faith4

But whether selfish or not, satan did us a huge favor and participated in Gods plan after all and began the process of our progress to salvation, which is a blessing. If Gods plan is to provide us a service, why tell Adam and Eve not to do something (but wanted us to do it for his plan anyway) but to do something else (have children, which technically couldn't be done yet)? Then punish us for doing what he wanted us to do? That seems backwards to me. Sin and death and separtion from God are pretty hefty punishments too for something God wanted us to do. "Let your 'Yes' mean 'Yes', and your 'No' mean 'No.' Anything more is from the evil one." Matt 5:37. God loves us, the choice to obey or not was always there b/c the tree was there. God put that tree there, w/its delicious looking fruit to entice them, so that Adam and Eve did have a choice to obey God, and through their obedience, show their love in return for God. God told us not to eat this fruit, and we trust and love God, so we won't eat it. When they decided that the fruit did indeed look good enough to consume, they ignored Gods command and sinned, by pride (I know better than God, this fruit is pleasing to the eye therefore I deem it good for food).

Thank you to both of you who replied :) Your responses make a little more sense, and I have thought about this over night and this morning. I went back to read my link and study your teaching some more. Please keep in my mind that I am a Catholic, I am trying to understand a teaching that is quite different than what I've been taught. This is one area in which I had a lot of trouble with when my LDS friends were trying to expain the faith to me. In the link, it makes it clear that God the Father taught us the plan of salvation and that Jesus Christ was chosen as the Savior. If a Savior was already chosen in our pre-earth life, then we all mustv'e known that there had to be a transgression of some sort. No transgression, no Savior, right? So satan knew all about what would happen just like all of us did, otherwise, what was he rebelling against? "An important part of God’s plan was for you to come to earth to receive a physical body and to learn to make correct choices." "Satan, one of God’s spirit children, rebelled against Heavenly Father and did not accept His plan." "He [God] commanded them [Adam and Eve] not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil...Satan tempted Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, and they chose to do so. This was part of God’s plan. " But the tree represented a choice already, in and of itself through Gods command to not eat of it, why did Adam and Eve have to choose wrongly in order to start having children? Why did the blessing of children have to come through an unrighteous act rather than the righteous act of obedience? [The Fall] "The event by which mankind became mortal. It resulted in a spiritual and physical separation from God. Because Adam and Eve, the first humans, disobeyed God’s commandments, they were separated from His presence (this separation is also called spiritual death) and became mortal (subject to physical death). " But did they truly disobey if this is what they were taught to do? Now, this is what my brain can't quite comprehend. God commanded our first parents to not eat the fruit of this tree, they disobeyed through the temptation of satan, but this is exactly what God wanted us to do? So for Jesus to save and atone, there had to first be a fall. We had to break a commandment (do not eat that fruit) to fulfill another commandment (be fruitful and multiply) and progress to exaltation. Satans temptations are bad and are to be ignored, but it's a good thing Adam and Eve did not ignore this one, b/c this was ultimately a good temptation even though it led to death and sin. If the first temptation was actually part of Gods plan, even though we were punished by the consequence of sin and death, then how do we know if other temptations are actually necessary? Ultimately the fall was necessary and a blessing for all of us. Jesus could not come and be the Savior w/o the blessing of the fall. We could not be born and progress to exaltation w/o this blessing. Satan was the one to cause our fall by his temptation. The fall was necessary for us to progress and for Jesus to atone. Satan, whether knowingly or not, caused the fall, so the blessing came from him...which was part of Gods plan all along. Satan did a good thing. I just can't reconcile this in my mind, to me this gives satan way too much credit, no blessing or necessary good could've possibly come from him whether he knew it or not. I believe satan to be cunning and malicious, hateful towards God and us. He is full of anger and lies, and wants to hurt us in the worst way. By tempting Eve, and Adam, he was able to accomplish this by rupturing our original relationship w/God and separating us from Him by introducing sin and death.

