P
- Status
P
Philthy
Guest
My observation is that Protestant churches are largely occupied by ex-Catholics who never really knew their faith - they were Catholic in name only. They only become “experts” on the Catholic faith (in their own mind) after they leave the Church. Ed is a classic example: he offers Catholic grade school and serving as an altar boy as some sort of credentials. He actually believes that this counts for something!
The Catholic Church, OTOH, is being invigorated by many sincere, devout, well-educated former Protestants - including many Pastors - who come to believe that the Catholic Church is exactly what she claims and who suffer great personal loss to convert.
The division of the Body of Christ is a tremendous travesty and I wish it werent so.
E
EdOsiecki
Guest
SteveGC On post 778 you asked me to show you where does it say that baptism is a sign of repentance. When I did Mat 3:8, you state Catholics believe this. Why then ask me? My statement above should have read “I can NOT combine baptism with atonement but with repentance”. Sorry to have confused you. You have a keen eye, I did bad editing. Jesus’ blood atonement is applied to me when I believed. It’s sufficient by its self. It doesn’t need water’s help. Jesus’ blood sacrifice carries over from the Old T.animals blood sacrifices without water’s help. Water baptism which is the application of Jesus’ blood is the Catholic’s defense of infant baptism and their misunderstanding of Jn 3;5 born again by water. Above you say: Grace opens a doorway??? What doorway? Life time cooperate??? What? Novenas, rosaries, indulgencies.etc.etc.? Free will co-exists with Grace??? I don’t understand what your talking about. But I do understand this: If we unwillinging sin, confess it to God, His blood covers it. If we willingly continue in sin, there’s no more Jesus’ sacrifice. That I do understand. Really, do you think a little child understands all that you mentioned above? Jesus says Lk 18:17, “I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it”. Above you say, "John says it’s ’ for repentance’, but he doesn’t say what baptism DOES??? Didn’t John just say what it DOES? It’s for REPENTANCE. Peter says baptism saves? Where? If you mean Acts 2:40 ? in v41 people got saved by the message he preached the cross and resurection.
E
EdOsiecki
Guest
Canto, I’m not being sarcastic, but I often wondered if your going to pray to a saint, why don’t you (Catholics) pray to Moses or Elijah because you know for certain that they are in heaven? per the trafiguration ED
C
Canto
Guest
The saints (not that I’ve read every thing about every one) seem to be very faithful, holy and charitable people with an abounding love of our Saviour. Surely these people are not in hell?
T
tukfryer
Guest
Well I did not mean to stir such a negative reaction from you. My personality is that when a subject with compound elements starts down a road, it has a tendency to be drawn way from the real issue. On occasion I find it necessary and beneficial to my point to summarize all that has been exchanged to the smallest common denominator.
You say you follow infallible interpretation, I agree you follow interpretation I disagree about its infallibility. I going to reduce this statement to its simplest form again.
You follow interpretation of Matthew 16:18 and a few other verse that establishes the foundation of infallibly. Not just that but also the exclusive power of the HS, the ability to forgive sins, not just between you and your brother but as an active function in terms of salvation, Jesus forgave sins and the Jews rightly said only God can forgive sins and wrongly accused Him of blasphemy. With this established and an active component in the form of a human acting in this capacity, traditions, doctrine, that are clearly not found in scripture like the immaculate conception, Mary being sinless, and others have crept in.
The problem is that in reality The RCC has done exactly what Israel did. She has placed herself in precisely the same position that the Scribes and Pharisees found themselves in. Their oral law or tradition was so “synthesized” to the written Torah, that judgment of the validity of that unwritten law by means of the written law became an impossibility. Neither could judge the other because both were assumed to have originated with Moses. In the same way RCC has developed an unwritten tradition that she has synthesized with the written New Testament to the degree that it cannot be judged by that New Testament.
1 Then the Pharisees and some of the scribes came together to Him, having come from Jerusalem. 2 Now when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault. 3 For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches.
5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?”
6 He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
Code:
‘ This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
7 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.To summarize infallible interpretation has lead you way from the word “scriptures”
Jesus used scripture to reply to the Pharisees, just as I do you. He had no use for tradition.
R
ron77nyc
Guest
There is also Hebrews 11 which names even more who gained approval by their faith.
Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Rahab,
32 And what more shall I say? For time will fail me if I tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets, 33 who by faith conquered kingdoms, performed acts of righteousness, obtained promises, shut the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness were made strong, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. 35 Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection; 36 and others experienced mockings and scourgings, yes, also chains and imprisonment. 37 They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated 38 (men of whom the world was not worthy), wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground.
39 And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.
C
Canto
Guest
Baptism replaces circumcision
Old Cov - infants circumcised c.f. Luke 2:21
New Cov - infants baptised
Where does it say in the New Testament not to baptise infants?
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…
Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, “For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him” (2:39)…
Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we never—not even once—find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a “decision for Christ.” Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been “baptized into Christ” (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible…
But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that “She was baptized, with her household” (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that “the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family” (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas” (1 Cor. 1:16).
