Is the Pope more Mormon than our current leaders?

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, 3DOP said:

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. 

Thank you, Rory, for your thoughts. This is a wonderful one. It is a great reminder that the sacraments and the liturgical calendar and indeed the entire history of God's dealings with the world are not meant to be seen in just a historical light, but are meant to be understood as applicable to what is happening to us right here and right now.

Every day and every moment God descends to us and dies for us and every day and every moment He is resurrected and lifts us up to Him again.

And thank you again, LDS friends, for letting two Catholics share a Catholic moment on your board  

[Calm]

Thank you for being willing to share it.

[thesometimesaint]

11 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

True, but we have to have good reason to add to the canon. GC talks are for what God wants of us right now. A church of 6 members in 1830 has far different needs than one of 15 million members in 2017.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

True, but we have to have good reason to add to the canon. GC talks are for what God wants of us right now. A church of 6 members in 1830 has far different needs than one of 15 million members in 2017.

This perspective would seem to speak to policy and administration.  Things of a doctrinal nature are true no matter 6 or 15 million.  Truth isn't changed by number of members.

And truths revealed by revelation from God are the very definition of things that should be considered for addition to canon.

[TOmNossor]

14 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

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

MiserereNobis,

I will offer what I believe to be true on this and then read what your thoughts are.  I am away from home at the moment so I cannot pull Patrick Madrid's book, Pope Fiction, but we will see if I can get it done.

First, I think it is a very "Catholic in dialogue with Mormons" idea that "Public Revelation" merely means that revelation delieved in the 1st century for the salvation of mankind.  This is not IMO correct.  PUBLIC means revelation to the children of God, the church, the world as a whole.   It is true the "Private Revelation" is not necessarily (maybe not even often) to be kept PRIVATE.  Instead, private revelation is revelation that is not binding upon the faithful.  It is revelation that does not address questions for the ENTIRE body of the church.  It is typically wonderful spiritual experiences that become objects of devotion for Catholics, but it is not Public Revelation.

Second, Patrick Madrid is very clear, the only Pope who was inspired and received revelation was Peter (I will not deal with the idea the Peter was Pope/Bishop of Rome for the purposes of this post).  Madrid goes on to say that other Popes must determine truth "the old fashion way" they learn it.  I might be able to find the exact quote in a bit.

Next, Vatican I when defining Papal Infallibilty makes it very clear that there is nothing new or revelatory.  It is 100% the determining and defending of the truth once delivered (and as Patrick Madrid explains it is through study and learning not revelation).

Finally, it is true the the Catholic Church teaches that it is guarded from error by the Holy Spirit.  I have NEVER seen anyone, except in dialague with Mormons, suggest this is revelation.  Catholics are constantly assure Protestants that they do not believe in revelation.  I will need to see how these can be reconciled before I can believe this is more than former mormons or eccumenical Catholics offering what they wish was the case (that should be worded better, I do not mean it disrespectfully, but that is what is in my head).  The closest explanation I can offer for the protection from error in Catholicism is that it is 100% negative protection.  If a Pope (or council, but perhaps councils are not protected by infallibility????????? ???????? ??????  this is a HUGE question for me) desires to define something infallibility that is in error he will be precluded from doing so in some way.  He will not recieve postive revelation as to what the truth is, he will only be prevented from promulgating error.

 

In the late 2nd early 3rd century Tertullian a brilliant early Christian apologist believe that revelation continued.  I do not endorse his purported revelation, but in response to him "the chruch" made it clear that revelation had ceased and there would be no new revelation.  They were not trying to shut down "private revelation," but they were declaring that there was no new "public revelation."  Not to the Pope, not to the Bishop, not to anyone.  The CoJCoLDS had a similar problem, but the CoJCoLDS's solution (God's solution IMO) was that revelation for the entire body of the church would come through God's approved leaders (Prophet, Co12, General Authorities) not through just anyone.  Revelation could be received by anyone and like the Primary Program perhaps it might even be public revelation, but God would reveal such to His church leaders.

 

Lastly, what about the subject of this thread?  Pope Francis does not lead the church almost 20 years of Catholic Answers (the San Deigo Apostolate) taught me was Catholicism.  Either Pope Francis doesn't know what Catholicism is or Catholic Answer doesn't.

Charity, TOm

[TOmNossor]

From Apologist Patrick Madrid (Pope Fiction p. 140):

Quote

The only pope who was inspired and who received revelation from God to be given to the whole Church was Simon Peter. After he went home to his heavenly reward, all the subsequent popes have had to do their job of teaching and preserving the deposit of faith the old fashion way: They learned it.

 

[Jane_Doe]

17 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

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....

