The Pope Vs. The Prophet-

[Cold Steel]

Elder Elred G. Smith cited James Cardinal Gibbons, in explaining the infallibility of the pope in Faith of Our Fathers: "The infallibility of the Popes does not signify that they are inspired. The Apostles were endowed with the gift of inspiration, and we accept their writings as the revealed word of God."

Smith said: "No Catholic, on the contrary, claims that the Pope is inspired, or endowed with divine revelation properly so called. A more complete denial of the power of God could not be made. Today we have the sacred temples again, not one, but many, today being the eightieth anniversary of the dedication of the first temple to be completed among the mountains of the west-the temple in St. George. And these temples stand as evidence and a witness that the gospel of Jesus Christ is again in the earth, restored by revelation to authorized servants of God." (Elder Eldred G. Smith, Conference Report, April 1957, Afternoon Meeting, p.72-73)

Why Catholics deny even inspiration to their popes remains a mystery; inspiration is, by definition, "to affect, guide, or arouse by divine influence." One wonders how anyone can achieve infallibility without it.

[johnny]

Cold Steel,

Why Catholics deny even inspiration to their popes remains a mystery; inspiration is, by definition, "to affect, guide, or arouse by divine influence."

For Catholics "inspiration" has a specific meaning. Inspiration signifies a special positive Divine influence and assistance by reason of which the human agent is not merely preserved from liability to error but is so guided and controlled that what he says or writes.

One wonders how anyone can achieve infallibility without it.

Infallibility is concerned with the interpretation and effective safeguarding of truths already revealed. The Church, in defining her doctrine, is guided, not inspired. Acts 15 illustrates the difference between guided and inspired. The council of Apostles at Jerusalem were guided, they were not inspired.

Catholics beleive that 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.

Even though public revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for the Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries. Development of doctrine defines, sharpens, and interprets the deposit of faith.

[Pahoran]

Aww, how disappointing.

And here I thought someone was suggesting some kind of contest.

A few years ago, someone suggested President Hinckley vs. then-Pope JPII in "Celebrity Deathmatch." I pointed out that that would be a total mismatch because (1) President Hinckley had lived The Word of Wisdom all his life, and (2) he was only ten years older than the Pope.

Nowadays it might be a little more even...

Regards,

Pahoran

[maklelan]

maklelan,

In 1 Corinthians 15:29 Paul does not endorse the practice of Baptism for the Dead.

Oh, we've been over this before. The only people who really believe that is people whose faiths demand that it be so interpreted. Your argument continue to leave me entirely unimpressed.

It is certain that Paul was not referring to orthodox Christians baptizing the dead.

How can you be so sure? Because your doctrine will not have it? I'm not convinced.

There is no other evidence in the Bible or in the early Church Fathersâ?? writings of baptism being practiced on the living in place of the dead.

Except for I Corinthians 15:29.

Again I ask, does the Mormon Church teach that little children who have died without baptism are baptized by proxy?

Little children who pass away are not little children for eternity.

Doesn't the Book of Mormon teach that "infant baptism is an evil abomination"?

Of course it does.

A gift is given ... it is not automatically, it is a grace (Rom 5:1,2). A person is justified by the Saviorâ??s grace through faith in him.

Rom.5

[1] Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

[2] By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Romans 5:2 says it is accessed by faith, it is not automatic.

How can it be automatic if baptism is necessary for salvation?

Infant baptism is an apostolic tradition.

Which Bible scripture reveals "children do not need baptism"?

But the Bible clearly states that all men receive this free gift, and there are no conditions attached.

[Ron Beron]

EnemyAce,

I mean the Catholicism that reveals that God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

That's a mighty big contradiction. So what you are saying is that God through the Popes have revealed doctrine and dogma that is incumbent upon the congregations to fulfill, but God, Himself, is not bound to honor? Huh!?

[Ron Beron]

Mormon scripture contradicts the Bible. The Book of Mormon teaches "infant baptism is an evil abomination". John 3:5 makes an exclusive statment "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" and the Bible reveals that no unclean person has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God (Eph 5:5).

Again, huh!? The term that is important here is....MAN! Not child. Even Jesus considered children to be exempt from laws until bar Mitzvah when a boy became a man. Before that they are not accountable. Why baptism for infants then?

