Infallibility of Church?

[Wannano]

Wannano:

Luke 18:16 &17…whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as ( not when) a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

Maybe you should quote verse 16 as well…

16 But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God.

He says do not hinder the children from coming to him. He is basically saying to not keep children from being Baptized here. He isn’t saying the little children are already with him and you need to become like them to be with him too.

Children are innocent, mentally impaired people who cannot rationalize are innocent.

Totally agree, that’s why we Baptize babies and the mentally impaired.

The Catholic Church teaches that these innocent people, who are incapable of repenting or understanding the faith, but can still be Baptized on the faith of the parents. Basically, ( back up one more verse to verse 15) we are bringing our infants to Jesus so that He can touch them in Baptism.
This allows the children and mentally impaired to be born again so that they can enter the kingdom of God. Just think about it by saying we shouldn’t bring infants to the Baptismal font you are saying we shouldn’t bring infants to Jesus.

The Catholic Church is following God’s will. He says do this and I will do that. This is totally Biblical.

Where as it seems you are saying well they are innocent so God will give them a pass and being born again doesn’t apply to them. Where is that taught in the Bible?

The promise given at Pentecost is for all people from that day to the final day not just those experiencing Pentecost in person.

Agree, not sure why you think I object to this?

God Bless

We can go round and round but what is the point? You challenged me to say what Peter meant about mentioning children.

I would like to know how you reconcile the thought in these two statements you have made:

1. The CC teaches that if you perform baptism as a Sacrament as an obedient act for the sole purpose of what you get in return, then it wont work.
2. Parents are to bring their infants to Baptism to get them born again and entered into the kingdom.

 

[mcq72]

I am quite curious why if it so simply just baptize people and they are saved why that wasn’t explained to Constantine who refused baptism until close to his dying day. Why did the man who legalized Christianity refuse to participate in a simple ceremony that would have imparted God’s grace to himself?

This was the fashion of some,based on a doctrinal “position”. Some historians believe that some thought baptism was for forgiveness of sins, that it was not regenerational( or impart the Spirit) that you could still having saving faith (without baptism). The thought was to them why not wait till the “end” and get a real clean slate. And actually avoid embarrassing confession and the penance one might have to do.

But again some thought baptism did not regenerate as evidenced with discussions amongst pope/ bishops on whether to accept baptisms from lapsed bishops/ churches (Pope Stephen, 3 rd century?)

 

[MT1926]

We can go round and round but what is the point? You challenged me to say what Peter meant about mentioning children.

It seems I misunderstood your answer. I didn’t realize you were using Luke 18 as a defense for Acts 2.

So are you saying when St. Peter says…38 And Peter said to them, “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. 39 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.”

What he meant by this was you adults who repent must become like your little children? and he wasn’t actually talking about their physical children?

How do you make this connection?

I would like to know how you reconcile the thought in these two statements you have made:

1. The CC teaches that if you perform baptism as a Sacrament as an obedient act for the sole purpose of what you get in return, then it wont work.
2. Parents are to bring their infants to Baptism to get them born again and entered into the kingdom.

The baby isn’t doing anything. That’s the point I’ve been trying to make for the past 3 days. The fact that the baby becomes born again in baptism, without doing anything, is the evidence in and of itself.

Now I think the trouble you might be having is what would be the definition of “being baptized for the sole purpose of what you get in return”.

I would say that this is a person who says well I really don’t believe all of the Jesus/Savior mumbo-jumbo but you know what if they are wrong all it will cost me is 10 minutes of my time, however, if they are right it’s gonna cost me a whole lot more. What the heck, let’s get wet.

The Church had a similar problem with the Eucharist. Catholics believe that Jesus gives us grace when we attend mass and receive the Eucharist. Well at one point in time a group of Catholics started running from Church to Church 10/12 times a day. Running in receiving communion then running out to the next mass. The Church ruled this was wrong because the behavior showed signs of receiving for superstitious reasons.

Hope this better explains the difference.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

I am quite curious why if it so simply just baptize people and they are saved why that wasn’t explained to Constantine who refused baptism until close to his dying day. Why did the man who legalized Christianity refuse to participate in a simple ceremony that would have imparted God’s grace to himself?

I think you added this after I responded to your post. I noticed it referenced in this post.

This was the fashion of some,based on a doctrinal “position”. Some historians believe that some thought baptism was for forgiveness of sins,

Yes and No.

