New Popes

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Snow+Apr 5 2005, 05:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Apr 5 2005, 05:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Apr 4 2005, 05:09 PM

Seriously, though, I agree with your basic point:  So what if the Renaissance popes were a bunch of rogues?  (I'm actually a bit in awe of their capacity for sensual excess; some of them were legendary for parties whose descriptions make USC's frat row look like Helaman Halls on a Friday night in early May.)  As far as I know, all the men (and one woman) who became Popes were legitimately ordained bishops and assigned the Roman bishopric by the people who had the authority to do so. 

Here's an interesting thought:  If we take the position that a few indisputably wicked Popes don't suffice to break the Catholic Church's apostolic authority -- i.e., if we conclude that what matters is the present state of the institution, not the sometimes-messy process by which it got there, why couldn't an institution whose actual founders were flawed be validated by the good-faith belief and correct teaching of their successors?

I don't think the matter is that simple. It is not a question of whether a rather large handful of bad popes suffice to break the apostolic authority of the instituion. Rather, the question is... does a corrupt institution - corrupt over a prolonged period of time, one of whose manifestations of courruption is a number of evil men at it head, lose it's right, by virture of it's ubiquitious and prolonged corruption, to apostolic legitimacy?

My answer: Of course.

I'm not so sure. If I were not LDS, and thus didn't accept a doctrine that apostolic authority WAS lost by the Catholic Church (a lot earlier than the fun-loving Renaissance papal pervs, incidentally), I might consider whether the Catholics' energy in eliminating corruption after the Council of Trent might have constituted a sufficient repentance that apostolic authority might have been exercised by, say, John Paul II regardless of what Leo, Julius & Co. did back during the Renaissance.

In the LDS tradition, we don't believe that a person's line of priesthood authority is broken because the person who ordained the person who ordained you was secretly diddling his secretary and embezzling company funds at the time. Authority can pass despite the unworthiness of the person conferring the authority. I suppose you could argue that the unworthy person was only exercising priesthood keys which were ultimately held by the First Presidency, who were never corrupt, but a Catholic might come back and say that even a corrupt Renaissance Pope was merely exercising keys that were ultimately held by Christ, who of course was not corrupt either.

[Snow]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Apr 5 2005, 05:15 PM

I'm not so sure. If I were not LDS, and thus didn't accept a doctrine that apostolic authority WAS lost by the Catholic Church (a lot earlier than the fun-loving Renaissance papal pervs, incidentally), I might consider whether the Catholics' energy in eliminating corruption after the Council of Trent might have constituted a sufficient repentance that apostolic authority might have been exercised by, say, John Paul II regardless of what Leo, Julius & Co. did back during the Renaissance.

In the LDS tradition, we don't believe that a person's line of priesthood authority is broken because the person who ordained the person who ordained you was secretly diddling his secretary and embezzling company funds at the time. Authority can pass despite the unworthiness of the person conferring the authority. I suppose you could argue that the unworthy person was only exercising priesthood keys which were ultimately held by the First Presidency, who were never corrupt, but a Catholic might come back and say that even a corrupt Renaissance Pope was merely exercising keys that were ultimately held by Christ, who of course was not corrupt either.

That's a reasonable explanation of how the mechanics of authority might work. My belief is more philosophical in nature - that God wouldn't vest or continue to vest is authority in an institution that was itself, as a entity taken in it's whole, that was corr

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Snow -- I finally saw "Napoleon Dynamite" last night, so I finally see what your avatar is. Cool.

I checked the movie on imdb.com and saw that Jared Hess made the movie for $400,000 and it has since made $44 million at the box office. Wish I'd been one of his investors.

[Snow]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Apr 5 2005, 09:15 PM

I checked the movie on imdb.com and saw that Jared Hess made the movie for $400,000 and it has since made $44 million at the box office. Wish I'd been one of his investors.

Yeah, just think'n bout it makes my lips hurt - real bad!

[Jason]

Well if you have had both the demonic possesion experience and the angelic and Christ visitations, you will know the difference. Joseph had both. He knew the difference.....

But I have also had visitations of angels and dead family members. I have had conversations with the Spirit of Christ and the Holy Ghost (and they are different experiences in identity awareness) So I really can't believe that anyone who has had both could believe JS was totally led by demons.

I know the difference, so does anyone who has experienced it. One experience I had with a spiritual visitation, was so powerful I felt it for months. Not so with the demonic possession. I felt it leave me totally alone with my guilt. I never gained a lasting courage from the demons. Joseph Smith showed constant courage and in the face of all the opposition he faced, that is saying something.

Amillia,

Most never know the difference. Satan wouldn't be much of a deceiver if you could tell the difference. Think about it, if you wanted to deceive someone, wouldn't you give them a terrible experience, and then give them a nice one to believe you? That's what con-men do all the time.