Jesus taught that we should all be like children because of such is the kingdom of Heaven made. If the Jews didn't baptize their children then they wouldn't have been saved, now would they? Therefore, where are those children now? In Heaven or hell? I would rather be where the kids are.

Baptism for the Dead was not practiced by the apostles.

Nor was infant baptism.

[Ron Beron]

In 1 Corinthians 15:29 Paul does not endorse the practice of Baptism for the Dead. It is certain that Paul was not referring to orthodox Christians baptizing the dead. There is no other evidence in the Bible or in the early Church Fathersâ?? writings of baptism being practiced on the living in place of the dead.

Again I ask, does the Mormon Church teach that little children who have died without baptism are baptized by proxy?

Nor did Paul condemn the practice and no, the church doesn't do proxy baptism for children or for individuals who are mentally handicapped.

[johnny]

maklelan,

Except for I Corinthians 15:29.

Please convince me that Paul is endorsing Baptism for the Dead in 1Cor 15:29, it says:

1Cor.15

[29] Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

Little children who pass away are not little children for eternity.

In Mormonism when little children die where do they go ... do they wait around to be baptized so they can enter heaven? The Bible is clear that little children have sin and no unclean person has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

But the Bible clearly states that all men receive this free gift, and there are no conditions attached.

Which Bible verse clearly states that all men receive justification with no conditions attached?

The Bible is clear (see below) that a person is justified by the Savior’s grace through faith in him. Men are justified freely by his grace (Rom 3:24).

***.3

[7] That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Rom.5

[1] Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Rom.3

[24] Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus

Of course it does.

The Book of Mormon is NOT consistent with the Bible. The Bible reveals a child is in need of baptism because a child has sin. The Book of Mormon reveals a child has not need of baptism.

[johnny]

EnemyAce,

That's a mighty big contradiction. So what you are saying is that God through the Popes have revealed doctrine and dogma that is incumbent upon the congregations to fulfill, but God, Himself, is not bound to honor? Huh!?

I am saying that Acts 10:44-48 reveals that God is not bound by baptism.

Again, huh!? The term that is important here is....MAN! Not child. Even Jesus considered children to be exempt from laws until bar Mitzvah when a boy became a man. Before that they are not accountable. Why baptism for infants then?

The Bible clarifies the term "MAN" in other verses, Romans 3:23 clearly says that ALL have sinned. Infants need baptism because they have sin, infants come short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23). Infants are unclean and do not have any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God (Eph 5:5). The wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23).

Rom.3

[23] For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Eph.5

[5] For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

Jesus taught that we should all be like children because of such is the kingdom of Heaven made.

Children are not perfect, those that are sanctified are perfected (Heb 10:14). We should be like children because they are unhesitating, unquestioning, loving. A child has childlike faith, a child does not demand to know the reasons for everything he is taught.

If the Jews didn't baptize their children then they wouldn't have been saved, now would they? Therefore, where are those children now? In Heaven or hell? I would rather be where the kids are.

With respect to children who have died without Baptism, we trust in God's mercy and to pray for their salvation.

- Unbaptized infants are NOT saved automatically because they HAVE SIN when they die.

- Unbaptized infants are NOT saved automatically because they DO NOT HAVE sanctifying grace when they die.

Nor was infant baptism.

Infant baptism was an apostolic tradition. Origen wrote:

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. For the apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which are washed away through water and the Spirit"

Nor did Paul condemn the practice and no, the church doesn't do proxy baptism for children or for individuals who are mentally handicapped.

If the Mormon Church doesn't do proxy baptism for children how do they enter heaven? Justification is conferred in Baptism. It conforms us to the righteousness of God. Our justification comes from the grace of God.

Infants have sin, infants fall short of the glory of God. Infants need to be justified by his grace. One is saved according to his mercy by the washing of regeneration.

[maklelan]

maklelan,

Please convince me that Paul is endorsing Baptism for the Dead in 1Cor 15:29, it says:

1Cor.15

[29] Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

Johnny, you know I couldn't convince you that the sun was shining if your church said it wasn't. I've argued with you over this before, and I've provided scholarship and shown where your assumptions were wrong, but it never changed anything. Why don't you convince me that it doesn't?

In Mormonism when little children die where do they go ... do they wait around to be baptized so they can enter heaven? The Bible is clear that little children have sin and no unclean person has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

Which Bible verse clearly states that all men receive justification with no conditions attached?

