Baptism

[Church_Militant]

oudave:

You just keep proving my point. I say that I follow the Bible and you tell me that I am not. You say that it is the catholic church that follows the Bible and not me. How do you prove this? by tellin me to read a book other than the Bible. So you are telling me that it took the catholic church some 1800 years to pronounce and define these things about Mary? I guess you can rip Rom 3:23 out of your Bible as well. I guess the catholic does change after all. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon6.gif
In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary “in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.”

Are you delusional or something?
I can’t help it if you disagree and frankly I’m not real sure why I should much care. I didn’t say any of that…
ALL I said was that you are mistaken (AND YOU ARE!) about the Catholic Church discouraging us from reading the Bible. It’s simple…you alleged something that ALL of us Catholics KNOW is wrong…and I point this out to you.
I point out that you don’t understand what the Imaculate Conception really is and you freak out like I just whizzed in you Post Toasties for cryin’ out loud. Jiminy Crickets fella, accept it when we tell you that you don’t know what you’re talkin’ about and then go find out the truth about it. Or forget the whole thing and cease pestering people who haven’t done a blessed thing to you just because you don’t agree with us. You might (with all due respect and charity…and I mean this sincerely.) be happier on a mormon or Jehovah’s witness forum than here trying to evangelize members of another Christian church.
http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/peace1.gif

 

[WhatIf]

oudave:

You just keep proving my point. I say that I follow the Bible and you tell me that I am not. You say that it is the catholic church that follows the Bible and not me. How do you prove this? by tellin me to read a book other than the Bible. So you are telling me that it took the catholic church some 1800 years to pronounce and define these things about Mary? I guess you can rip Rom 3:23 out of your Bible as well. I guess the catholic does change after all. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon6.gif
In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary “in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.”

Why do you say we can rip Rom 3:23 out of the Bible? You lost me there. What did that have to do with what we were talking about? I think I got lost on the topic.

You used the term Immaculate Conception. Some people think it is referring to the Virgin Birth (conception) of Jesus. I’ve know Catholic to get this confused as well. The Immaculate Conception is referring to the conception of Mary. By God’s will, Mary was conceived without original sin. We think of Mary as the “ark of the convenant” because her womb held the “new convenant”. That is my way to explain it to you from what I’ve learned. It is hard to believe that nay human was conceived without sin like the rest of us, but considering she wasn’t having your average child, but the Son of God instead, then it does make sense for God to have done it this way - Immaculate Conception of Mary for the Virgin Birth of Jesus. Make any sense?

Now, I think many of us were trying to point out to you that you only think you go by the Bible alone and the rest of us look to other sources, but really you rely on other sources as well or you wouldn’t have used a term like Immaculate Conception along with other things that are not scriptural. The first thing to do is to admit that you do use other sources to form your understanding of Scripture, THEN argue how your source is better than ours. I’d like to think that you will realize that it is necessary to check other sources in order to get the proper meaning of Scripture. A Catholic has the Catholic Church - The Magisterium as a source of information. We have a way to keep us all on the same page if we wish to study it. It is hard for me to understand how any two people in your Church can believe the same on important issues and if one person believes in the Virgin Birth and the other doesn’t, well that is an important difference, don’t you think? Also, as mentioned, there is only one Holy Spirit, so why have so many interpretations of the Bible.

I hope that you have found the Church that helps you have the close relationship with the Lord that we all strive to have. If it is lacking however, consider reading the Catechism and know that we are Christian. Read our Creed.

I hope you continue with discussion, but don’t try to tell us that we aren’t Christian and that we don’t live by the Bible and that we don’t know Jesus is our Savior and we are saved through his sacrifice and not through our works. We know these basics. Trust that we are Christian and then go from there.

I hope your journey leads you closer to God. Pray for me, too. I can use all the help I can get to continue to grow closer to the Lord each day. It a tough world and we need to unite. Christians are very powerful if we stick together.

 

[BayCityRickL]

Immersion reminds us of the flood of Noah’s day, when God punished mankind for sin. This is a lesson of how serious sin is.

