infant baptism

[Popes_Soldier]

To Explain Infant Baptism You Must Explain Original Sin
By John S. Martignoni
LINK:
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea5.asp

 

[RobbyS]

Hello Popes Soldier

The problem with your statement is that “Limbo” was never a doctrine, let alone a dogma. So no doctrine was changed. (I understand that – no doctrine was changed…that’s not the point…the point was about why a “theory” was allowed to be “taught” as if it were doctrine/dogma.)

Another good example of this is the seven-day account of Creation. Many popes believed it. But it is not doctrine: The Church has never infallibly defined whether the days in Gen 1 are actual days or periods of time. Therefore, a faithful Catholic is free to go either way. Same with Limbo. Many Catholic theologians may have taught it, but it was never Dogma. (yes…well that’s perhaps another “thread” – food for thought.) I encourage you to read in full the official document by the The International Theological Commission : “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised” – as found on the www.vatican website.

I do appreciate your response, thank you.

Maybe you should start with a reflection on the doctrine of original sin. Catholic theology is strongly (name removed by moderator)ressed with Augustine’s teaching on this subject, which was worked out in connection with his struggles with the Donatists and, more importantl, with the Pelagians. Central to the doctrine is the doctrine of grace. which was also central to the debates of the Reformation. But as to baptism, the main point has to do with the necessity of the rite as sacrament. Can one become a Christian except by being baptised? What about the fate of those who have no such opportunity?

 

[Leeann]

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.

(That would be true, however, I believe most of them believe that this “written text of men” - the bible - is inspired by the Holy Spirit of God).

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.

( Yes…based on what you have just expressed, although it may be a rather “broad” or “general” concept of what they *all *concieve as their freedom, this is indeed evident by all the various denominations. Having said that, the RCChurch, has over the centuries experienced difficulties of their own - the different concepts being claimed by Orthodox catholics is very evident today)

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.

(That most likely happens very often…but another consideration should be given, that perhaps it’s got nothing to do with their own “pre-supposed notion” with regards to their own interpretations…as much as it may have to do with their core question in the first place, that being of the RCChurch’s claim to having sole authority as to divine revelation of the scriptures - based on very “real” evidence that may raise doubts as to the validity of this claim. ie: “theories” or “theological speculation” have been taught, whether as dogma or not - but that has nevertheless had an impact on many, many believers, being detrimental to their spiritual growth. So yes - I agree that there is a “pre-supposed notion”…but perhaps it’s based on the credibility of the RCChurch’s claim of divine intepretation and application of scripture…and they are “knocking down” the source of any teaching that would come from there…not the faithful, believer who is trying to offer a stepping stone to enhance their understanding…but “where” the information being offered is coming from. )

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.

(All true believers face this predicament in their walk…and I mean all…from the newest one that comes to Christ…to every leader of any denomination or faith that believes in and claims Jesus as their Lord and Saviour and to everyone in between that He calls and who recognizes His voice…God doesn’t esteem any one of us over another…but you left out the most wonderful thing that happens when that assurance of ours flags…when our human understanding is getting in the way, our pettiness, our pride, our personal agendas. or collective agendas…and that is that He wants us to succeed and we have the assurance that He will lead us and guide us if we are truly willing and humble enough to let Him do so…sometimes it will be interpretted correctly…sometimes it won’t…and that can and does apply to all believers…to be able to admit to this and address it and correct it
is the difficult part, not only for individual believers, but for denominations and churches who believe they have the only true authority or way.)

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.

Yes…I can’t understand that wonderful mystery (Father/Son/HolySpirit) and I accept it as truth through faith…as for the other specific Catholic teachings of the Church…well they are of the Church…the one claiming sole authority…and to getting it “all right”…being the “only” way …which brings me back to “credibility”…and to *where *and to whom I place my faith in.

Although I do believe that many Catholics see the truth of those teachings you listed above…and can even understand it …they have faith in their “church” and it’s teachings…no matter what.

Thank you Des for your (name removed by moderator)ut!
Just to be certain…anything typed in green is to be read in a normal, gentle, “conversational” tone…

 

[Leeann]

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:

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

Hi James

If the highlighted line above is asking my forgiveness - I have forgiven you.

If you meant that you were going to ask forgiveness of the Lord - I am embarrased by the last line I just typed - but it still stands.

I think it would be better to stick with the end of my last posting to you, which stated:

“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 important thing.”

