think this is an important matter.  The view is that the authority of the Apostles, or the "office" of the Apostles, did not continue after their death.  LDS would agree that the Apostles had "universal jurisdiction" (though it would be referred to as "general authority"), and Bishops were local authorities.  So, LDS would wonder where the Apostles went (hence the belief in a need for restoration of priesthood authority and offices).  Interestingly, Catholics believe that the authority of the Apostles did continue, and that the Bishops have the authority of the Apostles, and are their successors (though it seems as if it isn't all of the authority, since, as you mention, the Apostles had universal jurisdiction, and only the Bishop of Rome has that today). 

[mfbukowski]

I want to begin by pointing out that Mormons often get annoyed when non-Mormons tell them what they believe or what their position is.  I'm not annoyed with you for claiming that you know the Catholic position.  I'm actually a bit amused, because it is clear you do not.

 

Ahab, you do not understand Catholic ecclesiology.  For starters, the Pope is not the Bishop of the Vatican (Vatican City didn't exist until 1929).  He is the Bishop of the diocese of Rome, also known as the Church of Rome.  Calling him a "presiding" bishop is redundant.  All bishops preside in their diocese.  That is what it means to be a bishop in a diocese.  Now, in Catholicism, Rome is a special diocese, a special Church.  The Church of Rome has primacy and supremacy over all of the other Churches in Christiandom.  So, the Pope, as Bishop of Rome, is the also the primal and supreme Bishop.  Where other bishops have jurisdiction only in their diocese, the Pope has jurisdiction in every diocese all over the world.  It's not that he has jurisdiction because the Church headquarters (a term not used in Catholicism) is in Rome.  The Church headquarters are in Rome because that is where the Pope is.

 

If the stake president is the presiding high priest in a stake (I have that right, yes?) and the president is the presiding high priest for the LDS church, then you can have a parallel in Catholicism.  Bishops are the presiding priesthood authority in their diocese (like a stake president) and the Pope is the presiding authority for the entire Church.

 

 

I'm not an exception (except for posting regularly on an LDS board, ha!).  I'm stating the Catholic position.

 

 

 

Oh, c'mon Ahab, don't be so pompous.  I'm a knowledgable, educated, faithful Catholic.  I know my religion better than you know my religion.  I wouldn't presume to know your religion better than you.  Please give me similar respect and don't act like the anti-Mormons act by telling me I don't know my own religion. (or if you do, don't complain when anti-Mormons do the same to you).

 

 

 

Well, yes, I did ask you to explain it, because it didn't make much sense to me.  Catholics don't claim that "Peter rose through the ranks."  Jesus set him apart and told him he would be the prime Apostle.

 

 

 

 

We can disagree on whether or not the Catholic position is true, but let's at least understand the Catholic position.  Take a look at Ran's post.  In Catholicism, Bishops are almost identical to the Apostles, except that they are not direct witnesses to Christ's resurrection.  However, their authority, their keys (I'm trying to use LDS terms here) are the same as the Apostles.  In Catholicism, bishops are the successors to the Apostles.  Now, don't use the LDS definition of bishop in that sentence, because the LDS definition of bishop and the Catholic definition are different.

 

For Catholics, the Pope is not like the LDS presiding bishop.  Not at all.  Research the characteristics of the Catholic Pope and compare that to the LDS presiding bishop and you will see that there is basically no comparison.  The closest parallel is the president of the LDS church.

 

By the way, there is some controversy over who the second Pope was.  It is generally accepted that Clement was not second, but fourth.

 

 

 

 

 

Let me know if you still don't understand the Catholic position

Trust me.  He will still think he knows it better than you do.

 

But at least he is consistent.  He is omniscient, you know.  He even tells me what I think and knows me better than I do.

 

This post would be offensive to most people, but he will probably agree with it.

[mfbukowski]

Confusing the issue is that there are more than one Clement.  Two of the best known are C of Rome and C of Alexandria.  Quite different perspectives.

[mfbukowski]

Two thoughts are at work in your mind here:

1: You don't realize how a Presiding Bishop of the Church would be influenced and appear to others if at some point there ceased to be any living (mortal) apostles and he also didn't think any more were necessary.

2. You don't realize our pope is our Presiding Bishop and that he is not the President of our Church.

Gotta just love it.

 

That good old omniscience kicks in again.  He can even see into hypothetical universes where Mormons have popes and what happens to the presiding bishop when there are no apostles

 

Truly impressive powers.

Edited April 17, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

I want to begin by pointing out that Mormons often get annoyed when non-Mormons tell them what they believe or what their position is. I'm not annoyed with you for claiming that you know the Catholic position. I'm actually a bit amused, because it is clear you do not.