I hope you don't mind if I put in my two cents :) I have a question that is somewhat similar to OP, on your church's site, I am reading about the Plan of Salvation as your church teaches, but it's not making much sense to me. Here's the link: https://www.lds.org/manual/the-plan-of-salvation/the-plan-of-salvation?lang=eng It says that Satan rebelled against the Fathers plan and was cast out of Heavenly Fathers presence, to always be a spirit and never receive a body. But then just a little farther down, it says that Adam and Eve were tempted by Satan to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree, causing the fall, which was part of Heavenly Fathers plan, b/c otherwise, Adam and Eve could not have children without the fall. So, Satan did cooperate with the plan? Otherwise, if Adam and Eve couldn't have kids without being tempted, why didn't satan just not tempt them? That way, he could deny all the pre-existing spirits the opportunity to receive a body and progress, just like him. Right? If I was satan, and I was mad at the Father, why would I cooperate with the plan by tempting Eve so that she could have children and begin the plan of salvation? Also, as a Catholic, we have completely different theology regarding Adam and Eve and the fall. We are taught God created us out of love, to share in his divine sonship and glory. But, God wants us to freely love him in return, hence the forbidden fruit. There had to be something, some rule given, for Adam and Eve to freely obey in order to choose God. When Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they chose themselves over God, and this selfish act in choosing self over God, is what brought sin and death into the world, and this sin ruptured the original state of holiness and grace Adam and Eve were created with. For Catholics, the fall was not a blessing or a good thing, satan tempted our first parents and they fell for it causing our rupture with God, our fall from grace. We believe that when God gave the command to be fruitful and multiply, our first parents were able to do this without falling from grace first, there were no contradictory commands. As the animals, fish and foliage were created to multiply, so were we, which is why he created us male and female. So death reigned in the world, until Jesus came as a man, to choose God over self, and defeated death through his resurrection. Just as our first parents were tempted in a garden, and sin and death entered through the fruit of a forbidden tree, so Jesus was tempted in a garden (his agony, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass form me; yet, not as I will, but as you will" Matt 26:39) and death was conquered through his submission to death on a tree. He chose God over self b/c he loved and trusted in God that much, and it is through him that man is saved b/c Jesus atoned for the rupture between God and man that was created by Adam and Eve. He conquered death, he is the way, the truth and the life. Sorry this is so long, lol! I know this is completely different than what your church teaches, but I hope it makes somewhat sense to you :) Good luck with teaching the children!

Lol! Yes, I admit my writing can get strange after a while! :) All in good fun for me, I've never stopped smiling, don't take my strangeness too seriously friend or as an actual measuring rod for Catholocism I am who I am and I love God for making me this way, keeps me humble! I sincerely hope you find what I can not adequately give you. I will indeed have a great weekend, I hope your is good too Stay objective my friend! Peace and blessings!

Thank you Anatess :) I understand what you're asking, I am not a theologian, lol, I do the best I can to explain my faith and I can see you and Jason do too. Peace and blessings to you both :)

Jason, "I give praise to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for although you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned you have revealed them to the childlike" Matt 11:25. Jesus asks us to be like children, to completely trust in His divine Will and Providence. Do you have children? I do, I have 4 :) My children trust my husband and myself to care and provide for them. When we teach them not to do something that could be harmful to them, they don't demand exhaustive formal explanations and scrutinize our decisions looking into every detail to make sure I'm truly teaching them something correct, they TRUST me. We are told that the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these, who have childlike faith and trust in God's Word. So when I say to them "No, peas do not go up your nose", or "we don't eat crayons", they listen (well, most of the time!), because as their mother, I have the privilege and authority to teach them how to grow into responsible adults. This is true faith, this is love, and God IS love and Love never fails. We have *plenty* of evidence of authority being passed down through ordination, teaching and ministering. There is an abundance of writings of the early church fathers witnessing to their faith in Christ. Not to mention the thousands upon thousands of martyrs who joyfully gave up their lives for their love of God and the Gospel. You are asking for more and more evidence, putting God to the test. I apologize now, but your above quote is nitpicking to the point of absolute ridiculousness, I mean, really? I read it and see words wrapped around words which cause more confusion, rather than illuminating Gods divine love, power, mercy and justice, and calls into question the very omnipotence of God by denying Him his role as our Father who takes care of us. I see human "wisdom" attempting to manipulate Gods wisdom to fit their own ideas, "they look but do not see and hear but do not listen or understand" Matt 13:13. When Jesus says "take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for yourselves. For my yoke is easy, and my burden light" Matt 11:29-30, I believe him, and indeed, I have found the simplicity of His love very light. This love has made it easy for me to carry my cross daily and remain steadfast in faith. And when he says, "Which one of you would hand his son a stone when he asks for a loaf of bread, or a snake when he asks for a fish? If you then, who are wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give good things to those who ask him." Matt 7:9-11, I believe him that God is loving and merciful to us, His children, and would not promise us the bread of life and the salvific waters of baptism, only to then take it all away for several hundred years. "If God so clothes the grass of the field, which grows today and is thrown into the oven tomorrow, will he not much more provide for you, O you of little faith?" Matt 6:30. Peace and blessings friend!!