God Bless Leeann

 

[Philthy]

leeann:

The reason I wonder at their certainty of absolute correctness in how this particular practice is administered and why, is due to the recent retraction by this same church, of the teaching of the “theory” of limbo for “infants who die without being baptized”,

The “absolute correctness” (more properly called “certainty of faith”) does not now and never did exist for the teaching on limbo. That reality negates your rationale for questioning or “wonder” at why Catholics maintain moral assurance of the soundness of her dogmatic teachings. You continue to compare apples (dogma) to oranges (theological speculation).

Does it not raise concerns as to the validity of other doctrines and practices that are or have been taught in the past as being “absolutely correct”…

Any Catholic *can *question any non-dogmatic teaching until it becomes dogma.
You dont seem to quite get it: there’s “dogma”(which is regarded as “absolutely correct”) and there are disciplines/practices which
are not. Disciplines/practices are not taught as being “absolutely correct” - if they were, they would be dogma. Attempting to justify a “reason for concern” of the Church’s ability to declare dogma infallibly based on the Church commenting on, changing or discarding a mere theory is illogical.

when a “theory” - not an “official doctrine” has been just left there and allowed to be taught for so many years…and then is retracted?
( yes…never official dogma – just a theological speculation or theory…but nevertheless it was allowed to be “taught”)

It was “allowed to be taught”, as a theory, not as a dogma, not as a permanent teaching so it has no relationship to any concern regarding dogmatic teaching. Would it have been better if it was addressed sooner? Maybe. I dont quite see the tragic consequences that you imagine. The important point: get your baby baptized as soon as possible.

why would The Church allow it to be taught to it’s people for over such a longggggg period of time?

Im not sure I follow you - what exactly should the Church have done? Should it have pretended it had an answer that it didnt?
I dont quite understand what you think should have been done differently, and I dont understand what the tragic consequences have been. Why dont you tell us how, exactly, you would have handled it differently?

…During this period the popes (Paul III, Benedict XIV, Clement XIII)[52] defended the right of Catholics to teach

Augustine’s stern view that infants dying with original sin alone are damned and punished with the perpetual torment of the fire of hell, though with the “mildest pain” (Augustine) compared with what was suffered by adults who were punished for their mortal sins.
Please note: they defended the “right…to teach” it, not to declare it as dogma. It simply was not heretical to teach, and it was not dogma either. They simply allowed it to be taught as the current understanding of theologians.

On the other hand, when the Jansenist Synod of Pistoia (1786) denounced the medieval theory of “Limbo”, Pius VI defended the right of the Catholic Schools to teach that those who died with the guilt of original sin alone are punished with the lack of the Beatific Vision (“punishment of loss”), but not sensible pains (the punishment of “fire”).

Ibid

… Papal interventions during this period, then, protected the freedom of the Catholic schools to wrestle with this question. They did not endorse the theory of Limbo as a doctrine of faith. Limbo, however, was the common Catholic teaching until the mid-20th century.

Ibid

If The Church and it’s official leaders had not received this “theological speculation” by direct revelation……surely it should not have been allowed to be “taught”,

I disagree completely. Certainly they should not have taught it as divine revelation (dogma), but allowing it to be taught as a reasonable theory remains entirely appropriate.

The consequences of severe distress and agony that the parents of these babies experienced due to such a “teaching”

Severe distress and agony? I dont think so. And you have yet to comment on the “up” side: how many babies were baptized that are now in God’s presence as a result of the teaching? And here, ISTM, is the true issue: you dont believe in the Sacrament of Baptism for infants. Otherwise, you would balance the good with the bad - but you dont even consider the eternal good that resulted, only the temporal evil.

(the latter part of that sentence is something that believers already are innately assured of, but it’s good to see “The Church” has taken the time and “codified” it)

“believers are innately assured of”? Is that private revelation or mere speculation?

(what possible type of comfort did all the worried parents in the centuries gone past derive from the “teaching” of an “opinion” that states: “ infants dying with original sin alone are damned and punished with the perpetual torment of the fire of hell, though with the “mildest pain” (Augustine) compared with what was suffered by adults who were punished for their mortal sins.” Do we just forget about them? Oops?

I reiterate: you forget to consider how many parents had their child baptized and enjoyed the comfort of knowing their child was in Heaven because they did so. You dont consider this because you dont believe that having infants baptized has anything to do with their eternal destiny.

