The Biblical Basis for some Catholic Distinctives

[Ginnyfree]

"Repent and be baptized...". Can an infant repent before being sprinkled?
"...whom the Lord our God calls to Him." How is the calling of God confirmed and acknowledged by an infant?

Wesley, thank you for your share. I'll simply quote what I wrote for Yeshua1 "Yeshua, ever hear of the writings of Hippolytus? no? Here's a quote of his from a work called The Apostolic Tradition
"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (AT 21:16 [A.D. 215]). It was always part of the Traditions of the Church to Baptise infants and children when their parents asked for it. "For the promise was made to you (the adults hearing Peter) and your children......." Acts 2:39 He didn't exclude the children at all. On the contrary. Whole households were Baptised at the request of a single head of the household Acts 16:33 - "He took them in at that hour of the night and bathed their wounds; then he and all his family were baptized at once." Now, if the whole family is Baptised at once, do you not think there were any children? " It is posted elsewhere in this same thread. I hope you find this sufficient. This will be my last post tonight. I'm tired. If you need more, I'll have to answer at another time. God bless. Ginnyfree.

 

[Adonia]

Baptism saves you not, as per 1 peter 3:21 . and the church of rome did NOT create the canon, nor the scriptures, the Council merely agreed to what was already accepted as canon for quite a while before that, and then the church put in extar biblical non inspired books to get its doctrines from!

The whole Christian Church accepted the biblical canon, it was a renegade priest who tore the accepted canon asunder to fit his new doctrines. As is usual concerning biblical and Christian history, you continue to get it wrong.

 

[Adonia]

Wesley, thank you for your share. I'll simply quote what I wrote for Yeshua1 "Yeshua, ever hear of the writings of Hippolytus? no? Here's a quote of his from a work called The Apostolic Tradition
"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (AT 21:16 [A.D. 215]). It was always part of the Traditions of the Church to Baptise infants and children when their parents asked for it. "For the promise was made to you (the adults hearing Peter) and your children......." Acts 2:39 He didn't exclude the children at all. On the contrary. Whole households were Baptised at the request of a single head of the household Acts 16:33 - "He took them in at that hour of the night and bathed their wounds; then he and all his family were baptized at once." Now, if the whole family is Baptised at once, do you not think there were any children? " It is posted elsewhere in this same thread. I hope you find this sufficient. This will be my last post tonight. I'm tired. If you need more, I'll have to answer at another time. God bless. Ginnyfree.

Didn't Jesus also say to not keep the little children from him? Face it, many people here are against basic orthodox Christian teachings, they think they know better.

 

[Walter]

Walter, I am stunned by your sharing your faith journey so openly and honestly with me. I'm honored. I too am a convert. I was 36 at the time of my Baptism. I went thru RCIA and was also handed some malarkey to chew on. My mom was raised as a Baptist and my grandpop would read some of the Bible to us grandkids and give us candy if we listened for more then a few minutes. I didn't need the candy as I loved it when he read and always asked for more. I wasn't quite five years old, but one Sunday morning I asked my mom "Can I be Baptised?" She thought I was kidding but I wasn't. I was told I had to wait until I was 16! I found that hard to believe. Jesus had said "Let the little children come to me......," just like I quoted here. I remembered it from my grandpop's Bible. In my mind that meant I was allowed. I had the grown-ups in an uproar. We even played "Baptism" in the neighbor's pool, but my cousins were Baptist too and older and told me I had to wait. One of them was only a few years away and was studying for it. I pestered everyone for a couple of weeks, even asking the Pastor at their church when can I be Baptised? He gave me a pat on the head, and dismissed my questions and told me to ask my dad. So I did. He said he saw no reason why I had to wait so long, if wanted to be Baptised it was okay with him. Yippie! I was all set for the next Sunday. I wasn' allowed to talk to the Pastor or almost anyone. They weren't going to let me even speak. Boy did I get mad. So, I waited till we were all lining up to go home and I marched right up to the Pastor and told him "My daddy says I can be Baptised if I want and he sees no reason why I shouldn't be!" The Pastor got really upset, glared at me and shouted "Well, then. If your Daddy says you can be Baptised, then I guess you can be, but not in MY church!" And he said that last part after bending over and getting about three inches from my face and nearly spitting as he said it. His breath was not sweet either. I was scared to death. And I was being cheated out of Baptism and I knew it. Kicked out of the Baptist church at 5! I wasn't even in kindergarten yet! I told my mom what I thought of the Pastor and all those ladies at the church who wouldn't even let me talk. The last straw was when I asked "Why call it a Baptist Church if they don't even Baptise those who ask for it?" That was the last straw. Mom had heard enough and said so! Ya know what I got for all my innocent conviction? A good spankin'. My first stripes for Jesus. I can laugh about it now, but it did take me quite some time to get Baptised. When I did, I never stopped praying about my parent's denials of the faith and their renunciation of the Great Commission. God bless. Ginnyfree.
PS. You should send your story to the Journey Home.

