The Catholic Church

[tqualey]

Hi, grampben,

Your response to Cinette caught my eye:

My comments on what happened Wyclif’s body after his death were not opinion.

I honestly have not given Wyclif or his remains much thought until you brought this up. Whatever happened to his body…happened a long time ago and truly does not effect religious doctrine. I have faith that Wyclif will rise (nothwithstanding any desecration of his corpse) on the Last Day. So, unless there is a doctrinal issued here, let’s move on to the more weighty matters.

You seem to have misunderstood what I said, I meant my beliefs that the self reform of the church would not have happened if it wasn’t for the reformation. That is opinion that I have came to after looking at the facts.

First thing up is that I am not sure about your verb usage: “…have came…”. I understand the part about you having looked at the facts. Are you saying that you once had this opinion but hold to it no longer, or, that you still hold to this opinion?

Second item is just what facts have you looked at?

Simply stated, in my opinion you presented a hypothesis: “…self reform of the church (CC) would not have happened if it wasn’t for the reformation.” The burden of proof is on you to substantiate this hypothesis with fact.

I presented at least 8 CC Councils over at least 400 years where reform of the CC and its members was initiated, published and enforced. Now, either these Councils never existed, the work they did was invented or the entire item is fantasy - OR - these facts simply refute your hypothesis. Indeed, there really were numerous efforts at self-reform BEFORE the Protestant Reformation.

Unless, I missed something, this issue is concluded and we need to move on. Would you agree?

The matter of how effective these Councils were and their efforts at self-reform is an entirely different issue from what you initially stated.

You are certainly free to offer another hypothesis, e.g., something that identifies that the outcomes from these Councils were ineffective contrasted with not having had the Councils that issued these directives for self-reform. Proving such a hypothesis would certainly require a lot of work: what criteria would be used? over what period of time? how can something be constructed where no action was taken (the control model and the experimental model) to actually test such a hypothesis?

The basic idea is that if anyone makes a statement, if required, they need to back it up with something other then an opinion. If my opinion is that you beat your dog - would you not expect me to present evidence that you even had a dog (dog license), that you still have this dog (complaints from the neighbors ) and that this dog was beaten (police arrest report on charges of cruely to animals). This is the kind of evidence that would be expected for me to prove such a claim. If you were to defend youself against such a liabelous charge - would not your attorney demand from me such evidence? Not having any…I would lose the case and judgment would be rendered against me…

Also in your next comment after the one I quoted you say Luther and Calvin believed in the eucharist. Luther did believe in the real presence, and venerated Mary. Calvin believed in a spiritual presence at communion between the community of believers (in between memorialism and real presence) and while he didn’t venerate her as such or pray to her, he had a lot more respect for Mary than most modern day evangelicals.

You have hit on several very interesting points: no only did the “Reformers” disagree amongst themselves while alive - their followers have continued to branch off continuing new and more colorful disagreements. What makes all of this of interest is that each one claims to get their grounding and doctrine from the Holy Bible. Really now… how can this be? No where in human experience is there a case where groups look at the same color and divide on what color this is - and then further divide, and still further divide. I have heard about >30,000 various Protestant denominations/sects/sub-sects/etc - I don’t know if that is accurate or an exaggeration… but, what I do know is that there are a bunch of them out there. And, they all teach some thing different - but, from the same Book.

I suggest that we resolve the matter that the CC has made numerous efforts at self-reform (from at least the historical facts I presented) prior to the “Reformation”.

Is this agreeable?

God bless

 

[grampben]

Hi, grampben,

Your response to Cinette caught my eye:

I honestly have not given Wyclif or his remains much thought until you brought this up. Whatever happened to his body…happened a long time ago and truly does not effect religious doctrine. I have faith that Wyclif will rise (nothwithstanding any desecration of his corpse) on the Last Day. So, unless there is a doctrinal issued here, let’s move on to the more weighty matters.

First thing up is that I am not sure about your verb usage: “…have came…”. I understand the part about you having looked at the facts. Are you saying that you once had this opinion but hold to it no longer, or, that you still hold to this opinion?

Second item is just what facts have you looked at?

Simply stated, in my opinion you presented a hypothesis: “…self reform of the church (CC) would not have happened if it wasn’t for the reformation.” The burden of proof is on you to substantiate this hypothesis with fact.

