Transubstantiation and Real Presence

[susanlo]

According to the catholic philosophical and metaphysical tradition, matter does not exist without form. Concerning protons, neutrons, and electrons, I did not mean to say in a previous post that these things are wholly devoid of matter but I believe I said they are made out of matter. There is matter in these subatomic particles yet not without accidental forms, the matter underlies the forms. For example, protons, neutrons, and electrons have dimensions such as length, width, depth; they also have shape, possibly color, and weight. Dimensions, shape, color, weight are not matter yet it is by such ‘forms’ as these that matter is made sensible. Without dimensions or extension, matter or a substance (which also includes in metaphysics the substantial form) would be invisible and imperceptible. Quantity or dimensions and extension is considered in philosophy the first accident of a material substance. For example, the body of an infant has not the same dimensions as that infant full grown. The infant and the full grown are the same person though, he/she is the same substantial human being whether an infant or fully grown. The dimensive quantity of some substance is an accident, it does not change the nature or kind of thing a thing is. Material substances in the natural order of things always exist with at least some accidents and generally are usually always extended even elemental atoms composed of the protons, neutrons, and electrons.

I need to get to bed for now but would like to comment later on more of what you posted here.

Peace and blessings, Richca

Are you referring to matter in scientific terms or philosophic terms? In transubstantiation does the chemist’s idea of “matter” change? Or does “matter” on a philosophical level change?

 

[susanlo]

Catholic Encyclopedia

St. Thomas holds that circumcision was a figure of baptism: this retrenches and restrains the animal man as that removed a part of his body — which physical act indicated the spiritual effect of the sacrament (De Sac., Summa, III, Q. lxx, a. 1). He gives three reasons why the organ of generation rather than any other was to be circumcised:

• Abraham was to be blessed in his seed;
• The rite was to take away original sin, which comes by generation;
• It was to restrain concupiscence, which is found especially in the generative organs (III, Q. lxx, a. 3).

According to his teaching, as baptism remits original sin and actual sins committed before its reception, so circumcision remitted both, but ex opere operantis, i.e. by the faith of the recipient, or, in the case of infants, by the faith of the parents.

Tierney, J. (1908). Circumcision. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm

If he believed that circumcision took away original sin, then did he think that females did not contract original sin? Or did he think that females remained guilty of Adam’s sin through their life?
In Judaism there was/is no concept of Original Sin and babies are born innocent. So when Jewish circumcision is performed, removing original sin is never an intention.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Honestly LA, I just watched this and found it rather weak. Question for you: in the reference to Peter telling the Jews that this promise is for you and your children and for those afar off…who are the people afar off? Tim indicates this means you should baptise your children as well as yourselves, but what about those who are afar off, they need to get them baptized too.

Hi Wann

The promise is for everyone.

But I think the problem the critics of infant baptism have is totally divorcing themselves, maybe inadvertently, from our Jewish roots. Circumcision is the identifier for Jews being brought into the covenant, thus baptism is our “identifier” so to speak as Christians. Jesus did not come to destroy but to fulfill and Baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision. So while this is not Judaism, we are grafted into that tree and we see the fingerprints of it in the Catholic faith, as we should not try and reinvent the wheel. But I do understand Protestants propensity to distance themselves from all things Jewish based on the scriptural warnings about Judaizers trying to replace Christ sacrifice with works. But we are just talking about practices here, not soteriology as some protestants baptize infants as well with a different understanding…

Now for those cases when people repented first, obviously, for them, it was required. Just like the thief of the cross being exempted from Baptism, obviously, for him, it was not necessary as he was not able. And obviously for infants, they don’t consent because they aren’t able .Now, as far as waiting for some arbitrary number, a “age of reason” that some have employed today, how do we know he or she will make it to said ‘age of reason’? We aren’t guaranteed tomorrow, and they especially were not guaranteed of anything in the early Church when life expectancy was not what it is in today’s era of modernized medicine…

A final thought…this practice goes back to the early Church. So if the Catholic Church is incorrect with this, they sure did get derailed right away:

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]).

