Contradictions/UnScriptural Catholicism ??

[Kirane]

Let your woman keep silent in the churches, for threy are not
permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also
says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own
husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. Or
did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that
it reached? 1 Corinthians 14:34-36
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is
the head of the wife as also Christ is head of the Church; and He is
the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the Church is subkect to
Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everthing.
Ephesians 5:22-24
Leta women learn in silence with all
submission. And I do not permit a women to teach or to have authority
over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into
transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they
continue in faith, love and holiness, with self-control. 1 Timothy 2:9-15
Similarly, teach the older woman to live in a way that is appropriate
for someone sserving the Lord. They must not go around speaking evil
of others and must not be heavy drinkers. Instead, they should teach
others what is good. These older women must train the younger women to
love their husbands and their children, to care of their homes, to do
good, and to be submissive to their husbands. Then they will not bring
shame to the word of God. Titus 2:3-5
However, current Catholic teaching contradicts the above Scriptural passages in several ways.

 

[Kirane]

The Bible says:
Deuteronomy 22:5 - The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.
However, current Catholic teaching allows women to wear trousers. This was not the Catholic teaching before Vatican II, as is seen from the following: :“Notification Concerning Men’s Dress Worn by Women by Giuseppe Cardinal Siri”
Genoa, June 12, 1960.

To the Reverend Clergy, To all Teaching sisters, To the beloved sons of Catholic Action, To Educators intending truly to follow Christine Doctrine. (1)

I. The first signs of our times of our late arriving spring indicate that there is this year a certain increase in the use of men’s dress by girls and women, even family mothers. Up until 1959, in Genoa, such dress usually meant the person was a tourist, but now it seems to be a significant number of girls and women from Genoa itself who are choosing at least on pleasure trips to wear men’s dress (men’s trousers).

The extension of this behavior obliges us to take serious thought, and we ask those to whom this Notification is addressed to kindly lend to the problem all the attention it deserves from anyone aware of being in any way responsible before God.

We seek above all to give a balanced moral judgment upon the wearing of men’s dress by women. In fact, Our thoughts can only bear upon the moral question. (2)

Firstly, when it comes to covering of the female body, the wearing of men’s trousers by women cannot be said to constitute AS SUCH A GRAVE OFFENSE AGAINST MODESTY, because trousers certainly cover more of a woman’s body than do modern women’s skirts.

Secondly, however, clothes to be modest need not only to cover the body but also not to cling too closely to the body. (3) Now it is true that much feminine clothing today clings closer than do some trousers, but trousers can be made to cling closer in fact, generally they do, so the tight fit of such clothing gives us no less grounds for concern than does exposure of the body. So the immodesty of men’s trousers on women is an aspect of the problem which is not to be left out of an over-all judgment upon them, even if it is not to be artificially exaggerated either.

II. However, it is a different aspect of women’s wearing of men’s trousers which seems to us the gravest. (4) The wearing of men’s dress by women affects firstly the woman herself, by changing the feminine psychology proper to women; secondly, it affects the woman as wife of her husband, by tending to vitiate relationships between the sexes; thirdly, it affects the woman as mother of her children by harming her dignity in her children’s eyes. Each of these points is to be carefully considered in turn:

A.MALE DRESS CHANGES THE PSYCHOLOGY OF WOMAN.

In truth the motive impelling women to wear men’s dress is always that of imitating, nay, of competing with, the man who is considered stronger, less tied down, more independent. This motivation shows clearly that male dress is the visible aid to bringing about a mental attitude of being “like a man”. (5) Secondly, ever since men have been men, the clothing a person wears, demands, imposes and modifies that persons gestures, attitudes and behavior, such that from merely being worn outside, clothing comes to impose a particular frame of mind inside.

Then let us add that women wearing man’s dress always more or less indicates her reacting to her femininity as though it is inferiority when in fact it is only diversity. The perversion of her psychology is clear to be seen. (6)

These reasons, summing up many more, are enough to warn us how wrongly women are made to think by wearing men’s dress.

