The Catholic Church

[DHK]

I thought this was a debate forum under the heading of other denominations. Can we not debate the validity of Catholicism vs. Baptist doctorine?

Absolutely. We have done so for many years. There are plenty of threads on it. I only object to the advertisement of Catholic books on this website. It is against the policy of this board.

We can even debate about Mormonism. But I would not allow handbooks on how to become a Mormon.

Like I said before, I am lifelong southern Baptist but I have noticed that Baptist get Very defensive and even angry at the mention of the word Catholic. While the Catholic crowd accepts us as Brothers in Christ although seperated from the "church"

If you dig deep enough into the Catechism that RCC rejects all who are outside the Catholic Church. They accept only their baptism as valid. Their speech is as honey; their doctrine is as vinegar and vile. One cannot be a Christian and a Catholic at the same time. At least you cannot believe the same doctrines sincerely at the same time. They are at opposite poles of each other. The RCC teaches that one is saved by works. Christianity teaches that one is saved by grace through faith.

 

[The Biblicist]

All the ones I know consider themselves Catholic Christians.

I think this is a transitional change in the last decade or so. I remember hearing Catholic apologists speak of Protestants as "Christians" and themselves as "Catholics."

This is also a transitional change occurring in other cults in the past decade or so (Mormons for instance) where they are now adopting the term "Christian" to include themselves and others outside their denomination.

 

[Walter]

Absolutely. We have done so for many years. There are plenty of threads on it. I only object to the advertisement of Catholic books on this website. It is against the policy of this board.

We can even debate about Mormonism. But I would not allow handbooks on how to become a Mormon.

If you dig deep enough into the Catechism that RCC rejects all who are outside the Catholic Church. They accept only their baptism as valid. Their speech is as honey; their doctrine is as vinegar and vile. One cannot be a Christian and a Catholic at the same time. At least you cannot believe the same doctrines sincerely at the same time. They are at opposite poles of each other. The RCC teaches that one is saved by works. Christianity teaches that one is saved by grace through faith.

And this is why I don't take you seriously. You KNOW that Catholics accept other baptisms as valid. They accept mine!!! I know, I'm in RCIA and becoming Catholic and DO NOT have to be re-baptised. Why is that, DHK?? You make so many false accusations against the Catholic Church it's pathetic. One does not even know where to begin. You didn't understand Catholic teaching when you were a Catholic and you don't understand Catholic teaching now. You are determined to mis-represent Catholic teaching and make false statments which I just PROVED you do.

 

[DHK]

And this is why I don't take you seriously. You KNOW that Catholics accept other baptisms as valid. They accept mine!!! I know, I'm in RCIA and becoming Catholic and DO NOT have to be re-baptised. Why is that, DHK?? You make so many false accusations against the Catholic Church it's pathetic. One does not even know where to begin. You didn't understand Catholic teaching when you were a Catholic and you don't understand Catholic teaching now. You are determined to mis-represent Catholic teaching and make false statments which I just PROVED you do.

To accept another religion's baptism is of relative recent origin. It is a change. It always wasn't that way. It wasn't that way when I was younger. Remember the entire Catechism has changed since I was younger. Vatican II brought in changes. But thankfully the Word of God never changes. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever.
The RCC has changed and is changing: yesterday, and today, and keeps on changing. .

 

[The Biblicist]

I know, I'm in RCIA and becoming Catholic and DO NOT have to be re-baptised

I am sorry that you are making such a wrong decision. Of course, I realize you think it is right.

However, I think you can agree with me that if sacramentalism can be proved Biblically wrong, then the whole ecclesiology and soteriology of the Roman Catholic church is completely destroyed as sacramentalism is essential and vital to the foundations of Catholic ecclesiology and its soteriology.

Consider these Biblical facts:

1. Paul uses PRE-Old Covenant (by 430 years) Abraham in Romans 4:1-25 to illustrate the doctrine of justification.

2. Romans 4:9-11 deals explicitly with the relationship between justification and the only Divine
"sign" and "seal" established by God in his day - circumcision in the life of PRE-Old Covenant Abraham.

