What the RCC endorses

[Zenas]

But we know that doesn't happen. It is just a superstition.

53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

John 6:53-56. No warnings here about superstition. Nothing about metaphors and symbolism either.

26 While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” 27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. Matthew 26:26-28.

Looks like Matthew also forgot to add that little caveat not to take this literally.

22 While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is My body.” 23 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Mark 14:22-24.

Nothing here about this not really happening like Jesus described it.

19 And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. Luke 22:19-20.

Wow! Those absent minded apostles! Not a single gospel writer cautions us not to take the words of Jesus literally. What were they thinking? Oh well, maybe Paul will explain the whole thing to us. After all, in matters of doctrine we generally ought to pay more attention to Paul than we do to Jesus.:smilewinkgrin:

16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

1 Corinthians 10:16. Well it looks like Paul is as sloppy as the gospel writers. No mention of the cup and the bread actually representing the body and blood of Christ. But he can’t possibly be endorsing transubstantiation because we know that is just plain superstitious.

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

1 Corinthians 11:23-26. Well, Paul, you blew off a great opportunity to let the world know that this bread and cup are not to be regarded as the literal body and blood of Christ. What could you possibly have been thinking? :BangHead:

DHK, I have exhausted my limited knowledge of scripture and can’t find where it warns us that belief in transubstantiation is superstitious. But I know it must be there because you declared it to be true and you don’t go outside the pages of scripture to find doctrinal truth. So where is it?

 

[DHK]

John 6:53-56. No warnings here about superstition. Nothing about metaphors and symbolism either.

When Jesus said: "I am the door..."
He did not say: Learn therefore this is a metaphor when I tell you: "I am the door." He did not preface his remarks as such. Yet "I am the door," is indeed a metaphor. It is up to the reader to have a knowledge of grammar and understanding of the language that he can distinguish when such literary devices are being used and when they are not.

In context, Jesus had just finished saying:
Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Joh 6:36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
--A definite metaphor "I am the bread of life." He didn't look like a loaf of bread just like he didn't look like a door. Both metaphors are connected to faith and salvation.

Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
--Throughout he refers to "my flesh, my blood," and refers to eating and drinking it.
This is my flesh; this is my blood. Yes, a definite metaphor. It is just as much a metaphor as him saying that he is a door or bread. He isn't any of the above. All are metaphors. All require faith. All are related to salvation.
The flesh and the blood represent to what was done on Calvary where he shed his blood for us. When one believes in that sacrifice He gives to him eternal life. When one believes in him he comes and dwells in him. It is a metaphor.

I have a driver's license. It has my picture on it. If I can show it to you, and tell you, this is me, DHK, would I by lying? Perhaps. It is not me, it is my likeness, an image or symbol. The real "me" is the one holding the license. So it was with Christ. He was near the bread that he was referring to previously when he said "I am the bread of life." He wasn't the real bread. His flesh was symbolic of that bread which in turn was symbolic of eternal life.

Looks like Matthew also forgot to add that little caveat not to take this literally.

Mat 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
Mat 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
"This is my body...This is my blood." These are obvious metaphors just like the others mentioned. You need to learn more about metaphors.
They were symbolic representations of the real thing which was Jesus. Take part of Jesus, believe on him, and you will have remission of sins. That is the only way.
Your interpretation is simply a superstition.

Nothing here about this not really happening like Jesus described it.

Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Luk 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
--Same passages over and over again. Nothing is different.
"This is my body" is a metaphor, and that is all.

Wow! Those absent minded apostles! Not a single gospel writer cautions us not to take the words of Jesus literally. What were they thinking? Oh well, maybe Paul will explain the whole thing to us. After all, in matters of doctrine we generally ought to pay more attention to Paul than we do to Jesus.

Sarcasm noted.
Every gospel writer used metaphors; every single one of them. Not a single one of them would have suggested that we understand Jesus as a door or a piece of bread, why would they think they we should understand Jesus is a hunk of flesh or a puddle of blood? Honestly, how can you be steeped in such superstition! It is beyond me.

1 Corinthians 10:16. Well it looks like Paul is as sloppy as the gospel writers. No mention of the cup and the bread actually representing the body and blood of Christ. But he can’t possibly be endorsing transubstantiation because we know that is just plain superstitious.

