A big weekend for Catholicism

[andypg]

Just thought I'd share this. This upcoming weekend, Pope Francis will be canonizing Blessed Pope John Paul the Great and Blessed Pope John XXIII. Canonizing, for those not familiar with the term, is when the Catholic Church recognizes the person as a saint and in heaven with God.

 

It's usually a long process, but after the death of John Paul II, Pope Benedict waived the one year waiting period for opening up a cause of canonization and put his predicessor on the "fast-track". During his funeral and the days following the pope's death, many people were chanting "Santo Subito" which is Italian for "Saint now."

 

Being as Pope John Paul II (or as I like to call him, John Paul the Great) was one of the longest reigning popes in history and a huge influence on world history, this is a moment Catholics (and in my case, former Catholics) have been waiting for. And it is very exciting.

 

The announcement of canonization of Blessed Pope John XXIII was a bit more controversial. Pope Francis waived the customary number of miracles needed to be recognized a saint which bothered many traditional Catholics as Pope John XXIII was the pope who opened up Vatican II and was seen as a somewhat political move on Pope Francis's part to please conservatives (JP2) and liberals (J23).

 

Granted, both are great men. Even though I am no longer a Catholic, I am looking forward to this weekend and the canonization of two great spiritual leaders.

 

 

just thought I'd share this with you all.

[faith4]

Thank you AndyPG :)   

[pam]

Cool

[mordorbund]

AndyPG or Faith4, would you care to describe what goes into canonization of a saint? My understanding is that the Catholic Church isn't making the person a saint so much as declaring that the person has already been sainted (a sort of decreeing on earth what is decreed in heaven). My understanding is they determine this to be the case based on verified miracles (are these performed while alive? or do they include miracles that have happened since death?), and evidence of beatification of the corpse (its defiance to corruption and decay), and some time delay (I'm not entirely sure why the wait - perhaps a sort of probation for the fervor to die down).

 

Is this an accurate understanding? Once the evidences are formally recognized, what is canonization? Is it a form of sacrament or a celebration via liturgy or what?

[andypg]

AndyPG or Faith4, would you care to describe what goes into canonization of a saint? My understanding is that the Catholic Church isn't making the person a saint so much as declaring that the person has already been sainted (a sort of decreeing on earth what is decreed in heaven). My understanding is they determine this to be the case based on verified miracles (are these performed while alive? or do they include miracles that have happened since death?), and evidence of beatification of the corpse (its defiance to corruption and decay), and some time delay (I'm not entirely sure why the wait - perhaps a sort of probation for the fervor to die down).

 

Is this an accurate understanding? Once the evidences are formally recognized, what is canonization? Is it a form of sacrament or a celebration via liturgy or what?

 

You're right, the Church is recognizing this person is in heaven. In Catholicism, anyone who is in heaven is a saint. A capital S Saint is someone the Church recognizes as definitely in heaven. We know they are in heaven because miracles have been done through their intercession. For JP2, the miracles included a woman healed from cancer who prayed for his intercession. (She is asking JP2 to pray for her) She was cured from the cancer and it was declared a medically-impossible miracle. After 2 miracles have been verified, they are eligible for canonization. I should mention the verification process for miracles is extremely strict and it HAS to be medically or scientifically-impossible for it to count.

 

My favorite part of the process is that there is someone called the "Devil's Advocate" whose job is to find reasons NOT to canonize the person. If this person's arguments can be debunked by those in charge of the canonization process, it continues. I heard that when Don Bosco (St. John Bosco) was up for sainthood the Devil's Advocate said he never had time to pray (he ran an oratory for poor orphans during Italy's industrial revolution). The response to that was "Well, his life was a prayer."

 

You're right, there is a delay between the person's death and the opening of their Cause for Canonization. And it is so that the fervor could die down a bit. It makes sure that the process is more neutral. However, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI (personally a favorite of mine), waived the standard waiting period for his predecessor and best friend, JP2. And just like the pope can waive the waiting period, he can also decide to canonize someone without the standard 2 miracles. This is what Pope Francis did with John XXIII.

 

The canonization itself involves a Mass. Actually, you can find this canonization on YouTube, which I recommend watching as the Mass is concelebrated with Pope Francis AND Pope Benedict. 2 popes canonizing 2 popes. Not to mention, I love Benedict so it was great to see him in public.

 

I hope this information helps a bit.

 

[mordorbund]

Thanks AndyPG.

