The Big Discovery [by David, former Presbyterian]

Journeyof ImperfectSaint.blogspot.com ^ | October 4, 2009 | David

[Salvation]

Sunday, October 4, 2009

The Big Discovery

        I made some good friends outside my church and found out that they were all Catholics.  Now, I did not know much about Catholicism at the time.  By the way, the Mass did seem somewhat mysterious to me externally.  In fact, what little I had heard from other church members was all negative.  There was a Mrs. J at my church, who had just retired from her missionary post in China.  She was such a kind and endearing soul to all.  One day she got back from visiting someone at a hospital and looked extremely sad and disturbed.  It turned out that when she got to the hospital room, she saw that a Catholic priest was already there with the patient.  Now the question was if the patient would ever get to heaven. 

 

        Nevertheless, my Catholic friends all looked quite normal and happy.  Then could the Catholic Church, the largest church in the the world, be in error?  It so happened that at that time I was also beginning to question my Protestant faith.  The fact that there were numerous different denominations around the world bothered me.  Also, as a Protestant, whether you're a minister or lay person, you are free to marry and divorce any number of times.  It's hard to see that Jesus would be happy with these two facts.  Since I am the kind of person who always likes to find the answer to any question that's important, I decided to look into Catholicism.

 

        I made up my mind not to talk to anyone about my investigation.  I was single then and had a lot of free time to myself.  The local public library housed an excellent collection of books on Catholicism, so I started borrowing books on the subject.  I read every weekend, even taking notes as I read.  The went on for over a year.  I read all those books that viciously attack the Catholic Church too, but somehow they did not affect me much because I sensed that these attacks could not have been prompted by the Holy Spirit.  The books that really helped me were the ones on early Church history.  I could see that the continuity was there and the beliefs and practices of the early Church had been preserved to this day in the Catholic Church.  The only conclusion I could come to was that the Catholic Church was indeed the church Jesus had come and established.  Like Christ himself, the Church, being his body, must be accepted (or rejected) totally, with no middle ground. 

 

        Here's some advice for those who seek the truth.  Your chances of success will greatly improve if, first, you start out with a completely open mind and secondly, go to the source(s) directly to get the facts.  Many who misunderstand the Catholic Church today have already made up their mind that the Church is wrong, thus never bothering to pick up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to find out what the Church really teaches.  This is being close-minded. 

[daniel1212]

Seeing as you have not interacted with my response in which your fanciful premise of Roman unity and deliverance from reliance upon fallible human reasoning in discerning truth is challenged and refuted, and have failed to even answer direct questions, but instead, taking after Rome, have engaged in argument by assertion, due to your fallible decision (according to Roman reasoning) to submit to and defend an assuredly infallible magisterium, assurance of which is based upon you her autocratic infallibly proclaimed infallibility, then there is not warrant to exspend further time appealing to reason. And who likely is a SSPX or sedevacantist who disagrees with Lumen Gentium (not that this aspect is without warrant).

[Jvette]

More details

“And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house. “ (Acts 16:32-34)

To All that were in his house, including any children/infants.

He and all his(including children/infants).

Believing in God with all his house(including children/infants).

Do you deny that the man who believes in God and accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior will bring up his children to believe also? Do you deny that it is the parents right and obligation to do this?

[Jvette]

Now this is getting a little old...

You post false doctrine about the scriptures

I have not.

...I (we) correct you with the scripture itself...And then you pretend that we never posted the scripture...

I have not.

And continue on with your false doctrine and misclaims of what the scripture does and doesn’t say...

I have not.

What’s up with that???

Well, I could be wrong, but I believe it is due to the total inability of some readers to understand simple concepts. I understand that it is hard sometimes to see the depth in Scripture and to have more than a shallow/superficial grasp of what is written there, but really this is not complicated.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

it’s hard to engage with someone who themselves is the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY.

tell me this, are you fallible or infallible when YOU DECIDE WHAT THE SCRIPTURES SAY?

[Jvette]

There is unity only in their dissension.

[Jvette]

Hmmmm.....

But, will they ever see the irony of using a phrase that isn’t found in Scripture to argue their position supposedly based on Sola Scriptura?

I doubt it.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “tell me this, are you fallible or infallible when YOU DECIDE WHAT THE SCRIPTURES SAY?” <<

.
Only catholics ‘decide’ what the scriptures say; God’s elect read prayerfully, and allow the Holy Spirit to show them what the scriptures say.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “To All that were in his house, including any children/infants.

He and all his(including children/infants).

Believing in God with all his house(including children/infants).” <<

.
You mean all that you have imagined were in his house?

Are you Clairvoyant?

[daniel1212]

The reality is that while RCAs condescend to appealing to Scripture in trying to defend traditions of men, that is not their supreme authority, nor is the veracity of such teachings dependent upon weight of scriptural warrant. Instead, if Rome infallibly says it is so, then it is, if she so says so herself, as she has infallibly defined she is infallible.