3. The CCC (Catholic Church Catechism) makes it explicitly clear that Old Covenant circumcision is parallel with New Testament baptism in regard to sacramental value and I quote:

"#527 - Jesus' circumcision, on the eighth day after his birth, is THE SIGN of his incorporation into Abraham's descendents, into the people of the covenant. It is THE SIGN of his submission to the Law and his deputation to Israel's worship, in which he will participate throughout his life. This SIGN prefigures that 'circumcision of Christ' which is Baptism." - CCC (emphasis mine)

"#1150 - Signs of the Covenant......Among these liturgical signs from the Old Covenant are circumcision...... The Church sees in these signs a prefiguring of the sacraments of the New Covenant
." - CCC (Emphasis mine)

4. The relationship between justification and circumcision in the life of PRE-Old Covenant Abraham is not merely restricted to Abraham but Paul clearly states he is applying this to all POST-Old Covenant people of God as Abraham is the "Father of all who believe."

11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham,

5. The Question of the context is what is the relationship between Justification and "the sign" and "seal" of circumcision.

6. Is justification obtained in direction conjunction/connection with circumcision as a "sign and seal" in the life of Abraham as Rome teaches the grace of justification is obtained in direct conjunction/connection with baptism which Rome also sees as a "sign" and "seal" of the grace in justification?

7. The Answer is NO!

9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

Remember, Rome demands that circumcision prefigures baptism in regard to its sacramental significance and is also a "sign" and "seal" of the grace of justification. Paul repudiates the idea that justification was obtained by Abraham in direct connection with circumcision but he was justified apart from circumcision while he was "in uncircumcision."

CONCLUSION: Paul is repudiating the doctrine of sacramentalism and claiming that the PRE-Old Covenant Abraham is justified exactly as all "who follow in his footsteps" without and apart from what Paul acknowledges to be a divine "sign" and "seal" of justification but that already had already been obtained while "in uncircumcision" apart from and thus without signs or seals of justification.

 

[OldRegular]

But thankfully the Word of God never changes. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever.
The RCC has changed and is changing: yesterday, and today, and keeps on changing. .

Your last two sentences really define the problem with the Roman Catholic communion. They have been in the process of change since Constantine marched his army through the river.

Perhaps the first great error introduced was baptismal regeneration.

The second is described by Philip Schaff in his History of the Christian Church writes [Volume 2, page 73]:

With Constantine, therefore, the last of the heathen, the first of the Christian, emperors, a new period begins. The church ascends the throne of the Caesars under the banner of the once despised, now honored and triumphant cross, and gives new vigor and lustre to the hoary empire of Rome.[emphasis added]

It is likely that with Constantine the idea of the pope was introduced and then, as justification, the myth that Peter was the first pope.

Other errors are too numerous to mention all but include: the introduction of works based justification/salvation, the concept of Saints, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the immaculate conception, the adoration [almost worship] of Mary, prayers to Mary and other Saints, the infallibility of the pope, the elevation of tradition and the teaching magisterium over Scripture, and perhaps worst, the continual sacrifice of Jesus Christ!

 

[milby]

To accept another religion's baptism is of relative recent origin. It is a change. It always wasn't that way. It wasn't that way when I was younger. Remember the entire Catechism has changed since I was younger. Vatican II brought in changes. But thankfully the Word of God never changes. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever.
The RCC has changed and is changing: yesterday, and today, and keeps on changing. .

One thing that I was told which I thought was a good point was. The Catholic Church is the only Christian "group" that has been consistant in its doctorine from its beginning. How do we explain the thousands of different denominations among the Protestants? It seems that if we are left to interpret the scriptures ourselves, we can't agree on much. So we have baptistc, methodests, etc. among the protestants.

How do we explain this?

 

[milby]

I can answer your s????d question; but you need to consider the following:

1. Why do you think Jesus Christ died?

2. Why would God suspend salvation for 1500 years? Consider what you are asking.

.