 

[Pax]

Well done Phil.

 

[runandsew]

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…

Well you just type the following key’s before your post you want to quote:
Type in the button,
then type in the word Quote,
then type in the ] button.

After the post you want to quote type in:

Type in the button
then type in the / button
then type in the word Quote
then type in the ] button

 

[atmmgraves]

I’ve enjoyed reading this thread and the depth of the discussion going on here. Leann, I would agree with James that you appear to be someone of great faith who is seeking - as we all should be - to become better Christians. The main point of separation I see here is you having difficulties with the “authority” issue in Catholicism. Infant baptism is contained within this umbrella.

I mean no offense with what I am about to state, but my assessment is as follows.

You state: “Yes…I can’t understand that wonderful mystery (Father/Son/HolySpirit) and I accept it as truth through faith…as for the other specific Catholic teachings of the Church…well they are of the Church…the one claiming sole authority…and to getting it “all right”…being the “only” way …which brings me back to “credibility”…and to where and to whom I place my faith in.”

You appear to believe that Catholics are somehow putting our faith in the Church as opposed to putting our faith in Christ. I had a 3 hour phone conversation with a friend of mine who could not get past his view that Catholics let men come between them and God (confession, Church authority, etc.). As I explained to him, Christ gave humanity a teacher - the Catholic Church, founded during the time of the apostles. This is a hang-up which I find extremely frustrating because it is so clear to me, I can’t understand the misconception.

Let’s take an average Protestant. This person will go to church and hear a sermon which is from the perspective of the pastor - the pastor’s opinion - of what the scripture means, what is true and what is not. The Protestant listens and learns from the viewpoint of the pastor in the pulpit. So, what is the difference - in theory - to these approaches? Catholic and Protestant? There is an “authority” present in both, right? Both are claiming the “true” word, correct? For some reason - inexplicable to me - some folks can’t see that there really is no difference. Somehow, for some reason, they feel that because they go to (insert denomination here) church they are more “free” than Catholics, who toil under the yoke of “authority.” This is absolutely false. The Protestant is free to read and interpret scripture as he/she wants - same as the Catholic.

Now, there is a very real difference to the Catholic and Protestant perspectives. Again, the Catholic Church was founded by Christ. As Christ cannot err, the Catholic Church cannot teach in error. The Church has lasted 2000 years. The gates of hell will not prevail against it - Christ promised this. They have not, and cannot, despite a never ending cascade of attacks from within and without. Again, no offense intended here, but Protestant denominations spring up hither and yon with new ways, new truths, new teachings, new names…it goes on and on. This is the inevitable outcome of being “free” of the Church established by Christ for you and for me.

Infant baptism is simply a symptom, not the source, of so many (and I think you are one) people’s problems with Catholicism. But to address this specific issue directly, while it may not say in the bible that “newborn children were baptized”, it does not say they were not, correct? Whole families were baptized, right? “Families” would imply children, would it not? And as far as the argument goes regarding “age of reason” and baptism being “forced” onto newborns before they can decide what’s best for themselves, this argument is pretty weak, in my view. When my children were babies and they needed medical care, I did not ask their consent - I took them to the doctor. Who cares what they would have thought even if they were able to think - I knew what was best for them. Right? I knew - and know - what is best for them with their medical care (we could put in education, who they will spend time with [friends] - all things that I did, and do, regarding raising my kids), I likewise know what is best for them in their spiritual upbringing.

To me, Catholicism makes so much sense. The Catholic Church does not come between Me and Christ; indeed, the opposite is true: the Catholic Church was put on earth by Christ to bring me closer to Him. The teachings of the Church - so many, so deep and rich and rooted in Christ - are beautiful and waiting for you to discover.

Again, I mean no offense here. Just my two-cents about what I’ve been reading. Good luck in your search for the truth Leann. God bless.

 

[CentralFLJames]

leeann:

If The Church and it’s official leaders had not received this “theological speculation” by direct revelation……surely it should not have been allowed to be “taught”,

Please note: they defended the “right…to teach” it, not to declare it as dogma. It simply was not heretical to teach, and it was not dogma either. They simply allowed it to be taught as the current understanding of theologians.

Good point Phil. Here is a specific case where we see a contradiction to the unfounded assertion that The Church shackles independent intellectual pursuits by its members since this is a vivid case where The Church has considered scholarly theological insight worthy of being taught as theory but did not go so far as to declare it dogma. I’d say we can now put to bed any assertions about Catholics being hamstrung and limited by dogmatic teaching.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

Hi James

If the highlighted line above is asking my forgiveness - I have forgiven you.

