Questions about the Catholic Faith from a Protestant

[JSmitty2005]

jpete79:

It says it is quite possible that it was in Apostlic teaching but not certain that…
Just thought I’d share.

The apostolicity of this tradition is really irrelevent despite the fact that it’s very likely. The thing is that in the N.T. the Christians were converts so they were adults. You have to remember that you don’t see “Christian families” until the next generation. That’s why infant baptism isn’t explicit in Sacred Scripture. It wasn’t until the next generation that there were “Christian families,” and the New Testament talks about them too when it says, “households” were baptized (Acts 16:33; 1 Cor. 1:16). Assuming for your sake that these household did not include infants, there was obviously a point at which the early Church made this decision. The Church has the God-given authority to make judgements such as these and it did. There is nothing wrong with this. Now, there are a large amount of Early Church writings that give witness to infant baptism being a long-standing tradition at the time of the writings. Here are just a few:

Irenaeus

“‘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]).

Sincerely,
Jon

PS - Your misgivings about this sacrament may be due to a disagreement with regard to the necessity of baptism. As Catholics, we believe baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation (with the exceptions of baptism of blood and baptism of desire). When you get home, try reading the first 7 articles at this link:

catholic.com/library/sacraments.asp

 

[javelin]

jpete79:

Hey Javelin,
So we agree on loving faith… (removed for length)

Last, I believe that a man who has whole-heartedly accepted Christ and is choosing to live life accordingly cannot in fact lose his salvation. Will he sin? Yes. But I feel that the Spirit once it has hold of the person is eternal in Him and will not let go (no matter how much the person screws up). I don’t have the Biblical support this second (I’m at work) but I can post it when I get it.

I know someone personally for whom I fear for his salvation. He is the son of a minister, with 2 of his siblings also choosing to be ministers and servants of God. He himself grew up with regular prayer as a part of his family life. He carried his Bible with him through high school, reading and sharing his faith. He loved God, and lived accordingly.

But then after a couple years in college, he began questioning after reading about world religions and philosophy. His questioning turned to doubt, and eventually to agnositcism. He now attends a unitarian church.

Do you believe he will assuredly be with God when he dies? Even he will tell you that his faith was very strong – it was woven seamlessly into his life through a very devout family.

Yet now he does not believe. He no longer holds to faith in Christ. Will he be saved? I fear for him.

If someone in his position could lose faith, can’t just about anyone?

If you say that he must never have had true faith to begin with, then I would say what good is “assurance of salvation” if there is no corresponding “assurance of true faith”?

Biblically, I look to the parable of the Prodigal Son. Would not the son have died if he had never returned to the father? Would his inheritance have been restored? Are we not all able to freely reject our inheritance and go out “on our own” the way the son, and Satan for matter, chose to do? Yet we, by God’s Grace, and because of the sacrifice of Jesus, are able to come back to God and have our inheritance restored.

jpete79:

Now, I have a question for you…I’ve been reading through the Catechism a little bit in down time. I am still in section 1 and here’s a statement that caught my eye
I. “Lord, Look upon the Faith of Your Church”

168
It is the Church that believes first, and so bears, nourishes, and sustains my faith. Everywhere, it is the Church that first confesses the Lord: “Throughout the world the holy Church acclaims you,” as we sing in the hymn “Te Deum”; with her and in her, we are won over and brought to confess: “I believe,” “We believe.” It is through the Church that we receive faith and new life in Christ by Baptism. In the Rituale Romanum, the minister of Baptism asks the catechumen: “What do you ask of God’s Church?” And the answer is: “Faith.” “What does faith offer you?” "Eternal life."54

169
Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother: "We believe the Church as the mother of our new birth, and not in the Church as if she were the author of our salvation."55 Because she is our mother, she is also our teacher in the faith.

Can you help me in understanding this section. I don’t understand how it was the Church that believed first and gives us Faith (especially since earlier it said that Faith is a God-given gift)?

with her and in her, we are won over and brought to confess: “I believe,” “We believe.” Don’t we have to know God before we are a part of the Church? We have to confess to know that we are sinners before we are accepted by God and the Church doesn’t do that, the Grace of God does.

I’m no expert on this, but I can postulate. I believe it derives from the fact that the Church, instituted by Christ and lead by the Apostles and their successors, is the only way for us to know the saving power of Christ. If the Apostles had all fled, rejected Christ, and died, we would have no way of knowing what He did for us. It is because of the faith of the Church that the Gospel entrusted to the Church was spread throughout the World. Whether or not we heard it first from a Catholic now, or through some other means, none of it would have been possible without the work of the Church to spread the Gospel to begin with.

“The Church first confesses the Lord” – it is through the Church that we learn about Jesus. The faith of the Church is a witness to us, much as our faith can be a witness to others, inspiring them to see their need for God. Then, it is through the Church that the sacraments of initiation are offered – most notably baptism – which make us Children of God. The Holy Spirit then transforms us and gives us the gift of faith.

Does that kinda make sense? Sorry it’s a bit long-winded – as I said, I’m not expert here so I’m shooting from the hip a bit.