What you've described is much more common than you know. In fact, your experiences happen all the time. For example, there was an Orthodox Monk who wanted to see angels. He lived outside the monastery, away from his spiritual father, and considered himself worthy to see Christ himself. He was full of pride, and didn't even know it. One day a "spirit" appeared to him as a glorious light, and congratulated the Monk on his piety, and said that he would be rewarded with a great vision the next day. The Monk was thrilled. The vision confirmed his belief that he was a good man, and that God loved him.

The next day, he travelled to a high mountain, and received a glorious vision of heaven. He saw countless angels, and a brilliant throne with a man sitting on it that he couldn't even make out because it was so bright. He recognized some of the people in the vision, and one of them was a recently departed friend. His friend approached him, and though he was completely "into" the vision, for a split second he feared deception and said a short, quick prayer (Orthodox call this prayer the "Jesus" prayer. It goes: "Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me, a sinner.") and instantly the vision vanished.

Realizing he had been deceived, he fled to the Monastery and confessed to his spiritual father. Through God's mercy, he had been delivered from this deception.

Amillia, I believe Joseph Smith was deceived. He wanted to see God, and "God" appeared. These kinds of deceptions have been going on since Christ. It's nothing new. Unfortunately Joseph Smith didn't have a spiritual father to confess too, and to be corrected by.

Snow,

I know you read or have read the cult-stalker, evangelical websites, of which there are hundreds, that attack Mormonism for any reason that seems handy - you name, they claim it, including JS's or BY's or GBH's alledge improprieties.

Either you don't consider evangelicals to be in their right mind or your misrepresenting the issue.

They're crazy.

Surely there must be some sort of test for your demon theory.

Reject every vision, period. If it's from God, he will not be mad that you feared deception. If it's from the devil, you've done well.

PD,

See my above quote of 1 John 4, to the effect that every spirit that declares that Christ is come in the flesh is of God. Since Mormonism clearly teaches the doctrine of the Incarnation, how could a demonic angel deliver such a message? See also the scripture stating that Satan cannot be divided against himself.

I would balance 1 John 4 with St. Matthew 8:28-29. Satan, as the great deceiver, cannot produce a true vision from God. But he can make us think we are receiving a true vision from God.

So what do we do? Reject all miracles and visions, period. Though they be from God, he will forgive us since we fear deception. If they be from the Devil, we have lost nothing.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Apr 5 2005, 09:53 AM

Wow ~

It does make one wonder how any Catholic can condemn our church for its history! Speaking of historical weaknesses ~ I remember that not long ago (maybe a couple of decades ago) the Catholic church had that exposure of baby skeletons found in the catacombs~ babies of nuns and priests who were supposed to be celebate.

I guess we really can't judge a church by the weaknesses of it's leaders can we?

Amillia,

I don't think that anyone in their right mind would condemn Mormonism for sins of leaders or laypersons. It's the doctrine that's condemned.

Oh, it is? How many times have I seen here, and elsewhere, Joseph Smith condemned as an adulterer and pedophile?

Please let's stick to the truth.

[Jason]

Oh, it is? How many times have I seen here, and elsewhere, Joseph Smith condemned as an adulterer and pedophile?

Please let's stick to the truth.

Let's just say that with my discovery of Orthodoxy, I don't consider those facts alone reason to condemn.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Apr 5 2005, 10:15 PM

Snow -- I finally saw "Napoleon Dynamite" last night, so I finally see what your avatar is.  Cool.

I checked the movie on imdb.com and saw that Jared Hess made the movie for $400,000 and it has since made $44 million at the box office.  Wish I'd been one of his investors.

My kids, niece and husband have all seen ND; I have not but have come to the conclusion I must view it soon because I miss out on all the goofy recitals of "lines" from the movie that they all snicker about, ie Making one's self a damn quesidilla, emphasis on the "dilla" of course!

Also, my family and I finally headed off on our very belated trip to the USofA the last week of March and the border guard let us in (hubby has proof of Canadian citizenship now). We drove down to Spanish Fork, Utah to visit family and in so doing drove past Preston, Idaho where they had filmed ND (a little trivia, for those trivia buffs).

M.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Ex,

So what do we do? Reject all miracles and visions, period. Though they be from God, he will forgive us since we fear deception. If they be from the Devil, we have lost nothing.

I'll have to check, but I'm pretty sure that that advice goes against a whole boatload of New Testament scriptures specifically commanding that people are not to reject prophecies, visions, etc.

Does your advice mean that Catholics should have rejected the visions of the saints? St. Teresa, Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe, etc.? That would take all the fun out of Catholicism. By the way, what's the Orthodox teaching on mystical visions? Are any of Orthodoxy's saints said to have had them?