B. MALE DRESS TENDS TO VITIATE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN.

In truth when relationships between the two sexes unfold with the coming of age, an instinct of mutual attraction is predominant. The essential basis of this attraction is a diversity between the two sexes which is made possible only by their complementing or completing one another. If than this “diversity” becomes less obvious because one of its major external signs is eliminated and because the normal psychological structure is weakened, what results is the alteration of a fundamental factor in the relationship.

continued next window

 

[Kirane]

continued:
The problem goes further still. Mutual attraction between the sexes is preceded both naturally, and

in order of time, by that sense of shame which holds the rising instincts in check, imposes respect upon them, and tends to lift to a higher level of mutual esteem and healthy fear everything that those instincts would push onwards to uncontrolled acts. To change that clothing which by its diversity reveals and upholds nature’s limits and defense-works, is to flatten out the distinctions and to help pull down the vital defense-works of the sense of shame.

It is at least to hinder that sense. And when the sense of shame is hindered from putting on the brakes, then relationships between man and women sink degradingly down to pure sensuality, devoid of all mutual respect or esteem.

Experience is there to tell us that when woman is de-feminized, then defenses are undermined and weakness increases. (7)

C. MALE DRESS HARMS THE DIGNITY OF THE MOTHER IN HER CHILDREN’S EYES.

All children have an instinct for the sense of dignity and decorum of their mother. Analysis of the first inner crisis of children when they awaken to life around them before they enter upon adolescence, shows how much the sense of their mother counts. Children are as sensitive as they can be on this point. Adults have usually left all that behind them and think no more on it. But we would do well to recall to mind the severe demands that children instinctively make of their own mother, and the deep and even terrible reactions roused in them by observation of their mother’s misbehavior. Many lines of later life are here to be traced out-and not for good-in these early dramas of infancy and childhood.

The child may not know the definition of exposure, frivolity, or infidelity, but he possesses an instinctive sixth sense to recognize them when they occur, to suffer from them, and be bitterly wounded by them in his soul.

III. Let us think seriously on the import of everything said so far, even if women’s appearing in man’s dress does not immediately give rise to all the upset caused by grave immodesty.

The changing of feminine psychology does fundamental and, in the long run, irreparable damage to the family, to conjugal fidelity, to human affections and to human society. (8) True, the effects of wearing unsuitable dress are not all to be seen within a short time. But one must think of what is being slowly and insidiously worn down, torn apart, perverted.

Is any satisfying reciprocity between husband and wife imaginable, if feminine psychology be changed? Or is any true education of children imaginable, which is so delicate in its procedure, so woven of imponderable factors in which the mother’s intuition and instinct play the decisive part in those tender years? What will these women be able to give their children when they will so long have worn trousers that their self-esteem goes more by their competing with the men than by their functioning as women?

Why, we ask, ever since men have been men, or rather since they became civilizes -why have men in all times and places been irresistibly borne to make a differentiated division between the functions of the two sexes? Do we not have here strict testimony to the recognition by all mankind of a truth and a law above man?

To sum up, wherever women wear men’s dress, it is to be considered a factor in the long run tearing apart human order.

IV. The logical consequence of everything presented so far is that anyone in a position of responsibility should be possessed by a SENSE of ALARM in the true and proper meaning of the word, a severe and decisive ALARM. (9) We address a grave warning to parish priests. To all priests in general and to confessors in particular, to members of every kind of association, to all religious, to all nuns, especially to teaching Sisters.

We invite them to become clearly conscious of the problem so that action will follow. This consciousness is what matters. It will suggest the appropriate action in due time. But let it not counsel us to give way in the face of inevitable change, as though we are confronted by a natural evolution of mankind, and so on!

