 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 799 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 19th, 2007 01:21 am |
|
| While speaking with a member at my parish the subject of baptism came up. This person proceeded to tell me her idea of how infant baptism came about. I do not think she knew exactly what she was talking about, but I wanted to check what she was saying. She says the church began baptizing babies because of high infant mortality problems and wanting to make sure they saved the childrens' souls before too late. Is there any truth to this? I could see how that could happen, but all I have ever read has always argues that we have no writing in the early church to assume that infant baptism was not the apostolic norm. Meaning, if it had been a significant change from what was allowed for we would see more writing debating it, and the earliest writing we do see debating it only seems to further prove it was already the norm at that time. Am I correct that the Catholic teaching is that infant baptism, as far as we know, is what was always allowed for since even in the book of Acts? Is there any truth to what she was saying, which sounds more like a protestant argument to me?
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5314 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 19th, 2007 02:12 am |
|
brian wrote: She says the church began baptizing babies because of high infant mortality problems and wanting to make sure they saved the childrens' souls before too late. Is there any truth to this?
We have no record of when infant baptism "began". The earliest records we have show that entire families were baptized, and the earliest writings that mention infants treat it as an established practice.
I can believe that infant baptism became the norm because of concerns for their souls causing parents to insist that they be baptized, but there is no history to reflect it. For a long time, the Church taught that unbaptized infants would not be able to partake in the beatific vision; that teaching has actually been abandoned only recently, and the Church is currently reviewing the issue of what happens to unbaptized infants in hopes of making a doctrinal statement.
So while there is no way to say that concerns for the childrens' souls did not lead to infant baptism becoming the norm, there are certainly no writings to indicate that infants were not baptized by the apostles and their successors.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Ali
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 661 |
| First Name: | Ali | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | JW, finally fully Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 19th, 2007 09:28 am |
|
This is what I heard, too. Hmmmmmm, now I can't place where though ???? This is going to be bothering me all day now. Thanks 
Ali
|
|
|
mg57
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tolland County, Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 176 |
| First Name: | mg57 | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Infant Baptised Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 19th, 2007 12:29 pm |
|
Irenaeus (180 A.D.) "He came to save all persons by means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God--infants, chilfren, boys, youth, and old men."
Tertullian, who wrote later, seems to argue for a delay in regard to infants and very young children, - but he wouldn't have done so if it weren't already a common practice. Also recall that Tertullian went through periods where he was heterodox, so much of his writings contribute as a historical source, while at the same time are not representative of the orthodox teaching of the Church. ( See also Card. Newman On The Development of Doctrine).
Many denominations that object to infant baptism also teach that we cannot save ourselves, and are totally dependent upon God's grace. In other words, one cannot save oneself through / by works ( as they mistakenly believe the Catholic Church is "works-based"). What better way to express this than to baptize an infant through no work of it's own ? They, in practice, do believe in "cooperating" with God's grace, - which kinda-sorta-like sounds like the Catholic understanding of "works".
St. Thomas Aquinas said that "grace builds upon nature". It's God's work through us (our cooperating by grace), a progression throughout our lives.
God bless.
|
|
|
GordonH
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 16 |
| First Name: | Gordon | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Born Presbyterian, later Baptist with charismatic leanings. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10th, 2007 07:50 am |
|
A lot of this is to do with doubts people had about the ability to be forgiven for post baptismal sin. Therefore converts would delay baptism almost till death. It was a different world back then and a lot of these things had not been properly worked out or revealed to the church. Therefore, the fact that people did delay baptism in those days can't be used as evidence against infant baptism. Its just evidence that they had problems about post baptismal sin.
|
|
|
Jackie
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | Jersey Shore, New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 122 |
| First Name: | Jackie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16th, 2007 09:38 am |
|
Gordon wrote:
A lot of this is to do with doubts people had about the ability to be forgiven for post baptismal sin.