Water is the reminder of the wrath and punishment of God that we deserve for our sins. The Church has long approved the application of that water by immersion, pouring over the head, and/or sprinkling.

If you don’t see this connection, then you’re missing out a big chunk of what Baptism means. Like anything else, there were probably times and places when people couldn’t run down to the local river for baptism, and, recognizing the meaning of the water made it clear that water is water. Jesus even ‘baptized’ one of the thieves on the cross, proving that even water is not absolutely required.

Infant baptism is a stumbling block because we DO seem to recall that baptism by John was a baptism of repentence. So how can a baby repent? But, our Christian baptism is a baptism of the Holy Spirit. Likewise, the Church has long allowed the baptism of infants, as much as the NT says that “households” were baptized.

Parents in Catholic and non-Catholic families would not dispute their obligation to bring up their children in the faith, so, now what? This is a distinction without a difference?

The Fathers of the Church also saw fit to pin down that there was “one baptism”. And, there is, as long as it was a valid Baptism.

Baptism is just about the greatest thing that ever happens in our lives.

 

[hlgomez]

So you are telling me that it took the catholic church some 1800 years to pronounce and define these things about Mary? I guess you can rip Rom 3:23 out of your Bible as well. I guess the catholic does change after all. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon6.gif

OuDave,

Yours is a ignorance and misconception. The Early Church already taught that Mary was conceived without original sin. It can be proven thru the early writings of the Early Church Fathers. The Church has to define it as an official dogma at the right time that it should be done. But She (the Catholic Church) never denies that teaching. It is thru the prompting of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church that it needs to be officially proclaimed a dogma, and the Church doesn’t change her position whatsoever. It just confirms her teachings from long–very long time, ago.

Here’s some excerpts from the Early Church Father’s writings:

Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, “Be it done unto me according to your word” (Luke 1:38) (Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho 100 A.D. 155]).

This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Origen: Homily 1 A.D. 244]).

He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (Hyppolytus: *Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 *ante A.D. 235]).

You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these? (Ephraim the Syrian: Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A. D. 361]). NOTE: This was also a parallel of the words written in the Bible in the Song of Songs that says; “You are beautiful my beloved, and there is no blemish in you” as referring to the Blessed Virgin.

Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin (Ambrose of Milan: Commentary on Psalm 118:22-30 [A.D. 387]).

God Bless,

Pio

 

[hlgomez]

Continuation on the teaching of the Catholic Church in the early centuries regarding the Immaculate Conception of Mary, including her Bodily Assumption:

A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns (Theodotus of Ancrya: Homily 6:11[ante **A.D. 446]).

As He formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain (Proclus of Constatinople: Homily 1[ante **A.D. 446]).

Then the tribes of Israel heard that Anna had conceived the immaculate one. So everyone took part in the rejoicing. Joachim gave a banquet, and great was the merriment in the garden. He invited the priests and Levites to prayer; then he called Mary into the center of the crowd, that she might be magnified (Romanus the Melodist: *On the Birth of Mary *1 [d. ca **A.D. 560]).

[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary[Jacob of Sarug: ante **A.D. 521].

Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, “Behold, 0 Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.” Eve . . . who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband — for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children . . . having become disobedient [sin], was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient [no sin], was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith (Irenaeus: Against Heresies 3:22:24 A.D. 189]).

It was fitting that the she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. It was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast, should dwell in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse, whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine mansions. It was fitting that she, who had seen her Son upon the cross and who had thereby received into her heart the sword of sorrow which she had escaped when giving birth to him, should look upon him as he sits with the Father, It was fitting that God’s Mother should possess what belongs to her Son, and that she should be honored by every creature as the Mother and as the handmaid of God (John Damascene: Dormition of Mary A.D. 697])

You are she who, as it is written, appears in beauty, and your virginal body is all holy, all chaste, entirely the dwelling place of God, so that it is henceforth completely exempt from dissolution into dust. Though still human, it is changed into the heavenly life of incorruptibility, truly living and glorious, undamaged and sharing in perfect life (Germanus of Constantinople: Sermon I A.D. 683]).

