The Pope Vs. The Prophet-

[TOmNossor]

I do not think I have seen much to disagree with concerning the differences between Prophet and Pope (till perhaps Johnnyâ??s post, but mostly I will make an apologetic argument).

First, thanks Pantsman. Where I Catholic I would need to have some healthy notion of Baptism of Desire and inclusion â??inside the Church.â? I could not view folks like Elder Maxwell as likely in hell due to being â??outside the Catholic Church.â? That being said, I would be quite conservative and willing to call President Hinckley to repentance. As such were I Catholic, I would have great fear for who I actually am.

The President of the Mormon is very different than the Pope, the Mormon President is fallible and the Pope enjoys infallibility.

First, the Catholic does in fact believe that the Pope â??enjoys infallibility,â? but that should not be contrasted with the statement that the Mormon President â??is fallible.â? The reason for this is that the Pope â??is fallible!â? I offered two examples of Popes who taught (Honorius) or accepted (Liberius, under coercion) views that are today considered heretical. This is being fallible. The proper response IMO of the Catholic is that such things were not associated with the exercise of the Charism of Infallibility. This is fine, but the Popes are and have been fallible.

Second, I wanted to point to just how limited the NEGATIVE protection of the Charism is. If the Pope feels it is important to understand something concerning faith and morals, is he guaranteed to be able to understand it correctly because he is infallible? No, he is not. The Pope may conclude he does not and cannot know. The Pope may come to an incorrect conclusion (and still be infallible); in which case when/if he tried to express this conclusion utilizing his Charism of Infallibility the Holy Spirit would constrain him in some way from doing so. Again, the Pope if infallible (in the same way) in math could still fail a math test due to not knowing any answers and leaving the questions blank. And, it is my opinion that there have been just two examples of a Pope acting infallibly (unless one includes the sealing/accepting of a council).

Third, how does the faithful Catholic know when the Pope is exercising his Charism of Infallibility? Long ago, I read a Catholic discuss this. It was very interesting. To my knowledge there is no infallible way to know when infallibility is being exercised. Certainly the same can be said concerning when a prophet is speaking revelation from God, but I personally am partial to the prevalent view of ones personal confirming revelation directly from God. While the Catholic can certainly receive such a thing, it is not as emphasized within the Catholic Church. I am particularly struck by the example of Cardinal Ratzinger commenting (I will paraphrase), â??One may believe that Pope John Paul IIâ??s statement (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 1994) concerning woman not being able to become priests is an exercise of his infallibility, but it is not.â? (It should be noted that Ratzinger went on to say that it is infallibly true that women cannot be ordained, but that this was not true because in 1994 the Pope exercised Papal Infallibility).

Finally, since we are here at MADB, let me point to this. Did Peter receive supernatural public revelation like the President of the CoJCoLDS claims to receive, or was Peter infallible (or able to enjoy infallibility) as the Pope claims?

It seems clear to me that Peter in Act 10 received supernatural public revelation. I think most Catholics would acknowledge that the head of the Twelve Apostles, Peter, wrote scripture and received supernatural public revelation and that the Pope does not write scripture or receive supernatural public revelation (the proper explanation for this from a Catholic IMO is that Peter as a member of the 12 had more abilities than his valid successors do). Now, clearly Peter was not infallible. He denied Christ, and he was rebuked in the Bible by Paul (and it seems that the church has followed the Paul way here). Concerning being â??able to enjoy infallibility,â? we will never know. There is no EXPLICIT (there is â??binding and loosingâ? exegesis) teaching on Peterâ??s infallibility in the Bible. In fact, there is little EXPLICIT teaching on infallibility until shortly before Vatican I in the 19th century. It seems to me that we cannot say that Peter was infallible, but he may have â??enjoyed infallibility.â? What we can say, is that he did receive supernatural public revelation.

Charity, TOm

[Paul Ray]

A friend of mine, who is just trying to find out a bit more about the church, recently asked me how the LDS prophet is different (or similar) to the Catholic pope.

And i don't feel i know enough about the pope to give a good response. Any help with this will be greatly appreciated.