Men may come and men may go, because God has left plenty of room for the to and fro of their free-will; but the substantial lines of nature and the not less substantial lines of Eternal Law have never changed, are not changing and never will change. There are bounds beyond which one may stray as far as one sees fit, but to do so ends in death; (10) there are limits which empty philosophical fantasizing may have one mock or not to take seriously, but they put together an alliance of hard facts and nature to chastise anybody who steps over them. And history has sufficiently taught, with frightening proof from the life and death of nations, that the reply to all violators of the outline of “humanity” is always, sooner or later, catastrophe.

continued next window

 

[Kirane]

continued
From the dialectic of Hegel onwards, we have had dinned in our ears what are nothing but fables, and by dint of hearing them so often, many people end up by getting used to them, if only passively. But the truth of the matter is that Nature and Truth, and the Law bound up in both, go their imperturbable way, and they cut to pieces the simpletons who upon no grounds whatsoever believe in radical and far-reaching changes in the very structure of man. (11)

The consequences of such violations are not a new outline of man, but disorders, hurtful instability of all kinds, the frightening dryness of human souls, the shattering increase in the number of human castaways, driven long since out of people’s sight and mind to live out their decline in boredom, sadness, and rejection. Aligned on the wrecking of the eternal norms are to be found the broken families, lives cut short before their time, hearths and homes gone cold, old people cast to one side, youngsters wilfully degenerate and, at the end of the line, souls in despair and taking their own lives. All of which human wreckage gives witness to the fact that the “line of God” does not give way, nor does it admit of any adaptation to the delirious dreams of the so-called philosophers! (12)

V. We have said that those in whom the present Notification is addressed are invited to take serious alarm at the problem at hand. Accordingly they know what they have to say, starting with little girls on their mother’s knee.

They know that without exaggerating or turning into fanatics, they will need to strictly limit how far they tolerate women dressing like men, as a general rule.

They know they must never be so weak as to let anyone believe that they turn a blind eye to a custom which is slipping downhill and undermining the moral standing of all institutions.

They, the priests, know the line that they have to take in the confessional, while not holding women to be dressing like men to be automatically a grave fault, must be sharp and decisive. (13)

Everybody will kindly give thought to the need for a united line of action, reinforced on every side by the co-operation of all men of good will and all enlightened minds, so as to create a true dam to hold back the flood.

Those of you responsible for souls in whatever capacity understand useful it is to have for allies in this defensive campaign men of the arts, the media and the crafts. The position taken by fashion design houses, their brilliant designers and the clothing industry, is of crucial importance in this whole question. Artistic sense, refinement and good taste meeting together can find suitable but dignified solutions as to the dress for women to wear when they must use a motorcycle or engage in this or that exercise or work. What matters is to preserve modesty, together with the eternal sense of femininity, that femininity which more than anything else all children will continue to associate with the face of mother. (14)

We do not deny that modern life sets problems and makes requirements unknown to our grandparents. But we state that there are values more needing to be protected than fleeting experiences, and that for anybody of intelligence there are always good sense and good taste enough to find acceptable and dignified solutions to problems as they come up. (13)

Out of charity we are fighting against the flattening out of mankind, against the attack upon those differences on which rests the complementarity of man and woman.
When we see a woman in trousers, we should think not so much of her as of all mankind, of what it will be when women will have masculinized themselves for good. Nobody stands to gain by helping to bring about a future age of vagueness, ambiguity, imperfection and, in a word, monstrosities. (15)

This letter of Ours is not addressed to the public, but to those responsible for souls, for education, for Catholic associations. Let them do their duty, and let them not be sentries caught asleep at their post while evil crept in.

Giuseppe Cardinal Siri,

Archbishop of Genoa

 

[Kirane]

joshua_b:

I have also read several statements about the doctrines that have “changed” in the Catholic Church. What I’m asking for in this thread is anyone (Catholic or Protestant) holding this contention to please cite me specific examples of a) a belief of the Catholic Church that is unbiblical b) any contradictory teachings of the Church and/or c) any Church Doctrine that has changed since the earliest record of Christianity…

One teaching which has changed is whether or not it is appropriate to burn heretics alive at the stake. At one point in time it was thought OK. But now the teaching is that it is not appropriate for Catholics to publicly burn a Protestant alive at the stake because he objects to one or more teachings of the Church. So the teaching on exterminating heretics and non-beleivers has changed and in fact we have seen pictures of the Catholic Pope kissing the Islamic Koran.

