great apostacy

[bytor2112]

Who defined Christian beliefs? Was it Christ during his ministry or Constantine at Nicea? If there was not a falling away from the truth, from the original undertanding of the Gospel as taught by Christ and his Apostles, then why was there a need for the Council of Nicea? Confusion still prevails among Protestant Christendom today.....if not there would be only one Protestant denomination teaching exactly the same doctrines of salvation and believing in the same ordinances and claiming the same authority to practice and teach their beliefs. Much like the Roman Catholic Church or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. If the Protestant Reformation was necessary, if the Catholic church did not have Apostolic succession as it claims, if it was bereft of divine authority and itself had fallen into apostacy or away from the teachings of Christ, or in the words of James Talmadge, "if the "mother church" be without a valid Priesthood, and devoid of spiritual power, how can her offspring derive from her the right to officiate in the things of God?", why then so many differing views among Protestants? And finally, maybe a better question about the Trinity and Godhead issue is,.........do we accept the Council of Nicea's view of the Trinity which is not supported biblically or do we declare what should be obvious in the reading of the scripture and confirmed by the Holy Spirit and witnessed by a 14 year old boy who by his humble prayer opened Heaven once again, that God the Father and Jesus Christ are two distinct and seperate personages of flesh and bone and that the Holy Spirit is a personage of spirit and together they are one in purpose and not one in substance and form the Godhead.

Truly, the things of God can only be understood by the power of the Holy Spirit....and coming to the knowledge that indeed there was a prophesied falling away and a restoration of all things in the last days in preparation for the return of the Savior can be revealed as sacred truth to the humble, contrite seeker by sincere prayer and confirmed by the source given to us to reveal truth and testify of Christ...the Holy Ghost.

[August]

If there was not a falling away from the truth, from the original undertanding of the Gospel as taught by Christ and his Apostles, then why was there a need for the Council of Nicea? .

Some people fell away. The Church has never taught error as dogma/doctrine, but individuals and individual congregations had and will continue to fall away. The Council was needed to resolve these issues, to make sure uniform teachings. Why reject the Catholic Church's authority at Nicea, but accept the Catholic New Testament, which as I understand wasn't formally cannonized until after Nicea?

[bytor2112]

Some people fell away. The Church has never taught error as dogma/doctrine, but individuals and individual congregations had and will continue to fall away. The Council was needed to resolve these issues, to make sure uniform teachings. Why reject the Catholic Church's authority at Nicea, but accept the Catholic New Testament, which as I understand wasn't formally cannonized until after Nicea?

Well, my point is that the Protestant reformation occurred because the Catholic Church was viewed as being in error. The need for the Council is evidence of further errosion....which began to occur shortly after the death of the Apostles and was well into full swing by the time Constantine the great came to power. The Emperor made the so-called Christianity of the time the religion of his realm. Whatever vestiges of true Christianity that may have possibly survived were lost by the abuses that followed the elevation of the church organization to secular favor through the decree of Constantine. Constantine made himelf the head of the church.....Priesthood authority??? I think not.

It wasn't just "some" people fell away...the church became a tool for the state. The church divided when the emperor made Byzantium his capital and renamed it Constantinople and the Bishop of that city claimed equality with the Roman pontiff. That's why the differences between the RCC and Greek Catholic churches. There are countless, historically verifable souces of early church corruption........definitely not the works of God, his authorized servants or the Church that he established. Indeed there was a falling away.....if the early church fell by way of corruption and was bereft of divine authority....as with Constantine setting himself up as the head of the church....the off-shoots....Protestants....who were protesting the coruption of the church.....are wrong as well and have no claim to authority either. There needed to be a restoration of things......and thanks be to the Almighty there has been.

[YoungMormonRoyalist]

Just to take us away from the debate for a second, there was an interesting talk given by a General Authority a few years back.

