Skip to comments.The Big Discovery [by David, former Presbyterian]
Posted on 06/03/2012 1:47:18 PM PDT by Salvation
Sounds like typical Catholic projecting onto non-Catholics what they’re thinking.
That's a pretty typical reaction. When someone can't refute the data or facts, to attack the integrity of the person presenting them.
When former Catholics present what they know to be the facts of Catholicism and what they experienced as Catholics and it casts the RCC in a bad light and cannot be refuted, then the charges are laid of vindictiveness, bitterness, ignorance of church teaching, and all manner of personal character failures in an attempt to discredit what they say as being biased or inaccurate.
Since the facts cannot be disputed or refuted, the only option left is to imply that the messenger is unreliable.
Someone gets it. I'm not surprised that it's a non-Catholic.
Catholics just can't seem to see their own attitudes reflected in what they say towards others. No empathy.
As a matter of fact, the very condemning comments here on these threads *bitter*, *failed Catholics*, etc, are EXACTLY the kinds of attitudes that I've encountered out of Catholics I've known personally. Catholics on these threads are no different than them. There is much condemnation of non-Catholics by Catholics on all levels.
James 2:1-13 My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. 2 For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, 3 and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, You sit here in a good place, while you say to the poor man, You stand over there, or, Sit down at my feet, 4 have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? 5 Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court? 7 Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called?
8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, You shall love your neighbor as yourself, you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. 11 For he who said, Do not commit adultery, also said, Do not murder. If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. 13 For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
Scripture is clearly the supreme authority as the assuredly infallible Word of God, but in holding to it then it is clear that “tradition” has a place, but not as the assuredly infallible Word of God, which class of revelation Scripture is affirmed to be, but such is subject to proof by Scripture.
By “tradition” can be meant a general understanding or way of doing things which may not be spelled out in Scripture, but is supported by it. A wedding ceremony is one example, in which a bride dressed in white has a ring placed on her hand, but the typology behind it is easily conformable to Scripture, and does not contradict it.
However, the difference here is that you do not make such into legal moral requirements. The practice of washings after or before most any activity, after “the tradition of the elders” (Mk. 7:3ff) could find support in principle from Scripture as being a good idea, but not fore being made into a doctrine, so that those who fail to wash after they come from the market are unclean sinners, which would be legalism.
SS type evangelical churches hold to a certain historical tradition of hermeneutics, in which historical narratives are held as being literal (unlike the predominate school of Rome), and in conservative interpretations, but both are manifestly Scriptural, and would represent a different level of tradition.
Paul’s affirmation of oral “traditions” (2Ths. 2:15) was not to some some eons-old nebulous oral tradition of tales, but to known teaching which could have been written, and which was the norm for anything called the Word of God in Scripture,
The affirmation of tradition by so-called church fathers (the apostles were) was to basic beliefs which could be passed on mainly by writing (and we have our commentaries with the substantial common consent), but which i think became elevated above measure due to their problems in trying to defeat those who misused Scripture to teach heresy, for the devil knows the Bible.
However, when confronted with the devil’s misuse of Scripture, the Lord responded by “it is written” which refers to Scripture, while RC “Tradition, by definition, is not written, though expressions of it may be in that form.
Stating facts is not ridicule.
Show me the ridicule you're accusing me of. Post numbers, please....
one of the worst things about the internet is somebody will post something who has no understanding of Church history and then someone else who has even less understanding of Church history will think it’s true and copy it.
the article is laughable.
first of all, let’s note that NO BAPTISTS were quoted in the ist three centuries, only Catholics are quoted.
second of all, all of the Catholics quoted ( Tertullian, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr ) all believed in BAPTISMAL REGENERATION ( something all Baptists think is a doctrine straight from the pit of hell, do i have that right BB? ) in addition, they all practiced infant baptism.
HOW DO I KNOW? i will post a link of an articel that quotes Iraneus directly supporting infant baptism.
i think it would be helpful to those who don’t know Church history to know who Irenaeus was. The Apostle John taught Polycarp, Polycarp taught Irenaeus and Irenaeus taught a Church Father named Hippolytus. so if anyone would know what Irenaeus thought about infant baptism, it would be Hippolytus.