[Jason]

PD,

I'll have to check, but I'm pretty sure that that advice goes against a whole boatload of New Testament scriptures specifically commanding that people are not to reject prophecies, visions, etc.

But we must take all the New Testament into consideration, not just those you've mentioned. We know that devils have and do confess Christ. 1 John 4 probably was addressing spirits that did not confess Christ, and showing that they were definitely not from God.

I have now come to a point in my life where I would rather never see anything at all, than risk becoming prideful and seeing a vision of some kind.

Does your advice mean that Catholics should have rejected the visions of the saints? St. Teresa, Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe, etc.? That would take all the fun out of Catholicism. 

Orthodox teach that Fatima and Guadalupe are demonic. The reason's simple: visions instructing an adoration of the Spirit, rather than Christ, are clearly not from God. The other's I don't know enough to comment on.

In case I haven't mentioned it before, Orthodoxy considers Roman Catholicism apostate (the first real protestants if you will).

By the way, what's the Orthodox teaching on mystical visions? Are any of Orthodoxy's saints said to have had them?

They occur and do happen. But Orthodox teach that there are also false visions, as I believe I've already pointed out.

Course, Orthodoxy teaches that few visions from God will be given to non-Orthodox. One rare example of a true vision to a non-orthodox would be St. Constantine's vision of the Cross before the battle with what's his name.

[Snow]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Apr 6 2005, 09:38 AM

Surely there must be some sort of test for your demon theory.

Reject every vision, period. If it's from God, he will not be mad that you feared deception. If it's from the devil, you've done well.

That won't do for it would require us to reject a fair amount Bible scripture (for example: "I have known a man in Christ, fourteen years ago -- whether in the body I have not known, whether out of the body I have not known, God hath known -- such an one being caught away unto the third heaven"), and since we are told " man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live" our very life depends upon not rejecting scripture.

[Lindy]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint+Apr 4 2005, 03:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Taoist_Saint @ Apr 4 2005, 03:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--lindy9556@Apr 4 2005, 12:14 AM

Why are

Only cardinals under the age of 80 are eligible to vote, and only voting cardinals are allowed into the Sistine Chapel for the election

? I wonder?

Because it is a sacred tradition (not secret)

I still don't understand why only those who are under the age of 80 are allowed to vote, when the Pope is allowed to reign over the age of 80. It seems that they don't trust the judgement of anyone over the age of 80 if they can't vote in the election of a new Pope. There are some very intelligent, articulate, sharp minded over 80 people who add experience along with intelligence. I am having brain overload trying to figure some things out.

[Idacat]

Originally posted by lindy9556@Apr 6 2005, 09:12 PM

I still don't understand why only those who are under the age of 80 are allowed to vote, when the Pope is allowed to reign over the age of 80. It seems that they don't trust the judgement of anyone over the age of 80 if they can't vote in the election of a new Pope. There are some very intelligent, articulate, sharp minded over 80 people who add experience along with intelligence.

It's because they are electing one of themselves, one of the College of Cardinals, as the next Pope. It isn't so much that Cardinals over 80 have somehow "lost it", it is that hopefully a Pope is elected who will have a long reign, which is unlikely if the new Pope is 80 or older when elected. So, it boils down to Cardinals under 80 voting for other Cardinals under 80.

After all, the Pope prior to JPII was only Pope for a few months (? some really short time) before dying and leaving the position open.

I asked a handy Catholic friend ;-)

[Lindy]

Originally posted by Idacat@Apr 6 2005, 08:53 PM

It's because they are electing one of themselves, one of the College of Cardinals, as the next Pope. It isn't so much that Cardinals over 80 have somehow "lost it", it is that hopefully a Pope is elected who will have a long reign, which is unlikely if the new Pope is 80 or older when elected. So, it boils down to Cardinals under 80 voting for other Cardinals under 80.

After all, the Pope prior to JPII was only Pope for a few months (? some really short time) before dying and leaving the position open.

I asked a handy Catholic friend ;-)

Thanks Idacat.... it's nice to have a diversity of friends to help answer some of the questions that others throw out there. :)

[Jason]

That won't do for it would require us to reject a fair amount Bible scripture (for example: "I have known a man in Christ, fourteen years ago -- whether in the body I have not known, whether out of the body I have not known, God hath known -- such an one being caught away unto the third heaven"), and since we are told " man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live" our very life depends upon not rejecting scripture.

I give this advice simply because you and I are more likely to be deceived than St. Paul. Let the Saints receive revelations, let us be content to worship God.

[Snow]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Apr 7 2005, 08:24 AM

I give this advice simply because you and I are more likely to be deceived than St. Paul. Let the Saints receive revelations, let us be content to worship God.