 

[rcwitness]

Infant Baptism is Sacred Tradition. There is insufficient evidence to prove from Scripture for or against the practice. The Church herself is the instrument able to Confirm or reject the doctrine.

We see earlier Church affirmation of Infant Baptism than that of the fixed Biblical canon (Catholic or Protestant), right?

 

[Vico]

If he believed that circumcision took away original sin, then did he think that females did not contract original sin? Or did he think that females remained guilty of Adam’s sin through their life?
In Judaism there was/is no concept of Original Sin and babies are born innocent. So when Jewish circumcision is performed, removing original sin is never an intention.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III, Q 70 Circumcision,
Article 2. Whether circumcision was instituted in a fitting manner?

Reply to Objection 4. The institution of circumcision is as a sign of Abraham’s faith, who believed that himself would be the father of Christ Who was promised to him: and for this reason it was suitable that it should be for males only. Again, original sin, against which circumcision was specially ordained, is contracted from the father, not from the mother, as was stated in I-II:81:5. But Baptism contains the power of Christ, Who is the universal cause of salvation for all, and is “The Remission of all sins” (Post-Communion, Tuesday in Whitweek).

newadvent.org/summa/4070.htm

 

[Wannano]

:tUOTE=susanlo;14572716]Acts 2 NABRE
37Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?” 38Peter [said] to them, “Repent and be baptized,[g] every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. 39For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.” 40He testified with many other arguments, and was exhorting them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41*Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand persons were added that day.

The offer for forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit is made for everyone. However only those who accepted his message would be baptized that day. There is no sign that they baptized the children under the age of 7 if one or both parents received baptism, as well as no record that they baptized those far off who did not believe either.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Infant Baptism is Sacred Tradition. There is insufficient evidence to prove from Scripture for or against the practice. The Church herself is the instrument able to Confirm or reject the doctrine.

We see earlier Church affirmation of Infant Baptism than that of the fixed Biblical canon (Catholic or Protestant), right?

Exactly - the Church that birthed the scriptures(humanly speaking anyway) the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15) says we do it.

And this practice is not contrary to the scriptures.

 

[Wannano]

Hi Wann

The promise is for everyone.

But I think the problem the critics of infant baptism have is totally divorcing themselves, maybe inadvertently, from our Jewish roots. Circumcision is the identifier for Jews being brought into the covenant, thus baptism is our “identifier” so to speak as Christians. Jesus did not come to destroy but to fulfill and Baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision. So while this is not Judaism, we are grafted into that tree and we see the fingerprints of it in the Catholic faith, as we should not try and reinvent the wheel. But I do understand Protestants propensity to distance themselves from all things Jewish based on the scriptural warnings about Judaizers trying to replace Christ sacrifice with works. But we are just talking about practices here, not soteriology as some protestants baptize infants as well with a different understanding…

Now for those cases when people repented first, obviously, for them, it was required. Just like the thief of the cross being exempted from Baptism, obviously, for him, it was not necessary as he was not able. And obviously for infants, they don’t consent because they aren’t able .Now, as far as waiting for some arbitrary number, a “age of reason” that some have employed today, how do we know he or she will make it to said ‘age of reason’? We aren’t guaranteed tomorrow, and they especially were not guaranteed of anything in the early Church when life expectancy was not what it is in today’s era of modernized medicine…

A final thought…this practice goes back to the early Church. So if the Catholic Church is incorrect with this, they sure did get derailed right away:

Thank you for your charitable response. As far as a child not making it to the age of reason, it makes total sense to believe that they are innocent of any sin until they can reason for themselves.

With respect to “they sure did get derailed right away” I would point out that 200 years is a long time! I can understand the thought process behind infant baptism but it makes personal salvation an act of others, not a personal choice.

I respect the CC and I feel the pain of those who have shared the fact that only a small percentage of all baptized Catholics actually practice their faith.

Thanks,

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Thank you for your charitable response. As far as a child not making it to the age of reason, it makes total sense to believe that they are innocent of any sin until they can reason for themselves.

