What is the purpose of infant baptism?

[Truther]

You've taken a worldwide poll? Wow. That must have been exhausting!

Kind of. There are millions of what we know as oneness believers etc, that understand that the name of the father, the name of the son and the name of the Holy Ghost is the name of Jesus. That’s why they all baptize in Jesus name. Even Peter understood this.

 

[Truther]

Do you believe this friend?

Yes, my friend. Absolutely.
…Jesus inherited his name from the father, meaning that the name of the father is Jesus.
…the name of the son is obviously Jesus.
…And he said that the Holy Ghost shall be sent in my name.
And we all know scripture says that the Holy Ghost is Christ in us. That’s why Peter baptized in Jesus name.

 

[GodsGrace]

Hello GG,

Well, first off, there are married Catholic priests.

2nd off, the men that choose to be priest are not asked not to marry. When they choose the sacred priestly profession THEY agree not to marry and remain celibate!

3rd off, it is in the NT: 1 Cor 7:7, 1 Cor 7:32–35, Matthew 19:12

Now that Scripture has proven your false teachers wrong, will you stop listening to them?

Curious Mary

Mary!
I've been looking for you.
Nice to see you again.
The voice of reason....

OK so,
Married priests were Anglican and they've been accepted into the CC.
If their wife dies,,,,,zippo.
Same for Catholic Deacons, as I'm sure you know.

I know all the rest of it.
But the priesthood became celibate in the 1,200's.
So the CC was wrong before or it's wrong now.
I sure hope you don't reply with ongoing revelation....

And WHO am I supposed to stop listening to?
I don't listen to anybody....except those who know for sure.

 

[GodsGrace]

You've taken a worldwide poll? Wow. That must have been exhausting!

Thanks Redfan.
I needed that

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi GG,

According to Jesus whatever The Church binds on earth it is bound in heaven. Due to abuses of some men in The Church and inconsistent practices throughout The Church celibacy/no marriage was made a requirement by The Church if one CHOSE to become a priest.

I don't know what Protestant denomination you belong to, but do you adhere to the rules that your men require of you?

Curious Mary

Actually, I attend the CC.

Another member here, name starts with Bread, just doesn't know when to stop.
I'm not here to criticize the CC except for maybe a couple of things that I can't agree with...
but my aim is not to debate this. Any denomination could teach whatever they want to....
but I don't have to agree. I've discussed this with some, BTW, and if they don't have a problem with it,
I don't know why Bread should have a problem with it. Plus, I think he's poison for the church and will
keep away anyone even CONSIDERING converting.

I said what I just told you above and he insisted that I give a list of what I don't agree with.
So there you have it.

I'm very protective of the CC....
So I'm not one to debate any teaching unless it's really necessary.

So, if you want to PM me, I'll tell you more - but otherwise, that's the story.
I've stopped posting to Bread, BTW.
I'm more than willing to discuss with you.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I was baptized like you as an infant.
I saw this...

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism....
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

...rebaptized, which you have not done.

Ummmm, maybe it’s because I wasn’t Baptized with John’s Baptism.
I was Baptized with the Baptism of Jesus Christ.
"Re-Baptism" only geys you WET . . .

Keep studying.
I’m confident that someday, you’ll learn what, ”In the name of” means”, and your cult will stop performing invalid Baptisms.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Or those who know what's going on.
And you shouldn't call anyone IGNORANT that you don't know.
Bishops get orders from Rome....
It's succession of information - just like Apostolic succession.

You can take what I say or leave it.
Most times I'm not even replying to you....
You're not required to accept what I say.

If you think I'm LYING,,,,so be it.

No, it’s NOT always the case that you’re lying, as I said before.

Many times, it is just sheer ignorance of Catholic teaching.

You didn't reply about Augustine and infant baptism.
Do you agree with me on that?

Absolutely not. Augustine’s explanation is harmonious with Scripture.

You make general statements like “That’s wrong” – without providing a reason WHY.
No educated rebuttal – just more denials . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

For instance Bread.....
I knew about communion to the remarried way before anyone else did. (as others did in my circle).
When did YOU find out about it?

You don't know me.
Stop telling me I don't know what I'm talking about.

No – I don’t know you.

I judge you from the things you say and the claims you make. – which are usually wrong . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Whatever you Catholics tried to add to our 27 books got debunked and thwarted.