 

[Will_Pick]

mikew262:

This relates to your question about the Church ever changing it’s doctrine.

This may indeed be a anti-catholic site, but that doesn’t mean everything it says is false. Form your own opinions.

bible.ca/catholic-flip-flops.htm

Maybe not everything,but MOST .

 

[Mike_D30]

Kirane:

One teaching which has changed is whether or not it is appropriate to burn heretics alive at the stake. At one point in time it was thought OK. But now the teaching is that it is not appropriate for Catholics to publicly burn a Protestant alive at the stake because he objects to one or more teachings of the Church. So the teaching on exterminating heretics and non-beleivers has changed and in fact we have seen pictures of the Catholic Pope kissing the Islamic Koran.

My family is from Ireland, many of my ancestors starved to death by Protestant Britain. So please hold stop it, with the victim card. Over 2 million Irish Catholics were killed by British elitist Protestants so please with this tired rhetoric.

Is Protestantism false, becasue they stopped stealing Catholics land in Ireland, razing their farms and killing them, because they are Catholis and not worthy to own land? DO the protesters who go to soldiers funerals from the Baptist Church with signs reading “thank GOd for IED’s” represent your brand of Protestantism? See how ridiculous your inflamatory statements are?

And if you’re going to plagerize a bunch of nonsense at least give credit to the author…

 

[MariaG]

originally posted by sparks
We have no proof that the baptized families contained infants. It is an assumption on your part.

You are correct none of those verses “prove” infants were baptized. But neither do they contradict it, and can certainly suggest it.

So let’s look at some more Scripture. These specifically are from Scripture Catholic, with some good explanations.

Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, “Repent and be baptized…” Protestants use this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”) This, contrary to what Protestants argue, actually proves that babies are baptized based on their parents’ faith. This is confirmed in the next verse.

Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. “Those far off” refers to those who were at their “homes” (primarily infants and children). God’s covenant family includes children. The word “children” that Peter used comes from the Greek word “teknon” which also includes infants.

The Greek text offers a fuller understanding of what was actually said.

Further, Paul compares baptism to circumcision. As you should know, Jews circumsized infant boys at eight days. There is a good explanation here from CA Library.

originally from CA Library: Infant Baptism
Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.” Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ”—that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.

And here is the Scripture.

Col. 2:11–12 11 In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him up from the dead.

And not that you need to read this, but writings of the early Church indicate that the controversy was not over whether infants should be baptized, but whether or not they had to wait until the eighth day to be baptized.

from CA library Early Teachings on Infant Baptism
The first explicit evidence of children of believing households being baptized comes from the early Church—where infant baptism was uniformly
upheld and regarded as apostolic. In fact, the only reported controversy on the subject was a third-century debate whether or not to delay baptism until the eighth day after birth, like its Old Testament equivalent, circumcision! (See quotation from Cyprian, below; compare Leviticus 12:2–3.)

To read the quotes yourself follow the above link.

**Although infant baptism in not explicit in the Bible, neither does it contradict it. **As pointed out above, when you look at the Greek, the meaning of Repent and be baptized is much more than just a believer’s baptism.

And personally, why on earth would the comparison be made to circumcision if infants were to be kept away from it?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

Hi Kirane,

To follow the OP original intent, Baptism was questioned first and needs to be answered before getting into it here.

And you put a whole bunch of things you think are unscriptural. Do you have ONE you would like to discuss in detail?

And for example, your first one, Call no man Father. Were you aware that Protestants used to call there ministers father before the Irish came over in high numbers? Clearly, there is deeper meaning to the words call no man father. If interested in the answer, why not read this here in CA Library?

God bless,
Maria

 

[Wildgraywolf]

sparks:

None of the verses you posted show babies being baptized.