1. Jesus died as a sacrifice for us to pay the penalty for our sins once and for all.

2. Thats my point. Why would God suspend salvation for 1500 years? To wait for Martin Luther to come along and get it right? I don't think so.

 

[The Biblicist]

One thing that I was told which I thought was a good point was. The Catholic Church is the only Christian "group" that has been consistant in its doctorine from its beginning. How do we explain the thousands of different denominations among the Protestants? It seems that if we are left to interpret the scriptures ourselves, we can't agree on much. So we have baptistc, methodests, etc. among the protestants.

How do we explain this?

First, Roman Catholicism has been in a consistent state of doctrinal development whereas the apostolic congregations were fully developed in the faith.

Second, scripture predicts the chaotic confusion within professing christendom in the parable of the field and tares.

Third, there are no perfect Christians or churches.

Fourth, however, there are essentials to be recognized as a New Testament Christians just as there are essentials to be recognized as a New Testament congregation.

Fifth, there are general prophetic principles that characterize predicted post-apostolic rise of false Christendom and Roman Catholicism fits every single one of those characteristics.

1. Persecuting and murdering other professing Christians - John 16:1-3; Rom. 17:5
2. Preaching "another gospel" - Gal. 1:6-9; 2 Cor. 11:3-4
3. State union with church - Rev. 17
4. Specific false doctrines - 1 Tim. 4:1-5

 

[Walter]

DHK said: "They accept only their baptism as valid". DHK DID NOT say, 'they used to only accept their baptism as valid'. The one may be true, the other is a lie. DHK KNOWS what he did was mis-represent Catholic teaching and he does it all the time.

Once DHK got caught, he had to try and 'spin-it' and say, 'oh, it hasn't ALWAYS been so!' So, in fact, he at least awknowledged that what he posted was not the truth. But this isn't the first time DHK has made the clam on this board that the Catholic Church 'only accepts their baptism as being valid'. I just think he thought he could get away with it.

 

[DHK]

DHK said: "They accept only their baptism as valid". DHK DID NOT say, 'they used to only accept their baptism as valid'. The one may be true, the other is a lie. DHK KNOWS what he did was mis-represent Catholic teaching and he does it all the time. SHAMEFUL!!

If you want to pick away at the things I said, the above is definitely a false accusation. And does so ALL the time Nothing could be farther from the truth. Stop with the lies and false allegations. I do not misrepresent the RCC.

Answer this:
The Bible teaches "Except a man be born again he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:3)
What does the RCC teach that "born again" means?

According to the RCC have you been born again?
or
According to what Baptists believe the Bible teaches have you been born again?

Which one? It is an important question. Your eternal destiny is at stake here.

 

[Walter]

If you want to pick away at the things I said, the above is definitely a false accusation. And does so ALL the time Nothing could be farther from the truth. Stop with the lies and false allegations. I do not misrepresent the RCC.

Answer this:
The Bible teaches "Except a man be born again he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:3)
What does the RCC teach that "born again" means?

According to the RCC have you been born again?
or
According to what Baptists believe the Bible teaches have you been born again?

Which one? It is an important question. Your eternal destiny is at stake here.

Stop trying to change the subject. Did you or did you not say that Catholics only accept their baptism as being valid?' Just answer the question.

POST #21 "If you dig deep enough into the Catechism that RCC rejects all who are outside the Catholic Church. They accept only their baptism as valid".

THAT IS A FALSE STATEMENT AND NOT THE TRUTH! WHO IS THE REAL LIAR HERE!!

 

[DHK]

Stop trying to change the subject. Did you or did you not say that Catholics only accept their baptism as being valid?' Just answer the question.

POST #21 "If you dig deep enough into the Catechism that RCC rejects all who are outside the Catholic Church. They accept only their baptism as valid".

THAT IS A FALSE STATEMENT AND NOT THE TRUTH! WHO IS THE REAL LIAR HERE!!

If you want to pick away at the things I said, the above is definitely a false accusation. And does so ALL the time Nothing could be farther from the truth. Stop with the lies and false allegations. I do not misrepresent the RCC.