Hi @MiserereNobis, and thank you for your excellent explanations of Catholic beliefs.  You mentioned how you don't see a difference between Catholic and LDS beliefs.  Let me highlight two big ones (as I'm seeing it, if I'm off-base I welcome learning more)--

1) "As time progresses, we understand more and more, but nothing new is given"  in Catholic beliefs.  LDS new can be given.   Not just clarification on existing thoughts, but new new information.

2) "Public revelation means that which is necessary for salvation"  in Catholic beliefs.  LDS have no such class system.  Revelation is revelation, Truth is Truth.  Yes, obviously some Truths are more important than others, but today's revelations are not relegated to be one type or another.

Edited November 5, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[TOmNossor]

 

 

Rory and MiserereNobis

About 2 years ago I wrote here:

 

Quote

My recent foray into this question has focused upon Corporate Revelation as the means to lead God’s church.  God lead his church by corporate (public) revelation in the Old Testament, in the New Testament, and in the Restoration Testament.  But not in the Catholic Church for the last 1800+ years.  I need to be properly calibrated on this claim so perhaps you can explain to me what I am missing.  Tertullian claimed that revelation was to continue.  It seems that in response to the purported revelation Tertullian embraced (not what I would call true and valid revelation from my limited understanding, but illustrative of the expectation that revelation would continue in the true church), the church moved toward and ultimately made it perfectly clear that there was to be no more public revelation.  It had ended.  A church without revelation is not God’s church, it too ended and needed to be restored.  The solution to the problem of Montanism was a much bigger problem and the Catholic Church refused to recover.  (The solution to Black Pete combined with the general racist predilections of Brigham Young was the priesthood ban, but with revelation, this non-revelation born mistake was corrected).  When your mistake is the idea that revelation is NEVER to be had again until Christ walks the earth as King, you build a wall between your church and God.  God can touch the members and leaders with “personal revelation,” but a divine church lead by revelation is absent and must be restored.

 

 

I looked for another use of the term "corporate revelation" because IMO this is the CORRECT understanding of "public revelation" not the "inside baseball" definition offered ONLY in dialogue with Mormons and I found this from 2006:

http://www.defensorveritatis.net/?p=176

 

Quote

However, given the NT qualifications for an apostle in the ‘full’ sense (see Acts 1:21-22), the ‘pool’ from which an apostle could be drawn from was also dying off (see Acts 15:6). The Catholic dogma of apostolic succession recognizes that there came a time when no one could meet the NT qualifications for an apostle in the ‘full’ sense, hence many of the functions of the office of the apostles were passed on to the bishops; with two notable exceptions: eye witnesses of our resurrected Lord, and recipients of corporate revelation.

While my non-mormon related Catholic readings lead me to the understanding I have, it is likely I adopted the term "corporate revelation" from this (as is often the situation).

I think that is all I have on the absence of public/corporate revelation in Catholicism.  I will read what you offer 

I also think that Pope Francis causes me to question if I really know what Catholicism is, but I am in good company here.

Charity, TOm

Edited November 6, 2017 by TOmNossor

[thesometimesaint]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

This perspective would seem to speak to policy and administration.  Things of a doctrinal nature are true no matter 6 or 15 million.  Truth isn't changed by number of members.

And truths revealed by revelation from God are the very definition of things that should be considered for addition to canon.

Was it doctrine from God that blacks couldn't hold the Priesthood because of the actions of Cain, or a policy of men?

[JLHPROF]

28 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Was it doctrine from God that blacks couldn't hold the Priesthood because of the actions of Cain, or a policy of men?

Didn't matter.  The revelation from God was canonized.  If a GC talk comes by revelation, or a policy change, or a Proclamation they should be considered for addition to scripture.  Not every single revelation has been or should be but God's word to man is where scripture comes from.  If we get God's word it is eligible.

[thesometimesaint]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Didn't matter.  The revelation from God was canonized.  If a GC talk comes by revelation, or a policy change, or a Proclamation they should be considered for addition to scripture.  Not every single revelation has been or should be but God's word to man is where scripture comes from.  If we get God's word it is eligible.

The Pearl of Great Price is canonized. That is where we got the idea that blacks couldn't hold the Priesthood. It was more than a few millennia later that OD 2 came about. BTW I have no problem with a changing doctrine, and adding to the canon.

[TOmNossor]

20 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

 

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....

Is it your position that new revelation is received and promulgated by ECs or Papal proclamations?

The Catholic position as I understand it is that the faith ONCE DELIVERED is developed (a soft word for change).  That this development involves the guidance of the Holy Spirit,  but no positive inspiration/revelation.

Charity, TOm

 

 

[3DOP]

8 hours ago, TOmNossor said:

 

Maybe another way of putting the thread title would be to ask if current Mormon leaders are more Catholic than the pope?