If you meant that you were going to ask forgiveness of the Lord - I am embarrased by the last line I just typed - but it still stands.

I think it would be better to stick with the end of my last posting to you, which stated:

“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 important thing.”

God Bless Leeann

OK Leaann, I think I understand you properly. “Forgiven” but “don’t talk to me anymore.” Ahem, ohhhkay, I guess…

Since I am a senior member here and not bound and muzzled from having private insight nor from speaking by The Church (nor “the king”); and because I have a lot of time, energy and thought put into this thread; and because its an important topic for others and the thread has a life of its own now; and since you as original OP poster have stated that you are satisfied that you have all the answers you care to hear; I am going to remain subscribed and comment on other’s remarks to see this to its logical conclusion. If you remain subscribed and anything I say brings you to discomfort you can always click on the “ignore button”.

James

 

[dcdurel]

Infant baptism was not a doctrine the Church made up. The Church learned all her teachings from the apostles. The apostles were taught everything by Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The apostles appointed the bishops of the Catholic Church as their successors. The apostles taught these bishops everything they learned from Jesus and the Holy Spirit. This is where the teaching on infant baptism comes from. Jesus said salvation comes from believing the Gospel the Church taught and preached. Jesus did not say we must fully understand everything the Church teaches, but only believe. Thus, if we don’t accept what the Church teaches, then we are rejecting Jesus. “he who rejects you, rejects me” Luke 15:15

 

[Leeann]

The “absolute correctness” (more properly called “certainty of faith”) does not now and never did exist for the teaching on limbo.

Yes…that’s already been establshed…in fact in my very first post I acknowledged that it was never “dogma”.
That reality negates your rationale for questioning or “wonder” at why Catholics maintain moral assurance of the soundness of her dogmatic teachings.

The fact that this “theory” was being taught to the masses at all is the reality of my “wonder” why more don’t question the validity then of everything that is being taught…dogma or not.

You continue to compare apples (dogma) to oranges (theological speculation).

Yes…they’re not compatible at all…do you agree?

Any Catholic *can *question any non-dogmatic teaching until it becomes dogma.
You dont seem to quite get it: there’s “dogma”(which is regarded as “absolutely correct”) and there are disciplines/practices which
are not. Disciplines/practices are not taught as being “absolutely correct” - if they were, they would be dogma. Attempting to justify a “reason for concern” of the Church’s ability to declare dogma infallibly based on the Church commenting on, changing or discarding a mere theory is illogical.

Well…to me it doesn’t seem logical to have “no concern” in the *certainty *of a church’s dogma when at some point in time and over such a prolonged period of time, the people with that claimed to have the same “sole authority” and to have the same “divine revelation” let a *theory or theological speculation *be taught to its masses before finally attempting to clarify that they are to have “Hope” in God…

It was “allowed to be taught”, as a theory, not as a dogma, not as a permanent teaching so it has no relationship to any concern regarding dogmatic teaching. Would it have been better if it was addressed sooner? Maybe. I dont quite see the tragic consequences that you imagine. The important point: get your baby baptized as soon as possible.

Yes…I see that you don’t see the tragic consequences…and to me that’s illogical. It’s all there in the official document I posted…vatican website…The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized. Worth a read…gives the history of this theory and the practice and who it was taught too and the turmoil within the church itself and the affect it had on people’s lives.

Im not sure I follow you - what exactly should the Church have done? Should it have pretended it had an answer that it didnt?

Well …it looks like that’s just about what they did for a few centuries…and I’m not trying to be offhand about it or glib…Read the document.

I dont quite understand what you think should have been done differently, and I dont understand what the tragic consequences have been. Why dont you tell us how, exactly, you would have handled it differently?

Correct me if I’m wrong…but why not point immediately to having “Hope in God and His grace and mercy” - back then, as they have finally done now, why let it be “wrestled” with at all…where was the “divine revelation” to the ones in authority then?

Please note: they defended the “right…to teach” it, not to declare it as dogma. It simply was not heretical to teach, and it was not dogma either. They simply allowed it to be taught as the current understanding of theologians.

Well…that statement in itself should raise a red flag of concern about the responsibility that accompanies authority.
Ibid

Ibid

I disagree completely. Certainly they should not have taught it as divine revelation (dogma), but allowing it to be taught as a reasonable theory remains entirely appropriate.

