infant baptism

[CentralFLJames]

Only when that ecclesial authority claims the same “sole authority” as to God’s will, as the RC Church leaders do.

The Catholic Church never has claimed to know God’s will except to the extent that we know God will always respect the authority of the Church to loose and bind and effect the various sacraments when done according to the proper form and intent and sacerdotal authority.

And that is a commendable effort – not the “coming to the revelation” part, for as we all know that is by God’s grace – but the “seeing it through” part – making the authorities aware of the “urgent need” to clarify this dubious theory…better late than never.

There was not really an urgent need per say. After all The Church could never have rendered an opinion on limbo at all and just left it to the literal teaching of Jesus which is “one must be born of water and spirit to enter the kingdom of God”. It was only through the advanced scholarship of the Church that it ascertained the 3 types of baptism (water, desire and by blood) for example. The Church is mindful of the scope of its authority and knows that it can not extend baptism to the dead (as pagans had attempted and were condemned by The Church. The Church out of compassion used every means of its scholarship and insight to offer a plausible and comforting hope to parents of such unbaptised children. But it would have been scripturally inaccurate and disingenuous to t say to these parents something like “now now – God most definitely will let your poor child go to heaven – never mind the scriptures that tell us they must be baptised”. The Church is never going to resort to pandering. The Church will do all it can to find plausible hopes worthy of sincere belief when it lacks direct revelation on a matter.

(an aside):
By referring to “the aether”….are you displaying

some “cheekiness” there James?

Not so much that as making it painfully obvious that it is extremely improbable that God would have let 11 million of the early Catholic Martyrs go to their death during the Church formation on Catholic teachings and wait for 1500 years for Luther to arrive with an errata to what everyone in the Church believed up till that time.

(James…now…I thought you said that
you were going to read and study that document I posted…)

In fact I spent the better part of a half day studying it – its very heady stuff.

(Some may call it “profound”, obviously those who believe they have the sole authority to do so and those who have been instructed to believe all of what you just posted …others may call it an “absurd delusion”…or an “elaborate fabrication” that is now necessary to appease and catch up with the rest of the world (while still maintaining its claim of having sole authority)…the important thing is what God will eventually call it……and as you’ve yourself have already stated… “Jesus knows who are His.”)

Leeann, I don’t think you understand Leeann that this is not an official dogmatic teaching. There is no binding authority here. You also have the wrong context to think we are instructed to believe in such and such a way. We do have required dogma but it’s not like we are being forced to accept it. We accept it because it makes sense. What you obviously do not believe is that what the Church teaches happens to be absolute truth. We Catholics have learned to trust in the teaching of our Church as a default condition since nothing dogmatic in 2000 years has ever before been proven to be wrong. Limbo was a speculative hope. It is not essential to anyone. The Church could have easily comforted people on the loss of their unbaptised children by referring them to God’s Mercy and Love and left it at that. But it wanted to go a step further to give parents something more concrete that made theological sense and that they could wrap their reason and hope around. This church simply has NO authority to loose and bind those that are already dead. But we can still pray for them since God is timeless and omniscient. In fact the Church developed a special liturgy for dead infants in later years and used to have a feast day for The Holy Innocents that relates to innocent children slaughtered on account of Jesus’ birth (ref. King Herod’s rage against Christ in Mt 2:16-17). The Church considered these baptized through martyrdom. So what I am saying here is The Church has always gone far out of its way to find scripturally realistic hope for those disenfranchised that seem to have fallen in the cracks between some of the black and white dictates of scripture (e.g. the necessity for baptism). The Church defers to God’s Mercy but does not presume to put words in God’s mouth.

You are “free to believe”?
So you were in “bondage” by someone…or by their authority over your beliefs?
Hmmm….?

No bondage here Leeann – except the bondage of having to defend the church against every sort of misunderstanding and resentment that extends from those who resent Church authority. We are not spoon fed beliefs. I know you don’t believe that. But Catholics are one of the most highly educated classes of citizens in the country. We are all free to explore our faith and examine it critically. Again, most of us find all the scholarship of The Church amazingly rational and quite easy to accept. It makes sense. And the track record is unmatched by any other religious organization on the planet both in time and scholarship. Do you have the same sentiment for those Protestants who have been brainwashed into believing that God can be put within the confines of a privately interpreted bible? Are the ignorant and low brows bound to an inferior salvation by their own shallow read of scripture and intellect. A fallacy of thinking can bond more than any rule of faith.

