Catholicism wrong?

[Lisa0315]

Nope, there is one pope. Some of the Rites have their own patriarch, like a local head. But the popes are in the succession from Peter.

Do these patriarchs report to the Pope in Rome?

 

[Carrye]

Do these patriarchs report to the Pope in Rome?

Yes.

 

[Carrye]

We have baptism, but consider it symbolic and in obedience.

We believe that it is efficacious - that it removes the stain of original sin (and personal sin, if appropriate) and is an initiation into the Church.

We have communion or the remembrance of the Lord's Supper. We use little wafers and grape juice. (Fundemental Baptists do not drink alcohol.) We follow the Bible regarding a member who has gravely sinned but repents.

We believe that the wheat wafers and wine become the literal Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ after its consecration (prayers) by a priest.

That member usually gets up in front of the whole church and asks forgiveness.

Catholics seek a priest out individually and confess 1:1. Public confessions (and penances) were practiced in the early Church.

Annointing of the sick, the pastor and deacons annoint with oil and pray over the person. Pastors and Deacons are ordained.

If I remember correctly, only priests can anoint. Deacons, priests, and bishops are all ordained.

I wish we were as strong on marriage as you guys are. What happens if a Catholic couple divorces?

It really depends. This is a big question, because there are so many "what ifs" involved.

 

[Lisa0315]

We believe that it is efficacious - that it removes the stain of original sin (and personal sin, if appropriate) and is an initiation into the Church.



We believe that the wheat wafers and wine become the literal Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ after its consecration (prayers) by a priest.



Catholics seek a priest out individually and confess 1:1. Public confessions (and penances) were practiced in the early Church.



If I remember correctly, only priests can anoint. Deacons, priests, and bishops are all ordained.



It really depends. This is a big question, because there are so many "what ifs" involved.

Thank You! I really appreciate the explanations.

Are you surprised to know that we do these things in our denomination? I have often heard that Catholics felt that we (non-Catholics) are "missing" things by not having all of the sacraments. I didn't know we had this much in common. Did you?

 

[Carrye]

Are you surprised to know that we do these things in our denomination? I have often heard that Catholics felt that we (non-Catholics) are "missing" things by not having all of the sacraments. I didn't know we had this much in common. Did you?

But are they really common? We mean (and achieve) very different things when we do them.

 

[WarriorAngel]

THANK YOU!!!!

That was quite the best, neatest, simplest explanation I have EVER received! Very well done!

Okay, next...Tell me about the sacraments. I understand baptism and communion, but what about the other five? What are they, what is their Bibical basis, and how are they performed?

Lisa

Thanks!!

Carrye gave a great list.

Well, the differences are the meaningfulness behind the sacraments. What I mean for example is the 'symbolism' of the Eucharist vs the actual body and blood of the Lord.

Besides the Lord stating it 'IS' His Body and Blood, the earliest Church fathers also stood by that as exacting not symbolic...as did the Apostles. Who said we commit damnation upon ourselves for receiving unworthily. :o Pretty hefty punishment for a symbol.

John 6:4,11-14 - on the eve of the Passover, Jesus performs the miracle of multiplying the loaves. This was prophesied in the Old Testament (e.g., 2 Kings4:43), and foreshadows the infinite heavenly bread which is Him.


Matt. 14:19, 15:36; Mark 6:41, 8:6; Luke 9:16 - these passages are additional accounts of the multiplication miracles. This points to the Eucharist.

Matt. 16:12 - in this verse, Jesus explains His metaphorical use of the term "bread." In John 6, He eliminates any metaphorical possibilities.

John 6:4 - Jesus is in Capernaum on the eve of Passover, and the lambs are gathered to be slaughtered and eaten. Look what He says.
John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times "I AM the bread from heaven." It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven.

John 6:27,31,49 - there is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed, and this "new" bread which must be consumed.

John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?

John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.
John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what?


John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where "trogo" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal.

John 6:55 - further, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink use the word "alethes." "Alethes" means "really" or "truly," and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus' flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.
John 6:60 - as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus' disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, "Who can 'listen' to it (much less understand it)?" To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.

Scripturally Jesus did not mean for HIMSELF to be symbolic, but the OT were shadows and symbols of the new and most True Covenant between God and man...The Lord Jesus.