I'll ask a few questions myself-

Does the pope receive revelation for the Catholic church? (the world)? What does He do (job requirements i guess). and anything else....

thanks!

I'll tell you what I've learned from other people, including God, about this.

Y'all can then accept my thoughts or reject them.

Does the pope receive revelation for the Catholic church? (the world)?

I'll first suppose that by "revelation" you are referring to revelation from God, and that by the "Catholic church" you are referring to the people who are members of the organization known as the Roman Catholic Church, and that by "(the world)" you are referring to everyone who lives on this planet.

My answer is: No.

I believe our Lord gives revelation to each of us personally and/or through our authorized leaders, and by "authorized leaders" I am referring to the people who our Lord has officially authorized as leaders of other people.

And since I believe the pope isn't and hasn't been officially authorized by our Lord as one of our Lord's authorized leaders of other people, I believe the pope can only receive revelation from our Lord for himself, personally, and through our Lord's authorized leaders of other people.

What does He do (job requirements i guess).

He governs the people in the Roman Catholic Church by sharing his personal thoughts with them and other people.

And btw, they voluntarily submit themselves to him as their leader.

and anything else....

He has a pope mobile and nice home in Rome, Italy. I think that's very nice. I'm happy for him.

edit: I now see from the thread sub-title that this question was meant for members of the Catholic church, so I'll now recommend that you try applying my thoughts to the President of our (LDS) church, since if I were to join with the Catholic church I would simply apply the same thoughts to another set of people who I believed were authorized by our Lord.

[johnny]

Popes are not and have never been fallible in matters of solemn and formal teaching of a "truth". It is certain that no ex cathedra definition of any pope has ever been shown to be erroneous. The protection of charisma of infallibility is far reaching, the Church of Christ is preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals. To exercise the charism of infallibility three conditions must be met: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.

Peter was infallible and he received public revelation. Peter was infallible at the Council of Jerusalem, in Acts 15:28 the apostle claimed to speak in the name and with the authority of the Holy Ghost. The infallibility of Peter relied on his being filled by the light of the indwelling Holy Spirit of truth which provides infallible Divine guidance. Infallibility was promised to Peter, and to each of Peter's successors in the primacy.

After the death of the last of the twelve apostles the deposit of faith is closed, "the faith which was once delivered unto the saint" (Jude 1:3). The prophetic spirit did not disappear with the Apostolic times, all subsequent revelations conferred by God is known as private revelations. The closure to public revelation doesn't mean there isn't progress in the understanding of what has been entrusted to the Church. Both scripture and tradition can used to prove papal infallibility. Infallibility has been explicitly taught from the very beginning of the Church.

[PacMan]

Johnny,

Against my better judgmentâ?¦

Popes are not and have never been fallible in matters of solemn and formal teaching of a "truth". It is certain that no ex cathedra definition of any pope has ever been shown to be erroneous.

Thatâ??s the beauty of defining something that intrinsically, self-defined and self-fullfilled.

After the death of the last of the twelve apostles the deposit of faith is closedâ?¦

I agreeâ??the RCC doesnâ??t have this deposit of faith.

Both scripture and tradition can used to prove papal infallibility.

Thatâ??s a ridiculously generalized comment. You canâ??t prove anything in religion.

But, I do have an honest question that I posed Pantsman. A couple threads back I was asking about Protestantsâ?¦if they are baptized in their church and accept Christ (never knowing, or rejecting the RCC), can they be saved?

PacMan

[johnny]

PacMan,

I agreeâ??the RCC doesnâ??t have this deposit of faith.

The RCC has the full and living gospel. The Catholic Church teaches (see below), for a fuller explanation goto the link below and type in the paragraph number:

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

http://scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc2.htm

84 The apostles entrusted the "Sacred deposit" of the faith (the depositum fidei), contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful."

77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority." Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.

