I don't get it...if you are a non-Catholic Christian, then why aren't you a Catholic Christian?

[Dokimas]

Dokimas and I have discussed infant baptism before. If I understand Dokimas’ view properly, it’s that infants are too young to ‘repent’, or to understand repentance.

I used a couple of examples to try and show that Christ performed miracles on others, than those who requested the healing. One was the centurion (Matthew 8) who asked that his servant be healed. Christ offered to go to his house and the centurion stated he was unworthy that the Lord should go to his house and only say the word and it will be done. Christ marvelled at his faith and told him He had not seen a faith so great in all of Israel. Christ said the servant was healed. When the centurion went home, the servant was healed.

Another story was the woman from Caanan (Matthew 15), who wanted the devil driven from her daughter. Christ said her faith was great and that her daughter would be healed. When the woman returned home, she found her daughter laying in the bed, healed.

In both instances, it was not the sick person’s faith that caused the Lord to heal the sick. In fact, the scriptures do not even tell us the sick knew that someone approached the Lord on their behalf. If Christ could perform a miracle for a person without their knowledge, why couldn’t a parent speak for a child to be baptized?

Hippolytus

Baptism is about repentance which makes it an issue for those who understand their need. IMO, comparing healing and baptism are like comparing bananas and computers - not real comparison. Healing wasn’t about obedience. Many who Jesus healed weren’t obedient. Baptism is about obedience. Therefore, baptism can’t be done for someone else.

 

[JRKH]

Sorry for the dely in responding. - This may be a bit choppy -

I do not confuse them. Do you really say that homosexual people are incapable of honest, true love?

Actually you do confuse them.
I dare say that there are many people that I love without having a desire to have sex with them.

What about those who do not believe at all? Jesus said that there is no way to the father, except through him. The Catholic Church says something similar.

I don’t know that I can explain it any better to you. Those who do not believe in God, do not believe in the afterlife, cannot seek God’s mercy since they cannot seek after what they do not believe in.
I do not believe I could ever win the lottery. Buying lottery tickets is a waste of time. Therefore I do not buy any. I have no basis upon which to think that I ever deserve to win the lottery.
Does that help?

And do you know of a law of nature of this kind?

Without having a common point of reference I’d say that it would be difficult for us to pursue this. As it now stands you reject hell (as well as heaven) and so any discussion in this vein would be just “spinning our wheels”.

Well, in that case an infinitely loving and merciful being would extend it to the next. Isn’t that what infinite means? I am definitely not of this kind. My tolerance is most certainly finite. But when I was a professor, I kept on asking questions until I was able to “coerce” (not verbatim) an answer which allowed me to pass that poor student. And passing an exam is also infinitely less important than being thrown into the eternal hellfire, where the flames are not quenched.

If the student you are referring to is one who has diligently tried to pass the course then your demonstration of mercy is appropriate. If the student is one who has shown no interest in the subject, perhaps made “sport” of you during the term and generally made no effort whatsoever to pass then such a “show of mercy” is inappropriate. Not because you do not wish to extend mercy, but because your mercy is refused.
Thus one may see that, while the desire to extend mercy can be infinite, the ability to extend that mercy is dependant on the desire of the other to truly receive it and accept it honestly. This is an important component that many people miss. Mercy, like many other things, to be just, requires two components to work the one wishing to grant mercy and the one wishing to honestly accept mercy. Remove either of these components and mercy becomes impossible.

 

[Dokimas]

I don’t know that I can explain it any better to you. Those who do not believe in God, do not believe in the afterlife, cannot seek God’s mercy since they cannot seek after what they do not believe in.

 

[Jimmy_B]

I always say the same thing when this question comes up, & I know that a lot of people are probably sick of hearing me say this, but: God wants me to be a Methodist.

Don’t know why.
Not about to argue with Him.

Zooey… If you listen carefully, God isn’t saying Meth-o-dist…He is saying Cath-o-lic…hear that…Cath-o-lic… common mistake…

 

[Skeptic92]

Are you saying that, if a person who doesn’t believe in God or the after life could never become a Christian? Then no atheist can become a Christian? I’ve heard of several that would disagree with you.

 

[Dokimas]

Dokimas;6457873:

[SIGN]Hello[/SIGN]

I’m not selling those kinds of lottery tickets; they don’t exist. I was just using it as an illustraiton.