I presented at least 8 CC Councils over at least 400 years where reform of the CC and its members was initiated, published and enforced. Now, either these Councils never existed, the work they did was invented or the entire item is fantasy - OR - these facts simply refute your hypothesis. Indeed, there really were numerous efforts at self-reform BEFORE the Protestant Reformation.

Unless, I missed something, this issue is concluded and we need to move on. Would you agree?

The matter of how effective these Councils were and their efforts at self-reform is an entirely different issue from what you initially stated.

You are certainly free to offer another hypothesis, e.g., something that identifies that the outcomes from these Councils were ineffective contrasted with not having had the Councils that issued these directives for self-reform. Proving such a hypothesis would certainly require a lot of work: what criteria would be used? over what period of time? how can something be constructed where no action was taken (the control model and the experimental model) to actually test such a hypothesis?

The basic idea is that if anyone makes a statement, if required, they need to back it up with something other then an opinion. If my opinion is that you beat your dog - would you not expect me to present evidence that you even had a dog (dog license), that you still have this dog (complaints from the neighbors ) and that this dog was beaten (police arrest report on charges of cruely to animals). This is the kind of evidence that would be expected for me to prove such a claim. If you were to defend youself against such a liabelous charge - would not your attorney demand from me such evidence? Not having any…I would lose the case and judgment would be rendered against me…

You have hit on several very interesting points: no only did the “Reformers” disagree amongst themselves while alive - their followers have continued to branch off continuing new and more colorful disagreements. What makes all of this of interest is that each one claims to get their grounding and doctrine from the Holy Bible. Really now… how can this be? No where in human experience is there a case where groups look at the same color and divide on what color this is - and then further divide, and still further divide. I have heard about >30,000 various Protestant denominations/sects/sub-sects/etc - I don’t know if that is accurate or an exaggeration… but, what I do know is that there are a bunch of them out there. And, they all teach some thing different - but, from the same Book.

I suggest that we resolve the matter that the CC has made numerous efforts at self-reform (from at least the historical facts I presented) prior to the “Reformation”.

Is this agreeable?

God bless

I suppose my main example is that the Council of Trent, which defined the church after it met, seemed to eliminate abuses, while still being inherently ‘catholic’. The Council of Trent happened in response to the reformation. I did read what you said about self reform pre-reformation and it was very interesting. However more happened post-reformation as now the church had ‘competition’ (not that I like to use market terms in religion!) and so had to speed up its self reform. I suppose instead of wording it ‘self reform happened because of the reformation’ it should have been ‘in some ways, the reformation sped up church reform’…

I am trying not to mock catholicism, so can you please refrain from mocking protestantism with comments like this:

You have hit on several very interesting points: no only did the “Reformers” disagree amongst themselves while alive - their followers have continued to branch off continuing new and more colorful disagreements. What makes all of this of interest is that each one claims to get their grounding and doctrine from the Holy Bible. Really now… how can this be? No where in human experience is there a case where groups look at the same color and divide on what color this is - and then further divide, and still further divide. I have heard about >30,000 various Protestant denominations/sects/sub-sects/etc - I don’t know if that is accurate or an exaggeration… but, what I do know is that there are a bunch of them out there. And, they all teach some thing different - but, from the same Book.

The reformers agreed on what was known as ‘matters of indifference’, google it.
Unlike the catholic church, with most protestant denominations one does not have to agree with everything their denomination says, but need the ‘essentials’ (faith in Christ, baptism maybe).

God Bless.

 

[grampben]

Hey Mr Grampben!

Insofar as Mary is concerned I know and have seen text from books that Luther, Calvin and Zwingli all loved Mary and believed that she was the Mother of God.

Regarding the Eucharist you may be right because anyone who believed Jesus’ teaching on the Eucharist and then turns his/her back on that teaching would know s/he was committing a grave offense - a mortal sin.

I cannot go looking now but you must have seen the posting demonstrating with dates the different ecumenical councils and their purpose which clearly demonstrated that the Church is always actively seeking to improve. Conversion is a continual activity in our lives, the lives of every one of us. The Popes produce encyclicals all the time - the encyclicals also relate to the modern world.

You may not be aware for instance that Protestantism believed that articficial birth control was a sin until the Anglican Church determined that it was not so bad after all in 1931and what happened after that - all other non-Catholic churches abandoned their stance which, ultimately led to Abortion and the like. It gets worse and worse.

