Protestants, when did the Catholic Church go bad?

[LittleSoldier]

who made Judas? Hitler?

God did and He loved them and loves them still. God loves ALL of His creations. And may I remind you that implying that Judas and Hitler are “dung heaps” smacks of inappropriate judgment. For all you know both of them are saints in heaven and glorifying God right now.

Both Judas and Hitler may not have been fully culpable for their actions. A long time ago I read somewhere that Hitler showed signs of insanity. Judas was absolutely distraught and in deep despair. If I had betrayed Jesus I probably would have been, too. And if I were a psychotic with the charisma that Hitler evidently possessed I may have done exactly what he did.

 

[LittleSoldier]

And how ironic how you have failed miserably to present ONE ECF explicitly teaching the RP of the Eucharist is heretical or a great usurpation of Christ. Amazing nearly 1,000 years of great works and no mention of the RP being heretical and a false teaching? And you can stop using the cop-out excuse because it was not taught in the early church. If it was not taught as you claim,then back it up with empirical evidence.

What does “ECF” mean? I think “RP” means “Real Presence?” Thanks.

 

[JonNC]

And how ironic how you have failed miserably to present ONE ECF explicitly teaching the RP of the Eucharist is heretical or a great usurpation of Christ. Amazing nearly 1,000 years of great works and no mention of the RP being heretical and a false teaching? And you can stop using the cop-out excuse because it was not taught in the early church. If it was not taught as you claim,then back it up with empirical evidence.

. . . . Not one of the Fathers, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present. Surely it is not credible, non possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present; but they are all of them unanimous.” - Luther

Jon

 

[LittleSoldier]

not the Church…a portion of the Church.

The Church. The Catholic Church. The one that Jesus founded on Peter.

Luke, in Acts mentions “believed and were baptized” repeatedly…the connection between belief and baptism is easily strong enough that Luke could have figured that his readers would have employed just a little common sense and understood that “all of the household was baptized” meant “all of the believers within the household were baptized”. Before you complain too much about this assertion, please keep in mind that you do the same WRT “all have sinned…” when you argue, given that we all know that Mary was free from sin, a little common sense tells us that “all have sinned…” really means “all (except for Mary) have sinned…” .

And THAT is based on the language used. If you wish I will go into more detail but it should not be necessary. The bible was not written in 21st century English. Your claim of why we believe Mary was (and is) free of sin is not true and that means you have now introduced a straw man. Please do not mischaracterize our position and then attack it. It is illogical. The bible states:

Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan.
[Matthew 3:5, KJB]

So everyone (EVERYONE) in Judea went all to Jerusalem. Also, if you believe that all have sinned, you must include Jesus and all infants. Did Jesus SIN? Do little babies SIN?

well, Acts 16:34 reads (NIV):
The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household.
There the whole household believed and the whole household was baptized….it seems the adults all believed….but can we know whether the household had infants and whether Luke was including such infants in the term “whole household”? If there were infants, then Luke wasn’t including them as believers.

One household defines all households? That seems very, very strange.

given that belief was so strongly tied to baptism in the NT period it would take very little common sense for the reader of Acts to understand that Luke meant “all of the believing adults in the household” when he wrote “all of the household”. At that time there just wasn’t any example of baptism w/o belief.

It would take very little common sense for the reader of Acts to understand that one household does not define all households and what Luke meant is what Luke meant - not you. However, the Catholic Church, as the Body of Christ (biblical) has the authority to teach what Scripture means.

their mistake in no way involved prohibiting infant baptism….is that really how those amazing minds of your Church want to utilize that passage?

Thank you for acknowledging that the Catholic Church has amazing minds. She does indeed.

 

[Radical]

How did babies go to heaven if they were subject to original sin and couldn’t be baptized?

Please clarify?..

What is the reason that they could not be baptized? Is it:

a) that they lived before baptism was introduced?..For example King David’s kid who died

b) that they are the children of modern Muslims (and therefore could not be baptized)?

c) something else?

well, you are at it…how would you answer your own question for (a) and (b). Thanks.

 

[LittleSoldier]

and to you

Thank you.

understood…you know, if you and your church were correct on this matter, then Catholic babies should enjoy a distinct advantage over Baptist babies, b/c right out of the gate the Catholic babies would be freed from original sin (whereas the baptist babies would have to wait a decade or so). I would think that being thusly freed of original sin (such being no small matter) should manifest itself in an observable difference in behavior…after all, Paul wrote:

Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

So - when Baptists are baptised (whenever that is) their behavior should then be as squeaky clean as the Catholics’ behaviors during the time after they were baptised up to the same time that the Baptist children are baptised. Right? So - comparing those who are baptised as infants to those who are baptised at whatever age should show that.

