Sincere question for catholics.

The Catholic Church claims that it worships the same "god" as Islam.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

Para. 841 -

"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

 

Living4Him,

I never said that the Catholic Church calls these things magic. My use of "in effect, magic" and *magic powers* should be easilly understood by anyone.

Here is what I listed:

There is no possibility at all that God is involved in any of those things. There could be any number of things actually going on, including the very real possibility that a being very much opposite of God is involved.

If you dont like the word "magic", plug in "superstition" instead of "magic" where magic is used if you want to.

God bless,

Mike

 

Violet,

Wrong.

God bless,

Mike

 

Heck, isn't that the way anybody goes to heaven?

 

Yep - the soul 'gets marked" cause the priest has the magical "powers" to do so.

And we note that the RCC says "the priest does NOT lose his powers" just because he is excommunicated. For HIS SOUL TOO has been "marked" by the magic of "ordination" and "holy orders".

So "a lot of marking going on" cause the chasm dividing the sacred clergy from the profane laity is "all about them powers" -- as Bokenkotter has pointed out.

In Christ,

Bob

 

So far "no takers" on that "belief". You may be off to start your own branch of the RCC!

In the mean time here is what an actual RC "historian" finds in actual "history".

I am assuming you put more confidence in an actual RC historian and best-selling RC author -- than in your own ability to infallibly "suppose" -- correct?

If so - then it appears that the focal point in history for that famous split mentioned above - was the issue of infant baptism and the power of the Priest to accomplish it - as opposed to the "profane laity" that had no such power at all.


In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

ANY Baptized person can Baptize. The Catholic Church recognizes the Baptism of all other Christian sects. It doesn't recognize the Baptism of the LDS (Mormon) church because it isn't a truly Christian religion.

 

That is not so Glen. Salvation (according to the RCC) is dependent upon Catholic baptism. So important is this to the RCC, that in the past they persecuted and killed those that disagreed with them on this point. Thus the history of the Anabaptists and Baptists. The Anabaptists (meaning: baptizing again), were persecuted because they re-baptized, as the word means. This was an affront to the Catholic Church. It was a denial of the efficacy of the RCC baptism. Thus the persecution and consequent death of the Anabaptists by the RCC. Salvation was only through (and still is) through the RCC. It is only the RCC (and some cults) that beieves to be "born again" means to be baptized, and equates baptism to salvation.
DHK

 

FLMike,

I said...

And you said...

By being baptised as an infant, by a Catholic priest?

No. Of course not. Not only is that not how anyone is saved...but NOT ONE PERSON in all of the 2000 years of the christian church has ever been saved that way.

(Of course...since I've never posted with you before I might be missing the intended sarcasm of your statement. If thats the case..."never mind" )

God bless,

Mike

 

According to Catholic teaching, anyone can baptise; it doesn't have to be a priest or even a Catholic doing the baptising. That's rather different to the Eucharist where it must be an ordained priest presiding for transubstantiation to take place. I've always found that a tad inconsistent - that one sacrament doesn't need a priest but the other does

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

No, it's not. When we reconciled to the Catholic Church, they recognized my Fundamental Baptist Baptism, my husband's Episcopalian Baptism, and my children's Southern Baptist Baptism as all valid Christian baptisms.

 

Really?

It sounds like to me you are putting limitations on God.

 

Bob,
I guess you missed the part that I posted from the catechism that stated in time of emergency anyone, with the required intention, can baptize , by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula.

 

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:-

"1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a nonbaptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation." (Italics mine.)

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Just because there were "no takers" doesn't make the statement wrong or right-- just that not too many Catholics frequent this board. From the Baltimore Catichism:

 

Bob,
I guess you missed the part that I posted from the catechism that stated in time of emergency anyone, with the required intention, can baptize , by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. </font>[/QUOTE]"Times of emergency"??

What about just the "profane laity" doing it as the opportunity arises?

Or do you also think that this part (the recorded divide created by evolving the concept of the sacred clergy from the profane laity - based on "powers") of history never happened?

I guess you missed the quote from Bokenkotter regarding "actual history".

You seemed to also have missed the quotes from other RC sources speaking of the "powers of the priest" to mark the soul and that those "powers" are retained EVEN if excommunicated.

Never let the inconvenient details of history get in the say of a good story.

Do you not find it "odd" that "any trinitarian" has the power to mark the soul - BUT "just any trinitarian" MAY NOT even PARTICIPATE in the RC mass NOR does the RCC recognize that "just any trinitarian" is "saved by the New Covenant" - rather they insist that the New Covenant is confined to the Catholic Mass - in which "just any trinitarian" is not a participant?

So "know" of any RC family that had their child baptized by "just any trinitarian" Christian? Do you know of any that would "Believe" that such a baptism "was marking the soul" enough to actually have THEIR child subject to it??

The "Sacred clergy" vs "profane laity" idea is still in full bloom in the RCC.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Catholic notions of Baptism - and holy orders needed for it (the sacred clergy).

 

So we see that the "POWER of Baptism" is NOT granted to women. However the point here is "SOLEMN Baptism" which in fact is only possible via priest who HAS that POWER.

So now "shockingly" it turns out that the RC Historian Bokenkotter "actually knows RC history" and it turns out that the "POWER of Baptism" is the domain of the SACRED CLERGY ONLY - if one is speaking of SOLEMN Baptism. (Don't you just love the way they twist and turn their stories??)

And it turns out that that "stab at women" saying that they among all others - THEY certainly have NO right to baptize someone -- was just a way to poke them in the eye because it is spun-around to just mean "solemn baptism" which NEITHER layMEN nor women can administer - but the point was to single out women AS IF just saying "this is only for priests" was not ENOUGH to define the proper order. There "needed" to be that jab at women IN ADDITION to saying that the POWER to do the sacrament is confined to priests.

(Obviously it is "far more likely" that having not invented all the twists and turns to the fable -- good old Epiphanius was more likely to REALLY mean that while pagans could perform the rite - women could not.)


Oh - and lest we forget.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I find it insteresting the "exorcism" of infants and adults is part of solemn baptism.

Is it your belief that any old heretic/pagan/Jew/ can perform that exorcism?

Does that "also" require the "special powers"??

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,
Around and around you go on the same ole merry-go-round.

If you are not interested in learning with an open mind then why ask questions?

It appears to me that your questions are meant to only poke fun at what another person believes.

I don't feel that our discussions are building up the Kingdom of God and I will not participate in any more discussions on Catholic theology with dime store philosophy.

You don't see me making fun and your religious beliefs.

Once again you put all your stock in one so called Catholic Historian, but you reject other Church writings that are before this gentleman ever made his appearance into the world of history.