What happens to babies and children in heaven?

[sandyelder]

It’s a rule for those who are aware of, and wish to follow, the teaching of Jesus.

So, if baptism is only necessary for those who know the Church;
And those who die unbaptised end up in “hell”;
Why does the Church then preach the gospel to those who otherwise would likely be saved through the baptism of desire, instead consigning them to “hell” because they now know the Church yet remain unbaptised? Furthermore, why does knowledge of the Church suddenly subject one to the requirement of a physical baptism? Why is a baptism of desire inadequate?

This whole thread begs the question of why knowledge of and belief in Jesus is even necessary to salvation if one can be saved in ignorance (through a baptism of desire to know and follow God). Except they can’t, and therein lies the conundrum. Jesus between His death and resurrection, went to preach His Gospel to spirits in prison (1 Pet 3). (If spirits are not material, how can they be imprisoned?). He said He would visit other sheep who were not part of the church at Jerusalem. When/Why did He do this and who were (are) the other sheep? (John 10) Did He teach them the necessity of baptism, as well? Are there records of such a visit?

What is truly absurd and illogical is that God would put in one set of rules for some people and another set for others. He loves everyone equally, He is no respecter of persons, He is the same yesterday, today and forever. Physical baptism is necessary, as even Christ fulfilled the law. The Church’s current teachings are a contortion designed as a work-around to that necessity and a (false) repudiation of 1 Cor 15. Such a teaching inherently denies the primacy of Jesus as The Way, implicitly granting salvation to those who know Him not and can not therefore follow Him. Followed to its logical conclusion, it calls into question the very need for Jesus. As such, it should be disavowed.

As for the necessity of a physical baptism, one must wonder why John was baptizing even before Jesus had begun His ministry. (Matt 3)

 

[TKTsunami]

“Why does the Church then preach the gospel to those who otherwise would likely be saved through the baptism of desire, instead consigning them to “hell” because they now know the Church yet remain unbaptised?”

Did you not listen at all to the distinction being made? “Who otherwise would likely be saved” is not what I was saying. Christ established a Church and an ordinary means of entrance, Baptism in water. There is an extraordinary mode of entrance, baptism of desire, put forward by theologians, corroborated by mystics, and even represented in the Divine Comedy and Summa. But it’s extraordinary, not just because it’s “unconventional”, but because it is entirely dependent on the untamed and inscrutable will of God Himself.

You speak of this idea as though it’s a get out of Hell free card (which, like Christianity’s very grace of faith, it is in a very simplistic and inexplanatory sense) but it is in fact rather more like a last minute reprieve on Death Row, while the axe is in the air, where the expressed purpose is to show that no soul is beyond the power of the love of God.

So, a comparison: You’re the guy running Death Row, and you hear that the monarch wants to illustrate his mercy in a way that makes examples. You’d have to be a pretty dumb monarch to set every individual prisoner free: that’s sentimentality, not mercy, and is unjust. Not setting any of them free, though, illustrates nothing and is not relevant here. You set only a few free, and then just to get the point across abundantly clear, you ideally do it roughly a millisecond before their head would have been cut off. This is all an analogy; God is not a frivolous tyrant. But it does illustrate a practical concern regarding the justice of salvation.

To which, sandyelder, I address this question: who the Hell (literally) are you to so profess against something which 1) is possible for God (unless God isn’t omniscient or grace must be merited), 2) is something we understand as a potential mode of His extraordinary compassion, 3) has been witnessed by various visionaries and mystics, and entered into the catechism as possibly true, and 4) even gave Augustine pause, such that he, the Doctor Gratiae himself, did not forget to submit his work to the Magisterium in the event that the Church Herself took issue with one of his points?

 

[TKTsunami]

You prove my point on apostasy.

emphasis mine

Unless you deny the primacy of the Catholic faith, that it is in fact the inheritor of Jesus’ original Church, holding the keys of power and authority given to Peter, such a statement can not be true. John was called and ordained to baptize - he had the keys. That is why Jesus went to him. John was at Jordan because immersion is the proper form.

Protestant faiths are technically apostate faiths, having distanced themselves from the Church’s teachings. Did they take the proper power and authority with them when they left? Does God recognize all faith’s as equally valid? If so, why does not the Church recognize the baptism of “non-Christian” religions such as mormons? Clearly, the Church makes certain distinctions about what constitutes a valid baptsim. Given the prior discussion, I would think that mormons at least would qualify under a baptism of desire. Yet, even that is denied them. One can not reasonably have such a squishy position on necessity and form of baptism, then start drawing lines around what is or is not included in the concept of baptism.