He told of a conversation that he and a Catholic Theologian had which went something like this (Paraphrasing here):

You Mormons don't have a clue as to how strong your position is. The reality is is that either the Catholic Church is God's chosen church or yours is, and none others. If the Catholic Church is correct in saying that there was never an apostacy and we have God's authority then all the Protestant churches are heretical and false. However if we did in fact lose important doctrines and priesthood keys necessary for salvation a full restoration would have to take place, not a reformation. If the Catholic faith was really a dead church then all the Protestant ones are as well, you cannot reform what is dead, just as you cant take a dead branch from a dead tree and expect it to grow anew.

There was more, but that was the gist of it.

[rameumptom]

Some people fell away. The Church has never taught error as dogma/doctrine, but individuals and individual congregations had and will continue to fall away. The Council was needed to resolve these issues, to make sure uniform teachings. Why reject the Catholic Church's authority at Nicea, but accept the Catholic New Testament, which as I understand wasn't formally cannonized until after Nicea?

The problem with Nicea is that it was called for by a pagan Roman Emperor, who sought to use the Christian religion as a method to unite the peoples of his empire. Secondly, there were several views of what God was that were suppressed at Nicea. Those who did not agree with Athanasius' view were excommunicated and/or exiled.

Still, for over a century after Nicea, the Trinity floundered as a doctrine. The teaching of Arius almost still overcame the Trinitarian teaching. Next, the whole was not settled at Nicea. There were several more councils, such as the council of Chalcedon to determine Jesus' duality.

The council of Nicea came about in a time when the proto-orthodox Church had begun to reject revelation already. Had there been a Pope, there's no notice of one in either this or the council of Chalcedon! Instead, a group of bishops pushed their beliefs forward in a political manner.

I still do not see how the bishops could gather, have a politically charged event that led to excommunicating some, and no one mentioned the Pope or his guidance. The Pope's preeminence does not come about until the 8th century AD at the earliest. Even then, there were disagreements, including the schism that broke the Eastern Orthodox off them. I do not see how these bishops could accept and quote from Origen as a valiant apologist, only to have him considered a heretic centuries later. Where is the inspiration in that?

LDS accept the New Testament, because we believe those writings, written by apostles of God, were inspired. However, we also accept the other inspired writings as useful for our learning, as well. And we believe in continuing revelation, which helps us to understand the scriptures. Moreso, the modern revelation determines new doctrines to help us understand God's will and mind in issues such as the Trinity or dualism of Christ.

The LDS view of God fits in well with the Old and New Testaments, does not rely upon Greek philosophy to determine that God is somehow of a difference substance than us, and does not have to deal with a dualism of Christ. Nor must it struggle with God being a Spirit, and the person of Christ as a resurrected being - being both with and without a resurrected physical body.

Finally, there is a major issue for many Christians today regarding the Trinity. Augustine declared many things heresy. One thing he condemned was modalism. Sad thing is, most of the unlearned Christians out there tend to believe in modalism, not in the Trinity.

Have you ever described the Trinity as an egg, fingers on a hand, or three men in a carriage? Then you are a modalist, and therefore a heretic. The true definition of the Trinity cannot be explained, as it must truly be and remain a mystery. Why else would the Athanasian creed declare God as incomprehensible? Other Christian creeds declare him as unknowable.

Joseph Smith was called of God to declare that God can be known. To him was revealed that God and Jesus are exalted men, and we can be like them. Joseph taught that God will reveal His mind and will to men, if they will open their minds and submit themselves wholly to Him. As with the ancient pattern of Prophets, God has called forth one to restore all things prior to the 2nd Coming.

[August]

LDS accept the New Testament, because we believe those writings, written by apostles of God, were inspired.

It was the teaching authority of the RCC that determined which books were inspired and which ones weren't, the Holy Spirit prevents the Church from teaching error. The books of the NT were not necessarily written by the Apostles either. They were often written by the follower of an apostle, in his name. If you reject the RCC as of the AD 300s as false, why not go back through history and make your own determination of what constitutes the cannon? There are plenty of books whose ommission from the cannon were quite controversial.

[bytor2112]

It was the teaching authority of the RCC that determined which books were inspired and which ones weren't, the Holy Spirit prevents the Church from teaching error. The books of the NT were not necessarily written by the Apostles either. They were often written by the follower of an apostle, in his name. If you reject the RCC as of the AD 300s as false, why not go back through history and make your own determination of what constitutes the cannon? There are plenty of books whose ommission from the cannon were quite controversial.