Its like this, Jesus 'wrote' the entire Bible.
AS part of the Trinity, He Inspired the Bible, and made manifest throughout the writings the foreshadowing for His Last Supper...the Bread and Wine which is to become Him.

The manna was to save the ppl [who would have starved]
The bread is sustenance...and ONLY Jesus can REALLY sustain us. Correct?

And well, due to Apostolic succession since Christ ordained them and sent them off, whereas they then in turn laid hands to ordain disciples, elders [priests] they had the power invested in them [thru Jesus], so as long as that line of Bishops is unbroken, then the ordained hand since the Apostles can indeed consecrate the Bread and Wine and truly transubstantiate the Eucharist.

In no way do I knock the protestants who have great faith, but they did not come from that line of ordination, therefore left broken, they are honest when they say it is but a symbol.
But in the Catholic Church it is JESUS.

 

[Lisa0315]

But are they really common? We mean (and achieve) very different things when we do them.

I don't know how "common" they are. It varies from church to church and is based on need.

I was annointed when I was a child for healing. I have seen this occur once in the last two years.

We have communion once a year a couple of weeks before Easter. Other churches hold these services more often, some as often as monthly.

Deacons are ordained as needed. I think we have six deacons in a church of about 300 members. I have seen two deacons ordained in the last two years.

Baptism services are held every so often, probably two to three times a year. Children are dedicated by parents but are not baptised until they reach the age of accountability. Meaning, the child comes to understand sin and the need for Christ. The child accepts Christ as Saviour and is baptised after.

 

[Lisa0315]

Thanks!!

Carrye gave a great list.

Well, the differences are the meaningfulness behind the sacraments. What I mean for example is the 'symbolism' of the Eucharist vs the actual body and blood of the Lord.

Besides the Lord stating it 'IS' His Body and Blood, the earliest Church fathers also stood by that as exacting not symbolic...as did the Apostles. Who said we commit damnation upon ourselves for receiving unworthily. :o Pretty hefty punishment for a symbol.



Scripturally Jesus did not mean for HIMSELF to be symbolic, but the OT were shadows and symbols of the new and most True Covenant between God and man...The Lord Jesus.

Its like this, Jesus 'wrote' the entire Bible.
AS part of the Trinity, He Inspired the Bible, and made manifest throughout the writings the foreshadowing for His Last Supper...the Bread and Wine which is to become Him.

The manna was to save the ppl [who would have starved]
The bread is sustenance...and ONLY Jesus can REALLY sustain us. Correct?

And well, due to Apostolic succession since Christ ordained them and sent them off, whereas they then in turn laid hands to ordain disciples, elders [priests] they had the power invested in them [thru Jesus], so as long as that line of Bishops is unbroken, then the ordained hand since the Apostles can indeed consecrate the Bread and Wine and truly transubstantiate the Eucharist.

In no way do I knock the protestants who have great faith, but they did not come from that line of ordination, therefore left broken, they are honest when they say it is but a symbol.
But in the Catholic Church it is JESUS.

We consider that verse as receiving communion with sin in our hearts rather than a belief in a supernatural manifestation of Christ in the little wafer and grape juice.

Our communion is a very solemn, very beautiful service. The entire church prays at the altar to repent of any sin in our lives before taking communion. Then, the pastor and deacons serve the communion to the congregation. The pastor reads the passage of the Lord's Last Supper. We pray between the wine and the bread and, then, after both. It is quite special, but is considered symbolic and in memory of our Lord, not an actual manifestation.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Here are some early Church quotes on infant baptism to help you understand the stance the Church always held....
Also besides Jesus being dedicated, the Apostles never spoke of that....

Anyway; here are the quotes and site for reference.

Infant Baptism

"And many, both men and women, who have been Christ's disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixty or seventy years..." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 15:6 (A.D. 110-165).

"And when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God [baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins." Aristides, Apology, 15 (A.D. 140).

"Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and Saviour?" Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, 9 (A.D. 156). [baptized since infancy]

"For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God--infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180).

"I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord." Polycrates, Fragment in Eusebius' Church History, V:24:7 (A.D. 190). [baptized in infancy]

"And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family." Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215).