Can you (anyone) elaborate on this "post baptismal sin." A local bible believing pastor posed this same thought to me but I could not comment. I have a few questions too!! Thanks Jackie
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16th, 2007 10:07 am |
|
Sure, Jackie. The bible believing pastor you refer to is perhaps also a believer in “once saved, always saved.” He would see salvation as an event, rather than as a process.
If you look at the lives of the Old Testament notables, such as Abraham, Moses, David, you will see that none of them was perfect. They all sinned on occasion throughout their lives. For instance, both Moses and David were guilty of murder. Yet all were, as we believed, ultimately saved and are now in heaven with the Lord.
The same is true of us Christians. We don’t stop living just because we have started to believe in Christ. On the contrary, we have to live with our imperfect selves even after we have accepted Jesus. This means we will sin from time to time.
Let us take as an example the man whom St. Paul for a time “handed over to Satan” because he had committed incest (1 Corinthians 5:1–5). Note that after suitable penance, the man was readmitted to communion (2 Corinthians 2:5–11). This was a post-baptismal sin, which the “once saved, always saved” believers do not admit exists. They would say that either the man was not saved in the first place, and that he would have to begin to believe God and accept Christ all over again, as it were, for the first time, or (heaven forbid!) that his sin was not really a sin since he was, in fact, saved anyway.
Catholics, then, are more biblical in that we accept what Paul did. The incestuous man received the sacrament of reconciliation, removing the sin from his life. He performed his penance (this is what “deliver to Satan” refers to), and then he was readmitted to communion. In other words, he did receive forgiveness, and ultimately he was saved. For this man, salvation was definitely a process and not just a single event.
David
|
|
|
Credo Catholic
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Greenville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 1359 |
| First Name: | Marsha | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16th, 2007 10:08 am |
|
Jackie wrote: Gordon wrote:
A lot of this is to do with doubts people had about the ability to be forgiven for post baptismal sin.
When I joined the Catholic Church at Easter Vigil a year ago, those of us in the RCIA class who had been previously baptized in another church (and we had to prove it with a letter from that church) had to make our first confession a few days before confirmation because we had sinned since our baptism. Those in the class who were not baptized, or couldn't bring proof and needed "conditional baptism," did not have to make confession, because their baptism during the service would cleanse them of their sins only moments before confirmation and first communion. I was really glad I had to make my confession. It was one of the sweetest experiences I've ever had, and I was confessing 57 years worth!
|
|
|
Jackie
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | Jersey Shore, New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 122 |
| First Name: | Jackie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16th, 2007 11:03 am |
|
The pastor would say that Jesus dies for ALL OUR SINS. Past, present and future.....my come back was based on these verses, Col 1:21-23 & Phil 2:12-13
David wrote:
He performed his penance (this is what “deliver to Satan” refers to),
Explain more..............thanks Jackie
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16th, 2007 04:09 pm |
|
cajunrick wrote: I can believe that infant baptism became the norm because of concerns for their souls causing parents to insist that they be baptized, but there is no history to reflect it. For a long time, the Church taught that unbaptized infants would not be able to partake in the beatific vision; that teaching has actually been abandoned only recently, and the Church is currently reviewing the issue of what happens to unbaptized infants in hopes of making a doctrinal statement.
Rick, or anyone else who can help, what I have underlined and put in bold is something that troubles me. I thought that Church dogma/doctrine did not change. It is this very issue (baby baptism) why many Catholics whom I have met left the Catholic Church. Just several months ago, at a women's Bible study, some of the ladies mentioned their religious upbringing. They said that they were told their children would not go to Heaven if they were not baptized. They could not accept this harsh and cruel teaching propagated by the Catholic Church. This view of God being so strict that He was willing to send unbaptized infants to Hell was something they struggled with and abandoned, finally leaving the Catholic faith. As for me, I would not be able to accept this harsh declaration toward unbaptized infants either. This view is very similar to the strict Calvinists who believe that if a baby dies without the opportunity to repent of their sins, it is seriously questionable if that child was predestined to be saved in the first place. Some Calvinists will even go so far as to state emphatically that the child was not saved and thus did not go to Heaven.
