Q for Mormons (NDM) Gates of Hell

[sterryfamily]

Jesus did not build His church on a mortal man. If the church was built on the rock of Peter, then when Peter died he should have taken the church with him; because he wasn’t around any more on earth for the church on earth to “built” on him. What Jesus was saying that He would build His church on the testimony of the Holy Ghost which Peter exemplified. That is the correct reading of that scripture.

zerinus

That “reading” wasn’t invented until the last couple of centuries by men with agendas. All the Church Fathers are unanimous that Peter is the rock upon which Christ built His Church catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp

The Old Testament types are clear, as well. These offices were always ones of succession. Just follow Christ’s example; He told us to obey those who sat on the chair of Moses, because that is where they derived their authority. The apostles passed on the tradition that Moses’ seat of authority is now transferred to Peter’s seat (cathedra).

 

[rmcmullan]

From a Catholic perspective public revelation is complete and thus Moroni would be seen as not acting in accordance with the Gospel due to his attempt to produce additional scripture.

Wha??? So the Pope would then tell the angel Moroni is his resurrected glory that what he was doing is not in accordance with Catholic doctrine and chase him away?!! While talking face to face with a messenger of God?

I hope what you are really telling me is that you can’t conceive of this ever happening and if it did you just don’t know what you’d do.

 

[Karin]

Wha??? So the Pope would then tell the angel Moroni is his resurrected glory that what he was doing is not in accordance with Catholic doctrine and chase him away?!! While talking face to face with a messenger of God?

I hope what you are really telling me is that you can’t conceive of this ever happening and if it did you just don’t know what you’d do.

Messenger of God…the only people that beleive this Moroni guy was that is mormons

 

[rmcmullan]

SO you mean that you don’t believe it could ever happen, right? And if it did, then what?

 

[rmcmullan]

Wait, don’t walk into a trap! What I mean to say is do you not believe that an angel would not ever appear to the Pope or do you believe that if an angel did appear to the Pope, he would not say anything new?

 

[Karin]

SO you mean that you don’t believe it could ever happen, right? And if it did, then what?

Oh I am sure that an angel could speak/come to the Pope…but not the angel Moroni and his :whacky: idea of “golden plates”

 

[rmcmullan]

Oh I am sure that an angel could speak/come to the Pope…but not the angel Moroni and his :whacky: idea of “golden plates”

Karin, I must admit you are a master of the icon.

I know I am too logical but I think about it this way: If the Pope is allowed to reveal something new, there’s pretty much no limit, and that is what I always thought. If the Pope is not allowed to reveal anything new, then there’s no need for any angel to appear and it’s more like what Majick275 claims.

I think you are right because the Catholic church does change, although slowly and over time. Priests weren’t always celibate and when I was a kid you had to wait 3 hours before taking communion. And besides, if you want to put limits on the Pope, it’s like putting limits on God. So, if the Pope said Book of Mormon is good to go, you’d go with it but you don’t think he’s any more likely to do that than he is to tell us the 6th commandment is no longer applicable, Is that right?

 

[Karin]

Karin, I must admit you are a master of the icon.

. So, if the Pope said Book of Mormon is good to go, you’d go with it but you don’t think he’s any more likely to do that than he is to tell us the 6th commandment is no longer applicable, Is that right?

Well I bet the farm that the Good Pope would never say that the BoM is “good to go” (so thank goodness I dont have to follow it )… just as he would never say we can disregard ANY of the commandments

 

[rmcmullan]

Okay Majick275, what Karin said makes good sense to me. Do you disagree? I thought you were on the other side, that there’s no need for continuing revea—oops, I mean that the Pope wouldn’t introduce new doctrine.

 

[Karin]

Okay Majick275, what Karin said makes good sense to me. Do you disagree? I thought you were on the other side, that there’s no need for continuing revea—oops, I mean that the Pope wouldn’t introduce new doctrine.

I do think that he (Majick275

From a Catholic perspective public revelation is complete and thus Moroni would be seen as not acting in accordance with the Gospel due to his attempt to produce additional scripture

) was speaking about adding new scripture, rmcmullan may I suggest you read his posts carefully and not insert words that are not there

 

[majick275]

Okay Majick275, what Karin said makes good sense to me. Do you disagree? I thought you were on the other side, that there’s no need for continuing revea—oops, I mean that the Pope wouldn’t introduce new doctrine.

there is a significant difference between doctrinal development and new doctrine. The Pope cannot (according to catholic doctrine) act unilaterally without limit either. Papal infallibility is limited to ex catherdra when speaking on matters of faith or morals. Moroni has no authority to direct anything even according to LDS doctrine. (he held no keys). he was NOT introduced by God, nor does he in any way “legitimize” his claim to speak for God. (if he even claims that…questionable) so in essence all he does is reveal the location of a book that he claims is an abridgement of teh records of his people made by his father mormon with a brief appendix that he wrote.