"[T]herefore children are also baptized." Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233).

"For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too." Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

"Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous." Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244).

"But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day...And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism...we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…" Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251).

"It shows no crease when infants put it on [the baptismal garment], it is not too scanty for young men, it fits women without alteration." Optatus of Mileve, Against Parmenium, 5:10(A.D. 365).

"Have you an infant child? Do not let sin get any opportunity, but let him be sanctified from his childhood; from his very tenderest age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Fearest thou the Seal on account of the weakness of nature?" Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:17 (A.D. 381).

"Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for Baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious neither of the loss nor of the grace? Are we to baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitiated." Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:28 (A.D. 381).

"'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.' No one is expected: not the infant, not the one prevented by necessity." Ambrose, Abraham, 2,11:79 (A.D. 387).

"We do baptize infants, although they are not guilty of any sins." John Chrysostom, Ad Neophytos (A.D. 388).

"And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision, which was received by God's earlier people, and before receiving which Abraham was justified, as Cornelius also was enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized." Augustine, On Baptism against the Donatist, 4:24:31 (A.D. 400).

"While the son is a child and thinks as a child and until he comes to years of discretion to choose between the two roads to which the letter of Pythagoras points, his parents are responsible for his actions whether these be good or bad. But perhaps you imagine that, if they are not baptized, the children of Christians are liable for their own sins; and that no guilt attaches to parents who withhold from baptism those who by reason of their tender age can offer no objection to it. The truth is that, as baptism ensures the salvation of the child, this in turn brings advantage to the parents. Whether you would offer your child or not lay within your choice, but now that you have offered her, you neglect her at your peril." Jerome, To Laeta, Epistle 107:6 (A.D. 403).

"Now, seeing that they [Pelagians] admit the necessity of baptizing infants,--finding themselves unable to contravene that authority of the universal Church, which has been unquestionably handed down by the Lord and His apostles,--they cannot avoid the further concession, that infants require the same benefits of the Mediator, in order that, being washed by the sacrament and charity of the faithful, and thereby incorporated into the body of Christ, which is the Church, they may be reconciled to God, and so live in Him, and be saved, and delivered, and redeemed, and enlightened. But from what, if not from death, and the vices, and guilt, and thraldom, and darkness of sin? And, inasmuch as they do not commit any sin in the tender age of infancy by their actual transgression, original sin only is left." Augustine, On forgiveness of sin and baptism, 39[26] (A.D. 412).
"The blessed Cyprian, indeed, said, in order to correct those who thought that an infant should not be baptized before the eighth day, that it was not the body but the soul which behoved to be saved from perdition -- in which statement he was not inventing any new doctrine, but preserving the firmly established faith of the Church; and he, along with some of his colleagues in the episcopal office, held that a child may be properly baptized immediately after its birth." Augustine, Epistle 166:8:23 (A.D. 412).

etc etc

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#tradition-II

 

[Lisa0315]

Here are some early Church quotes on infant baptism to help you understand the stance the Church always held....
Also besides Jesus being dedicated, the Apostles never spoke of that....

Anyway; here are the quotes and site for reference.

Infant Baptism

"And many, both men and women, who have been Christ's disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixty or seventy years..." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 15:6 (A.D. 110-165).

"And when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God [baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins." Aristides, Apology, 15 (A.D. 140).

"Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and Saviour?" Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, 9 (A.D. 156). [baptized since infancy]

"For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God--infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180).

"I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord." Polycrates, Fragment in Eusebius' Church History, V:24:7 (A.D. 190). [baptized in infancy]

"And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family." Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215).

"[T]herefore children are also baptized." Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233).

"For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too." Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

"Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous." Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244).

"But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day...And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism...we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…" Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251).

"It shows no crease when infants put it on [the baptismal garment], it is not too scanty for young men, it fits women without alteration." Optatus of Mileve, Against Parmenium, 5:10(A.D. 365).

"Have you an infant child? Do not let sin get any opportunity, but let him be sanctified from his childhood; from his very tenderest age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Fearest thou the Seal on account of the weakness of nature?" Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:17 (A.D. 381).

"Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for Baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious neither of the loss nor of the grace? Are we to baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitiated." Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:28 (A.D. 381).