Unnnn, YOU have the SAME set of 27 Books of the NT that the Catholic Church declared were inspired, Einstein . . ..

Though the ancients debunked them, you can read them all you want.
I won't stop you from reading extra Biblical literature that was rejected.
It's a free country.

The ”ancients debunked them”?

Can you NAME those “ancients” and the Books and verses that they "debunked:?

YOU don’t have a clue why your Bible is thinner than mine – DO you??
Time for a History Lesson . . .

After the destruction of Jerusalem, a group of Rabbis established a rabbinical school in the Jewish city of at Jabneh (or Jamnia). It became center for Jewish political and religious political thought. Because the Temple had been destroyed in 70 AD – this school led by Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph (A.D. 37-137) redefined certain aspects of Judaism until the Temple could be restored.

One of the things discussed was use of the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) by early Christians.

They decided to eject 7 Books (and portions of Esther and Daniel) that they felt were “uninspired”. They provided a new Greek translation because the early Christians were converting the Jews using the Septuagint, which was compiled about 200 years before the birth of Christ. According to historical sources, the rabbinical gathering at Jabneh was not even an "official" council with binding authority to make such a decision. It can be clearly shown that Jesus and the Apostles studied and quoted from these 7 Books. In the New Testament, we see almost 200 references to them.

The main advocate for removing the 7 Deuterocanonical Books was Rabbi Akiba, who was also known for proclaiming that a man named Simon Bar Kokhba was the “real” Messiah during the 2nd Jewish Revolt (circa 132 AD). It was during THIS time that the Jewish Canon had still been an OPEN Canon during the life of Christ was closed.

So, your Protestant Fathers chose to go with a POST-Christ, POST-Temple Canon of Scripture that was declared by a FALSE Prophet (Akiva) who proclaimed a FALSE “Christ” (Kokhba).

This is who Protestants have chosen to follow instead of Christ’s Church, on whom He bestowed supreme earthly Authority (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

 

[BreadOfLife]

Really?
So why were priests allowed to get married until the year 1,200??

They’re allowed to get married NO in the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church.

As I already told you – this is a discipline of the Latin (Roman) Rite. And, being a discipline and NOT a doctrine – it can be subject to change.

Babies were always baptized from the very beginning.

§Apparently you don't know the history of baptism.

It's really not important to me that you know it, so I'm not going to post it here.
You should learn about it however.

This is a PERFECT example of why I have called you a “LIAR”.
I NEVER said that babied weren’t baptized from the beginning.

As a matter of fact, you left out my statement from my last post, where I said:
“This was in practice centuries BEFORE Augustine.”

Re Revelation:
Sure. When it suits you, it's used.
When it doesn't then it's all metaphor.

Whatever.

Another LIE . . .

When did I EVER say that Revelation was just a “metaphor”.
Please produce the quote – or admit that you LIED again . . .

Bread, you're a nightmare to the Catholic faith.

This will be my last post to you.
You're ignorance of what's going on in the CC is astounding.
You should be more aware of daily happenings within the church.
I'll bow out so you could rant and rave with someone else....
it won't be me.

Good – then I won’t have to keep exposing your lies.
There are too many other anti-Catholics to expose around here.

Stop lying and misrepresenting the Church and you won't have to worry about my exposing your posts . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Nothing new…still operating on your delusion of self-grandure.

The usual snarky remark instead of a valid rebuttal of my solid arguments.

Good job . . .

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

It's wrong to ask that priests not marry.
There is no mention of this in the NT AND the REASON why the church decided in 1,200AD that they should remain single is for purely convenient reasons having nothing to do with spirituality.

It's wrong to proclaim indulgences as if the Pope has a direct line to God...
and ANY indulgence is wrong.....especially the special plenary indulgences.
HOW are they biblical.

Confessing to a priest is wrong.
Confession came about gradually and was not practiced as it is today in the early church.

Purgatory is wrong.
1 Corinthians 3 does NOT support purgatory.
MAYBE Revelation 21:22 could be used for support - but, unfortunately, the CC does not accept this book as literal except when it suits it.

Praying to saints is wrong.
They are persons that have died and gone to be with God.
If they could hear our prayers, then it means they're omnipresent.
I thought only God was omnipresent...

Saving pieces of saints is macabre.
The tongue of St. Anthony is sitting in a glass case in a beautiful church in Padova.
There was quite a line to see it too.
I wasn't on it.