I further disagree with the contorted explanation about ‘one baptism’. Jesus is the example. He established the protocol. Our charge is to follow Him. Baptism is an action symbolic of His death and resurrection. As such, it is properly performed by immersion and immersion only. By proper authority in the proper manner. We are laid down sinful into the water as if in death, then brought forth clean from sin by the blood of the Lamb (given in death) in simmilitude of a perfect resurrection. All else is rationaliztion to justify deviation (yes, apostasy) from the command that all should be, must be, physically baptised, laying down our sinful nature, rising up in obedience, which is the gate through which we enter the narrow Way and follow Him to our Father.

See, now you’re just saying things at me, you aren’t listening. It is in the Catechism (CCC 1256): “In case of necessity, any person, even someone not baptized, can baptize, if he has the required intention. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.” Your problem, I assume, is that you don’t see the “necessity of Baptism” argument as validly conferring the dispensation from baptism by a priest, despite the fact that that is precisely the Church’s prerogative (hence, by toleration by the Church, Protestant baptisms are valid through the Church’s allowance.)

Where, ever, in the Bible does it explicitly state that Baptism by immersion is a doctrine of the Church? If anything, such a thing is physically impossible from what the Bible itself claims! Three thousand people in Jerusalem are baptized in Acts 2:41. Think about how much water that would take: more water than was present in the ENTIRE CITY. Your argument regarding immersion being the unstated and sole form of Baptism, flatly, holds no water.

Further, regarding the Mormons paragraph, Mormons do not intend the same thing as Christians intend when they baptize. They equivocate on the meaning of the Holy Trinity (three gods, not one; Christ is “a god” in the book of Mormon.) That’s a condition required of the one baptizing. Ergo, Mormon baptisms aren’t valid. Moreover, baptisms of desire are not “given” or “denied” except by God; they only occur in the event of having no mode of receiving baptism by water in a state of necessity. And even then they aren’t understood as universal by any means, except by some Franciscans or Jesuits maybe. I’m more Augustinian, myself. So don’t call me “apostate”, because everything I have said is the expressed and explicit teaching of the Magisterium, not an invention from whole cloth, and I don’t take kindly to the lack of charity.

 

[almostatheist]

It’s a rule for those who are aware of, and wish to follow, the teaching of Jesus.
Do you think Christians claim to understand everything?

Ignorance of the law isn’t an excuse though. People still get in trouble for not abiding by laws even if they don’t understand that their breaking a law.

And by that I mean that it was questions like these, followed by answers like the ones you state above that led me from being a very devoted follower of Jesus to being an agnostic whose head still spins at questions like these. I joined Catholic Answers for clarification to my questions and, by golly, I’m driven further from answers every time I log on.

 

[sandyelder]

So don’t call me “apostate”, because everything I have said is the expressed and explicit teaching of the Magisterium, not an invention from whole cloth, and I don’t take kindly to the lack of charity.

I do not intend to be uncharitable and apologize if I have given offense. I did not mean that you as an individual were an apostate. However, I do not believe the position you have laid out has a biblical foundation. If it is not truth, it is apostasy, regardless of its source. To your point about the Magisterium and the extra-ordinary mode of baptism, a

baptism of desire, put forward by theologians, corroborated by mystics, and even represented in the Divine Comedy and Summa.

None of those sources is prophetic. None has the authority to announce doctrine beyond that which is laid out in scripture. In short, none is of God, since His method of operation is to call a prophet and announce His word through that person (Amos 3:7 KJV). Since the beginning, God has used prophets to teach His people. I see nothing in scripture to indicate that method has been rescinded. Therefore, any teaching not specifically grounded in the Bible is suspect, imho.

As an example.

It is in the Catechism (CCC 1256): “In case of necessity, any person, even someone not baptized, can baptize, if he has the required intention. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.” Your problem, I assume, is that you don’t see the “necessity of Baptism” argument as validly conferring the dispensation from baptism by a priest, despite the fact that that is precisely the Church’s prerogative (hence, by toleration by the Church, Protestant baptisms are valid through the Church’s allowance.)