2419 "Christian revelation . . . promotes deeper understanding of the laws of social living." The Church receives from the Gospel the full revelation of the truth about man. When she fulfills her mission of proclaiming the Gospel, she bears witness to man, in the name of Christ, to his dignity and his vocation to the communion of persons. She teaches him the demands of justice and peace in conformity with divine wisdom.

79 The Father's self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: "God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness."

Thatâ??s a ridiculously generalized comment. You canâ??t prove anything in religion.

For a proof see the following web site:

Infallibility

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

[PacMan]

johnny,

You need to understand the definition of proof. You're confounding terms. As much as you'd like to call it proof, it is but evidence. Now that you're informed, further usage of the term is disingenuous.

PacMan

[TOmNossor]

Popes are not and have never been fallible in matters of solemn and formal teaching of a "truth". It is certain that no ex cathedra definition of any pope has ever been shown to be erroneous. The protection of charisma of infallibility is far reaching, the Church of Christ is preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals. To exercise the charism of infallibility three conditions must be met: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.

Johnny,

Your faith is commendable.

I, however, would agree (again) with Pacman that PROOF is lacking.

Perhaps you mean to say, â??I, Johnny am â??certain that no ex cathedra definition of any pope has ever been shown to be erroneous.â??â? Or that a backward looking historical view of what was and was not â??ex cathedraâ? definitions demonstrates that such definitions were in fact infallible.

As I mentioned before, Dollinger was perhaps the top Catholic historian in the world during Vatican I. He claimed on historical grounds that he could not accept the Vatican I definition of infallibility and he ceased to be a Catholic. Newman called this a failure of faith, and Newman thanked God for the faith that allowed him (Newman) to accept the definition without stress. I agree with Newmanâ??s assessment of this. Dollingerâ??s historical view and his perception of what was declared at Vatican I were not so much academically flawed as was he unfaithful to the magisterium of the church. Dollinger was deficient in faith not knowledge/reason.

So I wish to suggest a few things from this.

First, in contrast to what it seems you, Johnny, are saying, using history and reason, it is far from settled that the Pope has been infallible in some noticeable way. I think there is reasons to believe the Pope had some special infallibility protections, but it is certainly reasonable to reject this idea. One of my favorites pro-infallibility reasons is what Pantsman (and I) already mentioned, wicked Popes were too busy being wicked to exercise infallibility such that we would have evidence of its absence (perhaps they were constrained by the Holy Spirit).

Second, I would agree with Newman that concerning this issue of the evidence of infallibility vs. the evidence against infallibility the most important deciding factor associated with whether one finds this as problematic for Catholic truth claims or not is ones FAITH. With sufficient faith, infallibility is not a problem. In the absence of this faith, rejecting infallibility is certainly not hard.

Finally, I would suggest that those who depart from the CoJCoLDS do so due to less than sufficient faith like Dollinger. Now, this does not mean there are not difficulties (like infallibility) within LDS history and beliefs. It does not mean that those who leave the CoJCoLDS are evil or hate God. It merely means that with faith (far less glorious than Cardinal Newmanâ??s) the problems for the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS can be addressed and do not loom large for the informed believer. I think the former LDS, Catholic should consider this a little more as he comes to grips with the problems with his new tradition while simultaneously trumpeting the reasons all LDS should depart <grin>.

Charity, TOm

[PacMan]

Johnny,

The RCC has the full and living gospel.

GREAT! Then please answer the most pressing religious questions of all time:

What happens to the BILLIONS of people that have never heard of Christ, nor subjected themselves to the Pope and the RCC? And what about infants that die without baptism?

To not have answers to questions that affect more people than have every been part of the RCC, makes it impossible for me to believe that such an institutions has the, "full and living gospel."

PacMan

[johnny]

TOmNossor,

You seem to associate infallibility with faith. I would suggest you pray about infallibility. Christ never guaranteed that the head of his church would be impeccable, Christ did will to confer on Peter's successor a share of his own infallibility. The evidence for infallibility is there, it is in both scripture and tradition. The tradition is not new. Irenaeus who was a disciple of John the apostle wrote in his most famous work called Adversus Haereses that:

"t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Churchâ??those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth"

[johnny]

PacMan,

What happens to the BILLIONS of people that have never heard of Christ, nor subjected themselves to the Pope and the RCC?