If you wish to conduct an empirical study go right ahead. I can make some suggestions if you want - your 'n’s should be equal and as large as possible and of course your ‘p’ should be as small as possible (which would provide backup for your hypothesis; of course you do realize that you are studying the null hypothesis). Questionnaires aren’t very good because of so many confounding factors but no good Catholic priest is going to tell you what sins have been confessed to him during the Sacrament of Reconciliation. I’m just not sure how you would go about studying this. But if you do, I suggest you include subjects who are not Catholic but who have been baptised as infants with the Trinitarian Formula, as these baptisms are considered valid by the Church. Confounding variables? Wow - you’re gonna have a ton of 'em. Good luck.

Catholic infants/children and non-Catholic Christian infants/children who are baptised using the Trinitarian Formula are all given grace, and Original Sin and the stain of Original Sin are removed in all. Not just Catholics. And that grace does help them to avoid sin - if they wish. They do have free will. But actually I think you might be understanding something here - it is true that removing Original Sin (and its stain) and the receiving of Sacramental grace *does *help one stay away from sin. Yes sir, it does and not just for Catholics.

…and you Catholics here seem to think that Paul has baptism (by itself) serving to cut off one’s sinful nature, just as circumcision cut off the foreskin. With the benefit of having had their sinful natures cut off by a Catholic infant baptism I would think that Catholics kids (as a whole) would be considerably less sinful than baptist children (who are still plagued by their sinful natures)…what do you think?..would a study show any actual benefit (in the real world) for infant baptism?

Answered above already. I do hope you conduct a study, though what it has to do with this thread is beyond my understanding.

As for circumcision, I’m not going to get into that. I admit I don’t understand the relationship between circumcision and baptism so I will leave it up to those who know. I have never been circumcised (I believe it is condemned by the Church and is probably illegal in the U.S.) and nobody is going to do it to me now - if I have my way. And if anyone tries to circumsize me they are going to be badly hurt.

 

[Nicea325]

well, I’ll give you the primary sources which we have that list all of the names of Christians who were baptized as infants (apart from emergency situations) before the fourth century:

drum roll…and ta da! Done.

Now that would be quite the thing if infant baptism was something initiated by the apostles. As to a primary source opposing infant baptism, you could look at the work(s) of Tertullian mentioned earlier in this thread. Hmmm…the first father to mention the thing opposes it. Again, that would be an odd thing if infant baptism was something initiated by the apostles…there…that help?

LOL! And I’ll give you the list of names of Christians who were baptized after only making a self-conscious decision and who were between ages 7-17 years old before the 4th century:

drum roll…what do we have behind curtain number one: A BIG FAT ZERO!

And Tertullian later also held to Montanism (believed unorthodox teachings) and is considered an ecclesiastical writer more than a church father…HHHMMMMM? THERE THAT HELP?

 

[Nicea325]

I am saying that Paul didn’t address either b/c neither was around in his day.

And you know that for a fact? Sniff…sniff…smells like pure conjecture.

 

[stewstew03]

No, it is my contention that in the NT era infant baptism was not envisioned as something that would be done. Belief was absolutely necessary. There was no need to prohibit that which wasn’t contemplated.

Radical, respectfully you have already acknowledged the possibility of infant baptism:

IMHO the allocation of a 75% likelihood to your first assumption may not be too generous, but the allocation of a 67% likelihood for your second assumption is too generous…even still, if you rely on two asssumptions with likelihoods of 75% and 67% respectively, then you are still only at a 50% likelihood for the thing actually occurring.
chew on the above.

And you have already acknowledged that when scripture refers to “believer’s baptism” that authors were speaking of adults:

One doesn’t preach to infants and infants don’t come to believe…

Help me square what you are saying: on the one hand you have at the very least a possibility that something occurred, and you acknowledge the “belief” refers to adults (or those with cognition), and yet you reach your own conclusion that it’s impermissible??

Is there anything else not addressed by Scripture that is impermissible? We’re able to test all other “modern” issues – from abortion to birth control to cults – against scripture and reach a valid, scripture-based conclusion about those issues. But here you have a unique situation where something that you say is impermissible (infant baptism) is tested against scripture, and yet one has to make plenty of conjecture (read: add to the scriptures) to reach the conclusion that it is impermissible! So, I’m just curious, are there any other “sins” that are not found in God’s Word?