You don't have to be like me, a Catholic who has held that Vatican II, and the New Mass posed an "emergency in the church" decades ago, which made it necessary to obey God rather than Rome. It is now coming to the place where good Catholics who have held grave doubts about my position are being forced to admit that with this pontificate, there may be a necessity to choose between God and Rome. Fr. Thomas Weinandy's credentials would be impeccable to conservative Catholics who have insisted that neither Vatican II, nor the New Mass are anything less than an expression of Church Tradition. But Fr. Weinandy was just asked to resign this past week from his position, with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The reason he was sacked by the bishops is that he made known his concerns about the way that Pope Francis belittles those who adhere to church teaching, and punishes those in the church hierarchy who dare to question his attacks on Catholic doctrine. Following is a part of the unacknowledged letter that he wrote to Pope Francis last July:

“[Y]ou seem to censor and even mock those who interpret Chapter 8 of ‘Amoris Laetitia’ in accord with Church tradition as Pharisaic stone-throwers who embody a merciless rigorism.  This kind of calumny is alien to the nature of the Petrine ministry….  Such behavior gives the impression that your views cannot survive theological scrutiny, and so must be sustained by ‘ad hominem’ arguments.

“[T]oo often your manner seems to demean the importance of Church doctrine.  Again and again you portray doctrine as dead and bookish, and far from the pastoral concerns of everyday life.  Your critics have been accused, in your own words, of making doctrine an ideology.  But it is precisely Christian doctrine… that frees people from worldly ideologies and assures that they are actually preaching and teaching the authentic, life-giving Gospel.  Those who devalue the doctrines of the Church separate themselves from Jesus, the author of truth…  What they then possess, and can only possess, is an ideology – one that conforms to the world of sin and death."

What I would highlight here is how Fr. Weinandy recognizes the connection that the Catholic has always placed between true doctrine and holy living. Pope Francis is not the first Catholic by a long way from entertaining the idea that mercy and charity are sometimes in conflict with church doctrine. The idea is as old as the devil. Today was the twenty-second Sunday after Pentecost and I would use the epistle reading and a good commentary on it to show the terrible flaw to Pope Francis' apparent way of thinking. The epistle was from the first chapter of St. Paul to the Phillipians. The following is verses 8 and 9:

Quote

"For God is my witness, how I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ.  And this I pray, that your charity may more and more abound in knowledge, and in all understanding:"

And then follows a commentary written about a century and a half ago, warning about a common tendency even then, to fail to appreciate that sound doctrine accompanies charity, and indeed, is necessary for true charity. An earlier verse expresses the Apostle's confidence that "he hath begun a good work in you, will perfect it unto the day of Jesus Christ":

Quote

Now, how is charity to be perfected in them? It must abound, more and more, in knowledge and in all understanding of salvation, that is, in faith. It is faith that constitutes the basis of all supernatural virtue. A restricted, a diminished, faith could never support a large and high-minded charity! Such Christianity as that believes as little as it may; it has a nervous dread of new definitions; and out of respect for error, it cleverly and continually narrows the supernatural horizon. Charity, they say, is the queen of virtues; it makes them take everything easily, even lies against truth; to give the same rights to error as to truth is, in their estimation, the highest point of Christian civilization grounded on love! They quite forget that the first object of charity, God who is substantial Truth, has no greater enemy than a lie; they cannot understand how it is that a Christian does not do a work of love by putting on the same footing the Object beloved and His mortal enemy!

---Dom Prosper Gueranger, The Liturgical Year, Vol. 11, pp. 458 and 459, St, Bonaventure Publications (2000), italics are the author's, bold is mine

It might seem that this was written in the year 2000. No. That is just the date for the republication of the masterpiece composed by the Abbot of the Benedictine Abbey of Solesmnes in the mid to late 1800's. The enemy of all love does not attack love itself. The devil attacks the foundations of Christian love and attempts to make it seem to good folks that truth and love sometimes contradict and that one may choose one but not both. Now of course mercy IS more important. Love IS the end and more important. But we don't have to choose. The Catholic way with this and any other controversy is, we will have both. We will yield neither the one nor the other. Jesus is God and Jesus is Man. There is no contradiction. We are saved by faith and works. There is no contradiction. God is both transcendent (infinitely above us) and immanent (intimately with us). There is no contradiction. The actions of Christian charity, far from being hindered by sound Catholic doctrine, are its necessary foundation.

Edited November 5, 2017 by 3DOP

[hope_for_things]

On 11/5/2017 at 2:41 AM, thesometimesaint said:

True, but we have to have good reason to add to the canon. GC talks are for what God wants of us right now. A church of 6 members in 1830 has far different needs than one of 15 million members in 2017.