 

I learned from a Greek Orthodox friend about beatification. Is that something the Roman Catholics include in the Cause for Canonization?

 

Also, are there any sort of risks associated with asking for intercession from an uncanonized saint? For instance, this lady with cancer was really fortunate that JPII was already in heaven and could intercede on her behalf. Would her devotion or orthodoxy be in question if she chose someone else, say her Uncle Vern who will probably never be recognized as a Saint?

[andypg]

Thanks AndyPG.

I learned from a Greek Orthodox friend about beatification. Is that something the Roman Catholics include in the Cause for Canonization?

Also, are there any sort of risks associated with asking for intercession from an uncanonized saint? For instance, this lady with cancer was really fortunate that JPII was already in heaven and could intercede on her behalf. Would her devotion or orthodoxy be in question if she chose someone else, say her Uncle Vern who will probably never be recognized as a Saint?

Beatification is the second step to sainthood. First is Venerable, second Blessed, third Saint. So Mother Teresa is currently Blessed Teresa of Calcutta. When she becomes canonized (it's going to happen) she will become known as Saint Teresa of Calcutta. She's one step away. Not sure if it's the same for the Eastern Churches.

As far as private devotions, it's accepted. When I was a Catholic I constantly asked for the intercession of my grandfather and my old confessor, 2 of the holiest men I've ever had the blessing of knowing. (Actually, I sometimes catch myself pausing and quickly ask them to pray for me, habits). If they aren't in heaven, I'm not sure what happens, though if they are in heaven they are as much of a saint as Padre Pio or St. Francis. However, while the Church says these private devotions are accepted, we shouldn't be saying in a group prayer, "Uncle Vern, pray for us" like we say "Padre Pio, pray for us." Privately we can say it though.

That's been my understanding as a Catholic for 20 years and as a current Catholic Studies and theology minor.

[Guest]

That's been my understanding as a Catholic for 20 years and as a current Catholic Studies and theology minor.

 

This is mine as well.

 

What has always bugged me is that a Catholic Pope is the most holy man on earth for a Catholic.  I don't understand why the church would canonize one Pope and not another.  All dead Popes should be in heaven, if they're not, he had no business being a Pope.

[faith4]

What has always bugged me is that a Catholic Pope is the most holy man on earth for a Catholic.  I don't understand why the church would canonize one Pope and not another.  All dead Popes should be in heaven, if they're not, he had no business being a Pope.

 

Not always so.  The Pope should be a holy man, and lead an exemplary life in virtue and charity, but he is still just a man, and as such, is not guaranteed to be in a state of being which is protected from temptation.  Our faith is in God, not in men.  Yet, for those who were notorious for their sins (not as many as you think, the good far outweigh the bad), not a single one of them attempted to change the doctrines to allow the indulgence of his own temptations, none of them every tried to "justify" their sinful behavior. 

 

Elder Uchtdorf put it very well in the October GC, "And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine. I suppose the church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and his doctrine is pure. But he works through us-His imperfect children-and imperfect people make mistakes...It is unfortunate that some have stumbled because of mistakes made by men...This is the church of Jesus Christ. God will not allow His church to drift from its appointed course or fail to fulfill its divine destiny."

 

I found this statement quite ironic.

 

And when you think about it, it makes sense that satan prefers going straight to the top when it comes to the Church, he can't harm the deposit of faith, the teachings, b/c they are being proteced by the Holy Spirit, but he can still tempt souls away from following those teachings.  And who would make a bigger difference as far as leading people away, a Pope, who is recognized around the world, or a farmer in a village who is unknown outside his village?  The one whose sin will make the biggest splash, the head honcho of course!  Much larger ripple effect!!  If he can bring down a Pope, he can lead thousands of souls to abandon the faith.     

 

And besides, Jesus didn't promise His Church would be perfect on earth.  I like the parable of the wheat and weeds in Matt 13:24-30.  Jesus sowed good seed (His teachings) and Satan came along sowing bad seed to try and mess up the harvest, but Jesus tells His angels to leave the weeds in the ground, growing with the wheat.  Jesus explains the meaning of this parable to the Apostles in the same chapter, verses 36-40.   

[Guest]

Not always so.  The Pope should be a holy man, and lead an exemplary life in virtue and charity, but he is still just a man, and as such, is not guaranteed to be in a state of being which is protected from temptation.  Our faith is in God, not in men.  Yet, for those who were notorious for their sins (not as many as you think, the good far outweigh the bad), not a single one of them attempted to change the doctrines to allow the indulgence of his own temptations, none of them every tried to "justify" their sinful behavior. 