 

[JRKH]

Are you saying that, if a person who doesn’t believe in God or the after life could never become a Christian? Then no atheist can become a Christian? I’ve heard of several that would disagree with you.

A person who is an atheist cannot become a Christian until he first stops being an atheist. Does that make sense? The first step from atheism to Christanity is a belief in God and an afterlife.

Would you buy a lottery ticket if everyone that buys a ticket will win? Everyone who trusts in Jesus will be saved.

The Lottery analogy simply means that, since I have no faith in the Lottery and no hope in the Lottery, I have no reason to expect that I should ever get anything from the Lottery.
Same thing with God. If one doesn’t believe in Him, and has no faith in Him, no hope in Him, then one can hardly expect to receive anything from Him. No Athiest can be expected to reach out to God at death.

Peace
James

 

[LittleSoldier]

NO apology needed. I have a real problem at times expressing myself in forums when writing is the way of communication. I’m not real good at it. I know I get misunderstood, sometimes my fault and sometimes not. You DO NOT owe may anything.​

I have no problem with parents commiting themselves to bring their children up in the admonition of the Lord, understanding Who He is and what He did.​

God bless you.

God bless you, and someday take all of us to be with Him always!

Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe tonight.

 

[onmyknees]

I personally have a number of problems with Catholic moral teachings, rather than the theological doctrines, which in my view are largely acceptable. These include:

1. The church is infallible, including on moral matters (but in my view this is not a good position to take since human beings are weak and fallible, too much so to be perfect or have perfect knowledge on anything)

Greg,

You are right the popes along with the rest of us are weak, fallible human beings. We are all sinners. Certain teachings are infallible not because the pope is infallible but the teachings are. Why? Because when the Church teaches something that is infallible it is always guided by the Holy Spirit!

Matt 16:18-19 “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

John 16:12 "I still have many things to say to you but they would be too much for you now. But when the spirit of Truth comes He will lead you to the complete truth.

1. Certain bans and teachings on sexual and bioethical issues, including the ban on contraception or access to IVF on pain of grave sin.
2. The refusal to consider women for ordained ministerial roles (in my view having a vagina should be no more a barrier to ministry than being black or poor).
3. Understanding of authority - the church seems to have adopted a very ‘top-down’ approach to authority, basically adopting a paternalistic approach to followers and leaving no room for believers to use their reason and conscience to make decisions on moral matters.
4. Reactionary conservatism and fundamentalism - the church under John Paul II and Benedict (while he was Ratzinger) seemed to revert back to the Pre-Vatican II style of church and teachings, and refused to positively adopt and advance the changes that occured in Vatican II, and also in various ways endorsed and supported the fundamentalist and conservative branches of the church. This is most starkly apparent in the ‘crackdown’ on theologians like Curran and Hans Kung (to name a couple) as well as the acidic and often irrational and violent threats I see at the hands of conservative Catholics to excommunicate other Catholics who don’t tow the line in certain issues.

Vatican ll did not change any of the doctrinal or dogmatic teachings. This includes all the teachings on faith and morals. None of these infallible teachings have ever been changed nor can they ever be changed. You are probably thinking of the the traditions that can be changed like having more involvement of the lay people in Church. Vatican ll it says that it is good to keep the tradition of Latin and not do away with it altogether.

I personally think the CC has it mostly right when it comes to theology, but I think it isn’t going the right way in terms of its internal politics and its hardline stance on difficult moral questions, which should be resolved by reason informed by tradition, be open to be changed and re-evaluated in light of new understanding and evidence, and the church should move away from the ‘infallible’ and ‘perfect society’ conception of itself which in my view creates a lot of problems internally (particularly with dissent or disagreement) and externally in terms of ecunemical relations.

 

[onmyknees]

Baptism is about repentance which makes it an issue for those who understand their need. IMO, comparing healing and baptism are like comparing bananas and computers - not real comparison. Healing wasn’t about obedience. Many who Jesus healed weren’t obedient. Baptism is about obedience. Therefore, baptism can’t be done for someone else.

From Acts The apostles and their collaborators offer Baptism to anyone who believed in Jesus: Jews, the God-fearing,pagans.