 

[christosdavid]

Radical, respectfully you have already acknowledged the possibility of infant baptism:

And you have already acknowledged that when scripture refers to “believer’s baptism” that authors were speaking of adults:

Help me square what you are saying: on the one hand you have at the very least a possibility that something occurred, and you acknowledge the “belief” refers to adults (or those with cognition), and yet you reach your own conclusion that it’s impermissible??

Is there anything else not addressed by Scripture that is impermissible? We’re able to test all other “modern” issues – from abortion to birth control to cults – against scripture and reach a valid, scripture-based conclusion about those issues. But here you have a unique situation where something that you say is impermissible (infant baptism) is tested against scripture, and yet one has to make plenty of conjecture (read: add to the scriptures) to reach the conclusion that it is impermissible! So, I’m just curious, are there any other “sins” that are not found in God’s Word?

There is archeological evidence of an infant who was baptised in the 1st C in the catacombs

 

[LittleSoldier]

Thank you very much!

 

[LittleSoldier]

There is archeological evidence of an infant who was baptised in the 1st C in the catacombs

Thank you. That one sentence led me to a google search and I found this:

Polycarp (69-155), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant. This enabled him to say at his martyrdom. “Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 9: 3). Justin Martyr (100 - 166) of the next generation states about the year 150, “Many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples since childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years” (Apology 1: 15). Further, in his Dialog with Trypho the Jew, Justin Martyr states that Baptism is the circumcision of the New Testament.

Irenaeus (130 - 200), some 35 years later in 185, writes in Against Heresies II 22: 4 that Jesus “came to save all through means of Himself - all. I say, who through him are born again to God - infants and children, boys and youth, and old men.”

mtio.com/articles/aissar40.htm

---

There is early writings by our apostles successors, the early Church fathers, who show infant baptism was practiced in the early Church.

“For He came to save all through means of Himself – all, I say, who through Him are born again to God – infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.”
(IRENAEUS, Adversus haereses, Book 2, Chapter 2:4 [A.D. 178])

“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.”
(HIPPOLYTUS, The Apostolic Tradition [A.D. 215])

"According to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism would seem superfluous.
(ORIGEN, Homilies on Leviticus, Homily 8, 3 [A.D. 185-253])

The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.
(ORIGEN, Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 185-253])

(NOTE: At the end of this article is a photo of the carving of a child being baptised which is on the wall of a catacomb, as was reported in the post to which I have responded here (although it was reported to be an infant and the engraving is obviously not of an infant but a child; there may be more carvings.))

kathyschley.com/Catholic_Churc/infantbaptism.html

 

[Isaiah45_9]

you seem to have entirely missed the point. The question is: What did Luke mean by “all of the household”? Allow me to give you another example…one where you don’t have so much invested. Let’s say that you find a log from an 18th century ship. For June 3 it reads that everyone on board was given a salt pork ration. In that case “everyone on board” did not mean “everyone on board”. Slaves were on board (and they wouldn’t have received that ration), but the keeper on the log knows that the readers of the log would understand that 1) slaves were on board, 2) that slaves were never given salt pork rations on his vessel and 3) slaves were so inconsequential (in their view), that the consideration of what they received or didn’t receive, just wasn’t important enough…and so, they did not form part of such a consideration. As such, “everyone on board was given a salt pork ration” really meant all non-slaves on board received a salt pork ration.

Luke, in Acts mentions “believed and were baptized” repeatedly…the connection between belief and baptism is easily strong enough that Luke could have figured that his readers would have employed just a little common sense and understood that “all of the household was baptized” meant “all of the believers within the household were baptized”. Before you complain too much about this assertion, please keep in mind that you do the same WRT “all have sinned…” when you argue, given that we all know that Mary was free from sin, a little common sense tells us that “all have sinned…” really means “all (except for Mary) have sinned…” .

I will ignore your snipping and uncharitable comments as that will get me nowhere I wish to be.

When you study the interaction about an individual person, you are correct in identifying the established condition (and) for baptism.

However, once the individual has met the condition, that condition is sufficient for his/her household. If it weren’t sufficient, there would have been a condition for his/her household present.

Further, the individual’s belief is sufficient and efficacious to baptize his/her household. Is it sufficient and/or efficacious for those outside of their household? No.

Read John 4:46-53

46 He came again therefore into Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine. And there was a certain ruler, whose son was sick at Capharnaum.
47 He having heard that Jesus was come from Judea into Galilee, went to him, and prayed him to come down, and heal his son; for he was at the point of death.
48 Jesus therefore said to him: Unless you see signs and wonders, you believe not.
49 The ruler saith to him: Lord, come down before that my son die.
50 Jesus saith to him: Go thy way; thy son liveth. The man believed the word which Jesus said to him, and went his way.
51 And as he was going down, his servants met him; and they brought word, saying, that his son lived.
52 He asked therefore of them the hour wherein he grew better. And they said to him: Yesterday, at the seventh hour, the fever left him.
53 The father therefore knew, that it was at the same hour that Jesus said to him, Thy son liveth; and himself believed, and his whole house.