Now answer the question:
Answer this:
The Bible teaches "Except a man be born again he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:3)
What does the RCC teach that "born again" means?

According to the RCC have you been born again?
or
According to what Baptists believe the Bible teaches have you been born again?

Which one? It is an important question. Your eternal destiny is at stake here.

 

[Walter]

It is not picking away at anything. You made a FALSE STATEMENT, as usual, you refuse to EVER admit you are wrong and you are desperately trying to change the subject. That is all I have to say to you unless you are willing to admit what you said was NOT TRUE.

 

[DHK]

It is not picking away at anything. You made a FALSE STATEMENT, as usual, you refuse to EVER admit you are wrong and you are desperately trying to change the subject. That is all I have to say to you unless you are willing to admit what you said was NOT TRUE.

Walter here is the difference.
I corrected what I said.
You slandered me and never apologized.
You are acting like a child.
You won't even attempt to answer the questions I posed to you.

Is this how you, as a professed Christian, debate?

 

[The Biblicist]

Stop trying to change the subject. Did you or did you not say that Catholics only accept their baptism as being valid?' Just answer the question.

POST #21 "If you dig deep enough into the Catechism that RCC rejects all who are outside the Catholic Church. They accept only their baptism as valid".

THAT IS A FALSE STATEMENT AND NOT THE TRUTH! WHO IS THE REAL LIAR HERE!!

The Catholic Church Catechism #836-843 deals with this question of the Catholic Church and its relationship to those outside of its membership. The CCC claims that only those who have been baptized and partaken of the sacraments of the Catholic Church are "FULLY INCORPORATED into the society of the Church."

Protestants and their baptism are listed among those who are not "FULLY INCORPORATED" of which includes

1. #839 - "non-Christians"
2. #840 - Muslims
3. #842 - Other non-Christian religions

The CCC claims that the Catholic church is "JOINED" in many ways with all these groups outside the Church including Protestants.

However, she even restricts this second rate union with Protestants based upon whether they are "properly baptized" (#838).

According to the Counsel of Trent, Roman Catholics deny not merely the baptism of all Protestants who believe in Justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone but deny their salvation in total because Rome anathamize all who embrace this primary Reformation doctrine.


The Council of Trent, Canon 12 on Justification, reads:

“2.CANON 12: "If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified ... let him be accursed" .”


Hence, Rome rejects the baptism of Baptists because justification by grace ALONE through faith ALONE in Christ ALONE is a cardinal teaching of Baptists. What about Presbyterians and Lutherans and many other groups that hold to this same truth?

Can Catholics accept the baptism of those they anathematize???

 

[Walter]

The Catholic Church Catechism #836-843 deals with this question of the Catholic Church and its relationship to those outside of its membership. The CCC claims that only those who have been baptized and partaken of the sacraments of the Catholic Church are "FULLY INCORPORATED into the society of the Church."

Protestants and their baptism are listed among those who are not "FULLY INCORPORATED" of which includes

1. #839 - "non-Christians"
2. #840 - Muslims
3. #842 - Other non-Christian religions

The CCC claims that the Catholic church is "JOINED" in many ways with all these groups outside the Church including Protestants.

However, she even restricts this second rate union with Protestants based upon whether they are "properly baptized" (#838).

According to the Counsel of Trent, Roman Catholics deny not merely the baptism of all Protestants who believe in Justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone but deny their salvation in total because Rome anathamize all who embrace this primary Reformation doctrine.


The Council of Trent, Canon 12 on Justification, reads:

“2.CANON 12: "If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified ... let him be accursed" .”


Hence, Rome rejects the baptism of Baptists because justification by grace ALONE through faith ALONE in Christ ALONE is a cardinal teaching of Baptists. What about Presbyterians and Lutherans and many other groups that hold to this same truth?

Can Catholics accept the baptism of those they anathematize???

Not so because they accept MY Baptist baptism and do not require me to be re-baptized, so your reasoning is wrong. Facts are facts. They DO accept other Christian churches baptisms and do so ALL THE TIME.