…neither can I…oh wait…except for the grieving and desolate spirits of the infant’s family members who were left in a “limbo” of their own…

I can say that limbo was infinitely better than the implication of a literal read of scripture that left them no alternative other than hell for not being baptized. The Church did not write the script for what God would reveal to us – she only stays within the structure that is given us and exegesis what she can safely do. That’s much better and more honest than inventing feel-good theology that is known to be wrong don’t you think?

And more importantly, had they acted on it…imagine…all those parents, all the agony, all the grief and despair and torment…that could have been eliminated…just imagine.

Imagine the agony all those parents would have had if the Church had not developed the speculation of limbo? The fundamentalist literal read of scripture offered them only hell.

…
that should at least be some sort of an indication, that something has gone wrong somewhere down the “sole authority” line of the RCChurch. But they’ve painted themselves into a corner now, they try and backtrack, they have to admit to errors, some major ones and the whole bottom falls out…they hang on and deny and coverup and make it almost impossible for the average everyday believer to understand …when all else fails…telling them “it’s a mystery” and to have faith in “them”, that “they” have the only true line to divine communication open.

No one can dispense His grace at their leisure, for no one knows the depths of it.

Consider *that *“mystery”.

I don’t agree with you. There have been no errors – just improvements in our vision of hope. We still don’t know definitively what God does. There are no cover-ups, no conspiracies, no back-peddling etc. There is no need for mistrust or paranoia. All we need understand is that God will “do the right thing” and we see now the wisdom that The Church has in promoting infant baptisms to avoid these uncertain scenarios whenever we can.

As for grace, one can in fact access God’s grace at the time they are ready for it by simply electing to be baptized, or to go to sacramental confession or my prayer etc. We can not know the depths of it as you say. But what should be apparent is that it would be foolish to NOT access God’s grace through the means we know are promised to open it to us- the Catholic Church sacraments. It’s a “mystery” to me why some people insist on trusting themselves to their own salvation and their own biases, egos, illogic, paranoia etc. rater than trust in the same core dogma The Church has been teaching consistently for 2000 years.

James

 

[Leeann]

Leann:

Do you think Baptism is just symbolic, or do you believe that it actually confers grace & regenration?

Hi Popes Soldier

I believe that we are commanded to do it by Jesus, as a testament of our belief and faith that His blood was shed for the remission of our sins.

I don’t believe that the ceremony itself, or the celebrant that is administering the act of baptism is “conferring any grace or regeneration” by following a specific format that is approved by any one particular faith…meaning any denomination/faith.

I believe that God knows the intentions of our hearts and that He is able and does confer this grace and regeneration via anyone He chooses too - or directly Himself.

I don’t like to try and “contain” Him. ( I don’t mean that to sound glib…but you know what I mean…)

GB - Leeann

 

[Leeann]

By speaking and writing in the English language, you are benefiting from the work of the Venerable Bede, a Catholic priest who lived in the 700s AD. He took the spoken language of the Anglo Saxon peoples, discerned a grammar, and created a written language for it, so that it could be taught in schools, for the purpose of creating a common foundation for all English-speaking people to become literate and conversant in their own language. He also translated a Bible into English - the very first English Bible.

Hi jmcrae - Thank you for sharing this information…I briefly googled to see if I could get any more information on him and his life sounds amazing…so humbling…it’s wonderful to see how God works through people individually…and I am grateful for all that he has contributed to us! Thank you again for posting that.

If you live in a house with four walls and a roof in a climate that experiences winter, you are benefiting from the work of Roman Catholic clergy who worked out a simple system of architecture, whereby free-standing buildings could be constructed that could withstand the blast of winter air without either falling apart or getting wet on the inside. They did this so that they could build little chapels where ever they wanted to, instead of having to keep everything in caves and hillsides. (Prior to that, buildings in winter climate areas were constructed into caves or hillsides.)

(It’s kind of astonishing to think of the fact that the Catholic Church was already here while my own ancestors, at least, were still, for all intents and purposes, living in caves.)

 

[Pax]

Hi Popes Soldier

I believe that we are commanded to do it by Jesus, as a testament of our belief and faith that His blood was shed for the remission of our sins.

I don’t believe that the ceremony itself, or the celebrant that is administering the act of baptism is “conferring any grace or regeneration” by following a specific format that is approved by any one particular faith…meaning any denomination/faith.