True, it also dosen’t say they weren’t and there is no mention of anyone being refused baptism because of age.

sparks:

We don’t even know if the families contained a single infant.

We also don’t know that they didn’t. You’d think that a city as big as Jerusalem might have at least one or two.

“Family” was used to describe the members that entered Noah’s ark – note, there weren’t any infants.

There also weren’t any grand parents, grand children, aunts, uncles, cousins, orphans, widows or widowers, democrats or republicans on Noah’s ark. The only family relationship mentioned is that of husbands and wives.

sparks:

We have no proof that the baptized families contained infants.

As I said before there is no counter-indication either.

sparks:

It is an assumption on your part.

It’s an Inference actually…

sparks:

Would you assume that there were infants on Noah’s ark just because they aren’t mentioned? I wouldn’t.

What does Noah’s ark have to do with the how baptism is administered?

I don’t see how your response demonstrates that infant baptism is “blatently unbiblical”. How can you assume that “he and all his family” or “together with all his family” excludes infants?

 

[dwolstro]

Ok Sparks, let’s for a moment assume you are correct and Infant Baptism is wrong. Then can you show us in the bible the answers to these questions?

• At what age can someone confess their belief and be baptized? Surely, on something this important, the “age of reason” is clearly defined in the bible. Or does God leave us guessing as to when we are properly mature and have gained enough knowledge that we can come forward for baptism?

I ask because, having 4 children that were baptized as infants (in addition to myself and my wife), if in fact their/our baptisms were invalid, I need to know when they will be able to choose baptism.

 

[Kirane]

MariaG:

And for example, your first one, Call no man Father. Were you aware that Protestants used to call there ministers father before the Irish came over in high numbers? Clearly, there is deeper meaning to the words call no man father. If interested in the answer, why not read this here in CA Library?

I don’t dispute the Protestants can be just as contradictory as Catholics, but that was not the question as I understood it to be? Do Protestants have b eleifs which jcontradict Scripture? This would be another thread. The question I was looking at was whether Catholics had beleifs that are contradicted by Scripture. Scripture sasy to call no man Father. Catholics call their p;riests Father. This is a contraction. The article yourefer to does not deny these facts. What they say boils down to that it is OK to contradict Scripture on this point. The fact remains that this teaching of Catholicism contradicts Scripture.

 

[Kirane]

Mike_D30:

My family is from Ireland, many of my ancestors starved to death by Protestant Britain. So please hold stop it, with the victim card. Over 2 million Irish Catholics were killed by British elitist Protestants so please with this tired rhetoric.

Is Protestantism false, becasue they stopped stealing Catholics land in Ireland, razing their farms and killing them, because they are Catholis and not worthy to own land? DO the protesters who go to soldiers funerals from the Baptist Church with signs reading “thank GOd for IED’s” represent your brand of Protestantism? See how ridiculous your inflamatory statements are?
…

. As I understand it the question was not whether Protestants were wrong in this or in that. That would be for another thread. The question was whether or not there was a Catholic belief which was changed. I contend that there was a Catholic beleif that was changed. At one time the Catholic teaching was that it was OK to exterminate heretics by burnign them alive at the stake. This doctiine or teaching has been changed and the current teaching is that it is not a good idea to burn or exterminate Protestants alive at the stake. And Popes have prayed in Protestant Churches and have not advocated buring or exterminating these Protestants. So this is an example of a Catholic teaching which has been changed.

 

[MariaG]

Kirane:

I don’t dispute the Protestants can be just as contradictory as Catholics, but that was not the question as I understood it to be? Do Protestants have b eleifs which jcontradict Scripture? This would be another thread. The question I was looking at was whether Catholics had beleifs that are contradicted by Scripture. Scripture sasy to call no man Father. Catholics call their p;riests Father. This is a contraction. The article yourefer to does not deny these facts. What they say boils down to that it is OK to contradict Scripture on this point. The fact remains that this teaching of Catholicism contradicts Scripture.