Cajunrick wrote:
So while there is no way to say that concerns for the childrens' souls did not lead to infant baptism becoming the norm, there are certainly no writings to indicate that infants were not baptized by the apostles and their successors. (Yet there are writings to show that adults were baptized, so why practice a sacrament such as baby baptism without such definitive examples when there are definitive examples that show adults were baptized? Shouldn't the rule be to have the sacrament reflect what IS shown in scripture, tradition, and church history, and not what is NOT shown?
Again, these explicit examples of adults as opposed to the implicit examples of infants being baptized, such as regards whole families, still does not seem to argue for a precedent in practicing baby baptism. Furthermore, the explicit records in the Acts of the Apostles always indicate that it was adults first repenting of their sins and then being baptized. However, I do not see any examples of anyone first being baptized and then repenting of their sins. If I have overlooked any examples, (explicit ones) then please show me. So it seems to me, from what scripture shows, that baptizm, while necessary for our salvation, is something that must occur after one has repented of their sins. I just can't seem to come to terms with the Catholic teaching on Baptism. Mind you, it isn't that I think baptizing infants is egregious to one's salvation. However, I just don't see in scripture, or church history, that it is a practice absolutely necessary. One can wait until they are ready to appreciate the seriousness of sin and how that sin separates them from God and then make a promise to God to turn from sin, and then be baptized.
Part of my need for clarification on this issue of Catholic teaching on Baptism, is that I have been unable to defend baby Baptism with my husband and am not completely convinced myself. I must be able to defend Catholic teaching/doctrine, in order to become a Catholic.
Any comments would be helpful.
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
Credo Catholic
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Greenville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 1359 |
| First Name: | Marsha | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16th, 2007 05:04 pm |
|
Darlene wrote: Part of my need for clarification on this issue of Catholic teaching on Baptism, is that I have been unable to defend baby Baptism with my husband and am not completely convinced myself. I must be able to defend Catholic teaching/doctrine, in order to become a Catholic.
Any comments would be helpful.
Darlene
Darlene, I understand your need for an answer because the salvation of all souls including infants (and the unborn) is what our faith is about. I hope someone will be able to explain it here. Sometimes theology goes over my head, especially when it is this complicated. I decided at some point in my conversion that I just had to trust some things to a loving, tender, merciful God. I will probably never understand in this lifetime the wonderful things He does, but I know innocent children are not sent to hell.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5314 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16th, 2007 05:17 pm |
|
Darlene wrote: cajunrick wrote: For a long time, the Church taught that unbaptized infants would not be able to partake in the beatific vision; that teaching has actually been abandoned only recently, and the Church is currently reviewing the issue of what happens to unbaptized infants in hopes of making a doctrinal statement.
Rick, or anyone else who can help, what I have underlined and put in bold is something that troubles me. I thought that Church dogma/doctrine did not change.
The point is that the idea that infants could not experience the Beatific Vision was never a doctrine/dogma of the Church. It was taught by scholars such as St. Thomas Aquinas, but never adopted as an official teaching of the Church. The belief was commonly held, but has never been declared by a council or a pope as a teaching that must be definitively held. That's the difference between a teaching and a doctrine. (A dogma is a doctrine declared through a formal process; it's really just like a classier doctrine.)
Church teaching changes. The Church once taught that the earth was at the center of the universe, that the sun revolves around the earth, and that the blue sky was made of water. These were teachings but never doctrines. On matters of teaching, the guidance of the Holy Spirit does not apply. Teachings are human decisions based on human judgements without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
It is this very issue (baby baptism) why many Catholics whom I have met left the Catholic Church. Just several months ago, at a women's Bible study, some of the ladies mentioned their religious upbringing. They said that they were told their children would not go to Heaven if they were not baptized. They could not accept this harsh and cruel teaching propagated by the Catholic Church. This view of God being so strict that He was willing to send unbaptized infants to Hell was something they struggled with and abandoned, finally leaving the Catholic faith.