Hippolytus wrote a book in 215ad titles “the apostolic tradition”. in it we find him saying “ baptize first the children, and if they can speak fo themselves, let them do so. Otherwise let their parents or other relatives speak for them”
i guess Hippolytus had a lot riding on this “myth”
again for those in rio linda land Jesus to John to Polycarp to Irenaeus to Hippolytus. by the way, Hippolytus says the Church received the practice of infant baptism from the Apostles.
but someone sitting in the comfortable 21st can attack great men of God such as Irenaeus and Hippolytus, men who risked being put to the sword by the Roman authorities.
folks, the reason there NEVER was a controversy over infant baptism until the 16th century, is the whole Church from the beginning practiced it.
Again, put your common sense hat on. does it pass the laugh test that the early Church practiced “believers baptism “ and then someone misinterpreted a passage from Irenaeus and then suddenly and without a protest from anyone, the whole Church ( including Athanasius ) went apostate by “dunking babies” it would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
by the way, what stake did Luther and Calvin have in perpetrating this “myth”? they held to “sola scriptura”, not the apostolic tradition.
Search this site: Close
MagazineQuick QuestionsTractsDocumentsCatholic EncyclopediaWatchListenDiscussShopDonate
Donate NowLegacy SocietyMore
Speakers & EventsPeople & ProfilesProjectsChastity.comAbout
Mission & VisionActivitiesStaff ProfilesJobsBook SubmissionsMagazine SubmissionsPermissionsContact Us.Tracts.Early Teachings on Infant Baptism
On the other hand, nowhere do we read of children raised in believing households reaching the age of reason and then being baptized. The only explicit baptism accounts in the Bible involveconverts from Judaism or paganism. For children of believers there is no explicit mention of baptismeither in infancy or later.
This poses a problem for Baptists and Bible Christians: On what basis do they require children of believers to be baptized at all? Given the silence of the New Testament, why not assume Christian baptism is only for adult converts?
This, of course, would be contrary to historical Christian practice. But so is rejecting infant baptism. As we will see, there is no doubt that the early Church practiced infant baptism; and no Christian objections to this practice were ever voiced until the Reformation.
The New Testament itself, while it does not explicitly say when (or whether) believers should have their children baptized, is not silent on the subject.
Luke 18:1516 tells us that “they were bringing even infants” to Jesus; and he himself related this to the kingdom of God: “Let the children come to me
. . . for to such belongs the kingdom of God.”
When Baptists speak of “bringing someone to Jesus,” they mean leading him to faith. But Jesus says “even infants” can be “brought” to him. Even Baptists dont claim their practice of “dedicating” babies does this. The fact is, the Bible gives us no way of bringing anyone to Jesus apart from baptism.
Thus Peter declared, “Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children” (Acts 2:3839).
The apostolic Church baptized whole “households” (Acts 16:33; 1 Cor. 1:16), a term encompassing children and infants as well as servants. While these texts do not specifically mentionnor excludeinfants, the very use of the term “households” indicates an understanding of the family as a unit. Even one believing parent in a household makes the children and even the unbelieving spouse “holy” (1 Cor. 7:14).
Does this mean unbelieving spouses should be baptized? Of course not. The kingdom of God is not theirs; they cannot be “brought to Christ” in their unbelief. But infants have no such impediment. The kingdom is theirs, Jesus says, and they should be brought to him; and this means baptism.
Baptism is the Christian equivalent of circumcision, or “the circumcision of Christ”: “In him you were also circumcised with . . . the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead” (Col. 2:1112). Thus, like circumcision, baptism can be given to children as well as adults. The difference is that circumcision was powerless to save (Gal. 5:6, 6:15), but “[b]aptism . . . now saves you” (1 Pet. 3:21).
The first explicit evidence of children of believing households being baptized comes from the early Churchwhere infant baptism was uniformly
upheld and regarded as apostolic. In fact, the only reported controversy on the subject was a third-century debate whether or not to delay baptism until the eighth day after birth, like its Old Testament equivalent, circumcision! (See quotation from Cyprian, below; compare Leviticus 12:23.)
Consider, too, that Fathers raised in Christian homes (such as Irenaeus) would hardly have upheld infant baptism as apostolic if their own baptisms had been deferred until the age of reason.
For example, infant baptism is assumed in Irenaeus writings below (since he affirms both that regeneration happens in baptism, and also that Jesus came so even infants could be regenerated). Since he was born in a Christian home in Smyrna around the year 140, this means he was probably baptized around 140. He was also probably baptized by the bishop of Smyrna at that timePolycarp, a personal disciple of the apostle John, who had died only a few decades before.
“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).
“And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven [John 3:5]” (Fragment34 [A.D. 190]).
“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]).
“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).
“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).
“If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” (ibid., 64:5).