This seems to suggest that a proper authority is unnecessary for the baptism to be recognized. It puts the Church, not God, in the position of arbiter of what will be tolerated (apostate Protestant baptisms are recognized, presumably because they are break-offs from the Church; mormon baptisms are not recognized because they were on the losing end of the debate at Nicea. (No prophet there, btw)).

Now, for the crux of the question:

Where, ever, in the Bible does it explicitly state that Baptism by immersion is a doctrine of the Church?

Not to be combative, but wherever does it say that it is not?

Here are some verses to consider:
John 3:23 KJV “And John also was baptizing……because there was much water there.” Why would John need much water if immersion were not the protocol?
Mark 1:5, Matt 3:5-6 KJV “And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him (John) in the river of Jordan.” Could not the 3,000 cited in Acts 2 have done the same? Why was John at Jordan?
In Romans 6:4 KJV, the symbolism of baptism is explicitly explained. We are buried in sin and raised up out of the water pure, just as Jesus died for our sin and was resurrected perfect.
Surely you know that the word itself – baptism – means to dip or immerse.

I could go on but I believe this is adequate to answer your question. Immersion IS the stated form, it IS the sole form, and it requires proper authority to be valid. Again, imho, everything you have presented is a contortion designed to circumvent the clear command that EXCEPT one is baptized (by immersion, with authority), entrance into heaven is not possible.

As for the mormon belief in 3 Gods vs 1, I see little difference between that and the Church’s current description of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Do you deny that Christ is God? Does not John 1 state as much? Why did Stephen see the Father and the Son in vision at his death? Why did the Father announce His approval and the Holy Spirit give witness of the divinity of Jesus at His baptism? If they are the same essence, why the multiple manifestations? The answer should be obvious.

 

[almostatheist]

As for the mormon belief in 3 Gods vs 1, I see little difference between that and the Church’s current description of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Do you deny that Christ is God? Does not John 1 state as much? Why did Stephen see the Father and the Son in vision at his death? Why did the Father announce His approval and the Holy Spirit give witness of the divinity of Jesus at His baptism? If they are the same essence, why the multiple manifestations? The answer should be obvious.

Because I don’t want this to derail, I’m going to give a simplistic answer by saying that Father, Son, and Spirit are not separate gods, so much as facets of the same god. Each role fulfills an intended purpose, but is still attributed to the same God. Just like in one setting my dad might appear to be an engineer, while in another he might appear to be a father, while in another he might appear to be an artist. You wouldn’t go an artist for a question about a specific computer program, unless that artist was also a computer engineer. Just like you wouldn’t ask a spirit to give you fatherly spiritual wisdom, unless it were also God the Father.

 

[tonyrey]

              **tonyrey**                     
             *It's a rule for those who are aware of, and wish to follow, the teaching of Jesus. Do you think Christians claim to understand everything?*
                             Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse though. People still get in trouble for not abiding by laws even if they don't understand that they're breaking a law.

You are referring to human laws in societies where everyone has the opportunity and obligation to know those laws.

And by that I mean that it was questions like these, followed by answers like the ones you state above that led me from being a very devoted follower of Jesus to being an agnostic whose head still spins at questions like these. I joined Catholic Answers for clarification to my questions and, by golly, I’m driven further from answers every time I log on.

If you interpreted Christianity legalistically I’m not surprised you abandoned it. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for observing the letter rather than the spirit of the Law.

 

[almostatheist]

If you interpreted Christianity legalistically I’m not surprised you abandoned it. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for observing the letter rather than the spirit of the Law.

There are apparently rules for getting in to heaven, I just want to know what they are.

I guess I feel that the spirit of the law would be more of a Baptism by desire, and the letter would be a physical baptism. I don’t really care which one is right, just so long as it’s consistent. I really can’t follow a religion that claims to be the one true faith, yet makes exceptions for some of its core teachings.

 

[TKTsunami]

I do not intend to be uncharitable and apologize if I have given offense. I did not mean that you as an individual were an apostate. However, I do not believe the position you have laid out has a biblical foundation. If it is not truth, it is apostasy, regardless of its source. To your point about the Magisterium and the extra-ordinary mode of baptism, a None of those sources is prophetic. None has the authority to announce doctrine beyond that which is laid out in scripture. In short, none is of God, since His method of operation is to call a prophet and announce His word through that person (Amos 3:7 KJV). Since the beginning, God has used prophets to teach His people. I see nothing in scripture to indicate that method has been rescinded. Therefore, any teaching not specifically grounded in the Bible is suspect, imho.