I believe that God knows the intentions of our hearts and that He is able and does confer this grace and regeneration via anyone He chooses too - or directly Himself.

I don’t like to try and “contain” Him. ( I don’t mean that to sound glib…but you know what I mean…)

GB - Leeann

God can do as he wishes. He is not confined or limited by His commands to us. Nevertheless, baptism is the normative way established by Christ for Christians to receive the remission of original sin, personal sin, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. While God may grant exceptions, He did not give us that option. He is not bound, but we are.

 

[Leeann]

CentralFlJames…Hi

You’re beginning to “rant”…and frankly it’s not becoming.

The things about “Luther” (*who will have to anwer to God one day *for his actions just … as we all will) and the stuff about “Protestants” in general (*do you realize that some of them agree almost totally with the RCChurch’s realization that you’ve recently come to about “leaving it to HOPE in God” , except they’ve believed that *for quite some time) - and the bit about who is “highly educated” and “who isn’t” … which is totally irrelevent as you know…what with God’s grace and his authority and ability to choose and use and reveal His will too anyone at all…even poor fisherman and one of the most disrespected and disliked people of their time…a tax collector…if He so chooses…

In any event…suffice it to say…I think I have my answer to my initial enquiry ( I’ve almost forgotten what it was…).

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Leeann]

Originally Posted by Leeann
Hi Popes Soldier

I believe that we are commanded to do it by Jesus, as a testament of our belief and faith that His blood was shed for the remission of our sins.

I don’t believe that the ceremony itself, or the celebrant that is administering the act of baptism is “conferring any grace or regeneration” by following a specific format that is approved by any one particular faith…meaning any denomination/faith.

I believe that God knows the intentions of our hearts and that He is able and does confer this grace and regeneration via anyone He chooses too - or directly Himself.

I don’t like to try and “contain” Him. ( I don’t mean that to sound glib…but you know what I mean…)

GB - Leeann

God can do as he wishes. He is not confined or limited by His commands to us. Nevertheless, baptism is the normative way established by Christ for Christians to receive the remission of original sin, personal sin, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. While God may grant exceptions, He did not give us that option. He is not bound, but we are.

That’s an interesting perspective Popes Soldier.
Thank you for sharing it with me.

 

[Popes_Soldier]

Hi Popes Soldier

I believe that we are commanded to do it by Jesus, as a testament of our belief and faith that His blood was shed for the remission of our sins.

I don’t believe that the ceremony itself, or the celebrant that is administering the act of baptism is “conferring any grace or regeneration” by following a specific format that is approved by any one particular faith…

And there is the root of our disagreement. It is precisely because we believe that Baptism confers grace and washes away sin that we baptise babies.

Also there is another aspect to baptism: It replaces circumcision as a sign of the covenant. Baptism is the entrance into the covenant family of God, and for that reason also babies are baptised.

You should really come to understand the sacramental principal. You see, God’s creation is good, and since we are creatures with 5 senses, God works through “things” in order to allow us to see His actions, such as the mud Jesus rubbed in the blind man’s eye, or Aaron’s rod, or hands being laid upon another. God performs miraculous actions, but allows us to see them symbolically through our 5 senses. For example, Moses raised his staff over the Red Sea and parted the waters, but who actually parted them, Moses, or God? God, of course. That is an excellent example of the sacramental principle.

The Catechism says:

CCC 1127 - Celebrated worthily in faith, the sacraments confer the grace that they signify. They are efficacious because in them Christ himself is at work: it is he who baptizes, he who acts in his sacraments in order to communicate the grace that each sacrament signifies. The Father always hears the prayer of his Son’s Church which, in the epiclesis of each sacrament, expresses her faith in the power of the Spirit. As fire transforms into itself everything it touches, so the Holy Spirit transforms into the divine life whatever is subjected to his power

So, in baptism, our eyes see water being poured over the person, and what we don’t see is the grace of God washing away that persons sin: “the sacraments confer the grace that they signify”.

If you eventually come to understant this, you will understand infant baptism… …and hopefully you’ll become Catholic

 

[CentralFLJames]

CentralFlJames…Hi

You’re beginning to “rant”…and frankly it’s not becoming.