I'm sure there's more but I don't care to think about it right now.
I think that's enough.

Funny, how you bring out the worst in persons.
And I'm a friend of the CC!

Maybe you should also read John 13:34-35 like some others on these forums...
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

Well my dear man....
some things that come from Rome are not documented in a way that would please you.
However, that does not make my statements untrue.
It was a MISTAKE (another mistake) for the CC to follow the teachings of Augustine on infant baptism.
His REASONS for baptizing a baby ARE WRONG.


Yes. Plenty of study.
This must be why Catholics are the most MISINFORMED Christians of any denomination.
Most of them don't even know what the church teaches....

Too bad that someone with so much information (you) doesn't know how to use it to
ATTRACT persons to the Catholic faith...but tends to DISTANCE them from it.

I always told you that your Bishop (if you have one) would not be very happy with you.

Whatever you claim to study, it's not Catholicism, to come up with this list of falsehoods. One day you are supportive, another day you post like a typical anti-Catholic. You are grossly inconsistent. You used the word "wrong" 5 times, and don't cite any official Catholic source proving they are are wrong. I've seen similar lists as yours before. Such rants can be found on popular anti-Catholic sources such as the CARM forum, or jesusislord.con, and legions of other "Bible Christian" misinformation sites. Misconceptions is the wallpaper of the evangelical world, that you propagate, and have the nerve to call yourself an informed Catholic. More like a wolf in sheep's clothing.

​

 

[GodsGrace]

Whatever you claim to study, it's not Catholicism, to come up with this list of falsehoods. One day you are supportive, another day you post like a typical anti-Catholic. You are grossly inconsistent. You used the word "wrong" 5 times, and don't cite any official Catholic source proving they are are wrong. Such rants can be found on popular anti-Catholic sources

Well Jude, I'm very sorry about this.
Bread pushed me to it.
I think he's very bad for Catholicism....
for all anybody knows here, I could be a Protestant thinking of converting.
Would HE help me along my way? No. If anything he'd turn me totally off.

I will always be supportive of the CC.
Every church teaches something or other that is not correct.
If you want to believe that the CC h as absolutely everything correct,
I'll tell you the truth - I envy you.

I'm not putting all my personal business out here on an open thread with all the
odd persons that will be reading along and having their comments. If you want to
know more, like I said to @Marymog, then you can PM me....otherwise, you'll just haveto take
post by post.

And I'm not studying Catholicism....I do believe I have it down....
That doesn't mean I have to agree with everything it teaches.

What I said is wrong, is wrong.
Priests were able to get married until 1,200AD.
Was it wrong before or after?

Indulgences were used to raise money from a very ignorant populace that believed it to be true.
Do you think God wants to be paid to get persons out of purgatory?
Or to get YOU less time there?
This is wrong to this day.

The church teaches some things that were revealed to A SAINT.
Books are written on this.
Do you think this is right?

Where else do you want to go?

Or maybe we could stop and concentrate on what we have in common?
I'm reading those links you posted to me BTW.
So far I read Cardinal Newman and Dave Armstrong.
It's a lot of reasoning that they're putting forth.
I do understand WHY they think as they do.
I'm just not there yet...
Everything else about Mary is fine by me.
I feel sorry for Protestants that don't want to admit how important she is.
They keep insisting that Catholics worship her....not understanding the difference
between worship and veneration - too bad.
I'll get to the rest eventually.

I don't like to discuss what I believe is wrong about the CC.
And I won't continue to post to anyone who wants to harp on this.
I've already stopped posting to the other member.

I happen to be a Traditionalist BTW.
I don't like that the tabernacle was removed from the altar - for whatever reason.
I don't like that this Pope has denied the Latin Mass to those who enjoy it.
I don't like that the Peace sign is given in the middle of the Consecration. Or right after it, I should say.
I don't like a lot of things that must be accepted due to changes.
At least, if they would do some good, but I think it makes matters worse.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

The usual snarky remark instead of a valid rebuttal of my solid arguments.

Good job . . .

Amen. Stumped anti-Catholics resort to complaining of your aggressive style (that I find entertaining, but not always) because they are unable to refute your content. Childish insults is pure laziness.

Matthew 18:16 But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

 

[Augustin56]

Mary!
I've been looking for you.
Nice to see you again.
The voice of reason....

