Acts 2:38 is the fulfillment of the command of Matthew 28:19. You guys think it’s a contradiction. That is completely crazy. No wonder Christianity is so messed up.
What is the purpose of infant baptism?
- Thread starter TonyChanYT
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Jude Thaddeus
Active Member
Addressing a jubilant crowd of more than 500,000 people packed into St. Peter's Square, Pope Pius XII solemnly defined in "Munificentissimus Deus" on Nov. 1, 1950, that the "Immaculate Mother of God, the ever-virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory." Although the solemn definition may have been at the midpoint of the 20th century, the belief in the Assumption of our Blessed Mother exemplifies the dynamism of revelation and the Church's ongoing understanding of it as guided by the Holy Spirit.
Granted, the word Assumption does not appear in Sacred Scripture. For this reason many fundamentalists who literally interpret the Bible would have a difficulty with this belief. Nevertheless, we must first pause and reflect on the role of our Blessed Mother in the mystery of salvation, for this provides the foundation for the belief in the Assumption.
We firmly believe that from the first moment of her conception Mary was free of all sin, including Original Sin, by a special favor of almighty God. The Archangel Gabriel recognized her as "full of grace," "blessed among women" and "one with the Lord." Mary had been chosen to be the Mother of our savior. By the power of the Holy Spirit, she conceived our Lord Jesus Christ, and through her, true God became also man, "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us."
During her lifetime, although the Gospel citations are limited, Mary always presented our Lord to others:
- to Elizabeth and her son, John the Baptist, who leapt for joy in the womb at the presence of the Lord still in his own mother's womb;
- to the simple shepherds as well as the wise Magi;
- and to the people at Cana, when our Lord acquiesced to His mother's wish and performed the first miracle.
For these reasons we believe that the promises our Lord has given to each of us of sharing eternal life, including a resurrection of the body, were fulfilled in Mary. Since Mary was free of Original Sin and its effects (one of which is corruption of the body at death), since she shared intimately in the life of the Lord and in His passion, death and resurrection, and since she was present at Pentecost, this model disciple appropriately shared in the bodily resurrection and glorification of the Lord at the end of her life. (Note that the solemn definition does not specify whether Mary physically died before being assumed or just was assumed; it simply states, "Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life...")
The Catechism, also quoting the Byzantine Liturgy, states, "The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians: 'In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death'" (No. 966).
The belief in the Assumption of our Blessed Mother has been longstanding in our Church. We must remember that the early Church was preoccupied with resolving questions about Christ, particularly His incarnation and the hypostatic union (His divine and human natures). However, in addressing these questions, the Church gradually defined the titles of Mary as Mother of God and as New Eve, and the belief of the Immaculate Conception, all of which form the basis for the Assumption.
In "Munificentissimus Deus," Pope Pius XII cited various Church Fathers to trace the longstanding tradition of the belief of the Assumption — St. John Damascene, St. Andrew of Crete, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and St. Gregory of Tours, to name a few. Bishop Theoteknos of Livias (c. 550- 650) delivered one of the most comprehensive early sermons concerning the Assumption:
"For Christ took His immaculate flesh from the immaculate flesh of Mary, and if He had prepared a place in heaven for the Apostles, how much more for His mother; if Enoch had been translated and Elijah had gone to heaven, how much more Mary, who like the moon in the midst of the stars shines forth and excels among the prophets and Apostles? For even though her God-bearing body tasted death, it did not undergo corruption, but was preserved incorrupt and undefiled and taken up into heaven with its pure and spotless soul."
St. John Damascene (d. 749) also recorded an interesting story concerning the Assumption:
"St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven."
In all, the Patristic Fathers defended the Assumption on two counts:
1) Since Mary was sinless and a perpetual virgin, she could not suffer bodily deterioration, the result of Original Sin, after her death.
2) Also, if Mary bore Christ and played an intimate role as His mother in the redemption of man, then she must likewise share body and soul in His resurrection and glorification.
The Byzantine Emperor Mauritius (582-602) established the celebration of the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary on August 15 for the Eastern Church. (Some historians speculate that the celebration was already widespread before the Council of Ephesus in 431). By the end of the 6th century, the West likewise celebrated the Feast of the Assumption. While the Church first emphasized the death of Mary, gradual shifts in both title and content occurred so that by the end of the 8th century, the Gregorian Sacramentary had prayers for Assumption Day.
