Posted on 05/06/2014 4:56:53 PM PDT by Gamecock
All standard RC theology, while having "the intention of what the Church intends to do" does not really mean he intends to do what the church at issue here intends, that of an act effecting forgiveness in regeneration and justification by one's own personal holiness, but that he intends to at least baptize the person in the trinitarian formula.
The problem is the unscriptural nature of this. In Scripture the requirement for baptism is that of whole hearted repentant faith, (Acts 2:38; 8:36-37) which a morally incognizant soul need not (as such is not personally culpable) and cannot do.
And nowhere is anyone described as being baptized who could not hear and respond to the Word. Paedobaptism is extrapolated out of few simple statements of household baptisms, but is it incongruous that that Holy Spirit would not provide even one description of infants being baptized, seeing as it is such a cardinal and regular practice for Catholics. And a few Prots who have not gone far enough from Rome.
Nor is it the act itself that works regeneration, and that results in the soul being formally justified by infused charity=holiness, but it is the faith that is expressed in baptism that appropriates justification, with, as Peter theologically said, "purifying their hearts by faith." (Acts 15:9) For "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10:43)
If this justification was due to the holiness of regeneration rather God accounting them righteous on Christ's expense and credit in regeneration, then Abraham would have had to become born again at the time God accounted him righteous. "For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." (Romans 4:2-3; cf. Gn. 15:6)
The "works" here are not restricted to the works of the Law, which were yet to come, but encompass all systems of salvation on the basis of one's own works actually earning it, "for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." (Galatians 3:21)
The Catholic system is salvation by grace thru merit, that by God's grace one becomes good enough to enter Heaven: "Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification and for the attainment of eternal life." (CCC 2010) But which still cannot escape the fact that souls comes to Christ as damned + destitute of any works that will save them, thus the penitent publican and the dying (Lk. 18:13,14; 23:40-43) were justified by faith.
But even there RC theology has man justified by unmerited grace via holiness of heart effected by the act of baptism, and then, since they sin afterwards, proceeding to atone for sin and obtain the holiness needed to enter glory, rather than works of faith and holiness being a necessary testimony to true faith, according to light and grace given, which God in grace, rewards.
Works of faith, "things that accompany salvation" (Heb. 6:9) testify that one has true faith, and in the light of which God accounts it fitting that such be rewarded, (Mt. 25:31-40; Rv. 3:4) not bcz their works actually earn them eternal life, but because being justified by faith God in grace has promised to recompense souls which in reality deserved eternal damnation. "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 6:23) "Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward." (Hebrews 10:35)
The teachers don’t go to jail. They get reassigned and the whole matter blows over. FReepers say “wish that was me”. None of them say “I wish that happened to my son/daughter”. Why is that?
No. I am pointing out the obvious. Deal with it. The Roman Carholic Church Inc. certainly hasn’t or we wouldn’t be reading about this type of thing.
You had a specific criticism: that the Catholic Church holds that sacraments celebrated by a suspended priest are valid.
You implied that this position of the Church is disreputable and irrational.
You have said nothing to back up that implication.
My position is that sneering without a rational basis is merely an expression of bigotry.
It is in the Papist catechism that any “Christian” can perform a Baptism in an emergency.
It is Your issue is not to make it personal with me, but to take it up with your faith group.
“Papist” is a word invented by, and used by, bigots.
An atheist, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Jew, or any other person can validly baptize.
You’ve pointed that out. So? You have a problem with that?
No. But based on your insulting post it seems that you have a problem with me pointing it out.
A complete response to your post involves a post-graduate level course in the theology of Baptism that I had in 2009 and would bore to tears most people reading it here. Since the situation is about what Catholics believe and how they view Baptism, a Protestant theology of Baptism is irrelevant and off topic. This thread is not about comparative theology.
In accord with the above, I make two notes:
1. The charge of “Unscriptural” means little to us where Scripture is silent. That is why we have Tradition and the Magisterium. In this case, absence of scriptural record regarding infant baptisms is not proof that they are invalid.