Gregory of Nazianz
“Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!” (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).
“Well enough, some will say, for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too? Certainly [I respond], if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated” (ibid., 40:28).
“You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christs] members” (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).
“What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).
“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
“Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born” (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).
“By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christs] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christs Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration” (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).
Council of Carthage V
“Item: It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they [abandoned children] were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the [North African] legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such [abandoned children] from the barbarians” (Canon 7 [A.D. 401]).
Council of Mileum II
“[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration” (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]).
posted from the Catholic Answers web site.
at least my organization was not founded by Charles Taze Russell in the 1870’s.
it hard to have a discussion with anyone who rejects the Trinity. if you don’t understand who God is, what basis do we have for a discussion?
When Jesus sent out the eleven they were to make disciples, baptize them, teach the commandments and that is the order and pattern that was followed where ever it may be determined for certainty. No newborn, no little baby could be made a disciple.
only adults were said to be baptized? really, you know the jailer had no cildren how?
the problem those who hold your position have is 2,000 years of Christian history says you are wrong.
the Church the Apostles left behind BAPTIZED INFANTS.
the very men you rely on to set the canon of the NT BAPTIZED INFANTS.
this wasn’t an issue until the 16th century.
what arrogance to think no one understood baptism until the 16th century.
Show me the evidence that the confabulations you post about the Church and Catholics are indeed accurate and honest and I will be glad to respond and to explain or apologize when merited.
While there are legitimate issues and disagreements between Catholics and non-Catholics I'm not going to waste any time arguing against the fictitious entity and events you post. You make the charges, you substantiate them.
Peace be with you.
It is equally hard to have a discussion with anyone who claims to be a Christian but refuses to declare that Jesus is God and to proclaim their personal love for Him. When the first and foremost premise is a refutation of Christianity nothing credible can follow.
Peace be with you.
What condemning attitude?
And while you see Catholics who hold that extra Ecclesiam nulla salus leaves non-Catholics damned as being bitter, failed Catholics who know little about what the Church actually believes or teaches
No, that's not what I see. What I see is that ex-Catholics who are persistent in talking about the Church, without bothering to be truthful about its doctrine or teachings, whether intentionally or not, are bitter, failed Catholics who know little about what the Church actually believes or teaches.
more historical position of Rome, which does condemn schismatics to Hell,
No, it doesn't.
as seen here
It appears you put a lot of effort into cutting and pasting out of context snippets from various documents. I didn't have time to thoroughly investigate the lengthy cut and paste, but I did skim it. I didn't see the Church condemning anyone to hell.
The Church has never claimed the ability to condemn anyone to hell nor has it ever stated that its declaration of excommunication or anathema have any impact on ones salvation. Both excommunication and anathema deal only with a person's relationship with the Church, not God.
The Church, like all churches, has declared that that certain practices and beliefs will result in damnation, but doesn't claim the ability to enforce it.
I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell. - Harry S. Truman
That might be true if the person had the integrity to actually post the data or the facts. All you've posted are muddled musings with no evidence to demonstrate what is being posted is true.
When former Catholics present what they know to be the facts of Catholicism
But it's when these "facts" have repeatedly been demonstrated to not be facts at all, but are still repeated, that it begins to look like bitterness talking. And repeatedly posting erroneous doctrine after being corrected can only be seen as failure.
Since the facts cannot be disputed or refuted, the only option left is to imply that the messenger is unreliable.
The messenger has demonstrated on her own that she is unreliable. For example, we're still waiting for you to post facts regarding the Ukrainians that cannot be disputed or refuted.
O.K., If we are to assume that he had children, assume since none are mentioned, then we may assume anything else we wish about them, perhaps assuming they were grown children living in the household, not uncommon even today.
But if we go with what the Scriptures say then only adults are spoken of as being baptized.
The long list of Church Fathers shows none defending infant baptism from the Scriptures.
So the pattern from the Scriptures was discipleship, baptism, learning the commandments. 1,2,3.
I prefer to speak in my own words and to read what others have to say in theirs.
But when we post stuff in our own words, we're accused of lying about the Catholic church.
No offense. But, what you are doing in posting to me is a waste of your time.
No, it's not.
I enjoy apologetics, especially the back and forth of a conversation with others, who impart to me, in their own words what they believe and why they believe it.
I am glad that you enjoy his posts, I thought I was being honest in telling him that I do not read them, I find them to be dry, impersonal reading. I meant no offense, just letting him know that to post them to me is a waste of his time.
