SPLIT: Questions Catholics Will Not Answer.

[justasking4]

Part 2
Church Militant;3245939

Quote:justasking4
Lets assume you are correct. What are the boundaries for development?

Church Militant
Where would you, as a lay person need to set boundaries?

Can it be supported by the scripture. Did Jesus or His apostles teach it. This would be my primary boundary

Do you know all that the church knows?

No. Does anyone?

The doctrines that have developed are the natural and logical progression of both scripture and what has come down to us from the ECF.

Even though the early fathers may have lived closer in time to the apostles does not automatically mean they are right. Do you know how these fathers were trained for example?

Quote:justasking4
Not much and this is an area i want to study in depth. Have you read all the fathers in depth?

Church Militant
And continue to do so. Why aren’t they used in your community’s teaching? These are people who knew the apostles personally and some who were even baptized by them. they served God and His church diligently and most of them paid for it with their lives. Doesn’t it seem odd to you that they have so little place in your instruction in your faith?!

I agree this should be taught more in our churches. Would you agree also that not only protestants but catholics are ignorant of church history?

i’ve been listening to an excellent course on church history via a podcast on Itunes. Its a seminary course and i have learned so much by listening to it. i highly recommend it. Its from Reformed Theological Seminary. Its not anti catholic but an attempt to understand it well. It would be great for those who don’t like to read.

Quote:ustasking4
No doubt the fathers are important in understanding the early church.
Church Militant
I fully agree!

Quote:justasking4
Let me ask you. Did all that the fathers spoke of was in complete harmony with the Catholic Church of today for example?
Church Militant
So far as I have read, yes. Either that or they show where the logical basis for what has developed comes from.

Quote:justasking4
Do you think they all had access to the entire Bible?

Church Militant
Unsure, however, again and again I have dealt with n-Cs who have told me that they believe that they did. My response to them is one of some skepticism and confusion because my answer then becomes, “if that is true then why don’t your doctrines match theirs?” A prime example is Ignatius of Antioch’s letter to the church at Smyrna in chapters 7 & 8.

It is not necessary for our doctrines to match what a given father taught since they were mere men and their writings are not considered scripture.
For example: is it not true that Augustine promoted celibacy for church leaders? If this is correct, this would go against the clear teaching of Scripture that leaders were to be married with children.

What do you think? Who should we follow?

Quote:justasking4
Did the fathers know the scriptures in the original languages?
Church Militant
If you mean did they speak, read, and write Greek, I’d say almost certainly. Did they speak, read, and write Aramaic? I’d say very probably. Did they know Hebrew? Probably not, because they appear to be mostly commoners. By the time of Christ Hebrew was as nearly as dead a language as Latin is today.

Do you think the theologians and scholars of today have a superior advantage over the fathers?

 

[CentralFLJames]

Your answer helps but it seems to me that with so many catholics that there would be at least a few thousand with “a very high level of grace” pray this prayer that would in a very short time release all the souls of purgatory. I don’t understand why your church would not do this.

In fact we do justasking. The Catholic Church and her Orthodox brother are THE ONLY Religions offering the divinity, body, blood and suffering of Jesus up to God DAILY 27/7 in global prayer. Our very literature and order of the mass has special prayers for the deceased. Someday you should look into the order of the Catholic Mass since it is amazingly beautiful and is true worship of God. But each mass we have the “prayers of the faithful” where we pray typically for world peace, all nations, all peoples, leaders, family, friends, enemies and departed souls.

More here on Catholic view on Purgatory and prayers for the dead:
Prayers for the Dead

We simply do not know how God elects to apply our prayers either to living sinners, conversions, a longer peace, aversion of calamities or to the dead. All we know for certain is that God applies His precious grace to not waste a bit of it and always does so to derive the most net “good”. He may elect for example to keep a soul back in purgatory to offer their suffering up to Himself for someone in their earthly family and instead intervene to soften the heart of a terrible sinner who will bring more souls to Him through their testimony.

