Is Pope Francis Bringing Christianity Back?

[Tony Frank]

CFR please that the Catholic Church has always proclaimed that the Pope is the "substitute" for Christ.

The Catholic Church proclaims that the Pope is the "Vicar of Christ." It is actually a title given to the Pope. The word "vicar" comes from the Latin word vicarius, meaning "a substitute, deputy, proxy."

 

 

And is it not the LDS Church that teaches to really know the true Jesus one must accept JS as a prophet?

You cannot know Christ if you reject the prophet through whom Christ restored His only true gospel. Those who do not hear the gospel preached in this life will hear it in the spirit world.

 

 

Didn't Brigham Young teach Joseph Smith would judge this dispensation and we would have to pass by him to get into the celestial kingdom?

Joseph Smith stands at the head of this dispensation, but Jesus Christ will judge all men, including all who are worthy of celestial glory.

 

 

How is this different from what you think the Catholic Church teaches about their Pope?

God speaks to man again in these latter days through His prophets. The Catholic Church maintains there is no revelation or prophecy beyond that which is contained in the Bible.

 

 

 

 

[3DOP]

Tony...hey.

The word vicar is not equivalent to the word substitute. That is why we prefer the word vicar. I addressed this above, guessing correctly how you came to make your mistake.

[ChristKnight]

The Catholic Church maintains that there will be no prophecy or revelation beyond what is contained in the Bible.

 

CFR

[Teancum]

No. It really isn't.

Yea it is as are other environmental issues the pope talks about.

[Teancum]

The Catholic Church maintains that there will be no prophecy or revelation beyond what is contained in the Bible.

I am not Cathoilc but I think they do have and believe tha popes have given extra biblical teachings that are authoritive. Perhaps one of our Catholic friends here can comment?

[3DOP]

Yea it is as are other environmental issues the pope talks about.

I admit that I haven't been praying for the environment.

[Tony Frank]

Tony is probably referencing the fact that we often refer to the pope as "vicar of Christ". Substitute is not the best synonym because that can imply that there is an equivalency between the two that is obviously not present. Think of the substitute teacher. We prefer the term vicar because we believe that the pope receives authority from Christ vicariously.

 

An internet definition helps here: 

---http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/vicariously

 

The universal pastor receives gifts and authority second hand from Christ. Think of the substitute teacher again. We are in a good class and wish we had our teacher with us, but for good reasons our teacher cannot be present, so he sends someone with a special message to more effectively represent him personally, and also with the authority to discipline the class just as our regular teacher would if he were there. "Hmmm," we say to ourselves, "maybe we should pay respectful attention?"

 

This does not mean that every pope is automatically faithful to represent Jesus Christ. That is why Miserere Nobis fall under no kind of censure from knowledgable Catholics for mentioning a couple of bad popes in history. Shoot. In Dante's classic, the Divine Comedy, he shows us at least one pope appearing with the cast of the damned in his first volume, The Inferno. (This is not to say that the Church agrees that this pope is in Hell. Dante is literature, not history. Speculation is permissible. It just means that Catholics should know that popes and bishops can go to Hell, and especially those who could lead souls astray.)

 

As Christ's vicar, woe be to him if he should confuse and mislead "the class" with novelties or outright contradictions of previous vicars. If the faithful can perceive this to be the case, as rarely happens, there is no license to vilify the man, but neither are they obliged to follow him.  

 

Rory

 

Your explanation/definition for the "Vicar of Christ" would indicate that Catholics believe Jesus Christ is vicariously in charge of the Catholic Church. I can understand why the RCC would take that position, because the Catholic Church claimed that there will be no revelation or prophecy beyond that which is in the Bible.

[JLHPROF]

Didn't Brigham Young teach Joseph Smith would judge this dispensation and we would have to pass by him to get into the celestial kingdom?

Joseph Smith stands at the head of this dispensation, but Jesus Christ will judge all men, including all who are worthy of celestial glory.

 

 

You might want to double check your doctrine on this one.

Joseph Smith will absolutely judge this dispensation, and yes, Brigham Young and other apostles in his day taught that.

[Yirgacheffe]

They say the meek shall inherit

You know the Book doesn't lie

It's not a question of merit

Or demand and supply

 

(the Gospel plus Catholicism plus Oz )

You received rep points for this and I would like to "get it" too, I see the gospel, guessing the Catholicism but I have nothing on the OZ, please let me in on it.

[3DOP]

Your explanation/definition for the "Vicar of Christ" would indicate that Catholics believe Jesus Christ is vicariously in charge of the Catholic Church. I can understand why the RCC would take that position, because the Catholic Church claimed that there will be no revelation or prophecy beyond that which is in the Bible.