He's not posting them because they're exciting reading but rather because when people make comments about Catholicism, Catholics are constantly accusing non-Catholics of telling lies about Catholicism and demanding proof to back their statements.
And here, when it's provided, it's not even read.
I guess if you can't refute the comments, denigrate the person posting, or deny the evidence backing them up, you can just ignore it, plugging your ears, singing *La, la, la, la, laaaaaa...... I can't hear you.* and ignore it.
Likewise for someone who rejects the truth and authority of Scripture. Catholics appeal to the church fathers and the CCC to defend their faith (in the Catholic church). Believers appeal to the inerrant, infallible, God breathed Scripture to defend their faith (in Christ).
I didn’t think you had anything.
Thank you for exonerating me.
If you are hearing it so often, and in so many different places, maybe you need to take a clue.
There is much condemnation of non-Catholics by Catholics on all levels.
Observing that someone is bitter or failed is just that, an observation. It is not a condemnation because it is something you can change.
What I don't have is an honest or accurate criticism of the Church to defend. Hurt feelings from the failure to accommodate egocentricism are not the fault of the Church nor a reason to ascribe any number of false doctrines to it. I can forgive you, but I cannot exonerate anyone.
Peace be with you
That is worth repeating.
Would you care to show where I ever denied the Trinity???
Perhaps we can just make false accusations and hope they stick...Like, why do you attend a Catholic church on Saturday after worshiping in a mosque on Friday???
I guess if it works for you, it'll work for me...
That is exactly what the RCC claims as stated in its own catechism. The RCC claims that salvation is through it as the true church established by Jesus Himself and that outside the church, there is no salvation, that it is the only means by which someone can come to God.
Why are you disagreeing with the CCC?
816 "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it.... This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."267
The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: "For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God."268
822 Concern for achieving unity "involves the whole Church, faithful and clergy alike."287 But we must realize "that this holy objective - the reconciliation of all Christians in the unity of the one and only Church of Christ - transcends human powers and gifts." That is why we place all our hope "in the prayer of Christ for the Church, in the love of the Father for us, and in the power of the Holy Spirit."288
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
The Church, like all churches, has declared that that certain practices and beliefs will result in damnation, but doesn't claim the ability to enforce it.
Sure it does. And the Catholic church and Catholics use these verses to back that up.
Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Matthew 18:18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
The Catholic church does indeed do exactly that, claim to have the power to send people to hell and keep them out of heaven and enforce it, claiming that Jesus gave them that authority.
You want to try again with something people can actually believe?
“Observing that someone is bitter or failed is just that, an observation. It is not a condemnation because it is something you can change”
By that criteria any insult is acceptable to use since “you can change”. How ‘bout “liar”? Is that just an “observation”?
It sounds like a game of seeing how many innuendo loaded statements (”observations”) can be made before being asked to leave the thread.
you are reading doctrines into the Scriptures that are not there and contradict 2,000 years of Christian practice and belief. who knows better what the Apostles taught than those who heard them and saw what they did?
the Scriptures DO NOT speak of only adults being baptized. Jewish 1st century households would have been full of children.
1,500 years is a long time for no one to understand a core doctrine like baptism.
It can be an observation or it can be proven as fact.
It sounds like a game of seeing how many innuendo loaded statements (observations) can be made before being asked to leave the thread.
We were discussing observations that were claimed to have been made outside of FreeRepublic. It has nothing to do with a game, the threads, or being asked to leave. On FreeRepublic, making it personal is not allowed.
i deny worshipping at a mosque.
do you deny rejecting the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus?
i thought JW’s rejected both.
That is a frequent phenomena among FRoman Catholics. Each FRoman Catholic is his/her own pope.
Because the scriptures forbid the baptizing of babies...
If someone says all your kids were at one time Boy Scouts, you know what that means???
But to lay this thing to rest, why not turn to the scriptures...Perhaps you can find a bible on line so you can follow along...
Act 16:32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
Did you see that??? They spoke onto him the word of the Lord...And to all that were in his house...
They spoke to everyone in his house...Did they speak to babies???
Act 16:34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.
Oh no, there's more???
THE ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD BELIEVED IN GOD...NO BABIES...
Anything and everything you can say or copy and paste contrary to the words of God are a waste of perfectly good air...
You want to post the garbage that your religion has practiced for centuries contrary to the word of God and call it Holy; and try to convince us that the Apostles didn't believe what they wrote, go for it...But I will and do recognize it for the garbage it is...
