What is the purpose of infant baptism?

[Truther]

I KOVE catching anti-Catholics in idiotic LIEs.

Ummmm, can you tell me the difference - and when the "Catholic" Bible came into existence?
Try not to hurt yourslf . . .

The RCC Bible is corrupt as rotten fruit. I have one here at my house. I use it for a door stop. It has a picture of the pope in it. It makes a great dart board. Hit it and the nose lights up. lol

 

[Truther]

Either you're just really stupid or a complete LIAR.
Again - I thnk it's a little of BOTH . . .

Ummm, I already told you His name is Jesus.
As for Peter - he obeyed Jesus. He wasn't disgusted in Jesus the way YOU are.

Of you get "re-Baptized" - -you're only getting WET the second time around.
Eph. 4:5
ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE baptism

Let’s face it Catholic, you are not in the bride of Christ. You will not take the grooms name. You refuse to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. You are one of those common law wives.

 

[Truther]

The Catholic Church is the original Church founded by Christ. If one was Christian for the first 1000 years of Christianity, one was Catholic. That's all there was. Then, in 1054 A.D., the Orthodox splintered off in the Great Schism. Protestantism didn't begin till the 16th century, and has continually splintered into literally thousands of man-made, doctrinally contradicting denominations (and counting) ever since.

So, IF you believe that the Catholic Church somehow deviated from the original teachings of Christ, you would have to show how somehow, an angel, or Christ Himself, came back to make corrections and now, one of the literally tens of thousands of Protestant denominations suddenly has it right. Can you do that?

This is the original church… Then Peter said under them, repent be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins… And there was added unto them about 3000 souls.

The Roman Catholic Church refuses this. They protest it. They are corrupt.

 

[Truther]

There was a man without a wedding garment on at the wedding that was cast into outer darkness.

When we are baptized into Christ, we have put on Christ.

Scary stuff to think we have the wedding garment on without being baptized in the groom’s name.

 

[RedFan]

If something the "cult of the virgin" teaches is not found in a Bible......such as "infant baptism" or "mary flying to heaven" (Ascension)< then the Catholic is going to take the side of "our Church Father's said" as a Catholic does not believe the Bible is the Authority.

I think you are wrong about this, my friend. Catholics do believe that the Bible is preeminent authority. It is for matters on which the Bible is silent that Catholics turn to tradition and to the Magisterium. The two examples you mention are in this category.

 

[Behold]

It is for matters on which the Bible is silent that Catholics turn to tradition and to the Magisterium.

-
And you seem to believe that Bible silence is consent.

For example....the NT does not state that Peter is the 1st Pope, and thus, "bible silence", according to "Catholic perspective"... is giving its consent for the "cult of the virgin" to create a theology regarding Peter and ALL subsequent Popes.

And Mary is "Sinless"....>>>"bible is silent" = consent to teach that as Catholic Doctrine.

"Mary flew to heaven" "bible silence" = consent to teach that as Cath. Doctrine.

"perpetual virgin"... "silent bible". = consent to teach that as Cath Doctrine.

"harvesting dead Saints organs, and various body parts".... (RELICS)...."bible is silent" so.. " another consent for Catholic Doctrine "

So, if the "cult of the virgin", decides whatever they want to decide next, then because the bible is "silent" on that topic, then "its all good", regarding whatever they decide to create as their brand new man made doctrine..

Well, that is quite a " Bible workaround", isn't it @RedFan ??

Now, i understand how you think, based on the programming, but, i can't agree with it, and i explained why.

 

[GodsGrace]

Liberalism is alive and well in this thread. BTW, there have always been trouble makers and schismatics plaguing the episcopate , not to mention outright liars like Archbishop Vigango, a media superstar, who recently got excommunicated for schism.
Certain Catholic media has an anti-Francis agenda, such as Lifesite News. They hate the pope, but do a good job defending the unborn. We also have hysterical traditionalist reactionaries like Dr. Taylor Marshal doing a lot of damage to his large following. And there's Michael Voris who sees homosexual clergy climbing out of his corn flakes. The list goes on...No matter, the Church is indestructible or God's promises of protection is a lie.

View attachment 47382
Michael Voris

Of course I agree with you,,,,,,but in THIS case I don't believe it's the media out to get the Pope.
The media here, for instance, loves him. Vigano got kicked out but I have to say, I agree with him.

