H
hoosierdaddy
Guest
**I think you have too much time on your hands Encyclopaedia Brown. **
- Status
H
hoosierdaddy
Guest
**LV>>One thing to keep in mind is Catholics don’t think of a person as being “saved” as a flash of lightening. A Catholic response ot the question, “Are you saved?” would be, “I have been saved, I am being saved, and I hope that I will continue to be saved.” Catholics beleive that God wants to make all of His followers holy. This process of perfecting us is part of salvation. So, salvation is more of a process, than an instananeous moment. **
This is one thing I’ve learned in my short time here. I don’t agree with it but I understand your beliefs. I believe that we are saved one time in one moment in history and the rest of our lives we are being sanctified. Hebrews teaches that the Lord is perfecting us and this is sanctification. This only happens because we already possess salvation. God bless.
This is one thing I’ve learned in my short time here. I don’t agree with it but I understand your beliefs. I believe that we are saved one time in one moment in history and the rest of our lives we are being sanctified. Hebrews teaches that the Lord is perfecting us and this is sanctification. This only happens because we already possess salvation. God bless.
S
scylla
Guest
So does my wife, that is why you will find me post in spurts and then leave.
This is a great forum, but not too many spouses think it is so great.
God Bless
Scylla
This is a great forum, but not too many spouses think it is so great.
God Bless
Scylla
J
JesusforMadrid
Guest
“aka” Noma 
Noma? Sorry, I don’t get this one. If there is another person who struggles with the same issues, I feel comforted. By the way, Noma may be an English phonetic spelling of the Greek
word pneuma, which is commonly translated to “spirit” or “breath”.Pneumatology refers to the study of spiritual beings, particularly the interactions between humans and God.
I am sure you know that, right? Anyway, good name, whoever he/she is.
Church Authority, keys to the Kingdom, popes, the Assumption of Mary, the practice of birth control, and the position of the Anglican Church being centered in early Christian practice, rather then the RC church. etc. etc. etc.
I do repeat some arguments and questions, because I haven’t yet found the answers and am westling honestly with the issues. If that is unacceptable here, I shall go elsewhere.
What I understand from this thread, which has been very helpful for my thinking is:
- It is OK for a Roman Catholic to ask questions, but if he doesn’t accept the entire RC teaching on Scripture, tradition and morality, he puts his justification in jeapordy (a really different throught for most Evangelicals).
- Roman Catholics here are mostly here to defend the teachings of the Church. It seems many would rather defend the Vatican at any cost than explore difficult issues. This is unfortunate, I think, because those of us on the outside have real, honest and intellectually defensible issues with current RC teaching.
- The argument of last resort of many posters when confronted with evidence that does not support the modern RC position, is to appeal to Roman authority. Hence this thread. I think RC authority is really the key of understanding the RC church.
I am honestly trying. I have actually changed my views somewhat based on my reading of the ECF regarding the eucharist. I am not inflexible. By contrast, I now understand the a faithful RC believer has absolutely zero flexibility to stray from the Magisterium. It seems that the RC has strayed from the edict of Augustine: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty and in all things, charity”. In the modern RC church, there is little considered “non essentials”.
So who is “set in your views”?
I am sure you are not trying to be offensive with this. I adore my wife and, you are right, I should spend more time with her. Not because she is a RC and will “set me straight”–that is your job–but rather just because she is lovely.
J
JesusforMadrid
Guest
valient Lucy said
It is exactly because baptism is like a marriage ceremony between us and Jesus that I have problems with infant baptism (aside from Scriptural problems and Early Church practice to the contrary): infant baptism is like an arranged marriage. Perhaps this could be justified if we could be certain that the infant would fall in love with Jesus(although the Scriptural evidence is tenuous in Acts, in my opinion).
In practice, in Spain in any case, where 90% of people are baptised and 15% attend church regularly, infant baptism is an abuse, like a marriage ceremony where one part doesn’t love the other and never does. Much RC baptism in Spain today is nothing more than tradition, empty religious practice. Jesus absolutely hated empty religiosity–See Matt 23:1-13
But this is a tangent from the question of authority. Thanks so much for your comments, they helped me.
Thanks. I understand better the RC position. If I could restate it:
- The truth of Christianity is found perfectly in the RC
- Any RC who rejects the teaching of the RC church in any matters of Scripture, tradition and morals is rejecting the truth of Christianity and thus forfeiting salvation.
- A person outside of the RC church does not have the truth of the RC church and thus cannot be judged by the same standards by God as listed in #2. Such a person may eventually be saved–we cannot ever be certain until we die according to the RC church–but if he is saved, it is because of the RC church, due to #1.
I shall keep you in mind concerning marriage counseling. I agree with your metaphor that baptism is like a marriage ceremony. I don’t know what a “mark on the soul” really means and would be delighted if you have Scripture to explain that.
It is exactly because baptism is like a marriage ceremony between us and Jesus that I have problems with infant baptism (aside from Scriptural problems and Early Church practice to the contrary): infant baptism is like an arranged marriage. Perhaps this could be justified if we could be certain that the infant would fall in love with Jesus(although the Scriptural evidence is tenuous in Acts, in my opinion).
In practice, in Spain in any case, where 90% of people are baptised and 15% attend church regularly, infant baptism is an abuse, like a marriage ceremony where one part doesn’t love the other and never does. Much RC baptism in Spain today is nothing more than tradition, empty religious practice. Jesus absolutely hated empty religiosity–See Matt 23:1-13
But this is a tangent from the question of authority. Thanks so much for your comments, they helped me.
I
I_Leatherman
Guest
Some early Christian inscriptions on crypts in the catacombs dated from A.D. 71 – 400. The simplest and shortest prayers for the dead are in the form of a wish for peace or rest etc.