Peace to you,
javelin

 

[JSmitty2005]

“The Church first confesses the Lord” – it is through the Church that we learn about Jesus.

jpete79,
javelin is right. No one would have ever even heard of Jesus Christ if it weren’t for the Catholic Church. He established it to spread His Word. If the Jews had gotten their way and crushed Christianity early on, then you wouldn’t have that Bible under your arm for church on Sundays. You wouldn’t even be going to church on Sundays, it would probably still be Saturdays. Anyways, you’re probably thinking, “It was impossible for the Jews to destroy Christianity since Christ promised that His Church would survive until the end of the world.” Likewise, this is why us Catholic reject the Protestant Reformation.

 

[javelin]

jpete79:

1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole “households” received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.[53]

The biggest thing I wonder about with regards to infant baptism is, basically, WHY NOT?

The important part of baptism is not what we do, but what God does to us. He adopts us. Why is it a bad thing to ask Him to adopt our infant children, while we in turn pledge, by our faith, to teach them about Him and show them the way to Him?

Why is that a bad thing?

I just don’t get it.
Do you?

Peace,
javelin

 

[javelin]

jpete79,

I know you must feel flooded with things to read, etc., so I’ll apologize in advance if I’m pulling you off-topic or away from other responsibilities.

I was just wondering if you had a reaction to my previous post #199, regarding the Mass? You should recognize it if you grew up Catholic.

Peace to you,
javelin

 

[Orionthehunter]

jpete79:

Smitty:

I think you ask fair questions and I will respond in kind…by the way I’ve heard that quote before…I also know that we don’t just say we accept Christ, it must be a deep founded belief and after that through Faith we better ourselves for Him and want to build a relationship more with him.

Question 1: faith alone…again this is just a semantical difference. I don’t think someone can have true faith in God without the love that is also there. I did a lesson on this and said that there are various types of faith…**claiming faith ** (saying you believe), believing faith (straight belief in something), and loving faith (true faith exemplified by what you do)…the story that I used in the lesson was the Good Samaritan. So again there are semantical errors when I say faith alone…but be certain I mean a loving faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and in Abba, Father.

Question 2: I won’t bother looking James is one of my favorite Books (and its also my name ). Again, if you look at my first answer its the Faith that brings about the deeds. It’s the fact that I love God that makes me want to do good for Him.

Question 3: Reconciliation has two parts…Christ did die for all men’s sins but that’s only half the part of reconciliation to God…the other part is the person has to accept what He did and want forgiveness for those sins that Christ paid for.

Question 4: Yes, we are called to forgive as we were forgiven. We should have no outstanding debts. Again, I think this comes with the aspect of love that I was talking about.

I think what Luther was trying to do was simplify everything to get to a base of mere Christianity. The essentials of knowing God.

I would say I believe in a Loving Faith alone.

When I was in college I had a teacher who let a grad student run his class. Now, during class, the grad student wasn’t the best teacher in the world. When my second test came up (my first one was terrible), I went straight to the professor for assistance and my grades improved. It turned out when the year ended only 4 students passed (and all of them went for outside help).

Now, even though it had a grad student teaching, the class still belonged to the professor. He was still a direct link.

The next year, I was not in that professor’s class, however; I still had a class that he taught. I would still go to him for help (and my grades were still ok). Even though I am not in that class am I still a student to the professor?

This is the same way I feel about the whole idea of the Catholic Church and Protestant Churches. There are teachers there (Bishops, Priests, etc) but the direct link to Christ is still there as well. Some people still use the teachers and links but there is nothing wrong with going to the Head Priest himself. I am still a student of Christ.

Wow. There are sure a lot of different “faiths”. We don’t get to pick or own definition of words and insert them into scripture to get the interpretation we want. We need to understand the full context and proper definition intended by the author to reach a correct interpretation. Another good reason to have an infallible Magisterium to help us discern the correct interpretation.

 

[ABalch]

JPete79,

You wrote "
As far as being a non-believer…I understand to not allow non-Christians to not sharing in the breaking of bread but to say that someone who believes in Christ is not allowed to receive it is absurd."

I would respond by referring you to 1Corinthians 11:29.
*For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord *

it is in the fact that other Christian denominations do not look at the Eucharist in the same understanding that the Catholic Church has always held, that it is in fact the body and blood of Our Lord, as he instructed us in the Bible. If you do not discern that the Eucharist IS truly the body, blood, sould and divinity of Our Lord, and you eat it, by 1 Corinthians you would be eating judgement upon yourself, for profaning the sacrement of the Eucharist.

Pax Vobiscum,
ABalch

 

[JSmitty2005]

ABalch:

JPete79,

You wrote "
As far as being a non-believer…I understand to not allow non-Christians to not sharing in the breaking of bread but to say that someone who believes in Christ is not allowed to receive it is absurd."

I would respond by referring you to 1Corinthians 11:29.
*For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord *

it is in the fact that other Christian denominations do not look at the Eucharist in the same understanding that the Catholic Church has always held, that it is in fact the body and blood of Our Lord, as he instructed us in the Bible. If you do not discern that the Eucharist IS truly the body, blood, sould and divinity of Our Lord, and you eat it, by 1 Corinthians you would be eating judgement upon yourself, for profaning the sacrement of the Eucharist.

Pax Vobiscum,
ABalch

Bingo! So, we’re basically trying to do you a favor. Another thing is simply this: the word “communion.” You’re not in communion with the Catholic Church.