Transubstantiation is one of the most superstitious practices ever believed on.
What does Paul say here:

1Co 10:14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.
1Co 10:15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.
1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
--He is contrasting the present practices of the Corinthian church with the pagan practices around them. The pagans practiced idolatry, which they were to flee from. Their Communion Service ought to be a blessing but it wasn't. It was being infiltrated with idolatrous practices.
Ignorance of context allows you to teach any old superstition you want to teach.

1 Corinthians 11:23-26. Well, Paul, you blew off a great opportunity to let the world know that this bread and cup are not to be regarded as the literal body and blood of Christ. What could you possibly have been thinking?

1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
1Co 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
--In fact he teaches quite plainly that the cup and the bread are not literally the blood and body of the Lord Jesus. He even quotes the very words of Jesus. He uses the same metaphors.
"This is my body; this is my blood." Those are plain metaphors.
Then he says that we must do this often, and as often as we do it we remember the Lord's death until he comes again. It is plainly done in remembrance, a stern reminder that it is a symbolic practice to remember his death and resurrection.

DHK, I have exhausted my limited knowledge of scripture and can’t find where it warns us that belief in transubstantiation is superstitious. But I know it must be there because you declared it to be true and you don’t go outside the pages of scripture to find doctrinal truth. So where is it?

All you have done is shown me superstition. You have not proved your case at all. Faith is based on reality, on evidence. For example, faith in the gospel is based on the reality of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The resurrection is a historical reality which has never been disproven.
There is no reality in transubstantiation. Faith in it is based on blind faith.

The Muslim blows himself up thinking he will go to paradise. That is blind faith. There is no basis for that belief.
Likewise there is no basis for the belief in transubstantiation. It is blind faith. Its faith or belief rests on nothing; no evidence or reason to base it on.

 

[Zenas]

When Jesus said, “I am the bread of life,” it could have been taken for a metaphor and probably was so taken by his audience. However, when He started talking about eating His flesh and drinking His blood there was something different about the tone. I used to get squeamish when I would read it back in the days when I had no idea about transubstantiation. Most importantly, His immediate audience, including all His disciples except the twelve, left in revulsion. John 6:66. They certainly did not understand it to be a metaphor, even though they were actually watching and hearing Him speak.

You have missed the meaning of 1 Corinthians 11. When Paul says, “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord,” he is obviously talking about more than bread and wine. People were getting sick and dying over abuse of the Lord’s Supper. God doesn’t strike people dead for mere gluttony and drunkenness. But He would strike people dead if they did not “judge the body rightly.” In other words, fail to realize that they were actually dealing with the body and blood of Christ.

In 1 Corinthians 10, the blessing in the “cup of blessing” is not just a word Paul inserted to show that it should be a blessing to partake in the Lord’s Supper. The cup of blessing is the third cup of the Passover Seder. If you study the liturgy of the Passover and superimpose the biblical account of the Last Supper, it becomes clear that the cup Jesus blessed and passed around is the third cup of the event, i.e., the “cup of blessing.” Jews today still refer to the third cup in the Passover liturgy as the cup of blessing.

So, DHK, you didn’t quote me a single scripture passage that qualifies the language “This is my body; this is my blood” as symbolic. I guess there isn’t any.

The body and blood of Jesus are recorded by five different writers of the New Testament and not one of them interjected that Jesus was speaking in metaphorical language. The early church regarded the bread and wine as the literal body and blood of Jesus. In fact, some of the pagans of the time regarded Christians as cannibals because of this belief. The early Christians did nothing to disabuse them of that perception. For 1,500 years, until the time of the Protestant reformer Huldrych Zwingli, there was never a suggestion that the bread and wine were merely symbolic. That is pretty overwhelming evidence that can’t be ignored—unless of course you don’t believe in miracles.

 

[DHK]

When Jesus said, “I am the bread of life,” it could have been taken for a metaphor and probably was so taken by his audience. However, when He started talking about eating His flesh and drinking His blood there was something different about the tone.

Whenever Christ spoke his "tone" was as one who had authority. He spoke with authority.

