Posted on 01/09/2014 11:27:51 AM PST by Weiss White
My parish has a seperate program for children, I help one of the two deacons in regards to RCIA. The other deacon heads what it is called, RCIC.
The rite of circumcision is supposed to date back to Abraham, hundreds of years before the first temple was built. All of the Israelite baby boys were supposed to be circumcised on the 8th day--there was no way to force families from all over the Holy Land to bring the newborn babies to Jerusalem for a ritual that could be just as well handled locally. Infant mortality was enough of a problem without aggravating it.
If you know of a passage in the Bible that says that circumcision had to be performed in the temple, please let me know where it is.
Moses failed to have his sons circumcised on the 8th day: see Exodus 4:25.
Jesus was dedicated to God’s service as an infant at the Presentation in the Temple.
Jesus was dedicated to God’s service as an infant at the Presentation in the Temple.
I think you mean, Jesus was taken to the temple for the sacrifice, naming and circumcision.
That ceremony is at 8 days.
Luke 2:22-40
22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;
“Jesus was Christened as an infant,”
No, He was circumcised.
I doubt that ravenwolf is a Catholic. If so, he/she is a poorly informed one.
Jesus was circumcised on the 8th day (Luke 2:21). He was presented at the temple on the 40th day (Luke 2:22-24).
Catholics celebrate those two days with the Feast of the Circumcision (Jan 1st) and Candlemas (Feb 2nd).
As far as I can tell, the circumcision would have been done at home, while the presentation would have, obviously, had to been done at the temple.
Jesus was not “Christened” as an infant.
I can’t possibly know where you picked up such a strange notion.
Actually i tried to go into gear with out engaging the clutch, i was informed by what i took to be a well read Catholic that the Catholic Church did not baptize infants but only Christened them.
And that this was carried over from the dedication of Jesus in the temple and that it was after the days of his mothers purification.
It had nothing to do with his circumcision.
Luke 2:22-40
22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;
I made a mistake and said Jesus was Christened as an infant and any one knows that is wrong since Christianity was not even heard of at that time.
But i always thought that the Catholics baptized babies and was informed that was wrong that they only Christened them.
Which makes since to me and Luke 2:22 seems to be where it came from, in fact i believe i was told that is where it came from but can not find the comment.
If i was informed wrong about if it is christening or baptizing then that is another thing, i am not a Catholic i only know what i am told and am trying to learn where their doctrine comes from and this makes good sense to me.
Whoever told you that Catholics do not baptize babies was mistaken. There is no distinction, sacramentally, between baptizing an infant or an older person.
What is different is that an infant has his parents speak for him. The Church will only baptizs those infants whose parents promise to raise them in the Church.
A person above the age of reason speaks for himself.
“i was informed by what i took to be a well read Catholic that the Catholic Church did not baptize infants but only Christened them.”
Well, he - or she - isn’t so well-read after all.
**Actually i tried to go into gear with out engaging the clutch, i was informed by what i took to be a well read Catholic that the Catholic Church did not baptize infants but only Christened them.**
Find another source of information, OK?
Interesting… kind of also explains the commentary on excerpting fathering than fully posting
Ok, i was obviously mis informed but was trying to see the point of view of the Catholic Church.
Luke 2
22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord:
They did present Jesus to the lord, which if this is where infant purification came from and if it was purification and not Baptism then i could readily see that i could agree with the Church on more than i thought.
but too many things tell me that is not to be.
I agree with the Catholic,s that Jesus is the Christ which is plainly backed by scripture.
And i agree that Jesus was most likely Mary,s only child which can not be proven by scripture.
And no doubt there are a lot of other things we can agree on.
But all of these teachings that are not backed by scripture and some that even go against scripture over rides the other.
What is different is that an infant has his parents speak for him. The Church will only baptizs those infants whose parents promise to raise them in the Church.
Mat 3:11
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Jesus was probably 29 or 30 years old when he was baptized.
ACTS 2
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.
Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, how could any one repent for a baby who had not yet sinned?
Repenting means seeing the truth, water baptism is just the way to show that repentance.
God allowed the ones under the age of 20 years old to reach the promised land, could it be that he did not consider them to be old enough to be accountable?
Different people has diverse opinions about this but it is plain that babies or even kids to repent and be baptized for
the remission of sin is false doctrine.
If true, then they are using "copyright" to get away with blog pimping.
If true, then they are using "copyright" to get away with blog pimping.
Just another effort to proseletyze
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.