Yes the answer is because MANY (not some) believe baptism was for the forgiveness of sins.

Here’s a few of the early fathers…

Hermas (80AD) - there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins

Justin Martyr (151AD) - brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated.

Tertullian (203AD) - "Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life

There are many more at this link.

that it was not regenerational( or impart the Spirit)

Look again at the quote from Justin Martyr above. The Catholic Church has always taught Baptism was regenerative (Born again).

The thought was to them why not wait till the “end” and get a real clean slate. And actually avoid embarrassing confession and the penance one might have to do.

This part about the clean slate hits the nail on the head. Agreed this is exactly what was believed and was later frowned on by the Catholic Church. Not because the “clean slate” wasn’t true but more because one was playing Russian roulette with their soul.

But again some thought baptism did not regenerate as evidenced with discussions amongst pope/ bishops on whether to accept baptisms from lapsed bishops/ churches (Pope Stephen, 3 rd century?)

I don’t think this has to deal with Baptism in and of itself being regenerative, I think it dealt with with whether or not the Baptism was regenerative when it was performed by a heretic.

Here’s a good article on this. Jump to the middle section titled “BAPTISM BY HERETICS”

Hope this helps clear up some confusion.

God Bless

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

We can go round and round but what is the point? You challenged me to say what Peter meant about mentioning children.

It seems I misunderstood your answer. I didn’t realize you were using Luke 18 as a defense for Acts 2.

So are you saying when St. Peter says…38 And Peter said to them, “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. 39 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.”

What he meant by this was you adults who repent must become like your little children? and he wasn’t actually talking about their physical children?

How do you make this connection?

I would like to know how you reconcile the thought in these two statements you have made:

1. The CC teaches that if you perform baptism as a Sacrament as an obedient act for the sole purpose of what you get in return, then it wont work.
2. Parents are to bring their infants to Baptism to get them born again and entered into the kingdom.

The baby isn’t doing anything. That’s the point I’ve been trying to make for the past 3 days. The fact that the baby becomes born again in baptism, without doing anything, is the evidence in and of itself.

Now I think the trouble you might be having is what would be the definition of “being baptized for the sole purpose of what you get in return”.

I would say that this is a person who says well I really don’t believe all of the Jesus/Savior mumbo-jumbo but you know what if they are wrong all it will cost me is 10 minutes of my time, however, if they are right it’s gonna cost me a whole

Ok, I will take the hook…how do you prove for a fact that a baby becomes born again when baptised?
In Luke 18, it says they brought children to Jesus for him to touch them but you are saying he was telling them to baptize the babies? That is seemingly speculation.

By publicly dedicating our children to God with a promise to raise them with a knowledge of Him instead of actually performing baptism does not mean at all that we are withholding our children from Jesus. Also,the fact that we do not fear that unbaptized children who die are experiencing hell, limbo or some other concocted idea of the incomplete existence is a proof that we in fact believe in a loving God who would beckon the children to sit in His lap.

In my experience with Catholic neighbors and friends, even though they do not take their religion very serious, they sure do make a big todo about their children’s baptism. Interesting isn’t it?

I have never heard of the problem of running from Mass to Mass to receive lots of grace, however, it actually makes sense to me…if one is to receive a measure of grace for the attendance at one Mass, surely it would be equally attributed by attendance at each Mass so the more the better!

I conclude that I am quite positive I would be a very poor Catholic.

 

[MT1926]

In Luke 18,… That is seemingly speculation.

Agreed that is speculation. I was just making a comparison how many Christians today are the ones in verse 15 not bring their children to Jesus. I can see how it alludes to Baptism but I wouldn’t use it as a text to teach about Baptism. There are much better verse that teach on Baptism.

how do you prove for a fact that a baby becomes born again when baptised?

Because Jesus says so in John 3. He doesn’t say only adults can be born again. He simple says one must be born again of water and spirit.

By publicly dedicating our children to God with a promise to raise them with a knowledge of Him instead of actually performing baptism does not mean at all that we are withholding our children from Jesus.

I’m just basing it on the explanations given to me and trying to keep everything consistent. It seems some claim there are two sets of rules. If one is an adult they claim that you haven’t given yourself to Christ until you are “born again”, therefor you have no relationship with him. However, children have a relationship with him even though they aren’t born again. I’m just not seeing how you can have it both ways. That’s all I’m asking. Not saying I am right and you are wrong, just wondering what changes between childhood and adulthood that the child can see the kingdom without being born again but the adult can’t?