Ahab, you do not understand Catholic ecclesiology. For starters, the Pope is not the Bishop of the Vatican (Vatican City didn't exist until 1929). He is the Bishop of the diocese of Rome, also known as the Church of Rome. Calling him a "presiding" bishop is redundant. All bishops preside in their diocese. That is what it means to be a bishop in a diocese. Now, in Catholicism, Rome is a special diocese, a special Church. The Church of Rome has primacy and supremacy over all of the other Churches in Christiandom. So, the Pope, as Bishop of Rome, is the also the primal and supreme Bishop. Where other bishops have jurisdiction only in their diocese, the Pope has jurisdiction in every diocese all over the world. It's not that he has jurisdiction because the Church headquarters (a term not used in Catholicism) is in Rome. The Church headquarters are in Rome because that is where the Pope is.

If the stake president is the presiding high priest in a stake (I have that right, yes?) and the president is the presiding high priest for the LDS church, then you can have a parallel in Catholicism. Bishops are the presiding priesthood authority in their diocese (like a stake president) and the Pope is the presiding authority for the entire Church.

I'm not an exception (except for posting regularly on an LDS board, ha!). I'm stating the Catholic position.

Oh, c'mon Ahab, don't be so pompous. I'm a knowledgable, educated, faithful Catholic. I know my religion better than you know my religion. I wouldn't presume to know your religion better than you. Please give me similar respect and don't act like the anti-Mormons act by telling me I don't know my own religion. (or if you do, don't complain when anti-Mormons do the same to you).

Well, yes, I did ask you to explain it, because it didn't make much sense to me. Catholics don't claim that "Peter rose through the ranks." Jesus set him apart and told him he would be the prime Apostle.

We can disagree on whether or not the Catholic position is true, but let's at least understand the Catholic position. Take a look at Ran's post. In Catholicism, Bishops are almost identical to the Apostles, except that they are not direct witnesses to Christ's resurrection. However, their authority, their keys (I'm trying to use LDS terms here) are the same as the Apostles. In Catholicism, bishops are the successors to the Apostles. Now, don't use the LDS definition of bishop in that sentence, because the LDS definition of bishop and the Catholic definition are different.

For Catholics, the Pope is not like the LDS presiding bishop. Not at all. Research the characteristics of the Catholic Pope and compare that to the LDS presiding bishop and you will see that there is basically no comparison. The closest parallel is the president of the LDS church.

By the way, there is some controversy over who the second Pope was. It is generally accepted that Clement was not second, but fourth.

Let me know if you still don't understand the Catholic position

Hello bro,

I hope you're not getting upset with me for telling you why I think the Catholic pope is more of an equivalent to the Presiding Bishop of our Church than our President. Maybe it would help you to learn more about his qualifiication, which you can do when you want to.

There's one thing you touched on that I'd like to talk about a little more, pertaining to presiding, and I'd like to use the true church as the example.

In Salt Lake City, Utah, there are several, rather than only one, presiding authorities. For each ward (like a neighborhood) there is a bishop who presides over each ward, and over all of the bishops there is a presiding bishop who presides over all of the bishops in the Church. And then then in each stake (a greater area including several wards), there is a stake president who presides over each stake. And there is also what we call an Area Authority, who presides over the whole area of Salt Lake City (if that city is not divided into multiple areas). And then there are 7 Presidents who preside over each Area Authority, with the most senior President among them presiding over them all. And then next up on the chain of command there is a quorum of 12 apostles who preside over the 7 Presidents of the quorums of Seventies, with the most senior apostle among them presiding over them all. And then there is the First Presidency presiding over the quorum of 12 apostles, with the most senior of the First Presidency presiding over everyone in the Church. And then there is God.

So as you might now imagine, the answer to the question of who presides in Salt Lake City is rather complex. And it's not made any easier by finding out who was ordained and received keys from the presiding President of the whole Church, because they all have. And this is where the Church is headquartered not because this is where the President lives, because he moves around. It's where the headquarters of the true church of Jesus Christ is because it's the place our Lord appointed.

[Ahab]

For those who are interested, you can read the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on Apostles in order to understand how the Catholic idea of Apostle differs from the LDS one. In short, we don't see the Apostolate as continuing after the death of the original Apostles. The Apostles passed their authority to the Bishops, and the Episcopate is what then governs the Church. The Apostles had universal jurisdiction. Bishops do not, except for the Bishop of Rome (the Pope).