Then Scripture contradicts itself. For in Scripture, in the New Testament, it talks of Father Abraham. If you are to call no man father, then why in Scripture do apostles refer to Abraham as Father?

From CA Library Call no man Father?
Perhaps the most pointed New Testament reference to the theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests is Paul’s statement, “I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:14–15).

Try reading it. Either Scripture contradicts itself or you misunderstand Jesus’ directive of Call no man Father. If you choose to insist that Calling a man Father is against Scripture, then you are declaring that scripture contradicts itself and Paul did not understand Christ’s own teachings.

You do not believe that Paul somehow did not understand what Christ meant do you? Then why would he call himself their father in Christ?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[sparks]

MariaG:

You are correct none of those verses “prove” infants were baptized. But neither do they contradict it, and can certainly suggest it.

Since the verses do not prove infant baptism - why even bother posting them? You are 100% certain infants were being baptized and yet in the same breath say the verses “suggest” it or that, because it doesn’t contradict, it is therefore true. Might as well say the households included the family dog in baptism since there aren’t any verses that contradict this. There are no verses that say “dogs cannot be baptized”. The housholds could have also included adult unbelievers (like infants) being baptized – since belief is not not a requirement for the one receiving baptism. Basing doctrine on suggestions and speculations is dangerous ground indeed.

MariaG:

So let’s look at some more Scripture. These specifically are from Scripture Catholic, with some good explanations.

Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, “Repent and be baptized…” Protestants use this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”) This, contrary to what Protestants argue, actually proves that babies are baptized based on their parents’ faith. This is confirmed in the next verse.

Even if those who are “part of you and yours” are unbelievers? Of course not. The translation obviously doesn’t say what you think it means.

MariaG:

Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. “Those far off” refers to those who were at their “homes” (primarily infants and children). God’s covenant family includes children. The word “children” that Peter used comes from the Greek word “teknon” which also includes infants.

The Greek text offers a fuller understanding of what was actually said.

If you’re going to post someone elses’ thoughts on the subject, then so will I. Fair enough?

From John MacArthur’s “A Scriptural Critique of Infant Baptism”
biblebb.com/files/MAC/INFBAP.HTM

What is he saying? He’s saying, “This isn’t isolated to the crowd today—this is for anybody who comes into the future.” Right? This is for your children, and your children’s children, and your children’s children’s children…He’s simply saying this promise goes on and on and on, and for all who are far off, it’s for Gentiles too. So he’s saying, “For your children, Jews in the future, and for Gentiles as well in the future.” Anybody who repents of sin, anybody who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ, anybody who receives the forgiveness of sin and the gift of the Holy Spirit—that promise is fulfilled to anybody whether they’re Jew or Gentile.

MariaG:

Further, Paul compares baptism to circumcision. As you should know, Jews circumsized infant boys at eight days. There is a good explanation here from CA Library.

Col. 2:11–12 (snip)

First, you need to explain how circumcision parallels infant baptism when only boys were circumcised. How does this apply to girls if this is a literal replacement? Second, my translation reads “12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.” Paul is speaking to believers – who have been raised with him through their faith. The fact that infants are incapable of having this faith proves that baptizing infants is unnecessary.

MariaG:

And not that you need to read this, but writings of the early Church indicate that the controversy was not over whether infants should be baptized, but whether or not they had to wait until the eighth day to be baptized.

To read the quotes yourself follow the above link.

You mean the late church. The early church of the NT never practiced infant baptism.

**Although infant baptism in not explicit in the Bible, neither does it contradict it. **As pointed out above, when you look at the Greek, the meaning of Repent and be baptized is much more than just a believer’s baptism.

The translation does not prove that infants were baptized. Again – and assumption on your part.

MariaG:

And personally, why on earth would the comparison be made to circumcision if infants were to be kept away from it?

Because it talking about circumcision of the heart - not the foreskin, which …if it were a true parallel, would mean ONLY infant boys would be able to be baptized.