The Catholic Church stands firm by Jesus’ teachings and does not compromise. You bet it is hard to be Catholic but it is worth it.

:yup:

OK. ‘Mother of God’ isn’t a difficult doctrine to comprehend for most. Jesus is God, and Mary was her mother. Though I prefer Theotokos (God-bearer). Let’s leave that there

Again, just because the denomination says something about contraception etc does not mean everyone in the denomination has to believe it! I know many anglicans who dislike contraception and especially many who hate abortion, the Archbishop of Canterbury for one.

God Bless

 

[Cinette]

OK. ‘Mother of God’ isn’t a difficult doctrine to comprehend for most. Jesus is God, and Mary was her mother. Though I prefer Theotokos (God-bearer). Let’s leave that there

Again, just because the denomination says something about contraception etc does not mean everyone in the denomination has to believe it! I know many anglicans who dislike contraception and especially many who hate abortion, the Archbishop of Canterbury for one.

God Bless

Sure Grampben there are non-Catholics who also say the Rosary and are pro-life - thank God for that. We know that. It is just that the official teaching of these denominations does not reinforce the fact that these are terrible sins. Invitro fertilization and embryonic stem sells. etc.are other issues and assisted suicide…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, grampben,

Let’s do some straight talking - I have no intention of giving offense, and if I have, I apologize.

Let’s look at the numbers from an unbiased source: bringyou.to/apologetics/a120.htm It appears as though there are 33,000 Protestant denominations. You would admit this is a lot?

I am trying not to mock catholicism, so can you please refrain from mocking protestantism with comments like this: [Sorry, I do not know how to get your reference of my work back into this quote.]

The reformers agreed on what was known as ‘matters of indifference’, google it.
Unlike the catholic church, with most protestant denominations one does not have to agree with everything their denomination says, but need the ‘essentials’ (faith in Christ, baptism maybe).
God Bless.

As I reflect on your statement, I think that we may choose to disagree on which color to paint a wall, or what wine to order with a meal or whether to fly first-class or coach - but, this area strikes me as significantly different.

Look how you ended your post: “…(faith in Christ, baptism maybe)…”. “Baptism maybe?” ! Let’s take a look at this (here is my source: newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#V )

"Christ not only commands His Disciples (Matthew 28:19) to baptize and gives them the form to be used, but He also declares explicitly the absolute necessity of baptism (John 3): “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the Kingdom of God.”

Here are some additional quotes from scripture:
John 1:19-27, Matthew 3:1-11, Matthew 3:13-17, John 3:22; 4:1,2, Mark 16:16

Basically, we have the sinless Christ being baptized by John to show us by example our need for this sacrament - to open the door for us to get God’s Grace as His adopted sons and daughters.

We have Christ’s commands to Nicodemus, to His Apostles and to His Chruch to go out into the world and Baptize everyone in the name of the Trinity.

How can there be groups, or individuals, who reject Baptism from the same Bible all use? Honest, how can this be a ‘maybe’ in any understanding of the term of ‘uncertainty’?

In your previous post you identified multiple divisions, and in your second post you have re-inforced these divisions. There is no doubt about the existence of divisions - the only concern is what is being argued. To argue against Baptism (to pick one topic from many) is to effectively argue that Christ did nto know what He was doing when He said that Baptism was necessary. For man to say it isn’t necessary appears to me to contradict what you have written in your own Bible.

This defies logic and human understanding and simply can not stand under the weight of its own error.

God bless

 

[grampben]

Hi, grampben,

Let’s do some straight talking - I have no intention of giving offense, and if I have, I apologize.

Let’s look at the numbers from an unbiased source: bringyou.to/apologetics/a120.htm It appears as though there are 33,000 Protestant denominations. You would admit this is a lot?

As I reflect on your statement, I think that we may choose to disagree on which color to paint a wall, or what wine to order with a meal or whether to fly first-class or coach - but, this area strikes me as significantly different.

Look how you ended your post: “…(faith in Christ, baptism maybe)…”. “Baptism maybe?” ! Let’s take a look at this (here is my source: newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#V )

"Christ not only commands His Disciples (Matthew 28:19) to baptize and gives them the form to be used, but He also declares explicitly the absolute necessity of baptism (John 3): “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the Kingdom of God.”