The Feast of the Assumption gives each of us great hope as we contemplate this one facet of the beautiful woman of faith, our Blessed Mother. Mary moves us by example and prayer to grow in God's grace, to be receptive to His will, to convert our lives through sacrifice and penance, and seek that everlasting union in the heavenly Kingdom.
In 1973, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, in their letter "Behold Your Mother," stated, "Christ has risen from the dead, we need no further assurance of our faith. Mary assumed into heaven serves rather as a gracious reminder to the Church that our Lord wishes all whom the Father has given Him to be raised with Him. In Mary taken to glory, to union with Christ, the Church sees herself answering the invitation of the heavenly Bridegroom."
source
Jude Thaddeus
Active Member
That's not true either. Invincible ignorance gets one off the hook. "Romish Dogma" is insulting, but you do it automatically without thinking. "Romish Dogma" is not invincible ignorance, it's bigotry, related to racism.
+++
Different variants of the "Roman" insult appeared at different times.
- The earliest form of the insult was the noun "Romanist" (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which appeared in England about 1515-1525.
- The next to develop was the adjective "Romish" (similar to something done or believed in the Catholic Church), which appeared around 1525-1535.
- Next came the noun "Roman Catholic" (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which was coined approximately 1595-1605
- . Shortly thereafter came the verb "to Romanize" (to make someone a Catholic or to become a Catholic), which appeared around 1600-10.
- Then between 1665 and 1675 we got the noun "Romanism" (the system of Catholic beliefs and practices), and
source
Last edited:
Jude Thaddeus
Active Member
Jude Thaddeus
Active Member
I read an interesting statistic today. 53% of Americans can't read beyond a grade 6 level.
Last edited:
Jude Thaddeus
Active Member
The Principle of Authority in Religion
The question of spiritual authority plagues (or ought to plague) all religions. In the first place, the problem of authority causes intelligent observers to reject immediately the reliability of any religion which does not claim to be revealed by God. If we confine ourselves, then, to those religions which do claim to be revealed by God, we run into a second problem with authority. Even if the initiating Revelation is credible—that is, attested by signs and wonders that can come only from God—how do we know that the religion or church which claims to carry on this revelation can be trusted to elucidate and interpret it correctly over time?
The question of authority lies at the very core of religious belief because,
first, we cannot know much about God and His Plan unless He reveals it and,
second, we cannot intelligently accept as authentic any custodian of this Revelation unless it can establish its claim to preserve, explicate and interpret the Revelation without error over time. Yes, I know that many people are slipshod in their methods, accepting all sorts of alleged authority without raising intelligent questions. Nonetheless, when put to the test, the question of this authority is paramount.
This is so true that it would be ridiculous to suppose God would claim to complete a self-Revelation in history without finding a way to secure that Revelation against the ravages of human confusion over time. What, after all, would be the point?
Now: It so happens that the Catholic Church is unique among all religions in that it contains within it what we call an “authority principle”. This principle guarantees the veracity of its teaching down through the ages, long after the original Revelation was received. This is so important that any serious reflection upon it enables us to understand immediately that the lack of such an authority principle, in any religion, is a very serious problem indeed.
As a matter of historical confirmation, we can see the difference between having an authority principle and not having one, even within Christianity, by comparing Catholicism to Protestantism. Even casual observers can see that Protestantism has, in its various forms, changed its teachings and beliefs in significant ways, quite literally hundreds of times if not thousands, with the necessary effect that the various sects disagree significantly with each other on even the most central points of faith and morals.
Clearly, this will not do.
The Catholic Authority Principle
The authority principle in Catholicism consists of Christ’s establishment of the Petrine authority, by which the successors of Peter confirm their brethren in the Faith until Christ comes again at the end of time. This principle is rooted in the prayer and promise of Christ, as preserved in Scripture (e.g., Mt 16:18-19; Lk 22:31-32; Jn 21:15-17; Acts 15:7-12) and in Tradition, and as articulated and exercised consistently from the very first by the Church Christ established to bring His salvation to the ends of the earth. It is just this that is the unique claim of the Catholic Church.
When it comes to reliance on the authority principle, it is also vital that Catholics know exactly when it is in active operation, and when it is not. Catholics have always believed, and the Church has defined this clearly, that the vicars of Christ on earth speak infallibly, with the full authority of Christ, whenever they
(a) teach
(b) on a matter of faith or morals
(c) to the whole Church
(d) by virtue of their supreme Petrine authority.
