Posted on 01/12/2015 11:59:16 AM PST by NYer
Freedom of speech is a great thing. Unfortunately, it comes at an unavoidable price: When citizens are free to say what they want, theyll sometimes use that freedom to say some pretty silly things. And thats the case with the 12 claims were about to cover.
|
Some of them are made over and over, others are rare. Either way, while the proponents of these errors are free to promote them, we as Catholics have a duty to respond.
6. "If the Church truly followed Jesus, they'd sell their lavish art, property, and architecture, and give the money to the poor."
When some people think of Vatican City, what they immediately picture is something like a wealthy kingdom, complete with palatial living accommodations for the pope and chests of gold tucked away in every corner, not to mention the fabulous collection of priceless art and artifacts. Looking at it that way, it's easy to see how some people would become indignant at what they think is an ostentatious and wasteful show of wealth.
But the truth is something quite different. While the main buildings are called the "Vatican Palace," it wasn't built to be the lavish living quarters of the pope. In fact, the residential part of the Vatican is relatively small. The greater portion of the Vatican is given over to purposes of art and science, administration of the Church's official business, and management of the Palace in general. Quite a number of Church and administrative officials live in the Vatican with the pope, making it more like the Church's main headquarters.
As for the impressive art collection, truly one of the finest in the world, the Vatican views it as "an irreplaceable treasure," but not in monetary terms. The pope doesn't "own" these works of art and couldn't sell them if he wanted to; they're merely in the care of the Holy See. The art doesn't even provide the Church with wealth; actually, it's just the opposite. The Holy See invests quite a bit of its resources into the upkeep of the collection.
The truth of the matter is that the See has a fairly tight financial budget. So why keep the art? It goes back to a belief in the Church's mission (one of many) as a civilizing force in the world. Just like the medieval monks who carefully transcribed ancient texts so they would be available to future generations — texts that otherwise would have been lost forever — the Church continues to care for the arts so they will not be forgotten over time. In today's culture of death where the term "civilization" can only be used loosely, the Church's civilizing mission is as important today as it ever was.
You ask: “...and who wrote that history?”
I meant, the first time it is mentioned, in any writing.
By “history” I’m not talking about a “history book,” written by a “historian.” I’m talking about the totality of documents that exist from those centuries.
And yes, there are exhaustive catalogs of those documents. EVERY SINGLE WORD ever written in ancient Greek fits on a CD-ROM.
The first time it is ever mentioned that a baby was NOT baptized for theological reasons is in the FOURTH CENTURY, and the parents were adherents of a heretical Christian sect.
Where does Paul advocate baptizing babies?
You completely failed to get my point.
Jesus never preached about sodomy because it was NOT an issue. None. Everyone knew it was a sin.
From the time of Jesus until the Fourth Century, there is not a single mention of NOT baptizing babies.
That is evidence that it was NOT an issue. Only in the Fourth Century does ANYBODY make a point of NOT baptizing an infant.
If infants had NEVER been baptized, why would anybody in the Fourth Century SUDDENLY make an ISSUE out of not baptizing infants?
Only ADULTS are instructed to “repent and be baptized.”
Infants are not instructed at all. Nobody wastes time telling infants to “repent.”
But who said that repenting and being baptized are INSEPARABLE? Nobody. Ever.
Repenting is NOT part of the sacrament of Baptism.
The sacrament consists of immersion, or pouring or sprinkling water so that it flows, and saying “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
Babies are born without grace, a state generally known as Original Sin. Baptism initiates the life of grace. The absence of PERSONAL sin in the baby is irrelevant.
I have found that he easiest way to be certain that I am on the right side of an issue is to take the exact opposite view of the usual suspects.
“I have found that he easiest way to be certain that I am on the right side of an issue is to take the exact opposite view of the usual suspects.”
Yep. That works.
You have a point there! Especially when we are spoken at, or about, and not with. That isn’t discussion, or dialogue, and is counter-productive to mutual understanding.
**Especially when we are spoken at, or about, and not with. That isn’t discussion, or dialogue, and is counter-productive to mutual understanding.**
Isn’t that getting into gossip, calumny and slander when that happens?
The issue of infant Baptism is not discussed explicitly in the Bible, but it is likely that there were babies in the households of Lydia, Stephanus and the jailer at Philippi, where Paul baptized entire families (Acts 16:14-15, Acts 16:29-34 and 1 Corinthians 1:16). In Colossians 2:11-12 Paul alludes to infant baptism when he tells us that Baptism has replaced circumcision. Circumcision took place on the eighth day after birth (Genesis 17:12). We know that early Christians baptized their infants on the eighth day after birth because the third Council of Carthage decreed in the year 252, “that baptism of children need not be deferred until the eighth day after birth as some maintained, but might be administered as soon as possible” (Cyprian, Epistle 64 (59), 2).
From: www.staycatholic.com/baptism
Why are you so insistent on specific situations (such as infant baptism) be presented in the Bible, when you ignore the specific words and directions from Jesus on salvation? I am glad that you are seeking the Truth.
I pray that you accept that Jesus delegated authority to His Apostles and the Church and regain your Catholic Faith.
Your comment: “I know Jesus. And Rome ain’t Him”
Are you sure? That sounds pretty arrogant braggadocio.
Jesus was a humble man that served the will of the Father.
You will find that for some of the non-Catholic crowd that admitting that the Catholic Church is correct about anything is the ultimate form of heresy or blasphemy.
They would literally rather die than admit that they have been making mistakes for however many years.
The funny thing is that you NEVER see that from those that have converted out of Protestantism.
:)!
I’ve mentioned this to the usual suspects and the response is always the same: freedom of speech. I pointed out that they could use that freedom create their own site on which to spew their ideas.
Amen! Imagine, actually being able to discuss the topic at hand!
Pipe Dream! ;)
Ahh, but what a lovely dream ‘tis! : )
But who said that repenting and being baptized are INSEPARABLE? Nobody. Ever.
You gotta be kidding me...
Act 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Repenting is NOT part of the sacrament of Baptism.
That why Catholic sacraments are illegitimate...That's why God preserved his scripture so we could separate those false religions; those who claim repentance is not necessary...
Jesus never preached about sodomy because it was NOT an issue. None. Everyone knew it was a sin.
From the time of Jesus until the Fourth Century, there is not a single mention of NOT baptizing babies. That is evidence that it was NOT an issue. Only in the Fourth Century does ANYBODY make a point of NOT baptizing an infant.
If infants had NEVER been baptized, why would anybody in the Fourth Century SUDDENLY make an ISSUE out of not baptizing infants?
Maybe you are forgetting there are non Catholics reading this as well??? We don't so easily fall for this stuff...
There wasn't a pope til at least the 6th Century...
Mary never became sinless for a couple hundred years after she died...
It was about the same amount of time before someone came up with the idea that Mary bodily went to heaven...This list could get really long...
Of course it was an issue...Jesus taught that marriage was between a man and a woman...Sexual relations outside of that bond were a sin...That covers 'everything'...
Plus, Jesus was a Jew under the Law teaching the Jews...In the Law homosexuals are condemned...
And of course Paul who was taught from the lips of the resurrected Jesus had plenty to say about it...
You don’t seem to have understood what I meant by “not an issue.”
I meant “not a matter of controversy.”
Jesus was a Jew, speaking throughout his public life almost exclusively to Jews. There was absolutely no reason for him to preach about matters that absolutely everyone agreed about.
Understanding when some matter was not a matter of controversy is essential for understanding that certain silences in Scripture do not signify what many people claim they signify.
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.