Is the Pope more Mormon than our current leaders?

[thesometimesaint]

On 10/13/2017 at 7:45 AM, hope_for_things said:

Extremely short list in the post JS era, and official declarations are kind of like scripture light. Family proclamation isn't canon, and I'm not sure what you mean by temples added, there isn't anything in the canon about temples.  I stand by my earlier statement that Mormon canon is essentially closed post Joseph Smith.  

Exactly what someone setting up any organization would expect. First a flurry of documents then a trickle. But we have an open canon that is subject to addition. We don't have to keep reinventing the wheel.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Exactly what someone setting up any organization would expect. First a flurry of documents then a trickle. But we have an open canon that is subject to addition. We don't have to keep reinventing the wheel.

Are you applying this analogy to other organizations or just religious institutions?  Businesses must keep innovating in a highly competitive economy or they wither and die.  

The Mormon church is innovating, but some would argue too slowly.  However this phenomena of not adding to the canon is perplexing to many especially since the founding doctrines of the faith espouse this idea of modern revelation as a key tenant and yet there is arguably little to no revelation occurring.  

[Stargazer]

9 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Incidentally, His Holiness has cited, with approval, a little Mormon document called "The Family: A Proclamation to the World."

 

If you have the reference to that, I'd love to see it. A quick Bing search did not prove fruitful for me.

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

If you have the reference to that, I'd love to see it. A quick Bing search did not prove fruitful for me.

Did you check Wikipedia?

Quote

The Proclamation has also been influential among leaders of other religious traditions. For example, in 2014 the Vatican's Humanum: An International Interreligious Colloquium on the Complimentarity of Man and Woman featured several world leaders including Pope Francis and Muslim theologian Dr. Rasoul Rasoulipour quoting from or citing its basic teachings.^[6][7][8]

 

[mnn727]

On 10/12/2017 at 5:18 PM, hope_for_things said:

I'm a big fan of Pope Francis, and it seems like he keeps making statements and implementing policies that are so important and prophetic for our time.  I really think he's an inspired leader,

The Pope is leading the way in our troubled world.  Thoughts?  

We have totally opposite views on the pope, to me he's a socialist and activist pope, more interested in being popular with the people than in giving them Gods word.

 

[mnn727]

On 10/12/2017 at 6:00 PM, hope_for_things said:

The Pope is changing the game and going against old Catholic dogma.  

Exactly, a man is changing the game - God is not. If you want a man made religion by all means that's no doubt what you want, as long as the man does things you like. The another man takes over and leads it in a different direction and your tossed to and fro on the winds of changing doctrine

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, mnn727 said:

Exactly, a man is changing the game - God is not. If you want a man made religion by all means that's no doubt what you want, as long as the man does things you like. The another man takes over and leads it in a different direction and your tossed to and fro on the winds of changing doctrine

The entire enterprise of your Christian faith tradition involves following men who've changed the direction of religion, whether its Martin Luther or Joseph Smith or Pope Francis.  You think one of these men was inspired by God and the others weren't, but that doesn't mean that men aren't changing the course of religion.  There is no objective measurable difference between the man made religions that you are casting criticism towards and the man made religion of Mormonism, its all just a matter of faith.  

 

[Stargazer]

On 10/15/2017 at 1:02 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Did you check Wikipedia?

 

Thanks!

I make large use of Wikipedia, but for Church-related matters it is not usually my first go-to source. The reason for this is that there are a fair number of anti-Mormons who make an apparent hobby out of doing as much as they can to keep any favorable references to the Church out of Wikipedia, and unfavorable ones as prevalent as possible. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Thanks!

I make large use of Wikipedia, but for Church-related matters it is not usually my first go-to source. The reason for this is that there are a fair number of anti-Mormons who make an apparent hobby out of doing as much as they can to keep any favorable references to the Church out of Wikipedia, and unfavorable ones as prevalent as possible. 

Yes, Roger Nicholson, a FairMormon volunteer who posts on this board occasionally as Wiki Wonka, has made something of an avocation out of policing Wikipeida content in Mormon-related entries. He has spoken on that at one of the FairMormon conferences.

 

[Teancum]

On 10/14/2017 at 2:21 PM, thesometimesaint said:

Apostle Ballard talked about the three great evils in our world today. Racism, Sexism, and Nationalism.

I missed that talk but heard about it. Good for him!  One talk out of dozens is wonderful progress. 

[Teancum]

On 10/15/2017 at 6:09 AM, kiwi57 said:

Incidentally, His Holiness has cited, with approval, a little Mormon document called "The Family: A Proclamation to the World."