The RCC taught and practiced much that was error........the Holy Spirit leads and guide and speaks to those who listen.

[rameumptom]

Okay, so the early Church taught that God the Father and Jesus were separate, anthropomorphic Gods, and later the Church determines they are persons of one spirit being. Which one was guided by the Holy Spirit?

How does the "teaching authority" reject the Book of Enoch, which is still quoted 39 times in the New Testament? How does the "teaching authority" have St Jerome almost rejecting Hebrews and Revelation, except for the political insistence of the western Church? Was the Spirit guiding the western church or Jerome?

We do not have to go back and determine our own canon of historical books. This is where many traditional Christians just don't get it. We receive NEW revelations that fill in the holes left by the many plain and precious things that have been lost.

As it is, should we accept an ancient document that has some, but not all, things right? What if it teaches baptism for the dead, but also teaches that Elohim was an evil god that ruined things for Adam and Eve?

Clearly Jerome tried his best. But the Church had rejected revelation at that time. They did not have any prophets nor apostles to determine which books were doctrinally correct or translated/transcribed correctly. Even today, the KJV and other versions have issues with them, such as the Johannine Comma.

Which part of the Inquisition or Indulgences were inspired of the Holy Spirit? Yet they were both approved by Popes. Was St Augustine inspired when he said that children who died without baptism would burn in hell? This is, after all, the basis for the Catholic church's continued infant baptism. For centuries the RCC accepted Limbo as a place for them to go instead of hell. Was that inspired, as it isn't Biblical? Of course, Pope Benedict just rejected the concept of Limbo as non-Biblical. So does that mean until some other explanation comes up, kids are going to be burning in hell? Just which of these is inspired?

For me, there is a very clear need for continuing revelation through apostles and prophets.

[bytor2112]

It was the teaching authority of the RCC that determined which books were inspired and which ones weren't, the Holy Spirit prevents the Church from teaching error. The books of the NT were not necessarily written by the Apostles either. They were often written by the follower of an apostle, in his name. If you reject the RCC as of the AD 300s as false, why not go back through history and make your own determination of what constitutes the cannon? There are plenty of books whose ommission from the cannon were quite controversial.

The RCC taught and practiced much that was error........the Holy Spirit leads and guides and speaks to those who listen.

[August]

the fact that the Church did bad things, and that some members of it had harsh theological views does not invalidate it. The RCC never defined as Dogma anything that was in error. Limbo, for example was held out as the best explanation available at the time. The RCC does have development of doctrine, some things do change as we understand the world better. The Pope backing away from limbo is just another example of this.

[bytor2112]

When the gospel sun went down almost two millennia ago, when the priesthood was taken away and a dreary dusk descended in the congregations that once had known light, when light and truth no longer shone forth from heaven, and when those on earth no longer were taught and directed by apostles and prophets, then spiritual darkness reigned. Darkness covered the earth and gross darkness the minds of the people. (See Isa. 60:2.) The dark ages had their beginning, and the light of heaven no longer dwelt in the hearts of those who professed to worship Him whose we are.

The vision of all became as the words of a book that is sealed. (See Isa. 29:11.) The prophets and seers were silenced; the holy scriptures were no longer made available to the masses of men; none could see the way to perfection; none knew the way back to the Eternal Presence. Earth’s pilgrims, walking in and by forbidden paths, were lost in the blackness of the night.

True, the heaven still teemed with stars, an uncounted host of them, for there were many wise and good people who reflected forth to others such light and truth and goodness as they had. And month after month a new moon arose to reflect such of heaven’s truths as came by instinct and from reason. There was a St. Augustine, a Maimonides, a Joan of Arc, a Thomas More, a Michelangelo, a Galileo, a host of others—each for the month when their moon shone—who reflected such borrowed light as in their power lay. But the light of heaven no longer shed its rays on the strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life.