“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.”
“...outside the pale of Rome there is not a scrap of additional truth of Revelation to be found.”

“He willingly submits his judgment on questions the most momentous that can occupy the mind of man-——questions of religion-——to an authority located in Rome.”

“Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God’s Church on matters of faith and morals-——this is what all must give..”

“The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God. This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;”

“He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.”

“So if God [via Rome] declares that the Blessed Virgin was conceived Immaculate, or that there is a Purgatory, or that the Holy Eucharist is the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, shall we say, “I am not sure about that. I must examine it for myself; I must see whether it is true, whether it is Scriptural?”

“..our act of confidence and of blind obedience is highly honoring to Almighty God,..” —“Henry G. Graham, “What Faith Really Means”, (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 )]

“The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers.”

“The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fulness, as far as God and religion are concerned. His Church gives him all there is to be had; all else is counterfeit...

Holding to Catholic principles how can he do otherwise? How can he consistently seek after truth when he is convinced that he holds it? Who else can teach him religious truth when he believes that an infallible Church gives him God’s word and interprets it in the true and only sense? — (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )

Thus Rome once ordered,

By a decree of Alexander IV (1254-1261) inserted in “Sextus Decretalium”, Lib. V, c. ii, and still in force [1913], all laymen are forbidden, under threat of excommunication, to dispute publicly or privately with heretics on the Catholic Faith...when there is a question of dogmatic or moral theology, every intelligent layman will concede the propriety of leaving the exposition and defence of it to the clergy. www.newadvent.org/cathen/05034a.htm

We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication. — Pope Alexander IV (1254-1261) in “Sextus Decretalium”, Lib. V, c. ii:

Quinisext Ecumenical Council, Canon 64: That a layman must not publicly make a speech or teach, thus investing himself with the dignity of a teacher, but, instead, must submit to the ordinance handed down by the Lord, and to open his ear wide to them who have received the grace of teaching ability, and to be taught by them the divine facts thoroughly.

If anyone be caught disobeying the present Canon, let him be excommunicated for forty days. http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0835/_P3S.HTM
[Both of the above are considered invalidated by subsequent canon law of the church of Rome]

Do not converse with heretics even for the sake of defending the faith, for fear lest their words instil their poison in your mind. Bl. Isaias Boner of Krakow (Polish, Augustinian priest, theologian, professor of Scripture, d. 1471)

Thus, the Church forbids the faithful to communicate with those unbelievers who have forsaken the faith by corrupting it, such as heretics, or by renouncing it, such as apostates.

[conditional] “..as a punishment, the Church forbids the faithful to communicate with those unbelievers who have forsaken the faith they once received, either by corrupting the faith, as heretics, or by entirely renouncing the faith, as apostates, because the Church pronounces sentence of excommunication on both.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Article 9. “Whether it is lawful to communicate with unbelievers?” http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3010.htm

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

Catholics are taught the Faith handed down from generation to generation for 2,000 years. This is the way Jesus commanded it when in Matthew 28:18-20 He said:

ALL AUTHORITY IN HEAVEN AND EARTH HAS BEEN GIVEN TO ME. GO THEREFORE AND MAKE DISCIPLES OF ALL NATIONS, BAPTIZING THEM IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER AND OF HE SON AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, TEACHING THEM TO OBSERVE ALL THAT I HAVE COMMANDED YOU AND LO, I AM WITH YOU ALWAYS, TO THE CLOSE OF THE AGE.

There you have it, the Church has AUTHORITY from Jesus to teach and baptize. We have an obligation to learn from those who have AUTHORITY TO TEACH.

now, you say God’s elect read prayerfully and allow the Holy Spirit to show them what the Scriptures say.
that sounds good, but ir’s not Scriptural. no one in the NT read the Scriptures and allowed the Holy Spirit to lead them to truth.
the NT pattern is for the Holy Spirit to TEACH using the CHURCH. just one example is Philip TEACHING the eunuch in Acts 8.

what is the fruit of the un-Scriptural reading the Scriptures and assuming it is the Holy Spirit leading one to truth? THE CONFUSION THAT IS PROTESTANTISM. 30,000 SECTS all disagreeing with each other. God is not the author of confusion.

[Jvette]

****You mean all that you have imagined were in his house?****

No more than others here have imagined/speculated on who was or was not there.

Scripture means what it says, All the household.

Do we know if children/infants were there? Not explicitly from Scripture.

Do we know if children/infants were not there? Not explicitly from Scripture.

[editor-surveyor]

Catholics are taught the ‘faith’ of Babylon.

Christianity did well for 400 years before the Pharisees invented the ‘catholic’ church.

The prophets all promise us that the catholic church will fall, will fall, and Christ will return victorious over it.

[daniel1212]

“He and all his(including children/infants).”