2. Sacraments are not just signs, but actually confer the grace of which the sacrament is a sign. It is the power of God working through men, not works of men. Baptism actually wipes away all mortal and venial sins, though not the temporal effects of sin. If they were just signs that required cognizance of their condition and desire for absolution, then we have again the question that was raised during the various plagues and disasters about what happens to children before the age of reason. Are they to be deprived of grace because some considered them “too young for Baptism”? You try telling a mother that her child cannot be baptised because he is too young to understand when aforesaid child may not live long enough. We have a hard time believing God would withold grace because of an age limit.
Oh, i thought every thread on the religion forum ultimately was about comparative theology, esp, as RCs use it to so often present theirs. If you expect to do so here without challenges, then you are on the wrong forum. And you are not really much interacting with what i said, but asserting RC beliefs i already countered.
1. The charge of “Unscriptural” means little to us where Scripture is silent. That is why we have Tradition and the Magisterium. In this case, absence of scriptural record regarding infant baptisms is not proof that they are invalid.
Rather, the charge of “Unscriptural” means little to RCs since the veracity of RC teaching is not dependent upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, and at the least it is only necessary that what she teaches is not contradicted by Scripture. But since she is the autocratic judge of that, then it means little.
Sacraments are not just signs, but actually confer the grace of which the sacrament is a sign.
God can convey grace thru the obedient observance of ordinances that He ordained, though He is not bound to or bound by them. It is not the act itself that effects the change, but God who blesses obedience.
And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. (Acts 9:17) It is the power of God working through men, not works of men. Baptism actually wipes away all mortal and venial sins, though not the temporal effects of sin.
It is not the act of baptism, but the faith behind it that justifies, God "purifying their hearts by faith," as said and shown. Those who believe and are baptized will be saved (presuming true faith), since the latter is worked by the former. Repentant faith is the requirement for baptism.
If they were just signs that required cognizance of their condition and desire for absolution, then we have again the question that was raised during the various plagues and disasters about what happens to children before the age of reason.
That is error begetting error, which is that innocent infants need salvation, though they have done neither good nor evil. (Rm. 9:11) Sin is not imputed when there is no law, (Rm. 5:13) and the curse of sin which affect all creation will not extend into the next, in which souls are damned for their own sins, not that of their fathers. (Dt. 24:16; Rv. 20:12-15) Culpability is according to the principle in giving, "it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not." (2 Corinthians 8:12)
Infant are born with a sinful nature, and into a cursed world in which all sin and all die, but an infant is not going to Hell due to Adam, not shut out of Heaven due to simply being born with a sinful nature, which all believers also die with.
Nor in RC theology is baptism absolutely necessary for adults, though some TRCs dispute this.
Are they to be deprived of grace because some considered them “too young for Baptism”? You try telling a mother that her child cannot be baptised because he is too young to understand when aforesaid child may not live long enough. We have a hard time believing God would withold grace because of an age limit.
That is based upon a false premise, which if true, then you are stuck with a deprivation of grace as regards support for this, since there is zero manifest examples of any infants being baptized, despite this being of such cardinal importance for Catholics, which is a conspicuous and incongruous absence, while clearly stating repentance and faith as being the requirement for baptism. And you do not make doctrines based on arguments from silence for such a normative practice.
As there is no grace needed that is conveyed thru the act itself, so that a morally incognizant innocent infant is cleansed of sins by an atheist "intending to do what the church does," then there is no deprivation of grace in not being sprinkled.
If the belief group does not want outside views, it may use the "caucus" label to limit the discussion to members of the caucus.