Thank you for your kind words, Ginnyfree, and also sharing some of your faith journey. Welcome to the BB. As I said, there was a time when you would not have been allowed to be here (unless you had become a Catholic after joining the BB). I'm glad those days are over. Evangelicals would start anti-Catholic threads and then claim there was no Catholic answer. Less than a handful of Catholics who had joined as Baptists and consequently converted were allowed to be 'grand-fathered in' and able to post responses. Most of the people on the BB are kind and respectful and I have learned a lot on this board.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Wesley, thank you for your share. I'll simply quote what I wrote for Yeshua1 "Yeshua, ever hear of the writings of Hippolytus? no? Here's a quote of his from a work called The Apostolic Tradition
"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (AT 21:16 [A.D. 215]). It was always part of the Traditions of the Church to Baptise infants and children when their parents asked for it. "For the promise was made to you (the adults hearing Peter) and your children......." Acts 2:39 He didn't exclude the children at all. On the contrary. Whole households were Baptised at the request of a single head of the household Acts 16:33 - "He took them in at that hour of the night and bathed their wounds; then he and all his family were baptized at once." Now, if the whole family is Baptised at once, do you not think there were any children? " It is posted elsewhere in this same thread. I hope you find this sufficient. This will be my last post tonight. I'm tired. If you need more, I'll have to answer at another time. God bless. Ginnyfree.

PS why don’t you quote the next verse in Acts 16?

Acts 16:30-34 KJV
[30] And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? [31] And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. [32] And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. [33] And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. [34] And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

Notice the phrase “believing in God WITH ALL HIS HOUSE”. His household all believed, obviously this means no babies or children too young to make a decision of Faith in Christ.

 

[Walter]

Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children in all the different 'household baptisms' However, given what constituted a 'household' at that time, it didn't just involve a few people. It included the servants and their childrren. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason in some of the households that were baptized, especially if one considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth control. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be explicit.

Once again, one needs only to look at what the Early Church taught and practiced. Had there been a dispute over the baptism of infants, we would have read about it in the writings of the Early Church. There were plenty of disputes and heresies, why no concern about baptizing infants? If there were Baptistic churches that believe the way Baptists today do, why are is there NO historical record of their existence? Only writings that support what the Church has always taught about infant baptism. Most often on this board the response is that don't 'we don't need no stinking history, we only need the bible'. Well, what the followers of those who sat at the Apostles feet believed and taught is very important to me, and it seems they held the position that the Universal Church has always held.

 

[Deadworm]

(1) One of the most revered sites for Catholics is the healing spring and church at Lourdes, France, which hosts millions of annual pilgrims seeking healing and spiritual renewal. The posted movie "The Song of Bernadette" is based on the true story of the origin of this shrine and healing spring. The movie won 4 academy awards, including Best Actress to Jennifer Jones who plays the simple sickly peasant girl Bernadette. What this 1943 movies lacks in special effects is more than compensated for by Jones's mesmerizing performance. I wept with joy when I first viewed this film:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...DDBE2AE92009D3D4AFA2DDBE2AE92009D3D&FORM=VIRE

(2) The most recent and still ongoing Marian apparitions are happening in Medjugorje in Bosnia. They began in 1981 in still Communist Yugoslavia. The apparitions appeared to 6 very ordinary children. They and the Franciscans who supported them were quickly persecuted by the state. The posted BBC documentary on the origin of these Marian visions is the most spiritually powerful video I've ever seen. Viewing it reminded me of the awe, excitement, doubt, and desire to suppress in the confusion of that first Easter Sunday. The BBC documentary was created just a few years after the visions began:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...8C5BAA52BD4AF751C0878C5BAA52BD4AF75&FORM=VIRE

Since then a local lawyer joined the millions of annual pilgrims and visited Medjugorje. She was awestruck by her experience and even had her own life-changing visions there. A cynical psychology professor colleague of mine also visited Medjugorje and came away transformed by the miracles he witnessed and the overwhelming sense of God's presence there.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children in all the different 'household baptisms' However, given what constituted a 'household' at that time, it didn't just involve a few people. It included the servants and their childrren. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason in some of the households that were baptized, especially if one considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth control. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be explicit.