The things about “Luther” (*who will have to anwer to God one day *for his actions just … as we all will) and the stuff about “Protestants” in general (*do you realize that some of them agree almost totally with the RCChurch’s realization that you’ve recently come to about “leaving it to HOPE in God” , except they’ve believed that *for quite some time) - and the bit about who is “highly educated” and “who isn’t” … which is totally irrelevent as you know…what with God’s grace and his authority and ability to choose and use and reveal His will too anyone at all…even poor fisherman and one of the most disrespected and disliked people of their time…a tax collector…if He so chooses…

In any event…suffice it to say…I think I have my answer to my initial enquiry ( I’ve almost forgotten what it was…).

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

It seems to me that you are in a habit of bearing false witness - both to the Catholic Church and now to me personally. You are the one that is being emotional and misreading both the Church History, the facts and now my own comments. You have what we call a judgmental personality-type or proclivity. That is fine - but but try to discipline yourself to be more objective before you pass sentence on so many people.

I have made no accusations about Protestants as you allege. Go back and see that everything I said was framed as a question for you to consider and respond to. I note that you elected not to address the questions but instead equivocated, back-peddled, become defensive and now signal you want to run away happy that you have all you need know about this topic. Why is that?

It was you who admitted coming into this discussion that you had a certain degree of contempt or scorn for The Church and her leadership. So its a shame that when the Church members try to give you insights for consideration you feel you must declare yourself righteous and unswayed from your misbeliefs and withdraw. Hit and run tactics are “not becoming” nor honorable.

The bit about Catholics being as a group more educated than most other religious groupings is in fact relevant. It is relevant because you slandered every Catholic by comming in here and asserting or implying that we are mindless robots who must obey what the Church teaches and not form our own insights and consent from a context of informed and rational assent. You need to recalibrate your sense of fair play and respect and extend your sense of empathy away from a clearly self-centered perspective. Those were very carless comments. What is curious is your lack empathetic symmetry. Note I observe you do seem to have empathy - but its inconsistent and selective. That is, you can empathize with parents of children who suffer from the grief of the loss of their unbaptised children but you are not willing to empathize with the hurt you extend either through lack of non-sympathetic consideration, carelessness or by intent of provocation in attacking Catholics here. Can you explain why you are so arbitrary?

It all implies a biased and inconsistent judgement system that tends toward bigotry or it is simply non-linear, arbitrary and therefore irrational and emotional. I think I have my answer as to which it is. The problem is that answer does not add anything profound to the human condition or result in any net gain to me or you or Creation. What a waste of time.

Thank for your (name removed by moderator)ut for what it was worth.

James

 

[Leeann]

And there is the root of our disagreement. It is precisely because we believe that Baptism confers grace and washes away sin that we baptise babies.

Also there is another aspect to baptism: It replaces circumcision as a sign of the covenant.

Yes circumcision…Moses obeying God.

Baptism is the entrance into the covenant family of God, and for that reason also babies are baptised.

The term of “the covenant family of God”…sounds so all embracing for those that truly believe.

You should really come to understand the sacramental principal. You see, God’s creation is good, and since we are creatures with 5 senses, God works through “things” in order to allow us to see His actions, such as the mud Jesus rubbed in the blind man’s eye, or Aaron’s rod, or hands being laid upon another. God performs miraculous actions, but allows us to see them symbolically through our 5 senses.

…however it is not necessary, as I know you’d agree…that He operate in this manner…and as far as the term “sacramental principle” …well…that could mean different things according to one’s belief system…

For example, Moses raised his staff over the Red Sea and parted the waters, but who actually parted them, Moses, or God? God, of course. That is an excellent example of the sacramental principle.

Well…as I mentioned above… the term “sacramental principle” as defined in “your” belief system may differ to others, so for “you” this is an excellent example according to “your” belief and what you’ve been taught.

The Catechism says:
So, in baptism, our eyes see water being poured over the person, and what we don’t see is the grace of God washing away that persons sin: “the sacraments confer the grace that they signify”.

…again…that is what the “Catechsim” says…
but that in itself does not make it “true”.

If you eventually come to understant this, you will understand infant baptism… …and hopefully you’ll become Catholic

Well…I’m confident in whom I believe and in the direction He is taking me as I “run the race”…my hopes and prayers are with you too Popes Soldier…that you will be open to *His *leading and His truth and follow **His **call.

Thanks for sharing this with me.

 

[guanophore]

I’m not surprised at all. The basic objection, as I see it, is that the core of Christianity - the acceptance of Christ as savior – is something that clearly an infant can’t do, and that truly is an adult level decision.