And there were deep shadows in which the beasts of hell lurked. Lucifer did not sleep. At Nicaea and later by the pen of Athanasius he aided in the writing of creeds which debased the true gods of heaven and defined them as an incomprehensible spirit essence which fills the immensity of space.

By the word of Constantine he placed the subjects of a pagan empire into what men have since called the universal church. With the sword of Cortez he placed a cross in the hands of pagan people and named them Christians. By the mouth of Tetzel he sold indulgences so that men’s sins could be forgiven for money, as they supposed.

In Spain, in Mexico, and in Peru, he caused the evils of the Inquisition to flourish, and tens of thousands of earth’s inhabitants were slain to keep down heresy, as they chose to call it. The Huguenots and other dissenters from the established order were murdered by the scores of thousands. The dominant religion of the day was one of fear, ignorance, and superstition; it was a religion, imposed by the sword, which denied the agency of man.

It was a long, dark night. There were jackals in the shadows, wolves in the forests, coyotes everywhere. Lions roared and the fangs of the serpent sank again and again into human flesh. The black plague swept Europe. Wars were everywhere. Morality and decency had few supporters. The terrors of the night were real and the night was long—long and dark and black.

But finally the heralds of a distant dawn came forth. There was a Calvin, a Zwingli, a Luther, a Wesley; there were wise and good men—morning stars who shone more brightly than their fellows—who arose in every nation. There were men of insight and courage who were sickened by the sins and evils of the night. These great souls hacked and sawed at the chains with which the masses were bound. They sought to do good and to help their fellowmen—all according to the best light and knowledge they had.

In Germany and France and England and Switzerland and elsewhere groups began to break away from the religion of centuries past. A few rays of light were parting the darkness of the eastern sky.

Many who sought freedom to worship God according to the dictates of their conscience migrated to America. And in due course, by the power of the Father, a new nation was created, a nation “conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” (Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address.) The United States of America came into being. Beyond the mountains, now not many leagues away, a new day was gestating in the womb of nature.

As the earth continued to turn slowly and steadily on its decreed course, as the dawn brightened and the morning light increased, as the Constitution of the United States guaranteed religious freedom, as men were tempered in their feelings and began to view each other with more equity and fairness, as the Bible was published and read by more people, as darkness fled and light increased, the time for the rising of the gospel sun was at hand.

When the set time had fully come—when the day for the promised restoration of all things was at hand—the Lord in heaven, in his infinite wisdom, mercy, and goodness, sent from the courts of glory that eternal spirit whose foreordained mission it was to usher in the dispensation of the fulness of times. Joseph Smith began his mortal life. It was December 23, 1805. The sun was then just hidden by the mountain peaks.

Then one glorious day in the spring of 1820—our tradition says that it was on April 6—the sun arose to view. The great God with the Lord Jesus at his right hand came down from heaven; stood personally in a grove of trees in western New York; called young Joseph by name; commanded him to join none of the churches of the day, for they were all wrong; told him that all their creeds were an abomination in the sight of heaven; and said that the professors of religion were all corrupt, that they drew near to the Lord with their lips, but their hearts were far from him, that they taught for commandments the doctrines of men, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof. (JS—H 1:19.)

From that moment the stars no longer shone; the moon hid her face. Their reflected glimmerings were no longer needed to pierce the blackness of the night. The dispensation of the fulness of times was about to be given from God in heaven to man on earth.

Almost immediately angels came from the Divine Presence to teach doctrine, to confer power and authority and priesthood, and to give again the keys of the kingdom, which are part of the holy apostleship, so that mortal men can bind on earth and have it sealed eternally in the heavens.

Within a single decade the Book of Mormon came forth; the Church and kingdom of God on earth was reestablished; revelation and prophecy became the order of the day; and the gifts of the Spirit—all those ancient signs and wonders and miracles—were poured out upon the faithful. Once more there were visions and tongues and prophecies; the sick were healed, the lame walked, the blind saw, and the dead were raised. It was with the Latter-day Saints as it had been with the former-day saints.