For the first time in centuries, Pope Benedict asked for a theological investigation of just what happens to infants who die unbaptized, and the basic answer was "we don't know". The Church abandoned the concept of Limbo many years ago, and the current Catechism does not say that children cannot experience the Beatific Vision. Note that the current Catechism was promulgated in 1983, long before Pope Benedict's recent theological investigation of the fate of unbaptized infants.
You call this a "harsh and cruel teaching propagated by the Catholic Church" which I believe indicates that you do not truly understand what the Church taught before. The Church has never taught that unbaptized infants go to hell. In fact, the Church has always taught that condemnation to hell is the result of deliberate, personal choice. If an infant can't choose baptism, they certainly can't choose hell.
Let me explain it this way, which I admit is oversimplified. The Church once taught that infants went to a "corner of heaven" where they experienced the same profound grace and joy as everyone else in heaven, except that they could not "see" God. That's what the phrase "Beatific Vision" means: the sight of God. Their heavenly experience is complete because they do not know what they are missing: a full thimble is just as full as a full bucket. The bucket holds more, but the thimble is equally full.
I was taught as a child that this special part of heaven (called Limbo) was presided over by our Blessed Mother, because of her special love of babies. I was taught that Baptism was necessary to see God, and yet those adult who die unbaptized may be admitted to the Beatific Vision through the Baptism of Desire or the Baptism of Blood. That never did seem right to me, and I never did believe it. Why should an unbaptized child be kept from the sight of God simply because they died before they had the chance to be baptized?
The first time I held my niece when I was nine years old, I knew that if something would happen to her, she would go to heaven whether she was baptized or not. I have never doubted that belief, and I still believe it today. My God who is Love would not choose to keep a pure, innocent infant away from God's Throne. Jesus even gave us the example of children to tell us who does deserve the Kingdom of God. There is no purer example of love on earth than an infant, and God-who-is-Love would not choose to exclude an infant-who-is-love.
So the focus has changed from "we see no way to include them" to "we see no reason to exclude them". The change is comparable to the teaching that "without the Church there is no salvation" used to mean only Catholics can go to heaven, while it now means everyone can be saved through the Church as long as they have not knowingly rejected it. The focus has changed from exclusion to inclusion, and rightly so. That's part of the wonderful legacy of Vatican II.
As for me, I would not be able to accept this harsh declaration toward unbaptized infants either. This view is very similar to the strict Calvinists who believe that if a baby dies without the opportunity to repent of their sins, it is seriously questionable if that child was predestined to be saved in the first place. Some Calvinists will even go so far as to state emphatically that the child was not saved and thus did not go to Heaven.
But as you see, this has never been the teaching of the Church. Limbo literally means the place that is unknown, and the Church has always (officially) taught that it has no idea what happens to the unbaptized, whether infant or adult. That doesn't mean that teachers have always presented Church teaching accurately.
(Yet there are writings to show that adults were baptized, so why practice a sacrament such as baby baptism without such definitive examples when there are definitive examples that show adults were baptized? Shouldn't the rule be to have the sacrament reflect what IS shown in scripture, tradition, and church history, and not what is NOT shown?
Tradition and Church history clearly show the baptism of infants. Scripture shows only the baptism of non-believers who have become believers. What about the second generation? Why is there no record in scripture of the son of a believer being baptized? Does that mean they weren't baptized? If we believe everything must be in scripture, why doesn't scripture tell us they went back to Cornelius's house to baptize the children as they grew up? Instead scripture tells us his entire household was baptized. A household would have included his wife, parents, in-laws, aunts, uncles, cousins, siblings, slaves, and all their children. This is what the term "household" meant.
Here are two tracts from Catholic Answers. The first explains Infant Baptism and the second are the writings of the Church Fathers on Infant Baptism, beginning with the first explicit reference in 189 A.D. Note that he does not write of infant baptism as an innovation, but rather as a common practice. He's not saying, "Let's start doing this", he's saying "This is why we do this."
The first scripture reference regarding infants is from Peter in Acts 2.38-39: "Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children."