Just to clarify, Clement I was not the Bishop of Jerusalem. He was the Bishop of Rome. His act of writing to the Church at Corinth shows that the Bishop of Rome had authority to write to another Church outside of the territorial jurisdiction of Rome. Remember, Corinth would have had its own Bishop. This means that Clement, as Pope, was exercising his universal jurisdiction over the Christian Churches. His letter was fully accepted in Corinth, being read frequently during Mass.

Okay, I may be wrong about the name of the bishop of Jerusalem, but the main idea in my post is still valid.

Jerusalem was the headquarters for the Church during Peter's life, and Rome may not ever have been, even though it was for the Catholic church.

[mfbukowski]

Hello bro,

I hope you're not getting upset with me for telling you why I think the Catholic pope is more of an equivalent to the Presiding Bishop of our Church than our President. Maybe it would help you to learn more about his qualifiication, which you can do when you want to.

There's one thing you touched on that I'd like to talk about a little more, pertaining to presiding, and I'd like to use the true church as the example.

In Salt Lake City, Utah, there are several, rather than only one, presiding authorities. For each ward (like a neighborhood) there is a bishop who presides over each ward, and over all of the bishops there is a presiding bishop who presides over all of the bishops in the Church. And then then in each stake (a greater area including several wards), there is a stake president who presides over each stake. And there is also what we call an Area Authority, who presides over the whole area of Salt Lake City (if that city is not divided into multiple areas). And then there are 7 Presidents who preside over each Area Authority, with the most senior President among them presiding over them all. And then next up on the chain of command there is a quorum of 12 apostles who preside over the 7 Presidents of the quorums of Seventies, with the most senior apostle among them presiding over them all. And then there is the First Presidency presiding over the quorum of 12 apostles, with the most senior of the First Presidency presiding over everyone in the Church. And then there is God.

So as you might now imagine, the answer to the question of who presides in Salt Lake City is rather complex. And it's not made any easier by finding out who was ordained and received keys from the presiding President of the whole Church, because they all have. And this is where the Church is headquartered not because this is where the President lives, because he moves around. It's where the headquarters of the true church of Jesus Christ is because it's the place our Lord appointed.

So all you are saying is "it's complicated".

 

Only to you I think.  If a bishop has a problem he doesn't call the presiding bishop for advice

[Ahab]

So all you are saying is "it's complicated".

Only to you I think. If a bishop has a problem he doesn't call the presiding bishop for advice

It depends on what kind of problem he's having.

Many ward problems are under the jurisdiction of the presiding bishop for the whole church.

[why me]

What about the Orthodox Church (the second largest Christian church after the Catholic Church), who have as much a reasonable claim to having priestly authority from Christ through the Apostles (indeed, the Catholic Church recognizes the priesthood, apostolic succession, and sacraments of the Orthodox Church), and who weren't part of the purported "abuses of power and the corruption in the past"?

I don't think that the orthodox church has a wonderful history either. In fact, no history is ever perfect. The question remains: were the Christian churches to corrupt to have the keys of the priesthood? And to answer this question one must go into history. And the second question is: was the priesthood ready to be restored in the early 19th century?

Edited April 17, 2014 by why me

[MiserereNobis]

I don't think that the orthodox church has a wonderful history either. In fact, no history is ever perfect. The question remains: were the Christian churches to corrupt to have the keys of the priesthood? And to answer this question one must go into history. AAnd the second question is: was the priesthood ready to be restored in the early 19th century?

 

This issue is one reason why I started the thread on priesthood authority and righteousness.

[why me]

This issue is one reason why I started the thread on priesthood authority and righteousness.

I think that it all comes down to whether the priesthood was restored by john the Baptist and the three apostles when they visited joseph and oliver. Was the priesthood so corrupted that it needed to be restored. When one looks at Christian history and religious wars of yesteryear in Europe, and the abuses that were done in the name of Christianity and the power struggles between antipopes and popes, one must question whether the priesthood was withdrawn.

[MiserereNobis]

Hello bro,

I hope you're not getting upset with me for telling you why I think the Catholic pope is more of an equivalent to the Presiding Bishop of our Church than our President.

 

I'm not getting upset.  Like I said before, I'm more amused when you tell me what Catholics believe (especially when you have it wrong)

 

Maybe it would help you to learn more about his qualifiication, which you can do when you want to.

 

Do you mean the qualification of the LDS presiding bishop?  I have read the wikipedia article which says that he must be ordained a bishop and a high priest.

 

There's one thing you touched on that I'd like to talk about a little more, pertaining to presiding, and I'd like to use the true church as the example.