 

Yes and so?   Do you have a reference for this?

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Yes and so?   Do you have a reference for this?

And so part of Pope Francis's leadership is to embrace principles that are at odds with current trends.

From http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/11/17/pope-francis-hammers-home-message-of-man-woman-marriage/

Quote

Therefore, the Pope said, “children have the right to grow up in a family with a father and a mother, able to create a suitable environment for their development and their emotional maturity.”

 

[nuclearfuels]

On 10/12/2017 at 6:23 PM, JLHPROF said:

No.  You are comparing apples and oranges.

Allowing doctrine to develop is the work of man.
Continuing revelation is the work of God.

People seem not to be able to grasp the difference between a body of truth that has been revealed and hidden and restored again and again VERSUS changes made to that body of truth.

That is how scriptures about God not changing and law being eternal do not conflict with truths like AoF 9.
People are expecting God to reveal things outside of the fixed body of truth for this earth.  It's not going to happen, even if some day we may claim it did.

Objectively, JLHPROF's response is correct.

[thesometimesaint]

On 10/15/2017 at 11:23 AM, hope_for_things said:

Are you applying this analogy to other organizations or just religious institutions?  Businesses must keep innovating in a highly competitive economy or they wither and die.  

The Mormon church is innovating, but some would argue too slowly.  However this phenomena of not adding to the canon is perplexing to many especially since the founding doctrines of the faith espouse this idea of modern revelation as a key tenant and yet there is arguably little to no revelation occurring.  

There is some similarities, but marked differences as well.  If we don't change with the times we run the risk of being irrelevant in today's world. If we change too much we run the risk of disbelieving our own doctrine, or becoming like the Unitarian Universalists. A church of 6 members has far different needs than a church of some 15 million. We are out to convert the world, not have the world convert us.

Modern revelation is not limited to just what is in our canon. IE; The early Church probably knew nothing of the Internet, but modern revelations have us use it, but be wary of its misuse at the same time.

[cinepro]

On 10/12/2017 at 3:53 PM, Jane_Doe said:

Catholic doctrine declares the Heavens to be closed and scripture cannot be added to by even God.   

The first part isn't true.  

And the second part is only true not because God won't or can't, but because He doesn't need to.

[hope_for_things]

23 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

There is some similarities, but marked differences as well.  If we don't change with the times we run the risk of being irrelevant in today's world. If we change too much we run the risk of disbelieving our own doctrine, or becoming like the Unitarian Universalists. A church of 6 members has far different needs than a church of some 15 million. We are out to convert the world, not have the world convert us.

Modern revelation is not limited to just what is in our canon. IE; The early Church probably knew nothing of the Internet, but modern revelations have us use it, but be wary of its misuse at the same time.

I would agree there has to be a balance of innovation and maintenance of tradition, i think the pendulum has way to far in the one direction.  

As for modern revelation I just don’t see it, if you think temple locations and missionary age changes are revelation on par with canonized scripture then I disagree.  There is something about scriptural innovation that has largely been lost and I think this is an unfortunate thing.  

[thesometimesaint]

21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I would agree there has to be a balance of innovation and maintenance of tradition, i think the pendulum has way to far in the one direction.  

As for modern revelation I just don’t see it, if you think temple locations and missionary age changes are revelation on par with canonized scripture then I disagree.  There is something about scriptural innovation that has largely been lost and I think this is an unfortunate thing.  

The Catholics ran into the same problem. They had the canon, but contemporary events made it not amenable to them. So they began to include traditions as part of their doctrine, and gave Popes the right to clarify canon and tradition. I don't believe we have gone too far, but can see the need for more revelation. I'd like to see the proclamation on the family become revelation, with more explanation of our Mother God's role. Maybe the next General Conference .

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

The Catholics ran into the same problem. They had the canon, but contemporary events made it not amenable to them. So they began to include traditions as part of their doctrine, and gave Popes the right to clarify canon and tradition. I don't believe we have gone too far, but can see the need for more revelation. I'd like to see the proclamation on the family become revelation, with more explanation of our Mother God's role. Maybe the next General Conference .

The problem with just general conference talks and not adding to the canon is those talks are short lived and the perspectives of the leaders articulating concepts will come and go.  Scripture has a high status in Mormonism and that would be the best way to have real change.  