I'll grant that I am subject to a flawed (read human) decision making process but the same applies to Paul. We accept his opinions because of tradition and faith. We call him a saint for the same reasons.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Apr 6 2005, 10:38 AM

Surely there must be some sort of test for your demon theory.

Reject every vision, period. If it's from God, he will not be mad that you feared deception. If it's from the devil, you've done well.

Surely you jest. If God reveals Himself to us, and we throw it away, what is to say that he will "know" us in the end when we refused to "know" Him when we had the chance?

I say, compare it to the scriptures. If it doesn't conflict, then you be sure it was from God.

[Guest jackvance88]

i have a lot of respect for the catholic church. they are one of the few churches to stand up for family values and morality in a world of religions that no longer believe in these things. another is the evangelical movement, and yet another is islam.

i hate to see fellow mormons mock the above three religions. do you think god is not pleased with their works. on the contrary, he is ecstatic, and you will find and feel the holy ghost (very strongly) when among true devout catholics, evangelists, and muslims.

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by Setheus+Apr 4 2005, 04:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Setheus @ Apr 4 2005, 04:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--ExMormon-Jason@Apr 4 2005, 11:13 AM

sethus,

How does this event in and of itself invalidate the claim to a succession from St. Peter?

Because there is no direct line back to Peter.

Giovanni de' Medici became Pope Leo X. Leo was a pirate by trade and this was a political move to gain power for the Medici family. That's how.

Look at it this way. If the rule is that no one can be pope except the pope's son then all who are potential popes must either be his son or the whole thing is a sham since all are "equally" eligable. Right?

Wouldn't adoptions count? Roman emperors "adopted" their succesor, so they could "inherit" the throne. Didn't matter that they were not blood, just the legality was all that mattered.

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Apr 4 2005, 06:09 PM

. . . . . . but maybe my hearing was distorted by the blended odors of patchouli, pot, and unshaven hippie-chick underarms. . . . . . .

Hey! I resemble that remark! LOL

[Snow]

Originally posted by jackvance88@Apr 14 2005, 01:33 PM

i have a lot of respect for the catholic church. they are one of the few churches to stand up for family values and morality in a world of religions that no longer believe in these things. another is the evangelical movement, and yet another is islam.

i hate to see fellow mormons mock the above three religions. do you think god is not pleased with their works. on the contrary, he is ecstatic, and you will find and feel the holy ghost (very strongly) when among true devout catholics, evangelists, and muslims.

Thanks for letting us know that God is ecstatic... Often times the rest of us mere mortals don't know what he thinks and feels so we really appreciated it when yoiu insiders give us the straight dope.

I don't know what posts or posters you are referring to but there is plenty in Catholicism, Envangelism and Islam that is mock-worthy. Are we to ignore corruption, and evil or zanniness and humor when we see it?

[butsam]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Apr 4 2005, 11:01 AM

If that's true, it's an unofficial rule. And of course, until John Paul II, all the Popes had been Italian, going back to before America even existed, let alone became a world power.

Actually, that is not true...

In fact, there was a German pope about 1000 years ago.

[butsam]

On the topic at hand...in order to hopefully foster a more broad understanding:

The process for selecting the successor to the Prophet is similar:

* A group of select men meet in a room in a secret conclave (ie, a meeting in a building that is sealed off from the rest of the world, and in a room that is sealed off from the rest of the general membership)

* There is no requirement of blood relationship at all (that was the RLDS claim, not the LDS claim...I assume we are talking LDS on this board and not RLDS, right?)

* There is a vote conducted (just because it has been the ranking member in LDS history does not mean it is always that way--technically it comes down to a vote)

Let's not be so quick to pounce...especially on other good Christians.

Sam

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by butsam+Apr 21 2005, 10:00 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (butsam @ Apr 21 2005, 10:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Apr 4 2005, 11:01 AM

If that's true, it's an unofficial rule.  And of course, until John Paul II, all the Popes had been Italian, going back to before America even existed, let alone became a world power.

Actually, that is not true...

In fact, there was a German pope about 1000 years ago.

I didn't say all the Popes were Italian. I said there hasn't been a non-Italian pope since before America existed as a nation, which is true -- I think the last non-Italian was Alexander, the Spanish Borgia pope from the early 1500s, who was quite the studmonkey:

"He no sooner donned the red [cardinal's] cap than he doffed it, together with the rest of his raiment, for a marathon romp with a succession of women whose identities are unknown to us and may well have been unknown to him" -- William Manchester, A World Lit Only By Fire

[Snow]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Apr 21 2005, 10:33 AM

"He no sooner donned the red [cardinal's] cap than he doffed it, together with the rest of his raiment, for a marathon romp with a succession of women whose identities are unknown to us and may well have been unknown to him" -- William Manchester, A World Lit Only By Fire

Perhaps, but for $30 I can give you thier phone numbers.