[T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord’s chosen ones. . . (Gregory of Tours: Eight Books of Miracles 1:4 A.D. 575]).

God Bless,

Pio

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Church Militant:

Are you delusional or something?
I can’t help it if you disagree and frankly I’m not real sure why I should much care. I didn’t say any of that…
ALL I said was that you are mistaken (AND YOU ARE!) about the Catholic Church discouraging us from reading the Bible. It’s simple…you alleged something that ALL of us Catholics KNOW is wrong…and I point this out to you.
I point out that you don’t understand what the Imaculate Conception really is and you freak out like I just whizzed in you Post Toasties for cryin’ out loud. Jiminy Crickets fella, accept it when we tell you that you don’t know what you’re talkin’ about and then go find out the truth about it. Or forget the whole thing and cease pestering people who haven’t done a blessed thing to you just because you don’t agree with us. You might (with all due respect and charity…and I mean this sincerely.) be happier on a mormon or Jehovah’s witness forum than here trying to evangelize members of another Christian church.
http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/peace1.gif

WOW!! What boldness. You must be a CHURCH MILITANT. God Bless Brother.What are you serving with tea? .

 

[Theodred]

SPOKENWORD:

WOW!! What boldness. You must be a CHURCH MILITANT. God Bless Brother.What are you serving with tea? .

Frustration with pigheadedness is not a sin, nor is expressing one’s frustration a sin as long as it is done with charity.

Quite frankly, your statement doesn’t address the issue at all. You are simply passing judgment on CM’s post without speaking to the cause of the frustration.

You are telling a lie, whether intentional or not, when you say that the “Catholic Church” discourages Catholics from reading the bible. You now have full knowledge. To continue telling the lie at this point is grave matter for sin.

 

[ppcpilot]

I wonder why oudave even attends service on Sundays if all he needs to know is in the Bible, and he can study it on his own and get it right?

I would have never gone to class in college if that was the case!

If you go for worship, how do you worship Him? Can’t you do all of that at home, too?

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Théodred:

Frustration with pigheadedness is not a sin, nor is expressing one’s frustration a sin as long as it is done with charity.

Quite frankly, your statement doesn’t address the issue at all. You are simply passing judgment on CM’s post without speaking to the cause of the frustration.

You are telling a lie, whether intentional or not, when you say that the “Catholic Church” discourages Catholics from reading the bible. You now have full knowledge. To continue telling the lie at this point is grave matter for sin.

Sorry Theo, You are making false claims. I never said any such thing. Be careful throwing stones brother. God Bless

 

[WhatIf]

SPOKENWORD:

Sorry Theo, You are making false claims. I never said any such thing. Be careful throwing stones brother. God Bless

You said “does not encourage us to read the Bible”, right?

I posted once before some proof that we are encouraged to read the Bible. Are you ready to admit that you were mistaken about this issue about whether or not Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible? RCIA encourages it, our Catechism encourages it, our Pastors encourage it, our Bible Study Groups encourage it, our schools encourage it and you’ve had a few posts giving you examples of our being encouraged to read it. Did I miss where you admitted to misunderstanding the Catholic Church on this issue? We are all guilty of misunderstandings. It would help if you’d admit to this one. Pasted below is part of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It shows that we are encouraged to read the Bible.

**V. SACRED SCRIPTURE IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH

**131 “And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigour, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life.” 109 Hence “access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful.” 110

132 “Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture.” 111 133 The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful… to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ. 112

 

[Mickey]

WhatIf:

You said “does not encourage us to read the Bible”, right?

I posted once before some proof that we are encouraged to read the Bible. Are you ready to admit that you were mistaken about this issue about whether or not Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible? RCIA encourages it, our Catechism encourages it, our Pastors encourage it, our Bible Study Groups encourage it, our schools encourage it and you’ve had a few posts giving you examples of our being encouraged to read it.

A few of weeks ago, our Pastor challenged the congregation to read the whole Bible from cover to cover this year; and if you’ve already read it multiple times, to read it again. The Catholic Church has always encouraged me to read the Bible. I have no idea where spokenword is coming from!?!