And Luke 18:15-16 tells us they brought infants to Jesus. Baptism is how we bring people to Jesus.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16th, 2007 06:55 pm |
|
Rick,
Thanks so much for the Early Church Father's on Infant Baptism. I don't know why this issue has been such a stickler for me. I suppose every Protestant has some issues that make it difficult for them to become Catholic. Kimberly Hahn said the one thing keeping her from the Catholic faith was, "Mary, Mary and Mary." Well, mine at this juncture has been Infant Baptism (thrice) .
Darlene
P.S.: I should say though, that there are other issues that I am struggling with as well. If directed to the Early Church Father's beliefs, I am settled immediately, since I have such a high regard for these holy men of God, who were willing to shed their blood. And many did.
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5314 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16th, 2007 07:23 pm |
|
Darlene wrote: If directed to the Early Church Father's beliefs, I am settled immediately, since I have such a high regard for these holy men of God, who were willing to shed their blood. And many did.
You will find references to the early Fathers in many of the tracts from Catholic Answers, the Faith Facts from Catholics United for the Faith, and in the footnotes of the Catechism.
You obviously have overcome one of the biggest hurdles for most coming from Protestantism, and that is our reliance on Sacred Tradition, since most of that belief relies on the writings of the early Fathers.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
JasPax
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | North Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 242 |
| First Name: | James | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Episcopal to Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16th, 2007 07:26 pm |
|
Here are two other points that I realized:
1. Col. 2:11 Baptism has replaced circumcision. And,
2. I have found no Biblical prohibition against infant baptism. That prohibition seems to have come about as the event was changed from a sacrament to an ordinance.
Regards,
____________________
James
"Abide in me, and I in you..." John 15:4
"He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." John 6:56
RSV-2CE
|
|
|
DrDave
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Mildura, Australia |
| Posts: | 226 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle - Lapsed - Renewed Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16th, 2007 10:49 pm |
|
Part of the problem, I find, is in teasing out the distinction between what the church has taught, and what the church hasn't taught.
The church teaches that anyone, validly baptized, who dies in a state of grace will (eventually) go to heaven.
The church teaches that mortal sin is what removes the baptized from a state of grace.
Children below the "age of reason", lack the faculties to commit a mortal sin.
Therefore we can conclude that a child validly baptized who dies before attaining the "age of reason" will go to heaven.
So what about those children who die without baptism? simply put the church officially "teaches" .... nothing. It does not teach that the will go to heaven, it does not teach that the will go to hell, it does not teach that they will go to "Limbo".
All of these possibilities are "up for grabs" and at various times have been taught by various theologians, and sometimes these teachings have been accepted by members of the faithful as being taught by "the church".
But as the document released recently reminds us, the church still hasn't ruled definitively on any of these options, at best it's come up with is, heaven - more likely, limbo & hell - less likely.
I know that this lack of certainty is distressing for parents who have lost children before baptism, my wife miscarried almost ten years ago and it still hurts that the church won't tell us that out little child now rests in Gods loving embrace, so the best we can do is "trust in the Lord" and at the end of the day, shouldn't that be enough?
Regards Dave
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 17th, 2007 01:08 am |
|
Jackie wrote:The pastor would say that Jesus dies for ALL OUR SINS. Past, present and future.....my come back was based on these verses, Col 1:21-23 & Phil 2:12-13.
Yes, his line is standard fare for “once saved, always saved.” We Catholics do not deny the literal truth of the statement, but the interpretation given by Fundamentalists. In other words, Christ did indeed die for all our sins, past, present and future. However, it is up to us to provide him with fertile ground to make that sacrifice effective.
Insofar as we do not persevere in our quest for holiness, we reject his sacrifice through the presumption that we already have (or don’t need) everything he has to offer. On the contrary, divine grace is inexhaustible. We can always gain more. And likewise, we can lose what we have, just as the prodigal son squandered his inheritance.
Your scriptural references are appropriate. If the pastor does not accept them, that is his problem, not yours. You can simply make note of the fact that sometimes “bible believers” do not really believe all that much of the bible.