OK so,
Married priests were Anglican and they've been accepted into the CC.
If their wife dies,,,,,zippo.
Same for Catholic Deacons, as I'm sure you know.

I know all the rest of it.
But the priesthood became celibate in the 1,200's.
So the CC was wrong before or it's wrong now.
I sure hope you don't reply with ongoing revelation....

And WHO am I supposed to stop listening to?
I don't listen to anybody....except those who know for sure.

Hey, God's Grace... Just a slight aside. The celibate priesthood is not a doctrine. It is a discipline. It could change at any time the Church decided, although I think it's far better they remain celibate and totally commited to their vocation as priests. And, as St. Paul said in 1 Cor. 7:38, "So then, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better."

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Well Jude, I'm very sorry about this.
Bread pushed me to it.
I think he's very bad for Catholicism....
for all anybody knows here, I could be a Protestant thinking of converting.
Would HE help me along my way? No. If anything he'd turn me totally off.

It's very uncomfortable to realize one has been lied to all their lives. This evangelical was so shocked reading the Early Church Fathers, she threw up. It's a very interesting testimony.

I will always be supportive of the CC.

By bashing CC teaching with misconceptions? In a public forum?

Every church teaches something or other that is not correct.
If you want to believe that the CC h as absolutely everything correct,
I'll tell you the truth - I envy you.

Not "absolutely everything correct". That's another misrepresentation of the Authority Principle, previously explained.

And I'm not studying Catholicism....I do believe I have it down....
That doesn't mean I have to agree with everything it teaches.

Catholics are free to disagree with all kinds of things, we are not free to rebel.

What I said is wrong, is wrong.
Priests were able to get married until 1,200AD.
Was it wrong before or after?

Mandatory celibacy was only formalized in ONE rite that you make a stink about. That doesn't prove there were no celibate clergy before that. Jesus was celibate, was He wrong too? That's the basis of celibacy only in the Latin rite. And it's not a doctrine but a discipline. Catholic priests are not asked to be celibate, they voluntarily give up everything for full time service to the Church. "Asked to be celibate" is a red flag illustrating your ignorance.

for full time service
Indulgences were used to raise money from a very ignorant populace that believed it to be true.
Do you think God wants to be paid to get persons out of purgatory?
Or to get YOU less time there?
This is wrong to this day.

Of course it's wrong, because it's not what the Church teaches. It's carefully explained in this video that even an idiot can understand.

Further explained here:

Search | Catholic Answers

www.catholic.com

The church teaches some things that were revealed to A SAINT.
Books are written on this.
Do you think this is right?

Where else do you want to go?

No Catholic is obligated to accept private revelation. Show me a saint who contradicts scripture and I'll show you a heretic.

Or maybe we could stop and concentrate on what we have in common?
I'm reading those links you posted to me BTW.
So far I read Cardinal Newman and Dave Armstrong.
It's a lot of reasoning that they're putting forth.
I do understand WHY they think as they do.
I'm just not there yet...

Don't shut the door on God's grace.

Everything else about Mary is fine by me.
I feel sorry for Protestants that don't want to admit how important she is.
They keep insisting that Catholics worship her....not understanding the difference
between worship and veneration - too bad.
I'll get to the rest eventually.

I don't like to discuss what I believe is wrong about the CC.
And I won't continue to post to anyone who wants to harp on this.
I've already stopped posting to the other member.

I happen to be a Traditionalist BTW.
I don't like that the tabernacle was removed from the altar - for whatever reason.
I don't like that this Pope has denied the Latin Mass to those who enjoy it.

He hasn't. In fact, he approved the Latin Mass.

I don't like that the Peace sign is given in the middle of the Consecration.
Or right after it, I should say.
I don't like a lot of things that must be accepted due to changes.
At least, if they would do some good, but I think it makes matters worse.

Traditionalists have an important role to play within the Church. Hyper-traditionalists are just a new form of Protestantism. Archbishop Vigano descended into Protestantism with his radical traditionalism, claiming the pope is not the pope. Use some discernment with what you read.

 

[Truther]

Ummmm, maybe it’s because I wasn’t Baptized with John’s Baptism.
I was Baptized with the Baptism of Jesus Christ.
"Re-Baptism" only geys you WET . . .

Keep studying.
I’m confident that someday, you’ll learn what, ”In the name of” means”, and your cult will stop performing invalid Baptisms.