No, it's not, because when reading just words that are written and not knowing the person or the tone of voice used or other clues that you can pick up when actually interacting face to face, there is simply no way of picking up motivation from the written word. It has to be implied, or projected, onto that person and that reveals more about the person making the accusation than the person being accused.
It reveals the mindset of the accuser because they would conclude that others would do what they would do in a similar situation.
I am not bitter. That would be the result of a lack of forgiveness towards those who offended me and I have forgiven them., therefore, no bitterness.
As far as the accusation of being a *failed* Catholic, that doesn't work either because I didn't leave the Catholic church because I couldn't keep up with the hoop jumping required by it to earn salvation, but because I read the Word of God and saw the truth in it that the Catholic church contradicts with its own teaching.
I suppose that if that makes me a failed Catholic, it's just a label I'll have to wear as a badge of honor.
a : to give up resentment of or claim to requital for *forgive an insult*
b : to grant relief from payment of *forgive a debt*
2 : to cease to feel resentment against (an offender) : pardon *forgive one's enemies*
Forgiveness does not entail denial of reality. I can relate the offenses done against me by Catholics without anger, bitterness, resentment, or whatever. Forgiveness doesn't mean denying that what happened really happened, but rather acknowledging the wrong and choosing to not hold it against someone.
I didn't leave the Church for good because or bitterness or resentment or failure, but for theological reasons, that is that the teachings of the Catholic church do not line up with Scripture.
Whether you choose to accept that or not is your business and I can't control that, but I CAN tell you the truth about what I did and why. If you don't like that, I can't help it.
But the jailer was one household not Jewish households in general. Is there any Scripture that indicates infants were baptized?
“1,500 years is a long time for no one to understand a core doctrine like baptism”
It is, however Jesus’ illustration of the wheat and weeds foretold a longtime from beginning to end of it's fulfillment.
Now near the harvest time the difference between the wheat and the poisonous darnel becomes ever clearer.
With their YOPIOTCCC - Your own personal interpretation of the Catechism of the Catholic church.
Even if they did leave the interpretation of Scripture completely in the hands of the Catholic church and did none at all on their own, they're still stuck having to interpret the interpretation and who knows of their own personal interpretation of the interpretation was interpreted correctly.
They're simply adding more layers to be interpreted which leaves far more room for misinterpretation and error.
Well, I got as far as this statement and realized that the rest would probably be as false.
Once can see that from contradictory statements FRoman Catholics make here on FR. Statements that contradict each other. Posts that contradict the catechism, etc.
But why not? FRoman Catholic teaching over the centuries has been very contradictory.
The interesting part is if a Catholic points this out, they are accused of being a CINO. If we Prods point it out we are engaging in hate speech.
Nothing like giving someone the benefit of the doubt, is there?
Their mind is made up. Don’t confuse them with the facts.
didn't have time to thoroughly investigate the lengthy cut and paste, but I did skim it. I didn't see the Church condemning anyone to hell.
It is quite evident there, but skimming or less seems to be the most some RCs can tolerate lately.
Pope Pius IX (18461878), Encyclical Singulari Quidem March 17, 1856): There is only one true, holy, Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded on Peter by the word of the Lord, outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church. (On the Unity of the Catholic Church) http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9singul.htm
"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her;...No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. - Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758 A.D.).
"The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life..unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, Bull promulgated on February 4, 1441 (Florentine style), proclaimed ex cathedra (infallible).
Well, despite attempts to deny it, this is what was taught by many, and your denial and argument on this is not simply with me but with many Traditional RCs and sedevacantists, if you cannot presently see the condemnation and the condemning attitude then more proof now will not suffice.
The problem is that while the liberal view may hold that baptized Protestants are joined to the Lord in His Mystical Body and thus are a part/member of the Catholic, as it is the Mystical Body of Christ, yet there is room for interpretation as to the "no fault of their own" and "knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it" (846,47) conditions mean.
Some see these as excluding all who have heard the claims of Rome to be the OTC but reject them, leaving only ignorant type souls to be possibly saved, while another sees the exclusion as only applying to those who acknowledge the claims of Rome as being true but reject them anyway, while even Muslims can be saved.
And they still expect us to take them seriously after they make comments that are so starkly contrary to what the RCC actually professes.
And they claim that we don’t really know what the Catholic church teaches.
We know alright. We just don’t deny it in the face of all the evidence.
"I didn't see the Church condemning anyone to hell."
"The Church has never claimed the ability to condemn anyone to hell,"
Understood as the power to actually send one to Hell, no, but to make that as disallowing the Church as condemning anyone to hell is not correct, whether anyone wants to see that or not.