I don't know all those persons you mentioned.

What I believe is that this Pope has started a new way of administration - it used to be the magesterium - now it's the synodal way. AND, he appointed many Bishops/Cardinals so that when a new Pope needs to be voted for, many liberals like he is will have a big voice. Kind of like packing the Supreme Court by a President.

Also, let's say for a moment, that you're 100% right and he's not changing anything and it's all just a media frenzy...
Well, don't you think a POPE should be smart enought to watch what he says so that he doesn't create all this controversy on a regular basis?

Back in 2014 we got a questionnaire from Rome regarding matters having to do with the family.
Some of us understood right away. The outcome was communion for the remarried.
If it was wrong before - why is it right now?
Is the church right now or was it right before?

Blessing same sex couples but on an individual basis.
Do you realize he's starting a 3rd blessing? Till now there were only 2.

Pacha Mama. I live in Italy. I got a lot of coverage of what went on in the Vatican Garden.
It was horrendous.

He's discouraging the Latin Mass...and, if I remember correctly (maybe not in this case) I think he said that
priests don't have to do a Latin Mass anymore even if a few parishioners ask for it.

Many can't see this and I'm not going to go on about this ad infinitum.
Just to let you know that I don't read a lot of stuff of what others think.
I can make up my own mind about these matters.
And just to clarify, I tend to be a traditionalist.
I don't care for all the changes the church is making, and I don't mean
Vatican II....
The more changes that are made to accommodate the world,
the more people leave the church.

I think if we went back to basics, the church would be better off.

 

[GodsGrace]

I think you are wrong about this, my friend. Catholics do believe that the Bible is preeminent authority. It is for matters on which the Bible is silent that Catholics turn to tradition and to the Magisterium. The two examples you mention are in this category.

Just saw this.
Do you know of any early writing that addresses the assumption?

 

[GodsGrace]

And are YOU aware that some priests are just wrong?

Disagreeing with a discipline or an opinion of a Bishop or Pope is one thig.
But, rejecting doctrine ir dogma is heresy.

That doesn''t "change".

As you certainly must know....
any dogma, even if accepted by the church at a later point in time...
MUST have had its beginnings in the early church.
It must have been mentioned in some writing or must have been believed by some church doctor or others.
Then, after some time, the church just sees fit to make it official by declaring it a dogma or a doctrine.

But I'm adverse to changing even teachings.
If a teaching is changed, it can only mean one thing:
It was wrong before or it's wrong now.

Revelation is fine....but the above problem still exists and
many become distrustful of the church, saying that if it could be wrong
about THIS (whatever it may be) then it could be wrong about other teachings.

My 2 cents.
You can believe what you may about this.
It's my personal opinion and one to which I will adhere.

 

[GodsGrace]

G.K. Chesterton once said that the best argument against Christianity is Christians. That is certainly true of Catholicism. Pope John Paul II, putting it politely, says, "The Catholic Church does not forget that many among her members cause God's plan to be discernible only with difficulty." (Ut Unum Sint, 11).

But is that really an argument against the truth of the faith? I don't see how. To argue that Catholicism is untrue because it doesn't transform the lives of those who don't practice it, is like arguing that aspirin doesn't work because it doesn't relieve the headaches of those who don't take it.

I never said Catholicism is untrue. I wish our posts would get read correctly.
I said that Protestants know their bible better than Catholics.
I said that most Catholics don't even know what the church teaches.

I said that a believer will always have a transformed life ---- referring to persons that go to Mass and do it rather hypocrically.
(they are not believers - but only go for cultural reasons).

The Church only claims to announce the Good News of Jesus Christ, and it invites everyone to embrace the life of grace He offers. It does not claim that people who spurn its teachings and reject its life will be transformed into faithful disciples anyway. Nor does it claim that being born to Catholic parents guarantees that a person will inherit his parents' faith. If you want to see the fruit of the Catholic faith, you have to look at the people who are committed to the faith, who take it seriously and put it into practice every day.

LOL
This is too funny.
I agree 100% and I know many Catholics like this.
You don't have to convince me.