I used to get squeamish when I would read it back in the days when I had no idea about transubstantiation. Most importantly, His immediate audience, including all His disciples except the twelve, left in revulsion. John 6:66. They certainly did not understand it to be a metaphor, even though they were actually watching and hearing Him speak.

I think you live in a squeamish culture compared to back then. Seriously, one cannot compare the two cultures. It is obvious that Christ was not speaking of transubstantiation. He was not cannibalistic. The fact that they left is absolute proof that they understood what he meant. They were not ready to accept him as their Messiah, to believe on Him as their Lord. That is why they left. The entire discussion revolved around "belief" and "faith," as did every single metaphor that he used in that chapter.
For example,
Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Joh 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
Joh 6:48 I am that bread of life.
--It is always connected to belief.

Joh 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
--Not die; Why? because of believing on him.

Joh 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
--He still has not left the theme of believing on him. Faith in him is still the key. That is the context throughout the passage.
Just as he is the bread of life, the sustenance of life, so is his flesh the sustenance of spiritual life. He is life, as John already explained in the first chapter.

You have missed the meaning of 1 Corinthians 11. When Paul says, “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord,” he is obviously talking about more than bread and wine. People were getting sick and dying over abuse of the Lord’s Supper. God doesn’t strike people dead for mere gluttony and drunkenness.

Yes, they were. They were coming to the Lord's Table in the wrong attitude, being gluttonous and drunk. That is not a spiritual attitude; it is a sinful one. It is showing disrespect to the Lord God Almighty.
What did Paul say?
1Co 11:22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
--This is exactly what they were condemned for. If they wanted to get drunk and overeat they should have stayed home and not come to church at all. They shamed the name of Christ and made a mockery of the Lord's Table.
"I praise you not," he says rebukingly.

But He would strike people dead if they did not “judge the body rightly.” In other words, fail to realize that they were actually dealing with the body and blood of Christ.

Absolute nonsense. They were to approach the Lord's table with reverence, and not to partake of it if they still had unconfessed sin.
Therefore Paul says:
1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
--A self-examination first. Make sure your heart is right with God.
Many of them were sick, weak, and many had died, because they thought they could partake of the Lord's Table with an indifferent and sinful attitude God judged them.

In 1 Corinthians 10, the blessing in the “cup of blessing” is not just a word Paul inserted to show that it should be a blessing to partake in the Lord’s Supper. The cup of blessing is the third cup of the Passover Seder. If you study the liturgy of the Passover and superimpose the biblical account of the Last Supper, it becomes clear that the cup Jesus blessed and passed around is the third cup of the event, i.e., the “cup of blessing.” Jews today still refer to the third cup in the Passover liturgy as the cup of blessing.

Read again 1Cor.11. There is nothing about the passover in there. They were not celebrating the Passover. It is a church not the Temple, not a synagogue. Paul was writing in 55 A.D., more than 25 years after the death of Christ and more than that after what was considered the "Last Supper," being called The Last Supper, for a reason. And that was more than 25 years previous to his letter! They were not Jews. They were Christians. The church at Corinth was primarily made up of Gentile believers who probably were not even acquainted with Jewish customs as the Passover. Your argument here holds no weight whatsoever. The Lord's Table has nothing to do with the Jewish Passover.

So, DHK, you didn’t quote me a single scripture passage that qualifies the language “This is my body; this is my blood” as symbolic. I guess there isn’t any.

I gave you plenty of examples of what was a metaphor or figure of speech. This is a matter of hermeneutics, proper interpretation, and not being deceived by a man's erroneous method of interpreting the Bible.

The body and blood of Jesus are recorded by five different writers of the New Testament and not one of them interjected that Jesus was speaking in metaphorical language.

They didn't have to. They spoke in a language that made sense. The picture on my license isn't me. It is only my picture. And I shouldn't have to explain that to you. Neither should anyone have to explain to you that when Christ said: "This is my flesh" it is a metaphor, or it is symbolic (like the picture on my license). Just a few verses before, he had just said: "I am the bread of life." They weren't looking at a loaf of bread.