Line upon line the ancient truths were restored; one after another the ancient rites and ordinances were revealed anew. Soon the gospel, the fulness of the everlasting gospel—the very power of God which saves and exalts men—was shining forth in all its glory, beauty, and perfection. The gospel sun, which had its setting in the day when darkness covered the earth—that same gospel sun had its rising in the new day of restoration.

And with the gospel dawn and the spread of truth over all the earth, the terrors of the night are vanishing away. Where there was fear and ignorance and superstition, now there is love and light and pure religion. Fear has become courage; ignorance is transformed into wisdom; superstition and tradition are replaced by the light and truth of heaven.

Soon the wolves of wickedness will no longer howl and the jackals of sin no longer snivel and snipe at the ongoing kingdom, and the great millennial day will be upon us.

-Elder Bruce R McConkie

[rameumptom]

the fact that the Church did bad things, and that some members of it had harsh theological views does not invalidate it. The RCC never defined as Dogma anything that was in error. Limbo, for example was held out as the best explanation available at the time. The RCC does have development of doctrine, some things do change as we understand the world better. The Pope backing away from limbo is just another example of this.

So, then how do you tell when something is of the Holy Ghost and inspired, or isn't?

The Catholic and Protestant view is that scripture/canon is the Bible, and anything else must be supported from a reading of the Bible. They have delimited their belief system by not allowing for full blown revelation to teach new or hidden things.

The LDS restoration view is that many things were lost and can only be restored through revelation. Many things restored through Joseph Smith's visions have since been shown to have been believed anciently. Margaret Barker, for instance, tells us that the early story of Lehi and Nephi in Jerusalem fits in perfectly with Jerusalem of 600BC. This includes points coming out of their vision of the Tree of Life: the tree representing Wisdom, the Mother of God/Jesus, etc.

One of the geniuses of Joseph Smith was that he did not force the religion into a box. Whatever God chose to reveal to him was okay with him. Amazingly, it all fits in with the Bible's teachings, and yet still reveals many things that the Bible barely touches upon or misses, but are found in other ancient texts and traditions.

[abqfriend]

The Catholic view is not Sola Scriptura-or Sacred Scripture alone. Some of our doctrines and teachings rely on church tradition. We have the "Teaching Magesterium" of our Church that we believe are guided and directed by the holy spirit. Our Pope -"Papa"-"Father" is not a prophet-but what he says in matters of faith and doctrine we accept as truth and that he is guided by the Holy Spirit.

The Sola Scriptura concept which you alude to is a result of the Protestant Reformation. Many Protestant Churches have Scripture/The Bible alone in the formulation of their doctrines and teachings. This is not the Catholic viewpoint.

Here are related links:

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 1 SECTION 1 CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 2 see section 85

Catechism of the Catholic Church - Christ's Faithful - Hierarchy, Laity, Consecrated Life See sections 880-892

On Revelation:

Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText See 65-67

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

Carol

So, then how do you tell when something is of the Holy Ghost and inspired, or isn't?

The Catholic and Protestant view is that scripture/canon is the Bible, and anything else must be supported from a reading of the Bible. They have delimited their belief system by not allowing for full blown revelation to teach new or hidden things.

[rameumptom]

While I know the Catholics do not believe in sola scriptura, I've also read in their catechism that all Papal and magesterium decisions must be based upon Biblical principles. This is still very different from the Restoration view - where if the Bible is silent on an issue, the Lord can reveal the truth of something still.

For example, the Bible says nothing or next to nothing on the following issues received by modern revelation: Baptism of infants, eternal marriage, additional info on Abraham/Melchizedek/Moses/Joseph of old, etc. Modern revelation allowed Joseph to not just correct perceived errors in the Bible "Translation" he made, but also add pages of new information.

While the Pope may give an authoritative decision on abortion, drugs, or some other modern moral issue; would he receive additional inspiration on the life of Moses, Adam or Abraham? Therein lies a major difference between the RCC and LDS methods of receiving inspiration.

Meanwhile, the Protestant sola scriptura suggests that there is no more inspiration of any kind, except what one finds through the scriptures, which many Protestants believe is God-breathed. All answers can be found within the Bible, which cannot be added to or improved upon.