Surely you're aware of much different standards for adding to the canon in the 1830s verses adding to the canon today.  The "good reason" to add to the canon in the early church were that someone had a question and asked Joseph for a revelation, and they added it to the canon.  These were very mundane and common occurrences.  

[thesometimesaint]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Surely you're aware of much different standards for adding to the canon in the 1830s verses adding to the canon today.  The "good reason" to add to the canon in the early church were that someone had a question and asked Joseph for a revelation, and they added it to the canon.  These were very mundane and common occurrences.  

Common Consent has been how the Church adds to its canon since its very beginnings.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Common Consent has been how the Church adds to its canon since its very beginnings.

Sort of, we've never been very consistent in applying that principle, but I am all in favor of it.  The difference is how Joseph operated, he claimed to receive revelations and those revelations were presented to the body of the church for canonization.  We don't have any leaders who claim to receive revelations anymore, and so nothing is presented to the body of the church for canonization.  Why not?  

[pogi]

On 11/5/2017 at 3:05 PM, 3DOP said:

It is now coming to the place where good Catholics who have held grave doubts about my position are being forced to admit that with this pontificate, there may be a necessity to choose between God and Rome.

Are you suggesting that the Church has, or is apostatizing?  That the road of God might lead away from the Church?  If you are looking for a restoration, I know somewhere you can look... 

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Are you suggesting that the Church has, or is apostatizing?  That the road of God might lead away from the Church?  If you are looking for a restoration, I know somewhere you can look... 

pogi, thanks for your kind invitation.

[TOmNossor]

On 11/3/2017 at 3:20 PM, cinepro said:

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.

Cinepro,

I have responded to MiserereNobis about what I think is clearly taught by Catholic Apologists and in general by Catholic Answers (the San Diego apostolate more active in Catholic apologetics than MormonInterpreter or FARMS was in LDS apologetics.

It is my position that your ex-Mormon Catholics have brought significant Mormonism into their Catholicism.  That the bulk of Catholic apologetics involve assuring Protestants that whatever happens when Catholic CHANGE (the word of Protestants) or DEVELOP (the word of Catholics) the teachings of the church, it is not revelation/inspiration.  A small minority of Catholic apologists in dialogue with LDS assure LDS that revelation/inspiration for the purpose of leading the entire church (Corporate Revelation) is alive and well in Catholicism.  These IMO are mutually exclusive.

I think TRADITION is solidly on the Catholic to Protestant response.  I have already offered 3-5 reasons why this is where I think Catholic teachings point.  Tertullian the prominent apologist from the 2^nd and 3^rd century ceased to be orthodox partially because he accepted the Montanist revelations (he also rejected Papal primacy).  I do not espouse the Montanist revelations, but I suggest that the response by the “orthodox” support the Catholic vs. Protestant position not the Catholic vs. Mormon position (also the departure of Tertullian from the "orthodox" lends some support, but there were other issues). 

…

Now, I am an exCatholic.  I left Catholicism ignorant of the strength of the Catholic position.  My childhood priest is and was a wonderful man, but he is a huge fan of Pope Francis.  I didn’t recognize much difference between Catholicism and Protestantism when I began to investigate if I should continue as a Catholic or not.  I became a COMMITTED (though prideful, sinful, flawed, …) LDS.  As I explored Catholicism I came to the conclusion that the STRONGEST pro-Catholic position was the very conservative read of Vatican II espoused by Catholic Answers during the Pontificate of JPII and Benedict XVI (not the position of my childhood parish).  Today, the Pope SEEMS to reject this view just like my childhood priest (he told me about 3 months ago that he is not a fan of Catholic Answers).  When I ask MiserereNobis if he believes there is new revelation, part of this is because I cannot align what Pope Francis believes (perhaps “seems to believe,” but that ship has largely sailed) with what Catholic Answer taught 3+ years ago.  Perhaps MisereeNoblis is a Pope Francis Catholic and thinks Catholicism can and should accept continued adultery (as it was previously defined before Francis) and gay marriage and ….   But, still, I am an exCatholic.

I do not think you should view Catholicism solely from the position espoused by an ex-Catholic.  That being said, you CINEPRO certainly reject many (if not most) of the positions put forth by LDS apologists.  I suggest it is inconsistent to uncritically accept the position of anti-LDS apologists or of pro-Catholic apologists. 

Charity, TOm

Edited November 7, 2017 by TOmNossor

[thesometimesaint]

20 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Sort of, we've never been very consistent in applying that principle, but I am all in favor of it.  The difference is how Joseph operated, he claimed to receive revelations and those revelations were presented to the body of the church for canonization.  We don't have any leaders who claim to receive revelations anymore, and so nothing is presented to the body of the church for canonization.  Why not?  

OD 1 and OD 2.