The early church regarded the bread and wine as the literal body and blood of Jesus. In fact, some of the pagans of the time regarded Christians as cannibals because of this belief. The early Christians did nothing to disabuse them of that perception. For 1,500 years, until the time of the Protestant reformer Huldrych Zwingli, there was never a suggestion that the bread and wine were merely symbolic. That is pretty overwhelming evidence that can’t be ignored—unless of course you don’t believe in miracles.

I don't accept this last portion as an accurate portrayal of Christianity but rather a regurgitation of Roman Catholic propaganda. I am not going down the history road now. I will just declare you wrong, and ask you not to propagate the RCC in such a way.

 

[Yeshua1]

When Jesus said, “I am the bread of life,” it could have been taken for a metaphor and probably was so taken by his audience. However, when He started talking about eating His flesh and drinking His blood there was something different about the tone. I used to get squeamish when I would read it back in the days when I had no idea about transubstantiation. Most importantly, His immediate audience, including all His disciples except the twelve, left in revulsion. John 6:66. They certainly did not understand it to be a metaphor, even though they were actually watching and hearing Him speak.

You have missed the meaning of 1 Corinthians 11. When Paul says, “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord,” he is obviously talking about more than bread and wine. People were getting sick and dying over abuse of the Lord’s Supper. God doesn’t strike people dead for mere gluttony and drunkenness. But He would strike people dead if they did not “judge the body rightly.” In other words, fail to realize that they were actually dealing with the body and blood of Christ.

In 1 Corinthians 10, the blessing in the “cup of blessing” is not just a word Paul inserted to show that it should be a blessing to partake in the Lord’s Supper. The cup of blessing is the third cup of the Passover Seder. If you study the liturgy of the Passover and superimpose the biblical account of the Last Supper, it becomes clear that the cup Jesus blessed and passed around is the third cup of the event, i.e., the “cup of blessing.” Jews today still refer to the third cup in the Passover liturgy as the cup of blessing.

So, DHK, you didn’t quote me a single scripture passage that qualifies the language “This is my body; this is my blood” as symbolic. I guess there isn’t any.

The body and blood of Jesus are recorded by five different writers of the New Testament and not one of them interjected that Jesus was speaking in metaphorical language. The early church regarded the bread and wine as the literal body and blood of Jesus. In fact, some of the pagans of the time regarded Christians as cannibals because of this belief. The early Christians did nothing to disabuse them of that perception. For 1,500 years, until the time of the Protestant reformer Huldrych Zwingli, there was never a suggestion that the bread and wine were merely symbolic. That is pretty overwhelming evidence that can’t be ignored—unless of course you don’t believe in miracles.

John is THE Gospel to show us that they seem to always take spiritual truth in a literal fashion, by mistake!

Jesus cannot mean what the Church of Rome states he did, as there is NO grace granted to anyone who takes communion, as it is a symbol of what Jesus did already upon the Cross!

you HAVE to have it mean literally body and blood, in order to keep the sacramental system of Grace intact, but since the Bible denies that is a reality, so is your take on this!

 

[Walter]

John is THE Gospel to show us that they seem to always take spiritual truth in a literal fashion, by mistake!

Jesus cannot mean what the Church of Rome states he did, as there is NO grace granted to anyone who takes communion, as it is a symbol of what Jesus did already upon the Cross!

you HAVE to have it mean literally body and blood, in order to keep the sacramental system of Grace intact, but since the Bible denies that is a reality, so is your take on this!

Those early 'Baptists' like Ignatius certainly didn't believe it was just symbolic like modern day Baptists, now did they?

Ignatius, writing in his Epistle to the Ephesians around AD 107, said: "Obey the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but which causes that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ." The short version of his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans contains this statement: "[Heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ...."

Whoa!!! That doesn't sound like what Baptists believe!

 

[The Biblicist]

Those early 'Baptists' like Ignatius certainly didn't believe it was just symbolic like modern day Baptists, now did they?

Ignatius, writing in his Epistle to the Ephesians around AD 107, said: "Obey the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but which causes that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ." The short version of his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans contains this statement: "[Heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ...."

Whoa!!! That doesn't sound like what Baptists believe!

Where did you get the idea that Baptists claim these writings?

 

[Yeshua1]

Where did you get the idea that Baptists claim these writings?