The belief of the ruler carried over to the son, and his belief carried to his whole house.

I suspect that under you belief system, you understand that children and infants can’t be baptized without a profession of faith. That it is not possible for the head of the household to meet the condition and bring their children into covenant with Jesus.

And from what I see, you will not yield to logic and reason.

In City of God, Augustine exposes that faith cannot contradict reason. That faith without reason is just credulity. Faith and Reason must complement each other. If the Faith is true and the Reason is true, it is impossible for them be opposed to the other. That if reason and faith don’t agree, either:

1. The reasoning proceeded incorrectly, or
2. The faith was in error.

In Acts 17 we see Paul reasoning with various groups. Reasoning his faith.

Now I have Faith in Jesus Christ and I have Reasoned the baptism of children and infants. Faith and Reason are in harmony and not opposed to each other.

I pray that your reason is incorrect and that your Faith is not in error.

In Him.

 

[murtad]

This question is intended mainly for Protestants. When, exactly did the Catholic Church as we know it now cease to be the true Christian church? Back when I was Protestant, we always focused on the early Church (up to Augustine), and then skipped to Luther, Calvin, et al. When I started looking into it, I found that Augustine and a lot of the REALLY early Christians (Ireneus, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch) were very “Catholic,” especially compared to the reformers. Just out of curiosity, where do most Protestants draw the line (e.g. a certain council, pope, theologian, etc.) between the early Church and the “corrupt” Roman Catholic Church?

Protestants are a very diverse group, including groups such as Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Scientologists, Moonies, and Churchless people. Thus, asking “a Protestant” will not be helpful as Protestants are a broad categorisation of those churches that do not have valid apostolic succession line. It would be helpful to direct your question to a specific Protestant church, for example, Anglikan Church, or Mormon Church, or Methodist Church, or Jehovah’s Witnesses Church, etc.

There are only four valid apostolic churches, namely, the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Monophysite Church, and the Nestorian Assyrian Church of the East. All other churches besides these four are Protestant.

 

[LittleSoldier]

IMHO the allocation of a 75% likelihood to your first assumption may not be too generous, but the allocation of a 67% likelihood for your second assumption is too generous…even still, if you rely on two asssumptions with likelihoods of 75% and 67% respectively, then you are still only at a 50% likelihood for the thing actually occurring.
chew on the above.

There’s an old Peanuts cartoon in which Linus reports some figures regarding something or other - like you’re doing here. And someone asks him where he got the figures and his reply is “I just made them up.”

Which is exactly what you are doing here.

Charles Schultz is rolling over in his grave.

A few months ago I found an old, somewhat deteriorated photograph of myself and I had it cleaned and framed professionally and I hung it on the wall in my bedroom. I looked at it a few minutes ago. In it I am wearing a cross and I have my hands clasped in prayer and I have a look of piety on my face. I believed, Radical. I know I believed because I had a fear of cameras and having my picture taken and there is no fear on my face and every night I prayed: “Night-night sweet Jesus! Jesus, I love You!” And I meant every word. How old does one have to be to believe, in your humble opinion?

I was three. Is that old enough?

 

[fbl9]

no problem…I got tired of counting spring gophers

and? he says “baptized” when no baptism occurred…any way you cut it, it wasn’t a literal baptism

no, it was b/c they weren’t God’s children and God was saving his children

it would first have to be an actual baptism to get to this consideration…it wasn’t…they weren’t dunked, they weren’t sprinkled, they walked across a sea bed on dry land. That isn’t a baptism…it is something that Paul used as a metaphor

Which was applied to just adult? no it was applied to all. and again St.Paul is not using it as a metaphore. He used the word type.
St.Paul applies it to all. you are using a type and applying it to some. By doing so you are no longer using the same type.

by the way what is compostion of a cloud?
now try to tell me there was no water involved

 

[joclucsylv]

Thank you. That one sentence led me to a google search and I found this:

Polycarp (69-155), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant. This enabled him to say at his martyrdom. “Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 9: 3). Justin Martyr (100 - 166) of the next generation states about the year 150, “Many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples since childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years” (Apology 1: 15). Further, in his Dialog with Trypho the Jew, Justin Martyr states that Baptism is the circumcision of the New Testament.