Would like to respond to the others - but will be gone for the rest of the day. May or may not be back later tonight. God bless.

 

[Ignatius]

mikew262:

This relates to your question about the Church ever changing it’s doctrine.

This may indeed be a anti-catholic site, but that doesn’t mean everything it says is false. Form your own opinions.

bible.ca/catholic-flip-flops.htm

OK, so pick one , as the OP said no long lists, and let’s begin by discussing that one.

 

[MariaG]

Originally posted by sparks
Since the verses do not prove infant baptism - why even bother posting them? You are 100% certain infants were being baptized and yet in the same breath say the verses “suggest” it or that, because it doesn’t contradict, it is therefore true. Might as well say the households included the family dog in baptism since there aren’t any verses that contradict this. There are no verses that say “dogs cannot be baptized”. The housholds could have also included adult unbelievers (like infants) being baptized – since belief is not not a requirement for the one receiving baptism. Basing doctrine on suggestions and speculations is dangerous ground indeed.

sparks,

First off, look back, I did not post those verses you first objected to.

And the subject of the thread is contradictions to Scripture.

The Catholic Church has never claimed to follow Scripture alone. It is Scripture and Sacred Tradition. ( I can give you scripture telling you to follow tradition oral or by letter. Can you show me scripture that tells you it has all been written down now, only follow the written?) Infant Baptism is part of that Sacred Tradition.

So there is absolutely no speculation at all when it comes to infant baptism. It is only due to the fact that we know others do not recognize sacred Tradition that we use such words as “suggest”.

And the point of this thread is show us where it **Contradicts **scripture. In other words tell us where it says don’t baptize infants?

Even if those who are “part of you and yours” are unbelievers? Of course not. The translation obviously doesn’t say what you think it means.

Well early Christians, before 200AD would disagree with your assessment. These are some very early writings correcting Christian not on whether or not to baptize infants, but when it should be done.

Early Teachings on Infant Baptism

originally posted by sparks
If you’re going to post someone elses’ thoughts on the subject, then so will I. Fair enough?

From John MacArthur’s “A Scriptural Critique of Infant Baptism”
biblebb.com/files/MAC/INFBAP.HTM

As to your article, it is wrong on several points. I suppose if you wish to go point by point over the article, I will, but we should probably start a new thread devoted to this entirely.

The early church wrote quite vehemently against those who tried to teach contrary to the teachings of Christ. And the first we hear about anything on this matter is writings not for or against infant baptism, but whether or not they should have to wait until the eighth day. There were no arguments about whether or not infants could be baptized at all.

And your article does nothing to refute the Greek translation of Repent and be Baptized. So how are you so sure that the Catholic Answer apologists are wrong?

originally posted by sparks
First, you need to explain how circumcision parallels infant baptism when only boys were circumcised. How does this apply to girls if this is a literal replacement?

So girls were not Jewish since they could not be circumcised?

What you need to show is why Scripture that compares baptism to circumcision, circumcision that is performed on infants, is wrong. Did God inspire Paul write something that would so obviously be misunderstood so early in the Christian Church?

I don’t see how you can believe that God tells us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth yet that foundation of truth can’t last even 200 years?

Second, my translation reads “12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.” Paul is speaking to believers – who have been raised with him through their faith. The fact that infants are incapable of having this faith proves that baptizing infants is unnecessary.

Proves? What it proves is the faith of the Parents is sufficient for an infant to recieve baptism.

 

[MariaG]

(con) impatiently waiting one minute. Wow, never realize how long a whole minute is when you are trying to post the second half of a post that was too long to post in one post

You mean the late church. The early church of the NT never practiced infant baptism.

So the Church fell into error in less than 200 years? Of course Catholic Contention is that the apostles baptized infants. Letters to the churches were done to combat error. Why would they need to specifically teach on infant baptism when it was witnessed by the first Christians?

originally posted by sparks
The translation does not prove that infants were baptized. Again – and assumption on your part.