[HiJolly]

The RCC never defined as Dogma anything that was in error.

I don't like attacking churches, including the RCC. Nevertheless, this statement you have made is really doubtful. (sigh) I suppose you're going to want evidence for this, but then i'll be 'attacking'. Don't wanna do it...

This whole thread is annoying.

HiJolly

[abqfriend]

The Pope or the Catholic Church-would give no new revealed information on Moses, Abraham, etc, other than what is revealed in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Traditon and as defined by the Teaching Magesterium of the Church.

Additional information of a historical nature may be found on these Bible persons through archeology and similar scientific methods of discovery.

-Carol

While I know the Catholics do not believe in sola scriptura, I've also read in their catechism that all Papal and magesterium decisions must be based upon Biblical principles. This is still very different from the Restoration view - where if the Bible is silent on an issue, the Lord can reveal the truth of something still.

For example, the Bible says nothing or next to nothing on the following issues received by modern revelation: Baptism of infants, eternal marriage, additional info on Abraham/Melchizedek/Moses/Joseph of old, etc. Modern revelation allowed Joseph to not just correct perceived errors in the Bible "Translation" he made, but also add pages of new information.

While the Pope may give an authoritative decision on abortion, drugs, or some other modern moral issue; would he receive additional inspiration on the life of Moses, Adam or Abraham? Therein lies a major difference between the RCC and LDS methods of receiving inspiration.

Meanwhile, the Protestant sola scriptura suggests that there is no more inspiration of any kind, except what one finds through the scriptures, which many Protestants believe is God-breathed. All answers can be found within the Bible, which cannot be added to or improved upon.

[August]

I don't like attacking churches, including the RCC. Nevertheless, this statement you have made is really doubtful. (sigh) I suppose you're going to want evidence for this, but then i'll be 'attacking'. Don't wanna do it...

How would that be attacking? If you have evidence, then present it. We don't have to have a shouting match over it, because I know we won't agree, but we can still learn from each other's beliefs.

[abqfriend]

Hi August-you may wish to define Dogma vs Teaching and anything else within the Catholic Church not considered as Dogma. Trinity and the Virgin Birthh are two examples of Catholic Dogma while priestly celibacy and rules on fasting in Lent are teachings but not Dogma.

The LDS Church has Dogma too-although they may not define it as such-and I would think that their core teachings or Statements of Faith--they would consider as without error.

-As this is an LDS site-I have learned much from many wonderful members of the LDS Church.

--Perhaps let's find common ground that unites us-rather than divides us.

-Carol

How would that be attacking? If you have evidence, then present it. We don't have to have a shouting match over it, because I know we won't agree, but we can still learn from each other's beliefs.

[Misshalfway]

The Pope or the Catholic Church-would give no new revealed information on Moses, Abraham, etc, other than what is revealed in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Traditon and as defined by the Teaching Magesterium of the Church.

Additional information of a historical nature may be found on these Bible persons through archeology and similar scientific methods of discovery.

-Carol

Why would the Lord stop giving new revelation?

I find it facinating......most certainly because of my LDS education :)....... that the Pope would not be seen as receiving the most up to date inspiration from God, especially with such a vast church to lead!

[rameumptom]

It truly is a different foundational concept. Most other Christian faiths rely solely on the Bible as their foundation for determining doctrine.

We believe that God can reveal whatever he will, and we'll gladly and willingly receive it (or receive it reluctantly when it comes to certain commands like plural marriage). Scholar Terryl Givens explained it as others living within the box of Bible and creeds, while we remain open to anything God has yet to reveal.

[Misshalfway]

How would that be attacking? If you have evidence, then present it. We don't have to have a shouting match over it, because I know we won't agree, but we can still learn from each other's beliefs.

What a refreshing perspective, August! Thank you!

[rameumptom]

August, do you consider LDS to be Christian (heretic or not)? Or do you believe us to be in the Other category?

[August]

August, do you consider LDS to be Christian (heretic or not)? Or do you believe us to be in the Other category?