 

Elder Uchtdorf put it very well in the October GC, "And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine. I suppose the church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and his doctrine is pure. But he works through us-His imperfect children-and imperfect people make mistakes...It is unfortunate that some have stumbled because of mistakes made by men...This is the church of Jesus Christ. God will not allow His church to drift from its appointed course or fail to fulfill its divine destiny."

 

I found this statement quite ironic.

 

And when you think about it, it makes sense that satan prefers going straight to the top when it comes to the Church, he can't harm the deposit of faith, the teachings, b/c they are being proteced by the Holy Spirit, but he can still tempt souls away from following those teachings.  And who would make a bigger difference as far as leading people away, a Pope, who is recognized around the world, or a farmer in a village who is unknown outside his village?  The one whose sin will make the biggest splash, the head honcho of course!  Much larger ripple effect!!  If he can bring down a Pope, he can lead thousands of souls to abandon the faith.     

 

And besides, Jesus didn't promise His Church would be perfect on earth.  I like the parable of the wheat and weeds in Matt 13:24-30.  Jesus sowed good seed (His teachings) and Satan came along sowing bad seed to try and mess up the harvest, but Jesus tells His angels to leave the weeds in the ground, growing with the wheat.  Jesus explains the meaning of this parable to the Apostles in the same chapter, verses 36-40.   

 

 

Elder Uchdorf, nor any of the LDS prophets are not popes... different teachings on the role of the pope vis-a-vis the prophet as well as what heaven means as well as intercessions...

 

Every man sins - prophet, pope, nurse, programmer... whatever.  But to be elected by God to lead a Church in the capacity of the Pope... if that is not heaven-worthy (in the Catholic understanding of heaven), then Catholics are in trouble... because if a Pope's standing in Christ is in question... how much more for the ordinary joes.

[faith4]

Elder Uchdorf, nor any of the LDS prophets are not popes... different teachings on the role of the pope vis-a-vis the prophet as well as what heaven means as well as intercessions...

 

Every man sins - prophet, pope, nurse, programmer... whatever.  But to be elected by God to lead a Church in the capacity of the Pope... if that is not heaven-worthy (in the Catholic understanding of heaven), then Catholics are in trouble... because if a Pope's standing in Christ is in question... how much more for the ordinary joes.

 

A Pope does not claim to receive direct revelation from God. What he does claim to do, is be the steward of the deposit of faith, and to proclaim the Good News to the world.  This will continue, as it always has despite persecution, until the Parousia. 

 

Also, God does not elect the Popes.  The Holy Spirit can aid the election with divine guidance, but the Cardinals who are voting are still men with free wills.  They can choose to ignore that little voice, just as we all do when we want to do something our way.  In the Acts of the Apostles when the 11 came together to choose a replacement for Judas, they set standards for who should replace Judas and then chose someone from that list of considerations.  Gods ways are not our ways, but we do know that all things work for the good for those who love God.  It's called trust and faith. 

 

And Popes are not, and should not be, the measuring rod of holiness, I do not hold the Pope to be the "most holy man on earth" at all times (JPII was definitely a very holy man).  By the lives of the Saints should one judge the Church, after all, "a medicine must be judged not by those who buy it but by those who actually take it.  A Church must be judged by those who hear and obey, not by those who half-hear and disobey when obedience is difficult.  No Catholic is compelled-not by the Church, not by Christ-to be holy.  His will is solicited, aided, not forced."  At all times God raises up some pretty amazing Saints, from the "ordinary Joe's", to help guide His Church. 

 

I am not concerned in the least that we had a couple of rotten apples in the bunch, they are men after all, and this just proves to me that Gods promises are so much greater than that.   

[Guest]

A Pope does not claim to receive direct revelation from God. What he does claim to do, is be the steward of the deposit of faith, and to proclaim the Good News to the world.  This will continue, as it always has despite persecution, until the Parousia. 

 

Also, God does not elect the Popes.  The Holy Spirit can aid the election with divine guidance, but the Cardinals who are voting are still men with free wills.  They can choose to ignore that little voice, just as we all do when we want to do something our way.  In the Acts of the Apostles when the 11 came together to choose a replacement for Judas, they set standards for who should replace Judas and then chose someone from that list of considerations.  Gods ways are not our ways, but we do know that all things work for the good for those who love God.  It's called trust and faith. 