Well, geez, just when I thought I was done with this one! I have to correct you here Anatess. The authority is not a matter of faith in the same manner that you point to w/BY and the LDS Church. Not everything is found in sacred scripture, which is why we also have authority through sacred tradition. Obviously, there was not a bible, or official canon of the bible until the 4th century, and even when that was made, most people didn't buy a bible b/c they couldn't read, and/or couldn't afford to have a book made for them. Not to mention the Apostles were well into spreading the Gospel and ministering before the Gospels and Epistles were even written! Just as in the OT, tradition was continued in an oral fashion and taught in person. The early church fathers were disciples and followers of the Apostles and learned directly from them. In turn, they taught their followers and ordained the worthiest members who wished to teach and minister. This has continued w/very little change in doctrine for 2000 years (I anticipate your disagreement w/my last sentence). In the year 155ad, St. Justin wrote a letter to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius describing the Christian liturgy (Mass). Since both of you are former Catholics, you will recognize how similar his description is to how we celebrate Mass today: "On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place. The memoirs of the Apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits. When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things. Then we all rise together and offer prayers for ourselves...and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation. When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss. Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren. He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks that we have been judged worthy of these gifts. When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: "Amen." When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the "eucharisted" bread, wine and water and take them to those are absent" That is tradition, and that was in 155. Furthermore, there is the Didache (Teaching of the Twelve, dated possibly from the mid-end of the 1st century, not sure, that's still up in the air w/historians) which also gives instructions for the liturgy. Joseph Smith and the rest of your prophets can not actually claim the same authority through tradition b/c they were not there to learn directly from the Apostles. If the OT Israelites could orally transmit their teachings, laws and practices, I'm pretty sure God made sure the Apostles and their follower and their follower etc. could do it too. Peace friend!

I have that one as well, it's the first book in a 3 part series, I really like his writing style. Thank you for your questions, and allowing me a chance to answer :) Lol, I know I can't fully answer your question, w/o asking you to compromise your faith, and that's not my intention. Though I have to wonder what your intent was in grilling me about authority...j/k One of my best friends is a devout mormon, and we openly discuss our faith w/each other and ask questions all the time. We have had some friendly debates over the years, but it has never affected our friendship negatively. In an odd kinda way, our questions help to strengthen each other in our respective faiths, and together we're very devout, her as a mormon & myself as a Catholic. Lol, I have done this before! And yes, we've gone over the great apostasy, indeed another thread! Christs peace and blessings to you!

Anatess, I agree, most Catholics are completely unaware of WHY we believe what we believe. I am a cradle Catholic, went to RE, received my sacramanets, and so forth, and considered myself Catholic, but I was never taught, nor did I ever bother to study, WHY I believed what I did. It wasn't until my senior year of highschool that I was put to the test by my mormon boyfriend. I had discussions with missionaries and everything! Hahaha, went to services with him, and firesides too :) He asked me questions about my beliefs that I had never thought of before, and made accusations that I had never heard before either. I was extremely confused and upset too. I began to study and talk with my Priest and he gave me plenty of books and resources and never once seemed confused or upset, as I was. Throughout that year I was able to slowly learn about my own faith and what I learned made me fall deeply in love with Christ and his promises, and I saw the beauty of the Chruch through all the warts. My soul was set on fire with love and joy, the beauty of his imperfect, yet gloriously loved Church, was more beautiful than I could have ever imagined. I have had some amazing experiences with God since then, so beautiful and rich in love that I have no good words to describe them, it is beyond me how he could love this silly girl some times, but I know He does :) As far as the authority of the Pope, he simply has the same authority to teach and baptize, but he has been made the steward of Gods Church here on earth while we await with joy the second coming of Christ. As Jesus gave Peter the keys (made him his steward, or representative), so those who become Pope receive the same honor as being the steward. That of course, does not make him perfect, God knows how aweful some of the Popes have been! I have an excellent book on Papal history, describes all the good, the bad and the ugly (by John W. O'Malley if you're interested). Also, a book I can recommend for you to read as an answer your question of "why Rome?" is "The Eternal City" by Dr. Taylor R. Marshall. Excellent book, very insightful and yet easy to read.

