Protestanism: a great heresy

[Sean_O_L]

I’m focusing the fact that the book of ACTS stresses belief first then baptism, not which family members were baptized. The implication is that infants don’t have the mental capabilities to believe in the gospel.

Ok - why not de-focus from ONE aspect of the WHOLE; not only is Scripture far broader than ACTS, you are also missing Tradition.

Somewhere, someone wrote that the words and acts of Jesus were so vast that there were not enough books that could be written (paraphrased). This is where Tradition comes in - on the description of Baptism in the Didache. But, even there, not everything was written. Certainly, nowhere in Scripture is Baptism of infants forbidden. Furthermore, it was the command of Our Lord not to hinder the little children from coming to him.

But, remember also that there are many things that ARE written in Scripture that good Fundamental Christians do not agree with or even deny, e.g. consider the following:

QUESTIONS TO ASK FUNDAMENTALIST FRIENDS
by Paul Stenhouse, M.S.C., Ph.D

"Do you baptise? (See Mt 28.19)

Do you accept a visible Church? (See Eph 1,22-23; Acts 16,5: 18,22; 1 Tim, 3,15)

Do you accept the primacy of Peter? (See Mt 16,18ff; Jn 21,15ff)

Do you accept the Virgin Birth? (Lk 1,26ff)

Do you reverence Mary? (See Lk 1,48)

Do you believe Jesus to be both God and Man? (See 2 Cor 4,4; 2Peter1,16; Phil2,9ff; Jn 1,1,14; Col 2,9)

Do you believe in the Sacrifice of the Mass? (See 1 Cor 11, 23-26; 1 Cor 5,7; Heb 9,26)

Do you believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? (See Mt 26,26-29; Jn 6,52ff)

Do you believe in the immortality of the soul? (See Jn 5,28-29; 2 Cor 5, 1-5)

Do you believe in resurrection of the body? (See Mk 12,18ff)

Do you pray for the dead? (See 2 Macc 12,45; 1 Cor 15,29)

Do you reverence the saints? (See Apoc 14,4,5; Mk 9,4)

Do you observe Sunday as the Lord’s Day? (See Col 2,16)

Do you accept the power of the Church to forgive sin? (See Jn 20,23)

Do you believe in the Unity of the Church? (See Galatians 5,21

• where St Paul says of those who provoke dissension that they ‘will never inherit the Kingdom of God.’ "

If the answer to any of the above questions is “No” then a further question suggests itself:

How can you continue to call yourself a Bible Christian?

From “Catholic Answers to ‘Bible’ Christians,” Vol. 1, 1993.
Chevalier Press, Kensington, NSW, Australia.

See "Annals Australasia’s Un-official Home Page

Further, look at aspects of "picking and choosing:

How do bible Christians cope with the fact that the New Testament contains quite a few commands that concern practical life: e.g.

Never take an oath (Matthew 5,34)

Call no man father (Matthew 23,9)

Be not called master (Matthew 23,10)

If someone wants your coat, let him have your cloak (Matthew 5,40)

Give to every person who asks of you (Luke 6,30)

When you prepare a banquet, do not invite your friends or brethren (Luke 14,12) etc. etc.

How many bible Christians take these precepts literally? For that matter, how many bible Christians take the words of the institution of the Mass, (Matthew 26,26ff) and the Primacy of Peter (Matthew 16,18-19) literally? And if they don’t, by whose authority do they pick and choose among the bible texts, to see which passages they may take literally, and which metaphorically or figuratively? Could it be true that having denounced, the 2,000 year old tradition of Catholicism they now rely on the authority of whoever is running their bible class? Or their local pastor? But the questions put above have to be faced by these also, if they are genuinely interested in truth,’ and not simply in a ‘feeling’ of being saved, or being ‘possessed by the Holy Spirit’.

St Augustine touched the Achilles Heel of Bible Christianity when he asked (Epist. 105) the heretical followers of Donatus a question that we should like to address to the bible Christians of our time:

‘We learn about Christ in the Scriptures;
We learn about the Church in the Scriptures.
If you accept Christ, why do you not accept the Church?’

Same source.