Here are some additional quotes from scripture:
John 1:19-27, Matthew 3:1-11, Matthew 3:13-17, John 3:22; 4:1,2, Mark 16:16

Basically, we have the sinless Christ being baptized by John to show us by example our need for this sacrament - to open the door for us to get God’s Grace as His adopted sons and daughters.

We have Christ’s commands to Nicodemus, to His Apostles and to His Chruch to go out into the world and Baptize everyone in the name of the Trinity.

How can there be groups, or individuals, who reject Baptism from the same Bible all use? Honest, how can this be a ‘maybe’ in any understanding of the term of ‘uncertainty’?

In your previous post you identified multiple divisions, and in your second post you have re-inforced these divisions. There is no doubt about the existence of divisions - the only concern is what is being argued. To argue against Baptism (to pick one topic from many) is to effectively argue that Christ did nto know what He was doing when He said that Baptism was necessary. For man to say it isn’t necessary appears to me to contradict what you have written in your own Bible.

This defies logic and human understanding and simply can not stand under the weight of its own error.

God bless

30,000 denominations is a lot, but protestants don’t believe the ‘church’ to necessarily be an institution. We are united by faith in christ. I said baptism maybe because some denominations don’t see it as necessary for salvation. This is not my view.

Sorry if you think I’m illogical, I was just pointing out the view of many protestant.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, grampbed,

I was not calling you illogical. I just did not know how to apply the word ‘maybe’ that you used in describing Baptism. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

30,000 denominations is a lot, but protestants don’t believe the ‘church’ to necessarily be an institution. We are united by faith in christ. I said baptism maybe because some denominations don’t see it as necessary for salvation. This is not my view.

Sorry if you think I’m illogical, I was just pointing out the view of many protestant.

Maybe it is the idea or concept that anyone can have faith (any kind of faith) in someone else - and then just ignore what this person tell you to do. Allow me a silly example: My wife and I have been married for 38 years. I have faith in her. Now, if I chose to ignore what she tells me to do - I will quickly find myself in big trouble (of that, I have no doubt!) And, I do not think this experience is unique to me!!

Christ - the Son of God - told us that Baptism was necessary. How can anyone honestly argue with that? The attempt to end-run the Word of God (and leading others to do the same) really does give me problems. Christ told the Jews that if they could not believe in Him because of what He said, believe in the works He did to prove Christ was God.

If you will allow me to make a distinction here. I realize that the church is not a physical building but rather the assembly of believers. The dilemma - at least for me - is when we use a word like ‘institution’ - we seem to fold in the very basis for misunderstandings with some seeing the thing one way and some another way. Actually, it would be hard for one institution to share time and space with a different institution in the same building. I am reminded of the early Apostles who went to the Temple to pray … well… that did not last long…

Strictly from a mechanical (to facilitate a head count) stand, as opposed to a theological stand, it may be easier to simply count buildings. From my superficial knowledge of Protestantism, so much depends on the Preacher as far as what is actually preached. There can be a day and night difference in the beliefs of the First Baptist Chruch of ‘X’ and the Second Baptist Church of ‘X’. There there is the Missionary Baptist Church of ‘X’ (with ‘X’ simply being the name of the city). Now that is a generalization.

Look at the major division in the Anglican/Episcopalian church(es) involving homosexuality. The African group is splitting off. The English and Americans have attempted to reconcile their differences but, this is as honestly impossible as trying to reconcile white and black paint. And what makes it very difficult is that, looking only at the NT, St. Paul was so (at least in my opinion) very clear in this matter. Those that practice homosexuality are as estranged from Christ as those practicing fornication or adultery. It is not the person - it is the act that causes the separation from Christ. Apparently, the schism here is only getting worse.

I am delighted to hear that you consider Baptism as a necessity. Really. I, also, consider Baptism as a necessity. My reasons for this belief are several: the very words and deeds of Christ as I pointed out in my last post, and the teaching of the CC If I may now ask you: what is/are your reason(s) for you believing Baptism is necessary? Honest. I really think this holds the key to a lot of understsandings.