 

And Popes are not, and should not be, the measuring rod of holiness, I do not hold the Pope to be the "most holy man on earth" at all times (JPII was definitely a very holy man).  By the lives of the Saints should one judge the Church, after all, "a medicine must be judged not by those who buy it but by those who actually take it.  A Church must be judged by those who hear and obey, not by those who half-hear and disobey when obedience is difficult.  No Catholic is compelled-not by the Church, not by Christ-to be holy.  His will is solicited, aided, not forced."  At all times God raises up some pretty amazing Saints, from the "ordinary Joe's", to help guide His Church. 

 

I am not concerned in the least that we had a couple of rotten apples in the bunch, they are men after all, and this just proves to me that Gods promises are so much greater than that.

Be careful what you say here, faith4... I completely disagree with you as a Catholic. The election of a pope is by divine election. Saying that it is not invalidates the Apostolic Authority. As an LDS, I completely agree with you... That's why I believe that the Catholic Church does not have Apostolic authority...

[faith4]

Be careful what you say here, faith4... I completely disagree with you as a Catholic. The election of a pope is by divine election. Saying that it is not invalidates the Apostolic Authority. As an LDS, I completely agree with you... That's why I believe that the Catholic Church does not have Apostolic authority...

 

On the question of how the Holy Spirit divinely guides the Church during a conclave:

 

“I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope. … I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined.”

-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) 

[Guest]

Yep.  And that's how Catholics explain how a person like Pope John XII can be as immoral as he is and still have Apostolic Authority...

 

This has bugged me since Church History class in High School.

[faith4]

His Apostolic Authority allows the continuation of the Good News to be preached to all the nations, and that the doctrines themselves remain guarded from heresy.  None of them (who were bad), not even John XII, changed dogma to justify his sinful life.  It does not make them sin-proof or suddenly supernatural, all Popes still have to rely on Gods grace to achieve holiness.  They will have to face judgement, as we all do, but they will be held to a higher standard b/c they were a Pope, and as such, should not have used the office for corruption.  And infallability has nothing to do with how a Pope chooses to live his life, nothing.  Not that that is any excuse!!!  A man who is elected Pope should know better, and I believe they will all be judge accordingly!! 

 

Now, not many were like this, but God honors our free will and lets our choices run their course, whether good or bad, b/c Christ has come and set us free from sin, yet we still have to choose that freedom from sin, every day.  But God's Grace is far greater than man sinfulness, and that's what we should be relying on, not the personal holiness of a man, even if he is the Pope.  After all, when Christ said, I am the vine and you are the branches, he wasn't saying that a branch could ruin the whole vine, but if a vine did die, it would be pruned off so as to make the rest of the vine healthier. 

 

Maybe this makes a little more sense to you, but if it doesn't, I understand, you are after all LDS, I don't expect you to agree with me :)  God bless!

[fatima]

Yep.  And that's how Catholics explain how a person like Pope John XII can be as immoral as he is and still have Apostolic Authority...

 

This has bugged me since Church History class in High School.

Isn't it rather undisputed that Joseph Smith, too, was a rather questionable character, at best?  I'm no LDS historian, but I spend a fair amount of time reading about the LDS faith traditions, ordinances and history, and I've heard acknowledgements of the sins/errors of some leaders/prophets/presidents.  As another poster pointed out, this simply can show the power of God through human weakness, and the unchanging doctrines in Catholicism, in spite of the sinful men, is compelling to me.  To think the pope cannot sin is to put him on par with God, and that can never be a good thing.

[Guest]

Isn't it rather undisputed that Joseph Smith, too, was a rather questionable character, at best?  I'm no LDS historian, but I spend a fair amount of time reading about the LDS faith traditions, ordinances and history, and I've heard acknowledgements of the sins/errors of some leaders/prophets/presidents.  As another poster pointed out, this simply can show the power of God through human weakness, and the unchanging doctrines in Catholicism, in spite of the sinful men, is compelling to me.  To think the pope cannot sin is to put him on par with God, and that can never be a good thing.

 

 

Elder Uchdorf, nor any of the LDS prophets are not popes... different teachings on the role of the pope vis-a-vis the prophet as well as what heaven means as well as intercessions...