 

[aridite]

michaelp:

If this were true, don’t all people who do not accept the Catholic church (i.e. Muslim, Hindu, New Age religion, etc) all fall into the same category as I? According to this interpretation, just about everyone who is religious is actually saved. Right?

I think I get what you’re asking. Correct me if I am wrong, but I gather that when you read "Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it." it seems to be saying that a person cannot be saved when they reject the Catholic Church ONLY IF a person sees the Church as the necessary means for salvation. In order to be cut off from salvation, one has to acknowledge the truth-claims of the Church, and reject it in spite of such knowledge. Failing to make this acknowledgement (and failing to make the rejection) still leaves the possiblity open. Moreover, some posters seem to be saying that IF a person really understood the fulness of truth the Catholic Church has got, THEN he/she would not reject it. Because a given person has outwardly rejected the Church, therefore, he/she must not understand it. This is a very old problem going back to Plato, where it seems that if a person knew the good, then they would do it; and if a person does evil, they must not know what they are really choosing. – It is not easily solved on the theoretical level, but I think we all have practical experience that Plato is wrong. I do do bad things, with full knowledge. I do know better, but choose evil anyway (in order to get some other apparent good). This is just what sin is, and why I am culpable for it.

You seem to be asking, does anyone, fully knowing (and accepting) all the truth-claims of the Catholic Church, ever actually reject it? I think so, probably, but really only God is in a position to know (just what the human heart knows). Maybe some Buddhists or New Agers should know better (and know that they should), but act religiously against what they (should) know. IMO Henry VIII (who had been named “Defender of the Faith” by the pope) did know the Church to be true, but rejected its authority (for the sake of political gain). But, not being Henry, I can’t really know. Moreover, who knows if Henry in his last moments repented of this sin (if he committed it)? I like to think he might have – can I pray for that?

Short answer: no human being can judge another person’s conscience. You very well might be saved, michaelp; I like to think so. (How very big of me, right? )

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

michaelp:

OK, but do I know it? I mean, I know its claims and do not believe them. How does my situation relate to this?

You may know them in your head - but do you know them in your heart ?​

IOW - do you consider that God is calling you to move into the CC ? That - AFAICS, at least - is what is really involved here. It seems really to boil down to obedience to God’s Will as we receive it in our consciences; that is, as binding upon us, rather than being something purely external: the authority of God’s Will, is something that we need to appropriate for ourselves, something we need to recognise and to respond to as something that addresses us. For if we are unable to realise that God desires our obedience - and everything else that goes into making up each one of us, we can’t respond to that desire of His, let alone love and obey Him.

We must always obey our consiences; they impose on us the obligation of obeying God’s Will, as we perceive it according to the measure of light He gives us. So, if someone was convinced, as in the Presence of God, that he was being required to obey God by becoming an “RC”, it would be wrong to ignore His Will in that matter - just as it in anything else.

We can do nothing whatever unless God enables us. This is as true of knowing what we should do in religious matters, as in all others; God must call us, attract us, help us in our weakness. So knowing what we should do, but not doing it, is not quite the whole story. Nobody can become a Christian at all, of any kind, unless God speaks to their inmost heart and draws them to Himself - as the Gospel says: “No one can come to Me, unless the Father draws Him”.

So there is actually a good deal going on when people decide what to do about becoming Catholic. Knowing some theological propositions, though not unimportant, is not the whole story of conversion (or refusal to be converted) by a long way. (FWIW, conversion is something that takes a lifetime - not just a single event, but a process too.) ##

 

[aridite]

michaelp:

OK. But “through no fault of their own” sounds to me like those who do ever have a chance to hear about the Catholic churches doctrine (e.g. those who have not heard because they did not get a chance"). But what does this “invincibly ignorant” mean? I hear it all the time, but I still don’t understand how to interpret it. I, myself, have heard about the Catholic faith for years and I think that I understand it better than most Catholics themselve (although not like those on this forum), but am not a Catholic. Since this is the case, I do not fall as “those who through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church” does this mean that I am not invincibly ignorant and therefore am not covered by this “clause”?

Any help is appreciated.