There are a couple errors here. The first one is that “acceptance of Christ as savior” is at the core of Christianity. In fact, this is a modern Billy Graham innovation, and not found in the Bible. Don’t get me wrong, i think Graham had a great ministry, and was a tireless and dedicated servant of God, reaching many lives (including my own). however, this is a media method of modern evangelism.

The normative means by which one becomes a member of the Body of Christ is through baptism. Baptism replaces circumcision as the entrance into God’s family.

Secondly, how do you know what an infant can perceive about God? How do you know that an infant is not as able to comprehend the Godhead as demons, who also accept that Christ is the savior (and shudder)? Jesus did not forbid children, and in fact, held them up as a model of how we should enter the Kingdom.

It’s worth looking at what the Catechism itself says about infant baptism:

Note the bolded part. Baptismal grace flowers in personal growth. Where does that flowering occur? Conversion!

This is a lot of reading, but it explains the Catholic position:

Note that the characteristics of the second conversion (which in name is confusing because it actually happens repeatedly throughout one’s life) are very similar to what many Protestants describe as being “born again.”

(Note: bolding and emphasis are my own)

They Apostles taught that every day we are to die to self, and be born anew in His grace. Conversion does not have to be once in time for all time. It can be a daily practice also. Blessed are those who are brought up in a Christian home, and taught these things from a young age.

 

[guanophore]

Luke 18 has nothing to do with baptism…

It has to do with people bringing infants to Jesus to receive HIs blessing. Prior to Jesus commanding baptism, this is what people did.

Matthew 19… again nothing to do with baptism…

Baptism is the normative means by which we become members of His body. Do you think there is a better way to “come to Him”?

Also because there is just so much opposition to me for no real reason, i can only sum all the posts i have read into one thing.

If you are encountering opposition, it is likely a result of trying to promote “a different gospel” than the one that was entrusted to us by the Apostles.

The Bible never says infants were baptized.

Well, we read it differently.

John the Baptist was not a prophet.

Really? why do you think not? I know that is off topic, but I have never heard this before.

Matt 21:26
“…for all regard John as a prophet.”

Do you think that all those who knew John, and heard him speak were misunderstanding?

The bible does say when Jesus started his ministry and thats when he was baptized.

Yes, but Jesus baptism had different meaning than ours. Our baptism replaces circumcision, which Jesus had as an infant. Jesus was also revealed to Israel as the Messiah in His baptism, which we are not. Thirdly, when Jesus entered the waters of baptism, he sanctified them, and joined the Holy Spirit to them, to make them able to wash away sins.

U cant decide for someone else for them to be born again. am i wrong? please show me where i am wrong, please show me where an unwilling person was baptized and after baptism was a born again Christian, please!

Parents can decide to raise their children in the covenant in which they are joined to God in faith. Just as Jesus’ parents had him circumcised. Are you assuming that infants are “unwilling” to be born again?

I agree that no one can be validly baptized against their will.

Stop quoting this scripture, it has nothing to do with baptism. no one is being baptized here

LOL. I had to laugh at that one! “Stop quoting scripture”.

If you think that Jesus does not touch people and bless them during baptism, then you have an inaccurate view of baptism!

 

[Popes_Soldier]

…The Bible never says infants were baptized…

It doesn’t say they weren’t either. But consider this:

…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.

Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children; they may have been past the age of reason, rather than infants. Then again, they could have been babes in arms. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason in some of the households that were baptized, especially if one considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth control. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be explicit.

source:
catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp

 

[Pax]

The Catechism says:
So, in baptism, our eyes see water being poured over the person, and what we don’t see is the grace of God washing away that persons sin: “the sacraments confer the grace that they signify”.

…again…that is what the “Catechsim” says…but that in itself does not make it “true”.

It is true, however, and the scriptures attest to it. If you won’t accept the catechism because you do not admit the authority of the Catholic Church then that is one thing, but ignoring the words of scripture which you confess to be inerrant is quite another.