As an example.

This seems to suggest that a proper authority is unnecessary for the baptism to be recognized. It puts the Church, not God, in the position of arbiter of what will be tolerated (apostate Protestant baptisms are recognized, presumably because they are break-offs from the Church; mormon baptisms are not recognized because they were on the losing end of the debate at Nicea. (No prophet there, btw)).

Now, for the crux of the question:
Not to be combative, but wherever does it say that it is not?

Here are some verses to consider:
John 3:23 KJV “And John also was baptizing……because there was much water there.” Why would John need much water if immersion were not the protocol?
Mark 1:5, Matt 3:5-6 KJV “And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him (John) in the river of Jordan.” Could not the 3,000 cited in Acts 2 have done the same? Why was John at Jordan?
In Romans 6:4 KJV, the symbolism of baptism is explicitly explained. We are buried in sin and raised up out of the water pure, just as Jesus died for our sin and was resurrected perfect.
Surely you know that the word itself – baptism – means to dip or immerse.

I could go on but I believe this is adequate to answer your question. Immersion IS the stated form, it IS the sole form, and it requires proper authority to be valid. Again, imho, everything you have presented is a contortion designed to circumvent the clear command that EXCEPT one is baptized (by immersion, with authority), entrance into heaven is not possible.

As for the mormon belief in 3 Gods vs 1, I see little difference between that and the Church’s current description of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Do you deny that Christ is God? Does not John 1 state as much? Why did Stephen see the Father and the Son in vision at his death? Why did the Father announce His approval and the Holy Spirit give witness of the divinity of Jesus at His baptism? If they are the same essence, why the multiple manifestations? The answer should be obvious.

Your argument that the Magisterium is not “of God” is flawed, because by that very argument, there is no such thing as oral tradition or even, for that matter, true interpretation of Scripture; if it is not said in the act of saying done by a prophet, then by your argument, it is not of God. But when the Church speaks from the Magisterium, she speaks with her authority of interpretation, and that authority is most definitely “of God”; it was given to St. Peter, the keys of the kingdom. But I will also add in addition that unless you can find an explicit Scriptural justification for saying that the only way to determine if a given statement is “of God” is Scripture itself and alone, then your argument has already failed, and I have seen no such justification. Rejecting your principle, therefore, whereby you exclude “not-Scripture”, I exclude your conclusion, that my use of the Magisterium is invalid.

Now, I don’t have to answer your question as to where it says baptism is “not” immersion, any more than I have to answer a question as to where the law that says we must do a handstand every Tuesday is in Chronicles. The onus of proof is on YOU, not me. But I will say where it IS said in the Early Church that immersion was not the whole and only practice:

“Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” Didache

“If water is scarce, whether as a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available” Hippolytus of Rome, note that he does not care whether the situation is constant or on occasion.

“with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation, and finally, without cost, a man is baptized in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises again, not much (or not at all) the cleaner.” Tertullian, note that he says one is not much or at all the cleaner, and note that he says it is “sprinkled.”

Early Christian artwork may depict men baptized standing in a river, but it is not immersion; they have the water poured in almost every case over their head. Flatly, unless you wish to say that the Apostles themselves and their immediate disciples were wrong (a most untenable position!) then you are in error.

This is not to say I cannot provide a Scriptural basis; my problem is that you seem quite content with your narrow (and isogetical!) interpretation of the Bible that I worry any verses I may cite will be taken in bad spirit. Nonetheless:

“you heard from me, for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 1:4-5) But they are not “immersed” in the Holy Spirit, a passive verb; rather, the Spirit is “poured out” upon them, and this is said three times in Acts 2; 2:17, 18, 33. Furthermore, the Spirit is referred to as “falling” upon them by Peter (Acts 11:15-17) and this is explicitly identified with baptism. But I do not doubt, given previous obstinacy, that you will not settle but for a verse that says “By the way, baptism doesn’t just mean immersion, guys”, and that not from the Apostles, but from Christ, for fear that perhaps Peter isn’t “as inspired” as Our Lord. So I have little hope for the good fate of this small sed contra.

 

[TKTsunami]

As to the authority, they must intend what the Church intends by the words. Period. We’re not against the salvation of souls by the “wrong” people for the right reasons; we would be against such an act if there was any reason to consider more people baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit a bad thing. Fortunately, there is no such problem given the right intentions, and so the Church allows such a Sacrament, not that there would ever be a reason to disallow it.