Indeed, just shows us that the Spirit was correct, as He foretold even early on heresy/departure from the Faith!

 

[Walter]

Indeed, just shows us that the Spirit was correct, as He foretold even early on heresy/departure from the Faith!

Don't put your fingers in your ears and climb back into your warm and safe "cocoon". Inside your cocoon you can wrap the security blanket of "my inner voice tells me my interpretation of the Bible is correct. I don't need any historical evidence that any early Christians believed my doctrines.' Clearly, there is no historical evidence for what you believe about the Lord's Supper but quite the opposite. Also, nobody in the Early Church was disputing what Ignatius and everyone else was saying about partaking Christ's body and blood. The New Testament could not be clearer: St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians (I Cor 10:16)

'The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?'

 

[PreachTony]

No one on the face of planet earth held the Baptist beliefs on baptism and the Lord's Supper during the early years of the Church. No one! There would be some historical evidence supporting your position if that were the case.

So the early church was just running around sprinkling water on babies and not requiring a profession of faith for baptism? I don't recall reading that. In fact, one of the most stirring examples of someone asking to be baptized (the Ethiopian with Phillip) shows us that a profession of faith was required for baptism.

Unless you believe that baptism actually imparts saving grace on a soul, in which case the thief on the cross, whom Christ told would be with Him in paradise, actually went to Hell, as he was unbaptized.

Or is there something else entirely that you were aiming for with that statement, Walter?

 

[DHK]

Don't put your fingers in your ears and climb back into your warm and safe "cocoon". Inside your cocoon you can wrap the security blanket of "my inner voice tells me my interpretation of the Bible is correct. I don't need any historical evidence that any early Christians believed my doctrines.' Clearly, there is no historical evidence for what you believe about the Lord's Supper but quite the opposite. Also, nobody in the Early Church was disputing what Ignatius and everyone else was saying about partaking Christ's body and blood. The New Testament could not be clearer: St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians (I Cor 10:16)

'The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?'

This is the default position of the RCC, and the one that always leads them astray.
Our authority is the Word of God. From the ECF and other histories have come wide and varied heresies. They were the ones that introduced baptismal regeneration, the worship of Mary, transubstantiation, praying to the saints, idolatry, purgatory, and many heresies into the church.

Paul warned about this.
[FONT=&quot]Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.[/FONT]

Who came after Paul? The ECF did. What did Paul say of them?
They were grievous wolves speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them.

Our authority is always the Word of God. It is sola scriptura.

 

[Walter]

So the early church was just running around sprinkling water on babies and not requiring a profession of faith for baptism? I don't recall reading that. In fact, one of the most stirring examples of someone asking to be baptized (the Ethiopian with Phillip) shows us that a profession of faith was required for baptism.

Unless you believe that baptism actually imparts saving grace on a soul, in which case the thief on the cross, whom Christ told would be with Him in paradise, actually went to Hell, as he was unbaptized.

Or is there something else entirely that you were aiming for with that statement, Walter?

Every time a Baptist or other evangelical brings up 'sprinkling babies' I have to chuckle. 'Sprinkling babies' is a Baptist myth about how Catholics are baptized. Babies or adults are never 'sprinkled' despite what you have been taught. I went to a Baptist college and was taught that and my Baptist profs were ignorant of the facts. Water is poured over a baptismal candidates head and in the Orthodox Church they are immersed. As far as the thief of the cross, he could not be baptized, could he? The Catholic Church does not teach that baptism is magic: Simply having water poured over one’s head with the Trinitarian formula does not mean a person is instantly saved forever. Baptism incorporates the individual into the Body of Christ, and within the whole life of the Church an individual’s baptism must be accompanied by faith. The developing faith of the individual is empowered by the grace of baptism, and nurtured by the whole Church, but if the Christian faith is rejected or never positively affirmed, the baptism is not magically effective.

I'm glad you brought up the 'thief on the cross because the Catholic Church has always taught that there is a "baptism of blood" and a "baptism of desire." The baptism of blood refers to those who were not baptized but were martyred for Christ. They are incorporated, through their own death, into the mystical body of Christ through a mystical sharing in his sacrificial death.

