Well, because the bible tells us that it is an "if-then" relationship. Of course, in order to choose to obey God one must believe in Him, so faith is required, but faith is only the first step.
The Church will give him grace. Men will give him grace
Not really, FK, and I think you know that but just want to play "devil's advocate". :) Grace comes from and through sacraments (Holy Spirit). We (and I mean Catholic/Orthodox) never give the power of grace to men. We trust and believe with all our hearts that the sacraments are true and their effect comes from the Holy Spirit, not men.
I think what Alex is saying is that a child will receive spiritual nourishment's in the Church, made possible through grace in sacraments received, liturgical life or prayer and worship and bible study.
It is more likely in other words that this child will lead a more Christian life than soemone who grew up in the streets and never attend a church.
As for baptism cleansing us from the "original sin," the (Roman) Catholic Church is actually 'modifying' its position and bringing it closer to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, which has remained unchanged from the beginning: that Baptism simply brings a child into the Church (adoption).
The Pope recently sent a letter, just short of an official Epistle, basically committing the Limbo to oblivion, and adopting the same teaching as the Orthodox have, that unbaptized babies who die before being baptized can be saved by God's mercy alone, as they have not committed any sin. It is a hope and trust in merciful and just God, but it is not a certain knowledge, because the Scripture is silent on that issue.
I contend that it is that Jesus was "sent" under complete and total authority. Under this same authority, Jesus sent His disciples into the world.
I think Alex is correct. That is a clear indication that God commissioned Apostles as clergy, not everyone. In Revelation, the Apostles serve as judges (of the 12 tribes of Israel...ooops, but that's another story...), and elsewhere in the NT it is made clear that not all are Apostles, and teachers, but that the Church has a hierarchy.
What amazes me is that the Protestants accept pastorship of ordinary men, but refuse the pastorship of those who succeeded Apostles in direct line of succession. I think it's just anti-Romish bias.
Thanks, I didn't know that. I also am fairly comfortable on the subject, but completely agree that we cannot have certain knowledge.
What amazes me is that the Protestants accept pastorship of ordinary men, but refuse the pastorship of those who succeeded Apostles in direct line of succession. I think it's just anti-Romish bias.
It's not that we refuse them as pastors, I mean, they WERE pastors. :) That's not arguable. It's just that we do argue with their infallibility, based on majority vote (for you) or ultimately a single vote in the case of the Latins. Bishops, pastors, leaders, teachers, EVERYONE is capable of being seriously wrong, either individually OR in any subgroup of God's Church. Of course that includes Protestant groups. Men are subject to error. That's why we say that EVERY teaching, no matter how popular, must be tested against the only thing comparatively impervious to change, the scriptures.