I consider LDS members Christian, but in the Catholic view the only Christian Churches are the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, since only those two have a valid Eucharist. Eucharist being the body and blood of Christ, you'd say the bread and wine. I'll have to do a little more digging to find the RCC's official stance on individual members. I don't think heretic applies. Whatever the "official" stance is, I'm not going to run around telling people who sincerely love Jesus that they aren't Christian. I know how it feels to be told that I'm not Christian when I am.

[abqfriend]

The Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church-as Catholics we believe he is the successor of Peter. St. Peter is buried directly below the main altar at St Peter's in The Vatican. ( I have been there )

The Catholic Church has a Teaching Magesterium mainly made up of Cardinals and some Bishops. In some respects they are similar to The Quorum of the 12 Apostles and to the Quorum of the 70 in the LDS Church. They-the Cardinals and other Church Leaders provide guidance and direction and explain and amplify teachings of the Church. We believe our spiritial leaders are guided by the Holy Spirit, but they are not prophets.

Our Church is guided by both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Traditionwhich we beleve are not traditions of men-but guided by the Holy Spirit.

Our Catechism answers your question-again here is the link directly from The Vatican itself-see especially sections 66-67. The paragraphs before that explain what the Church considers as revelation and why:

Catechism of the Catholic Church - The Revelation of God

Here is a link in graphical structure of the LDS Church itself:-I found it interesting.

Mormon Church Structure, CARM

Here is an over-simplified link on the structure of the Catholic Church

The Roman Catholic Church - Structure

Here is a neutral link explaining the Teaching Magesterium of the Catholic Church:

Magisterium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-Carol

Why would the Lord stop giving new revelation?

I find it facinating......most certainly because of my LDS education :)....... that the Pope would not be seen as receiving the most up to date inspiration from God, especially with such a vast church to lead!

[Misshalfway]

The Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church-as Catholics we believe he is the successor of Peter. St. Peter is buried directly below the main altar at St Peter's in The Vatican. ( I have been there )

The Catholic Church has a Teaching Magesterium mainly made up of Cardinals and some Bishops. In some respects they are similar to The Quorum of the 12 Apostles and to the Quorum of the 70 in the LDS Church. They-the Cardinals and other Church Leaders provide guidance and direction and explain and amplify teachings of the Church. We believe our spiritial leaders are guided by the Holy Spirit, but they are not prophets.

Our Church is guided by both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Traditionwhich we beleve are not traditions of men-but guided by the Holy Spirit.

Our Catechism answers your question-again here is the link directly from The Vatican itself-see especially sections 66-67. The paragraphs before that explain what the Church considers as revelation and why:

Catechism of the Catholic Church - The Revelation of God

Here is a link in graphical structure of the LDS Church itself:-I found it interesting.

Mormon Church Structure, CARM

Here is an over-simplified link on the structure of the Catholic Church

The Roman Catholic Church - Structure

Here is a neutral link explaining the Teaching Magesterium of the Catholic Church:

Magisterium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-Carol

Carol....you are indeed a great help here. So....let me see if I get this correct or not.

The Pope is not a prophet because Jesus' coming ended the need of prophets. And while the Pope is inspired in his leadership duties, he relys on the written scripture and precedents of history to guide his course and the course of the church. If he does receive information from the Holy Spirit, it will be in harmony with the written scripture and will not reveal any new doctrine.... only counsel and wisdom.

Am i getting this correctly???

And I am wondering then if you believe Peter was a prophet. It is clear that Jesus revealed himself in his resurrected form to Peter and others of the twelve. That is the most sure of revelation and the most basic in my mind. That is the same that would qualify any other prophet of any other dispensation. So, if Peter were not a prophet....then Paul wouldn't be either...... and the twelve? why did he create the twelve then? If following tradition were fundamental, why isn't the creation of the twelve the first and only reliable precedent for church structure?

And why doesn't God call the Pope to his office? Maybe because he isn't a prophet. And why doesn't the name of the Catholic Church contain the name of Christ?

Please forgive me, Carol. Just have so many questions. I suppose I am kind of thinking out loud here. Thank you for your patience.

Edited September 22, 2008 by Misshalfway