God bless

 

[grampben]

Hi, grampbed,

I was not calling you illogical. I just did not know how to apply the word ‘maybe’ that you used in describing Baptism. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

Maybe it is the idea or concept that anyone can have faith (any kind of faith) in someone else - and then just ignore what this person tell you to do. Allow me a silly example: My wife and I have been married for 38 years. I have faith in her. Now, if I chose to ignore what she tells me to do - I will quickly find myself in big trouble (of that, I have no doubt!) And, I do not think this experience is unique to me!!

Christ - the Son of God - told us that Baptism was necessary. How can anyone honestly argue with that? The attempt to end-run the Word of God (and leading others to do the same) really does give me problems. Christ told the Jews that if they could not believe in Him because of what He said, believe in the works He did to prove Christ was God.

If you will allow me to make a distinction here. I realize that the church is not a physical building but rather the assembly of believers. The dilemma - at least for me - is when we use a word like ‘institution’ - we seem to fold in the very basis for misunderstandings with some seeing the thing one way and some another way. Actually, it would be hard for one institution to share time and space with a different institution in the same building. I am reminded of the early Apostles who went to the Temple to pray … well… that did not last long…

Strictly from a mechanical (to facilitate a head count) stand, as opposed to a theological stand, it may be easier to simply count buildings. From my superficial knowledge of Protestantism, so much depends on the Preacher as far as what is actually preached. There can be a day and night difference in the beliefs of the First Baptist Chruch of ‘X’ and the Second Baptist Church of ‘X’. There there is the Missionary Baptist Church of ‘X’ (with ‘X’ simply being the name of the city). Now that is a generalization.

Look at the major division in the Anglican/Episcopalian church(es) involving homosexuality. The African group is splitting off. The English and Americans have attempted to reconcile their differences but, this is as honestly impossible as trying to reconcile white and black paint. And what makes it very difficult is that, looking only at the NT, St. Paul was so (at least in my opinion) very clear in this matter. Those that practice homosexuality are as estranged from Christ as those practicing fornication or adultery. It is not the person - it is the act that causes the separation from Christ. Apparently, the schism here is only getting worse.

I am delighted to hear that you consider Baptism as a necessity. Really. I, also, consider Baptism as a necessity. My reasons for this belief are several: the very words and deeds of Christ as I pointed out in my last post, and the teaching of the CC If I may now ask you: what is/are your reason(s) for you believing Baptism is necessary? Honest. I really think this holds the key to a lot of understsandings.

God bless

The baptists are generally very congregational in polity, generally denominations are united on matters of doctrine. I understand where you’re coming from.

I have a problem with this statement though:

Look at the major division in the Anglican/Episcopalian church(es) involving homosexuality. The African group is splitting off. The English and Americans have attempted to reconcile their differences but, this is as honestly impossible as trying to reconcile white and black paint. And what makes it very difficult is that, looking only at the NT, St. Paul was so (at least in my opinion) very clear in this matter. Those that practice homosexuality are as estranged from Christ as those practicing fornication or adultery. It is not the person - it is the act that causes the separation from Christ. Apparently, the schism here is only getting worse.

In The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, theological liberalism has damaged the view of the whole communion. The issue is NOT homosexuality - it’s much more serious, it’s a different reading of the Bible, such as the Presiding Bishop of TEC saying Jesus isn’t the only way!
Recently, traditionalists in the North american anglican church broke away (with many bishops) and formed a new competing province, which 9 former breakaway groups have joined. To me this is good news! Also, while there are theological liberals in England, there is a strong conservative base. The anglican chruch in my country, the Church of Ireland, is very conservative. It’s not the ‘African part’ separating. Perhaps you were referring to GAFCON, but it included far more than the African church!

Definitely though, the consecrating of Gene Robinson set the seal on the view of the Episcopal Church. This is a very small number of anglicans in comparison to the whole communion, and once the new province gets more widespread, the communion can get back on track.

 

[tqualey]

Hi grampben,

I told you I had a supervicial view… The clarification you gave was most helpful. And, yes, about all that I recalled was the vocalized discontent about Gene Robinson… and sort of lumped that all together… I do realize that there are several specific times here that are unknown to me.

Ah, but back on track…

As I recall, I had asked you what was/were the reasons for your belief in the necessity for Baptism.

I am still interested…

God bless

 

[grampben]

Hi grampben,

I told you I had a supervicial view… The clarification you gave was most helpful. And, yes, about all that I recalled was the vocalized discontent about Gene Robinson… and sort of lumped that all together… I do realize that there are several specific times here that are unknown to me.