 

Tony, I am sorry if I have been too flippant tonight on this or other threads. Many of us have been here a long time and kind of know each other and...anyway...I see you are in earnest. I respect that.

 

First of all...Catholics deny that all "apostolic revelation" is contained in the Scriptures. You need to include Sacred Tradition as well. But even more importantly, we do not say that there is no further revelation. This can be easily proven, by multiplied prophesies/revelations coming down through the centuries unto this day, some of which have been approved by the Church. The idea that Catholics deny further revelation comes, with all due respect, from what I suggest is a faulty apologetic that early Mormons used. It was based on language that lent itself to an interpretation that Catholics believed that the heavens were closed, and that God had no further words for man after the Apostles had spoken. This is a manifestly untenable interpretation if one would examine the volumes of prophesies that canonized saints and seers have contributed to the Catholic understanding of the times in which they live.

 

We draw a distinction, necessary in my opinion, between public revelation and that which is called private. That which is defined as public, for all, comes from Christ and the Apostles and is a non-negotiable minimum for those who wish to be considered Catholic. The apostolic revelation (public) is adequate and indeed, we must judge any subsequent claims of revelation (private) to see if what is said is compatible with what we received from Christ and the Apostles. But be assured that the most rigid, stringent, and guarded of Catholics like myself, has the liberty, and I would say encouragement, to believe that God has continued to speak through heaven-sent prophets. Traditionally, Catholics are not unaware of the warning of St. Paul: "Despise not prophesying." Catholics can expect God to speak to us in every era, in conformity with the Gospel as expressed in Scripture and Tradition, and I firmly believe that he has, in volumes that would outweigh the Standard Works by...at least fifty or sixty pounds of paper worth...conservatively speaking.  

 

Regards,

 

Rory 

Edited October 25, 2015 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

Can you elaborate please? I would like to understand.

 

hagoth...thanks. I believe you. See my latest post to Tony (#65). I'll be running out of gas tonight pretty soon. But I would be anxious to clarify what I said or answer any further questions in the next couple of days that you might have.

[volgadon]

The Catholic Church maintains that there will be no prophecy or revelation beyond what is contained in the Bible.

If you won't take Rory's word for it, there is an easy way to establish the truth of his claim. Would you agree that St. Thomas Aquinas was a preeminent Catholic thinker, one of the most influential to this day?

[why me]

Your reading of this Pope is at complete variance with reality, and there are Catholics who have stated publicly their return to the faith because of him.  This is a man whose extraordinary concern for the poor in Argentina (where he was an archbishop) is regularly noted.  That may be secular to you, but it is the work of Christ.

 

ETA:  Pope Francis is dedicated to decentralization of his Church -- he wants his bishops and cardinals to run things locally.  Is that a bad thing in your view?

Most popes have shown concern for the poor. But this pope gets very favorable media attention and this helps much. I know that some catholics have returned to the catholic church. But that wasn't my point. My point is: will they now live catholic doctrine? Will they stop living with their partner if they are not married? Will they now stop using birth control? Will they practice chasity? And will they attend mass every sunday? Not to mention other catholic docrine. Also, catholics must also experience conversion. Coming back to church because of pope francis is not the main reason to come back to church.

 

So, are people coming back to the catholic church because of christ or because of pope francis? And if the pope is now decentralizing the church and allowing the bishops to decide policy, what is he neeed for? Celebrity status? Media status? Sound bites? He is the pope and this title does have responsibilities in guiding the church.

 

As you must know, if the lds church would have a pope francis type figure, most exlds on the internet would ask the lds church to put their money where their mouth is: begin to sell assets to help the poor.

Edited October 25, 2015 by why me

[Zakuska]

and that is what Pope Francis is doing. Many Americans don't like that stuff he is saying.

I also like the fact that he saying that climate change is the greatest threat to the poor and weak.

It is a moral issue and should be a bipartisan issue.

PS Many here are extremely tired of that topic, but Christianity should be compassion.

The only reason its a threat to the poor and weak is because of Al Gores looming carbon tax credit pyramid skeem. Edited October 25, 2015 by Zakuska

[thesometimesaint]

Funny, I didn't mention libertarians at all.

I am talking about the principles clearly spelled out in the scriptures such as D&C 121. The fact that the Lord expects us to come to Him voluntarily with a broken heart and a contrite Spirit. Mormon teaching his son that a gift given grudging is like giving no gift at all.

How then can we expect to gain the blessings of given of instead of freely giving others take from us?

 

Even Jesus paid his taxes.

[thesometimesaint]

The only reason its a threat to the poor and weak is because of Al Gores looming carbon tax credit pyramid skeem.

 

The Amerian Enterprize Institute supports a tax on carbon.

[Tony Frank]

You do realize we ordain men to act as a proxy for Christ don't you? What do you think the priesthood is? By whose authority do you think we act?