 

And we are not disputing that EVERYBODY sins - Pope, prophet, everybody.  What we are talking about is how terrible men, using the Church office as a position to do terrible things, can retain Apostolic Authority. 

[fatima]

And we are not disputing that EVERYBODY sins - Pope, prophet, everybody.  What we are talking about is how terrible men, using the Church office as a position to do terrible things, can retain Apostolic Authority. 

I know.  Bad guys in the LDS church claim to have apostolic authority;  it could be argued that Joseph Smith used his authority to indulge in impurity.  However, if you accept that God uses the weak then Joseph Smith's sins play no part in his claim to authority, and neither to a pope's sins disqualify him as the instrument of God.

[Guest]

A Pope does not claim to receive direct revelation from God. What he does claim to do, is be the steward of the deposit of faith, and to proclaim the Good News to the world.  This will continue, as it always has despite persecution, until the Parousia. 

 

Also, God does not elect the Popes.  The Holy Spirit can aid the election with divine guidance, but the Cardinals who are voting are still men with free wills.  They can choose to ignore that little voice, just as we all do when we want to do something our way.  In the Acts of the Apostles when the 11 came together to choose a replacement for Judas, they set standards for who should replace Judas and then chose someone from that list of considerations.  Gods ways are not our ways, but we do know that all things work for the good for those who love God.  It's called trust and faith. 

 

And Popes are not, and should not be, the measuring rod of holiness, I do not hold the Pope to be the "most holy man on earth" at all times (JPII was definitely a very holy man).  By the lives of the Saints should one judge the Church, after all, "a medicine must be judged not by those who buy it but by those who actually take it.  A Church must be judged by those who hear and obey, not by those who half-hear and disobey when obedience is difficult.  No Catholic is compelled-not by the Church, not by Christ-to be holy.  His will is solicited, aided, not forced."  At all times God raises up some pretty amazing Saints, from the "ordinary Joe's", to help guide His Church. 

 

I am not concerned in the least that we had a couple of rotten apples in the bunch, they are men after all, and this just proves to me that Gods promises are so much greater than that.   

 

Interesting stuff.  I am LDS, and although I know a lot about Protestantism, I would like to learn more about Catholicism.  Where I am in Texas, however, the opportunity to do so is somewhat limited, unfortunately.  I also think that studying Catholicism would be different from studying Protestantism in some ways - with the Pope being, according to Catholicism, God's representative on the Earth, I have always wondered if one can truly understand Catholicism without actually becoming Catholic.  Just my thoughts.

 

As for the discussion on the mistakes of past Popes, I take such allegations with a grain of salt.  Here in Texas, there is a lot of anti-Catholic literature, just as there is a lot of anti-Mormon literature, and just as I know people can distort events in the life of Joseph Smith to make him look grossly sinful, people do the same thing for various Popes.  I, for one, believe Joseph Smith was a righteous and holy man, and I also give the benefit of the doubt to the Popes.  But, it is correct that God can use even imperfect men to do His work.  The Bible contains the story of Jonah, someone who was clearly a grossly, even repulsively imperfect man being used by God!

 

Anyhow, my two cents on this topic.  I hope that LDS-Catholic dialogue, friendship, and cooperation continues and grows in the future- I believe the potential for great friendship is there.

[Guest]

I know.  Bad guys in the LDS church claim to have apostolic authority;  it could be argued that Joseph Smith used his authority to indulge in impurity.  However, if you accept that God uses the weak then Joseph Smith's sins play no part in his claim to authority, and neither to a pope's sins disqualify him as the instrument of God.

 

You can claim apostolic authority all you want.  It doesn't necessarily follow that you got it.  Joseph Smith included.

 

Yes, you can be a sinner and claim apostolic authority.  But you can't use your apostolic authority for sinful pursuits else you will lose that authority.  The LDS Church has many "spin offs" led by people who are mis-using their authority.  That authority is now lost, and that includes Joseph Smith's own son.  Of couse, if you claim that Joseph Smith used his apostolic authority for sinful pursuits - say polygamy - then it follows that you don't believe in the authority of the LDS Church and that reasoning is valid.  But if you claim that Pope-so-and-so used his apostolic authority for sinful pursuits, then it doesn't follow that you still believe in the papal authority of the Catholic Church, unless a restoration occurred.

[fatima]

Yep.  And that's how Catholics explain how a person like Pope John XII can be as immoral as he is and still have Apostolic Authority...

