Priest incorrectly performed thousands of baptisms by changing word, making them invalid

The Diocese of Phoenix said 'all of the baptisms he has performed until June 17, 2021, are presumed invalid'

"The issue with using ‘We’ is that it is not the community that baptizes a person, rather, it is Christ, and Him alone, who presides at all of the sacraments, and so it is Christ Jesus who baptizes," Olmsted said.

:::...Catholic teaching says...:::
Your assertion is ...Catholic teaching says...
My assertion is ...the Bible says...
I am going to stick with the Bible.
On Judgment Day, the Lord will open the Bible and judge both of us by our deeds. Rev 20. Only Satan will be present to tell the Lord that we are unworthy and the Lord should let Satan take care of us. No man-made doctrines. No catechisms. Just the Bible.

Will we hear the Lord say, “In the story of the Ethiopian eunuch, I gave you an example that showed baptism was immersion because they had to get into the water so the eunuch could be immersed. Philip asked for his confession as an example to you that showed that I wanted subjects to state their faith in me. The eunuch leaving in joy was because, after baptism, he now had his past sins forgiven and he was now in the Lord’s church.

In the story of Ananias visiting Saul of Tarsus, I gave an example of the importance of baptism (immersion) by showing Saul, even though he had not eaten for three days, was baptized before he ate any food.”

During his ministry on earth, the Lord condemned the Jewish leaders for promoting their “traditions of the Fathers” to a level more important than the Lord’s Law of Moses. Kind of like a lot of denominations!

Let me encourage you to test the hypothesis that the Lord’s church is the one that will be invited into heaven. You can see what the Lord’s church is like from the books of the New Testament.

:::Whatever you have been taught about Catholics not adhering to The Bible is wrong. Do some research.:::

“Do some research.” Good Advice... I did some.

Petra and Petros

One of the most controversial religious doctrines arises from the conversation of Jesus with Peter in Matthew 16. Jesus is asking, “Who do men think that I am?” The answer is that many think he is Elijah, or some prophet.

Then Jesus asks for the disciples’ own opinion, “Who do you think I am?” Speaking for the disciples, Peter responds, “You are the Christ the son of the living God.” Then, in English translations, Jesus says to Peter, our English Bible reads “And you are ‘rock’, and upon this ‘rock’ I will build my church.”

Part 1 of the controversy arises when the two rocks are assumed to be equal. Peter equals rock(1) equals rock(2) equals the Lord’s church. This makes Peter the rock on which the Lord will build his church. That is easily understood.

Part 2 of the controversy arises when scholars appeal to the original Greek language from which the English version was translated. The English word ‘rock’(1) is translated from the Greek word ‘petros’ and the English word; ‘rock’(2), is translated from the Greek word, “petra.” This is a correct *translation*: petros is rock and petra is rock; but scholars contend it is not the correct *interpretation.*

To get to the correct interpretation of the English version, we are required to understand the Greek text, in which the two words for rock differ. Once we know the meanings of each Greek word, we will let those two different meanings become the two different meanings of the two (English) rocks in our understanding of the English version.

Here is a reference to a Greek-English bible showing both the Greek word and its English translation.
https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm
Click Matthew 16 > Scroll down to verse 18.
Petros will be translated as “Peter, (ROCK)” and petra will be translated as ROCK.

A reference to a Bible dictionary will define each term, thus giving us the appropriate interpretation:
Petros, a small stone, (also the name) Peter
Petra, a large stone, unmovable.

These two words do not mean the same thing.
Incorporating the meaning of the Greek words into our English version, one of our English rocks becomes small, unstable, movable; the other of our English rocks becomes huge, unmovable, and stable. One of these rocks is associated with Peter, the other is associated with the Lord’s church.
Thus, Peter equals rock(1) DOES NOT EQUAL rock(2) equals the Lord’s church.

We now have to search for a meaning for rock(2), petra.
I turns out that that rock is the confession of Peter when Peter said, “You are the Christ, the son of the Living God.” That rock has not changed since the founding of the Lord’s church on that wonderful day of Pentecost.