Now I am going to show you another site that I admittedly have not checked into yet to verify the legitimacy of. This site is dedicated to coordinating prayers to emptying purgatory.
Mission To Empty Purgatory (MTEP)

Any Christian can contribute in offering prayers for the dead and this is a perfect way to give oneself to the service of both God and Neighbor and be charitable as we are commanded. I do 10 at least 10 daily prayers for the poor souls of purgatory offered in conjunction with the masses said around the world each day.

Warning - its addictive! Once you start praying for these holy poor souls you won’t want to stop and will want to increase your prayers!

God Bless,
James

 

[Church_Militant]

If you look at the I Cor 3:10-15 (which i would assume you are familar with) says nothing of sin nor of sin being on man’s soul to be cleansed off.

That passage repeatedly uses the phrases, “Every man’s work” (v13) and “any man’s work” (v14 & 15). which unless someone changed the meaning of the word “work”, means both righteous and sinful works.

I’ve been wanting to ask you what you think of this prayer and promise:
Eternal Father,
I offer Thee the Most Precious Blood of Thy Divine Son, Jesus,
in union with the Masses said throughout the world today,
for all the Holy Souls in Purgatory,
for sinners everywhere,
for sinners in the Universal Church,
those in my own home and within my family.
Amen.
**Our Lord told St. Gertrude the Great, that the following prayer would release 1,000 souls from Purgatory each time it is said. **

The prayer was extended to include living sinners which would alleviate the indebtedness accrued to them during their lives.

Why doesn’t the catholic church have its members pray this and release all or nearly all souls from purgatory?One of my personal favorites!

The prayer is pretty well known among faithful Catholics and in discussion of purgatory among us it is one that I suspect many people pray often. (I have no stats for that though. )
As for the last part of your question. no one knows precisely how many people are in Purgatory, but I suppose there is the possibility that we manage to empty it out on occasion, but I also suppose that fresh souls make that short lived.

How can you say this if the Catholic Church is protected from error in matters of faith and salvation?

Easily, this was a teaching applied to neither faith or morals (which I think is what you meant to say, right?) It had nothing whatever to do with doctrine. It certainly does not invalidate Purgatory even though as the doctrine goes it is sound since we do believe that the giving of alms as a penance can be applied to the souls in purgatory. The main problem to me is Tetzel’s “sales pitch” which I find pretty distasteful.

In fact, did not the Church correct the matter when it became an issue?

Are you then saying that guys like Benny Hinn and Joel Osteen aren’t every bit as guilty as Tetzel is?

Yes. Let me be sure that I understand you correctly. Are you saying that these two guys are NOT every bit as guilty of a similar error as Tetzel is? I believe they are.

No the Catholic Church. It is the Catholic Church that claims it cannot err.

And has made good on that claim.

I’m not sure precisely what the standard is from an “official” standpoint, but from a recent discussion that I had a with a Cardinal, I think it would be whenever one departs from the literal interpretation of the scriptures, contradicts the teachings of the ECF, and the historic teachings of the Catholic Church all with regard to faith and morals.

Can you give me a couple of examples in the past 200 years where there is a new doctrine in protestant churches?

The Rapture and the essential Pentecostal “baptism of the Holy Spirit” doctrines would be two off the top of my head.

However please understand that I am of the opinion that Protestantism erred from the outset with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and that virtually every doctrine based upon that one is also in error.

What is you definition of Sola Scriptura?

The doctrine that teaches that the Bible is the sole authority for all that Christians believe and practice, and that every individual believer has the right, capacity, and authority to interpret it and create doctrines from it.

I think that is a fairly accurate description, though it feels somewhat inadequate in expression. when I get it down the way I want it I plan to write an article on it for my blog. I’ll send you a link then if you like?

 

[Church_Militant]

i would agree with this so lets go with this. Must a person belong to the catholic church to be saved?

Yes. The Catechism expresses this best IMO.

**Who belongs to the Catholic Church? **
[836](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/836.htm’) "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation."320
[837](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/837.htm’) "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’"321
[838](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/838.htm’) "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

 

[Church_Militant]

It may have a great wealth of knowledge but not all of it is grounded in the Scriptures. How does a Catholic know if they are interpreting the scriptures in harmony with the past 2000 years of church history?