You missed it. They had to be re-baptized in the name of Jesus, which you are not. You’re baptized in a silly way. As an unrepentant baby.

 

[Truther]

Unnnn, YOU have the SAME set of 27 Books of the NT that the Catholic Church declared were inspired, Einstein . . ..

The ”ancients debunked them”?

Can you NAME those “ancients” and the Books and verses that they "debunked:?

YOU don’t have a clue why your Bible is thinner than mine – DO you??
Time for a History Lesson . . .

After the destruction of Jerusalem, a group of Rabbis established a rabbinical school in the Jewish city of at Jabneh (or Jamnia). It became center for Jewish political and religious political thought. Because the Temple had been destroyed in 70 AD – this school led by Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph (A.D. 37-137) redefined certain aspects of Judaism until the Temple could be restored.

One of the things discussed was use of the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) by early Christians.

They decided to eject 7 Books (and portions of Esther and Daniel) that they felt were “uninspired”. They provided a new Greek translation because the early Christians were converting the Jews using the Septuagint, which was compiled about 200 years before the birth of Christ. According to historical sources, the rabbinical gathering at Jabneh was not even an "official" council with binding authority to make such a decision. It can be clearly shown that Jesus and the Apostles studied and quoted from these 7 Books. In the New Testament, we see almost 200 references to them.

The main advocate for removing the 7 Deuterocanonical Books was Rabbi Akiba, who was also known for proclaiming that a man named Simon Bar Kokhba was the “real” Messiah during the 2nd Jewish Revolt (circa 132 AD). It was during THIS time that the Jewish Canon had still been an OPEN Canon during the life of Christ was closed.

So, your Protestant Fathers chose to go with a POST-Christ, POST-Temple Canon of Scripture that was declared by a FALSE Prophet (Akiva) who proclaimed a FALSE “Christ” (Kokhba).

This is who Protestants have chosen to follow instead of Christ’s Church, on whom He bestowed supreme earthly Authority (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

Again, I don’t care what you wanna read. You could read lady and the tramp or whatever. You can read the book of Mormon if you want. Catholics are so superstitious they believe about anything they’re told.

 

[GodsGrace]

Hey, God's Grace... Just a slight aside. The celibate priesthood is not a doctrine. It is a discipline. It could change at any time the Church decided, although I think it's far better they remain celibate and totally commited to their vocation as priests. And, as St. Paul said in 1 Cor. 7:38, "So then, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better."

Correct.
There's a great shortage of priests - at least over here.
Beginning in October, there'll be only 4 priests for my entire area...a large area.
Also, a push is being made to shut down a lot of church buildings and centralize worship in churches in
the main towns. There's a lot of push back regarding this...especially from older folk who won't be able to attend church
unless someone drives them - and many young persons are not interested in going to church or driving their loved ones to Mass.

So, every now and then someone will state that if they only allowed priests to get married, we might have more of them.
The priests I know, are happy not to be married.

But would it help?
What do you think?

(We had another beautiful seminary close down in the city of Lucca because it's huge and it only had, I think, 10 seminarians.)

PS Because churches are being kept open....one priest will have up to 8, what used to be called here, parishes to administer both physically and spiritually. It will now be called AN AREA.... Too much...it's very disheartening.

 

[Taken]

The usual snarky remark instead of a valid rebuttal of my solid arguments.

Good job . . .

Your gaslighting has long been acknowledged.

Your pretense of being a self-noteworthy expert in Biblical understanding has long been acknowledged.

Your posts routinely reflect YOUR view of YOU are always RIGHT and everyone else WRONG who disagrees with YOU has been acknowledged.

Get over yourself…very few are soliciting YOU for your personal Biblical views or your regular rants of personal attacks.

You have chosen your path, be content, without being a false accuser, it’s old and boring to say the least.

Not my JOB to continuously PROVE anything to YOU. My JOB is to TRUST the knowledge IN Scripture OVER YOU…and TRUST to Believe God IS the Provider of His Understanding of His Knowledge…And CHRIST JESUS IS the HEAD of His Church…
NOT YOU, NOT your Church, NOT your Gentile fathers, NOT your “catholic” brothers.

Matters NOT to me…what YOU Believe, what YOU Claim, what YOU Do. YOU alone are accountable FOR your own choices.

You and I Disagree on basic tenants…
so what…get over it.

Praise, Worship, Adoration, Prayers and Glory “TO” God Alone…

Taken