 

[Popes_Soldier]

A quote from:
The Large Catechism
by Martin Luther
XIIIA. Part Fourth
Of Infant Baptism

“…That the Baptism of infants is pleasing to Christ is sufficiently proved from His own work, namely, that God sanctifies many of them who have been thus baptized, and has given them the Holy Ghost; and that there are yet many even to-day in whom we perceive that they have the Holy Ghost both because of their doctrine and life; as it is also given to us by the grace of God that we can explain the Scriptures and come to the knowledge of Christ, which is impossible without the Holy Ghost. But if God did not accept the baptism of infants, He would not give the Holy Ghost nor any of His gifts to any of them; in short, during this long time unto this day no man upon earth could have been a Christian. Now, since God confirms Baptism by the gifts of His Holy Ghost as is plainly perceptible in some of the church fathers, as St. Bernard, Gerson, John Hus, and others, who were baptized in infancy, and since the holy Christian Church cannot perish until the end of the world, they must acknowledge that such infant baptism is pleasing to God. For He can never be opposed to Himself, or support falsehood and wickedness, or for its promotion impart His grace and Spirit. This is indeed the best and strongest proof for the simple-minded and unlearned. For they shall not take from us or overthrow this article: I believe a holy Christian Church, the communion of saints…”

 

[Leeann]

Pax

The Catechism says:
So, in baptism, our eyes see water being poured over the person, and what we don’t see is the grace of God washing away that persons sin: “the sacraments confer the grace that they signify”.

Leeann
…again…that is what the “Catechsim” says…but that in itself does not make it “true”.

It is true, however, and the scriptures attest to it. If you won’t accept the catechism because you do not admit the authority of the Catholic Church then that is one thing, but ignoring the words of scripture which you confess to be inerrant is quite another.

Leeann

I don’t recall ever stating that with regards to the scriptures Pax - but your assumption is correct and feel free to share any with me whenever you want too.

 

[Leeann]

It seems to me that you are in a habit of bearing false witness - both to the Catholic Church and now to me personally. You are the one that is being emotional and misreading both the Church History, the facts and now my own comments. You have what we call a judgmental personality-type or proclivity. That is fine - but but try to discipline yourself to be more objective before you pass sentence on so many people.

I have made no accusations about Protestants as you allege. Go back and see that everything I said was framed as a question for you to consider and respond to. I note that you elected not to address the questions but instead equivocated, back-peddled, become defensive and now signal you want to run away happy that you have all you need know about this topic. Why is that?

It was you who admitted coming into this discussion that you had a certain degree of contempt or scorn for The Church and her leadership. So its a shame that when the Church members try to give you insights for consideration you feel you must declare yourself righteous and unswayed from your misbeliefs and withdraw. Hit and run tactics are “not becoming” nor honorable.

The bit about Catholics being as a group more educated than most other religious groupings is in fact relevant. It is relevant because you slandered every Catholic by comming in here and asserting or implying that we are mindless robots who must obey what the Church teaches and not form our own insights and consent from a context of informed and rational assent. You need to recalibrate your sense of fair play and respect and extend your sense of empathy away from a clearly self-centered perspective. Those were very carless comments. What is curious is your lack empathetic symmetry. Note I observe you do seem to have empathy - but its inconsistent and selective. That is, you can empathize with parents of children who suffer from the grief of the loss of their unbaptised children but you are not willing to empathize with the hurt you extend either through lack of non-sympathetic consideration, carelessness or by intent of provocation in attacking Catholics here. Can you explain why you are so arbitrary?

It all implies a biased and inconsistent judgement system that tends toward bigotry or it is simply non-linear, arbitrary and therefore irrational and emotional. I think I have my answer as to which it is. The problem is that answer does not add anything profound to the human condition or result in any net gain to me or you or Creation. What a waste of time.

Thank for your (name removed by moderator)ut for what it was worth.

James

Hi James

You have a wonderful vocabulary and are very good at expressing yourself, especially when describing your views on what another person has posted…your own personal perception makes for interesting reading.

However I’ll leave it to the discretion of others who come in now or at a later time, to this particular thread…to go back and view all of our postings so they can ascertain for themselves the appropriateness and accuracy of your comments that are contained in the above post you made.
(Original post #30 12.08.08)

In truth I sat for a few hours today, composing a wonderful, very wordy comeback…pointing out any discrepancies in your flow of thought that I thought would make you look foolish or frantic…and in order to do this I had to refer constantly back to your posting of course…re-reading it…jumping on something here or there…but my crafty words didn’t bring me any satisfaction…or peace…so I finally set it all aside and asked the Lord to please let me know what how to reply…and that’s when the peace came…along with the love.