This guarantee is sufficient to its purpose, which is to maintain integrity of Divine teaching within the Church until Christ’s return. Its essence is that the Pope cannot bind the whole Church to error, and so Christ’s promise to be with the Church until the end of time cannot turn out to be a lie.
The teaching authority of the Pope, then, is guaranteed in its clear and specific operations, by the same Holy Spirit who guarantees the veracity of Scripture itself. To effect its purpose—which is, obviously, to ensure that the Catholic Church remains essentially credible throughout history—it need not be any stronger or more complicated than it is, nor can it be any less.
Notice, then, that this authority principle instituted by Christ, and unique to Catholicism, has been Divinely established without any guarantee that popes will be good men, intelligent men, clear thinkers, or free from confusion, personal errors, and even sinful and scandalous behavior. None of these inevitable human shortcomings affects the authority principle in the slightest. When any pope makes formally clear that he is deliberately “confirming the brethren” in their faith, the truth of his statement is kept free from error by God Himself. Nothing more, and nothing less, is guaranteed, or needs to be guaranteed, in a Church necessarily made up of sinners.
source
The question of spiritual authority plagues (or ought to plague) all religions. In the first place, the problem of authority causes intelligent observers to reject immediately the reliability of any religion which does not claim to be revealed by God. If we confine ourselves, then, to those religions which do claim to be revealed by God, we run into a second problem with authority. Even if the initiating Revelation is credible—that is, attested by signs and wonders that can come only from God—how do we know that the religion or church which claims to carry on this revelation can be trusted to elucidate and interpret it correctly over time?
The question of authority lies at the very core of religious belief because,
first, we cannot know much about God and His Plan unless He reveals it and,
second, we cannot intelligently accept as authentic any custodian of this Revelation unless it can establish its claim to preserve, explicate and interpret the Revelation without error over time. Yes, I know that many people are slipshod in their methods, accepting all sorts of alleged authority without raising intelligent questions. Nonetheless, when put to the test, the question of this authority is paramount.
This is so true that it would be ridiculous to suppose God would claim to complete a self-Revelation in history without finding a way to secure that Revelation against the ravages of human confusion over time. What, after all, would be the point?
Now: It so happens that the Catholic Church is unique among all religions in that it contains within it what we call an “authority principle”. This principle guarantees the veracity of its teaching down through the ages, long after the original Revelation was received. This is so important that any serious reflection upon it enables us to understand immediately that the lack of such an authority principle, in any religion, is a very serious problem indeed.
As a matter of historical confirmation, we can see the difference between having an authority principle and not having one, even within Christianity, by comparing Catholicism to Protestantism. Even casual observers can see that Protestantism has, in its various forms, changed its teachings and beliefs in significant ways, quite literally hundreds of times if not thousands, with the necessary effect that the various sects disagree significantly with each other on even the most central points of faith and morals.
Clearly, this will not do.
The Catholic Authority Principle
The authority principle in Catholicism consists of Christ’s establishment of the Petrine authority, by which the successors of Peter confirm their brethren in the Faith until Christ comes again at the end of time. This principle is rooted in the prayer and promise of Christ, as preserved in Scripture (e.g., Mt 16:18-19; Lk 22:31-32; Jn 21:15-17; Acts 15:7-12) and in Tradition, and as articulated and exercised consistently from the very first by the Church Christ established to bring His salvation to the ends of the earth. It is just this that is the unique claim of the Catholic Church.
When it comes to reliance on the authority principle, it is also vital that Catholics know exactly when it is in active operation, and when it is not. Catholics have always believed, and the Church has defined this clearly, that the vicars of Christ on earth speak infallibly, with the full authority of Christ, whenever they
(a) teach
(b) on a matter of faith or morals
(c) to the whole Church
(d) by virtue of their supreme Petrine authority.
This guarantee is sufficient to its purpose, which is to maintain integrity of Divine teaching within the Church until Christ’s return. Its essence is that the Pope cannot bind the whole Church to error, and so Christ’s promise to be with the Church until the end of time cannot turn out to be a lie.