Severe distress and agony? I dont think so.

You know…you’re right…the “theory” of limbo is much, much better than what was actually taught prior to it and upheld by those who claimed to have the “sole, divine authority” back then, …“eternal burning” for those infants.
Wrong teaching??? But it was “allowed” and “upheld” by supposedly divinely guided leaders.
Can you imagine what kind of distress and agony those poor parents went to their graves with? Or was it so long ago that it’s lost its relevance?

I think my error has been dwelling too much on this “theory” that was allowed to develop over the years…in order to make my point clearer on questioning the validity of the claim of “sole authority”…I should have just backed it up a bit more and asked where was this “divine revelation” and “divine uderstanding” of having “Hope” for all those centuries.

And you have yet to comment on the “up” side: how many babies were baptized that are now in God’s presence as a result of the teaching? And here, ISTM, is the true issue: you dont believe in the Sacrament of Baptism for infants. Otherwise, you would balance the good with the bad - but you dont even consider the eternal good that resulted, only the temporal evil.

I’m not familiar with “ISTM” (?) - but you are correct, I don’t believe in the sacrament of baptism for infants as the RCChurch teaches.

“believers are innately assured of”? Is that private revelation or mere speculation?

Well…isn’t that something every believer is assured of as soon as they believe…as soon as His spirit annoints them…how could it not be…to experience His grace and then not have hope?

Romans 4 V 1-5 - Therefore,being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand and rejoice in *hope *of the glory of God.And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulations worketh patience; and patience experience; and experience hope. And *hope *maketh not ashamed; for the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

I reiterate: you forget to consider how many parents had their child baptized and enjoyed the comfort of knowing their child was in Heaven because they did so. You dont consider this because you dont believe that having infants baptized has anything to do with their eternal destiny.

You are correct there…I’m not considering the baptized children, for their parents have comfort…this is what they’ve been taught…God knows the intentions of each persons heart…and will judge accordingly to their actions…it’s the “teachers” that will have the most to answer for…the ones leading them and teaching them.
I am not concerned for these children, I have always had that “Hope” for infants with or without baptism - the hope of His grace - for their eternal destiny, not hope in *any *church’s sacrament or the belief that it has to be done because it is necessary to their salvation.

Again, I’m responding to your statement and trying to clarify anything that may have not seemed clear to you.
I really don’t like this “format” - as when reading some things, it may just sound “blunt” or “thrown back”…not easy to convey as if we were just talking.

Thanks for your insights and thoughts.
You may not think it…but you’ve been helpful to me.
GB

 

[Leeann]

Infant baptism was not a doctrine the Church made up. The Church learned all her teachings from the apostles. The apostles were taught everything by Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The apostles appointed the bishops of the Catholic Church as their successors. The apostles taught these bishops everything they learned from Jesus and the Holy Spirit. This is where the teaching on infant baptism comes from. Jesus said salvation comes from believing the Gospel the Church taught and preached. Jesus did not say we must fully understand everything the Church teaches, but only believe. Thus, if we don’t accept what the Church teaches, then we are rejecting Jesus. “he who rejects you, rejects me” Luke 15:15

Hi -

Could you repost the scripture reference again - from Luke above - I couldn’t seem to find that, I think you may have just keyed in a wrong digit.

Also, could you quote the references for the other things Jesus said - the ones that you posted.

Thanks and GB

 

[Leeann]

Maybe you should start with a reflection on the doctrine of original sin. Catholic theology is strongly (name removed by moderator)ressed with Augustine’s teaching on this subject, which was worked out in connection with his struggles with the Donatists and, more importantl, with the Pelagians. Central to the doctrine is the doctrine of grace. which was also central to the debates of the Reformation. But as to baptism, the main point has to do with the necessity of the rite as sacrament. Can one become a Christian except by being baptised? What about the fate of those who have no such opportunity?

Well…that’s my point…how can one delve into other “doctrine’s” for information and accept them as being valid…when there’s no confidence in the nature of how they were devised…or by what means.

 

[Popes_Soldier]

Well…that’s my point…how can one delve into other “doctrine’s” for information and accept them as being valid…when there’s no confidence in the nature of how they were devised…or by what means.

And by what means do you devise your doctrines? Did Jesus anywhere command each individual to devise their own doctrines and start their own denominations?