It's pointless to look at those who are cultural Catholics only, who say they're Catholic if you ask them, but who don't try to live the life, even though they may go to Mass out of habit, or guilt, or whatever. People aren't magically transformed into good Christians just by walking into a Catholic church (even if they do it every week). Repentance and conversion of heart are the keys to the Christian life. Without them, everything else is sterile and false, whether one calls oneself "Catholic" or not.
read more here How Can Catholicism Be True When Catholics Are So Dead?

Oops. I could have saved myself my first paragraph!
See. We agree.

 

[GodsGrace]

I don't know of any.

“There is no evidence of any tradition concerning Mary’s dormition and Assumption from before the 5th century. The only exception to this is Epiphanius’ unsuccessful attempt to uncover a tradition of the end of Mary’s life toward the end of the fourth century and his failure confirms the otherwise deafening silence.” -- Stephen J Shoemaker, The Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption (Oxford University Press, 2006)

Right. This is the problem.
I spoke to a priest about this problem I have about this.
@BreadOfLife thinks that some priests are wrong, maybe.
But he's not the only one that said we do not have to accept every single dogma to be Catholic.


I understand WHY this dogma was declared (theologically -- there might be some other reason we don't know about)....
but I just think it's going a bit over board and I think it cannot be shown to be correct.

 

[GodsGrace]

The Assumption existed from early on, but was not formalized until 1950. And it is based on Apostolic Tradition (the "oral tradition" mentioned in 2 Thes. 2:15). The New Testament came from Apostolic Tradition, which preceded the New Testament, but not all of Apostolic Tradition was written into the New Testament. If one takes a sola scriptura approach to Divine Revelation, one ends up missing a lot, including that nowhere in Scripture does it support the notion of sola scriptura.

Thanks Augustin56

But you're not telling me something I don't already know.

Can you show me some early writings on the assumption?
I don't believe you'll be able to.

 

[GodsGrace]

The Assumption of Mary itself is not found on the pages of Scripture – but the effects of her assumption ARE.

The dogma of the Assumption posits that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was assumed body into Heaven. She did not ascend on her own, like Jesus. She was assumed into Heaven by the power of God – in the same way that Enoch (Gen. 5:24, Heb. 11:5) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11) were.

In the Book of Revelation, we see the Ark of the Covenant in Heaven being spoken of at the very end of Chapter 11, verse 19:
Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm.

The very next verse is in Chapter 12 (Rev 12:1):
A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman 2 clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

Verse 2 says: She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.

I hope you know that the birth of Jesus was painless.

We know that this child is Jesus because in verse 4, we read:
She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod.

Although this is a polyvalent prophecy, there is simply NO getting around the fact that the Woman here in Rev. 12 is Mary.
She is the ONLY being in Heaven in Revelation who us described as having a body.

As for the ECF's -
In Epiphanius’ classic Panarion (“bread box”) or Refutation of All Heresies, written about AD 350, this early Church Father affirms belief in the Assumption:
“Like the bodies of the saints, however, she has been held in honor for her character and understanding. And if I should say anything more in her praise, she is like Elijah, who was virgin from his mother’s womb, always remained so, and was taken up, but has not seen death” (Panarion 79).

Thanks for this.
Will be doing some study on it.

I wish you had given the source.
I always list a source when I post something not from me directly.

 

[GodsGrace]

The Assumption of Mary itself is not found on the pages of Scripture – but the effects of her assumption ARE.

The dogma of the Assumption posits that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was assumed body into Heaven. She did not ascend on her own, like Jesus. She was assumed into Heaven by the power of God – in the same way that Enoch (Gen. 5:24, Heb. 11:5) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11) were.

In the Book of Revelation, we see the Ark of the Covenant in Heaven being spoken of at the very end of Chapter 11, verse 19:
Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm.

The very next verse is in Chapter 12 (Rev 12:1):
A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman 2 clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

Verse 2 says: She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.

We know that this child is Jesus because in verse 4, we read:
She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod.

Although this is a polyvalent prophecy, there is simply NO getting around the fact that the Woman here in Rev. 12 is Mary.
She is the ONLY being in Heaven in Revelation who us described as having a body.

As for the ECF's -
In Epiphanius’ classic Panarion (“bread box”) or Refutation of All Heresies, written about AD 350, this early Church Father affirms belief in the Assumption:
“Like the bodies of the saints, however, she has been held in honor for her character and understanding. And if I should say anything more in her praise, she is like Elijah, who was virgin from his mother’s womb, always remained so, and was taken up, but has not seen death” (Panarion 79).