 

I beg to differ. The priesthood that Jesus Christ restored in these latter days is authority from God to act in His name. The priesthood is actually a conduit for God's power. In no way do we act as "a substitute, deputy, or proxy" for Christ. No one can act as a substitute, deputy, or proxy for Christ.

[Stargazer]

Psalms 82:3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

Mormon 8:39  Why do ye adorn yourselves with that which hath no life, and yet suffer the hungry, and the needy, and the naked, and the sick and the afflicted to pass by you, and notice them not?

D&C 59:20 And it pleaseth God that hath given all these things unto man; for unto this end were they made to be used, with judgment, not to excess, neither by extortion

 

There is a lot of evidence that Global Warming will make the poor suffer. We are causing Global Warming.  

When did Jesus talk about the politics of religious freedom?  

 

As much as I hate getting into these useless global warming discussions (and you and have crossed quarterstaffs over this before), it is a matter of just how much we humans are causing or contributing to it, and then just how much can we affect things so that global warming goes away?

 

Now, I will be CFR'ed for this, but I say in advance that I have looked for the article and have not been able to re-find it.  So don't bother.  But the article appeared in some science magazine (I kept thinking it was Scientific American, but it might have been Discover or some other one), but the article reported on some work a German team had done on the global climate, and according to their conclusions 8,000 years ago the earth had began heading back into the next glaciation, but the increasing human activity had slowed and finally stopped it, resulting in the rise we are seeing.  Now, let me ask you, which would be worse for the poor, ice sheets extending to 45 degrees north latitude with the some sheets 2 miles thick, or increasing heat which drives arable land further north?  The answer is: the former, because we probably couldn't grow enough food for everyone in a glaciation period.

 

Does Pope Francis have revelation saying that global warming is worse than cooling?  I don't even think that President Monson does, either.  It's just a popular theory right about now.

 

Well, it probably doesn't matter in any case.  The way things are going in the Middle East, the Second Coming will arrive before anything resolves itself with respect to climate.

[Calm]

The Catholic Church maintains that there will be no prophecy or revelation beyond what is contained in the Bible.

CFR

Your previous CFR demonstrated how you misunderstand Catholic teaching, perhaps you should use a Catholic source this time.

[Teancum]

Tony, I am sorry if I have been too flippant tonight on this or other threads. Many of us have been here a long time and kind of know each other and...anyway...I see you are in earnest. I respect that.

 

First of all...Catholics deny that all "apostolic revelation" is contained in the Scriptures. You need to include Sacred Tradition as well. But even more importantly, we do not say that there is no further revelation. This can be easily proven, by multiplied prophesies/revelations coming down through the centuries unto this day, some of which have been approved by the Church. The idea that Catholics deny further revelation comes, with all due respect, from what I suggest is a faulty apologetic that early Mormons used. It was based on language that lent itself to an interpretation that Catholics believed that the heavens were closed, and that God had no further words for man after the Apostles had spoken. This is a manifestly untenable interpretation if one would examine the volumes of prophesies that canonized saints and seers have contributed to the Catholic understanding of the times in which they live.

 

We draw a distinction, necessary in my opinion, between public revelation and that which is called private. That which is defined as public, for all, comes from Christ and the Apostles and is a non-negotiable minimum for those who wish to be considered Catholic. The apostolic revelation (public) is adequate and indeed, we must judge any subsequent claims of revelation (private) to see if what is said is compatible with what we received from Christ and the Apostles. But be assured that the most rigid, stringent, and guarded of Catholics like myself, has the liberty, and I would say encouragement, to believe that God has continued to speak through heaven-sent prophets. Traditionally, Catholics are not unaware of the warning of St. Paul: "Despise not prophesying." Catholics can expect God to speak to us in every era, in conformity with the Gospel as expressed in Scripture and Tradition, and I firmly believe that he has, in volumes that would outweigh the Standard Works by...at least fifty or sixty pounds of paper worth...conservatively speaking.  

 

Regards,

 

Rory

Thank you for your explanation. This is what I thought though I could not explain it. So often I find LDS, like othe people of other faiths, get th beliefs of the religion they are not part of wrong. LDS don't like this so we should not do it to others.

[Teancum]

I beg to differ. The priesthood that Jesus Christ restored in these latter days is authority from God to act in His name. The priesthood is actually a conduit for God's power. In no way do we act as "a substitute, deputy, or proxy" for Christ. No one can act as a substitute, deputy, or proxy for Christ.

Yet Mormons Joseph Smith judges us and we pass by him to get in the CK. And LDS scripture teaches that, speaking of JS and I assume his successors, that this generation had God's word through them.

I don't see much difference.

[Calm]

Pope Frank, isn't that a lot like Tommy Monson?

