• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Sincere question for catholics.

David M Walker

New Member
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."
 

D28guy

New Member
Living4Him,

"So Mike,

Are you admiting that the Church doesn't refer to these things as "magic"?
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.

"Are you saying that you personally feel that these things are "magic" and not the power of God?"
Here is what I listed:

"Priests can baptise an infant and they will *magically* go to heaven

The priest says "your sins are forgiven" in the confessional booth, and they are supposedly *magically* forgiven because he said so.

The priest is the one with the *magic power* to turn wheat crackers into Jesus so Catholics can eat Jesus every sunday.

The priest is frantically summoned if a Catholic is near death because the priest has the *magic power* to say special prayers to get them into heaven.

The Catholic Church is filled with *magic powers* of different forms.

The holy water has *magic powers*...little statues of by gone saints on the dashboard of your car have *magic powers*...if you go to any of the Mary Shrines in the world Catholics cross land and see in hopes that the Queen of the Universe Mary, through her *magic powers* will grant a visitation or apparition...scapulars are given *magic powers*...incense is given *magic powers*. On and on it goes.
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
 

D28guy

New Member
Violet,

"So, then you must believe that today's the day that the cardinals enter the conclave with their ouija boards and Magic 8 Balls to decide on a new pope, right?"
Wrong.

God bless,

Mike
 
F

FLMike

Guest
Originally posted by D28guy:
Priests can baptise an infant and they will *magically* go to heaven
Heck, isn't that the way anybody goes to heaven?
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
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
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
(Hence the argument that your sister can not baptize your infant and get the "soul marked" - only a priest with the POWER to do such a thing may do it and have it work.).
Living4Him
I believe, and someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but the Catholic Church believes that any baptized person can validly baptize another...
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".

Thomas Bokenkotter's "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" pg 49

"at first the Christian presbyter or elder avoided any resemblance to the pagan or Jewish priests and in fact even deliberately refused to be called a priest.

He saw his primary function (instead) to be the ministry of the word...but the image of the Christian presbyter gradually took on a sacral character.

This sacralization of the clergy was brought about by various developments...the Old Testament priesthood was seen as a model for the NT priesthood (gradually). The more elaborate liturgy of the post-Constantine era, with it's features borrowed from paganism, enhanced the image of the minister as a sacred personage. The ministry of the word diminished in importance when infant baptism became the rule, for infants could not be preached to...

Before Constantine the whole church was considered the realm of the sacred as opposed to the profane world outside; after Constantine and the breakdown of the separation between church and the world, the polarity between sacred and profane was transformed into one between sacred clergy and profane laity"
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
 

Glen Seeker

New Member
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.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
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
 

D28guy

New Member
FLMike,

I said...

"Priests can baptise an infant and they will *magically* go to heaven"
And you said...

"Heck, isn't that the way anybody goes to heaven?"
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" :D )

God bless,

Mike
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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 :confused:

Yours in Christ

Matt
 

Living4Him

New Member
That is not so Glen. Salvation (according to the RCC) is dependent upon Catholic baptism.
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.
 

Living4Him

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

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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
 
V

violet

Guest
I believe, and someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but the Catholic Church believes that any baptized person can validly baptize another...

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

155. Q. Who can administer Baptism?

A. The priest is the ordinary minister of Baptism; but in case of necessity
anyone who has the use of reason may baptize.
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Living4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />So far "no takers" on that "belief". You may be off to start your own branch of the RCC!
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
 

BobRyan

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

(1) Ordinary Minister

The ordinary minister of solemn baptism is first the bishop and second the priest. By delegation, a deacon may confer the sacrament solemnly as an extraordinary minister. Bishops are said to be ordinary ministers because they are the successors of the Apostles who received directly the Divine command: "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." Priests are also ordinary ministers because by their office and sacred orders they are pastors of souls and administrators of the sacraments, and hence the Florentine decree declares: "The minister of this Sacrament is the priest, to whom it belongs to administer baptism by reason of his office." As, however, bishops are superior to priests by the Divine law, the solemn administration of this sacrament was at one time reserved to the bishops, and a priest never administered this sacrament in the presence of a bishop unless commanded to do so, How ancient this discipline was, may be seen from Tertullian (De Bapt., xvii): "The right to confer baptism belongs to the chief priest who is the bishop, then to priests and deacons, but not without the authorization of the bishop." Ignatius (Ep. ad Smyr., viii): "It is not lawful to baptize or celebrate the agape without the bishop." St. Jerome (Contra Lucif., ix) witnesses to the same usage in his days: "Without chrism and the command of the bishop, neither priest nor deacon has the right of conferring baptism." Deacons are only extraordinary ministers of solemn baptism, as by their office they are assistants to the priestly order. St. Isidore of Seville (De Eccl, Off., ii, 25) says: "It is plain that baptism is to be conferred by priests only, and it is not lawful even for deacons to administer it without permission of the bishop or priest." That deacons were, however, ministers of this sacrament by delegation is evident from the quotations adduced. In the service of ordination of a deacon, the bishop says to the candidate: "It behooves a deacon to minister at the altar, to baptize and to preach." Philip the deacon is mentioned in the Bible (Acts, viii) as conferring baptism, presumably by delegation of the Apostles. It is to be noted that though every priest, in virtue of his ordination is the ordinary minister of baptism, yet by ecclesiastical decrees he can not use this power licitly unless he has jurisdiction. Hence the Roman Ritual declares: The legitimate minister of baptism is the parish priest, or any other priest delegated by the parish priest or the bishop of the place." The Second Plenary Council of Baltimore adds: "Priests are deserving of grave reprehension who rashly baptize infants of another parish or of another diocese." St. Alphonsus (n. 114) says that parents who bring their children for baptism without necessity to a priest other than their own pastor, are guilty of sin because they violate the rights of the parish priest. He adds, however, that other priests may baptize such children, if they have the permission, whether express, or tacit, or even reasonably presumed, of the proper pastor. Those who have no settled place of abode may be baptized by the pastor of any (catholic) church they choose.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#XIII
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
This right of any person whatsoever to baptize in case of necessity is in accord with the constant tradition and practice of the Church. Tertullian (De Bapt., vii) says, speaking of laymen who have an opportunity to administer baptism: "He will be guilty of the loss of a soul, if he neglects to confer what he freely can," St. Jerome (Adv. Lucif., ix): "In case of necessity, we know that it is also allowable for a layman [to baptize]; for as a person receives, so may he give," The Fourth Council of the Lateran (cap. Firmiter) decrees: "The Sacrament of Baptism . . . no matter by whom conferred is available to salvation, " St. Isidore of Seville (can. Romanus de cons., iv) declares: "The Spirit of God administers the grace of baptism, although it be a pagan who does the baptizing," Pope Nicholas I teaches the Bulgarians (Resp, 104) that baptism by a Jew or a pagan is valid. Owing to the fact that women are barred from enjoying any species of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the question necessarily arose concerning their ability to bestow valid baptism, Tertullian (De Bapt., xvii) strongly opposes the administration of this sacrament by women, but he does not declare it void.

In like manner, St. Epiphanius (Hær., lxxix) says of females: "Not even the power of baptizing has been granted to them", but he is speaking of solemn baptism, which is a function of the priesthood.

...
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.
Finally, it is to be noted that, by the law of the Church, the person administering baptism, even in cases of necessity, contracts a spiritual relationship with the child and its parents. This relationship constitutes an impediment that would make a subsequent marriage with any of them null and void unless a dispensation were obtained beforehand. See AFFINITY.
In Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
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
 

Living4Him

New Member
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.
 
Top