A question for some non-catholic,,,The Catholic Church Baptizes infants.

[guanophore]

I’m sorry I gave you the impresson I thought the church was infallible.

Your post did not give that impression. Your post made it clear why it was necessary for Christ to set the Church up so that infallibility was possible.

• The church body is humans and as all humans are prone to error, so the church is fallible.

If this deficient view of the church were accurate, then your conclusion would be also. Fortunately (or not, depending upon your point of view) this is not an adequate definition of “Church”. She is much more than just the fallible humans here on earth that are members of her. She also contains all those who have gone on before us in the faith, who are pure forever. She has Christ as her Head, and the HS as her Soul. It is these divine elements of the Church that make her infallible.

• Thank God the Holy Spirit is infallible and is patient with us. Of cource we won’t get it perfect until Heaven, according to Paul in 1 Cor 13, IMO.

Individuals will not be perfected until heaven, but the Teaching of Jesus was perfected when He gave it, and it has been preserved perfectly by Him in His Holy Bride, the Church.

It seems that some believe He is too weak or disinterested to preserve His Eternal Word.

 

[guanophore]

What “washing” is Peter refering to here?

It’s a spiritual washing of the conscience by the Word and it is applied by the Holy Spirit. It’s NOT ritual.

We are in agreement about the nature of the washing. The Apostles taught that this is exactly what happens in baptism. That is why it is also called “circumcision made without hands”. It is a circumcision of the heart, accomplished by the HS during baptism.

I am curious what you mean by “it is not ritual”. What is “ritual”?

 

[guanophore]

I’m sure you have a good idea how I’d respond. We aren’t really getting anywhere here. I respect your position, even though I disagree with some of your conclusions. I am encouraged by the ‘spirit’ of charity you display as you discuss witht he likes of me. Thank you.

May God richly bless you my brother in Christ! The “likes” of you are why CAF is here.

You are right, I do have some idea how you would respond, but I bring the questions because, for every one person like yourself who posts, there are 10 more reading that do not. Your positions are shared by a great many people, including a large percentage of uneducated “Catholics”.

 

[guanophore]

John 11:21
Martha then said to Jesus, "Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died.

Catholics; was Lazarus of Bethany the sibling of Martha and her “sister”? Yes or no?

Yes.
Masters Servant;6514255:

Was Martha and Mary (not Jesus mother) sisters?

adelphē 1. a full, own sister

Yes.

If Lazurus is commonly accepted as Martha and Mary sibling, which they are, then why would you then deny it when the Lord said He had brothers in light of the fact that God says Mary, Jesus mother, was pregnant “before the came together”.

Because we know that Jesus was the only child of His mother.

What do you suppose they "came to together for? Huummm I wonder what God could have possibly meant by that. What God has joined together; let no man separate, but now God forces Joseph and Mary to break His command; please. Would God do that after He said “until the CAME together?”

Scripture does not state that they ever came together. It says that they were not together when He was conceived. You are assuming what happened after that.

What would any honest person answer? Anyone want to copy this post and start a thread since the last few posts are off topic? I can’t; otherwise I would.

I can see why it seems this way to you. The only reason that those who are part of the Traditions established by the Apostles understand it differently is because their teachings have been infallibly preserved along with the Scripture.

 

[guanophore]

I love Polycarp’s quote. I would hope I could make the same statement if someone tried to force me to reject Jesus. I did not see where he said he was baptized as a child. I understand your beliefs mean you must interprets Polycarp to have been baptized as an infant. BTW, do you find it interesting Polycarp said he was already saved before he was in Heaven. Seems we are saved in this live, according to Polycarp.

Yes, I too hope that I will be able to demonstrate such courage, if I am ever placed in such a position. The way the country is going, it seems like it may happen!

No, our faith does not require that we believe Polycarp was baptized as an infant.
We know the Apostles taught this, and passed the practice on to their disciples, so we accept that it is likely he was.

Yes, there are some aspects of salvation that are already accomplished in this live. As the Apostle writes, “baptism…now saves you”. This is a completed action in the past. There are some aspects of salvation that are being worked out, and some that will not be accomplished in this life.

One of those you noted in another post, which is to be permanently separated from sin, and our sin nature.

 

[guanophore]

However, their is a totally different word used for cousin in the NT; Kevin and I do not doubt what the Lord Himself said concerning His brothers (biological) and what God planned for marriage between Joseph and Mary; he would not have them violate His own commands and you being Catholic and against most forms of birth control, smacks in the face of God on this particular subject.

You seem to believe that there were no consecrated virgins that were given in marriage. However, the Mosaic Law had provisions for virgins like Mary so that they could be placed in the custody of a righteous man and their vow of celibacy supported and protected.

The Catholic Church is agaist ALL forms of birth control. We believe the the marital embrace is to reflect the love of God, which is free, fruitful, and completely self donating.