Regarding “delivering to Satan,” you will recall that St. Paul instructed that a penance be given the incestuous man as part of the sacrament of reconciliation. I gave you the scriptural references earlier. In the early days of Christianity, absolution was not given until the penance had been completed. This is why, later, we see the man receiving forgiveness (absolution).
Note that Paul is not actually celebrating the sacrament “long distance” by means of his letters. One of the presbyters (priests) he ordained before leaving Corinth would be doing that. So Paul is simply corroborating, saying that this is the correct way to handle the case.
The phrase “deliver to Satan” is usually interpreted to mean excommunication. When one considers that even today a person in mortal sin is ineligible to receive the sacraments, except reconciliation, this is the effective equivalent of excommunication, so it is not as if things were so much more severe in those times. It’s just that “excommunication” has come to mean a canonical penalty in addition to the normal result of mortal sin.
For Darlene:
I really think that you will benefit from actually reading the report of the International Theological Commission referred to several times in this thread. It is written very carefully and clearly and is easily understood. (The link I am giving downloads a copy of it in Microsoft Word format from forum member Japhy’s blog site. He posted a link for this document on the forum earlier. Most word processors can open Word files.)
David
|
|
|
GordonH
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 16 |
| First Name: | Gordon | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Born Presbyterian, later Baptist with charismatic leanings. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 17th, 2007 04:44 am |
|
Surely the idea of "baptism by intention" (possibly not the right term) covers a lot of the issues of unbaptised people.
I know that thjis is why muslims are allowed to attend catholic schools here while unbaptised protestants are not (being viewed as having rejected the church rather than being ignorant of it).
|
|
|
Ali
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 661 |
| First Name: | Ali | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | JW, finally fully Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 17th, 2007 08:11 am |
|
GordonH wrote:
I know that thjis is why muslims are allowed to attend catholic schools here while unbaptised protestants are not (being viewed as having rejected the church rather than being ignorant of it).
Surely Protestants are not discriminated against, right? At my dd's Catholic school *anyone* can attend, they just pay more if they aren't baptised Catholics.
Ali
|
|
|
mg57
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tolland County, Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 176 |
| First Name: | mg57 | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Infant Baptised Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 17th, 2007 10:33 am |
|
We have a school in our parish, pre-K through 8.
The tuition is configured to try to help our own parishioners first, ex. if you have more than one child attending, you'll qualify for a better rate than having just one attend.
If you belong to a neighboring parish the rate is slightly higher to start with, but will get a lower rate if more than one child attends.
If you are not Catholic you start a little higher, and the rest / same applies. As one can see, there's different ways of interpreting this, but the intent was and is to to provide help and incentive first within our own community and parish(es).
To my knowledge, this basic formula is common throughout the dioceses within our state.
|
|
|
GordonH
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 16 |
| First Name: | Gordon | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Born Presbyterian, later Baptist with charismatic leanings. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 17th, 2007 11:55 am |
|
Ali wrote: GordonH wrote:
I know that thjis is why muslims are allowed to attend catholic schools here while unbaptised protestants are not (being viewed as having rejected the church rather than being ignorant of it).
Surely Protestants are not discriminated against, right? At my dd's Catholic school *anyone* can attend, they just pay more if they aren't baptised Catholics.
Ali
The way our system works is that the Catholic schools are funded by the government. Catholic kids go to them as do most Muslims. Baptised protestants can apply to go to them but places are limited. Non baptised protestants are not permitted to apply so this includes most children of Baptist and Pentecostal families. Children of methodists, anglicans and presbyterians will normally be baptised so can apply to go to those schools.
|
|
|
Ali
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 661 |
| First Name: | Ali | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | JW, finally fully Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 17th, 2007 04:03 pm |
|
GordonH wrote:
The way our system works is that the Catholic schools are funded by the government. Catholic kids go to them as do most Muslims. Baptised protestants can apply to go to them but places are limited. Non baptised protestants are not permitted to apply so this includes most children of Baptist and Pentecostal families. Children of methodists, anglicans and presbyterians will normally be baptised so can apply to go to those schools.
You are not in the US, then?
Ali
|
|
|
Jackie
Member
| | |