In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that “he and his wife were baptized,” but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture…
The present Catholic attitude accords perfectly with early Christian practices. Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that “according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants” (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, “The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp
Old Cov - infants circumcised c.f. Luke 2:21
New Cov - infants baptised
Where does it say in the New Testament not to baptise infants?
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…
Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, “For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him” (2:39)…
Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we never—not even once—find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a “decision for Christ.” Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been “baptized into Christ” (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible…
But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that “She was baptized, with her household” (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that “the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family” (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas” (1 Cor. 1:16).
In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that “he and his wife were baptized,” but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture…
The present Catholic attitude accords perfectly with early Christian practices. Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that “according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants” (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, “The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp
T
twb1621
Guest
You should realize that the protestant “faith” itself was initially established primarily by an “ex-Catholic” who in part disagreed with Church and Biblical teachings. Why would it be a surprise that several “ex-Catholics” joined? Additionally, I know from vast experience the Catholics who do leave have no real education in their Catholic Faith and in fact are ignorant to it, which is predominantly why they leave. But the fact is they leave to practice a faith only part of but less “demanding” than what is required through the full teachings of Jesus Christ in the Church of His Bride. There is no such thing as an ex-Catholic because they have been offered if not accepted the fullness of Christianity, which is not the same as those never introduced to the CC. More is expected of those who have been given more… By far a majority do, but it is a very large Church.
T
tukfryer
Guest
P
paul_c
Guest
I don’t know about this interpretation of Daniel. You are trying to be pretty fine with apocalyptic literature and make it match your theology. But why would the time of the Jews be determined by the stoning of St. Stephen? the only reason you bring this up is you think it fits your timeline. Aren’t there several more likely points to be used as the end of the time of the jews. After all the New testament begins with the conception of John the Baptist in 1BC or thereabouts. The new covenant begins with the resurrection of Jesus in 33AD. The church’s birth is usually defined as the first Pentecost… The end of the requirement for Christians to follow the Jewish laws is the Council of Jerusalem in 49AD. and the end of Jewish Temple worship occurs in 70AD with the destruction of the temple. All of these events are far more noteworthy than the stoning of St. Stephen.
Adn why don’t you recognize that water baptism in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit brings you the graces of the Holy spirit?
R
ralphy
Guest
It is up to each individual person, after he knows the way of salvation to accept or reject Christ as his savior. He needs no other person with him, nor does time left in his life make a difference. His family background has no effect on his salvation. Regardless of his circumstances, if he receives Christ as his savior the Holy Spirit will come into his heart and he will be saved. Ralph
D
davidv
Guest
E
EdOsiecki
Guest
D
davidv
Guest
The only fantasy here is your unchartible caricature of Catholic teaching. Please stop.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Hey Ed,
I’m kind of surprised to see you continue some of the misconceptions that are apparent from some Protestants. Some of your objections posted above are repeated and have been discussed prior to this thread. It saddens me to see you use the “laundry list” tactic in a discussion. That is to bring up a list of objections, which is normally an effort to throw up enough smoke screen, no one can properly explain their way through it. Then you end it by repeating your assertions that the Catholic Church is a religious organization with many “fictitious” man-made rules. Let me start there. We do not believe in the man-made doctrines, rules, of every individual interpreting scriptures for themselves. That is clearly spoken against and many examples are given of how it is wrong. We do not believe in the man-made tradition of sola scriptura, since that teaching is not even in scriptures.
Jesus was sacrificed ONCE and for ALL. But it appears you might be adding to that. Do you take that to mean, Jesus was sacrificed once and for all time? I believe that would be incorrect. Jesus was sacrifice once and for all people, throughout time until the consummation of the world.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Hey Ed,
I’m kind of surprised to see you continue some of the misconceptions that are apparent from some Protestants. Some of your objections posted above are repeated and have been discussed prior to this thread. It saddens me to see you use the “laundry list” tactic in a discussion. That is to bring up a list of objections, which is normally an effort to throw up enough smoke screen, no one can properly explain their way through it. Then you end it by repeating your assertions that the Catholic Church is a religious organization with many “fictitious” man-made rules. Let me start there. We do not believe in the man-made doctrines, rules, of every individual interpreting scriptures for themselves. That is clearly spoken against and many examples are given of how it is wrong. We do not believe in the man-made tradition of sola scriptura, since that teaching is not even in scriptures.
Jesus was sacrificed ONCE and for ALL. But it appears you might be adding to that. Do you take that to mean, Jesus was sacrificed once and for all time? I believe that would be incorrect. Jesus was sacrifice once and for all people, throughout time until the consummation of the world.
Now, how many times do we have to explain to you that we completely agree that Jesus is the ONLY mediator between man and God? Now, here you are again insinuating that it’s somehow not true with Catholics. :tsktsk: The difference between us is Catholics believe in everlasting life, which means those believers who have left this world are alive in heaven. As a part of the body of Christ, we’re just as sure those Christians love the Christians on earth and are concerned with our salvation and would be willing to pray for us, petition our Lord on our behalf. The same as you would ask someone in your Church to pray for you. It’s called intercessory prayers.