Perhaps since you are a veteran Catholic here; you could start an appropriate thread for this discussion since all of the talk about Jesus brothers has nothing to do with infant Baptism, the actual topic.

Yeah, it does seem to have derailed the thread.

that is your call but I can’t answer any more questions; i have posted the Biblical facts in light of Gods commands dealing with marriage, what it meant “before they came together” and the words of the Lord Himself and the fact that cousin in the NT Greek is in Scripture; in light of the overwhelming Biblical evidence the only way to deny the obvious truth is to have a prejudice for a different doctrine IMO.

You are rigth there, Servant. Catholics have a prejudice against all doctrines that are developed apart from the once for all deposit of faith that was given to the Church. We are to regard such ideas as you present as a significant departure from the Teaching of the Apostles, and constituting “a different gospel” which we are required to reject.

The true gospel is to be received from those who are authorized to teach it, not extrapolated 2000 years after the fact from people who are separated from the Apostolic Faith that produced the Scripture.

 

[guanophore]

Yep your right; your evidence is more convincing than God’s

You know, Servant, it is very concerning that you equate your personal opinons and perceptions with those of God. You consistently reflect how you believe God thinks and feels, based upon your own thoughts and feelings.

   and the zero existence of the evidence concerning the continual virginity is overwhelming in Scripture; so again you win against the Word.

No, Servant. We just don’t separate the Teachings of the Apostles that were handed down to us from those that were handed down in writing. the two go together like a seamless garment, a rope of two equal strands.

You are so absolutely convincing; that I am burning my Bible and buying a Baltimore catechism on Amazon as I post; luckily I am in a state where I can freely burn the Bible.  I'm also calling the local Parrish and enlisting in the "Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults".  Got to log off to see if I can catch someone there and ask when the classes begin & how to enroll..bye for now - don't worry I do have a hose just in case the burning Bible gets out of hand and I'm using charcoal lighter fluid; although gasoline might be more "explosive" & faster.

Your disdain for our beliefs has been duly noted.

 

[Masters_Servant]

Tweety, I think it is very loving that you might do anything just to please your husband. I think it is great that you are willing to support his choice, and respect it, especially given how many difficulties you have with the Catholic faith. I am also sure you often miss your Protestant community, so it is very self sacrificing of you.

Such sincerity or should I say transparency?

 

[guanophore]

Don’t need to prove Mary had other infants to show she most likely wasn’t a perpetual virgin. You must do some fancy foot work with Matthew 1:25 which indicates Mary was a virgin until she have birth to her First Born.

No, not a bit. We just know that the use of the word “until” does not imply anything about what happened after the event to which it refers. It is used this way also inreference to Michal, the wife of David, who remained childless until…

First Born was a title given to the male child who opened the womb. It also does not imply there were other children.

 Boy it would have been nice if the Holy Spirit had had Matthew say that Jesus was her Only Begotten Infant Son as He inspired those words to be used of God toward Jesus.

Since the HS has preserved the meaning of the Scriptures infallibly in the Church, we do indeed find this very “nice”. ​

 

[Masters_Servant]

The only reason that those who are part of the Traditions established by the Apostles understand it differently is because their teachings have been infallibly preserved along with the Scripture.

Only you cannot name one of those traditions with Biblical support; no one can because they already existed as the passage clearly indicates and there is no reason to believe that it is not part of the written word, otherwise why would the message change? Therefore the Church has to say traditions that were passed on orally and by the authority of the Church because there exists no Biblical support. It is a self proclaimed authority and circular reasoning. The only One that can make self proclaimed authority is God because He established His own authority as Creator of all things and gave it all to His Son “ALL Things”.

“Until they came together” - Gee I wonder who doesn’t know what that is alluding to; anyone with a veil of blindness, head in the sand, hands over their ears and even those know exactly what it alludes to, but can’t openly admit it even though in their heart of hearts they know exactly what it means, just as a large portion of Catholics openly admit, but that would mean be committing sin against an unnamed church authority as opposed to Someone else who I will not mention. So keep fooling yourselves, you are not fooling anyone else; you make yourselves look, well I can’t say that either. My 2 cents; can’t wait for the honest feedback that I know I will get. Some of you crack me up sometimes.

 

[guanophore]

I see that Adelphos also means his brothers in blood (blood brothers, siblings, of the same mother) and it is connected to Delphus, (the womb, brothers, siblings, of the same mother) Yes I agree there are other meanings of this word, which also means blood brothers, he has infant brothers and sisters.

I am sure that these near kin were infants at one time, and possibly grew up in the same dwelling, or right next door. Obviously they were all in the same little town of Nazareth together. None of them were from Mary’s womb, though. Jesus was the only child of His mother.