 

[PreachTony]

Our authority is always the Word of God. It is sola scriptura.

That is beautifully said.

 

[PreachTony]

Every time a Baptist or other evangelical brings up 'sprinkling babies' I have to chuckle. 'Sprinkling babies' is a Baptist myth about how Catholics are baptized. Babies or adults are never 'sprinkled' despite what you have been taught. I went to a Baptist college and was taught that and my Baptist profs were ignorant of the facts. Water is poured over a baptismal candidates head and in the Orthodox Church they are immersed. As far as the thief of the cross, he could not be baptized, could he? The Catholic Church does not teach that baptism is magic: Simply having water poured over one’s head with the Trinitarian formula does not mean a person is instantly saved forever. Baptism incorporates the individual into the Body of Christ, and within the whole life of the Church an individual’s baptism must be accompanied by faith. The developing faith of the individual is empowered by the grace of baptism, and nurtured by the whole Church, but if the Christian faith is rejected or never positively affirmed, the baptism is not magically effective.

I'm glad you brought up the 'thief on the cross because the Catholic Church has always taught that there is a "baptism of blood" and a "baptism of desire." The baptism of blood refers to those who were not baptized but were martyred for Christ. They are incorporated, through their own death, into the mystical body of Christ through a mystical sharing in his sacrificial death.

My experience with Catholicism is that very little emphasis is put on salvation. I've spoken to Catholic coworkers and even attended a "golfer's mass," just to see for myself what was going on. Nary a mention of salvation from any of those sources. They would usually reply, if they replied at all, by saying "I was baptized..."

Now, I've claimed that Baptist way of life for as long as I can remember, and I've yet to tell someone about my baptism if they ask about my salvation. I relate to them my experience of grace, and I tell them of other things that the Lord has done for me.

 

[Yeshua1]

Every time a Baptist or other evangelical brings up 'sprinkling babies' I have to chuckle. 'Sprinkling babies' is a Baptist myth about how Catholics are baptized. Babies or adults are never 'sprinkled' despite what you have been taught. I went to a Baptist college and was taught that and my Baptist profs were ignorant of the facts. Water is poured over a baptismal candidates head and in the Orthodox Church they are immersed. As far as the thief of the cross, he could not be baptized, could he? The Catholic Church does not teach that baptism is magic: Simply having water poured over one’s head with the Trinitarian formula does not mean a person is instantly saved forever. Baptism incorporates the individual into the Body of Christ, and within the whole life of the Church an individual’s baptism must be accompanied by faith. The developing faith of the individual is empowered by the grace of baptism, and nurtured by the whole Church, but if the Christian faith is rejected or never positively affirmed, the baptism is not magically effective.

I'm glad you brought up the 'thief on the cross because the Catholic Church has always taught that there is a "baptism of blood" and a "baptism of desire." The baptism of blood refers to those who were not baptized but were martyred for Christ. They are incorporated, through their own death, into the mystical body of Christ through a mystical sharing in his sacrificial death.

The rire of infant water baptism in the RCC removes all origibal Sin from the child, and regenerates them into the boy of Christ, crerates eternal life in them, that is confirmed as done in the rite of Confirmation...

Do you deny that the RCC teaches infant regeneration then?

 

[DHK]

Every time a Baptist or other evangelical brings up 'sprinkling babies' I have to chuckle. 'Sprinkling babies' is a Baptist myth about how Catholics are baptized. Babies or adults are never 'sprinkled' despite what you have been taught. I went to a Baptist college and was taught that and my Baptist profs were ignorant of the facts. Water is poured over a baptismal candidates head and in the Orthodox Church they are immersed. As far as the thief of the cross, he could not be baptized, could he? The Catholic Church does not teach that baptism is magic: Simply having water poured over one’s head with the Trinitarian formula does not mean a person is instantly saved forever. Baptism incorporates the individual into the Body of Christ, and within the whole life of the Church an individual’s baptism must be accompanied by faith. The developing faith of the individual is empowered by the grace of baptism, and nurtured by the whole Church, but if the Christian faith is rejected or never positively affirmed, the baptism is not magically effective.

It is nothing but superstition.
Let's consider what the Catechism itself says:

From: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3G.HTM

Article 1
THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM
1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."