"'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.' No one is expected: not the infant, not the one prevented by necessity." Ambrose, Abraham, 2,11:79 (A.D. 387).

"We do baptize infants, although they are not guilty of any sins." John Chrysostom, Ad Neophytos (A.D. 388).

"And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision, which was received by God's earlier people, and before receiving which Abraham was justified, as Cornelius also was enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized." Augustine, On Baptism against the Donatist, 4:24:31 (A.D. 400).

"While the son is a child and thinks as a child and until he comes to years of discretion to choose between the two roads to which the letter of Pythagoras points, his parents are responsible for his actions whether these be good or bad. But perhaps you imagine that, if they are not baptized, the children of Christians are liable for their own sins; and that no guilt attaches to parents who withhold from baptism those who by reason of their tender age can offer no objection to it. The truth is that, as baptism ensures the salvation of the child, this in turn brings advantage to the parents. Whether you would offer your child or not lay within your choice, but now that you have offered her, you neglect her at your peril." Jerome, To Laeta, Epistle 107:6 (A.D. 403).

"Now, seeing that they [Pelagians] admit the necessity of baptizing infants,--finding themselves unable to contravene that authority of the universal Church, which has been unquestionably handed down by the Lord and His apostles,--they cannot avoid the further concession, that infants require the same benefits of the Mediator, in order that, being washed by the sacrament and charity of the faithful, and thereby incorporated into the body of Christ, which is the Church, they may be reconciled to God, and so live in Him, and be saved, and delivered, and redeemed, and enlightened. But from what, if not from death, and the vices, and guilt, and thraldom, and darkness of sin? And, inasmuch as they do not commit any sin in the tender age of infancy by their actual transgression, original sin only is left." Augustine, On forgiveness of sin and baptism, 39[26] (A.D. 412).
"The blessed Cyprian, indeed, said, in order to correct those who thought that an infant should not be baptized before the eighth day, that it was not the body but the soul which behoved to be saved from perdition -- in which statement he was not inventing any new doctrine, but preserving the firmly established faith of the Church; and he, along with some of his colleagues in the episcopal office, held that a child may be properly baptized immediately after its birth." Augustine, Epistle 166:8:23 (A.D. 412).

etc etc

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#tradition-II

And childrent that are miscarried or stillborn? What happens with them?

 

[WarriorAngel]

And the Eucharist.

Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist
[Early Church Fathers quotes]
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).


"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

"[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood..." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200).

"He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).

"But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world..." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200).

"For the blood of the grape--that is, the Word--desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord's immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both--of the water and of the Word--is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul." Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202).

"Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, 'This is my body,' that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body…He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: 'I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,' which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed 'in His blood,' affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood." Tertullian, Against Marcion, 40 (A.D. 212).

"For because Christ bore us all, in that He also bore our sins, we see that in the water is understood the people, but in the wine is showed the blood of Christ...Thus, therefore, in consecrating the cup of the Lord, water alone cannot be offered, even as wine alone cannot be offered. For if any one offer wine only, the blood of Christ is dissociated from us; but if the water be alone, the people are dissociated from Christ; but when both are mingled, and are joined with one another by a close union, there is completed a spiritual and heavenly sacrament. Thus the cup of the Lord is not indeed water alone, nor wine alone, unless each be mingled with the other; just as, on the other hand, the body of the Lord cannot be flour alone or water alone, unless both should be united and joined together and compacted in the mass of one bread; in which very sacrament our people are shown to be made one, so that in like manner as many grains, collected, and ground, and mixed together into one mass, make one bread; so in Christ, who is the heavenly bread, we may know that there is one body, with which our number is joined and united." Cyprian, To Caeilius, Epistle 62(63):13 (A.D. 253).

"Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man's heart, to make his face to shine with oil, 'strengthen thou thine heart,' by partaking thereof as spiritual, and "make the face of thy soul to shine."" Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350).