Romans 5:18. I already quoted it for you.

The Bible is clear (see below) that a person is justified by the Saviorâ??s grace through faith in him. Men are justified freely by his grace (Rom 3:24).

Then that must be something other than the free gift spoken of by Paul, because he says it is received by all men.

***.3

[7] That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Rom.5

[1] Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Rom.3

[24] Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus

I agree with these scriptures.

The Book of Mormon is NOT consistent with the Bible.

That wasn't the question, but since you make such a silly assertion, yes it is.

The Bible reveals a child is in need of baptism because a child has sin. The Book of Mormon reveals a child has not need of baptism.

Where does the Bible explicitly state that (1) a child has sin, and (2) a child needs baptism (since according to your belief system, plenty of people who were never baptized make it into heaven).

[PacMan]

Let's pull a johnny...

Haggai 2:17 proves everything johnny says is wrong.

[maklelan]

Let's pull a johnny...

Haggai 2:17 proves everything johnny says is wrong.

I said it was useless to try to reason with Johnny and then I got into an argument with him. I apologize. Perhaps it helped to prove my point, though. Anyway, I'm bowing out and never speaking with Johnny again.

[PacMan]

Yeah...no dobut. The frustrating thing with johnny is his complete inability to reason. Glaring holes in his logic are filled with a creative cocktail of proof-texts, contradictions, and nonsense. I really, however, do not believe that johnny has the capacity to understand what he's doing...despite being told again and again. He jumps topics, fishes for red herrings, and uses tu quoque like it's going out of style to sidestep critical issues. More frustrating is when he completely ignores answers that logically connect the points to the questions he poses.

For example...he's continuing his rant on "baptism immersions," yet anyone can see from the Greek that "mankind" in any form was never mentioned. On the contrary, it say "you," speaking to an adult, sensible, individual. He's ignored the explanation completely and refuses to even deal with it. Instead, he continues his juvenile and naive banter.

And then he splits hairs, wresting the scriptures to say that while Christ did say that such individuals MUST have baptism, that doesn't apply to those that never hear about it. But God's not a liar...because with God, all things are possible. Althought that blatantly makes him out to be as honest as johnny's scholarship.

PacMan

[johnny]

PacMan,

Haggai 2:17 proves everything johnny says is wrong.

Explain how ... Haggai 2:17 says,

Hag.2

[17] I smote you with blasting and with mildew and with hail in all the labours of your hands; yet ye turned not to me, saith the LORD.

[PacMan]

PacMan,

Explain how ... Haggai 2:17 says,

Hag.2

[17] I smote you with blasting and with mildew and with hail in all the labours of your hands; yet ye turned not to me, saith the LORD.

It's consistent with my belief. And proves that you are incorrect.

[Doctor Steuss]

It's consistent with my belief.

Haggai 2:17 does not teach that a missionary should be clean shaven as the Mormon Church teaches. It is not consistent with the Book of Mormon or the Bible.

And proves that you are incorrect.

Please explain.

[PacMan]

Haggai 2:17 does not teach that a missionary should be clean shaven as the Mormon Church teaches. It is not consistent with the Book of Mormon or the Bible.

Please explain.

I says "mildew."

It is consistent.

[johnny]

PacMan,

It's consistent with my belief. And proves that you are incorrect.

And how does it prove that I am incorrect ... This prophecy is intimately linked with Haggai 1, and should be read with it.

[PacMan]

PacMan,

And how does it prove that I am incorrect ... This prophecy is intimately linked with Haggai 1, and should be read with it.

Do you not believe in mildew? It is consitent w/ the BoM and the Bible.

[Cold Steel]

For Catholics "inspiration" has a specific meaning: Inspiration signifies a special positive Divine influence and assistance by reason of which the human agent is not merely preserved from liability to error but is so guided and controlled that what he says or writes.

Yes, similar to what Mormons would call revelation, only revelation carries with it an understanding about what is being said or written. Inspiration doesn't necessarily include an understanding. Prophecy, for example, is inspiration. One may prophesy that the stars will fall from heaven, but if someone comes up later and asks, "How do you suppose this will happen," the prophet might very well reply, "I have no idea. I don't even know when or what it will look like. But it will happen." Revelation, OTOH, includes both inspiration and many times understanding. The three degrees of glory is an example of revelation. After Joseph Smith experienced it, he knew much more than what was written. Much he was forbidden to write.