Scripture gives the example of the Ethiopian eunuch asking to be baptized. Philip and the eunuch exit the chariot, wade into the water (likely a river of some sort, because Philip is going to immerse the eunuch in baptism). Philip responds to the eunuch’s request by saying,
Acts 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.

Right at that moment, in front of our very eyes, we see the rock, the petra, on which the Lord’s church is built and into which the eunuch was/will be baptized.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

However, there still may be questions. Let’s dig deeper to understand the payoff for all this.

Imagine a scenario in which the Lord, himself, speaks to us.

Lord: “Let me put it to you this way: I created the heavens and the earth by just saying the words. That means that if I wanted my conversation with Peter to be recorded any other way, I could have done it and I would have done it. I wanted you to know that the rock on which I was going to build my church was a solid, immovable, stable, huge rock, meaning it could never be shaken, doubted, destroyed or whatever. I chose words with very different meanings to try to convey that message. I left it up to you to figure that out.”

“Finally, when translated into English, the meaning appeared to change. I didn’t change. Nor did the rock change.

Now, to fully understand *my doctrine*, you had to dig a little bit deeper to ‘rightly divide my Word.’ Okay, I know the doctrine started centuries earlier. Right now, we are dealing with the English version; that was explained earlier in NorthStarOkie’s response.”

“I could take you through history. Early on, there is no ‘Peter is the rock of the church.’ But, as I take you through time, at some point I could show you a scene with a man suggesting, ‘Let’s let Peter be the rock.’ We would both know that was the moment things changed greatly. Nowhere in my Bible do I hint that I will build my church on Peter. That was a man-made doctrine. I didn’t authorize it.”

“And, don’t you find it interesting that I chose this little unstable pebble as the fellow who spoke the first sermon on Pentecost and that thousands (of men, plus maybe thousands of women also) responded and on that day I began to build my church on that huge solid rock. Peter, the little pebble, did that.”

Lord: “Some day you will die, and your soul will come before me for Judgment. In Revelation 20, I teach that I will open my Bible and judge you by the deeds you have done, one of which is to ‘rightly divide my Word.” At some point I will likely turn to Matthew 16, and we will have a conversation, probably about petra and petros. At that conversation there will be three people, Me, Satan (who will be your accuser) and you, plus my Bible and my Book of Life.

Some people/things will not be there: no preacher, no pastor, no priest, no advisor, no commentary, no sermon transcript, or any other reference material, no tradition. You will not be able to blame them for your errors of interpretation. Throughout your life, my Bible has been only an arms-length away.

It will be me, (Satan is a non-issue), you, my Bible, my Book of Life.

To repeat: Part of our conversation will be about petros and petra. Consider how you might answer.”

"Again, you're the only one reading out of context here. Peter earlier said that it was necessary to be baptized in Acts 2:37-38. His actions at the house of Cornelius is entirely coherent to his earlier teaching."

Actually Peter both preached

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. (Acts 2:38)

And,

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? (Acts 10:43-47)

And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life. (Acts 11:15-18)

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:7-9)

And the latter interprets the former, showing that it is penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating effectual faith, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) which is imputed for righteousness, (Romans 4:5) and is shown in baptism and following the Lord, (Acts 2:38-47; Jn. 10:27,28) and by which faith the redeemed soul is "accepted in the Beloved." (Eph. 1:6)

" Its an inescapable part of the inclusion of the gentiles among the new faith. Baptism makes them members of the new faith in Jesus.... It says Peter recognized they had to be Baptized, it doesn't say they were already saved."

Rather, what is inescapable is that these formerly lost souls had indeed become "members of the new faith in Jesus,"being granted "repentance unto life," "purifying their hearts by faith," for whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins," having experienced the washing of regeneration BEFORE baptism, and despite being pious, for "it is not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." (Titus 3:5)

And which interprets Acts 2:28 that Peter also preached, for rather than being negligent in preaching "whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins" rather than "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" means to believe, since faith effects obedience (all we choose to do is a result of what we really believe, at least at the moment), and to obey requires faith. Thus the command to believe on the Lord Jesus means to follow Him as one of His sheep. (Jn. 10:27,28)