Once again, one needs only to look at what the Early Church taught and practiced. Had there been a dispute over the baptism of infants, we would have read about it in the writings of the Early Church. There were plenty of disputes and heresies, why no concern about baptizing infants? If there were Baptistic churches that believe the way Baptists today do, why are is there NO historical record of their existence? Only writings that support what the Church has always taught about infant baptism. Most often on this board the response is that don't 'we don't need no stinking history, we only need the bible'. Well, what the followers of those who sat at the Apostles feet believed and taught is very important to me, and it seems they held the position that the Universal Church has always held.

To a Baptist Walter, baptism is an outward sign of an inward change in ones soul... ie a new creation through the work of the Holy Spirit. To a Catholic, it is a sacrament that must be preformed in order to wash away from original sin so it is necessary for eternal life.

Now the Baptists as well as many Protestants put great stock in the born again experience so immersion becomes a big deal but we make it an ordanence not a salvation mandate. My salvation then is tethered to my born again experience and my personal relationship with God. We do not have sacraments to jump through in order to be saved. My late mother put great emphasis on going to weekly mass, receiving the host and going to confession... those were the activities that are a must for a RC in order to reach heaven and we Baptists beg to differ.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I persieved a very different reaction to church and religious affiliations from the eyes of my dear wife than any other person on the planet. She was raised as Dutch Reformed and later Presbyterian when D R began to recede in New Jersey. Yes when my son was born the Reformed tradition required infant baptism and taking the kid to church which we dutifully did. But at one stage he didn’t want to go any more and that was OK with the wife.... not OK with me however... my very catholic mind was trained to ‘go to church.’ I suspect that the catholic training is what sustains these Protestant churches today... the ex Catholic may think they have made a clean break but there is still that little voice saying, “ go to church, join a church, it’s Sunday so go to church.”

My wife on the other hand hasn’t the driven need to participate. She has a very personal relationship with Christ, a very contlempative prayer life and a quiet soul. Jumping through any religious dogma other than to love God and love others is not important to her. Just yesterday she reminded me to take every day one day at a time, punctuating it with scripture and sumerizing it, “that’s what Jesus tells you to do.”

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Thank you for your kind words, Ginnyfree, and also sharing some of your faith journey. Welcome to the BB. As I said, there was a time when you would not have been allowed to be here (unless you had become a Catholic after joining the BB). I'm glad those days are over. Evangelicals would start anti-Catholic threads and then claim there was no Catholic answer. Less than a handful of Catholics who had joined as Baptists and consequently converted were allowed to be 'grand-fathered in' and able to post responses. Most of the people on the BB are kind and respectful and I have learned a lot on this board.

It was a shameful time... hopefully not to be repeated. Thankfully we have people on the board that are more mature... so welcome Ginny.

 

[Ginnyfree]

PS why don’t you quote the next verse in Acts 16?

Acts 16:30-34 KJV
[30] And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? [31] And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. [32] And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. [33] And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. [34] And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

Notice the phrase “believing in God WITH ALL HIS HOUSE”. His household all believed, obviously this means no babies or children too young to make a decision of Faith in Christ.

Jordan you are reading something into the text that isn't there. Every person in the household of the jailer was Baptised. They were awakened from sleep and then introduced to the Apostle, St. Paul and Silas, his fellow prisoner and disciple of the Lord. This prison guard took them to his own house out of the jail where St. Paul and Silas were imprisoned for preaching the Gospel. They were awakened from sleep. This is very symbolic, yet the natural reality is, they were sleepy and had no other preparation prior to meeting these men who were about to Baptise them ALL, not just the father and head the household but everyone, women, children, hired hands and slaves, plus any others there, as back then, several generations of persons lived under the same roof, not like we live today as single families and no others. There was NO PROFESSION of faith wangled out of all these people prior to their Baptisms. Their instructions came later. They were all Baptised by St. Paul and Silas and then later instructed and their faith grew.

The translation you picked is probably the most obscure. Why not use a New World Translation if it suits your purpose.