 

This has bugged me since Church History class in High School.

 

Am I missing something here?  You seem to be saying in the above post (couple with another, but I don't know how to multi-quote) that you reject the Catholic Church's claim to authority, and think Catholics should too, because an immoral person cannot legitimately claim Apostolic Authority.  Yet, all men are sinners, including the LDS founder, who may or may not have committed sins against purity.  

It seems to me one can make a case for Catholic men and LDS men who may have used their positions for immoral behavior; negating in your mind the claim to AA by either of them.  Catholics, however, believe that while a bad guy can do all kinds of bad things with his position, the doctrines will never change; that is what is protected by the Holy Spirit.  The CC will never teach that Jesus is not Truly Present in the Eucharist, that the Blessed Virgin was not a Perpetual Virgin and that she was not Assumed into Heaven, body and soul.  That is what is protected.  A pope may actually have his own opinion on the subject that isn't in line with the doctrines, but he will never be able to declare an erroneous teaching.  Teachings in the CC do not change by continued or new revelation.  The CC may be silent on a subject before it makes a declaration (the Assumption of the BVM wasn't declared until the last century), but it will never teach something as true "for a time", or some such thing.

[Guest]

Am I missing something here?  You seem to be saying in the above post (couple with another, but I don't know how to multi-quote) that you reject the Catholic Church's claim to authority, and think Catholics should too, because an immoral person cannot legitimately claim Apostolic Authority.  Yet, all men are sinners, including the LDS founder, who may or may not have committed sins against purity.  

It seems to me one can make a case for Catholic men and LDS men who may have used their positions for immoral behavior; negating in your mind the claim to AA by either of them.  Catholics, however, believe that while a bad guy can do all kinds of bad things with his position, the doctrines will never change; that is what is protected by the Holy Spirit.  The CC will never teach that Jesus is not Truly Present in the Eucharist, that the Blessed Virgin was not a Perpetual Virgin and that she was not Assumed into Heaven, body and soul.  That is what is protected.  A pope may actually have his own opinion on the subject that isn't in line with the doctrines, but he will never be able to declare an erroneous teaching.  Teachings in the CC do not change by continued or new revelation.  The CC may be silent on a subject before it makes a declaration (the Assumption of the BVM wasn't declared until the last century), but it will never teach something as true "for a time", or some such thing.

 

Yes, you are missing something there.

 

I am not claiming who has authority and who hasn't.

 

I am saying that if the leader of a Church - whether it be the Roman Catholic Pope, The LDS Prophet, the Baptist Preacher, the Assemblies of God Chaplain, etc. uses his Priesthood Keys for immoral acts, he loses such authority.

 

For the Baptist Preacher, it doesn't matter... because their doctrine doesn't require an unbroken line of Apostolic Authority (okay, not all Baptists - there are sects that still follow some form of succession) to have Priesthood Authority.

 

For the LDS Prophet, it does matter because the LDS believe Priesthood Authority has to be an unbroken line... if it is broken, then a restoration needs to be made to establish the authority on earth again.  The LDS Church believes that Priesthood Authority has been lost many times since the Garden of Eden and it had to be restored in every gospel dispensation.  None of the prophets has used his Apostolic Keys for immoral acts and retained such keys.  Using one's authority for apostasy will cause them to lose their authority, hence the need for restoration if it's a complete apostasy.  But the LDS Church believes that the restoration of Priesthood Keys on Joseph Smith is the last dispensation... that means, it will not be broken until Christ comes again.  That is a doctrine of the Church.  The LDS Church has 15 Apostles with the authority to lead the Church (as there were 12 in the time after Christ ascended).  Hence, all 15 cannot lose their authority without having ordained one to such authority, otherwise, the Church becomes apostate.

 

For a Catholic Pope, it also matters as they claim an unbroken line of Apostolic Succession as their claim to Authority.  One cannot keep such authority if he uses it for immoral acts.  The Church also believes that the Bishop of Rome is the only one with the authority to lead the Church.  With the world's bishops that align with his teaching comprising the magisterium.  Now, through the years of bad Popes, the claim that the Roman Catholic Church retained Apostolic Authority is challenged by Eastern Catholic Churches - who also has an unbroken line of succession.  The reason why the Eastern Churches are not the "true Church" is because they do not align with the Church of Rome.  Therefore, the Catholic Church must claim that the Bishop of Rome retained authority throughout the ages... not just the magisterium.