Ah, but back on track…

As I recall, I had asked you what was/were the reasons for your belief in the necessity for Baptism.

I am still interested…

God bless

No worries

Well I have two reasons.
Firstly, I have a covenantal view of baptism. It is the sign and seal of the new covenant in Christ. In the OT, Abraham had to be circumcised and so did his descendants, but essentially his faith justified him. At baptism God lays down his promises for us, it’s his end of the bargain, so to speak. That’s the argument I use against baptists.
The other view is that Jesus said we had to be born again, and all the church fathers said this was to do with baptism. My view (and the view of many protestants closer to the catholic side of things) is that baptism DOES save us, on condition of faith. So baptism saves the baby on condition of faith, and if one is baptised at the time of conversion, it’s the same thing, only faith and baptism come at the same time.

That’s it roughly.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, grampben,

Thanks

I will need to think about this for a while.

God bless

No worries

Well I have two reasons.
Firstly, I have a covenantal view of baptism. It is the sign and seal of the new covenant in Christ. In the OT, Abraham had to be circumcised and so did his descendants, but essentially his faith justified him. At baptism God lays down his promises for us, it’s his end of the bargain, so to speak. That’s the argument I use against baptists.
The other view is that Jesus said we had to be born again, and all the church fathers said this was to do with baptism. My view (and the view of many protestants closer to the catholic side of things) is that baptism DOES save us, on condition of faith. So baptism saves the baby on condition of faith, and if one is baptised at the time of conversion, it’s the same thing, only faith and baptism come at the same time.

That’s it roughly.

 

[Peter_J]

The Church was in need of reform, and she reformed herself. Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, et al, did not reform the Catholic Church. They rebelled against her and left her.

You are correct in saying that Luther didn’t “leave” the Church, but rather was excommunicated. (I’ve never really understood why so many internet posters/blogger go around saying that he “left”. I would guess it’s a case of people repeating something they’ve heard, without checking out whether it is right. )

I’m less familiar with the details concerning Calvin and Zwingli, but I’ll take your word for it.

But I’m not convinced of your next claim:

Without the reformation, the Council of Trent and the ‘self reform’ of the church would not have happened.

Do you have an argument to back it up?

 

[grampben]

Do you have an argument to back it up?

I didn’t mean it in that way, I meant it as in the reformation sped up the church’s self reform as now they didn’t have a monopoly faith in christendom. And as for the Council of Trent, it came out of the counter-reformation, a counter attack on the protestant reformation.
I don’t regard the statement I made as definitive fact, but it is a conclusion I came to. Another user posted elements of pre-reformation self reform, which were very interesting. As I see it, the reformation sped it up.

 

[elvisman]

You are correct in saying that Luther didn’t “leave” the Church, but rather was excommunicated. (I’ve never really understood why so many internet posters/blogger go around saying that he “left”. I would guess it’s a case of people repeating something they’ve heard, without checking out whether it is right. )

I think it is correct to say that Luther and other “Reformers” (rebels) left, in that they refused to recant their heresies.

Luther may have had a point with his disgust about the abuses surrounding indulgences but he and the rest went off the deep end with the errors of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.
In short, they chose excommunication over self-correction.

 

[sambos671]

More correctly, it is called “The Protestant Revolt” since it did not “Reform” anything.

This is not entirely true. Because of the reformation the Council of Trent was conviened and the Trent Catachism was established. Also The reformation was also part of the Reason for the Vatican I council followed by the Vatican II. All you have to do is see the resurgance of emphasis on Sacred Scripture by the laity to see protestant influences on Catholicism. To inlcude music.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, grampben,

I’ve had a chance to rest … so…let’s take a look at what we have… Ah, this will be in two parts …

No worries
Well I have two reasons.
Firstly, I have a covenantal view of baptism. It is the sign and seal of the new covenant in Christ. In the OT, Abraham had to be circumcised and so did his descendants, but essentially his faith justified him. At baptism God lays down his promises for us, it’s his end of the bargain, so to speak. That’s the argument I use against baptists.

Not to sound picky but, the term ‘convenantal’ does not tell me as much as I would like to know. You are right on track when you say that it is the ‘sign and seal’ of our new life in Christ. Here is a link you may enjoy: scborromeo.org/ccc.htm This is an on-line link to the Cathechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). Here is a quote from this reference that highlights just what you said: “1272 Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation. Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.”