Michael

Though Aquinas doesn’t use the term, here is what he has said on the subject. By “causing involuntariness”, Aquinas basically means that the person is not responsible (he didn’t really choose what he did because his choice wasn’t informed).
Summa Theologiae I-II, Question 6, Question 8: “Ignorance is “antecedent” to the act of the will, when it is not voluntary, and yet is the cause of man’s willing what he would not will otherwise. Thus a man may be ignorant of some circumstance of his act, which he was not bound to know, the result being that he does that which he would not do, if he knew of that circumstance; for instance, a man, after taking proper precaution, may not know that someone is coming along the road, so that he shoots an arrow and slays a passer-by. Such ignorance causes involuntariness simply.”

Invincible ignorance is basically making a choice while not knowing some truth, and not reasonably being expected to know it. A person who believes the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon (and not the necessary means of salvation instituted by Christ) and recoils in horror at the prospect of converting is not blameworthy for the choice because it was made out of an ignorance she could not overcome (hence, “invincible”).

BTW, a person in invincible ignorance cannot, in principle, know they are in it – that is part of its being invincible. A thoughtful person will try to overcome all ignorance, though, and in a perfect world and with enough time, everyone would come to see the truth of the Catholic Church. Conversion is still another story.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Well said, Aridite. You have brought some comfort to my heart, as well. As always, Gottle, well done, well reasoned.

 

[WBB]

josiah:

The bible doesn’t specifically forbid smoking pot either.

What about all of the baptism references in ACTS. Isn’t this recorded history of what the early church practiced?

Josiah

Boo. Discussing infant baptism alongside something like smoking pot is the silliest thing I have ever seen.

 

[JackPaul]

I was lurking about and couldn’t help but add my $.02. It was interesting how this tread started out as an anti Catholic, protestant bashing thread and then ended up apologizing for infant baptism. But, I happen to agree with the bashing, even though at first I though it was being done tongue in cheek and not seriously (guess I was wrong). Anyhow, I must say that I have been bashed by my protestant family for my Catholic beliefs and what it tended to do to me was make me seriously anti protestant. So, I would have to say that by using harsh tactics, you might drive a weak protestant back into their faith and adversely affect what you intend to do.

Now about this baptism thing. My parents didn’t baptize me because, as good Baptist’s, they wanted me to have a complete understanding beforehand. So, I was baptized when I was forty-five years old. According to Jesus, it is a good thing I didn’t get hit by a truck in those years. Now seriously, look at this quote that was so graciously given to us by Josiah. Notice that Peter said “every one of you”, not every one of you that understands or every one of you except those under the age of reason". We can make a lot of assumptions, but to assume here that he did not want the kidos baptized is a real stretch.

josiah:

Like the practice of infant baptism versus what the early church practiced in ACTS.

color=#008080](Act 2:38)

Then Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ to remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit

About this Church and salvation. Well, I used to believe many things and most of them were wrong. When I was going through the RCIA process, I had a priest there every night and he was very fond of saying, “you can believe whatever you want, but it won’t get you into heaven”. He usually said this after someone made some heretical statement (he was very profound). We only have one lifetime to get it right, so don’t waste allot of time being legalistic about what the King James version says (after all, they copied our book). We are all guaranteed everlasting life; it’s where you spend it that’s important. So, if you are being called to investigate the RCC, don’t take it lightly, but pursue it with a loving and knowledgeable spiritual director or good priest.
Peace be with you all and blessed be your journey…

 

[StubbleSpark]

Josiah,

You made a really good comment with your choice of verses showing that people had to believe first and then be baptized. This is true. But you overplayed your hand when you said this means that infants cannot be baptized because of they are too young.

Baptism is meant for humans, even the very young and the very severely mentally disabled who also cannot rightly express their faith in God.

You know, the Church agrees with you! If you go to an Easter service where new adults are initiated into the Catholic faith, they HAVE to make a profession of faith, and to denounce Satan BEFORE baptism. This is because they are being baptized after they have reached the infamous “age of consent.”

The same thing happens during an infant baptism, only it is the parents and the godparents who make the pledge to raise their children as devout believers. They take sacred oaths like in a wedding and the saving baptism is then preformed. But if the parents do not take the oath, then the child is not baptized. Just like in Sacred Scripture.