Jesus is NOT re-sacrificed in the Mass. Through the Mass we share in the ONE sacrifice Christ made for us men and our salvation.
A fantasy? Did not Christ say, “For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.” Did Christ stop those who left Him and followed Him no more from John 6:66? Did He try to explain any symbolism they might have mistaken? Or, did He turn to the Apostles and ask them, “Will you also go away?” St. Paul certainly believed in the body and blood of Christ as he warned the Church of Corinthians in his letter to them.
1Co 11:27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
What was the act of salvation Christ did for our sins? Was it being removed from the cross by Joseph? Or, was it the sacrifice of being crucified? Does wearing a cross or a crucifix play any part in one’s salvation, other than serve as a reminder of His sacrifice?
Do you, or did you, not realize that the Bible is read at every Mass? Catholics are certainly encouraged to read the scriptures, it’s just we are taught not to interpret them for ourselves, as scriptures teach us.
Now, that I’ve responded to your objections, be so kind as to provide the scriptures that tell us we can receive truth from our own interpretations of scriptures, even if we receive a different interpretation. Or, show us where you have the authority to say your Holy Spirit guided interpretation is correct over my Holy Spirit interpretation.
I have not read through the entire thread, but your post, that I’ve quoted above, is very disrespectful of the Catholic faith and does not show an attempt to enter into an honest discussion.
S
SteveGC
Guest
And I apologize for my negativity. It’s unfortunately become instinctive of me when I hear inferences that Bible-alone Christianity is not based on private interpretation.
No, I follow The Church, because following the Bible without an established authority to teach it this side of heaven is a baseless form of Christianity. The Holy Spirit certainly is God, and He is powerful enough to teach the entire world every last truth about salvation and morals by walking them individually through Scripture page by page. CLEARLY, however, this is NOT what His intention is. Does it make perfect sense that He chose not to do it this way? No, not according to my human logic, not really. But much of the methods of God are mysterious to us. It does make perfect sense when you look at salvation history, and the essence of human learning and spiritual growth. This has always occurred by the divine utilization of inspired humans. Prophets in the old, Apostles and their successors in the new. Reality simply reveals that the Spirit does not come to each individual in a vacuum and teach them Christianity through Scripture. Anyone who refuses to believe that, refuses clear evidence that that belief creates a schizophrenic Spirit, specializing in chaos and confusion.
tukfryer said:
No. The Church does not hold exclusive power of the Spirit. No one does. I don’t know where you get that information, but I never made that claim. I’m simply telling you that the Holy Spirit, being promised to the Apostles, was therefore promised to The Church, for they were the first leaders of it.
The ability of appointed humans to forgive sins is given by Christ. It, like everything else, is not self-appointed.
tukfryer said:
All of this only makes sense to one who refuses to believe that Christ established a visible, hierarchical, liturgical, and sacramental Church. As soon as one accepts that fact, what you write here becomes clearly erroneous.
G
GratefulSoul
Guest
I can say an “amen” to that. I am one of those former evangelicals who finally came to a proper understanding of the true history and character of the Christian Church, (aka the Catholic Church). The multitude of confusing, weak and inconsistent positions and messages coming from so many pulpits today is disconcerting to say the least. I couldn’t believe it when I first started seeing people taking their coffees and lattes into the sanctuary! It’s now become common practice. Only in the Mass do I find the sanctity and dignity befitting the Lord’s house. The Catholic Church has also been unwavering in her defense and practice of traditional, Biblical faith and values while so many protestant churches have become “user” and “seeker friendly”. For the first time in years, I look forward to the Sunday morning service. Only now I know that the real presence of Jesus will be there and that the one, true, catholic and apostolic faith will be faithfully presented and celebrated.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
You understand incorrectly since righteous is infused not imputed.
Amen! Catholics teach and believe the same thing.
Amen! However, even Paul encourages intercession (mediation) for one another and requests prayers for himself. That’s all Catholics are talking about.
You are ignorant of Catholic teaching with regard to the mass. Jesus is not sacrificed again and again. Time to read some books, Ed.
Jesus is present - not contained.
Paul said, “I preach Christ crucified.” Why did he not say, “I preach Christ resurrected”? The power is in the blood, Ed, shed upon the cross. A crucifix reminds us of what Jesus actually did for us in a way that is far more powerful. Your empty cross reminds us of NOTHING - except your hatred for the Catholic Church. More on this here:
The Cross and the Crucifix
by Steve Ray
catholic-convert.com/Portals/0/Documents/CrossCrucifix.doc
As Paul teaches by his own request for prayers. Do you ever pray for your family and friends? Are you an intercessor? A prayer warrior? Good. So is Mary.
Please prove that the Catholic Church banned people from reading the Bible until 1964.
Of course, Jesus entrusted you to the care of Peter and his successors. A pity you reject Jesus’ plan for his sheep…
- Status