[MiserereNobis]

The topic of revelation in the LDS church and the Catholic Church is one that interests me. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding, probably on both sides. I see the "heavens are closed" straw man used quite frequently (as Jane_Doe did). Cinepro linked to an excellent refutation of that and I would like to quote some relevant parts:

Quote

 

But do traditional Christians really believe, as LDS leaders state or imply, that God is silent, that He no longer speaks to His children, and that the Heavens are closed?  Speaking on Catholicism, the answer is clearly no.  I can happily share with you that the Catholic Church teaches, and embraces, the belief that God still does speak to us, that the Catholic Church, since it was established by Christ 2000 years ago, as recorded in the New Testament, is guided by the Holy Spirit (and the Holy Spirit protects the Church from falling into error, from failing, from becoming apostate, etc, since the Church is the Body of Christ, with Jesus Christ at its Head), that prophets and prophetesses throughout Catholic history have received messages from Heavenly messengers (angels, Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, etc) that millions have accepted, that the Councils of the Church throughout its history have been inspired gatherings of the leaders of the Church, where, through human failings, dogmas have been formally defined and expounded upon, free from error through the Holy Spirit, and that all members of the Church, by virtue of their baptism, participate in Christ’s role as Prophet, Priest, and King, and can receive Heavenly guidance and inspiration for their lives (not only from God, but from His angels and the saints in Heaven).

But doesn’t the Catholic Church teach that public revelation ended with the New Testament apostles?  Yes it does!  But doesn’t that contradict what I just said in the paragraph above?  No it doesn’t!  Here is where many LDS that dialogue with Catholics get confused, and where many attempt to create a non-existent problem for Catholics.  “Public revelation”, in simple terms, refers to the knowledge that God revealed to man that is necessary for eternal life.  This revelation found its summit and fulness in the Incarnation, ministry, Atonement, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, since it is only through Him that we can be saved.  Catholics therefore believe that all that we need to know about how to receive eternal life has already been revealed, and there is nothing else that needs to be known about that.  This revelation is contained in Sacred Scripture (yes, the Catholic Church has closed the scriptural canon, i.e. the Bible, however that does not mean that it has closed God’s mouth, as we will see), as well as Sacred Tradition (noting that Catholics are not sola scriptura).  Although it has been revealed anciently, the Church, through the Holy Spirit-guided teaching authority, or “Magisterium” (Latin for “office of teaching”), basically the Pope and the other Bishops, functioning as successors to the Apostles, with the same authority as the New Testament Apostles, comes to a Divinely-inspired unfolding  understanding of that sacred Deposit of Faith.

Further, the Catholic Church also accepts so-called “private revelations”.  “Private” here does not mean that such revelations are kept to oneself.  These are technical phrases, and this one means that it is not required to be believed by everyone everywhere.  What is required to be believed is what is contained in “public revelation”, since that is the knowledge revealed by God that tells us how to be saved (and with Christ’s Incarnation, we see who saves us).  Private revelations can be Divine guidance for my personal life, or it could be more extravagant messages from Heaven, such as the various apparitions and visions surrounding Mary throughout Catholic history.  Although millions may be believe in certain private revelations, such as those at Lourdes, Fatima, or Guadalupe (to use the Marian examples), and many people may indeed be witness to the same revelation, such as at Fatima, we are not required to believe them.  When the Church evaluates such revelations, their declaration is only that they contain nothing contrary to faith and morals, and that they are worthy of belief, though they are not essential to our salvation.

 

I'd say current LDS prophets and Popes act in very similar manners. Neither says "Thus saith the Lord." Both release documents clarifying doctrine. Both change practices. Both have canonized declarations (the lifting of the priesthood ban was the last one for the LDS church, right? Pope Pius XII infallibly declared the Assumption of Mary as dogma in 1950).

In other words, I don't see practical or external evidence of the claim that the LDS prophet receives revelation in some sort of different way than the Pope. Joseph Smith, sure, with all those "thus saith the Lord" -- that's definitely different. But, for example,  the family proclamation would be just like an encyclical from the Pope. In other words, I don't see the LDS claim that there is some sort of exceptionality to what the LDS prophet does. Now, if you are talking to a protestant, then sure, the LDS prophet does do something exceptional that protestants don't do/have. But again, I see no exceptionality when comparing to Catholicism. So, if a Mormon says to me "we are led by a living prophet" I can say "so are we"  Then the argument becomes about who has God's authority, but not about who does something that the other one doesn't.

I've also pointed out on here before if want to talk about heavenly visitations, the Catholic Church has got you beat by a LONG shot. We're always having Jesus and Mary and Saints and angels visiting people and giving messages and prophecies. Mormons talk about heavenly visitors but then you never really hear of a specific event.