Believe me, if the Church said it was right to baptize children of unbelieving parents, there would be a team of religious in every maternity ward with buckets of holy water doing hit-and-run baptisms.

(Interestingly enough, the belief of the person doing the baptizing is such a trivial matter, that he or she does not even need to be Christian – just as long as the baptism is trinitarian!)

So the passages you quote actually depict very traditional Catholic baptisms.

As far as “Sola Scriptura” is concerned, the following words are not in the Bible: Trinity, Bible, and “faith alone” (unless it is preceded by “not by”).

You take more than you know for granted. Like if the Bible is our only rule for understanding God, how did people understand God in the 300 plus years before the Church compiled the Bible? 300 years! That is longer than most Protestant denominations have existed. 300 years ago, we were not even a country!

A lot can happen in that time when you have armed rebellions, violent suppressions, persecutions, gospels of any variety, and no printing presses. But there it sits in your lap, a solid physical testimony to the careful study, prayerful meditation, and innocent blood of your Christian ancestors of the One True Church of Christ.

If our Tradition is good enough to give us the Bible, I think it is good enough for you.

 

[StubbleSpark]

Mow-reeen!

How ironic that a post by a Marine would catch my eye. I often refer to “Semper Fi” to point out that faith is BOTH belief AND action, otherwise, that “FI” would not be very useful in a firefight when you need your buddy’s help.

I have often wondered if there might not be a disproportionately larger number of Catholics in the Marines for that very same reason.

Nothing wrong with being militant. Everything is wrong with anything that makes us less Christian. If you cannot be both charitable AND a warrior for Christ, then you need to take that chip off your shoulder and consider being a silent witness.

There is a difference between a warrior and a soldier.

When you get too demonstrative like that, you hyper-extend your reach and throw yourself off balance. When you do that, you reveal your lack of experience. Like a child who fights while trying to swing both his arms at once. Quite a sight. Not very effective.

Keep in mind that, with the exception of the Protestants, everyone who criticized you agrees with your basic premise that Protestantism is a grave and dangerous heresy. But you don’t go into a life or death battle swinging like a girl, why would you go into a Heaven or Hell battle with the so little preparation.

I hope you can feel your hinder firmly on the mat now. Are you ready to get back up and try again? Or will you continue to disagree with the pope and still dare to call yourself Catholic?

 

[marineboy]

there is no contradiction read it again…one doesnt know if another is invincibly ignorant

 

[michaelp]

StubbleSpark:

Josiah,

You take more than you know for granted. Like if the Bible is our only rule for understanding God, how did people understand God in the 300 plus years before the Church compiled the Bible? 300 years! That is longer than most Protestant denominations have existed. 300 years ago, we were not even a country!

I have heard this many times on this website as a very unbalanced and illinformed arguement. I am not saying this to argue for either side right now, just to correct a misrepresentation.

If you have studied the first centuries of the church you would quickly find out that the early Church WAS NOT “high and dry” with regards to the New Testament (much less the old). Much of the church had MOST of the New Testament from its very inception.

1. Paul’s letters were immediately accepted as Scripture and passed into circulation very early. By the second century it was being passed on as a groups called the Pauline corpus. Many early fathers demonstate this by quoting from these documents (Clem quotes from Romans, 1 Cor. Gal, Eph, Col. 2 Thes at least; Polycarp Ignatius and Justin all quote from many of Paul’s letters; Ignatius and Justin do as well). And of course, it goes without saying that the Romans had Romans, Corinthians had Corinthians, Ephesians had Ephesians, etc . . .
   Even Peter, speaking to scattered bretheren, talks about the Pauline letters suggesting that his many readers from many different places may have had copies (2 Pet. 3:16).
2. The Synoptic Gospels (Matt, Mk, Lk) were all accetped without question very early on by the Church. They were in immediate circulation. Many of the early writers quote from them with great authority showing that they were widely accepted and circulated. Again Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, and Justin all quote from some, if not all the Gospel (including John) demonstrating that most of the Church had been exposed to the Gospels. Paul even quotes from Luke calling it Scripture (1 Tim 5:18).
3. Acts was also understood to be inspired very early (at least by the begining of the second century. The Muratorian fragment includes Acts. Irenaus had a copy. There is no reason to assume that Acts was not accepted and circulated very early as was Luke’s gospel.
4. The Muratorian Canon refers to 90% of the New Testament as being accepted by 190.