Also,the fact that we do not fear that unbaptized children who die are experiencing hell, limbo or some other concocted idea of the incomplete existence is a proof that we in fact believe in a loving God who would beckon the children to sit in His lap.

That’s great that you believe this, but I am asking do you have evidence to support this belief, or is this just a man made tradition? and like I said already what changes between childhood and adulthood?

In my experience with Catholic neighbors and friends, even though they do not take their religion very serious, they sure do make a big todo about their children’s baptism. Interesting isn’t it?

I would say it’s sad.

I have never heard of the problem of running from Mass to Mass to receive lots of grace, however, it actually makes sense to me…if one is to receive a measure of grace for the attendance at one Mass, surely it would be equally attributed by attendance at each Mass so the more the better!

Nope that is the very mindset that is wrong. You would be doing it for what you get which would mean you aren’t acting from your heart.

I conclude that I am quite positive I would be a very poor Catholic.

That’s just because you don’t understand her teachings. Stick around, keep an open mind, don’t jump to conclusions about what you think you know and keep asking questions. You’ll get there.

God Bless

 

[YourNameHere]

I thing that some of us Catholics are strong on parts of what the Church teaches, but no so strong on other things.
Does that make us lukewarm? It could just be that we are still evolving in our faith.
I will pray for you. And please pray for me.

 

[mcq72]

just wondering what changes between childhood and adulthood that the child can see the kingdom without being born again but the adult can’t?

What made you think a child seeing the kingdom is not born again?

 

[MT1926]

What made you think a child seeing the kingdom is not born again?

So now are you saying the child is automatically born again?

When they become an adult do they become unborn again and then have to be born again again?

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

So now are you saying the child is automatically born again?

When they become an adult do they become unborn again and then have to be born again again

Not sure I follow you. Being born again, born of God, is not exclusively for adults.

 

[mcq72]

I would ask why do they need to understand to be born again? Once again you are centering being born again on what the person does?

Well, after Peter’s first sermon did the 3000 come to understand anything new to want to gladly be baptized?

Cornelius and his household, after Peter’s preaching to them did they come to understand anything new just before the Holy Ghost came upon them?

Does not faith after hearing the Word of God, apprehend, even see something new?

Is understanding doing anything? Is faith that apprehends doing something? Is “seeing” doing something? For sure, they are all “a work of God.”

“For God puts understanding in the heart of a man.” Job

 

[mcq72]

What about a person on their death bed who has the desire to believe but doesn’t fully understand?

My friend that is the crux of the matter, a lost soul crying out to God for understanding, a soul admitting bankruptcy here not just of understanding but of any saving faith, like help my unbelief. Sounds like fertile ground for the miracle of new life, and a gift of faith to that end, and understanding becoming new, aligned with the promises and mind of Christ.

He who cries out to the Lord will not be ashamed, will not be refused

 

[mcq72]

How do you get around this problem if you believe the person needs to understand before they can be born again

The same way the CC “gets around”, or explains how people’s who have never heard the gospel (indigenous people of America’s, or Africa, Australia) will be judged by God, that there is hope for some or many of them.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

In Luke 18,… That is seemingly speculation.

Agreed that is speculation. I was just making a comparison how many Christians today are the ones in verse 15 not bring their children to Jesus. I can see how it alludes to Baptism but I wouldn’t use it as a text to teach about Baptism. There are much better verse that teach on Baptism.

how do you prove for a fact that a baby becomes born again when baptised?

Because Jesus says so in John 3. He doesn’t say only adults can be born again. He simple says one must be born again of water and spirit.

By publicly dedicating our children to God with a promise to raise them with a knowledge of Him instead of actually performing baptism does not mean at all that we are withholding our children from Jesus.

I’m just basing it on the explanations given to me and trying to keep everything consistent. It seems some claim there are two sets of rules. If one is an adult they claim that you haven’t given yourself to Christ until you are “born again”, therefor you have no relationship with him. However, children have a relationship with him even though they aren’t born again. I’m just not seeing how you can have it both ways. That’s all I’m asking. Not saying I am right and you are wrong, just wondering what changes between childhood and adulthood that the child can see the kingdom without being born again but the adult can’t?

I have never heard of the problem of running from Mass to Mass to receive lots of grace, however, it actually makes sense to me…if one is to receive a measure of grace for the attendance at one Mass, surely it would be equally attributed by attendance at each Mass so the more the better!