The Catholic belief in an authoratative teaching Church is far more scriptual than the protestant “do your own” thing belief is. Individual intepretation is dangerous (2 Peter 3:16), it leads to “denominations” which are also warned against (1 Corinthians 1:10, 11:18), and Jesus never made individuals the deciders of doctrine. However, Jesus DID give the teaching mandate to the apostles (Matthew 28: 19-20).

How can you have no confidence in the nature of how our doctrines were devised when your method is so blatantly unscriptual?

 

[Philthy]

Hi Leeann! :tiphat:

I was afraid you had disappeared into cyberspace…its nice to see you’re still around.

Leeann:

The fact that this “theory” was being taught to the masses at all is the reality of my "wonder"

Short answer: Because it was a good theory!
Long answer: You believe it to be a bad theory, but you must-in order to see why it would be allowed to be taught as a theory - recognize its merits within the context of the entirety of the faith. You dont need to agree with them, but you should be able to objectively see the rationale for the teaching. Original sin remains a reality(dogma) and the eternal fate of those who die before being old enough to “believe” remains an unanswered issue. It is not an easy issue to resolve with certainty. People of good will, with considerable intellectual and scriptural knowledge wrestled with these unknowns and followed where they believed God led them. It produced a theory that God somehow saves these souls in a different manner than others.

The fact that this “theory” was being taught to the masses at all is the reality of my “wonder” why more don’t question the validity then of everything that is being taught…dogma or not.

People do question non-dogmatic teachings. In fact, this Limbo teaching is one of them. :yup: If people - including those within the Church - were not “questioning it” why would the Church have spoken on it in recent times?
People do not question dogmatic teachings because dogma is an infallible declaration by Christ through his Church. “He who hears you hears me” “Whatever YOU bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” Even within dogmatic teachings, however, there is a developement of understanding so people within the Church wrestle with the full implications of certain dogma. For example, the understanding of “thou shalt not kill” and its application to abortion, stem cell research, etc.

 

[Leeann]

Well you just type the following key’s before your post you want to quote:
Type in the button,
then type in the word Quote,
then type in the ] button.

After the post you want to quote type in:

Type in the button
then type in the / button
then type in the word Quote
then type in the ] button

Thankyou runandsew…getting the hang of it now!
GB

 

[Leeann]

I’ve enjoyed reading this thread and the depth of the discussion going on here. Leann, I would agree with James that you appear to be someone of great faith who is seeking - as we all should be - to become better Christians. The main point of separation I see here is you having difficulties with the “authority” issue in Catholicism. Infant baptism is contained within this umbrella.

Yes that’s the main point - the “authority” claims.

I mean no offense with what I am about to state, but my assessment is as follows.

You state: “Yes…I can’t understand that wonderful mystery (Father/Son/HolySpirit) and I accept it as truth through faith…as for the other specific Catholic teachings of the Church…well they are of the Church…the one claiming sole authority…and to getting it “all right”…being the “only” way …which brings me back to “credibility”…and to where and to whom I place my faith in.”

You appear to believe that Catholics are somehow putting our faith in the Church as opposed to putting our faith in Christ. I had a 3 hour phone conversation with a friend of mine who could not get past his view that Catholics let men come between them and God (confession, Church authority, etc.). As I explained to him, Christ gave humanity a teacher - the Catholic Church, founded during the time of the apostles. This is a hang-up which I find extremely frustrating because it is so clear to me, I can’t understand the misconception.

I think it’s in the definiton of what the Catholic Church believes and pronounces itself to be - as apposed to what others believe the “church” to be.

Let’s take an average Protestant. This person will go to church and hear a sermon which is from the perspective of the pastor - the pastor’s opinion - of what the scripture means, what is true and what is not. The Protestant listens and learns from the viewpoint of the pastor in the pulpit. So, what is the difference - in theory - to these approaches? Catholic and Protestant? There is an “authority” present in both, right? Both are claiming the “true” word, correct? For some reason - inexplicable to me - some folks can’t see that there really is no difference. Somehow, for some reason, they feel that because they go to (insert denomination here) church they are more “free” than Catholics, who toil under the yoke of “authority.”

However, the RCChurch says it is THE Church with ALL authority…therefore if you don’t agree to what they teach or what their dogmas are…and join THEM…you have no hope for salvation…and I repeat… I believe that NO “church”/denomination of any faith can claim to be THE one that has all authority.