Val has referred to the Pope as Pope Francis elsewhere so perhaps it was an autocorrect of a typo.

I don't think Val intends to be disrespectful to the Pope; now Pres. Monson...Val's not LDS.

[jwhitlock]

CFR

Your previous CFR demonstrated how you misunderstand Catholic teaching, perhaps you should use a Catholic source this time.

 

In the Wikipedia article "Continuous Revelation", there is the following quote under the Catholic Church's view on the subject:

 

"Vatican II states “no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord, Jesus Christ.” The notion of progressive or continuing revelation is not held by the Roman Catholic Church or by Eastern Orthodoxy, who instead favor the idea of tradition and development of doctrine, while progressivist and continuationist approaches are specifically condemned in the declaration Dominus Iesus."

 

Both of those should be verifiable in the Vatican II and Dominus Iesus documents.

 

In addition, further clarification is given in the Catechism of the Catholic Church at http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a1.htm

 

There will be no further Revelation

66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."²⁸ Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations".

 

The Catechism at the Vatican link is quite interesting to read as it gives the history of God revealing himself to man, culminating in the birth of Jesus Christ, if I understand it correctly. After that, the revelation was complete.

 

From other links I was reading, there seems to be some difference of opinion among Catholics when it comes to continuing revelation. However, I would assume that the Catechism should be taken as authoritative.

 

I would be interested in hearing Rory and the other Catholics give their views on the above. Reading the Catholic theologians can be difficult for non-Catholics because of the heavy philosophical influence used in their methodology. Just like the Jews understood their own teachings best because of their background, Catholics who have been schooled in the traditions of the church will be better qualified to explain their theology on revelation in lay terms, so to speak.

Edited October 25, 2015 by jwhitlock

[TheSkepticChristian]

As much as I hate getting into these useless global warming discussions (and you and have crossed quarterstaffs over this before), it is a matter of just how much we humans are causing or contributing to it, and then just how much can we affect things so that global warming goes away?

 

Now, I will be CFR'ed for this, but I say in advance that I have looked for the article and have not been able to re-find it.  So don't bother.  But the article appeared in some science magazine (I kept thinking it was Scientific American, but it might have been Discover or some other one), but the article reported on some work a German team had done on the global climate, and according to their conclusions 8,000 years ago the earth had began heading back into the next glaciation, but the increasing human activity had slowed and finally stopped it, resulting in the rise we are seeing.  Now, let me ask you, which would be worse for the poor, ice sheets extending to 45 degrees north latitude with the some sheets 2 miles thick, or increasing heat which drives arable land further north?  The answer is: the former, because we probably couldn't grow enough food for everyone in a glaciation period.

 

Does Pope Francis have revelation saying that global warming is worse than cooling?  I don't even think that President Monson does, either.  It's just a popular theory right about now.

 

We won't have another ice age in the next decade. If it is true that our planet was heading back into the next glaciation, it probably was a very slow process. The problem with the warming is that it is really fast. Humanity has never experienced a global warming this fast.   1 degree of warming in just one century is super fast. If you understand evolutionary biology, you will understand that a rapid global climate change will not be good for many animals and plants. 

 

http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/gattuso150703.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22066018

Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v471/n7336/full/nature09678.html

 

The Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Underway

Edited October 25, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[saemo]

In the Wikipedia article "Continuous Revelation", there is the following quote under the Catholic Church's view on the subject:

"Vatican II states “no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord, Jesus Christ.” The notion of progressive or continuing revelation is not held by the Roman Catholic Church or by Eastern Orthodoxy, who instead favor the idea of tradition and development of doctrine, while progressivist and continuationist approaches are specifically condemned in the declaration Dominus Iesus."

Both of those should be verifiable in the Vatican II and Dominus Iesus documents.

In addition, further clarification is given in the Catechism of the Catholic Church at http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a1.htm

There will be no further Revelation

66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."²⁸ Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations".

The Catechism at the Vatican link is quite interesting to read as it gives the history of God revealing himself to man, culminating in the birth of Jesus Christ, if I understand it correctly. After that, the revelation was complete.

From other links I was reading, there seems to be some difference of opinion among Catholics when it comes to continuing revelation. However, I would assume that the Catechism should be taken as authoritative.

I would be interested in hearing Rory and the other Catholics give their views on the above. Reading the Catholic theologians can be difficult for non-Catholics because of the heavy philosophical influence used in their methodology. Just like the Jews understood their own teachings best because of their background, Catholics who have been schooled in the traditions of the church will be better qualified to explain their theology on revelation in lay terms, so to speak.

Looks to me like you did a good job, showing how "The Catholic Church maintains that there will be no prophecy or revelation beyond what is contained in the Bible.", is incorrect.

Eta, holy big font batman... Not my fault!

Edited October 25, 2015 by saemo