Posted on 03/10/2010 10:58:17 AM PST by camerongood210
Sex abuse scandals in the Roman Catholic Church are proof that that "the Devil is at work inside the Vatican", according to the Holy See's chief exorcist.
Father Gabriele Amorth, 85, who has been the Vatican's chief exorcist for 25 years and says he has dealt with 70,000 cases of demonic possession, said that the consequences of satanic infiltration included power struggles at the Vatican as well as "cardinals who do not believe in Jesus, and bishops who are linked to the Demon".
He added: "When one speaks of 'the smoke of Satan' [a phrase coined by Pope Paul VI in 1972] in the holy rooms, it is all true – including these latest stories of violence and paedophilia."
He claimed that another example of satanic behaviour was the Vatican "cover-up" over the deaths in 1998 of Alois Estermann, the then commander of the Swiss Guard, his wife and Corporal Cedric Tornay, a Swiss Guard, who were all found shot dead. "They covered up everything immediately," he said. "Here one sees the rot".
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
For your reading pleasure:
A Catholic Utterance
In a pamphlet entitled The Strength of the Mormon Position, the late Elder Orson F. Whitney, of the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, related the following incident under the heading “A Catholic Utterance”:
Many years ago a learned man, a member of the Roman Catholic Church, came to Utah and spoke from the stand of the Salt Lake Tabernacle. I became well-acquainted with him, and we conversed freely and frankly. A great scholar, with perhaps a dozen languages at his tongue’s end, he seemed to know all about theology, law, literature, science and philosophy. One day he said to me: “You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don’t even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that’s all there is to it. The Protestants haven’t a leg to stand on. For, if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, since they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there is no need of Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism’s attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the gospel in latter days.”
(LeGrand Richards, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, p. 3)
A conveniently anonymous "Roman Catholic scholar"; perhaps fabricated, for the sake of the anecdote? Heh, heh.
The truth of the matter is, the best Roman Catholic apologetic scholars (like Hilaire Belloc) regard John Calvin as the greatest of all "heresiarchs", and Calvinism as the most lively and effective of all "heresies". Mormonism, to the extent that Catholic apologists even consider the small Utah-centered religious sect, is generally regarded as a rather silly little theological absurdity; hardly worthy of the big guns of Roman Catholic apologetic scholarship.
"A conveniently anonymous "Roman Catholic scholar"; perhaps fabricated, for the sake of the anecdote? Heh, heh.
Perhaps, but I tend to doubt it. I've read a lot of what some would call anit-Mormon material over the years, and I've never seen the veracity of this "anecdote" challenged (sorry for the anecdote). I think you might be the first to do so! ;)
"The truth of the matter is, the best Roman Catholic apologetic scholars (like Hilaire Belloc) regard John Calvin as the greatest of all "heresiarchs", and Calvinism as the most lively and effective of all "heresies". Mormonism, to the extent that Catholic apologists even consider the small Utah-centered religious sect, is generally regarded as a rather silly little theological absurdity; hardly worthy of the big guns of Roman Catholic apologetic scholarship."
This I don't doubt. My aim in posting this wasn't to defend the LDS church, but to toss out some food for thought. You seem well read. What's your take on the substance of the either/or claim? Is it true the Protestants don't have a leg to stand on?
Your response sent me in search of the answer.
John M. Reiner. He spoke at the Tabernacle in SLC in 1898.
See the following post and the ensuing discussion for more information:
http://bycommonconsent.com/2008/01/16/a-footnote-to-the-strength-of-the-mormon-position/
As reported by an autobiography written in 1930? Hmm. Well, I guess that's something, but I suppose I still consider it to be hearsay.
Still, I can see why a Roman Catholic apologist might take the position claimed; I just don't see any unique theological reason why a Roman Catholic would think that the Mormon position was particularly strong, as compared to any other of the (many) 19th Century "Restorationist" sects (i.e., why not the Campbellite "Disciples of Christ"/"Churches of Christ" Restorationist sects?), any of which deny the validity of a "continuing" Church as acknowledged by the Protestant Reformers (who saw their work as intended to "Reform" the Church, not to "Restore" a Church that had -- allegedly -- disappeared from the Earth).