Once again if Jesus Commanded that the Apostles go out and convert the whole world, Baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, why would you want to see this as unnecessary? God bless. Ginnyfree.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children in all the different 'household baptisms' However, given what constituted a 'household' at that time, it didn't just involve a few people. It included the servants and their childrren. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason in some of the households that were baptized, especially if one considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth control. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be explicit.

Once again, one needs only to look at what the Early Church taught and practiced. Had there been a dispute over the baptism of infants, we would have read about it in the writings of the Early Church. There were plenty of disputes and heresies, why no concern about baptizing infants? If there were Baptistic churches that believe the way Baptists today do, why are is there NO historical record of their existence? Only writings that support what the Church has always taught about infant baptism. Most often on this board the response is that don't 'we don't need no stinking history, we only need the bible'. Well, what the followers of those who sat at the Apostles feet believed and taught is very important to me, and it seems they held the position that the Universal Church has always held.

Yeah well Jesus had a Judas following him and even in the Apostles day there were false teachers among them.

2 Peter 2:1 KJV
[1] But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Acts 20:28-29 KJV
[28] Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. [29] For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

Matthew 7:15 KJV
[15] Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Your leaning on the history of the “church” is dangerous, because you have no objective way of knowing whether the “early church” you are referring to are actually true or false teachers, you seem to believe that just because someone was a follower of the apostle or near their time that they teach the truth, but even in Paul’s day there were false teachers rising up in the church, and like I said even Jesus had a Judas. The Bible is the standard of testing teachers not uninspired “church” history books which by the way can be manipulated and controlled. Did not the Roman Catholic Church for years burn books of those who opposed them, dis They not also kill those who opposed them? Most “church” history is Catholic revisionist history.

Isaiah 8:20 KJV
[20] To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Acts 17:10-11 KJV
[10] And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. [11] These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Jordan you are reading something into the text that isn't there. Every person in the household of the jailer was Baptised. They were awakened from sleep and then introduced to the Apostle, St. Paul and Silas, his fellow prisoner and disciple of the Lord. This prison guard took them to his own house out of the jail where St. Paul and Silas were imprisoned for preaching the Gospel. They were awakened from sleep. This is very symbolic, yet the natural reality is, they were sleepy and had no other preparation prior to meeting these men who were about to Baptise them ALL, not just the father and head the household but everyone, women, children, hired hands and slaves, plus any others there, as back then, several generations of persons lived under the same roof, not like we live today as single families and no others. There was NO PROFESSION of faith wangled out of all these people prior to their Baptisms. Their instructions came later. They were all Baptised by St. Paul and Silas and then later instructed and their faith grew.

The translation you picked is probably the most obscure. Why not use a New World Translation if it suits your purpose.

Once again if Jesus Commanded that the Apostles go out and convert the whole world, Baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, why would you want to see this as unnecessary? God bless. Ginnyfree.

I’m not sure if you are being deceptive or willingly ignorant. But vs 34 is clear that the apostles spoke the word of a God and did in fact give instruction to him and hide household. What you are saying is simply false and not true. I invite all honest seekers of truth and viewers of this thread to see you unwillingness to see the plain teachings of the scriptures and to see that I have quoted a multitude of scriptures and I stand on that as my authority, you have sought to lean in the authority of “church” history, your own opinions, and the traditions of other men.

I have said enough to show the error of your teachings. Repent of your false teaching and bring your thinking into line with Gods word. Goodbye.

 

[Ginnyfree]

Didn't Jesus also say to not keep the little children from him? Face it, many people here are against basic orthodox Christian teachings, they think they know better.

Yet we are told this: Vanity of vanities, all things are vanity. Nothing new under the sun. People go their own way in all generations. I made a choice for Christ. That means I do it His way not mine.

Sometimes I do wonder why some folks cling to obvious errors when there it is in black and white, (or in some cases, black and red,) as plain as the nose on their faces that they are wrong. If it was the IRS pointing out their mistakes, you can bet they'd correct them and profess abundant sorrows and pay up what they owe. But to Christ? He died for them, yet they turn their backs on Him and go their own ways, expecting Heaven to be theirs for a few words tossed to Him as if He owes them! God bless. Ginnyfree.
PS nice to "meet" you too Adonia.