No doubt about it - Baptism was pre-figured in the OT.

While I would not have used the word ‘bargain’… I won’t argue with it either. (Do you think ‘covenant’ might fit better…? ) Here is another item from the CCC that reinforces you view:
“1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.”

… end of Part 1 (I’ve been told that brevity is the soul of wit )

 

[tqualey]

… beginning of Part 2

The other view is that Jesus said we had to be born again, and all the church fathers said this was to do with baptism. My view (and the view of many protestants closer to the catholic side of things) is that baptism DOES save us, on condition of faith. So baptism saves the baby on condition of faith, and if one is baptised at the time of conversion, it’s the same thing, only faith and baptism come at the same time.
That’s it roughly.

OK! Each baptized person is now a Child of God - and, an heir to the Kingdom of Heaven. Truly the idea of going back to see what the Early Chruch Fathers had to say about something is a very good idea. Chronologically, they were the closest to the Apostles - they, and their immediate predecesors were even taught by the Apostles. Here is a section from the CCC on the topic you raised:
“1253 Baptism is the sacrament of faith. But faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe. The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. The catechumen or the godparent is asked: “What do you ask of God’s Church?” The response is: “Faith!””

The dying infant, who is baptized, is ushered directly into heaven upon death. Truly an amazing throught - especially for bereft parents mouring the loss of their child - that they have their own saint.

For the adult receiving Baptism, there is a period of preparation.
“1247 Since the beginning of the Church, adult Baptism is the common practice where the proclamation of the Gospel is still new. The catechumenate (preparation for Baptism) therefore occupies an important place. This initiation into Christian faith and life should dispose the catechumen to receive the gift of God in Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist.”

For the dying adult, who is baptized, the stains of Original Sin and Actual Sin are removed. Here is a link you may want to check out: newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#XII
" This is clearly contained in the Bible. Thus we read (Acts 2:38): “Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins; and you shall receive the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call.” We read also in the twenty-second chapter of the Acts of the Apostles (verse 16):

Be baptized, and wash away thy sins." St. Paul in the fifth chapter of his Epistle to the Ephesians beautifully represents the whole Church as being baptized and purified (5:25 sq.): "Christ loved the Church, and delivered Himself up for it: that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the washing of water in the word of life: that he might present it to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

The prophecy of Ezekiel (36:25) has also been understood of baptism: "I will pour upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness (inquinamentis), where the prophet is unquestionably speaking of moral defilements.

This is also the solemn teaching of the Church. In the profession of faith prescribed by Pope Innocent III for the Waldensians in 1210, we read: We believe that all sins are remitted in baptism, both original sin and those sins which have been voluntarily committed." The Council of Trent (Sess. V., can. v) anathematizes whomsoever denies that the grace of Christ which is conferred in baptism does not remit the guilt of original sin; or asserts that everything which can truly and properly be called sin is not thereby taken away."

I think we have very similar views on Baptism.

On another topic there was a post about Luther and the other “Reformers” not having '…left the CC…" but rather having been kicked out (excommunicated). This is really a which came first issue - Luther, et al denied those truths that were essential to being a member of the CC. He ultimately lost his faith in the guiding protection of the Holy Spirit for the CC - and left. He continued to publish and preach the heresies he had been corrected on - in defiance of the Successor of St Peter. The official excommunication was simply to ratify what Luther had already accomplished in his heart and mind: a decisive break with the CC.

Some may view this as an insignificant distinction, and if so, fine. But, to my way of thinking, the real action took place with Luther’s belief in the established doctrines of the CC -the same doctrines the CC has to this date.

God bless

 

[grampben]

… beginning of Part 2

OK! Each baptized person is now a Child of God - and, an heir to the Kingdom of Heaven. Truly the idea of going back to see what the Early Chruch Fathers had to say about something is a very good idea. Chronologically, they were the closest to the Apostles - they, and their immediate predecesors were even taught by the Apostles. Here is a section from the CCC on the topic you raised:
“1253 Baptism is the sacrament of faith. But faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe. The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. The catechumen or the godparent is asked: “What do you ask of God’s Church?” The response is: “Faith!””