And I suppose that takes me back to your immediately prior post (#43), to which I should probably now give some more thoughtful consideration. Thanks for the answers, and the questions!!
Not that it really matters, but scroll down through the thread to see some more corroborating evidence.
And I suppose that takes me back to your immediately prior post (#43), to which I should probably now give some more thoughtful consideration. Thanks for the answers, and the questions!!
You're welcome and thanks!
It comes down to priesthood authority. Either via apostolic succession (Catholics) or a restored priesthood (via visitation and the laying on of hands) in the latter days.
Well, in the spirit of "food for thought", I'd say that one problem I have with the argument attributed to Mr. Reiner, is that he's only considering one aspect of the question, "What makes a continuing Church"?
Is it:
Reiner seems to be saying that if the Roman Catholic church can't prove their first claim (An unbroken succession of Leaders), then the Mormon claim to have "restored" the proper Leadership of the Church becomes the next, strongest alternative.
But I don't think that you can say that, until you first establish that an unbroken succession of Leaders is the key defining characteristic of a "continuing" Church, and that not only the Roman Catholics but that every Christian Church has lost such Succession (which the Eastern Orthodox, for example, might dispute on their own behalf; in addition, some Protestants -- such as some Anglicans -- do claim to be part of the Apostolic Succession of Bishops, just outside of Roman Communion). And speaking just as a Presbyterian, I might tend to place more weight on the latter two characteristics of a "continuing" Church, anyway.
So, there's a number of preliminary issues that need to be established as points of agreement or disagreement, before the main question being asked can even be answered. If'n that makes sense (hopefully I'm not rambling too much).
Well, like I said in my #49, that's one aspect to consider, as a possibility; but wait, there's more!...
(See my #49)
Thanks for listing the ideas of what constitutes a continuing Christian church. As far as the LDS church is concerned, and I'm fairly certain the Catholic church as well, it's only one thing. It's the "one aspect" of priesthood authority. Whether it is through apostolic succession, or that it was restored in the latter days directly from the original Apostle(s) during visitations.
No other restored church outside of the LDS claims to have had the priesthood restored in such a fashion.
While the LDS church declares that priesthood authority is necessary for valid baptism, the Catholic church accepts baptisms done outside of the church as long as they were done with a Trinitarian formula (in an emergency, they can even be performed by non-Christian as long as they are done "in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit). Not being an expert on Catholicism (I'm learning), I suppose Catholics believe that the priesthood is necessary for the various rites and to offer the Eucharist.
As an aside and to tie this back into the original thread topic for minute, it does seem like Catholic priests do have more power readily available to perform exorcisms than say Evangelical preachers. But that is another topic.
Anyway, you're correct, it does matter what the definition of a continuing church is. Perhaps, that is what I was wanting you to tell me.
I'm open to opinions. Yet I tend to see the necessity of an unbroken chain of authority... Thanks!
As a side-note, Presbyterians -- even the more Conservative, fundamentalist-Calvinist sorts -- also accept Roman Catholic baptisms as Valid, due to the Trinitarian nature of the baptism (as well as accepting the validity of Eastern Orthodox and other Trinitarian Protestant baptisms). So, I guess I'd say that I think that part of the definition of a "continuing" Church has to be a Church or group of Churches which have consistently maintained the Athanasian doctrine of the Trinity since Apostolic times. Because that does seem to be a consistent theme of "universally essential doctrine" amongst Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and old-school Reformed Protestants.
Just ruminating on the definition of what constitutes a "continuing" Church; I'll give more thought to the rest of your reply tomorrow. Thanks for the discussion!
Camping IS strange
His theology is simple:
1. No matter what you do, or have done, if you just believe as he does, and only if you do, then you MIGHT be “saved” - MIGHT!!!!
2. IF, and only IF, you are also one of the very few (no more than a few million today) who were selected by God to be saved in the first place, in “the beginning”; otherwise, the first criteria does not matter
and
everyone on Earth not “saved” - by his criteria - will be toasted in Earth’s total destruction, beginning on May 21, 2011.
Talk about dedicated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.