Infallibility is concerned with the interpretation and effective safeguarding of truths already revealed. The Church, in defining her doctrine, is guided, not inspired. Acts 15 illustrates the difference between guided and inspired. The council of Apostles at Jerusalem were guided, they were not inspired.

I can't buy that. Throughout the entire chapter, references to the Holy Ghost and its influences are made. The council came to a decision in the same way the church does today. There's a requirement to "study it out in your mind" as to what should be done, then place it before the Lord. Thus, when the meeting broke up, everyone was in agreement. If they had not been, it would have consisted of one side hurling arguments at the other. The scripture says: "...when there had been much dispute," Peter, the president of the church, arose and reminded the church that "by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe." After the apostles united in declaring their opinions, it was later written formally: "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well."

This is very similar to the procedure that led to the 1978 revelation regarding the priesthood. The brethren discussed the issue, debated it and laid it before the Lord. The Holy Spirit, which directs and influences the major decisions in the church today as anciently, responded. Thus, as anciently, President Kimball in essence said, "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us...." The Holy Spirit is thus a revelator.

The decision at Jerusalem was inspired (if you'll read the text carefully). Revelation was given once the brethren had studied it out in their hearts and put it before the Lord.

Catholics beleive that after the death of the last of the twelve apostles the deposit of faith is closed, "the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (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 doesnâ??t mean there isnâ??t progress in the understanding of what has been entrusted to the Church.

Wow, this is quite a concession...quite a concession indeed! I would be very happy for any revelation I could get out of the church, public or private, but I've never heard of such a thing. Anyone else out there heard that the Catholic officers guide the church by "private" revelation? In fact, does the Catholic church so claim to be guided by private revelation? If it does, stop the presses. This is BIG news.

Even though public revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit....

We've kind of noticed that. In fact, it's so completely inexplicit that the last great dispensation, the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times, is based on that very idea. Be careful, Johnny, you tread on ground you know not.

[Ron Beron]

johnny writes...

I am saying that Acts 10:44-48 reveals that God is not bound by baptism.

The Bible clarifies the term "MAN" in other verses, Romans 3:23 clearly says that ALL have sinned. Infants need baptism because they have sin, infants come short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23). Infants are unclean and do not have any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God (Eph 5:5). The wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23).

It does not say that in Ephesians and you know it...

5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

All have sinned who have reached the age of maturity. Jews didn't believe infants and children under the age of thirteen have reached the age of maturity. Jesus was a Jew and you are applying some Roman construct to a Jewish reasoning. Such chutzpah!

Even within the gospels we read of those who have not sinned...

Luke 1:6, regarding Zachary and Elizabeth, the parents of John the Baptist, "Both were just before GOD, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord".

Luke 1:15, regarding John the Baptist, "For he shall be great before the Lord; he shall drink no wine or strong drink, and shall be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mothers womb".

Even in the Catholic faith Mary was born without sin. So, have all sinned? Part of your problem is the word "all" or pas in Greek. It doesn't always mean "all". It can be collectively or individually.

Such baptism by itself is insufficient for salvation needing a gift of the Holy Ghost to vouchsafe one's salvation then baptism by an infant who little understands the concept of the Holy Spirit is merely a spiritual promissory note and that is all. Frankly, it accommodates little except those who can afford the luxury of being near a priest. About 5 miles from my house is Los Cristianitos or the baptism place of the first Indians in California. It was a small infant who was badly burned who the parents brought to Father Serra to heal. They, of course, couldn't heal the baby, but did baptize him. Neither the parents or the child understood the rite.

Infant baptism was an apostolic tradition. Origen wrote:

Even the ancients couldn't agree, now could they? Tertullian wrote..

"According to circumstance and disposition and even age of the individual person, it may be better to delay Baptism; and especially so in the case of little children. Why, indeed, is it necessary -- if it be not a case of necessity -- that the sponsors to be thrust into danger, when they themselves may fail to fulfill their promises by reason of death, or when they may be disappointed by the growth of an evil disposition? Indeed the Lord says, 'Do not forbid them to come to me' [Matt 19:14; Luke 18:16].