In Salt Lake City, Utah, there are several, rather than only one, presiding authorities. For each ward (like a neighborhood) there is a bishop who presides over each ward, and over all of the bishops there is a presiding bishop who presides over all of the bishops in the Church. And then then in each stake (a greater area including several wards), there is a stake president who presides over each stake. And there is also what we call an Area Authority, who presides over the whole area of Salt Lake City (if that city is not divided into multiple areas). And then there are 7 Presidents who preside over each Area Authority, with the most senior President among them presiding over them all. And then next up on the chain of command there is a quorum of 12 apostles who preside over the 7 Presidents of the quorums of Seventies, with the most senior apostle among them presiding over them all. And then there is the First Presidency presiding over the quorum of 12 apostles, with the most senior of the First Presidency presiding over everyone in the Church. And then there is God.

So as you might now imagine, the answer to the question of who presides in Salt Lake City is rather complex. And it's not made any easier by finding out who was ordained and received keys from the presiding President of the whole Church, because they all have. And this is where the Church is headquartered not because this is where the President lives, because he moves around. It's where the headquarters of the true church of Jesus Christ is because it's the place our Lord appointed.

 

Like Mark said -- it's complicated.  But I still don't understand why you keep saying that the LDS presiding bishop is like the Pope.  I have read what the presiding bishopric does.  That's not what the Pope does.  How, then, are they parallel?  The parallel is clearly to the LDS President.  The LDS President has "general authority," right?  Meaning that wherever he goes he is in charge and he presides.  We Catholics call that universal jurisdiction, which is what the Pope has.  Who is the one person that always presides wherever he is in the LDS church?  It's the president, right?  In Catholicism, the Pope is always in charge wherever he goes.  That's a pretty strong parallel.

 

I think part of your difficulty is that you keep thinking LDS bishops and Catholics bishops are similar because they have same name.  They are not.  I believe, based on my understanding, that an LDS stake president is the parallel to the Catholic bishop.  The LDS stake president decides what goes on his stake, yes?  He calls the bishops, he assigns the wards, etc.  This is what a Catholic bishop does in his diocese.  He incardinates priests, which means that he accepts them into his diocese and gives them the right to minister.  But the authority still remains his.  However, his authority only works within his diocese, just like a stake president's authority only works within his stake.  A stake president cannot go to another stake and call bishops.  Likewise, a Catholic bishop cannot go into another diocese and incardinate priests.  Catholic bishops work under territorial boundaries.

 

The Pope is a Catholic bishop.  He is the Bishop of Rome.  That position itself is what makes him the Pope (there is no additional priesthood office, to use the LDS term, called "Pope").  Whoever is the Bishop of Rome is the Pope.  Because the Diocese of Rome is prime and supreme in Catholicism, the Bishop of Rome is also prime and supreme.  So, not only is he in charge of his own diocese, he is also the head of the entire Church.  Clement I's letter to Corinth was an example of this early in Church history.  The Bishop of Rome wrote to another diocese and told it what to do, showing that he had authority over that diocese, too.

 

Like I said, we can (and obviously do) disagree, but I just want to make sure that you understand the Catholic position.  Unless I'm grossly misunderstanding the role of the LDS presiding bishop, I simply cannot see how he is the equivalent to the Catholic Pope.

[mfbukowski]

It depends on what kind of problem he's having.

Many ward problems are under the jurisdiction of the presiding bishop for the whole church.

Name one that a  bishop would contact him about.

Edited April 17, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

Name one that a bishop would contact him about.

We recently thought about contacting him (or his office) asking what to do about a sister whose allergies prevent her from coming into the chapel building for worship services, thinking there must be something we can do to help her to be able to meet with other saints. Her allergies aren't affected by only the building, meaning the chemicals we use to clean and disinfect it, but also by many hygiene products. We know we can take the sacraments to her home, but we want to be able to meet with us somehow. I haven't checked yet to see if this is covered in the church handbook of instructions.

[Ahab]

I'm not getting upset. Like I said before, I'm more amused when you tell me what Catholics believe (especially when you have it wrong)

Do you mean the qualification of the LDS presiding bishop? I have read the wikipedia article which says that he must be ordained a bishop and a high priest.

Like Mark said -- it's complicated. But I still don't understand why you keep saying that the LDS presiding bishop is like the Pope. I have read what the presiding bishopric does. That's not what the Pope does. How, then, are they parallel? The parallel is clearly to the LDS President. The LDS President has "general authority," right? Meaning that wherever he goes he is in charge and he presides. We Catholics call that universal jurisdiction, which is what the Pope has. Who is the one person that always presides wherever he is in the LDS church? It's the president, right? In Catholicism, the Pope is always in charge wherever he goes. That's a pretty strong parallel.