My Lord woman, (I apologize if you are not, but your writing seems to bear that out.) have you not seen the metric TONNE of notes in every Catholic document referring to where things come from. I have never seen anything comparable among n-Cs.

Again, since we don’t believe in SS, why would our teachings have to be “grounded in the Scriptures” as you believe they should if we believe that that doctrine is in error. It’s very fundamental Ja4.

Secondly if your church always taught consistently for the past 2000 years why was a catholic reformantion needed during the reformation period?

A good question, and my answer is it did not.

Now, let me qualify that by pointing out that the kind of “reformation” that the Church needed was more in line with what you would think of as “revival”, and contrary to n-C belief and rhetoric, it was in fact already well under way long before Martin Luther and the rest created new doctrines (which the Church rightly rejected and condemned). Reform Came before the Reformation (This Rock: April 2006)

No doubt there are problems in many protestant churches today. However there are just as many problems in the catholic church to. How many catholics do you know that don’t even agree with Rome on everything?

Agreed that there are those who dissent, but that does not and will not change the doctrines of the Catholic Church. However, the Church maintains its same doctrines and those who dissent from them are the ones with the problems.

Can you give me a couple of examples from the lips of Jesus where He based His teachings on tradition?

No, but the New Testament is loaded with such.

Besides, since when do Christians base everything upon the exact words of Our Lord? You accept the rest of the New Testament don’t you?

Gotta go for a bit, will pick up here when I get back. God bless you!

 

[Pax]

I did not receive a non-Catholic response to this post so I am submitting it again. This post shows the importance of OT circumcision and its relationship to baptism. I want to know why the Catholic teaching on infant baptism is wrong in light of this post. I will also tell you that there is still more that can be said in favor of infant baptism. This post essentially refutes the idea that an infant must be able to make a profession of faith.

Is this really a false doctrine?

Comments?

Genesis 17:1-14 says:

WHEN ABRAM was ninety-nine years old the Lord appeared to Abram, and said to him, “I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless. And I will make my covenant between me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly.” Then Abram fell on his face; and God said to him, "Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. No longer shall your name be Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come forth from you. And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you… Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

In Joshua 5 we are told that the people that had fled Egypt had died and that their descendents were going to enter the Promised Land. God ordered Joshua to circumcise all of the males and he did so. God then says to Joshua, “This day I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt from you.”[Joshua 5:9]

The people that God took out of Egypt are the people of Israel and they are referred to as the “Chosen People.” Moreover, Yahweh repeatedly refers to them as “My People.” These people were saved. Paul tells us in 1 Cor 10:1-4 that. "I WANT you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

Circumcision was necessary to be part of God’s people. God’s people then and now are saved by the supernatural rock that is Jesus. Just as circumcision was the sign and entry in the OT family of God, baptism is now the sign and entry in the New Covenant family of God.

Belief was not necessary for the infants that were of OT circumcision that fled Egypt. Belief was not necessary for the OT infants circumcised by Joshua just before entering the Promised Land. All those infants that passed through the Red Sea leaving Egypt were all under the cloud and were baptized into Moses.

Likewise, all NT infants are baptized into Christ. Belief as an infant is not necessary. Baptism provides the remission of original sin and imparts the Holy Spirit. This is a huge jump start for faith when the child reaches the age of reason. I was baptized as an infant. I cannot remember not believing in God. I do not remember just when it was that I first believed that Jesus died for my sins. It is so far back in my childhood that I simply cannot remember. It is almost as if I have always believed.

I hope this helps.

 

[juliamajor]

I don’t understand you. Are you saying these quotes and there are others from secular historians are not true?

Josephus and thalls being the weakest ‘source’… Tacitus, Pliny all mention christians but don not give 'testimonials" about the resurrection- again I say it is faith that leads us there. there is far more evidence for the crucifixion in the extra- biblical sources then the resurrection which is mostly an aside in Non Christian sources.

 

[guanophore]

Problem there is no evidence this was ever done.