The teaching authority of the Pope, then, is guaranteed in its clear and specific operations, by the same Holy Spirit who guarantees the veracity of Scripture itself. To effect its purpose—which is, obviously, to ensure that the Catholic Church remains essentially credible throughout history—it need not be any stronger or more complicated than it is, nor can it be any less.
Notice, then, that this authority principle instituted by Christ, and unique to Catholicism, has been Divinely established without any guarantee that popes will be good men, intelligent men, clear thinkers, or free from confusion, personal errors, and even sinful and scandalous behavior. None of these inevitable human shortcomings affects the authority principle in the slightest. When any pope makes formally clear that he is deliberately “confirming the brethren” in their faith, the truth of his statement is kept free from error by God Himself. Nothing more, and nothing less, is guaranteed, or needs to be guaranteed, in a Church necessarily made up of sinners.
source
The 39 books of the Old Testament form the Bible of Judaism, while the Christian Bible includes those books and also the 27 books of the New Testament. This list of books included in the Bible is known as the canon. That is, the canon refers to the books regarded as inspired by GOD and authoritative for faith and life. No church created the canon, but the churches and councils gradually accepted the list of books recognized by believers everywhere as inspired.
It was actually not until 367 AD that the church father Athanasius first provided the complete listing of 66 books belonging to the canon.
- He distinguished those from other books that were widely circulated and he noted that those 66 books were the ones, and the only ones, universally accepted.
- The point is that the formation of the canon did not come all at once like a thunderbolt, but was the product of centuries of reflection.
There were 318 of them, what difference does it make?
It's WRONG Truther.
Because it's not what JESUS said to do.
I tend to obey what Jesus says.....
FJ
The formation of the canon came al at once - like lightening.
What you're speaking of is THE WRITINGS that were in circulation --- THOSE took hundreds of years.
But they had to be gathered up and it had to be decided which would make it into the NT and which would not.
To be honest, I wish more had made it in that gave actual INSTRUCTIONS or we wouldn't be debating so many teachings here.
Like the Didache, for instance.
Other than this clarification I agree with you.
What IS the truth Bread?
The CC has some things WRONG.
It has painted itself into a corner and can no longer get out easily.
Did you know that the church would like to begin baptizing adults only?
Probably not.
But too much push-back from Catholics that have grown up with the idea that a baby will
go to hell if not baptized.
YES. I still hear this today from some Catholics.
Now,,, I know that YOU know this is not true,,,,but many Catholics believe it is.
This is one of my complaints about the CC....NOT ENOUGH TEACHING.
Not the nonsense that Protestants post here about the CC.
Which, 80% of it is not even correct.
You misunderstood my post.
Go back and read it calmly.
You're too hyper.
I can explain why.
OR
It shows that I like to THINK THINGS THROUGH before accepting them.
Now, if this is OK with PRIESTS,,,,I really don't care what YOU think about it.
Sometimes they're not misrepresenting the church.
And sometimes they are.
It's important to see the difference.
Some things the church got wrong and is continuing in them because it's difficult to change.
Fulfillment? Seriously? What do you see in Christ's commanded triune baptismal formulation that was not already complete and in final form?
And before you answer, think abut the ramifications of that answer. If you say Peter could modify or even interpret the Lord's instruction, you are going to have to convert to Catholicism on the spot!
The difference is that ROME was not responsible for the canon. (That was your contention, wasn't it?) The Church in the East -- whose bishops adopted the canon, albeit not at Nicaea (that was your contention too wasn't it?)-- was not under the hegemony of Rome in the fourth century.
Ah yes. That is always the dilemma in such cases isn't it? There is no easy answer. In this particular case, when Jesus said, "this is my body", it clearly wasn't literally His body or any part of His body at the time He said it. When Paul spoke of the Lord's supper in 1 Corinthians 11, it seems clear enough that it is not in the loaf and the cup, per se, but rather in the doing.
1Co 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
Yes, of course. But it wasn't to teach us about building houses. It was to teach us about the importance of obedience.
Apparently, there are various version out there in the media in regards the canonization of the Holy Bible, and even the very elect can be deceived.
GOD is not an author of confusion but of peace, and Jesus Christ is the author and finisher of our faith. Basically at GOD's watch, 39 books of the Old Testament and 27 books of the New Testament is the canonization, and is universally disciple and used.
And the 66 books in the Holy Bible sums up according to 2Timothy3:16&17, will stick to the KJV at hand in faith, hope and love.
Similar threads