The baptized have "put on Christ."30 Through the Holy Spirit, Baptism is a bath that purifies, justifies, and sanctifies.31

1228 Hence Baptism is a bath of water in which the "imperishable seed" of the Word of God produces its life-giving effect.32 St. Augustine says of Baptism: "The word is brought to the material element, and it becomes a sacrament.”

1231 Where infant Baptism has become the form in which this sacrament is usually celebrated, it has become a single act encapsulating the preparatory stages of Christian initiation in a very abridged way. By its very nature infant Baptism requires a post-baptismal catechumenate. Not only is there a need for instruction after Baptism, but also for the necessary flowering of baptismal grace in personal growth. the catechism has its proper place here.

1237 Since Baptism signifies liberation from sin and from its instigator the devil, one or more exorcisms are pronounced over the candidate. the celebrant then anoints him with the oil of catechumens, or lays his hands on him, and he explicitly renounces Satan. Thus prepared, he is able to confess the faith of the Church, to which he will be "entrusted" by Baptism.

1238 The baptismal water is consecrated by a prayer of epiclesis (either at this moment or at the Easter Vigil). the Church asks God that through his Son the power of the Holy Spirit may be sent upon the water, so that those who will be baptized in it may be "born of water and the Spirit."

1245 The solemn blessing concludes the celebration of Baptism. At the Baptism of newborns the blessing of the mother occupies a special place.

#1237 infers that the candidate is demon-possessed since one or more exorcisms are pronounced over him! Is this true Walter? Is that what happened? Then you renounced Satan?

#1238 Though the entire quote is heresy the greatest of all heresies is quoted here, which equates baptism with being born of water and of the Spirit." There is no more damnable doctrine than baptismal regeneration, a false interpretation of John 3:5.

Again, RCC baptism is a superstition. The water of baptism does nothing more than get you wet. It is purely symbolic.

 

[Zenas]

#1238 Though the entire quote is heresy the greatest of all heresies is quoted here, which equates baptism with being born of water and of the Spirit." There is no more damnable doctrine than baptismal regeneration, a false interpretation of John 3:5.

Again, RCC baptism is a superstition. The water of baptism does nothing more than get you wet. It is purely symbolic.

John 3:5 was NEVER viewed as anything but baptismal regeneration until someone with a very low view of Christ, definitely one of the reformers of the 16th Century, decided otherwise. Of course you have to denounce the meaning Jesus attributed to it or your entire house of cards comes tumbling down.


Think about it, if baptism does nothing more than get you wet, it is completely futile. Do you think Jesus would command you to engage in a futile activity?

 

[DHK]

John 3:5 was NEVER viewed as anything but baptismal regeneration until someone with a very low view of Christ, definitely one of the reformers of the 16th Century, decided otherwise. Of course you have to denounce the meaning Jesus attributed to it or your entire house of cards comes tumbling down.


Think about it, if baptism does nothing more than get you wet, it is completely futile. Do you think Jesus would command you to engage in a futile activity?

If that statement by true then you are saying Jesus was a sinner that needed to be saved. That in and of itself is blasphemy.

 

[Zenas]

If that statement by true then you are saying Jesus was a sinner that needed to be saved. That in and of itself is blasphemy.

I have no idea where you would come up with such a conclusion. Jesus received the baptism of John for the "fulfillment of all righteousness", whatever that meant. But it was not the baptism that Jesus commanded for us as Paul makes abundantly clear in Acts 19.

 

[PreachTony]

John 3:5 was NEVER viewed as anything but baptismal regeneration until someone with a very low view of Christ, definitely one of the reformers of the 16th Century, decided otherwise. Of course you have to denounce the meaning Jesus attributed to it or your entire house of cards comes tumbling down.

John 3:5 reads: "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Infant baptism and the resulting theology troubles me. The notion of baptizing someone who has absolutely no choice in the matter is just wrong. Imagine grabbing a 30-year-old nonbeliever off the street and baptizing them because you think it will impart some sort of grace toward them and bring them to salvation.

In the epistle to those at Phillipi, we read that people should work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. Nothing in there requiring them to get baptized at the same time, nor teaching them to baptize their children.