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.

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

So? Likewise did the Scribes and Pharisees (and you are responding to my reproof of your theologians=veracity premise) as do JW and other theologians of OTC (One True Church/Cults), while what they and your OTC theologians lack is showing conflation and confluence of Scripture is this debate against paedobaptism.

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

What? The stated requirement for baptism is that of repentant, whole-hearted faith, and NOWHERE is baptism on the basis of proxy faith taught or actually exampled. In case you missed it in posts above, >

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)"

But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. (Acts 8:12)

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)

The best you can do it read into the mention of baptism of households to include infants, but which is reading into Scripture what you can only wish it actually said or taught. And note that circumcision, which was only specifically mandated for male infants, and the cutting away of flesh is the sense in which it is corespondent to conversion, that "the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ," (Colossians 2:11), which happens when one repents and believes, whether it be at the time of baptism or before it, as shown, (Acts 2:38; 10:43-48; 15:7-9) and which baptism signifies, not effects, as explained and shown above.

"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, "

You are resorting to the old "begging the question" fallacy, asserting as a fact the very thing that begs to be proven but which has not. To the contrary, distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels). Meanwhile for ehat it is worth (not much) the premise that so-called church fathers all supported paedobaptism as Rome does is selective and limited to the relative little that we have available.

"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."

No, you should walk away for you are acting contrary to how the NT church began, which as shown and ignored, was in the face the very recourse of your vain argumentation, that the established hierarchy knows best, versus holy itinerant preachers who established Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation.

"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"

Which mere list itself is meaningless except to show that Rome can cite Scripture (besides itself) and which the devil can as well, while it remains the paedobaptism, via the false confidence of conversion attached to it, has sadly been much responsible for the enlargement of Hell. May God peradventure grant you "repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." (2 Timothy 2:25)

" Baptism REMOVES ORIGINAL SIN, so if you Protestants don’t get Baptized until you are much older, then YOU ALL are living with ORIGINAL SIN!! "

"Actually since the non-baptized are usually non-converted, then such are under condemnation - as are Catholics who imagine that the act of their infant baptism regenerated them and or faith in the salvation-by-merit gospel of Rome will save them. Versus 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)

As for "ORIGINAL SIN!!" you consigned millions of aborted infants to having died in that condition, which in Catholicism is speculated to mean such can never see the Beatific Vision but only have a natural happiness though they do not know what they are missing. Ignorance in bliss, or Limbo if a word must be used. Yet which isd still contrary to Catholic assertions here that baptism is essential. (https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/unbaptized-infants-12342)

Yet not only are infants not culpable for their actions (and one of the most reiterated teachings in Scripture is that offspring are not be charged with guilt over what their ancestors did, Deuteronomy 24:16; cf. 2Ki 14:5,6; 2Ch 25:4; Jer 31:29,30; Eze 18:20) likewise are they not positively credited for what they had no choice in doing, as in baptism), but while all creation presently suffers the effects of Adam's sin, Scripture indicates even creation, as a "victim" of man's sin, shall somehow see the opposite:

For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. (Romans 8:20-23)

Best to leave such as speculation, while focusing on what is certain. In which 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!

"Romans 6:3 teaches that unborn children have not sinned. They have done “neither good nor evil.”"

Indeed, though you meant Romans 9:11: "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth..."

However, "original sin" does not mean an infant is guilty but in Catholic theology it means "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act, referring to being born with an unholy sinful nature, resulting in a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called "concupiscence". And thus the subject cannot see God in that condition. But that Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle. "all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand." (CCC 404, 405)

However, until regeneration man is "dead in trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1) and it is all too obvious that conversion does not remove the sinful nature (which thus is to be put to death), much less the act itself of baptism which Catholics can only image effects regeneration, and which in Scripture is by faith, and manifests basic profound effects in hearts and lives, which is does today, thank God (and in my 69 years of life i have yet to see any empirical evidence of superior spiritual virtues among Catholic children that are not due to nature, not nature).

And rather gong to Purgatory at death to purify one to see God as per Rome, wherever Scripture clearly speaks of the next conscious reality for believers then it is with the Lord, (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17)

And rather than Purgatory conforming souls to Christ, the next transformative experience that is manifestly taught is that of being made like Christ in the resurrection. (1Jn. 3:2; Rm. 8:23; 1Co 15:53,54; 2Co. 2-4) At which time is the judgment seat of Christ And which is the only suffering after this life, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord's return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure!) due to the manner of material one built the church with. But which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff) Thanks be to God.

"Thus, children are sinless until they grow to an age of accountability, a time when they know good from evil and can choose."

Yes,

"before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good" (Isaiah 7:16)

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.