Setting aside the evidence, you are speculating that God’s mercy allows unbaptized infants into heaven. Yet you rail against Catholics when we speculate that God chose to create His mother without sin. If you can imagine one, how can you not imagine the other?

Good question. I don’t know

Well, let’s look at what we do know:

Jesus says not to forbid the children to come to him

Peter says the promise of the kingdom is for the hearers and their children

Whole households are baptized

The early Christians baptized children and infants

Jesus accepts the faith of loved ones to work miracles upon request.

What is to be LOST by baptizing them!?

I don’t see baptism as limiting it

On the contrary, baptism, as do all the sacraments, facilitate the flow of God’s grace, which is their purpose and end.

Good questions and there are no easy answers to them.

I think that is the wisest thing you have ever said. What has gotten into you lately?

2 different issues. We know the scriptures don’t teach the Immaculate Conception of Mary for a number of reasons while what happens to infants when they die is more problematic.

There is much more evidence about Mary than there is about infants!

Be amazed no longer.:dancing: As i’ve said above about the Immaculate Conception of Mary there is no evidence for it.

That is not the issue. My point is that you, by faith, knowing what you do about God’s mercy, fully expect that He will allow unbaptized infants into heaven.

Yet, when Catholics say that we, by faith, knowing what we do about God, fully expect that He made his mother without sin, you have such a problem with that! I don’t see much difference between the two.

To be baptized means that you are first a Christian i.e. one who has believed in and confessed Christ and has eternal spiritual value.

Only if you practice “believers baptism” which is a recent evangelical invention.

Circumcision on the other hand was the sign of ethnic identity. It was the physical participation in the temporal features of the Abrahamic covenant. It didn’t have any spiritual implications at all. It was as you may know limited only to males and not females.

I think the spiritual implications of circumcision are vast, but we will have to take this to a new thread. There was no separation between ethnicity and covenant relation for Jews.

 

[justasking4]

Part 1

Church Militant;3246122]

Originally Posted by justasking4
If you look at the I Cor 3:10-15 (which i would assume you are familar with) says nothing of sin nor of sin being on man’s soul to be cleansed off.

Church Militant
That passage repeatedly uses the phrases, “Every man’s work” (v13) and “any man’s work” (v14 & 15). which unless someone changed the meaning of the word “work”, means both righteous and sinful works.
i checked my lexicon on how this word is used in this passage and i didn’t find any reference to it being defined with sin in mind.

Quote:justasking4
I’ve been wanting to ask you what you think of this prayer and promise:
Eternal Father,
I offer Thee the Most Precious Blood of Thy Divine Son, Jesus,
in union with the Masses said throughout the world today,
for all the Holy Souls in Purgatory,
for sinners everywhere,
for sinners in the Universal Church,
those in my own home and within my family.
Amen.
Our Lord told St. Gertrude the Great, that the following prayer would release 1,000 souls from Purgatory each time it is said. The prayer was extended to include living sinners which would alleviate the indebtedness accrued to them during their lives.

Why doesn’t the catholic church have its members pray this and release all or nearly all souls from purgatory?

Church Militant
One of my personal favorites!

The prayer is pretty well known among faithful Catholics and in discussion of purgatory among us it is one that I suspect many people pray often. (I have no stats for that though. )
As for the last part of your question. no one knows precisely how many people are in Purgatory, but I suppose there is the possibility that we manage to empty it out on occasion, but I also suppose that fresh souls make that short lived.

So much needs to be discussed here but i will be brief. One thing that follows from this then is that no catholic needs to fear purgatory for no more than a very short time if catholics are praying this.
Secondly the catholics i know were totally unaware of this including a priest i know. Why isn’t this brought up more (assuming its not)?

Quote:justasking4

How can you say this if the Catholic Church is protected from error in matters of faith and salvation?

Church Militant
Easily, this was a teaching applied to neither faith or morals (which I think is what you meant to say, right?) It had nothing whatever to do with doctrine.

Why don’t don’t you state what this promise is?

It certainly does not invalidate Purgatory even though as the doctrine goes it is sound since we do believe that the giving of alms as a penance can be applied to the souls in purgatory. The main problem to me is Tetzel’s “sales pitch” which I find pretty distasteful.