Jvette, you are demanding that the details say just the opposite of what they do, that all the house was “believing,” present tense, not future, which is something that requires cognitive ability to comprehend what was preached as requiring faith, and which infants do not have. Instead, you are indeed forcing it to say what it does not, and which presumes the Holy Spirit uncharacteristically did not consider it important enough to include, despite the critical important Catholicism places upon it.

“Do you deny that the man who believes in God and accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior will bring up his children to believe also? Do you deny that it is the parents right and obligation to do this?”

That a man who believes in God and accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior will bring up his children to believe is irrelevant as to the issue that the explicit requirements for baptism were repentance and faith, the former being implicit in the latter. The parents rights and obligation is to bring them up in the ways of the Lord, which is not teaching them they were born again as infant via proxy faith.

[editor-surveyor]

Let us then stick to what we know, and rejoice over that.
.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

LOL, these “Christians” you speak of for 400 years, all worshipped on the first day of the week and did not keep the 7th day sabbath.
do you wish to revise your statement since you believe anyone who doesn’t still keep the 7th day sabbath is following their father, the devil?

[Jvette]

A doctrinal free for all.

And so, some say baptism, some say no baptism.

Some say bodily resurrection, some say only spiritual resurrection.

Some say Jesus was truly God, but not truly man or.....
Truly man but not Truly God.

Some say those who are saved has been predestined, some believe those who recite the sinners prayer are saved, some believe that everyone will be saved.

Some believe in an actual heaven, some don’t.

Some believe in an actual hell, some don’t.

But, hey the Holy Spirit guides each and every one of them to the truth. Only it’s not TRUTH but truth according to .......

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

jvette, what our friends do not seem to comprehend is hristians are commanded to keep the Apostolic tradition, which was communicated by either letter or word of mouth.
this is not an option, it is a command to the Church from the Apostle Paul.
that being the case, the Church practices infant baptism in obedience to the teaching received from the Apostles.
now the Church has a great advantage over those who reject it’s teaching - THE CHURCH WAS PRESENT TO HEAR AND OBSERVE WHAT THE APOSTLES TAUGHT AND PRACTICED. THOSE OUTSIDE OF IT WERE NOT THERE AND THEREFORE ARE LIMITED TO TAKING THE CATHOLIC SCRIPTURES AND UDERSTANDING THEM. OF COURSE WITHOUT THE HOLY SPIRIT, THE UNSPIRITUAL MAN DOES NOT RECEIVE THE GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD, THEY ARE FOLLY TO HIM.

[Jvette]

No, that’s not what I am saying.

I am saying that the parents were responsible for speaking for those in the household who could not speak for themselves.
In Scripture we see dozens of references to a man’s household, and HE is responsible for ALL the people within it.

It’s not complicated. Would a Jewish man not present his son for circumcision or present his daughter in the temple?

Of course not, if the household is a household of God.

Why is that such a stumbling block?

Jeremiah was set apart even before he was knit in his mother’s womb.

Paul says he was set apart even from his mother’s womb.

And John, while still in his mother’s womb, leapt with the coming of Mary who was carrying Jesus in her womb.

Were they of the age of consent?

And what is the age of consent? Where does Scripture say that one is old enough to profess belief in God, in Jesus?

Or do the children belong to the Kingdom of God? And if Jesus says so, why wouldn’t parents have them baptized, believing that baptism saves?

It’s really not complicated but for the refusal to accept the simple concept of a parent acting on behalf of their children. Something we are expected to do, called to do, “To train up your children in the way to go and when he is older, he shall not depart from it.”

[metmom]

1. the concept itself is condemned in the Scriptures

Where?

2. the ultimate authority is actually the man in the mirror, giving his or her OPINION on what the Scriptures teach.

As opposed to the ultimate authority being the man in Rome. Considering the history of the popes, that's not much of a win either.

this is easily illustrated: baptists and lutherans both claim “sola scriptura” as a doctrine, now the baptist does not baptize infants and the lutheran will, both claiming the Scriptures as their authority and both can’t be right.

And even is some church body interprets it as infant baptism STILL doesn't mean that they're right but rather that they have consensus.

So what do you propose instead? That someone else appoints themselves as the interpreter of Scripture and then leave everyone else to interpret what THEY had to say?

Because that's what then ends up happening; the interpretation then has to be correctly interpreted. Who does that for the individual.

And so it goes, forever interpreting for layers and layers and in the end, the final interpretation of ANYTHING is done by the individual.

Having the RCC interpret for you is only adding another layer to work through to understand Scripture and in the end you have to interpret what they say.

Your own personal interpretation of the IM. YOPIOTIM.

[Jvette]

How do we know what we know?

And how do we know that what we know is the Truth?

I know that infant baptism is a practice that has its origins in the earliest times of the Christian community and I know that that is true because the Sacred Tradition of Jesus’ Church tells me that.

Scripture does not refute it, regardless of the anguished desire that it does by those who reject the Traditions handed down from the Apostles.