 

[Ginnyfree]

Thank you for your kind words, Ginnyfree, and also sharing some of your faith journey. Welcome to the BB. As I said, there was a time when you would not have been allowed to be here (unless you had become a Catholic after joining the BB). I'm glad those days are over. Evangelicals would start anti-Catholic threads and then claim there was no Catholic answer. Less than a handful of Catholics who had joined as Baptists and consequently converted were allowed to be 'grand-fathered in' and able to post responses. Most of the people on the BB are kind and respectful and I have learned a lot on this board.

Well, then I can only say the Spirit may have moved me here after the restriction was lifted that prevent honest debate and the effective silencing of all others who desire to defend what they believe. Yes, most of the Christians I've encountered who do not share my faith, are kind, respectful and considerate. They do desire to help others see how they've come to their conclusions and beliefs. Understanding is key to good communications. I love all the different angles some have. It makes me think of newer responses, rather than rote proof-texting and cherry picking. God bless. Ginnyfree.

 

[Ginnyfree]

PS why don’t you quote the next verse in Acts 16?

Acts 16:30-34 KJV
[30] And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? [31] And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. [32] And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. [33] And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. [34] And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

Notice the phrase “believing in God WITH ALL HIS HOUSE”. His household all believed, obviously this means no babies or children too young to make a decision of Faith in Christ.

Also here is the Knox Translation:
"and he, there and then, at dead of night, took them away to wash their wounds, and without delay he and all his were baptized."
What is the difference? Straightaway, or without delay, he and all his household, every living person he was responsible for, women, children and all those others living there with him in the average Roman household of a Roman member of the military guard which may also have included any other unmarried military men who either shared his rank or were his immediate inferiors, because they tended to live together in numbers for their military purposes. Individual soldiers of the Roamn Guard never lived alone. They either lived in a barracks like arrangement, where they were posted in groups or with other soldiers who had established households until they were married. That means he had many persons under his roof and was a very trusted man important to the Romans. He was a Gentile convert, who within a very short span of time went from his pagan roots to asking for salvation from St. Paul and Silas. He did not say the Jesus Prayer either. No. All he did was ask "What must I do to be saved." Baptism was given him and he accepted it not only for himself but for all those persons in his own home who minutes before were sleeping. This argument is two-fold. It has been proposed here that Baptism in NOT necessary for salvation and that only adults are to be Baptised, not children. I've provided Biblical and non-biblical supports for proof contrary to both proposals. They are unsustainable as sound teaching.
Jesus, who is Lord, Commanded that the Apostles Baptise and teach the whole world how to obey God and live the Christian life. They spent their entire adult lives doing so. If they hadn't do so, you wouldn't even know Christ. Could you at least give a bit of thanks for their works?
BTW, there still no sufficient answer to my original question regarding the facts of the Resurrected Lord giving the Apostles the formula for Baptism, then sending them forth. If this was sending them to do something meaningless and unnecessary, what does it say about Jesus Christ? Do you think it is a fool's errand they were sent on? Here are His Words in the Knox Trans. "But Jesus came near and spoke to them; 'All authority in Heaven and on earth,' He said, 'has been given to me; you therefore, must go out, making disciples of all nations, and Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all the commandments which I have given you. And behold I am with you through the days that are coming, until the consummation of the world." Mt. 28:18-20
So, why is this wrong? Is God a fool sending other fools on a fool's errand that means nothing?
Now, some use the type of spirituality that helps them envision the Gospel accounts better and it is very popular these days. They place themselves in the story so to speak. Imagine if you will the Resurrected Lord standing in your midst beyond a locked door that no one opened for Him. His disciples are trembling in fear of the maddened Jews who had just turned the hands of the Romans against Him having Him Crucified. They knew that those following Him were in grave danger for their lives. Yet there He is, Risen and glorious before them! He then commands them to Baptise and reveals to them the exact formula they are to use plus he also tells them it is for all nations, not just Jews, eliminating all barriers to the Gospel for all. He is God and He is commanding certain things. Now, please tell Him you think He's wrong. Place yourself in that room in your mind and tell Him exactly what you are trying to tell me and others about Baptism being stupid and unnecessary and that you think a simple profession of some sort of belief would be better. You are standing up to God now, telling Him His Great Commission is a fool's errand, right there in front of all those fools of Apostles ready and will to go on their fool's errand believing God is with them on it too! Okay, nuff said. God bless. Ginnyfree.