You know by now what i must ask: where does the NT teach that
“the giving of alms as a penance can be applied to the souls in purgatory”?

In fact, did not the Church correct the matter when it became an issue?

It seems to me they may have corrected the “sales pitch” but not the core doctrine as far as i can tell.

 

[justasking4]

Part 2

Church Militant;3246122]
Part 2

Quote:Church Militant

Are you then saying that guys like Benny Hinn and Joel Osteen aren’t every bit as guilty as Tetzel is?
justasking4
Yes.

Church Militant
Let me be sure that I understand you correctly. Are you saying that these two guys are NOT every bit as guilty of a similar error as Tetzel is? I believe they are.

i agree with you. From what little i know of them they are abusing the gospel.

Quote:justasking4
No the Catholic Church. It is the Catholic Church that claims it cannot err.

Church Militant
And has made good on that claim.

I think history and doctrine show otherwise. Just comparing some of your doctrines with scripture would show that the claim cannot be sustained.

Church Militant
I’m not sure precisely what the standard is from an “official” standpoint, but from a recent discussion that I had a with a Cardinal, I think it would be whenever one departs from the literal interpretation of the scriptures, contradicts the teachings of the ECF, and the historic teachings of the Catholic Church all with regard to faith and morals.

Why would the ECF’s be part of the standard since not all the fathers agreed?

Another question about the fathers: How much did each write?

Who is to say they speak for the entire church at any given time?

Quote:justasking4
Can you give me a couple of examples in the past 200 years where there is a new doctrine in protestant churches?

Church Militant
The Rapture and the essential Pentecostal “baptism of the Holy Spirit” doctrines would be two off the top of my head.

Do you believe the Christ will return again visibly?

However please understand that I am of the opinion that Protestantism erred from the outset with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and that virtually every doctrine based upon that one is also in error.

Do you think the gospel message i.e. how one is saved is flawed by the protestants? If so, where does it fall short?

Quote:justasking4
What is you definition of Sola Scriptura?

Church Militant
The doctrine that teaches that the Bible is the sole authority for all that Christians believe and practice, and that every individual believer has the right, capacity, and authority to interpret it and create doctrines from it.

I think you have it half right. It is true that because the Scriptures alone are the only inspired-inerrant word given to us, then it follows that it carries far more athority than anything else. This makes them a solid and sure foundation in which to build doctrine. Nothing can be more sure than this. It is also true that all believers are to know it well. For example Paul writes in Colossians 3:16 these words–Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.
This certainly implies that we can understand what we read. However this does not mean we don’t need good teachers who can teach us either. We need pastor-teachers which Christ gave the church. See Ephesians 4:11
The creation of doctrine is another matter. Individuals themselves don’t fomulate doctrines on their own but rather its a body of knowledgeable believers coming to together to do that.
The doctrine of sola scriptura does not claim that believers will always be able to properly interpret the scriptures always.

Church Militant
I think that is a fairly accurate description, though it feels somewhat inadequate in expression.

This is what i think of when thinking of Sola Scriptura:
Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority.

when I get it down the way I want it I plan to write an article on it for my blog. I’ll send you a link then if you like?

Please do.

---

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3246494]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Problem there is no evidence this was ever done.

guanophore
Setting aside the evidence, you are speculating that God’s mercy allows unbaptized infants into heaven.

True. I can’t be dogmatic when there is no support for.

Yet you rail against Catholics when we speculate that God chose to create His mother without sin. If you can imagine one, how can you not imagine the other?

2 different issues as you know. The problem with Mary is:"
1- violates Scripture-- Romans 5:12 etc
2- Scripture does even hint she was without sin
3- No writer of the NT does either.

Despite this your church still has dogamtically defined these doctrines about her.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Good question. I don’t know

guanophore
Well, let’s look at what we do know:

Jesus says not to forbid the children to come to him

Peter says the promise of the kingdom is for the hearers and their children

Whole households are baptized

The early Christians baptized children and infants

Jesus accepts the faith of loved ones to work miracles upon request.