“I’m going to give a simplistic answer by saying that Father, Son, and Spirit are not separate gods, so much as facets of the same god. Each role fulfills an intended purpose, but is still attributed to the same God. Just like in one setting my dad might appear to be an engineer, while in another he might appear to be a father, while in another he might appear to be an artist. You wouldn’t go an artist for a question about a specific computer program, unless that artist was also a computer engineer. Just like you wouldn’t ask a spirit to give you fatherly spiritual wisdom, unless it were also God the Father.”

Just a bit of laying-out here:

The Father is God (I Peter 1:2; John 6:27, 20:17; Galatians 1:1; Matthew 11:25; Jude 1)

The Son – or Word – is God (John 1:1, 8:58, 20:28; Hebrews 1:1-8, Colossians 2:9, Titus 2:13).

The Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5 :1-11; I Corinthians 2:11; 6:19-20).

The Father is a Person. We can have fellowship with him, 1 John 1:3; he knows, Matthew 6:6-8; he teaches, Matthew 16:17; he loves, John 16:27; he is a witness, John 8:18; he has a will, John 5:30.

The Son is a Person. We can have fellowship with him, 1 John 1:3; he knows, Matthew 11:27; he teaches, John 1:18, Rev. 2:18; he loves, Romans 8:35, Gal. 2:20; he is a witness, John 8:18; he has a will, John 5:30; he can be grieved, John 11:35.

The Holy Spirit is a Person. We can have fellowship with him, Philippians 2:1, II Cor. 13:14; he knows, I Cor. 2:11; he teaches, Luke 12:12, I Cor. 2:13; he loves, Romans 15:30; he is a witness, Acts 20:23, Romans 8:16; he has a will, I Cor. 12:11; he can be grieved, Ephesians 4:30.

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are able to:

Send or be sent by one another (John 3:17, 10:36, 14:23-26, 15:26, 16:7).

Speak to each other (John 17:1-26, Romans 8:26-27, Hebrews 1:7-8) and about each other (Matthew 17:5, Mark 1:11, John 8:13-18).

The Father and Son love and honor each other (John 3:35, 5:20, 14:31).

In any case, quite frankly, I find this discussion (at least as regards sandyelder) silly, because he has already made it quite clear that you are disposed against the arguments and evidence I may cite simply by virtue of my citing them, and not on their own merits, so that more argument would be pointless; unless you derive some perverse pleasure from teasing out argument without response, in which case there is no prudence in my rewarding a lack of honesty.

 

[tonyrey]

There are apparently rules for getting in to heaven, I just want to know what they are.

You are still thinking in terms of rules rather than individual situations. Personal and moral situations are so complex that the only absolute rule is the commandment of love which Jesus told us sums up the teaching of the Law.
We are often faced with a choice not between good and evil, but the lesser of two evils - which may have to be decided by the individuals concerned, as in cases of abortion.

I guess I feel that the spirit of the law would be more of a Baptism by desire, and the letter would be a physical baptism. I don’t really care which one is right, just so long as it’s consistent.

You are dead right! Really all baptisms are baptisms by desire! So there is consistency…

I really can’t follow a religion that claims to be the one true faith, yet makes exceptions for some of its core teachings.

What do you regard as a core teaching?

 

[sandyelder]

TK,

You may be surprised to know I applaud your many examples and explanation of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Where we obviously disagree is in the interpretation. My reading of them as well as a close reading of Christ’s own words (particularly in the Garden and on the Cross) leads me to conclude they are 3 separate beings. I believe any independent review of your logic and scriptures would conclude the same.

How, then, to reconcile this apparent poly-theism (the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, 3 Gods as you point out) with the Church’s doctrinal Trinitarian mono-theism? At least without ending up in agreement with almostatheist that each is just a different version of the same original. Futhermore, how is your stated position any different than the mormon’s “non-trinitarian” belief?

As for the subject of prime sources. An Apostle I would accept, and obviously Christ. Beyond that is subjuect to scrutiny and reservation. Most of the letters in the NT were written to wayward churches to bring them back into harmony with original doctrine. Amos 3:7 is my cite that prophets are the only authorized source for announcement or interpretation of doctrine. Clearly, you discount the validity or necessity of prophets and rely on other “extra-scriptural” sources for your positions. Your assertion that there can be no true interpretation of scripture is patently false. Goad can always call a prophet and set the record straight. In fact, He has promised to do just that at some point. One wonders if he (or they) will be rejected as were the others.