 

[hlgomez]

I have no idea where spokenword is coming from!?!

His purported “facts” against Catholic teachings, particularly reading the Bible, are based on hearsay. He probably heard it from cradle catholics.

Pio

 

[Benadam]

hlgomez:

His purported “facts” against Catholic teachings, particularly reading the Bible, are based on hearsay. He probably heard it from cradle catholics.

Pio

There is good reason for a parent to fear that the good teaching children are raised in can become corrupted by worldly opinions that tend to rebell against authority.

No Catholic should deny that the Church rightly feared the abuse of Sacred Scripture. They had dealt with the heresies that leaned on them and proved them wrong. Most Christians take for granted beliefs that were guarded milititantly by the Catholic Church.

The Church never kept the Sacred texts from anyone but they did take seriously the role of guardian of Truth. Remember that bibles were available in Churches and kept chained out of love for the Word and the soul of humanity. When people put a maliscious intent on these things it reveals more about them than it does the Church.

I think the dangers attached to a liberal approach to the meaning of scripture is self evident and it saddens me that good parents are slandered for doing what was good for the souls that were entrusted to them.

I am a 44 year old Catholic who can’t ever remember not being encouraged throughout childhood and adulthood to pick up the bible and read it everyday by Priests religion teachers Nuns Sisters and every other Catholic devoted to their faith. It’s preposterous to me that anyone would think that the Catholic Church doesn’t want people reading the bible.

 

[Theodred]

SPOKENWORD:

Sorry Theo, You are making false claims. I never said any such thing. Be careful throwing stones brother. God Bless

Mind your own stone throwing at CM’s posts before you start minding mine.

 

[Malachi4U]

SPOKENWORD:

Sorry Theo, You are making false claims. I never said any such thing. Be careful throwing stones brother. God Bless

So, found a few broken windows in your house yet?

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Malachi4U:

So, found a few broken windows in your house yet?

Hi Malachi,Not today,we recieved 8 ft drifts of snow out here .You cannot see my windows. I guess Ted is going to have to wait for a spring thaw. God Bless

 

[Theodred]

SPOKENWORD:

Hi Malachi,Not today,we recieved 8 ft drifts of snow out here .You cannot see my windows. I guess Ted is going to have to wait for a spring thaw. God Bless

There are sooooooo many Yiddish words for you. God Bless you.

 

[Des]

Church Militant:

I note with some satisfaction that OUDAVE did not respond to my post
You can’t have missed it dave it’s big and #4
http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/smily084.gif

Church Militant, your large Smilies are seducing me into committing the sin of Envy.

 

[Philthy]

cove:

What is wrong with accepting the idea that God’s mercy would allow a small child who has not been baptised to enter the kingdom of heaven? What do you think has happened to those who have been aborted or died before birth? Do you really think that our merciful God would not accept them?

I am trying to understand where you are coming from. Is it your belief that without baptism by water it is absolutely impossible for anyone to enter the kingdom of heaven? Even the smallest and most innocent among us? Do you not believe in the loving mercy of God?

Impercise conjecture? How about this passage from the CCC–

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,”[63] 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.

True, we are not “certain” of this but we can only “hope” that those who have not had the privilege of baptism will be granted God’s mercy and enter the kingdom of heaven. I for one pray and hope this.

Sorry for cutting in, but I can’t help it! cove, the point is that we should not wallow in uncertainty if we don’t need to. And we don’t need to: baptism is a means for the communication of grace - this much is clear from scripture. Baptizing babies communicates God’s grace to them because He has bound Himself to this sacrament. The gratuitous nature of Gods grace is MOST CLEARLY manifest in infant baptism. Now that doesn’t mean He might not also save unbaptized babies(although God is bound TO the sacraments, He is not bound BY them) - this is what the Church is attempting to say in the statements above that you find confusing and perhaps illusive. they are simply trying to say "If you get your baby baptized we KNOW God’s grace is bestowed upon the baby, but if you don’t all we have is trust in God to be merciful, BUT WE DON"T KNOW WHAT HAPPENS - so get your baby baptized!
Your speculation on how unfair it is for all the babies out there who don’t have Christian parents is genuine and compassionate but ultimately irrelevent. You fail to recognize who God is if you are unable to recognize why your opinions mean nothing. We do not understand in the slightest why God does things the way He does them - it’s not our job. Think about it: would you ever, ever, have come up with God’s plan of Salvation? Ever? You (and I) would have rejected immediately the concept of Christs suffering and death as totally “unfair”. And it would have been out of genuine compassion that we would reach this conclusion. But notice Christs crucifixion for our salvation is the reality. And God alone is in position to judge such things, ultimately and with infinite knowledge and wisdom, as being just. You must understand who God and who you are, and the more you do this the more you will appreciate the gift of Baptism and the wisdom of his Church to guide us.