What is to be LOST by baptizing them!?

Here are a couple of problems with baptizing unbelieving babies:
1- We have no record of scripture doing it. I suspect even you would agree that whole households is speculating that infants were also baptized.

2- It gives them the impression they are actually part of the church when in reality they are not. A person must make that decision for themselves and cannot be made for them. Far better to let people know where they stand rather than confusing them.

3- Before a person is baptized they must first repent and believe in Christ and want to follow Him. That is not possible for an infant. That doesn’t mean that parents and other Christians are not to teach them and exhort them to believe. The fact is that children are unbelievers until they repent and believe because the see the need to. I know this is a scary thing especially for parents but it is the only way and it forces parents to be diligent and to pray for their children’ salvation .

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
I don’t see baptism as limiting it
guanophore
On the contrary, baptism, as do all the sacraments, facilitate the flow of God’s grace, which is their purpose and end.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Good questions and there are no easy answers to them.

guanophore
I think that is the wisest thing you have ever said. What has gotten into you lately?

Hanging out with you must be rubbing off on me----

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
2 different issues. We know the scriptures don’t teach the Immaculate Conception of Mary for a number of reasons while what happens to infants when they die is more problematic.

guanophore
There is much more evidence about Mary than there is about infants!

There is not enough evidence for being justified in Mary was without sin or assumed though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Be amazed no longer. As i’ve said above about the Immaculate Conception of Mary there is no evidence for it.

guanophore
That is not the issue. My point is that you, by faith, knowing what you do about God’s mercy, fully expect that He will allow unbaptized infants into heaven.

My hope is that He will. However i can’t be dogmatic about it as i am about some other things though.

guanophore
Yet, when Catholics say that we, by faith, knowing what we do about God, fully expect that He made his mother without sin, you have such a problem with that! I don’t see much difference between the two.

As i said there are significant differences.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
To be baptized means that you are first a Christian i.e. one who has believed in and confessed Christ and has eternal spiritual value.

guanophore
Only if you practice “believers baptism” which is a recent evangelical invention.

What is “believers baptism”?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Circumcision on the other hand was the sign of ethnic identity. It was the physical participation in the temporal features of the Abrahamic covenant. It didn’t have any spiritual implications at all. It was as you may know limited only to males and not females.

“believers baptism”
I think the spiritual implications of circumcision are vast, but we will have to take this to a new thread. There was no separation between ethnicity and covenant relation for Jews.

 

[MariaG]

Busy Thread

i’m confused. Catholics claim that the only ones who have the authority to interpret scripture is the church and individuals are not to. Protestants have no right to interpret the scriptures.
If i understand this correctly how is it you or any catholic can interpret any scriptures if your church has not already done so?
How can you tell me that the woman in Revelations 12 is Mary if they have not defined the passage?

While Revelations has not been “infallibly” defined in the manner you seem to wish, it was in fact referred to in the document that infallibly declared Mary’s Immaculate conception and Assumption.

Link here

to EWTN Libraries

1. Moreover, the scholastic Doctors have recognized the Assumption of the Virgin Mother of God as something signified, not only in various figures of the Old Testament, but also in that woman clothed with the sun whom John the Apostle contemplated on the Island of Patmos.[24] Similarly they have given special attention to these words of the New Testament: “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you, blessed are you among women,”[25] since they saw, in the mystery of the Assumption, the fulfillment of that most perfect grace granted to the Blessed Virgin and the special blessing that countered the curse of Eve.

You completely misunderstand the stance of personal interpretation of Scripture. A Catholic Christian can confidently read the Bible while relying on the leading of the Holy Spirit. One must, however, ensure that one is not being led astray, as scripture warns, by making sure one’s private interpretation is in line with the teachings of Christ, passed on to the apostles and entrusted to faithful men(2Tim2:2)

So while many Catholic Christians may have been unaware that Revelations was refered to in the document Munificentissimus Deus, they clearly were correct in their “private” interpretations in relation to the Church.

 

[MariaG]

i do think infants do go to heaven. That would make sense to me in my understanding of the mercy and love of God.