With respect to “they sure did get derailed right away” I would point out that 200 years is a long time! I can understand the thought process behind infant baptism but it makes personal salvation an act of others, not a personal choice.

I respect the CC and I feel the pain of those who have shared the fact that only a small percentage of all baptized Catholics actually practice their faith.

Thanks,

Hi Wann

Sure, God is mercy and I have no doubt a baptized or unbaptized 2 year old heads to heaven should he/she pass, untimely. I have no proof of it, but I do believe it.

But why wait to enter them into that covenant? We as Christians are grafted into that Jewish tree - of which Jesus said salvation is from (John 4:22) and they didn’t wait with circumcision, neither did the early Church with baptism which is the fulfillment of circumcision.

As to 200 years being a long time - not really, imo.The Apostolic age ends when John dies in what, 100 AD? But that’s subjective and not worth arguing…

Looking at the big picture - if the Church was already derailed by 200 AD, then the gates of hell prevailed against it for 1300 years prior to Luther. Now that is something that contradicts scripture as Jesus promised to be with her always.

Blessings

 

[Wannano]

Hi Wann

Sure, God is mercy and I have no doubt a baptized or unbaptized 2 year old heads to heaven should he/she pass, untimely. I have no proof of it, but I do believe it.

But why wait to enter them into that covenant? We as Christians are grafted into that Jewish tree - of which Jesus said salvation is from (John 4:22) and they didn’t wait with circumcision, neither did the early Church with baptism which is the fulfillment of circumcision.

As to 200 years being a long time - not really, imo.The Apostolic age ends when John dies in what, 100 AD? But that’s subjective and not worth arguing…

Looking at the big picture - if the Church was already derailed by 200 AD, then the gates of hell prevailed against it for 1300 years prior to Luther. Now that is something that contradicts scripture as Jesus promised to be with her always.

Blessings

I would not want to be quoted as saying the Church derailed at the all, just got some things a little mixed up, as in my opinion ALL churches have. Jesus promised to be with us always and He always will. The Church being made up of all believers regardless of denomination. God is big enough to work with the imperfection of mere man.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I would not want to be quoted as saying the Church derailed at the all, just got some things a little mixed up, as in my opinion ALL churches have. Jesus promised to be with us always and He always will. The Church being made up of all believers regardless of denomination. God is big enough to work with the imperfection of mere man.

Very well

One final point that I always bring up when I see objections to infant baptism. Assuming you hold to the position that baptism doesn’t forgive your sins or save, it’s true repentance and trust in Christ that does it. Why then does the age a person is baptized matter, either way? If it’s merely a profession of faith?

If you have already answered this somewhere and I missed it, then my apologies/

Thank you.

 

[rcwitness]

I would not want to be quoted as saying the Church derailed at the all, just got some things a little mixed up, as in my opinion ALL churches have. Jesus promised to be with us always and He always will. The Church being made up of all believers regardless of denomination. God is big enough to work with the imperfection of mere man.

There is some truth I can agree with you here. But Jesus did tell us to take our disputes to the Church in Matthew 18. To say that the Church cannot ultimately provide an answer from above is to render this Teaching of the Lord powerless.

 

[Peter_J]

I would not want to be quoted as saying the Church derailed at the all, just got some things a little mixed up, as in my opinion ALL churches have.

That’s the thing though, isn’t it?

For example, when controversies over Christ’s personhood arose, a significant portions of the churches erred, namely the Nestorian churches … But it would appear that y’all want us all to believe that ALL the churches erred on the question of infant baptism in the third century (or whenever you see that happening).

 

[MartinJordan]

That’s the thing though, isn’t it?

For example, when controversies over Christ’s personhood arose, a significant portions of the churches erred, namely the Nestorian churches … But it would appear that y’all want us all to believe that ALL the churches erred on the question of infant baptism in the third century (or whenever you see that happening).

MJ

 

[gazelam]

There certainly are records that testify that infants are baptized, for example, the baptismal instruction of St. John Chrysostom. Baptism replaced circumcision. There was even an argument about ASAP baptism vs waiting for the eighth day.