Blabbermouth Phil

 

[Philthy]

Hi outdave! Keep pressing with an open heart to what you believe God is calling you to do. I will not judge you.

oudave:

Two things here, First of all you are assuming that where ever it says household or all his family, that there were children present.

It doesn’t say in Scripture so we are left guessing despite the alleged clarity of Scripture. It is not illogical to assume that since the gift was for “you and your children” that children were meant to be included, and it is also not illogical to believe that in households prior to reliable birth control that there would be not children however this also is not a “proof” and simply reflects the unclarity of Scripture.

oudave:

Acts 2:38 says Repent and be Baptized, can a child repent?

He isn’t talking to children, he’s talking to adults so it doesn’t really apply.

oudave:

does a child even know what repent means? adults cant even get it right. The maturity level of children are different, some understand at 5 years old and some not till 10 or 12. Ask a child why they were baptized and most will tell you because my mom and dad had me Baptized or the church says I’m supposed to.

Children don’t understand very much at age 5, and you(and I)understand less of how to judge their understanding. Essentially, the concept of “understanding” is again meant for adults. Jesus did say not to prevent infants from coming to him - he didn’t say don’t bother they are already mine. There is a difference.

oudave:

And no I don’t believe that if a child who has not been baptized dies go’s to hell.

Why not simply shoot them first and send them immediately to God before they have a chance of sinning? Seems kind of selfish on your part. I guess maybe because that would be a sin on your part? But then again if you are born again and your salvation is assured then you have Christ’s righteousness on your side and all’s well. I hope you know I’m not serious, but this type of theology can and has led people to do exactly that.

oudave:

If you were 4 years old and broke out your neibors window they don’t throw you in jail for vandelism, because you are not yet of responsible age.

Invalid analogy. You never finished the story - as if no one pays for the window! Who pays for the window? Probably your parents who are responsible for your behavior. How does one apply this analogy to baptism? IF you are prepared to assign the guilt of the child to the parents then you are not too far from assigning the faith of the parents(or the Church) to the child through baptism.

oudave:

Two of my children were ready at 9 and the other at 11 years. Our confirmation come’s when we profess our faith in Christ, We are then Baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

That’ll do it, ready or not!

oudave:

You say that infant Baptism washes away original sin, I believe that it is the blood of Christ that washes away sin.

Firstly, you have dodged the point in an attempt to make a point. The point is that we are all born with original sin through the fall and that sin needs to be washed. We all understand the significance of Christs blood. But what we are now discussing is the concept of baptism achieving that spiritual washing for infants.
Now with respect to your statement regarding “the blood of Christ” -you are mistaken - sort of. You have no access to the “blood” of Christ nor does anyone else in the sense that you mean it(Catholics of course believe in the Real Presence in the eucharist and have access - off topic!) What you are trying to say is that Christ’s blood from the Crucifixion is the CAUSE and justification for sins being washed - we all agree with that. But a problem immediately arises if we leave the implications of your thought unaddressed: namely, that if Christ’s blood washed away all sins 2000 years ago then we are ALL saved. I don’t think you would agree with that. But that is different than the MEANS of how that event 2000 years ago is APPLIED to our lives today. Baptism is one MEANS for the application of Christ’s righteousness( in Catholic and various Protestan theology). Faith is a prerequisite for this in adults, but is not for those incapable of faith(infant).

Thanks for your thoughts-

Phil