However, faith is the cause behind the effect, even though they can be used interchangeably, like as the Lord did in the case of the palsied man in Mark 2:1-2, as in "Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?' (Mark 2:9) To say one was to say the other, likewise to say "believe on the Lord Jesus" is to say Repent, and be baptized in His name." However, the effect (healing) is not the cause (forgiveness), neither is the effect (obedience) the cause of forgiveness in the washing of regeneration and of justification." But since faith and obedience to together as cause and effect, as did forgiveness and healing, thus salvation is promised to those who believe as well as to those who obey in faith, but with the latter being the cause. As in "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16:16)

Yet in Catholicism the actual act of baptism (ex opere operato) is imagined to effect regeneration, and thereby formally justifying and being made holy by his own personal justice and holiness, (Catholic Encyclopedia>Sanctifying Grace) via "the continued possession of a quality inherent in the soul," (Catholic Encyclopedia > Justification) Divine charity being infused in their soul. (Trent, l. c., cap. vii)

Yet while the newly baptized may go straight to Heaven if he/she died then, yet since the unholy sin nature is still all-too much alive as the newly baptized will discover, then having begun with salvation being based upon upon being good enough to be with God (versus obedient Abrahamic-type faith being counted for righteousness: Rm. 4:5), then unless the baptized is one of the very few who has become perfect in character in this life and dies in that state, entering Heaven can only be attained by attaining perfection of character ("by grace") thru postmortem “purifying punishments” and sufferings, commencing at death, in order to be with God.

Thus the command to be baptized is to be obeyed as part of following the Lord, as effectual faith is what is salvific, yet it is not the cause of justification, for as inescapably seen, regeneration preceded baptism in Acts 10, which, along with so many other verses the teach justification is appropriated by faith, not a ritual, is interpretive of Acts 2:38. As well as John 3:3-7, since it is clearly shown that baptism is not "required by Jesus to be Born again" as you elsewhere asserted, although the command to be baptized in order to receive the Spirit is valid, since it is a command to believe as per Acts 10:43, but it is faith which is the cause, not the act that results.

"Tradition counts as much as the Bible to some. I "

As it does for Orthodox Jews who reject Christ, while

And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:27)

And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, (Acts 17:2)

And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening. (Acts 28:23)

he [Apollos] mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. (Acts 18:28) However, based upon Tradition, Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. And the premise of ensured magisterial veracity, at least as concerns salvation, is the basis for assurance of doctrine for the faithful Catholic.

In contrast, while men such as the apostles could also speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, yet neither of which does even Rome presumes its popes and ecumenical councils do. Thus the Catholic appeal to 2 Thess 2:15 as affirming Catholic tradition is invalid. Moreover, we have sound warrant to assume that, if these oral traditions referred to any new teachings that were to be preserved, then what Paul referred to as tradition would be subsequently written down.

" For God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation of the word of God. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 102:18; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;

And thus it is abundantly evidenced that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture, (Acts 17:11) and not vice versa

For the illiterate Gentiles, natural revelation (Acts 14:15-17) as well as mighty signs and wonders by the power of the Spirit of God (Romans 15:19) was usually used but the Scriptures remained the supreme standard for express Divine revelation and testing the source of miracles.

Therefore here are some questions for those who argue for the alternative of sola scriptura, which is that of sola ecclesia:

1. What is God's manifest reliable means of preserving the express wholly inspired word of God: oral transmission or writing?
2. What became the established supreme substantive authoritative source for testing Truth claims: oral transmission or Scripture?
3. Which came first: this authoritative body of the written word of God, or the NT church, and that provided the transcendent prophetic, doctrinal and moral foundation for the NT church?
4. Did the establishment of a body of wholly inspired authoritative writings by the first century require an infallible magisterium?
5. Which transcendent sure source was so abundantly invoked by the Lord Jesus and NT church in substantiating Truth claims to a nation which was the historical instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation: oral transmission or writing?
6. Was the veracity of Scripture ever subject to testing by the oral words of men or vice versa?
7. Do Catholic popes and councils speak or write as wholly inspired of God in giving His word like as men such as apostles did, and also provide new public revelation thereby?
8. In the light of the above, do you deny that only Scripture is the transcendent, supreme, wholly inspired-of-God substantive and authoritative word of God, and the most reliable record and supreme source for what the NT church believed?
9. Do you think sola scripture must mean that only the Bible is to be used in understanding what God says, and means that all believers will correctly understand what is necessary, and that it replaces the magisterial office (and ideally a centralized one) as the formal judicial earthly authority on matters of dispute (though it appeals to Scripture as the only infallible and supreme source of Truth)?
10. Do you think the sufficiency aspect of sola scripture must mean that the Bible explicitly and formally provides everything needed for salvation and growth in grace, including reason, writing, ability to discern, teachers, synods, etc. or that this sufficiency refers to Scripture as regards it being express Divine public revelation, and which formally and materially (combined) provides what is necessary for salvation and growth in grace?
11. What infallible oral magisterial source has spoken to man as the wholly God-inspired public word of God outside Scripture since the last book was penned?
12. Where in Scripture is a magisterium of men promised ensured perpetual infallibility of office whenever it defines as a body a matter of faith or morals for the whole church?
13. Does being the historical instruments, discerners and stewards of express Divine revelation mean that such possess that magisterial infallibility?
14. What is the basis for your assurance that your church is the one true apostolic church? The weight of evidence for it or because the church who declared it asserts she it cannot err in such a matter? "

"Quietly observe on a Sunday Morning a Catholic man in the state of Grace slowly and prayerfully approach in procession the Holy Altar of Sacrifice, present himself in the manner of a child to a duly ordained priest whom he calls Father and recognizes as an Alter Christus, drop to his knees in awe and humility, receive on his tongue from the consecrated hands of the aforementioned priest the very Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, and return to his pew to pray and contemplate the generosity of this magnificent gift, so freely given to him as a professed believer in the One True Faith, an ordinary member of the Mystical Body of Christ."

Meaning (and I speak an former weekly and holy day mass-going altar boy, CCD teacher and lector here) exception to the normal pseudopiety and perfunctory professions of so many Catholics who manifest no evidential positive change as a result receiving the sacraments, yet which are brethren with even even proabortion, prohomosexual public figures who are manifestly considered to be as members in life and in death (showing the Vatican's understanding of canon law).

Yet the pious Catholic here in a brother in piety with a devout Mormon in delusion, believing in this supposed "medicine of immorality," which is said to be the true body and blood of Christ under the appearance - and despite the appearance - of bread and wine which actually do not exist - even though all material tests would be evidence them to be what they appeared to be, just as the incarnated body of Christ would, versus one whose appearance did not conform to what He materially was - the true body and blood Christ having taking their place in each and every particle. Until that is, the non-existent bread or wine begins to manifest - and here appearance is critical - corruption/decay, at which point the body of Christ is no longer locally present under that appearance.

Such is the Cath Eucharistic contrivance that misrepresents the Lord's supper, for which only the metaphorical understanding easily conforms to Scripture overall.

And being treated as a Christian due to his invalid infant baptism by proxy faith, since requirement of personal repentant faith is ignored, (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37) while the infant in the womb and after birth is not culpably of sin no damned for what he did no do, then the Catholic takes part in a weekly (if that) ritual without being called to conversion thru deep personal conviction of his desperate need for conversion, which man typically does not want to hear anyway. And thus dies willingly deluded. In which Catholicism (as well as liberal Protestantism and much of weak modern "evangelicalism") has become as the gates of Hell for multitudes.

The redeemed are those who come to God as sinners knowing their desperate need of salvation - not as soul saved by their works or church affiliation, but as destitute of any means or merit whereby they may find salvation - and with a humble and penitent heart (that wants a new life following Christ) believe on the crucified and risen Lord Jesus who alone can save them on His account, by His sinless shed blood and righteousness. And who thus are baptized and follow Him (and repent when they find that they failed to do so). Thanks be to God!

catholic baptisms aren’t biblical baptisms anyways. doesn’t mean anything to babies that can’t remember it.

"Do you think baptism gets its value from what you “think” or “feel” about it?"