As can be evidenced by just taking the Synoptics, Acts, and the Pauline courpus, by the first century, 90% of the New Testament was in circulation throughout the entire church. Most of the major local churches probebly had all of these letters and other churches more than likely knew of them and had access to them.

Therefore, the arguemnt that the Church did not have the New Testament until the 4th century is absolutely wrong and misleading. This is very bad and illinfomed “folk theology” that many on this site are engaging in. It does not represent the truth, but mutilates it so that a desired goal can be accomplished.

I am not saying that you are doing this willingly, but, please, study the issues first. Represent the truth correctly. Bad and misleading argumentation doesn’t get anyone very far.

Michael

 

[marineboy]

jgc–u said that what i wrote was contrary to Church teaching please state speciafically (quote it lplease) again, my basic position has always ben that Protestanism is a false from of Christianity and needs to be called such… Protestants need to be converted to Catholiscm… plain and simple…i dont always take a hard approach when i talk to Protestants… sometimes i do but often i dont… i usuallt tkake a harder approach with wimpy catolics who are afraid to let a Protestant know that he may run the risk of damnation if he doesnt convert… nothing i said was contrary to Church teaching… i explained earlier that i do not advocate feeney’s position… but do beleive few if any are invincibly ignorant…please JGC be specific if u are gonan make a serious charge like u made or have the guts to retract it…

 

[JKirkLVNV]

marineboy:

but do beleive few if any are invincibly ignorant…

The Catholic Church, under the leadership of the successor of Saint Peter, holds the fullness of Truth. But read what that very Church teaches in its Catechism. I don’t have my copy in front of me, but those who are baptized, regardless of their denomination/ecclesial community, are in “certain, though imperfect” union with that Church; it also says that they are “rightly called Christian and should be received with respect” (or love, I can’t remember which) “by the children of the Catholic Church.” They have many instruments of grace and salvation, albeit that they rec. those things from the Catholic Church. Of course we want them to come back into union. “Invincible ignorance” that ceases to “invincible” becomes “enlightenment.” It doesn’t matter if they are presented with all the Church’s claims about Herself, if they don’t believe it, if they aren’t convinced of it, they shouldn’t join up. Many of them won’t be able to do this. You can’t argue that they’re not invincibly ignorant because they’ve been told about the Catholic Church, somewhere, by somebody. Do they believe what they’ve been told? Did they say,"Wow, that makes sense? Or did they say “Sola Fide!” (Most Protestants hew to this NOT because they want to believe in an “easy salvation” or a "cheap grace, but because they sincerely believe that nothing can be added to what Christ did for us on the Cross and that to consider anything else is to cast aspersions on that Sacrifice as being insufficient. Most of these people, placing their faith in Christ, go on to live lives of great charity almost naturally, thus fufilling our belief that it’s Faith working through Charity). Consider this: why do you believe what you believe about the Church? Can you help it? Can you help what you believe? I can’t help, but believe what I believe about the Catholic Church. I had no choice, but to believe it. I believe it because I believe it. I cannot will myself to not believe it. I didn’t have to act on that belief. I didn’t have to be rec. and confirmed in the Catholic faith, but that is where I think culpability enters because I would not be acting on what I believed to be Truth. My grandparents were not overtly anti-Catholic, but they were grievously misinformed about the faith. They made all sorts of innocent mis-statements about Catholicism. I can remember my grandfather saying this: “I think that the Catholic Church should just get rid of the Pope. There idn’t no Pope in the Bible.” You’re talking about a Northeast Texas farmer who has only ever read the newspaper and the Bible (KJV), which he reads faithfully. At the age of 88, he isn’t going to switch over to the Church that he’s viewed with a degree of polite suspicion for his entire life. And there is nothing in his conscience that tells him he should. There is, however, this, which rests in his mind as a very real reason why he shouldn’t: Years ago (pre Vatican II, before I was born), a Mexican migrant family, working on a farm near ours, lost a baby, to what I can’t remember. The local Catholic priest, at St. Martin’s Church, about three miles down the road, refused to conduct the service because the family couldn’t pay the fee. Our pastor, who was a saintly man (and I don’t mean that sterile, holier-than-thou-type of “saintly,” I mean the loving, self-sacrificing, dirt-under-the-nails sanctity) did the service instead. This was an enormous indictment of the Chruch to my grandfather. Is it true? I don’t know. I’ve never encountered a priest like that, ever. I would also never, however, have believed that so many priests could so disgrace themselves and Christ’s priesthood by their victimization of children. I know that my grandfather believes the story vehemently (and that he has never lied to me, except about Santa and a dog he had to shoot). What I’m saying is that thus far, his ignorance has been pretty freaking invincible and the Church, in the person of that old priest and the predator priests of today, hasn’t done a lot to overcome that invincibility. If we’re so concerned about them returning to the Church, why isn’t She, the Institutional She, out there, like our sep. brethren, spending money on billboards that say “Now is the acceptable time, now is the day of salvation!” or “Behold, I stand at the door and knock!” or “It’s time to trust in Jesus!” (all of these are scattered around by the Baptists throughout my town…Las Vegas!!!). I never hear my bishop (an orthodox man) on radio or TV urging people to come home. Let’s face it, by and large we offer “Inquirer’s Classes,” and if people are interested, they can go through RCIA. I believe that Invincible Ignorance is much more generous in scope. If not, then I believe the Church will have much to answer for.