Acts 16:31-33

Always, Baptism is seen as connected with faith: "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household, " St. Paul declared to his jailer in Philippi. And the narrative continues, the jailer "was baptized at once, with all his family.

The baptized have “put on Christ.” Through the Holy Spirit, Baptism is a bath that purifies, justifies, and sanctifies.

When we are baptized we are born into the life of faith. Baptism gives us the grace of the Holy Spirit and we become a child of God.

 

[onmyknees]

I used to be Catholic for most of my life, but now I am at odds with Catholic teaching. To rejoin the Catholic Church to to continue to claim to be part of her would not only be hypocritical on my part, but also denying my own faith.

That I am at odds with the Catholic Church is based upon theological issues, including but not limited to, the following:

I do not believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity. (CCC 499 and others.)
I do not believe in Mary’s immaculate conception. (CCC [491](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/491 .htm), CCC 966, CCC 2177, CCC 2853 and others.)
I do not believe in Mary’s assumption. (CCC 966, CCC 2177, CCC 2853 and others.)

I do not hate Mary. As a matter of fact I think she is a wonderful example to all of us who long to follow the Lord Jesus Christ. I just simply refuse to believe that these things are true. Call it heretical or schismatic if you wish…

Hi Janet,

When the angel Gabriel appeared unto Mary he said, “Hail Mary full of grace.” Full of grace means that she had no sin. Mary’s womb was a holy tabernacle for Jesus Christ. Wouldn’t God want His only Son to be conceived in someone who was all pure and holy, not unclean with sin. The immaculate Conception means sinless.

 

[Janet1983]

Hi Janet,

When the angel Gabriel appeared unto Mary he said, “Hail Mary full of grace.” Full of grace means that she had no sin. Mary’s womb was a holy tabernacle for Jesus Christ. Wouldn’t God want His only Son to be conceived in someone who was all pure and holy, not unclean with sin. The immaculate Conception means sinless.

Was Stephen sinless as well?
That Mary was called "full of grace in any translation folliwing the Vulgate, is not really convincing.

“And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people,” (Acts 6:8).

Other translations don’t give the “full of grace” in Luke 1:28 by the way:

New American Bible (vatican.va)
And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.”

New International Version
The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

New Living Translation
Gabriel appeared to her and said, “Greetings, favored woman! The Lord is with you!”

English Standard Version
And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”

New American Standard Bible
And coming in, he said to her, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.”

King James Bible
And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

Darby Bible Translation
And the angel came in to her, and said, Hail, [thou] favoured one! the Lord [is] with thee: [blessed art thou amongst women].

Young’s Literal Translation
And the messenger having come in unto her, said, `Hail, favoured one, the Lord [is] with thee; blessed [art] thou among women;’

English Revised Version
And he came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee.

Webster’s Bible Translation
And the angel came to her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

Weymouth New Testament
So Gabriel went into the house and said to her, “Joy be to you, favoured one! the Lord is with you.”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Was Stephen sinless as well?
That Mary was called "full of grace in any translation folliwing the Vulgate, is not really convincing.

“And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people,” (Acts 6:8).

Other translations don’t give the “full of grace” in Luke 1:28 by the way:

New American Bible (vatican.va)
And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.”

New International Version
The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

New Living Translation
Gabriel appeared to her and said, “Greetings, favored woman! The Lord is with you!”

English Standard Version
And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”

New American Standard Bible
And coming in, he said to her, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.”

King James Bible
And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

Darby Bible Translation
And the angel came in to her, and said, Hail, [thou] favoured one! the Lord [is] with thee: [blessed art thou amongst women].

Young’s Literal Translation
And the messenger having come in unto her, said, `Hail, favoured one, the Lord [is] with thee; blessed [art] thou among women;’

English Revised Version
And he came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee.

Webster’s Bible Translation
And the angel came to her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

Weymouth New Testament
So Gabriel went into the house and said to her, “Joy be to you, favoured one! the Lord is with you.”

To be fair, one should show the Greek, with definition and word origin, translated into the native tongue.

**G5487
χαριτόω
charitoō
khar-ee-to’-o
From G5485; to grace, that is, indue with special honor: - make accepted, be highly favoured.