- PAX TIBI - Peace to you.
- ORA PRO EO QUI LEGIS hec, - Pray for him you who read these [words].
- These things I, Abercius [a Bishop], having been a witness [of them] told to be written here. Verily I was passing through my seventy-second year. He that discerneth these things, every fellow-believer [namely], let him pray for Abercius.
- Albercius. Date between: 190-216 A.D.
J
JesusforMadrid
Guest
It appears to be a practice that began with the Catacombs in late 2nd century as fine Christian leaders were being martyred. However, the evidence is scant in the 2nd century and I am not aware of any 1st century evidence for this practice (but perhaps you could enlighten me). Thanks.
I
I_Leatherman
Guest
The only info I have is that the Christian Church was burying its dead complete with inscriptions by 71 A.D. Obviously there was a funeral rite in the Christian Church, as even the anniversaries of the dead were commemorated by a Mass, - Acta Joannis A.D. 160-170.
Since the Christian Church founded by Christ in 33 A.D is the same Church we find 37 years later in the 70 A.D. Rome of Sts. Peter and Paul is still the same Church for the next generation of the faithfull and for their children, I think it is safe to say that if the practice of inscribing everything down in stone had not already begun before 70 A.D. the practice of prayer for the dead existed from the earliest days of the Church. People did not look at a stone and suddenly exclaim ’ Behold!, I shall now invent prayers for the dead.’
They said ’ Behold!, I shall now invent inscribed prayers for the dead.’
Since the Christian Church founded by Christ in 33 A.D is the same Church we find 37 years later in the 70 A.D. Rome of Sts. Peter and Paul is still the same Church for the next generation of the faithfull and for their children, I think it is safe to say that if the practice of inscribing everything down in stone had not already begun before 70 A.D. the practice of prayer for the dead existed from the earliest days of the Church. People did not look at a stone and suddenly exclaim ’ Behold!, I shall now invent prayers for the dead.’
They said ’ Behold!, I shall now invent inscribed prayers for the dead.’
H
hoosierdaddy
Guest
Could it be that prayers for the dead were just the people’s way of dealing with their grief? I know that is common for people to do but it doesn’t mean it should be a doctrine of the Church nor does it mean that God is obligated to answer them. I have a feeling it was just their way of dealing with grief.
M
mikeledes
Guest
Tertullian and other Church Fathers and early Christian writers make reference to it as a formal practice of the Church, not just a personal way of dealing with grief.
God Bless,
michael
H
hoosierdaddy
Guest
Please…forgive me for suggesting otherwise.
Now, if Tertullian et al declare it to be a formal practice of the Church, why didn’t the authors of Scripture?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Read the epistles of Paul. There were Christians in his time who not only prayed for the dead but baptized for them.
S
scylla
Guest
Baptism is like a marriage ceremony but we can only take the analogy so far.
Baptism is like a Marriage ceremony as it is a giving of oneself to each other.
But it is slightly different with Baptism as Christians we believe salvation is first by the Grace of God.
To deny it is making us equal to God as in marriage, this is why the analogy of marriage is not perfect. It is not mutual equals choosing each other, this is God and man.
So since God desires all to be saved and we are saved by Gods Grace, the baby doesn’t have to do anything to be baptized, it is a gift.
(unless baptism is a bad thing)
Why keep the Baby from God, isn’t Salvation a gift? Isn’t it a good thing? Doesn’t God want us all to come to Him?
So in our obedience we baptize babies in which the babies do nothing to earn Salvation. If it was exactly like marriage we would be equals and God would have to wait until we choose Him, which lowers God and denies His will for all men to be saved.
This wont work with Once Saved Always Saved beliefs which is why Baptists don’t accept this, so of course this doesn’t fit in with theologies based upon Anabaptist interpretations of the Bible, but it fits in perfectly with Orthodox Christian theology which is why all Christian groups such as the Orthodox, Catholic, ancient Churches and most the early Groups that broke from these practice this.
Now I gotta go since I just got in trouble for ignoring my eggs and typing.
In Christ
Scylla
H
hoosierdaddy
Guest
Scylla, I understand the reasons for infant baptism. I don’t completely agree with them though but I understand them. 
I believe baptism symbolizes death, burial and resurrection. Whether done through immersion or sprinkling, I don’t think it matters. But I do believe that it symbolizes death, etc.
Don’t mean to go off topic, just addressing something in your post.
I believe baptism symbolizes death, burial and resurrection. Whether done through immersion or sprinkling, I don’t think it matters. But I do believe that it symbolizes death, etc.
Don’t mean to go off topic, just addressing something in your post.
J
JesusforMadrid
Guest
Calvin made this argument also. I am just not convinced of the scriptural justification for it. I also don’t see any 1st century Christian practice for baptism of infants (the examples of “families” being baptised in Acts is not a clear justification).
By the way, there are prominent Catholics today who also argue against infant baptism.
M
mikeledes
Guest
Infant baptism came down to us in clearer from through Tradition. If you adhere to Sola Scriptura, then I can understand why you would have a problem.
God Bless,
Michael
L
Lampo
Guest
Really? Who are they? Thanks.
L
Lampo
Guest
“And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family.” Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215).
“For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).
“But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day…And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism…we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…” Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251).
R
ricmat
Guest
Yes, and there are many prominent Catholics who also are pro-abortion. Kerry. Kennedy. Pelosi.
So are they correct?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
And what difference would it make?
God is not an elected official. We cannot vote Him out of office if we don’t like the way He runs His universe.
It doesn’t matter what “some prominent Catholics” think – it only matters what the Church says through the Magisterium. We’re not going to vote on matters of faith and morals.
- Status