Kurt Aland wrote…

It can be no accident… that all of our information about the existence of infant baptism comes from the period between A.D. 200 and 250….For the time before this we do not possess a single piece of information that gives concrete testimony to the existence of infant baptism… To this day [1963] nobody can prove an actual case of the baptism of an infant in the period before A.D. 200…. That our entire sources, at least when allowed their literal sense, have in view only the baptism of adults, or at best the baptism of older children, can as little be contested. (Aland, Did the Early Church Baptize Infants?, pp. 101, 102)

Everett Ferguson wrote…

There is general agreement that there is no firm evidence for infant baptism before the latter part of the second century. This fact does not mean that it did not occur, but it means that supporters of the practice have a considerable chronological gap to account for. Many replace the historical silence by appeal to theological or sociological considerations.
Arguments against the originality of baby baptism, in addition to its lack of early attestation, include: the essential nature ascribed to verbal confession and repentance; the liturgy designed for persons of responsible age; size of baptisteries; and the lack of an agreed theology to support it (Chrysostom and the Eastern churches vs. Augustine).
The most plausible explanation for the origin of infant baptism is found in the emergency baptism of sick children expected to die soon so that they would be assured of entrance into the kingdom of heaven. There was a slow extension of the practice of baptizing babies as a precautionary measure. It was generally accepted, but questions continued to be raised about its propriety into the fifth century. It became the usual practice in the fifth and sixth centuries.
In the Augustinian-Pelagian controversy infant baptism was a principal support for the doctrine of original sin, rather than the other way around, since baptism was universally recognized as for forgiveness of sins. With the victory of Augustine’s arguments original sin became the reason for infant baptism in the western church. (Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, pp. 856, 857)

 

[Herculees]

Don’t want to start yet another Eucharist thread so I’ll post my question here. Hope its ok with OP if not please ask moderation to delete.

For those non Catholic Christians who believe in real presence. Do you bow before receiving the body and blood? Do you genuflect to the Lord in the tabernacle? Assuming you have a tabernacle? If not, why not?

Thanks

When I go into church I genuflect IF I am in front of the tabernacle with a lit candle otherwise I bow before a cross/crucifix/altar. When I am in line to receive holy communion when the priest is giving holy communion to the person in front of me I bow as he says to them “the body of Christ”. When I then approach and the priest says “body of Christ” I bow my head and say “Amen” and open my mouth to receive holy communion. (I worship in the Maronite Church and therefore NOT permitted to receive communion in the hand.)

 

[Wannano]

Very well

One final point that I always bring up when I see objections to infant baptism. Assuming you hold to the position that baptism doesn’t forgive your sins or save, it’s true repentance and trust in Christ that does it. Why then does the age a person is baptized matter, either way? If it’s merely a profession of faith?

If you have already answered this somewhere and I missed it, then my apologies/

Thank you.

I was travelling today so I have not seen this until now. The age does not matter, baptism is their testimony to receiving new life in Christ and starting their walk with Him.

 

[Wannano]

There is some truth I can agree with you here. But Jesus did tell us to take our disputes to the Church in Matthew 18. To say that the Church cannot ultimately provide an answer from above is to render this Teaching of the Lord powerless.

Yes of course, we are to take our disputes to the Church. Have I given the impression I do not believe in that? I never meant to. In my lifetime in our congregation this has happened numerous times.

 

[Wannano]

That’s the thing though, isn’t it?

For example, when controversies over Christ’s personhood arose, a significant portions of the churches erred, namely the Nestorian churches … But it would appear that y’all want us all to believe that ALL the churches erred on the question of infant baptism in the third century (or whenever you see that happening).

There have been numerous posts here in the past year that I have read that indicate it started to occur about that time.

 

[Peter_J]

There have been numerous posts here in the past year that I have read that indicate it started to occur about that time.

Well, I’m rusty on the timeline so I won’t argue the When part … which I don’t think would affect my point anyhow. I just find it hard to accept the notion that all the churches erred together.