The dying infant, who is baptized, is ushered directly into heaven upon death. Truly an amazing throught - especially for bereft parents mouring the loss of their child - that they have their own saint.

For the adult receiving Baptism, there is a period of preparation.
“1247 Since the beginning of the Church, adult Baptism is the common practice where the proclamation of the Gospel is still new. The catechumenate (preparation for Baptism) therefore occupies an important place. This initiation into Christian faith and life should dispose the catechumen to receive the gift of God in Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist.”

For the dying adult, who is baptized, the stains of Original Sin and Actual Sin are removed. Here is a link you may want to check out: newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#XII
" This is clearly contained in the Bible. Thus we read (Acts 2:38): “Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins; and you shall receive the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call.” We read also in the twenty-second chapter of the Acts of the Apostles (verse 16):

Be baptized, and wash away thy sins." St. Paul in the fifth chapter of his Epistle to the Ephesians beautifully represents the whole Church as being baptized and purified (5:25 sq.): "Christ loved the Church, and delivered Himself up for it: that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the washing of water in the word of life: that he might present it to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

The prophecy of Ezekiel (36:25) has also been understood of baptism: "I will pour upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness (inquinamentis), where the prophet is unquestionably speaking of moral defilements.

This is also the solemn teaching of the Church. In the profession of faith prescribed by Pope Innocent III for the Waldensians in 1210, we read: We believe that all sins are remitted in baptism, both original sin and those sins which have been voluntarily committed." The Council of Trent (Sess. V., can. v) anathematizes whomsoever denies that the grace of Christ which is conferred in baptism does not remit the guilt of original sin; or asserts that everything which can truly and properly be called sin is not thereby taken away."

I think we have very similar views on Baptism.

On another topic there was a post about Luther and the other “Reformers” not having '…left the CC…" but rather having been kicked out (excommunicated). This is really a which came first issue - Luther, et al denied those truths that were essential to being a member of the CC. He ultimately lost his faith in the guiding protection of the Holy Spirit for the CC - and left. He continued to publish and preach the heresies he had been corrected on - in defiance of the Successor of St Peter. The official excommunication was simply to ratify what Luther had already accomplished in his heart and mind: a decisive break with the CC.

Some may view this as an insignificant distinction, and if so, fine. But, to my way of thinking, the real action took place with Luther’s belief in the established doctrines of the CC -the same doctrines the CC has to this date.

God bless

Thanks for the responses!
Don’t mean to change the topic, but Luther didn’t leave the church, he was excommunicated lol.
God bless.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, grampben,

Nooooooowww… let’s do that again… If you disagree with a topic, merely re-stating your view is no longer sufficient. You really need to come up with a reference or two to support your position. This moves disussions on an intellectual basis rather then an emotional one resting on an “I said” assumption.

Thanks for the responses!
Don’t mean to change the topic, but Luther didn’t leave the church, he was excommunicated lol.
God bless.

Formal excommunication from the Pope via a Papal Bull is certainly not necessary for the person involved to be excommunicated. For example, all those that participate in any aspect of an elective abortion are - by this very act - excommunicated. Here is an item from the Cathecism of the Catholic Church.

“2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,” “by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.”

In the area of grave sin, the CC has determined that certain sins are so bad that by their very nature one is no longer a member of the CC. This is made known up front. People considering or encouraging an abortion need to be advised that there is a very serious penalty as a consequence for this action.

Luther basically abondoned his belief first, articulated his false teaching, was privately and publicly instructed, ingnored the directive from the Pope and then was officially excommunicated. Here is a link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ninety-Five_Theses

Do you really think this guy was still a member of CC prior to the Pope signing off on the letter? Luther posted his 95 thesis on the chruch door on 10/31/1517. The Pope excommunicated Luther on 1/3/1521. What do you think Luther was doing during this approximate 3 year and 4 month interval? He was making political friends and adding to the body of his heresies (e.g., SS & SF, which have nothing to do with indulgences).

In brief - he chose to no longer be a member of CC. He long ago stopped seeking to ‘reform’ and instead chose to break away - and that preceeded the formal excommunication.

God bless

 

[elvisman]

Thanks for the responses!
Don’t mean to change the topic, but Luther didn’t leave the church, he was excommunicated lol.
God bless.

Read posts 314 & 319.
Luther chose excommunication over self-correction.
Oh . . . ummmm . . . lol.