That is error begetting error, which is that innocent infants need salvation, though they have done neither good nor evil. (Rm. 9:11) Sin is not imputed when there is no law, (Rm. 5:13) and the curse of sin which affect all creation will not extend into the next, in which souls are damned for their own sins, not that of their fathers. (Dt. 24:16; Rv. 20:12-15) Culpability is according to the principle in giving, "it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not." (2 Corinthians 8:12)
Infant are born with a sinful nature, and into a cursed world in which all sin and all die, but an infant is not going to Hell due to Adam, not shut out of Heaven due to simply being born with a sinful nature, which all believers also die with. I would argue that "innocent" infants need salvation. Our interpretation of those same citations are that all are born under the law, so sin is imputed to all until baptism. After baptism, Original Sin is gone and people are condemned for their own personal sin. That is the meaning of "next" in Rm 5:13 - the life you have after baptism.
Were it not so, then who is under the law? Only the circumcised? If so, then the Romans all got away scott free, even without faith, because sin was not imputed to them. There is nothing to say the law only becomes active with the age of reason and only with regard to your personal choices. That is an error of the modern era.
I know you will not agree. It does not matter. You seem to know something about Catholic theology, but reject it on a personal interpretation of Scripture, whereas we believe the Holy Spirit gives that particular charism only to the bishops. I trust that the Holy Spirit is smart enough to not give such a gift to men who would abuse it for personal gain, and my personal experience with the bishops has confirmed this belief. I cannot believe that lowly men could defeat or corrupt the will of the Holy Spirit.
Even our preists do not have authority to interpret scripture on their own. They must teach what the local bishop tells them to teach.
Thanks. Under that label they can post professions without being challenged by us.
Thus you have "under the law" as meaning whom who have not broken the law are guilty because of their fathers, not simply suffering due to the temporal curse placed on all creation, and thus would suffer eternal punishment when God judges the lost due to the sins they themselves committed. Scripture knows of no middle ground - no eternity without suffering or without being with the Lord, respectively.
However, while you hold to infants being in need of salvation due to imputed sin, you deny souls as being saved by imputed righteousness, but instead the actual act of baptism results in them being made actually righteous enough for Heaven, until they sin, and thus they usually need to become good enough for Heaven thru purgatory. Instead, the faith that saves is one that effects holiness and works, but it not the latter that makes one accepted in the Beloved. But it will gain him approval relative to his works.
In contrast, Scripture teaches unGodly souls are justified by a living faith, and with God purifying their heart by faith, even before the act of baptism which confesses that faith in the risen Lord Jesus. (Acts 10:43; 15:7-9; Eph. 2:8,9)
Were it not so, then who is under the law? Only the circumcised? If so, then the Romans all got away scott free, even without faith, because sin was not imputed to them.
Not, as in context Paul has defined being under the law as not simply having express knowledge of the Law, which also included Psalms and Isaiah as well (and by implication all Scripture), but also those who "do by nature the things contained in the law," having "the work of the law written in their hearts." (Rm. 14,15)
These all are the souls included under the "whole world" becoming guilty before God. But God does not eternally dam as guilty those with no moral cognizance or ability to make any moral choices, even if they are born spiritually dead and with a sinful nature. One of the most repeated texts is that which teaches God judges souls for what they are personally culpable for, not that of their fathers. (Dt. 24:16; 2Ki 14:5,6; 2Ch 25:4; Jer 31:29,30; Eze 18:20)
In addition, it has been empirically manifest for centuries that baptizing infants does not render them Biblically born again, unless one makes a mockery of the profound effects of regeneration. As one raised devout RC, in a heavenly RC area, and who after actually becoming born again as a RC and remaining 6 years as a weekly mass-going Catholic, and who since has done much outreach by the grace of God, i can attest that if anything RC youth, esp. those in Catholic schools, are about the most indifferent or even antagonistic toward things of the Spirit.
All infant baptism does is make them wet, and plants a false confidence in them that they are already children of God, not children of wrath due to their sins, and in desperate need of their manifest "day of salvation." (2Cor. 6:2)
I know you will not agree. It does not matter. You seem to know something about Catholic theology, but reject it on a personal interpretation of Scripture, whereas we believe the Holy Spirit gives that particular charism only to the bishops. I
That simply takes the problem of errant personal interpretation to the institutional level, while your very premise is itself faulty. For your premise must be that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium (meaning Rome's) is essential for valid assurance of Truth, incldg. assuredly correct interpretation of Scripture, Tradition and history, and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith. (Jn. 14:16; 16:13; Mt. 16:18)
Also that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is the assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God. Is that not your argument?