This is absolutely false. The Protestant is free to read and interpret scripture as he/she wants -same as the Catholic.

Now, there is a very real difference to the Catholic and Protestant perspectives. Again, the Catholic Church was founded by Christ.

That’s what *you’ve *been taught and believe.

As Christ cannot err,the Catholic Church cannot teach in error.

Assuming that this is the same “church” and with the same “untainted” - “unbroken” authority that was described in the beginnings of the early church.

The Church has lasted 2000 years. The gates of hell will not prevail against it - Christ promised this. (again it depends on the “church” you are talking about…Christ’s bride…all true and faithful believers in His sacrifice on the cross…or a “church” claiming that you have to be a member of it in order to attain salvation. Protestant or Catholic… either one that would make that claim cannot be the true “church”…)

They have not, and cannot, despite a never ending cascade of attacks from within and without. Again, no offense intended here, but Protestant denominations spring up hither and yon with new ways, new truths, new teachings, new names…it goes on and on. (yes they do…The RCChurch has a few new teachings, new truths and new names of its own…)

This is the inevitable outcome of being “free” of the Church established by Christ for you and for me.

( I would have to agree with you here…with one slight alteration -
" this is the inevitable outcome of being free of the “true” church as established by Christ.)I base my “freedom” in Christ’s redemptive sacrifice…therefore believe and trust that I am in the correct “church” - His.

Infant baptism is simply a symptom, not the source, of so many (and I think you are one) people’s problems with Catholicism.

Yes…you are right there…I’ve just discovered this morning a more appropriate “thread” here that I should have taken this topic too…

But to address this specific issue directly, while it may not say in the bible that “newborn children were baptized”, it does not say they were not, correct? Whole families were baptized, right? “Families” would imply children, would it not? And as far as the argument goes regarding “age of reason” and baptism being “forced” onto newborns before they can decide what’s best for themselves, this argument is pretty weak, in my view. When my children were babies and they needed medical care, I did not ask their consent - I took them to the doctor. Who cares what they would have thought even if they were able to think - I knew what was best for them. Right? I knew - and know - what is best for them with their medical care (we could put in education, who they will spend time with [friends] - all things that I did, and do, regarding raising my kids), I likewise know what is best for them in their spiritual upbringing.

I have nothing at all against infants, children, whole families being baptized…it’s a command of Christ’s that we as believers should obey …my doubts are based back to the RCChurch “assuming” the authority, that it is only really valid if one is baptized in their accepted in their way.

To me, Catholicism makes so much sense. The Catholic Church does not come between Me and Christ; indeed, the opposite is true: the Catholic Church was put on earth by Christ to bring me closer to Him. The teachings of the Church - so many, so deep and rich and rooted in Christ - are beautiful and waiting for you to discover.

Again, I mean no offense here. Just my two-cents about what I’ve been reading. Good luck in your search for the truth Leann. God bless.

Thank you for the time and effort you took to respond to me atmmgraves, I truly appreciate it.
Same intention here with regards to meaning no offense…just my two-cents and comments addressing yours posted.

As mentioned above…I’ve discovered a more appropriate thread for the basis of my question - basically the validity of the “authority” the RCChurch claims - etc. - and I will continue in there for my search for this “truth”.

God bless

 

[Leeann]

To all who have been so gracious in responding to me over these past few days…I thank you!

However as the postings are developing, it is becoming clear to me that this “thread” is not the best one to be in, as it tends to go a bit off topic “infant baptism” - I wasn’t sure as stated in my initial query …and we carried right along with my query, however it related more to the question of why people are able to accept any of the RCchurch dogmas or any of the teachings as credible in view of past (or present) variations, changes, etc. - as in relation to its claim of being the TRUE church, with sole authority. etc.,etc.

The thread I discovered will hopefully just address that core issue…it’s “Ask An Apologist” under the Forums…Fr. Vincent Serpa is one of the respondents.

One of the posts “Can You Help With this major issue with the church”…made me realize that this is the thread I should have initially posted too.

Again thank you all for your insight and (name removed by moderator)ut…I may be back at a later time in this particular thread…or may see some of you over in that particular forum …however for now my energies and time will be there.

(Imagining some quietly praying…“Thank God for that!”)

God Bless

 

[CentralFLJames]

Somepme please explain to Leeann that she has run off into a locked question-answer thread and can’t post there.

forums.catholic-questions.org/report.php?p=4068158

James