Thank you Vort, this forum is for questions to non-LDS, and a question was asked that I am trying to answer :) Jason, it seems to me that you have already made up your mind to not accept any answer I may propose. You are trying to make an argument to prove a point, that doesn't really exist in such a way as you think it does. In such a case, nothing I say will be able to satisfy your question, but I will try one more time anyway :) Can one of the 12 Apostles replace Jesus? Can one of them be the one mediator between God and man? No, none of them can. It is Jesus' name that has been raised above every name, not one of the Apostles. Can other men become one of the 12 Apostles so that they can all take turns sitting on a throne and judging the tribes of Israel? No. Other men can indeed refer to themselves as Apostles, but the 12 themselves can no longer be replaced as you're trying to allude to. Jesus gave the Apostles authority to teach in His name the same truths that were given to Jesus. They were given the authority to baptize and make disciples of ALL nations. Jesus received His teachings from the Father, and gave them authority to do the same so that the Gospel could be preached throughout all the nations and to all peoples. "Consecrate them in the truth. Your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world. And I consecrate myself for them, so that they also may be consecrated in truth. I pray not ony for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me." Jn 17:17-21. "Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." Jn 20:21. How can the Gospel of truth be preached throughout the nations, and persons baptized for salvation, if Jesus did not provide the means for His authority to be passed on? Why send the Holy Spirit to guide and protect, if it would only be for a short while? If that is the case, then Jesus is surely the unprepared man in His own parable: "Which of you wishing to construct a tower does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if there is enough for its completion? Otherwise, after laying the foundation and finding himself unable to finish the work the onlookers should laugh at him and say 'This one began to build but did not have the resources to finish.'" Luke 14:28-30. I said you couldn't use Acts 1 precisely b/c what you're trying to argue. Judas had to be replaced b/c after he betrayed Jesus, there were only 11 Apostles left, and yet there are 12 thrones for 12 Apostles to judge the 12 tribes of Israel. See where I'm going with this yet? The Apostles needed another man, with specific requirements, to replace Judas, so that once again, they could be THE 12 Apostles. According to these requirements, this man had to be a man "who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection." (Acts 1:21-22). Obviously, throughout time, no one could fulfill all these requirements, certaintly not Joseph Smith or any of your current or past apostles could claim to have been with Jesus from beginning to end and witness his resurrection. You misinterpreted my meaning of why not to use this scripture. Authority was indeed passed on, I am in full agreement with that, I am certaintly not arguing against it. Just as in your church, there is a heirarchy in ours as well. The Pope now, was once just a Priest, who became a Bishop, who became a Cardinal, and then became the Pope. Just as in your church, this heirarchy promotes order. A Priest is in charge of a Parish, and his immediate superior is the Bishop, who oversees a Diocese which is compirsed of many Parishes in the geographical location. Archbishops oversee a larger geographical area with Bishops under him, and so forth. A Priest does not have the same authority as a Bishop b/c a Priest can not make decisions for the entire Diocese, that's the Bishops job. But a Priest can make decisions for his Parish as the head of the Parish council. I believe your church is similar as to how decisions are made. The bishop of your ward is not the one to make decisions of the teaching materials taught on Sundays, your materials come from SLC from others who have the authority to make those teaching materials for all the LDS churches throughout the world, correct? Same as a sealer in your temple, it can not just be any person who happens to be in the room, they have to have the authority to seal. So you can say you have the Melchizedek priesthood, same as your apostles and prophet, but you can not claim to have the same authority for the whole church, as your prophet and apostles do. So where specifically can I point you to authority being passed down? Written testimonies of the early church fathers, they document which Apostle their authority originally came from. Ordination. Come to an Ordination service and see for yourself how authority is passed down in the Catholic Church (I realize you were once Catholic, but have you been to an Ordination service?). You won't see fireworks shooting out of the Bishops fingers, or hear angels singing the Gloria, but you will see the humility, love, and joy of men offering their lives to God in His service. And we know these things to be true b/c of all the gifts of miracles performed, and healings, and excorcisms of demonic spirits, and so many other amazing gifts bestowed from the Holy Spirit, these past 2000 years. To this day. "Thus should one regard us: as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God", "For those who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God. For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you received a spirit of adoption through which we cry, "Abba, Father!"", "For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength". 1 Cor.4:1; Rom 8:14-15; 1 Cor 1:25. Peace my friend :)