Nope that is the very mindset that is wrong. You would be doing it for what you get which would mean you aren’t acting from your

God Bless

What happens between childhood and adulthood is maturity. During this time the child develops to an age of reason which is no specific age but when the individual comes to the realization and understanding that they need a Saviour. Ultimately then, the choice becomes theirs whether they respond to God’s free gift or not.

Honestly, I cannot understand why going to Mass one time to fulfill the obligation is any less "superstitious " than going three times.

 

[Gorgias]

I have never heard of the problem of running from Mass to Mass to receive lots of grace, however, it actually makes sense to me…if one is to receive a measure of grace for the attendance at one Mass, surely it would be equally attributed by attendance at each Mass so the more the better!

Nah. You don’t get a certain number of grams of grace when you receive the Eucharist, so you wouldn’t get more by attending Mass all day long.

Honestly, I cannot understand why going to Mass one time to fulfill the obligation is any less "superstitious " than going three times.

Well, there’s that whole “third commandment” thing, and all…

I conclude that I am quite positive I would be a very poor Catholic.

A little practice, and I’m sure you’d do fine…

The same way the CC “gets around” how people’s who have never heard the gospel (indigenous people of America’s, or Africa, Australia) will be judged by God, that there is hope for some or many of them.

Because otherwise, the claim would be that inspired writer of 1 Timothy lied when he wrote, “God desires all to be saved”. I mean, if what you’re claiming is true, then the Scripture should have been “God desires all who were alive after 33 A.D. and who had a chance to hear the preaching of the Gospel during their lifetime to be saved”… right?

 

[mcq72]

Because otherwise, the claim would be that inspired writer of 1 Timothy lied when he wrote, “God desires all to be saved”. I mean, if what you’re claiming is true, then the Scripture should have been “God desires all who were alive after 33 A.D. and who had a chance to hear the preaching of the Gospel during their lifetime to be saved”… right?

Not sure I follow as to what you think I claim.

I agree with CC explanation. Perhaps “getting around” is poor wording and why I then wrote “explain”, which you deleted from my quote.

 

[Gorgias]

I agree with CC explanation.

Ahh… it seemed that you didn’t!

 

[mcq72]

I don’t think this has to deal with Baptism in and of itself being regenerative, I think it dealt with with whether or not the Baptism was regenerative when it was performed by a heretic.

Well for sure it dealt with validity of baptism, but Stephen’s rationale was that “the Holy Spirit could not be communicated outside the Church”, but “baptisms outside the true Church were valid”…that “the rite of baptism forgives sins but does not communicate the Spirit”.

Some suggest that for Rome this posed a bigger problem than elsewhere in church due to its large immigrant population with varied and rivaling Christian communities. To avoid folks from switching sects to get rebaptized, getting a clean slate, again, avoiding penance, that they would all agree to accept each others baptism’s and condemn rebaptism.

So the the pope had bad theology yet providentially came out with better and current doctrine of accepting each others baptism. (I am holding aside any comment on adult getting rebaptized after infancy baptism).

Excerpts, quotes, from “Lives of the Popes” by Michael J. Walsh

 

[mcq72]

Here’s a good article on this. Jump to the middle section titled “BAPTISM

Read the article…pretty good food for thought…i think both sides stretch things a bit to prove their point for or against the papal office.

I think the more neutral one is, or the more one believes in it’s development, the more evidence one can see.

So I can glean from Clement’s letter to Corinthians, or the Easter controversy, or the baptism controversy, to show strong episcopacy development ( out of presbyterianism) but not to point of then declaring an inherent office from the beginning, after Paul and Peter, who both appointed many bishops.

 

[John_Martin]

There are two parts of becoming a disciple, of becoming a citizen of the Kingdom of God, of becoming saved, of becoming Catholic.
First you have to be baptized into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Second, you have to be taught to observe, to obey, all that Christ commanded his apostles.
This second part is what is missing among the sectarian denominations.
When a person has been taught they are confirmed by the laying on of the hands by the apostolic successor to the Apostles, and granted fullness of the Holy Spirit as Confirmation of being a disciple.

Those not in communion with the Catholic Church do not have this Sacrament (Confirmation), and do not have the full teaching, and do not have fullness of the Spirit to give in Confirmation of obedience to the Faith as taught, so there is continual argument in sectarian reasons about who is really saved, argument about who is really a believer, and argument about what really is the church.

John Martin