This is why i don’t think the comparison with baptism is that strong because of the differences.

Paul, and the Holy Spirit whom inspired him to write the following scripture appears to see a more direct comparisson with circumcision and baptism.

Colossian 2:11-12
11] In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ;
12] and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

 

[MariaG]

2- It gives them the impression they are actually part of the church when in reality they are not. A person must make that decision for themselves and cannot be made for them. Far better to let people know where they stand rather than confusing them.

This belief or yours, is contradictory to the Old Testament understanding of who inherits the Covenant of God. Infant Males were circumcized into the Old Covenant as infants.

Respectfully,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

While I do see that many have answered this long time ago, (Really busy thread ), I just wanted to answer you since it was originally my post

With respect to John 6 being taken literally I do have a question. Jesus says:

Taking these literally would seem to say that if we partake of Jesus body then we will be saved. Jesus puts absolutely no conditions on these statements. He says if you eat you live. Would this mean that if I went to a Catholic Mass and received the Eucharist ilicitly and without believing that I would be automatically saved? According to the Catholic Church I would have eaten Jesus’ flesh and drunk His blood and that is all He says is required if He is speaking literally. Would you agree with this and if not how can Jesus’ words here be reconciled with saying no?

First of all, the point of my post is that while the accusation is that Catholics are reading with “Catholic Eyes” doctrine into John 6 that is not there, I pointed out that this is just not true. There are many “non-denominational” churches springing up that would disagree with much the Catholic Church teaches but would also argue for the Real Presence of Christ.

And others have already said, you can’t take things out of context of ALL of scripture, otherwise one could equally say that all one has to do is follow the commandments, since Jesus said that too.

Faith is an integral part of the ENTIRE gospel message.

God bless,
Maria

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
2- It gives them the impression they are actually part of the church when in reality they are not. A person must make that decision for themselves and cannot be made for them. Far better to let people know where they stand rather than confusing them.

MariaG
This belief or yours, is contradictory to the Old Testament understanding of who inherits the Covenant of God. Infant Males were circumcized into the Old Covenant as infants.

Respectfully,
Maria

The problem with your comparison is that circumcision and baptism are not the same thing. There are to many differences between them to be the same or baptism is an out-growth of circumcision.

 

[MariaG]

What is “believers baptism”?

A believers baptism refers to the new doctrine invented in the 16th Century that one had to be of the “age of reason” and that the faith of the parents was not sufficient to bring a child into the Covenant of God as had been practiced by the Jews and Christians, including the reformers until the Anabaptists came along teaching false doctrine.

There are those who claim that the Anabaptists were part of a small hidden Church that have been around since the time of Christ, and is the true church, but that of Course, would contradict scripture that tells us you can’t hide your light under a basket, and there are absolutely no historical documents written by any of those supposed believers.

Anabaptist from Wikipedia

Anabaptists from New Advent

And here is a link to a site that looks to be Anabaptist.

 

[mercygate]

This belief or yours, is contradictory to the Old Testament understanding of who inherits the Covenant of God. Infant Males were circumcized into the Old Covenant as infants.

. . . And the New Covenant is always greater, wider, broader than the old. If the New Covenant excluded infants, it would be a lesser covenant than the old.

 

[MariaG]

Paul, and the Holy Spirit whom inspired him to write the following scripture appears to see a more direct comparisson with circumcision and baptism.

Colossian 2:11-12
11] In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ;
12] and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

The problem with your comparison is that circumcision and baptism are not the same thing. There are to many differences between them to be the same or baptism is an out-growth of circumcision.

Not my comparison, but Paul’s. Argue with him.

 

[MariaG]

2- It gives them the impression they are actually part of the church when in reality they are not. A person must make that decision for themselves and cannot be made for them. Far better to let people know where they stand rather than confusing them.

This belief or yours, is contradictory to the Old Testament understanding of who inherits the Covenant of God. Infant Males were circumcized into the Old Covenant as infants.

. . . And the New Covenant is always greater, wider, broader than the old. If the New Covenant excluded infants, it would be a lesser covenant than the old.