Moreover, how many times have the bishops infallibly exegeted Scripture texts, so you know not simply what they cannot mean - which is that they can never contradict Rome no matter how much it make look like the did - but you actually know what they do mean? This is important for your claim, since if you are not to engage in personal interpretation at all, but conform to Rome's interpretation of a text, then you need to know what she says each one means.
I trust that the Holy Spirit is smart enough to not give such a gift to men who would abuse it for personal gain, and my personal experience with the bishops has confirmed this belief.
Well then that settles what? A Mormon would say the same of his bishop and church, while history attests to clerical abuse. A pope can declare the Assumption as binding truth, though it is not even inferred of her in Scripture, and lacks early evidence, but that cannot be abuse of a gift, because it has been "infallibly" defined that he is "infallible when declaring such!
Even our preists do not have authority to interpret scripture on their own. They must teach what the local bishop tells them to teach.
A broad statement that applies to cults. "On their own" basically just means contrary to the church, and otherwise it presumes you have something like an infallible commentary, which would preclude the great deal of liberty that even lay RCs have to interpret Scripture to support Rome. And in so doing they even misinterpret texts as censuring personal interpretation of Scripture.
However, as said, your basic premise that an assuredly infallible magisterium is essential for assurance of Truth, is itself unScriptural.
Not to mention serving communion, consecrating the eucharist, marrying people, performing last rites, etc.
If those people are not in a valid marriage, performed by an authorized Catholic priest, are they not living in sin?
What a can of worms. No wonder Catholics like to sweep it under the rug and claim that as long as the *intent* is right, they're OK.
But this isn't even about intent. This is about a priest who was prohibited by his superiors from doing this stuff and continued to do so.
On Free Republic's Religion Moderator page, look up rules for the Religion Forum.
I wrote this out twice and deleted it accidentally, so I am going to keep it short>
First, you are wrong on “unScriptural”. “On this Rock...” That is enough.
Second, I do hold to imputed righteousness as well as imputed sin. Sin came through one person, and righteousness came through one person. Did anyone today gain sin directly though Eve? As such, though God can act directly, He chooses to act through His Church. We are only arguing over method. Righteousness is imputed... through His Church.
You want grace to act only between God and each person. While that process exists, there is also grace to each person through other people. This points to a greater glory of God than individual action alone.
As for the rest: Yes, I do not believe I have a charism to authoritatively interpret Scripture. Neither do you. Only the bishops have it because it is core to their function, their purpose on earth. As a former seminarian, I have more personal experience with bishops than most. If the Holy Spirit gave me anything, it is the ability to discern hypocrisy, and the men I have seen are not hypocrites. They live the same faith they preach.
I have also seen faith lost, and by extension according to you, salvation lost. I have also seen that faith regained. It was not a false faith first replaced by a true faith. It was faith lost and then regained. I have personally seen this, and no words by you will convince me in place of “my lying eyes”.
All those sacraments are valid. Prohibition does not affect validity. If the priest was laicised, then the sacraments would not be recognized. That requires Vatican approval. You are right that the bishop should have taken more active steps to get rid of the guy considering the confusion it causes.
Look up Ex Opere Operato. The grace of the sacrament is God’s, not the priest’s. It explains a lot.
The Catholic Church brings this scrutiny upon themselves when they claim to be THE one, true church of Jesus Christ by which no one can be saved who is not part of it. They make their priests out to be "in the person of Christ" or His stand-ins and, in a contest between who to believe when abuse happens - the kid or the priest - kids don't get much of the benefit of the doubt (though because of so much actual abuse in the news, that is changing).
So, yes, teachers "see" kids more frequently than priests do but it's a whole 'nuther ball game as far as the spiritual and psychological damage they can each do to a child and his family - as well as the community.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.