You are missing the point, which is that of being cognizant of what one is doing. Just as an infant is not morally accountable due to lack of cognizance (and thus is no more damned that aborted babies) so also it cannot be said to have choose to believe. And the Scriptural requirement for baptism is clearly that of repentance and faith, or if you will, repentant faith since they go together.

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...Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. ( (Acts 2:38,41)"

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? 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. (Acts 8:36-37)

And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. (Acts 18:8)

"What are your theological credentials? They’re more substantial than those of two millennia of theologians and philosophers going back to Jesus, the founder of Catholicism?”"

Ah yes, the appeal to theological credentials when faced with the clear teaching of Scripture which plainly sets forth the requirement for baptism as being that of repentant faith, (Acts 3:28; 8:36,37) and infants are no more accountable for sin or damned because of having a sinful nature they are not culpable for, nor saved by faith, including the aborted, but are in no need of forgiveness or redemption for what they are not accountable for. Best to leave it as a mystery of God's grace.

Meanwhile, the NT church actually began contrary your "theological credentials" premise, with the common people hearing itinerant preachers and Prracher which had no sanction from those with theological credentials.

And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders, And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things? And Jesus answered and said unto them, I will also ask of you one question, and answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John [who lacked theological credentials], was it from heaven, or of men? answer me. And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then did ye not believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; they feared the people: for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed. And they answered and said unto Jesus, We cannot tell. And Jesus answering saith unto them, Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things. (Mark 11:27-33)

And the common people [who lacked theological credentials] heard him gladly. (Mark 12:37)

The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law [who lack theological credentials] are cursed. (John 7:46-49)

Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John [who lacked theological credentials], and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus. (Acts 4:13)

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world [who usually lack theological credentials] to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; (1 Corinthians 1:25-27)

As with conservatives, it is rarely the learned that can see straight.

"And since Context of the article is that the priest did not baptize in the name of Jesus, but baptized as if the whole community was working in the name of Jesus. That made the Baptism invalid, because I can’t on account your belief, similarly you cannot speak on account of mine."

Invalid argument: If the minister cannot speak for a body, meaning true members, then he has no body. Nowhere is "I baptize" specified in Scripture (not that that is determinitive of doctrine for Catholics), and while this is not excluded either, neither must "we" as in "we the people" who believe invalidate it since the minister is to actually act in union with the body in such actions. Consider,

In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (1 Corinthians 5:4-5)

As per your reasoning, Paul can’t speak on account their belief, and similarly they cannot speak on account of his (and indeed some were at variance with it), thus there can be no "we" unity of action. However, there is a general union politic, with at least some being in union with leadership and with the Lord, as in,

And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:17-20)

cf. To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; (2 Corinthians 2:10)

Whereas the theologians have studied not just one biblical
Reference but many

There is simply no real way cite the Bible in stating that the recipient of baptism must be repentant.

When I run into Protestant preachers, anti Catholics
Who refuse to consider what Catholicism is about while they put down the Church founded by Jesus Himself, who sit around telling women how they must interpret the Bible I always suggest they get over themselves as I walk away. Which is what I am doing now.

Here are the biblical References cited in some of the teachings on baptism in the catechism. Including the one measly sentence you cite from Acts