The Catholic Church teaches:

Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery. Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm#VI

1022 - Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven - through a purification or immediately, - or immediate and everlasting damnation. At the evening of life, we shall be judged on our love.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm#I

1021 Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ [2 Tim 1:9-10]. The New Testament speaks of judgment primarily in its aspect of the final encounter with Christ in his second coming, but also repeatedly affirms that each will be rewarded immediately after death in accordance with his works and faith. The parable of the poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the soul-a destiny which can be different for some and for others

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm#I

1864 - Anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm#V

1037 - God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm#V

679 - By rejecting grace in this life, one already judges oneself, receives according to one's works, and can even condemn oneself for all eternity by rejecting the Spirit of love.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c2a7.htm#II

And what about infants that die without baptism?

The Catholic Church teaches:

1261 - As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," [Mk 10 14; 1 Tim 2:4] allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm#VII

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm#VI

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor,

You seem to associate infallibility with faith. I would suggest you pray about infallibility. Christ never guaranteed that the head of his church would be impeccable, Christ did will to confer on Peter's successor a share of his own infallibility. The evidence for infallibility is there, it is in both scripture and tradition. The tradition is not new.

I must have done a poor job communicating what I was saying.

I am saying that a historical view based on reason does not create a case for infallibility that carries such weight it should persuade non-Catholics. Rather the historical view has a combination of problems and strengths that with sufficient faith make the belief in Papal Infallibility possible. My view is very close if not identical to Cardinal Newmanâ??s view.

Departure from the Catholic fold because of Papal Infallibility was typically justified by sighting historical issues. Today many â??Old Catholicâ? can trace their histories to a group of folks who rejected Vatican I because they could not accept Papal Infallibility. These folks have valid apostolic succession, but are not in communion with Rome.

It would be quite easy for me to declare that the noble and honest evaluated historical issues with Papal teachings and departed the Catholic Church because it is clear to the unbiased person that the declaration of infallibility was flawed. Then I could call you, Johnny, to depart from Catholicism. Instead, I acknowledge that with faith, one can use reason, and see that infallibility makes sufficient sense. I now invite you to give the CoJCoLDS at least this much respect.

Your Irenaeus quote is not talking about the Pope or the Bishop of Rome. In fact, in speaking of presbyters as somewhat separated from the specific leaning on a decision of a collective universal group of bishops, Irenaeus is advocating a form of infallibility that is not part of modern Catholic teachings. Individual presbyters, though possessing valid apostolic succession, do not have a charism of infallibility (one may only rely on them to the extent they agree with other sources of infallibility). Only the individual who is the Pope has this charism as an individual and clearly this is not what Irenaeus is speaking about.

Charity, TOm

[PacMan]

Johnny,

Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

There is NOTHING that explains this! In fact, it is EXPLICITLY contra the BIBLE!

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

(New Testament | John 3:5)

Look at the word "be." It doesn't say anything about desire. One must BE born of the water and of the Spirit. This is in blatant contradiction to the Bible!!

Moreover, how do you juxtapose this ex cathedra:

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff" (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

If judgment comes at death, how can one EVER be subject to the Pontiff, particularly if he's never even heard of him? The logic is completely non-existent!

But let's go to nail this one home...

Another ex cathedra:

"[The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that none of those who are not within the Catholic Church...can ever be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into the eternal fire 'prepared for the devil, and his angels' (Mt. xxv. 41), unless before the close of their lives they shall have entered into that Church; also that the unity of the Ecclesiastical body is such that the Church's Sacraments avail only those abiding in that Church, and that fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of piety which play their part in the Christian combat are in her alone productive of eternal rewards; moreover, that no one, no matter what alms he may have given, not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ's sake, can be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Mansi, Concilia, xxxi, 1739.) (Pope Eugene IV, The Bull Cantate Domino, 1441).

Sounds like Eugene just threw your baptism of desire out the window.