 

[guanophore]

I have searched the word Adephos also under Koine Greek, which only comes up with Adelphos, and Strong’s #80 (pronounced Ad-el-fos’) From 1 (as connective particle) and Delphus (the womb); a Brother (literally or figuratively) near or remote (much like 1) Brother.
If you can point me to a link of the Koine Greek meaning of the word Adephos I would apperciate it. I really want to know this word.

It is good that you are so dedicated to this type of study.

One must bear in mind that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, which has no word to distinguish cousin, stepsibling, half sibiling, etc.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Only you cannot name one of those traditions with Biblical support; no one can because they already existed as the passage clearly indicates and there is no reason to believe that it is not part of the written word, otherwise why would the message change? Therefore the Church has to say traditions that were passed on orally and by the authority of the Church because there exists no Biblical support. It is a self proclaimed authority and circular reasoning. The only One that can make self proclaimed authority is God because He established His own authority as Creator of all things and gave it all to His Son “ALL Things”.

MS, you’ve made a great point: The Church isn’t proclaiming she’s the one, true, church apart from God. The Church wouldn’t say so unless God Himself did first. Actually, Catholics believe there’s no competition between Sacred Traditions and Sacred Scripture: they are one seamless garment as Guanophore has said.

“Until they came together” - Gee I wonder who doesn’t know what that is alluding to; anyone with a veil of blindness, head in the sand, hands over their ears and even those know exactly what it alludes to, but can’t openly admit it even though in their heart of hearts they know exactly what it means, just as a large portion of Catholics openly admit, but that would mean be committing sin against an unnamed church authority as opposed to Someone else who I will not mention. So keep fooling yourselves, you are not fooling anyone else; you make yourselves look, well I can’t say that either. My 2 cents; can’t wait for the honest feedback that I know I will get. Some of you crack me up sometimes.

Actually, I’d say “knew” or “cleaving” is more accurate word for martial relations Bible-wise i.e. “Adam knew Eve” and later conceived and “brought forth” Cain and Seth (Gen 4:1, 25) and “Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh” (Gen 2:25, Mt 19:5, Mk 10:7, Eph 5:31). All translations from Douay-Rheims.

 

[Masters_Servant]

You know, Servant, it is very concerning that you equate your personal opinons and perceptions with those of God. You consistently reflect how you believe God thinks and feels, based upon your own thoughts and feelings.

ditto

No, Servant. We just don’t separate the Teachings of the Apostles that were handed down to us from those that were handed down in writing. the two go together like a seamless garment, a rope of two equal strands.

which Apostles?

Your disdain for our beliefs has been duly noted.

Note all you want, but note this as well, my love and reverence for the Word of God is the positive way to look at it as opposed to your preconceived negative way of looking at it. Your disdain for my beliefs should also be in your notations; since you claim to have a fair and open mind to learning; so we will see if you live by your own verbal convictions, but I’m not holding my breath.

 

[Masters_Servant]

It is good that you are so dedicated to this type of study.

One must bear in mind that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, which has no word to distinguish cousin, stepsibling, half sibiling, etc.

So now you have access to the original manuscripts; can you tell the rest of the world 1) that you have them and 2) make them available…LOL

 

[guanophore]

ditto

On the contrary, I do not claim to speak for God. Instead, I support those whom He authorized to speak for Him, the Church He founded.

 which Apostles?

Those appointed and authorized by Chrsit. The ones who form the foundation of the Church.

  Note all you want, but note this as well, my love and reverence for the Word of God is the positive way to look at it as opposed to your preconceived negative way of looking at it.

I am quite certain that you have love and reverence for the Word of God. You just don’t seem to recognize that there is a discrepancy between your perceptions, and what it actually says. You believe that your perceptions are identicaly to the Word of God, and they are not. The Word goes through your mental and emotional filters, just like it does the rest of humanity. Your perception of it is changed by your expereinces and knowledge (or in your case, the lack of it).

Your disdain for my beliefs should also be in your notations; since you claim to have a fair and open mind to learning; so we will see if you live by your own verbal convictions, but I'm not holding my breath.

I do not disdain your beliefs. You stand firmly in the tradition of Apollos. I embrace you as my brother in Christ.

 

[guanophore]

So now you have access to the original manuscripts; can you tell the rest of the world 1) that you have them and 2) make them available…LOL

No, I have access to the testimony of historians who had them. Many of the manuscripts that Jerome and Augustine used are no longer available either. That does not mean they never existed.

I can see why it is important for you to deny history on these matters, because it would be impossible to accept the historical record and still cling to your views.

That is why I said in another post that I hope you are able and willing at some point to apply your own standard to your faith. You have challenged Catholics to incorporate historical testimony that conflicts with their views. I hope you can do the same.