Col 2:11-12 proves that baptism was compared to circumcision. Circumcision was done to the infant boys of Jewish belivers at the age of 8 days. Why does Paul make this comparison that would lead to error?

Because it talking about circumcision of the heart - not the foreskin, which …if it were a true parallel, would mean ONLY infant boys would be able to be baptized.

So only boys and men are Jewish? Since women do not have a foreskin they are not Jewish?

originally posted by sparks
Would like to respond to the others - but will be gone for the rest of the day. May or may not be back later tonight. God bless.

God bless,
Maria

 

[Kirane]

MariaG:

Then Scripture contradicts itself. For in Scripture, in the New Testament, it talks of Father Abraham. If you are to call no man father, then why in Scripture do apostles refer to Abraham as Father?

Try reading it. Either Scripture contradicts itself or you misunderstand Jesus’ directive of Call no man Father. If you choose to insist that Calling a man Father is against Scripture, then you are declaring that scripture contradicts itself and Paul did not understand Christ’s own teachings.

You do not believe that Paul somehow did not understand what Christ meant do you? Then why would he call himself their father in Christ?

God Bless,
Maria

The teaching of Catholicism is clear: Catholics are to call a man who is a priest “Father”. One Scriptural passage states “Call no man Father”. This is an obvious contradiction. Whether or not Scripture contradicts itself. or whether or not it is best to follow the command of Scripture to call no man father is a topic for another thread. I have shown that there exists a contradiction between Catholic teaching and this particular passage of Scripture.

 

[Eden]

Kirane:

The teaching of Catholicism is clear: Catholics are to call a man who is a priest “Father”. One Scriptural passage states “Call no man Father”. This is an obvious contradiction. Whether or not Scripture contradicts itself. or whether or not it is best to follow the command of Scripture to call no man father is a topic for another thread. I have shown that there exists a contradiction between Catholic teaching and this particular passage of Scripture.

This particular passage in scripture is hyperbole. If that passage shows that we are TRULY to call no man father, the Apostles were in error as well. We refer to our priests in the context of “Spiritual Fatherhood” which is very vividly described in many places throughout the Bible:

Spiritual Fatherhood

Perhaps the most pointed New Testament reference to the theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests is Paul’s statement, “I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:14–15).

Peter followed the same custom, referring to Mark as his son: “She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13). The apostles sometimes referred to entire churches under their care as their children. Paul writes, “Here for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be a burden, for I seek not what is yours but you; for children ought not to lay up for their parents, but parents for their children” (2 Cor. 12:14); and, “My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!” (Gal. 4:19).

John said, “My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1); “No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth” (3 John 4). In fact, John also addresses men in his congregations as “fathers” (1 John 2:13–14).

By referring to these people as their spiritual sons and spiritual children, Peter, Paul, and John imply their own roles as spiritual fathers. Since the Bible frequently speaks of this spiritual fatherhood, we Catholics acknowledge it and follow the custom of the apostles by calling priests “father.” Failure to acknowledge this is a failure to recognize and honor a great gift God has bestowed on the Church: the spiritual fatherhood of the priesthood.

Catholics know that as members of a parish, they have been committed to a priest’s spiritual care, thus they have great filial affection for priests and call them “father.” Priests, in turn, follow the apostles’ biblical example by referring to members of their flock as “my son” or “my child” (cf. Gal. 4:19; 1 Tim. 1:18; 2 Tim. 2:1; Philem. 10; 1 Pet. 5:13; 1 John 2:1; 3 John 4).

All of these passages were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and they express the infallibly recorded truth that Christ’s ministers do have a role as spiritual fathers. Jesus is not against acknowledging that. It is he who gave these men their role as spiritual fathers, and it is his Holy Spirit who recorded this role for us in the pages of Scripture. To acknowledge spiritual fatherhood is to acknowledge the truth, and no amount of anti-Catholic grumbling will change that fact.

Here is the entire article:

catholic.com/library/call_no_man_father.asp

So, Kirane, you have not shown a contradiction between Scripture and Church teaching with this one.