 

[Missa]

JKirkLVNV:

The Catholic Church, under the leadership of the successor of Saint Peter, holds the fullness of Truth. But read what that very Church teaches in its Catechism. I don’t have my copy in front of me, but those who are baptized, regardless of their denomination/ecclesial community, are in “certain, though imperfect” union with that Church; it also says that they are “rightly called Christian and should be received with respect” (or love, I can’t remember which) “by the children of the Catholic Church.” They have many instruments of grace and salvation, albeit that they rec. those things from the Catholic Church. Of course we want them to come back into union. “Invincible ignorance” that ceases to “invincible” becomes “enlightenment.” It doesn’t matter if they are presented with all the Church’s claims about Herself, if they don’t believe it, if they aren’t convinced of it, they shouldn’t join up. Many of them won’t be able to do this. You can’t argue that they’re not invincibly ignorant because they’ve been told about the Catholic Church, somewhere, by somebody. Do they believe what they’ve been told? Did they say,"Wow, that makes sense? Or did they say “Sola Fide!” (Most Protestants hew to this NOT because they want to believe in an “easy salvation” or a "cheap grace, but because they sincerely believe that nothing can be added to what Christ did for us on the Cross and that to consider anything else is to cast aspersions on that Sacrifice as being insufficient. Most of these people, placing their faith in Christ, go on to live lives of great charity almost naturally, thus fufilling our belief that it’s Faith working through Charity). Consider this: why do you believe what you believe about the Church? Can you help it? Can you help what you believe? I can’t help, but believe what I believe about the Catholic Church. I had no choice, but to believe it. I believe it because I believe it. I cannot will myself to not believe it. I didn’t have to act on that belief. I didn’t have to be rec. and confirmed in the Catholic faith, but that is where I think culpability enters because I would not be acting on what I believed to be Truth. My grandparents were not overtly anti-Catholic, but they were grievously misinformed about the faith. They made all sorts of innocent mis-statements about Catholicism. I can remember my grandfather saying this: “I think that the Catholic Church should just get rid of the Pope. There idn’t no Pope in the Bible.” You’re talking about a Northeast Texas farmer who has only ever read the newspaper and the Bible (KJV), which he reads faithfully. At the age of 88, he isn’t going to switch over to the Church that he’s viewed with a degree of polite suspicion for his entire life. And there is nothing in his conscience that tells him he should. There is, however, this, which rests in his mind as a very real reason why he shouldn’t: Years ago (pre Vatican II, before I was born), a Mexican migrant family, working on a farm near ours, lost a baby, to what I can’t remember. The local Catholic priest, at St. Martin’s Church, about three miles down the road, refused to conduct the service because the family couldn’t pay the fee. Our pastor, who was a saintly man (and I don’t mean that sterile, holier-than-thou-type of “saintly,” I mean the loving, self-sacrificing, dirt-under-the-nails sanctity) did the service instead. This was an enormous indictment of the Chruch to my grandfather. Is it true? I don’t know. I’ve never encountered a priest like that, ever. I would also never, however, have believed that so many priests could so disgrace themselves and Christ’s priesthood by their victimization of children. I know that my grandfather believes the story vehemently (and that he has never lied to me, except about Santa and a dog he had to shoot). What I’m saying is that thus far, his ignorance has been pretty freaking invincible and the Church, in the person of that old priest and the predator priests of today, hasn’t done a lot to overcome that invincibility. If we’re so concerned about them returning to the Church, why isn’t She, the Institutional She, out there, like our sep. brethren, spending money on billboards that say “Now is the acceptable time, now is the day of salvation!” or “Behold, I stand at the door and knock!” or “It’s time to trust in Jesus!” (all of these are scattered around by the Baptists throughout my town…Las Vegas!!!). I never hear my bishop (an orthodox man) on radio or TV urging people to come home. Let’s face it, by and large we offer “Inquirer’s Classes,” and if people are interested, they can go through RCIA. I believe that Invincible Ignorance is much more generous in scope. If not, then I believe the Church will have much to answer for.