 

But, as this is really not the topic of this thread but more of a thread hijack... I'm going to make this my last post on the topic.

 

I just want to say that I love the Catholic Church... and they have done a great and wonderful job in preserving the gospel through the dark days.  There are lots of Saints with lives that are worth exemplifying.

[fatima]

Yes, you are missing something there.

 

I am not claiming who has authority and who hasn't.

 

I am saying that if the leader of a Church - whether it be the Roman Catholic Pope, The LDS Prophet, the Baptist Preacher, the Assemblies of God Chaplain, etc. uses his Priesthood Keys for immoral acts, he loses such authority.

 

For the Baptist Preacher, it doesn't matter... because their doctrine doesn't require an unbroken line of Apostolic Authority (okay, not all Baptists - there are sects that still follow some form of succession) to have Priesthood Authority.

 

For the LDS Prophet, it does matter because the LDS believe Priesthood Authority has to be an unbroken line... if it is broken, then a restoration needs to be made to establish the authority on earth again.  The LDS Church believes that Priesthood Authority has been lost many times since the Garden of Eden and it had to be restored in every gospel dispensation.  None of the prophets has used his Apostolic Keys for immoral acts and retained such keys.  Using one's authority for apostasy will cause them to lose their authority, hence the need for restoration if it's a complete apostasy.  But the LDS Church believes that the restoration of Priesthood Keys on Joseph Smith is the last dispensation... that means, it will not be broken until Christ comes again.  That is a doctrine of the Church.  The LDS Church has 15 Apostles with the authority to lead the Church (as there were 12 in the time after Christ ascended).  Hence, all 15 cannot lose their authority without having ordained one to such authority, otherwise, the Church becomes apostate.

 

For a Catholic Pope, it also matters as they claim an unbroken line of Apostolic Succession as their claim to Authority.  One cannot keep such authority if he uses it for immoral acts.  The Church also believes that the Bishop of Rome is the only one with the authority to lead the Church.  With the world's bishops that align with his teaching comprising the magisterium.  Now, through the years of bad Popes, the claim that the Roman Catholic Church retained Apostolic Authority is challenged by Eastern Catholic Churches - who also has an unbroken line of succession.  The reason why the Eastern Churches are not the "true Church" is because they do not align with the Church of Rome.  Therefore, the Catholic Church must claim that the Bishop of Rome retained authority throughout the ages... not just the magisterium.

 

But, as this is really not the topic of this thread but more of a thread hijack... I'm going to make this my last post on the topic.

 

I just want to say that I love the Catholic Church... and they have done a great and wonderful job in preserving the gospel through the dark days.  There are lots of Saints with lives that are worth exemplifying.

 

Well, every act that a man commits that is sinful is an immoral act.  And since every man sins, then no man, Catholic or LDS can claim Apostolic Authority.  Indeed the Catholic Church has preserved the gospel through the dark days, and continues to, because that preservation is the work of God, not of man.  There has been no total apostasy, so Apostolic Authority remains today where it was deposited 2014 years ago.

[faith4]

 

For a Catholic Pope, it also matters as they claim an unbroken line of Apostolic Succession as their claim to Authority.  One cannot keep such authority if he uses it for immoral acts.  The Church also believes that the Bishop of Rome is the only one with the authority to lead the Church.  With the world's bishops that align with his teaching comprising the magisterium.  Now, through the years of bad Popes, the claim that the Roman Catholic Church retained Apostolic Authority is challenged by Eastern Catholic Churches - who also has an unbroken line of succession.  The reason why the Eastern Churches are not the "true Church" is because they do not align with the Church of Rome.  Therefore, the Catholic Church must claim that the Bishop of Rome retained authority throughout the ages... not just the magisterium.

 

 

 

The bolded statement is not true, if that were the case, no man today would have any apostolic authority.  As Peter was singled out among the 12 to "feed the lambs", so there is always one who takes the chair of Peter and guards the deposit of faith, making sure the good news is continually preached to every tongue, nation and people.  And just as Peter was a sinful man, with a temper and who denied Jesus, so all men who follow in his place, they are simply men, still here on earth facing temptations just like everyone else.  Not one of them was perfect while here on earth, not one of them completely sinless.  Yet not one of them tried to justify his sinful behavior by changing doctrine. 

 

The Roman Church recognizes the authority of the Eastern Churches, and the Eastern recognizes the authority of the Roman.