 

[Ginnyfree]

Yeah well Jesus had a Judas following him and even in the Apostles day there were false teachers among them......Your leaning on the history of the “church” is dangerous, because you have no objective way of knowing whether the “early church” you are referring to are actually true or false teachers,....... The Bible is the standard of testing teachers not uninspired “church” history books which by the way can be manipulated and controlled. Did not the Roman Catholic Church for years burn books of those who opposed them, dis They not also kill those who opposed them? Most “church” history is Catholic revisionist history.

I'll respond to these most unkind words. Such judgment against honest men who did what the Lord asked to them to do.

What denomination do you belong to and how old is it? How many times has it changed its core teachings over the length of its history? What will change in it next?

The Church is 2,000 years old. That's quite a bit of history. We still Baptise exactly the same way, with the very same formula Jesus gave to His Apostles to use 2,000 years ago. It hasn't changed a bit. There was no Bible written yet, only a sparse collection of Old Testament scrolls kept for the most part safe in the Synagogues of the Jews. You couldn't read them if you were an average man or woman. They were only read on the Sabbath for the average person. They weren't accessible to others. Only the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes could access them and then only under strict rules for study. The ONLY Word given to you about Jesus was 100% ORAL TRADITION. No one had a book as we know today. no one. The entire New Testament hadn't been written yet at the time St. Paul and Silas were imprisoned for preaching the good news of our Salvation. So, if there was no Bible, how did anyone get saved?

Here are your words: "The Bible is the standard of testing teachers" Really? Then I guess everyone failed Christ until Guttenberg invented a printing press and the paper to print on became abundant enough that the Word God could finally save someone. Amazing isn't it? Do you really expect a man or woman of average intelligence to believe that God failed to save anyone until this all came to pass in history? God bless. Ginnyfree.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

(1) One of the most revered sites for Catholics is the healing spring and church at Lourdes, France, which hosts millions of annual pilgrims seeking healing and spiritual renewal. The posted movie "The Song of Bernadette" is based on the true story of the origin of this shrine and healing spring. The movie won 4 academy awards, including Best Actress to Jennifer Jones who plays the simple sickly peasant girl Bernadette. What this 1943 movies lacks in special effects is more than compensated for by Jones's mesmerizing performance. I wept with joy when I first viewed this film:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...DDBE2AE92009D3D4AFA2DDBE2AE92009D3D&FORM=VIRE

(2) The most recent and still ongoing Marian apparitions are happening in Medjugorje in Bosnia. They began in 1981 in still Communist Yugoslavia. The apparitions appeared to 6 very ordinary children. They and the Franciscans who supported them were quickly persecuted by the state. The posted BBC documentary on the origin of these Marian visions is the most spiritually powerful video I've ever seen. Viewing it reminded me of the awe, excitement, doubt, and desire to suppress in the confusion of that first Easter Sunday. The BBC documentary was created just a few years after the visions began:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...8C5BAA52BD4AF751C0878C5BAA52BD4AF75&FORM=VIRE

Since then a local lawyer joined the millions of annual pilgrims and visited Medjugorje. She was awestruck by her experience and even had her own life-changing visions there. A cynical psychology professor colleague of mine also visited Medjugorje and came away transformed by the miracles he witnessed and the overwhelming sense of God's presence there.

Why on earth are you bringing Lourdes up? Why not just continue with Padre Pio & stigmata? Anything else extra biblical you would like to mention? No wonder Protestants shy away and label Catholics as cultists!

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

So many straw man arguments and false statements. I’ll deal with two and then I’m done.

1. I never said baptism is stupid or unnecessary, only that it is not a requirement for baptism.

2. They searched the SCRIPTURES daily to see if what Paul preached was true. Scriptures were writings, Paul told Timothy the SCRIPTURES were given by inspiration of God and were profitable. The word scripture means WRITINGS.Paul’s writings and letters were circulated amongst the early churches. The scriptures are the authority for us today.

I am done responding to all of your straw man arguments and your logical fallacies. You exalt your traditions above the word of God.

 

[Deadworm]

Why on earth are you bringing Lourdes up? Why not just continue with Padre Pio & stigmata? Anything else extra biblical you would like to mention? No wonder Protestants shy away and label Catholics as cultists!

Because if you were honest enough to watch these 2 videos, you would fall under conviction for your bias and investigate the reality of Marian apparitions with an open heart and mind, as I did. You ask why I don't continue with stigmata? I could do that because I have unexpectedly experienced stigmata myself in a a way that had an awesome impact on the witness and sealed the 2nd happiest and most important day of my life. "I bear on my body the marks of the Lord Jesus Christ (Galatians 6:17)."