Irenaeus (130 - 200), some 35 years later in 185, writes in Against Heresies II 22: 4 that Jesus “came to save all through means of Himself - all. I say, who through him are born again to God - infants and children, boys and youth, and old men.”

mtio.com/articles/aissar40.htm

---

There is early writings by our apostles successors, the early Church fathers, who show infant baptism was practiced in the early Church.

“For He came to save all through means of Himself – all, I say, who through Him are born again to God – infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.”
(IRENAEUS, Adversus haereses, Book 2, Chapter 2:4 [A.D. 178])

“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.”
(HIPPOLYTUS, The Apostolic Tradition [A.D. 215])

"According to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism would seem superfluous.
(ORIGEN, Homilies on Leviticus, Homily 8, 3 [A.D. 185-253])

The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.
(ORIGEN, Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 185-253])

(NOTE: At the end of this article is a photo of the carving of a child being baptised which is on the wall of a catacomb, as was reported in the post to which I have responded here (although it was reported to be an infant and the engraving is obviously not of an infant but a child; there may be more carvings.))

kathyschley.com/Catholic_Churc/infantbaptism.html

BINGO!!
My sis in law grew up rejecting the Trinity as a Oneness believer. During her conversion and her difficulty accepting the Trinity
Fr. told her that we need to look at the the Early Church Fathers did for baptism. We need to look at those who walked with the apostles.
The answer hit her like a ton of bricks and to truth she was led.

 

[CopticChristian]

Good luck with that

for clarity I think it to be a Christian Church, just not the one true Church

well since you asked, here is my opinion: I don’t think that you can draw a clear line as the error is quite varied. There is nothing wrong with the mid 2nd century view of Mary as the new Eve, but there is most certainly something wrong with the elevation of Mary to sinless, co-mediatrix. It could be acceptable if the immaculate conception, the bodily assumption and the perpetual virginity were simply left as part of extra-biblical miracles that one could believe or disbelieve, but to make them required beliefs and then to make them part of the over the top elevation of Mary is error. When did the Catholic view of Mary become so corrupt that it would have disqualified the CC as the one true church?..well that would be a subjective call and of course, the problems are not in any way limited to the matter of Mary.

Another example would be the elevation of the bishop to a monarchical position. That seemed to start about the time of Ignatius, but it wasn’t the situation throughout the empire at that time. Ignatius’ insistence on the centrality/necessity of the bishop may have even been a practical and good solution to battle heresy, but to make it the required form of Church governance for all time is just wrong. From there, the situation wrt a ministerial clergy just seemed to get worse (in some regards). The view of the Lord’s Supper went down the wrong path and as a result a priestly caste was needed to officiate (even though the term “priest” is essentially unused in the first two centuries of the Church wrt offices within the church). The more matters one considers, the more complicated the whole issue becomes…

If you are determined to have a time specified, then I would say that by the end of the second century the problems are well on their way and by the end of the 4th century they are pronounced (though the problems would continue to grow in size and number…perhaps Vatican II would represent a step back in the right direction). In any event, one could go on and on discussing the introduction of various errors and development of those errors into ever more serious errors, but it is impossible to say when such error achieved a critical mass.

Well then it would appear that you do not believe in the development of Doctrine do not ascribe to the Kingdom of David as the archetype Old Testament Church that included the Gabira, Journal of Biblical Studies 112/3 (1993) 385-401, The Queen Mother…Susan Ackerman, The term gabira/geberet is used fifteen times in the Hebrew Bible, or the notion of the Prime Minister/Pope.

I understand your perspective and I anticipate you will not be in any RCIA in Canada anytime soon.

 

[banjo]

Through Baptism we cease being children of Adam and become Children of God, heirs to the salvation purchased by the blood of Christ (Cf. Jn 3:5). Baptism can happen at any age.

 

[Radical]

Thank you.
So - when Baptists are baptised (whenever that is) their behavior should then be as squeaky clean as the Catholics’ behaviors during the time after they were baptised up to the same time that the Baptist children are baptised. Right?

no….please understand that from my point of view it needs to be Belief + Baptism to yield the change that Paul mentioned. For sqeaky clean one needs a continuing belief/faith.

But actually I think you might be understanding something here - it is true that removing Original Sin (and its stain) and the receiving of Sacramental grace *does *help one stay away from sin. Yes sir, it does and not just for Catholics.

it is truly disappointing as to how little evidence one can find in Christians (of all stripes and in myself) of that “staying away from sin”…it seems to me that the difference between Christians and non-Christians should be more dramatic.