While Rome has claimed temporal power at the will and sufferance of the priest, it cannot actually place one in Hell, but by claiming power to bind and to loose, and excluding those who deny Christ, and defining denial, and defining who may be saved, she is condemning souls to hell (and affirms at least one is in Hell). The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment and shall condemn men, and believers themselves will judge angels.
"We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam; http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm
There is only one true, holy, Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded on Peter by the word of the Lord, outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church. (On the Unity of the Catholic Church) http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9singul.htm
Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html
Let's suppose that person A holds the belief that you must have faith to be saved. And let's also suppose person B claims to have no faith. In your view, has person A condemned person B to hell?
The benefit of the doubt about what?
The fact is, that if someone constantly extols the presidency of Barack Obama, and falsely makes claims as to the great things he has done for our country, the motive is plain to see.
Similarly, if someone constantly harps on the Church with never a good thing to say, and persistently makes false claims about the Church's beliefs or doctrine even after being corrected numerous times, the motive is plain for all to see.
By claiming that they have the power to bind and loose that was given them by God, they are in effect putting God subservient to their proclamations.
He is then obligated to adhere to whatever they bind or loose.
Seems that I recall seeing an RC recently post that God is obliged to obey the pope or some such nonsense because of the binding and loosing thing, but I cannot remember exactly where it was.
All I get told is that I’m wrong. That doesn’t count.
Is somebody going to tell me what’s *right* and cite it?
We’ve provided citations to back up our claims.
Where are yours?
There are reasons for changes, but why they were changes and the warrant for them and the contrasts are worth examining: http://peacebyjesuscom.blogspot.com/2011/09/contradictions-in-roman-catholicism.html
Do you believe Matthew 16:19 makes God subservient to Peter?
He is then obligated to adhere to whatever they bind or loose.
Was God obligated to adhere to whatever Peter bound or loosed?
but I cannot remember exactly where it was.
You have not. You made the claim that Roman Catholics don't consider them [Ukrainian Greek Catholics] *real* Catholics. You have provided no evidence to back up your claim.
Where are yours?
On March 23, the bishops of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church elected as their new leader the youngest member of their hierarchy, 41 year-old Bishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk, of the Eparchy of Santa Maria del Patrocinio in Argentina. He succeeds as Major Archbishop of Kiev-Halych Lubomyr Cardinal Husar, who retired on February 10 due to failing eyesight. After the confirmation of the election by Pope Benedict XVI on March 25, Archbishop Shevchuk was enthroned in the still-to-be completed Cathedral of the Resurrection in Kiev on March 27th. Almost immediately thereafter, he and several members of the Permanent Synod of the UGCC hierarchy came to Rome, and were received in audience by the Holy Father on April 1.
Cardinal Sandri reads Pope Benedict's letter confirming
the election of Archbishop Shevchuk.
By Most Reverend Basil H. Losten
The Second Vatican Council teaches that:
The Catholic Church holds in high esteem the institutions, liturgical rites, ecclesiastical traditions and the established standards of the Christian life of the Eastern churches, for in them, distinguished as they are for their venerable antiquity. there remains conspicuous the tradition that has been handed down from the Apostles through the Fathers1 and that forms part of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church.2
The same Council also teaches us the special position of the Eastern Churches3 and urges all Catholics to learn more about the Eastern Churches.
The Christian East includes Churches of several different traditions, and we shall try to say something about each one. There are two important groups of Eastern Churches: those in full communion with the Catholic Church, and those who have, as yet, imperfect communion with the Catholic Church.
The Eastern Catholic Churches are in full communion with the Catholic Church.4 All Catholic bishops and priests may concelebrate Holy Mass with one another and all Catholic people may receive Holy Communion at the hands of any Catholic bishop or priest, whether that bishop or priest belongs to the Latin Catholic Church or to one of the Eastern Catholic Churches (just as all Catholics may receive Holy Communion from any Catholic bishop or priest, whether the bishop or priest belongs to this or that diocese or monastic order). All Catholics may come to Confession in any Catholic Church, regardless of whether this is a Latin Church or an Eastern Catholic Church. All Catholics recognize the primacy of the Holy Father, the Pope or Bishop of Rome, who is the First Bishop of the entire Catholic Church and the Vicar of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul. In turn, the Holy Father exercises pastoral care for all Catholics, whether they belong to the Latin Church or to the Eastern Catholic Churches.