 

[elvisman]

Only you cannot name one of those traditions with Biblical support; no one can because they already existed as the passage clearly indicates and there is no reason to believe that it is not part of the written word, otherwise why would the message change? Therefore the Church has to say traditions that were passed on orally and by the authority of the Church because there exists no Biblical support. It is a self proclaimed authority and circular reasoning. The only One that can make self proclaimed authority is God because He established His own authority as Creator of all things and gave it all to His Son “ALL Things”.

There are many Apostolic traditions that we practice to this day that are not in Scripture, which can be traced back - in writing - to the 1st Century.
Here are a couple from Chapter 8 of The Didache (Teachings of the Apostles, 70 A.D.) on Fasting and the Lord’s Prayer:

---

“But let not your fasts be with the hypocrites; for they fast on the second and fifth day of the week; but fast on the fourth day and the Preparation (Friday). Neither pray as the hypocrites; but as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, thus pray: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, as in heaven, so on earth. Give us today our daily (needful) bread, and forgive us our debt as we also forgive our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one (or, evil); for Yours is the power and the glory for ever. Thrice in the day thus pray.

---

This** last**** sentence is recited to this day in many Protestant Churches and was ****NEVER **part of the original Scriptures. It comes from Apostolic TRADITION.

---

**Oh - and the Church Fathers - they DID carry on the traditions about Mary’s Perpetual Virginity from the beginning. So you disagree with **Origen, ****Hilary of Poitiers, ****Athanasius, ****Epiphanius, ****Jerome, Didymus the Blind, and many others.

---

Ummm . . . you are also in conflict with your Reformer heroes, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and others. that doesn’t surprise me though. Protestantism was born from constant, splintering ideological divorce.
:

 

[Masters_Servant]

No, I have access to the testimony of historians who had them. Many of the manuscripts that Jerome and Augustine used are no longer available either. That does not mean they never existed.

I can see why it is important for you to deny history on these matters, because it would be impossible to accept the historical record and still cling to your views.

That is why I said in another post that I hope you are able and willing at some point to apply your own standard to your faith. You have challenged Catholics to incorporate historical testimony that conflicts with their views. I hope you can do the same.

The point is you made a claim that is ridiculous and cannot be shown; I’m sure Matthew was written in quite a few languages; but to make the claim of knowing the “original language” is so funny. Pay attention to detail.

 

[Masters_Servant]

There are many Apostolic traditions that we practice to this day that are not in Scripture, which can be traced back - in writing - to the 1st Century.
Here are a couple from Chapter 8 of The Didache (Teachings of the Apostles, 70 A.D.) on Fasting and the Lord’s Prayer:

---

“But let not your fasts be with the hypocrites; for they fast on the second and fifth day of the week; but fast on the fourth day and the Preparation (Friday). Neither pray as the hypocrites; but as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, thus pray: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, as in heaven, so on earth. Give us today our daily (needful) bread, and forgive us our debt as we also forgive our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one (or, evil); for Yours is the power and the glory for ever. Thrice in the day thus pray.

---

This** last**** sentence is recited to this day in many Protestant Churches and was ****NEVER **part of the original Scriptures. It comes from Apostolic TRADITION.

---

**Oh - and the Church Fathers - they **DID carry on the traditions about Mary’s Perpetual Virginity from the beginning. So you disagree with **Origen, ****Hilary of Poitiers, ****Athanasius, ****Epiphanius, ****Jerome, **Didymus the Blind, and many others.

---

Ummm . . . you are also in conflict with your Reformer heroes, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and others. that doesn’t surprise me though. Protestantism was born from constant, splintering ideological divorce.
:

So now the Didache is the Word of God and carries the same authority of the Bible? Someone decided to advise to say it 3 times a day and that proves oral traditions passed on by the writers of Scripture? Another huge leap for the Elvis-Man.

Which Apostles; Paul and Peter; especially Paul was continually warning and addressing FALSE teachings that infiltrated the church of Jesus. The perpetual virginity of Mary is an invention; how can we know this? It contradicts directly the Word of God and the very voice of Jesus. I choose to believe the God of the Christian Bible as opposed to men who wrote heresies as I see it.

Notice the threads always come down to those defending the Word of God and those defending the writing of men. Have you not seen the pattern? It exists in every apologetic and non-Catholic religions.

I would like to know how the teachings of the magesterium and the Scripture became equal in the site of Catholics - that intrigues me more than anything, because to be equal to any authority of God’s word; He would have to share that authority and give up some of His sovereignty and then the magesterium in effect would become “god”; not just a representative because to be equal with His word, which is an extension of God Himself; like a finger is to a human. Then one would have to show that God gave that sovereignty and equality to the magisterium. Since Hebrews in effect removed the formal priesthood, and the Bible say God alone can forgive sins; yet that is the claim.

“The priest is, indeed, another Christ, or in some way, he is himself a continuation of Christ.” (Pope Pius XI, Encylical on the Priesthood) How is this reconciled to Matt 24?