Lol! I think I know what you're trying to get at now. You want to know if each Apostle made another man a new Apostle in his stead, right? Because in your church, you have 12 Apostles "like anciently", is that it? Actually, I think you'll find my link quite relevant to this topic, that is authority being handed down, what you're not finding is a structure in which authority is limited to only 12 men, as Apostles, until Jesus returns. Does your church not consider St. Paul an Apostle? Paul refers to himself as an Apostle, "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our savior and of Christ Jesus our hope" 1 Tim 1; and "For I am the least of the apostles, not fit be called an apostle, because I persectued the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me has not been ineffective" 1 Cor 15:9-10. Through the laying of hands (ordination) Paul gives to Timothy the authority to teach and tells him to be prudent in his decisions as to who confer this gift on. "Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of presbyters laid their hands upon you" 1 Tim 4:14; "Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor participate in another man's sins. Keep yourself pure" 1 Tim 5:22. Jesus is the King of kings and Lord of Lords, He is our High Priest and Head of the Church (Eph 1:20-22; Eph 5:23; Col 1:18; Col 2:20; 1 Pet 2:7). The Apostles form the next highest level of priestly authority in the Church. "Jesus said to them, "Amen, I say to you that you who have followed me, in the new age, when the Son of Man is seated on his throne of glory, will yourselves sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Matt 19:28. There are only 12 thrones, and these have been given to the 12 Apostles, they themselves, can not be replaced, they are the twelve Apostles. Their authority to teach and minister can be passed on, and has been. Men such as Mark, Luke, Silas, Timothy, and Titus assisted the Apostles in the role of preaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments. In the NT, these men are referred to by one of two Greek words. The first is episcopos, which in English is piscop or biscop, from which our term Bishop is derived. The second Greek word is presbyteros, meaning "elder". In English, this word was prester, through which we eventually derived the word Priest. St. Paul instructs Titus, his appointed Bishop of Crete, to also appoint presbyters to minister and preach. "This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint presbyters in every town as I directed you" Titus 1:5. And in this way, every Priest and every Bishop can trace their authority directly back to one of the 12 Apostles. Nowhere in scripture, OR tradition, does it imply that the Church has to directly replace the Apostles as new Apostles as they die. And no, Acts 1:15-26 doesn't count. Judas had to be replaced so that there are 12 Apostles for 12 thrones. Jesus' instructions to his followers were to "Go and into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned" Mark 16:15. Pretty sure, he didn't mean, always have men called apostles to replace you as apostles (but no more than 12) otherwise baptisms won't be good until 1830 and therefore no one can be saved until I finally tell Smith to teach baptism for the dead... "In the world you will have trouble, but take courage, I have conquered the world". Jn 16:15 I hope this helps a little more, your church has a different structure than ours and insists on having 12 men as apostles. Only Peter was set apart from the Apostles as the steward of Christs Church here on earth, and as such, the chair of Peter, the stewardship of the Church, is handed down in the Papacy. Peace of God be with you friend :)

Scripture Catholic - APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY AND SUCCESSION Here ya go :) This site includes scriptures and excerts from the writings of the early church fathers pertaining to apostolic succession, it should answer your questions in this regards.

Yes, the Bishops received the same authority from the Apostles themselves, through the laying on of hands, which continues to this day. You can look at 1 Tim 4:14 as one example of authority being conferred from Paul to Timothy. If you study the early Church fathers, you will notice how important their disciplesip lineage is to them, in order to show where their authority derives. One example by St. Irenaeus at the end of the 2nd century states: "that tradition derived from the Apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul...which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority-that is, the faithful everywhere inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by faithful men everywhere". St. Irenaeus then went on to give the history of the papacy up until his own time: "The blessed Apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of episcopate. Of this Linus Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed Apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the Apostles still echoing in his ears, and their traditions before his eyes...To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius now, in the twelth place from the Apostles, holds the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the Apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is the most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles until now, and handed down in truth". CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus) Jesus himself promised that he would be with us always and that the Holy Spirit will guide us: "And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever-the Spirit of truth" Jn. 14:16. "All this I have spoken to you while still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, Whom the Father will send in My Name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you" Jn 14:25-26. "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age". Matt 28:19-20. "So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the holy ones and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone". Eph 2:19-20. "For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable". Rom 11:29.

I hope you don't mind if I chime in :) Perhaps some Catholics were confused by Benedicts retirement, but for myself I don't feel disheartened by his decision at all. With the whole world watching and judging him, it must've been extremely humbling and difficult to retire. I'm sure this was something he prayed very hard about and sought guidance from God before declaring his retirement. And how do you know, or any of us know for that matter, if God was calling him to something else? Perhaps he was actually saying "Yes Lord" in retiring, instead of "Sorry God, I can't do what you askmed me to do". Stepping down as Pope took deep humility and courage, I have nothing but respect and gratitude for Benedict :)