It is obvious that I have hurt you deeply by the way I have responded to some of your comments…that of course coupled with the fact of my initial enquiry about (to shorten it here)… “the claim of “sole authority” of the RCChurch and the validity of that claim based on the “limbo” theory and the topic here of Infant Baptism.”

I accused you of beginning to “rant” and that it wasn’t an attractive sight…but by me even posting that comment, I revealed something even more unattractive…my own ego.

For me to be the reason for your reaction makes me sick to my stomach…that’s not what Christ wants.
Please forgive me for doing that to you.

Perhaps it is better that the two of us not discuss this topic again…it can’t be beneficial to either of us or in our personal relationship with our Saviour and brings no honour to His name,
and when all is said and done…that’s the importan thing.

I believe I know your view by now and I’m sure you know mine.

God Bless

 

[Leeann]

To Pax and Popes Soldier

I think I got one of my posts mixed up and replied - or didn’t reply??? to the proper person…Post 66

Sorry for the confusion.
I’m still having trouble getting the little “yellow quote” boxes to appear at times…

 

[Des]

Originally Posted by Leeann forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
You are “free to believe”?
So you were in “bondage” by someone…or by their authority over your beliefs?
Hmmm….?

Catholics have come to believe the Church has authority just as the sola scriptura protestants come to believe their sole truth has come by way of Jesus through His Apostles through their writings. Either way it’s getting passed on through human minds and actions. You have all submitted to the fact that the Bible is without error. It can likewise be applied from an outside viewer that you are also in bondage. You are blindly obeying the written text of men. Protestants then continue to say at least they have the freedom to interpret the Bible themselves without allowing someone else to tell them what it says. Well we see all sorts of trouble this has caused with your splintering.

And Catholics do interpret themselves at least within the context of our Dogmas. This is similar to how you all operate. You will interpret a certain truth (you believe) from a passage or book from the Bible, then measure the other passages within the context of that first truth. I’ve seen it done many many times when I talk to my non denom friends. An example of this would be praying to the Saints. Since it’s not fully explicit in the Bible any passage that eludes to such a thing that a Catholic may give you as a stepping stone to further your understanding of the possibility, will be knocked down immediately because of the already pre-supposed notion that it’s a ludicrous thought to begin with of which this theory of yours had been derived from a passage or two that you fallibly interpreted in the first place. Even if you fully believe you are being led by the Holy Spirit, I’m certain you will admit that you have many times been wrong in your understanding certain verses in the past which of course now leaves you in the unsettling predicament that you ‘may’ be wrong with this one as well. So now this assurance of being led by the Holy Spirit, somehow isn’t so assuring after all when it comes to the Written Word of God.

Believe it or not many Catholics can see the beautiful truth of the teachings of the Church regarding the Marian Dogmas, Baptism, Birth Control, Confession etc. etc. Granted there are some things we can’t fully understand yet we take it on faith. Just as I’m sure you can’t fully understand the mystery of the Holy Trinity yet you take it at face value through faith alone.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Hi James

Please forgive me.

Perhaps it is better that the two of us not discuss this topic again…it can’t be beneficial to either of us or in our personal relationship with our Savior and brings no honor to His name, and when all is said and done…that’s the important thing.

I believe I know your view by now and I’m sure you know mine.

God Bless

Thanks for offering an apology. But I don’t really have anything to forgive because I have not taken any deep personal offense by anything you have said. And its not really my place to accept it on behalf of the Church but you can rest assured no grudge is held. So, I’d desire to say “apology accepted” but I don’t want that to come across as a superficial pleasantry nor presumptuous of my authority – of which I have only a little. At a person level I feel like I have failed to unwind the tangle of misconceptions you have for the Church I love and that is the most disturbing thing to me. I consider myself a good communicator. Clearly you have a developed conscience and an introspective and reflective disposition that is indicative of a person that the Holy Spirit is at work with. I recognize that since I share the same inner awareness; and that desire for inner perfection can be a difficult enough cross onto itself.

You have impressed me of your sincerity through the mature restraint you have shown here. I too must now ask for forgiveness for being forceful in my manner and in causing you anxiety. In these kinds of forums I’d much rather engage someone at an objective level. Trust me – I find no joy or pleasure in conflict nor in provoking another person out of their comfort zones. But I do believe that sometimes engaging at an emotional level is the only way to open doors - even though there is about an equal chance of locking them shut. It’s a style risk that I accept in apologetics work.