Edited November 5, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[MiserereNobis]

On 10/12/2017 at 9:04 PM, TOmNossor said:

Unless he has even more wild and non-Catholic ideas, he believes in "private revelation."  Individuals can receive revelation for there life and inspiration for things they do.  But church leaders including the Pope do not receive revelation to be delived to the entire body of the church.  That ended in the first century (though I can find no ECF who speak of this ending until the early 3rd century).

Charity, TOm

Please read cinepro's link and my post. Your understanding of "revelation" in the Catholic Church is incorrect.

[MiserereNobis]

On 10/12/2017 at 10:16 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

I was under the impression (perhaps Rory can correct me) that the Pope speaking ex cathedra on morals and doctrine is infallible.  As the Vicar (deputy) of Christ, he has the authority to speak on Christ's behalf.  This in addition to the broad acceptance of revelation to ordinary church members, whose visions and messages from Mother Mary are regarded as sacrosanct -- and often result in Sainthood for those on the receiving end.

The LDS Proclamation on the Family as inspired would seem quite normal in a Roman Catholic context, since the Pope issues such declarations himself from time to time.

Exactly right on all points.

"Private revelation" does not mean that I have to keep it to myself. For example, Marian apparitions are considered private revelation, but they often contain messages for the entire world. Three children in Portugal were visited by the Blessed Virgin and through them She gave instruction and prophecy to the the whole world.

[3DOP]

On 10/12/2017 at 9:16 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

I was under the impression (perhaps Rory can correct me) that the Pope speaking ex cathedra on morals and doctrine is infallible.  As the Vicar (deputy) of Christ, he has the authority to speak on Christ's behalf.  This in addition to the broad acceptance of revelation to ordinary church members, whose visions and messages from Mother Mary are regarded as sacrosanct -- and often result in Sainthood for those on the receiving end.

The LDS Proclamation on the Family as inspired would seem quite normal in a Roman Catholic context, since the Pope issues such declarations himself from time to time.

Hey all...You know me. The occasional opportunity to talk popery is what keeps me peeking in here. Unfortunately, I was on vacation when this action started and missed it until now. So...no correction. Maybe a clarification is needed. I do not think it is easy to know when the pope is speaking ex cathedra (from the chair). Tom brings up John Paul II as a possible example of ex cathedra, when he denied that the pope has authority to ordain females. He used very strong language. I tend to agree with Tom. But the point is, others don't.

A famous English convert, John Henry Newman eventually became a cardinal who attended the First Vatican Council where papal infallibility was proclaimed and to some extent defined. He was against the proclamation though he said he believed ti to be true. I think he foresaw all of the confusion that has harmed both Catholics and non-Catholics because the proposition that the pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra on faith and morals has been grossly misunderstood. One good that should come out of this pontificate might be for conservative Catholics to realize that the Church has always taught that the pope can teach error (unless it is ex cathedra).

 

[3DOP]

1 minute ago, MiserereNobis said:

Exactly right on all points.

"Private revelation" does not mean that I have to keep it to myself. For example, Marian apparitions are considered private revelation, but they often contain messages for the entire world. Three children in Portugal were visited by the Blessed Virgin and through them She gave instruction and prophecy to the the whole world.

That's funny Miserere, I saw you way further down on page 5 or 6 and I didn't have time to review more, but I wanted to speak to what Robert said back on Oct. 12 too. I had no idea you had just quoted him. Maybe I can look at the rest of the thread later. Its always good to see you here.

Rory

[MiserereNobis]

On 10/12/2017 at 11:39 PM, TOmNossor said:

but I have remained quite convinced that the Catholic teaching (since the early 3^rd century, but not before) is that public revelation has ceased

The problem is that Mormons and Catholics use revelation in different ways. Same words, different meanings. You're applying your Mormon understanding of the word to a Catholic sentence.

Public revelation means that which is necessary for salvation. All of that was given when Christ revealed Himself. The Deposit of Faith (what we call it) is full and complete and there will be nothing more added to it. HOWEVER, just because it is complete does not mean we understand it explicitly. It is the role of the magisterium (the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him) to expound and clarify. Hence all the ecumenical councils and Papal proclamations. As time progresses, we understand more and more, but nothing new is given. For example, the Assumption of Mary (the last infallible papal proclamation) was a truth and doctrine from the time She ascended into heaven. But it wasn't until Pope Pius XII infallibly proclaimed it ex cathedra in 1950 that it was fully understood and become dogma. The Holy Spirit leads, guides, directs, and protects the Church and the Magisterium.

If the Catholic Church believed as you seem to think we do, all of our ecumenical councils and Papal proclamations wouldn't make any sense....