I will not re-state what 'Thinkingstuff' has already done such a fine job stating on the 'Justification' thread. In fact, you both have done an exceptional job stating your positions. Catholics and Lutherans have made a joint declaration in recent years concerning 'Justification' and it speaks for itself. Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodist, Reformed, etc all see baptism as a sacrament, but Catholics also accept Baptists and most Pentecostal (not Oneness) baptisms as being valid and do not require those people who have been baptized in these churches to be re-baptized when they become Catholics.

 

[The Biblicist]

Not so because they accept MY Baptist baptism and do not require me to be re-baptized, so your reasoning is wrong. Facts are facts. They DO accept other Christian churches baptisms and do so ALL THE TIME.

I will not re-state what 'Thinkingstuff' has already done such a fine job stating on the 'Justification' thread. In fact, you both have done an exceptional job stating your positions. Catholics and Lutherans have made a joint declaration in recent years concerning 'Justification' and it speaks for itself. Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodist, Reformed, etc all see baptism as a sacrament, but Catholics also accept Baptists and most Pentecostal (not Oneness) baptisms as being valid and do not require those people who have been baptized in these churches to be re-baptized when they become Catholics.

Another inconsistency within the Catholic Church. Baptists will not accept administrations that are inconsistent with the gospel they preach because they believe baptism is to publicly symbolize and identify with the truth of the gospel which is summed up in justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

In contrast, Rome will anathematize all who believe and teach that doctrine but will accept the very baptism administered to symbolize and publiclly identify with and confess that doctrine.

I have not yet found a Catholic, including TS that can respond to the CCC in regard to baptism and circumcision and Paul's clear rebuttal of sacramentalism in Romans 4:9-11.

 

[DHK]

I will not re-state what 'Thinkingstuff' has already done such a fine job stating on the 'Justification' thread. In fact, you both have done an exceptional job stating your positions. Catholics and Lutherans have made a joint declaration in recent years concerning 'Justification' and it speaks for itself. Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodist, Reformed, etc all see baptism as a sacrament, but Catholics also accept Baptists and most Pentecostal (not Oneness) baptisms as being valid and do not require those people who have been baptized in these churches to be re-baptized when they become Catholics.

Do what you must.
But know this. TS is human. He is not always right, and has made many errors on this board.
When one studies the Catholic Catechism carefully, one finds that even it contradicts itself.
But the Word of God has no contradiction. Thus our belief in sola scriptura, and Jesus never changes; his promises are sure. I can depend upon my Savior, but I can never depend upon a sinful organization such as the RCC.

 

[OldRegular]

Baptism? and Roman Catholicism

Talk about Hocus Pocus

http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/p/Sac_Baptism.htm

The Minister of the Sacrament of Baptism:

Since the form of baptism requires just the water and the words, the sacrament, like the Sacrament of Marriage, does not require a priest; any baptized person can baptize another. In fact, when the life of a person is in danger, even a non-baptized person—including someone who does not himself believe in Christ—can baptize, provided that the person performing the baptism follows the form of baptism and intends, by the baptism, to do what the Church does—in other words, to bring the person being baptized into the fullness of the Church.

In both cases, a priest may later perform a conditional baptism.


The Effects of the Sacrament of Baptism:

Baptism has six primary effects, which are all supernatural graces:

1. The removal of the guilt of both Original Sin (the sin imparted to all mankind by the Fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden) and personal sin (the sins that we have committed ourselves).

2. The remission of all punishment that we owe because of sin, both temporal (in this world and in Purgatory) and eternal (the punishment that we would suffer in hell).

3. The infusion of grace in the form of sanctifying grace (the life of God within us); the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit; and the three theological virtues.

4. Becoming a part of Christ.

5. Becoming a part of the Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ on earth.

6. Enabling participation in the sacraments, the priesthood of all believers, and the growth in grace.

********************************************************************

If pouring a little water on your head can do all that just think what a good dunkin can do. Better yet the Orthodox Communion and the Grace Brethern Church dunk you three, count them, three times.

Happened to think about it. The Orthodox church says that baptize means immerse. Wouldn't you think the Greeks know Greek better than anyone else?