PacMan

[johnny]

TOmNossor,

Since it is obvious we disagree on the historical view let us focus on infallibility from a scriptural view since we can both agree that Bible scripture is the Word of God. Please show how the declaration of infallibility is flawed using Bible scripture. I believe infallibility is consistent with scripture.

[johnny]

PacMan,

There is NOTHING that explains this! In fact, it is EXPLICITLY contra the BIBLE!

Which Bible verse is it contra too ... please explain?

Look at the word "be." It doesn't say anything about desire. One must BE born of the water and of the Spirit. This is in blatant contradiction to the Bible!!

No one said that verse said anything about desire.

Moreover, how do you juxtapose this ex cathedra:

This is not ex cathedra ... if you believe it is please provide the proof.

Another ex cathedra:

Again this not ex cathedra ...

[PacMan]

Johnny,

Youâ??re avoiding the question. You admit that John 3:5 says nothing of desire. True. So where Jesus says that one must â??be born of the water,â? how can desire overrule such a necessity as being born of the water? Clearly, if youâ??re not born of the water then you canâ??t go to heaven. Desire or not, itâ??s not water!

And they are ex cathedra by definition:

Whenever the Holy Father, as Chief Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, proceeds, in briefs, encyclical letters, consistorial allocutions, and other Apostolic letters, to declare certain truths, or anything that is conducive to the preservation of faith and morals, or to reprobate perverse doctrines, and condemn certain errors, such declarations of truth and condemnations of errors are infallible, or ex Cathedra acts of the Pope

Or

1)The Pope must be functioning as Pastor and supreme Doctor. It is not his teaching as a private or particular Doctor that is in question.

2) He must be dealing with matters of faith or morals, and it is only the proposed doctrine - not the adjoining considerations - the 'obiter dicta' that is guaranteed by infallibility.

3) He must intend to define; his teaching must be given with authority and with the intent that it be believed by the entire Church.

4) He must manifest his intention to bind all Catholics.

Yup, all there!

Now, given the definitionsâ?¦are you saying they are NOT ex cathedra?

PacMan

[johnny]

Pacman,

You’re avoiding the question. You admit that John 3:5 says nothing of desire. True. So where Jesus says that one must “be born of the water,” how can desire overrule such a necessity as being born of the water?

God can overrule, scripture reveals that in regards to salvation anything is possiable with God. God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Now, given the definitions…are you saying they are NOT ex cathedra?

Please show the evidence where it is a OFFICIAL Church teaching. One of the conditions that you need to show that the Pope solemnly defined the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.

[PacMan]

Johnny,

God can overrule, scripture reveals that in regards to salvation anything is possiable with God. God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Waitâ?¦so God can pull the â??just kiddingâ? card? Weâ??re not talking of God being bound to baptism (which Christ DID receive). Weâ??re talking about everyone else! It was a commandmentâ?¦and unless you have other, non-biblical revelations to support it, I donâ??t EVER remember a Pope being able to â??overruleâ? that which Christ himself said!

Please show the evidence where it is a OFFICIAL Church teaching. One of the conditions that you need to show that the Pope solemnly defined the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.

For that matter, how often did Peter (or Christ for that matter) do that? Moreover, within context of the quotes, I think itâ??s pretty clear.

But please, was Eugene just talking out his cake-hole then?

PacMan

[johnny]

PacMan,

Waitâ?¦so God can pull the â??just kiddingâ? card?

With God all things are possible ...

Mark.10

26] And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved?

[27] And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

[maklelan]

Waitâ?¦so God can pull the â??just kiddingâ? card?

With God all things are possible ...

If I have learned nothing from these threads it is that trying to get Johnny to understand something contrary to his church's position, no matter how universally accepted, is always in vain. While some my accuse us Mormons of the same dogmatism, at least we can come up with real arguments. With tendentious cunning, Johnny always spackles up the holes in his arguments and in his church's history and doctrine with the exact same response:

With God all things are possible ...

except, of course, if God is trying to show you that the Catholic church's doctrine is in error.

[johnny]

maklelan,

except, of course, if God is trying to show you that the Catholic church's doctrine is in error.