Satan and his crew can appear as “angels” and make claims all day. The Bible warns us against this specifically. (Galatians 1:8)
Our knowledge of Hebrews reinforces this and thus sacred scripture when viewed throught he context of sacred tradition informs us that the canon is closed. NO MORE SCRIPTURE! This causes me to claim that if the “angel” moroni actually appeared with the LDS message then he is suspect as NOT being a messenger from God.

The Pope COULD receive personal revelation that would guide him in his office. We exepct that the Holy Spirit will guide him in his office already. We Do NOT believe that doctrine will change nor will new doctrien be revealed. Our understanding of existing doctrine improves as needed.

The important point is that Jesus came at the right time, told us everything we needed to know and fully accomplished all that is necessary for us and our salvation. All we have to do is accept him by doing the things he told us to do. (“if you love me keep my commandments”, “lovest thou me? then feed my sheep”, etc.)

 

[majick275]

Karin, I must admit you are a master of the icon.

I know I am too logical but I think about it this way: If the Pope is allowed to reveal something new, there’s pretty much no limit, and that is what I always thought. If the Pope is not allowed to reveal anything new, then there’s no need for any angel to appear and it’s more like what Majick275 claims.

I think you are right because the Catholic church does change, although slowly and over time. Priests weren’t always celibate and when I was a kid you had to wait 3 hours before taking communion. And besides, if you want to put limits on the Pope, it’s like putting limits on God. So, if the Pope said Book of Mormon is good to go, you’d go with it but you don’t think he’s any more likely to do that than he is to tell us the 6th commandment is no longer applicable, Is that right?

the pope won’t reveal new doctrine unless he is willfully disobeying God in which case we would know and his message would not be allowed by God to come under the guise of infallibility. The magisterium is ab it more complex than that and thus even though we have had bad popes they haven’t changed the doctrine of the church. Let’s not muddy the issue with discussions about practices instead of focusing on doctrine. I don’t see Karin claiming that moroni could reveal truth to the pope, only that he could appear. big difference between real angels and false angels.

 

[Karin]

Exactly!

 

[rmcmullan]

Well, okay, that’s why I try to re-phrase things to make sure I understand. Looks like in this case, I missed. So it sounds to me like you two are in agreement, that the Pope never reveals new doctrine.

I need to get more specific now and ask about the diffferences between new doctrine and conflicting doctrine but before I do–

I originally was going to make a point with repsect to the Gates of Hell but I haven’t been able to. SHould we open a new thread? Something titled “The Pope and Angels” or something like that? It’s really the old continuing revelation topic that keeps get run over and over but sometimes those old favorites are the best entertainment!

 

[majick275]

I think it best suited for “continuing revelation” but I’m up for it wherever you want to post it.

 

[rmcmullan]

But that’s so boring. How about “The Angel Moroni Appears to Benedict XVI, Book of Moron Received By Catholics!” Wait, that sounds more like a headline.

 

[rmcmullan]

I called it Angels and The Pope. SO now people can talk about Peter and the Rock without all our cross-chatter.

 

[hosemonkey]

As usual, the original question got lost in everyone’s attempt to exibit their learning. Everyone gets involved in (look up the yiddish word) pilpul. Pilpul means endless wrangling over jots and tittles. Scripture is pretty clear regarding Peter’s position in the Church and I don’t think that Our Lord stuttered when He gave Peter the job. Mormonism is a false religion invented by a deadbeat New York farmboy with a hugely overactive imagination. It became a vehicle for fraud and for Joe Smith’s sexual needs. Not only did he fabricate a whole set of “scriptures” but also managed to lose the so-called Golden Plates in the process. Given 'ol Joe’s constant need for money, I’ll bet that they ended up in a New York hock shop. The false religion that he concocted continues to fool the rubes to this day. Why do you descend to debate with untruth? I know that this forum is labeled “Non-Catholic religions” and in the case of Mormonism should be labeled “Non-Christian religions” for the obvious non-Christian doctrines that it professes. Call me uncharitable if you will, but error has few rights. 'Nuff said.

 

[PaulDupre]

Welcome, brother!
The only reason we debate with Mormons is to expose their lies. Do you recall how to destroy a vampire? You drag it out into the sunlight. The pure light of the sun destroys the demonic monster.

Mormonism cannot stand up to honest scrutiny, nor to the sunlight.

God love you,
Paul

 

[rmcmullan]

HoseMonkey, you might want to tone down that rhetoric. I hate to sound like your high school history teacher but if you want respect, you ought to give it too.

I’d like to enjoy a civil discussion with intelligent, thoughtful Catholics. I’m not trying to convert you. I’d like to know what you think and why but I see little purpose in ranting. Well, okay, every now and then a good rant is lots of fun, but not for every one, just the rantee.