4 Cf. Council Of Florence: DS 1314: vitae spiritualis ianua.
5 Roman Catechism II,2,5; Cf. Council Of Florence: DS 1314; CIC, cann. 204 § 1; 849; CCEO, can. 675 § 1.
6 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15; Cf. Rom 6:34; Col 2:12.
7 Titus 3:5; Jn 3:5.
8 St. Justin, Apol. 1,61,12:PG 6,421.
9 Jn 1:9; 1 Thess 5:5; Heb 10:32; Eph 5:8.
10 St. Gregory Of Nazianzus, Oratio 40,3-4:PG 36,361C.
11 Roman Missal, Easter Vigil 42: Blessing of Water.
12 Cf. Gen 1:2.
13 Roman Missal, Easter Vigil 42: Blessing of Water.
14 1 Pet 3:20.
15 Roman Missal, Easter Vigil 42: Blessing of Water.
16 Roman Missal, Easter Vigil 42: Blessing of Water: “Abrahae filios per mare Rubrum sicco vestigio transire fecisti, ut plebs, a Pharaonis servitute liberata, populum baptizatorum præfiguraret.”
17 Cf. Mt 3:13.
18 Mt 28:19-20; cf. Mk 16:15-16.
19 Mt 3:15.
20 Cf. Phil 2:7.
21 Mt 3:16-17.
22 Mk 10:38; cf. Lk 12:50.
23 Cf. Jn 19:34; 1 Jn 5:6-8.
24 Cf. Jn 3:5.
25 St. Ambrose, De sacr. 2,2,6:PL 16,444; cf. Jn 3:5.
26 Acts 2:38.
27 Cf. Acts 2:41; 8:12-13; 10:48; 16:15.
28 Acts 16:31-33.
29 Rom 6:3-4; cf. Col 2:12.
30 Gal 3:27.
31 CE 1 Cor 6:11; 12:13.
32 1 Pet 1:23; cf. Eph 5:26.
33 St. Augustine, In Jo. ev. 80,3:PL 35,1840.
34 SC 64.
35 Cf. RCIA (1972).
36 SC 65; cf. SC 37-40.
37 Cf. AG 14; CIC, cann. 851; 865; 866.
38 Cf. CIC, cann. 851, 2o; 868.
39 Cf. Rom 6:17.
40 Jn 3:5.
41 Cf. RBC 62.
42 Gal 3:27.
43 Mt 5:14; cf. Phil 2:15.
44 Rev 19:9.
45 Mk 10:14.
46 CIC, can. 864; cf. CCEO, can. 679.
47 AG 14; cf. RCIA 19; 98.
48 AG 14 § 5.
49 LG 14 § 3; cf. CIC, cann. 206; 788 § 3.
50 Cf. Council of Trent (1546): DS 1514; cf. Col 1:12-14.
51 Cf. CIC, can. 867; CCEO, cann. 681; 686,1.
52 Cf. LG 11; 41; GS 48; CIC, can. 868.
53 Cf. Acts 16:15,33; 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16; CDF, instruction, Pastoralis actio: AAS 72 (1980) 1137-1156.
54 Cf. Mk 16:16.
55 Cf. CIC, cann. 872-874.
56 Cf. SC 67.
57 Cf. CIC, can. 861 § 1; CCEO, can. 677 § 1.
58 CIC, can. 861.2.
59 Cf. 1 Tim 2:4.
60 Cf. Jn 3:5.
61 Cf. Mt 28:19-20; cf. Council of Trent (1547) DS 1618; LG 14; AG 5.
62 Cf. Mk 16:16.
63 GS 22 § 5; cf. LG 16; AG 7.
64 Mk 10 14; cf. 1 Tim 2:4.
65 Cf. Acts 2:38; Jn 3:5.
66 Cf. Council of Florence (1439): DS 1316.
67 Council of Trent (1546): DS 1515.
68 2 Tim 2:5.
69 2 Cor 5:17; 2 Pet 1:4; cf. Gal 4:5-7.
70 Cf. 1 Cor 6:15; 12:27; Rom 8:17.
71 Cf. 1 Cor 6:19.
72 Eph 4:25.
73 1 Cor 12:13.
74 1 Pet 2:5.
75 1 Pet 2:9.
76 Cf. 1 Cor 6:19; 2 Cor 5:15.
77 Heb 13:17.
78 Cf. Eph 5:21; 1 Cor 16:15-16; 1 Thess 5:12-13; Jn 13:12-15.
79 Cf. LG 37; CIC, cann. 208-223; CCEO, can. 675:2.
80 LG 11; cf. LG 17; AG 7; 23.
81 UR 3.
82 UR 22 § 2.
83 Cf. Rom 8:29; Council of Trent (1547): DS 1609-1619.
84 Cf. LG 11.
85 Cf. LG 10.
86 St. Augustine, Ep. 98,5:PL 33,362; Eph 4:30; cf. 1:13-14; 2 Cor 1:21-22.
87 St. Irenaeus, Dem ap. 3:SCh 62,32.
88 Roman Missal, EP I (Roman Canon) 97.

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.

Ave Maria