 

[almostatheist]

You are dead right! Really all baptisms are baptisms by desire! So there is consistencency

I think that actually does make sense to me, at least so far as adult baptisms are concerned. Because babies can’t really make up their minds about such things I always regarded infant baptism as more of a choice for the parents to raise the children as Catholics/Christians. Is that generally thought to be the case? Or does baptism for salvation work if your parents choose to get you baptized as a baby? in other words, can your parents save your soul? Or is it assumed that all baptized babies would eventually choose salvation through Jesus Christ, and thus their baptism is sort of a pre-baptism of desire? Or is it just a better safe than sorry kind of thing.

Oh, and by “core teaching” I meant sacraments.

 

[almostatheist]

TK,

As for the subject of prime sources. An Apostle I would accept, and obviously Christ. Beyond that is subjuect to scrutiny and reservation. Most of the letters in the NT were written to wayward churches to bring them back into harmony with original doctrine. Amos 3:7 is my cite that prophets are the only authorized source for announcement or interpretation of doctrine. Clearly, you discount the validity or necessity of prophets and rely on other “extra-scriptural” sources for your positions. Your assertion that there can be no true interpretation of scripture is patently false. Goad can always call a prophet and set the record straight. In fact, He has promised to do just that at some point. One wonders if he (or they) will be rejected as were the others.

It can really be argued that the Pope’s are prophets and that you’re rejecting them. How does one determine who is a prophet and who isn’t?

 

[sandyelder]

It can really be argued that the Pope’s are prophets and that you’re rejecting them. How does one determine who is a prophet and who isn’t?

Actually, it can’t.

Never has the Church, nor have any of the Pope’s, claimed the mantle of prophet. Surely, claiming the title is at least a pre-requisite to one being a prophet. Prophets are called of God and have received a personal witness through vision and revelation that God exists; and received the message they are to teach directly from Him. The work of a prophet is, as His messenger, to make God’s will known. The role of a prophet is to teach righteousness, denounce sin, and correct false teachings about God and the way to salvation. While it can be argued the Pope does this, the Pope does not claim the main characteristics of a prophet - direct contact with God and speaking in His name (thus saith the Lord).

In fact, the Church has actually taught that there will be no more prophets until Christ returns (He being a prophet), as the scriptural record is considered complete. Why would it do that if it considered the Pope to be a prophet? It is also curious that the Church so heavily depends upon “extra-scriptural” sources to define its doctrine, since correcting false doctrine is a primary role of a prophet, yet none of these other sources is declared (nor themselves declared) to be a prophet. Furthermore, the Church denies the possibility of prophets existing in modern times. Witness the response to mormons and Joseph Smith in particular. The Church rebuts such a claim by asserting that God no longer calls prophets. Modern prophets are, by the Church’s definition, false.

So, while it may be desirable and comforting to place the mantle of prophet on the Pope, neither He nor the Church accepts that mantle. Therefore, the argument can not be made.

 

[TKTsunami]

Funny thing to hear someone that thinks the Church teaches three Gods say that they know the Church’s stance on what constitutes a prophet, although it is correct to say that the Pope is not, himself, a prophet; last I checked, our Holy Father hasn’t been fed any books or had visions of angels. Whatever the case, I am unconvinced that you respect my opinion, given your persistent inability to give it the time of day as “unscriptural”.

 

[almostatheist]

Was my response about the trinity thing close to accurate? It’s been a really long time since I’ve even thought about it.

 

[sandyelder]

although it is correct to say that the Pope is not, himself, a prophet; last I checked, our Holy Father hasn’t been fed any books or had visions of angels.

You say that like it is a bad thing. One would think that the leader of an organization claiming to be the inheritor of Christ’s established Church, and the definer/defender of faith/doctrine for the entire world, would at least claim some sort of divine communication. How can one plausibly claim non-scriptural doctrine is of God while claiming that revelation ceased after Christ’s Ascension? (Catechism 73) If the Gospel was complete at that point, why is new, non-scriptural doctrine necessary? If God no longer reveals His will to men, whence comes this new doctrine?

Catechism 72 is also interesting insight on the role of prophets

Through the prophets, he prepared them to accept the salvation destined for all humanity.

If God loves us, why does He not send us prophets to prepare us, as well? Without revelation, how do we know how to prepare for the Lord’s eventual return?