Edited November 5, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[3DOP]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

The topic of revelation in the LDS church and the Catholic Church is one that interests me. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding, probably on both sides. I see the "heavens are closed" straw man used quite frequently (as Jane_Doe did). Cinepro linked to an excellent refutation of that and I would like to quote some relevant parts:

I'd say current LDS prophets and Popes act in very similar manners. Neither says "Thus saith the Lord." Both release documents clarifying doctrine. Both change practices. Both have canonized declarations (the lifting of the priesthood ban was the last one for the LDS church, right? Pope Pius XII infallibly declared the Assumption of Mary as dogma in 1950).

In other words, I don't see practical or external evidence of the claim that the LDS prophet receives revelation in some sort of different way than the Pope. Joseph Smith, sure, with all those "thus saith the Lord" -- that's definitely different. But, for example,  the family proclamation would be just like an encyclical from the Pope. In other words, I don't see the LDS claim that there is some sort of exceptionality to what the LDS prophet does. Now, if you are talking to a protestant, then sure, the LDS prophet does do something exceptional that protestants don't do/have. But again, I see no exceptionality when comparing to Catholicism. So, if a Mormon says to me "we are lead by a living prophet" I can say "so are we"  Then the argument becomes about who has God's authority, but not about who does something that the other one doesn't.

I've also pointed out on here before if want to talk about heavenly visitations, the Catholic Church has got you beat by a LONG shot. We're always having Jesus and Mary and Saints and angels visiting people and giving messages and prophecies. Mormons talk about heavenly visitors but then you never really hear of a specific event.

"Then the argument becomes about who has God's authority, but not about who does something that the other one doesn't."

Thank you.

Our heavens are closed? Who could think so on the 100th Anniversary of the Message of our Lady of Fatima? Our Lady prophesied through little children, exactly what is happening during the current papacy. All we have to do is listen and obey. I don't always do so good when it comes to penance. I don't always fail either,  just usually. I pray my Rosary fairly faithfully. I have done the First Five Saturdays. But I hate my job. Well, nothing wrong with that...offer it up. The saints love to suffer. I don't. I gripe and lose many opportunities. Tomorrow is the 22nd Sunday after Pentecost. When they read the epistle, remember that our dear Apostle was in chains...that brought him joy: "...the envy and treachery of false brethren intensify his sufferings; still, joy predominates in his heart over everything else, because he has attained that perfection of love, wherein divine charity is enkindled by suffering more even than by the sweetest spiritual caresses." (Dom Prosper Gueranger, The Liturgical Year, Vol. 11,  p.457, St. Bonaventure Publications, 2000)

Until now,  the consolations of Sunday just don't seem to carry me through the contradictions that seem to last through Friday. My fault, I know. Not enough prayer. Yes. I am thankful for the grace to see what I need. I can't give up. I still have faith and hope. "There hath no temptation taken you, etc..." Sister Lucia explained that if we merely do "the simple and honest accomplishments of our daily tasks", we fulfill our part in obedience. I can't complaint about popes failing to consecrate Russia when I have trouble doing what falls to me. God bless Pope Francis, God bless you Jesse, God bless our Mormon friends, and say a prayer for me Jesse. Because when enough of us do what our Lady asked, her Immaculate Heart will triumph, there will be peace in the world and in the hearts of souls, and those who read these words will be unable to resist the goodness and beauty and truth of the one Catholic faith. Next week, I'll do better. I think you'll pray for me as I pray for you, and it will help to advance the kingdom of God a little.

Rory

PS: Do you know much about St. Maximilian Kolbe and the Knights of the Immaculata? As I was finishing the preceding paragraph I received a phone call from an acquaintance whose pastor is avidly promoting this simple devotion which seems like a mirror to the message of Fatima to tell me how I can learn some more about it. I had heard his pastor, Fr. Stafke at the Angelus Conference in Kansas City, speaking on this subject on the weekend of Oct. 13. (This thread started Oct. 12, which is why I missed it) Fr. Stafke said that to his knowledge, St. Maximilian never even heard of Fatima. Anyway, FWIW. (for what it is worth).

We can't lose Jesse. Its like Holy Week in the 21st Century. It feels like Good Friday in the world. Its bleak. But Sunday is coming.  

PPS: Wait a minute. FWIW? For what is worth? For what it worth? I had never used those whatever you call them abbreviations. I think they started that in the Roosevelt administration, with which I  do not wish to be associated. I intend to refrain from the abbreviation temptation in future. Surely others before me have noted that "For what it is worth", would be "FWIIW"? Anyway..."FWIIW" is what I meant to say.   

Edited November 5, 2017 by 3DOP