G5485
χάρις
charis
khar’-ece
From G5463; graciousness (as gratifying), of manner or act (abstract or concrete; literal, figurative or spiritual; especially the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life; including gratitude): - acceptable, benefit, favour, gift, grace (-ious), joy liberality, pleasure, thank (-s, -worthy).

G5463
χαίρω
chairō
khah’ee-ro
A primary verb; to be full of “cheer”, that is, calmly happy or well off; impersonal especially as a salutation (on meeting or parting), be well: - farewell, be glad, God speed, greeting, hail, joy (-fully), rejoice.**

Now let’s consider the typology. The arc of the old covent, and the detail and pristine design by God, and the arc of the New Covenant. Where God’s word resides, in either case. Would God reside in sin?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Immaculate Conception according to Martin Luther…

"But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin…"3

Martin Luther defended this doctrine to his death (according to Lutheran scholars like Arthur Piepkorn). Martin Luther held that her soul was devoid of sin from the beginning.

 

[Janet1983]

The Immaculate Conception according to Martin Luther…

Martin Luther defended this doctrine to his death (according to Lutheran scholars like Arthur Piepkorn). Martin Luther held that her soul was devoid of sin from the beginning.

I am German, but that does not mean that I have to agree with Martin Luther in everything.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

**Luk 1:30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.

Luk 1:37 Because no word shall be impossible with God.

Gen 3:15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall cursh thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

Exo 25:11 And thou shalt overlay it with the purest gold, within and without; and over it thou shalt make a golden crown round about:
Exo 25:12 And four golden rings, which thou shalt put at the four corners of the ark: let two rings be on the one side, and two on the other.
Exo 25:13 Thou shalt make bars also of setim wood, and shalt overlay them with gold.
Exo 25:14 And thou shalt put them in through the rings that are in the sides of the ark, that it may be carried on them:
Exo 25:15 And they shall be always in the rings, neither shall they at any time be drawn out of them.
Exo 25:16 And thou shalt put in the ark the testimony which I will give thee.
Exo 25:17 Thou shalt make also a propitiatory of the purest gold: the length thereof shall be two cubits and a half, and the breadth a cubit and a half.
Exo 25:18 Thou shalt make also two cherubims of beaten gold, on the two sides of the oracle.
Exo 25:19 Let one cherub be on the one side, and the other on the other.
Exo 25:20 Let them cover both sides of the propitiatory, spreading their wings, and covering the oracle, and let them look one towards the other, their faces being turned towards the propitiatory wherewith the ark is to to be covered.
Exo 25:21 In which thou shalt put the testimony that I will give thee.**

God ordered the ark of the old covenant to overlayed, within and without, of the purest gold…

 

[Janet1983]

To be fair, one should show the Greek, with definition and word origin, translated into the native tongue.

Now let’s consider the typology. The arc of the old covent, and the detail and pristine design by God, and the arc of the New Covenant. Where God’s word resides, in either case. Would God reside in sin?

God came down into this world as a man. He resided in a sinful world without curtains and shields and just like that.
I do not believe that this required Mary (or anybody coming into contact with Jesus for that matter) to be sinless. She was to be a virgin at his conception, yes, but I doubt that she was without sin.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I am German, but that does not mean that I have to agree with Martin Luther in everything.

Do you agree with the early Church fathers?

Justin Martyr

[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) (Dialogue with Trypho 100 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus

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 (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

Origen

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

Hippolytus

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

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

God came down into this world as a man. He resided in a sinful world without curtains and shields and just like that.
I do not believe that this required Mary (or anybody coming into contact with Jesus for that matter) to be sinless. She was to be a virgin at his conception, yes, but I doubt that she was without sin.

If that’s the way you ‘believe’, or ‘doubt’, why is it a talking point with you? I mean, do you see one believing in the immaculate conception as having any impact on their salvation? If yes, please take the time to explain.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I am German, but that does not mean that I have to agree with Martin Luther in everything.

No, I can agree, afterall Martin taught everyone to interpret scriptures for themselves. Once that happened, many didn’t agree with him and started their own Churches. Now we have way too many different Churches, with slight to great differences in doctrines, based on someone’s interpretation.

By the way, how are you assured you’re following the correct interpretation?

I’ll look for your response tomorrow. It’s late here. Have a goodnight.