I think part of your difficulty is that you keep thinking LDS bishops and Catholics bishops are similar because they have same name. They are not. I believe, based on my understanding, that an LDS stake president is the parallel to the Catholic bishop. The LDS stake president decides what goes on his stake, yes? He calls the bishops, he assigns the wards, etc. This is what a Catholic bishop does in his diocese. He incardinates priests, which means that he accepts them into his diocese and gives them the right to minister. But the authority still remains his. However, his authority only works within his diocese, just like a stake president's authority only works within his stake. A stake president cannot go to another stake and call bishops. Likewise, a Catholic bishop cannot go into another diocese and incardinate priests. Catholic bishops work under territorial boundaries.

The Pope is a Catholic bishop. He is the Bishop of Rome. That position itself is what makes him the Pope (there is no additional priesthood office, to use the LDS term, called "Pope"). Whoever is the Bishop of Rome is the Pope. Because the Diocese of Rome is prime and supreme in Catholicism, the Bishop of Rome is also prime and supreme. So, not only is he in charge of his own diocese, he is also the head of the entire Church. Clement I's letter to Corinth was an example of this early in Church history. The Bishop of Rome wrote to another diocese and told it what to do, showing that he had authority over that diocese, too.

Like I said, we can (and obviously do) disagree, but I just want to make sure that you understand the Catholic position. Unless I'm grossly misunderstanding the role of the LDS presiding bishop, I simply cannot see how he is the equivalent to the Catholic Pope.

I think I've explained myself pretty well. My mind goes back to the first century or so when all of the apostles were killed, leaving only some of the bishops who had been ordained by the apostles. Then they thought, what are we going to do now that all of the apostles have been killed, so they decided to make one of their bishops the bishop of all other bishops. He had not been ordained as an apostle, and he could not ordain himself to that office, so he would have still been a bishop. And in the best case scenario that is still all he is now. A bishop that presides over all other bishops. And he's still the head guy over all of your other guys because you don't have anyone in a higher office.

[Calm]

We recently thought about contacting him (or his office) asking what to do about a sister whose allergies prevent her from coming into the chapel building for worship services, thinking there must be something we can do to help her to be able to meet with other saints. Her allergies aren't affected by only the building, meaning the chemicals we use to clean and disinfect it, but also by many hygiene products. We know we can take the sacraments to her home, but we want to be able to meet with us somehow. I haven't checked yet to see if this is covered in the church handbook of instructions.

Not quite meeting, but our ward records sacrament meeting for homebound so that a CD can be sent with the Sacrament (or on its own).

[MiserereNobis]

I think I've explained myself pretty well. My mind goes back to the first century or so when all of the apostles were killed, leaving only some of the bishops who had been ordained by the apostles. Then they thought, what are we going to do now that all of the apostles have been killed, so they decided to make one of their bishops the bishop of all other bishops. He had not been ordained as an apostle, and he could not ordain himself to that office, so he would have still been a bishop. And in the best case scenario that is still all he is now. A bishop that presides over all other bishops. And he's still the head guy over all of your other guys because you don't have anyone in a higher office.

 

Ok, I understand what you are saying now (I think...).  You are not really saying that the Pope is the equivalent of the LDS presiding bishop.  You are saying that during the apostasy, it would make sense (in LDS thinking) for the presiding bishop to claim supremacy since there were no longer Apostles.  So then the bishop of Rome must have been the presiding bishop and took control, which then morphed into the Papacy.

 

I can understand this from the LDS point-of-view.  My argument with you was over the way the Pope functions in the Catholic Church now.  I think you'd agree, that now, today, the Catholic Pope is parallel with the LDS President in the ways that each functions in their respective churches.

[Ahab]

Ok, I understand what you are saying now (I think...). You are not really saying that the Pope is the equivalent of the LDS presiding bishop. You are saying that during the apostasy, it would make sense (in LDS thinking) for the presiding bishop to claim supremacy since there were no longer Apostles. So then the bishop of Rome must have been the presiding bishop and took control, which then morphed into the Papacy.

I can understand this from the LDS point-of-view. My argument with you was over the way the Pope functions in the Catholic Church now. I think you'd agree, that now, today, the Catholic Pope is parallel with the LDS President in the ways that each functions in their respective churches.

Yes, now you understand me, pretty much, although I would compare their "parallel of each other in the way that each functions in their respective churches" to the presiding bishop of our church acting as if he is the pope of your church. Or a bishop acting like he is an apostle.