I LOVE this man’s statement. How absolutely true.

Missa

 

[josiah]

adnauseum:

I think you’re missing what I was focusing on. I was focusing on your avoidance of what are classic Catholic passages in favor of infant baptism.

Either your exclusion of them was out of ignorance of the Bible, or there was a reason you acted as if these passages did not exist. Just like astrologers focus only on things that tend to prove their prediction and ignore things that directly contradict it.

I’m sure there are many passages describing baptism as you conceive it. However, all I need is ONE to show you that infant baptism was not prohibited in the early Church. I believe I found at least one.

I hope others here with an open mind will read the passages I cited. They clearly indicate that the entire family was baptized by the Church when one member was converted.

Come on back to the Church, my friend. We’ve been at this whole scripture interpretation thing far longer than you, and we’re a little better at it because we entrust it to saints like Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Leo, and many, many others.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Missa:

I LOVE this man’s statement. How absolutely true.

Missa

I’ll second that​

 

[marineboy]

hey people invincible ignorance means that the person is ignorant and it is not his fault that he is ignorant… he can be ignorant and if it is his fault that he is ignorant then he goes to hell if he is judged in that state…read Pius XII humani generis when he says u canot expain away “Outside the Church there is no Salvation” and make it a meaningless phrase!!! by the way of course we dont know who is invincibly ignmornat and who is not so lets assume everyone is and through tthe Holy Spirit convert those protestants who, like many others can be a great help to the Kingdom…lets crush the heresy of Protestanism… its false… its wrong…dont let anyone tell u different…

 

[Sean_O_L]

Josiah you haven’t dealt with message #120 yet.

But, let’s go further. Do you reject the testimony of the Fathers who lived, evangelized and wrote prior to the Bible being Canonized? Furthermore, can you point to a passage in the Bible which says to believe Sola Scriptura? Catholics can point to passages which tell us to Hold to the Traditions.

I remind you of what the Fathers said:

Irenaeus

“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]” (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

Hippolytus

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

**Origen

“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

“If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” (ibid., 64:5).

Gregory of Nazianz

“Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!” (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).

"‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly , if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated" (ibid., 40:28).**

 

[Sean_O_L]

John Chrysostom

“You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members” (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

Augustine

“What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

“Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born” (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).

“By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration” (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).

Council of Carthage V

“Item: It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they [abandoned children] were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the [North African] legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such [abandoned children] from the barbarians” (Canon 7 [A.D. 401]).

Council of Mileum II

“[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration” (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]).

 

[JKirkLVNV]

marineboy:

lets crush the heresy of Protestanism… .

Right then, done with this thread.