Catholic doctrine is consistent with scripture, for other scriptures related to the baptism of desire see Acts 10:44-48, Luke 23:42-43, and Titus 3:7.

Christians have always believed in the normative necessity of water baptism, while also acknowledging the legitimacy of baptism by desire or blood, below are a few works of the Church Fathers that illustrate this:

Hermas

"â??I have heard, sir,â?? said I [to the Shepherd], â??from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.â?? He said to me, â??You have heard rightly, for so it isâ??" (The Shepherd 4:3:1â??2 [A.D. 80]).

Justin Martyr

"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly . . . are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, â??Except you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heavenâ?? [John 3:3]" (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).

Tertullian

"Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life. . . . [but] a viper of the [Gnostic] Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptismâ??which is quite in accordance with nature, for vipers and asps . . . themselves generally do live in arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes after the example of our [Great] Fish, Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water. So that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishesâ??by taking them away from the water!" (Baptism 1 [A.D. 203]).

"Without baptism, salvation is attainable by none" (ibid., 12).

"We have, indeed, a second [baptismal] font which is one with the former [water baptism]: namely, that of blood, of which the Lord says: â??I am to be baptized with a baptismâ?? [Luke 12:50], when he had already been baptized. He had come through water and blood, as John wrote [1 John 5:6], so that he might be baptized with water and glorified with blood. . . . This is the baptism which replaces that of the fountain, when it has not been received, and restores it when it has been lost" (ibid., 16).

[maklelan]

maklelan,

Catholic doctrine is consistent with scripture, for other scriptures related to the baptism of desire see Acts 10:44-48, Luke 23:42-43, and Titus 3:7.

Catholic doctrine is consistent with scripture? Tell me how the Hypostatic Union works and then tell me how it is consistent with scripture.

[PacMan]

PacMan,

With God all things are possible ...

Mark.10

26] And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved?

[27] And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

OK, great. Are you suggesting He can, and DOES lie then?

PacMan

P.S. "Unless" is a word of exclusivity. If baptism by water is not indeed 100% necessary....God's lying.

[PacMan]

Catholic doctrine is consistent with scripture, for other scriptures related to the baptism of desire see Acts 10:44-48, Luke 23:42-43, and Titus 3:7.

Consistent? Are you in denial?

Acts 10:

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the aHoly Ghost as well as we?

48 And he commanded them to be abaptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Surely, there is desireâ?¦to receive baptism by water! How in the world can you in good conscience, use this to support this â??doctrineâ? of baptism by desire.

Luke 23:43:

Paradise in Greek is a place of happiness. Donâ??t you think that anything would be happier than being crucified on a cross? The notion that this refers to heaven is complete nonsense with NO Biblical support.

Titus 3:7

7 That being ajustified by his grace, we should be made bheirs according to the hope of eternal life.

What do you think baptism runs on? Hid grace!

More importantly, I realize you can slice and dice the scriptures (or wrest them) anyway you want. I can prove Santa Clause exists using the scriptures for goodness sakes! But the fact remains is that an implicit or explicit proof (or evidence for that matter) of this baptism of desire is completely VOID in the scriptures! On the contrary, Christ said that explicitly MUST be received by WATER! Does God lie?

PacMan

[maklelan]

More importantly, I realize you can slice and dice the scriptures (or wrest them) anyway you want. I can prove Santa Clause exists using the scriptures for goodness sakes! But the fact remains is that an implicit or explicit proof (or evidence for that matter) of this baptism of desire is completely VOID in the scriptures! On the contrary, Christ said that explicitly MUST be received by WATER! Does God lie?

PacMan

PacMan, nothing is impossible with God. He can even sin and lie. Whatever it takes to evade having to answer a simple question with an honest answer, God can do that.

[selek]

PacMan, nothing is impossible with God. He can even sin and lie. Whatever it takes to evade having to answer a simple question with an honest answer, God can do that.

Mak- equating God with Johnny is blasphemy. Stop and repent. Quickly.

One of them is getting angry .