"Let them come, then, while they grow up, while they learn, while they are taught to whom to come; let them become Christians when they will have been able to know Christ! Why does the innocent age hasten to the remission of sins? ...For no less cause should the unmarried also be deferred, in whom there is an aptness to temptation -- in virgins on account of their ripeness as also in the widowed on account of their freedom -- until they are married or are better strengthened for continence. Anyone who understands the seriousness of Baptism will fear its reception more than its deferral. Sound faith is secure of its salvation!"

[johnny]

EnemyAce,

It does not say that in Ephesians and you know it...

Ephesians 5:5 says "unclean person" ... It does not explicitly indicate little children but implies it since little children are unclean. It is a washing by which we are cleansed of sins, a gift of grace. Children become holy (1Cor 7:14).

1Cor.7

[14] For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

All have sinned who have reached the age of maturity.

Which scripture reveals "All have sinned who have reached the age of maturity."?

Jews didn't believe infants and children under the age of thirteen have reached the age of maturity. Jesus was a Jew and you are applying some Roman construct to a Jewish reasoning. Such chutzpah!

Circumcision was an important entrance rite for infant boys into the Jewish religion. In Colossians 2:11â??12 Paul compares Christian baptism to Jewish circumcision: â??In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.â? If infant circumcision was appropriate for entrance into the Old Covenant, infant baptism is now appropriate for entrance into the New Covenant.

Even within the gospels we read of those who have not sinned...

Neither Luke 1:6 nor Luke 1:15 reveal that those individuals "have not sinned".

Such baptism by itself is insufficient for salvation needing a gift of the Holy Ghost to vouchsafe one's salvation then baptism by an infant who little understands the concept of the Holy Spirit is merely a spiritual promissory note and that is all.

In Acts 2:37â??39 Peter specifically instructs them that the promise is for them and their children.

Even the ancients couldn't agree, now could they? Tertullian wrote..

The Church Fathers taught the practice of infant baptism and declared it to be of apostolic origin.

Irenaeus

"â??And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordanâ?? [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: â??Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heavenâ?? [John 3:5]" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

"He [Jesus] came to save all through himselfâ??all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus

"Where there is no scarcity of water the stream shall flow through the baptismal font or pour into it from above; but if water is scarce, whether on a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available. Let them remove their clothing. Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen

"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]). "The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

[Pahoran]

EnemyAce,

Ephesians 5:5 says "unclean person" ... It does not explicitly indicate little children but implies it since little children are unclean.

You assume. Thank you for demonstrating the quality of your exegesis (or eisegesis.) If a passage of scripture says something equivalent to "all A are B," and your uninspired tradition teaches you that some X is an A, you then boldly--and counterfactually--assert that the passage in question says that X is B.

It does not. Namely, Ephesians 5:5 does not say that little children are unclean and on their way to hell without baptism. That is a false and an abominable teaching.

Regards,

Pahoran

[johnny]

Pahoran,

Ephesians 5:5 does not say that little children are unclean and on their way to hell without baptism. That is a false and an abominable teaching.

Do you believe little children are naturally holy and perfect ?

Scripture reveals:

1Cor.7

[14] For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

Heb.10

[14] For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

[johnny]

Cold Steel,

Yes, similar to what Mormons would call revelation, only revelation carries with it an understanding about what is being said or written. Inspiration doesn't necessarily include an understanding. Prophecy, for example, is inspiration.

For Catholic's "revelation" is also different that "inspiration". "Revelation" means the making known by God. "Inspiration" signifies a special positive Divine influence and assistance by reason of which the human agent is so guided and controlled that what he says or writes.

Thus, as anciently, President Kimball in essence said, "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us...." The Holy Spirit is thus a revelator.

Catholic councils also may be preface with the Apostolic formula, "it has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us" on what the council defines.

The decision at Jerusalem was inspired (if you'll read the text carefully). Revelation was given once the brethren had studied it out in their hearts and put it before the Lord.

I would consider the decision at the Jerusalem council as guided because the Spirit of truth guided the council to truth, there was "much disputing" at the Jerusalem council . At the council prophets did not directly reveal the outcome. The doctrine was not directly inspired because divine influence did not control what they said.

Anyone else out there heard that the Catholic officers guide the church by "private" revelation?

For Catholics "private" revelation is not directed to the whole Church but is for the good of individual members alone. "Private" revelations do not improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation.

the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times, is based on that very idea.

When does "the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times" begin?