To finish some thoughts I’d like to get back to the OP and offer suggestions for unwinding and untangling your concerns. I think in this OP on limbo that you have introduced 3 or 4 separate objections and concerns. I see at least the following separate objections or questions precipitating out of this thread – each worthy of its own separate discussion. They are: 1) Scope and Supremacy of Church Authority 2) Reconciling individual’s rights (and obligations) to form their own conscience within the framework of Church Teaching 3) Private revelation and its relation to Ecclesial Authority & Teaching and 4) Infant Baptism. There are probably a few more but let me prune it here.

I think if you segregated your concerns around these talking point you would have a better framework for discussing the true core-issues that are conspiring against you coming to closure and causing you (and some of us) unnecessary discomfort.
In respect to your desire to disengage I will silently offer just one more comment on this prior post of yours and leave for open or private consideration:

… do you realize that some of them [Protestants] agree almost totally with the RCChurch’s realization that you’ve recently come to about “leaving it to HOPE in God” , except they’ve believed that for quite some time)

…what with God’s grace and his authority and ability to choose and use and reveal His will too anyone at all…even poor fisherman and one of the most disrespected and disliked people of their time…a tax collector…if He so chooses…

Of course Christians share a common hope in salvation and trust in God. In particular the Catholic Church has continuously held for 2,000 years this same hope that we hold to this day. So it’s not accurate for anyone to claim that The Catholic Church is just now discovering God’s Mercy and hope in God. The Church’s recorded doctrine on baptism goes as far back as the Council of Carthage in 417AD – and we presume from the very beginning. In this council baptism is declared necessary even for children and required that they be baptised soon after birth since scripture tells us “bring the children to me” and ‘no one may enter into the Kingdom without first being baptised’. The Church trusts God at His word about the necessity for baptism and hopes in His Mercy for those who die unbaptised. This does not in anyway however prevent God from showing His Mercy to whom He will – The Church just can’t presume to speak for God outside of its domain of authority for affairs here on earth. The notion if Limbo is ancient and goes way back before Christendom to the Jewish peoples. It is not an innovation of The Church. It was however, promulgation and advanced as worthy of belief by The Church.
For further insights you might want to read on Harrowing of Hell which shows some of the ancient thinking that goes as far back as the early church and has roots in OT belief. In particular this was taught by St. Melito of Sardis (died ca 180) Homily on the Passion; Tertullian (A Treatise on the Soul, 55), Hippolytus (Treatise on Christ and Anti-Christ) and Origen (Against Celsus, 2:43). and, later, St. Ambrose (died 397).

And just one more comment on your observation that God can reveal His will to ANY person. This is correct and this is NOT against Church teaching. What is necessary though is that such private revelations be brought to the attention of a bishop and an examination of the revelation be made and assayed against scripture and Church dogma before The Church will accept it as worthy of belief and affix its impremateur. In fact, the Catholic Church HIGHLY regards private interpretation as history has shown how the Church honors and recognizes Her Saints and their private revelations; so much so that many Saints have been received into the prestigious “Doctor of The Church” designation. Such saints revelations are so valued that the give deep insights into the same framework that Our Lord gave us through Holy Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. I could not possibly list all of the private revelations of our saints here since there are so many.
Hopefully you will reconsider some of your misgivings about The Church and trust in the basic goodness and sincere desire of The Church to advance Jesus’ great Apostolic Commission to us over 2.000 years ago.

God Bless,
James

 

[Pax]

Pax

The Catechism says:
So, in baptism, our eyes see water being poured over the person, and what we don’t see is the grace of God washing away that persons sin: “the sacraments confer the grace that they signify”.

Leeann
…again…that is what the “Catechsim” says…but that in itself does not make it “true”.

Leeann

I don’t recall ever stating that with regards to the scriptures Pax - but your assumption is correct and feel free to share any with me whenever you want too.

Perhaps this is nothing more than a matter of vocabulary. Scripture tells us that baptism washes away our sins and that we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The New Covenant instituted by Christ contains many elements and promises. These things are covenant oaths. The word sacrament comes from the Latin word for “oath.”

The New Covenant oath/promises contained in baptism are the forgiveness of sin and the giving of the Holy Spirit. During water baptism we do not see the actual remission of sin or the Holy Spirit with our human eyes. These are authentic but invisible realities. All of this is clear from scripture and the catechism is congruent with scripture on these issues.