This is from New Advent Ency.....but I'll keep looking. (I have done this before, but we could always miss something).

The fact of the Assumption​

Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady's death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ's Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.

source: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Assumption of Mary

 

[Athanasius377]

I think you are wrong about this, my friend. Catholics do believe that the Bible is preeminent authority. It is for matters on which the Bible is silent that Catholics turn to tradition and to the Magisterium. The two examples you mention are in this category.

I would quibble with the idea that RC’s believe that the Bible is the preeminent authority authority. Historically Romish doctrine states that Revelation comes to us from two streams, one Scripture and the other is Tradition. Rome has changed since the 16th century so we get the idea of the development of doctrine and the shift towards scriptural supremacy however Rome teases that out.
What you said about where the Bible is silent is spot on. I would add that we as Protestants (sans the restorationist movements)affirm sola scriptura meaning that the Bible alone is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice. Not to reject tradition out of hand but rather scrutinize said tradition through the lens of scripture. See folks like Chemnitz, Gerhard , Cranmer, Ridley, and later on Hooker and Andrewes. When there is an external authority that isn’t beholden to scripture and in fact tells its adherents what Scripture is and What Tradition is what you have is Sola Ecclesia.

 

[GodsGrace]

I would quibble with the idea that RC’s believe that the Bible is the preeminent authority authority. Historically Romish doctrine states that Revelation comes to us from two streams, one Scripture and the other is Tradition. Rome has changed since the 16th century so we get the idea of the development of doctrine and the shift towards scriptural supremacy however Rome teases that out.
What you said about where the Bible is silent is spot on. I would add that we as Protestants (sans the restorationist movements)affirm sola scriptura meaning that the Bible alone is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice. Not to reject tradition out of hand but rather scrutinize said tradition through the lens of scripture. See folks like Chemnitz, Gerhard , Cranmer, Ridley, and later on Hooker and Andrewes. When there is an external authority that isn’t beholden to scripture and in fact tells its adherents what Scripture is and What Tradition is what you have is Sola Ecclesia.

Sola Scriptura doesn't work.
If it worked, there wouldn't be so many denominations.
The fact that 2 persons could read the same bible and come out with differing ideas proves that sola scriptura is a messy idea and has created a mess in Christianity - of which we are ridiculed by Islam and Judaism.

I agree with you that if some teaching is not proven to be either in Scripture OR in Tradition, then it should be avoided.
It does seem to me that Catholic doctrine stems from either of the above.

What type of Protestant are you??

 

[Athanasius377]

The RCC Bible is corrupt as rotten fruit. I have one here at my house. I use it for a door stop. It has a picture of the pope in it. It makes a great dart board. Hit it and the nose lights up. lol

So @Truther , since I read that you use an 18th century Anglican translation of the Bible, which delights me. So what church body are you apart of? You don’t need to be specific for privacy reasons. Just briefly tell us about then fellowship of saints you are apart of.

 

[Truther]

Sola Scriptura doesn't work.
If it worked, there wouldn't be so many denominations.
The fact that 2 persons could read the same bible and come out with differing ideas proves that sola scriptura is a messy idea and has created a mess in Christianity - of which we are ridiculed by Islam and Judaism.

I agree with you that if some teaching is not proven to be either in Scripture OR in Tradition, then it should be avoided.
It does seem to me that Catholic doctrine stems from either of the above.

What type of Protestant are you??

No, the mucho commentaria caused all the denominations and spin offs.

Sola Scriptura is the fix.

 

[Truther]

So @Truther , since I read that you use an 18th century Anglican translation of the Bible, which delights me. So what church body are you apart of? You don’t need to be specific for privacy reasons. Just briefly tell us about then fellowship of saints you are apart of.

Thanks, here is my church I lay claim to...


38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.


I call it, "The Church of 3000".

 

[GodsGrace]

Thanks, here is my church I lay claim to...


38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.


I call it, "The Church of 3000".

All that think like you do belong to their very own made up church.

This certainly is not what Jesus intended.

The church has more than 3,000 now.
I wonder who God will keep out?