"For as to what we say concerning the reality of Christ's nature within us, unless we have been taught by Him, our words are foolish and impious. For He says Himself, My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in Me, and I in him. As to the verity of the flesh and blood there is no room left for doubt. For now both from the declaration of the Lord Himself and our own faith, it is verily flesh and verily blood. And these when eaten and drunk, bring it to pass that both we are in Christ and Christ in us. Is not this true? Yet they who affirm that Christ Jesus is not truly God are welcome to find it false. He therefore Himself is in us through the flesh and we in Him, whilst together with Him our own selves are in God." Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 8:14 (inter A.D. 356-359).
"Let us then in everything believe God, and gainsay Him in nothing, though what is said seem to be contrary to our thoughts and senses, but let His word be of higher authority than both reasonings and sight. Thus let us do in the mysteries also, not looking at the things set before us, but keeping in mind His sayings. For His word cannot deceive, but our senses are easily beguiled. That hath never failed, but this in most things goeth wrong. Since then the word saith, 'This is my body,' let us both be persuaded and believe, and look at it with the eyes of the mind. For Christ hath given nothing sensible, but though in things sensible yet all to be perceived by the mind. So also in baptism, the gift is bestowed by a sensible thing, that is, by water; but that which is done is perceived by the mind, the birth, I mean, and the renewal. For if thou hadst been incorporeal, He would have delivered thee the incorporeal gifts bare; but because the soul hath been locked up in a body, He delivers thee the things that the mind perceives, in things sensible. How many now say, I would wish to see His form, the mark, His clothes, His shoes. Lo! Thou seest Him, Thou touchest Him, thou eatest Him. And thou indeed desirest to see His clothes, but He giveth Himself to thee not to see only, but also to touch and eat and receive within thee." John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, Homily 82 (A.D. 370).


I am ready for bed soon.
Just so you understand why the Church has and still does see the Bread and Wine consecrated IS Jesus, not symbolic. It is an ancient doctrine.

Peace!

 

[WarriorAngel]

And childrent that are miscarried or stillborn? What happens with them?

Well, since they are still part of their mother, they are baptized by desire.
IE, the mother desired their baptism.
[Altho when I miscarried, I still had my baby baptized after she was removed]

But the babies are still within their mom, and so they are part of her baptism. AND this is also for those who are miscarried and reabsorbed.

Also adding that in this case, the Lord KNOWS it is inpossible of the baby to be baptized, so as they are NOT yet born, they have not been given the stain of 'original sin'.

I should look more into that....but that is an issue that stands to reason the Lord knows that which we are incapable of. Including baptizing an infant in utero.
He has Mercy.

 

[Carrye]

Well, since they are still part of their mother, they are baptized by desire.
. . .
But the babies are still within their mom, and so they are part of her baptism. AND this is also for those who are miscarried and reabsorbed.

I think you're speculating a bit here, WA.

Also adding that in this case, the Lord KNOWS it is inpossible of the baby to be baptized, so as they are NOT yet born, they have not been given the stain of 'original sin'.

From conception, from the point of being human, a person has the stain of original sin. That is not something that comes by virtue of birth, but by 'humanness'.

 

[Carrye]

And childrent that are miscarried or stillborn? What happens with them?

We entrust all souls to the great mercy of God, but we really don't know.

CCC 1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

 

[WarriorAngel]

[/font]

I think you're speculating a bit here, WA.



From conception, from the point of being human, a person has the stain of original sin. That is not something that comes by virtue of birth, but by 'humanness'.

That is why I believe it baptism by desire.
And it says."Born of original sin' so I believe the Mercy of God is great knowing that His beloved ones cannot be baptized in the womb...

But I said I have to look into it more.
Going by the fact we can do nothing for a baby which is one month in the making who can never be baptized [who is going to again become of the mother's flesh]...so it stands to reason, the mother desires their child to be given to Heaven [baptized by desire] and that she herself is a part of the child and is baptized, therefore sharing her baptism as all other conditions to her body...and altho 'man is born' with original sin, the ones unborn are sharing everything with their mother.

I believe God's mercy is that great.

I should look more into that....but that is an issue that stands to reason the Lord knows that which we are incapable of. Including baptizing an infant in utero.

I could be wrong.......but it just makes sense.

Altho Mary shared everything with her mother, she did not share sin... so she was pre baptized in utero [in a sense]. She was held from sin altogether and for always.

However; she is uncommon.

I just believe altho babies are fully human from conception.... all are BORN with original sin [and yet they remain unborn]. If they are not yet born, they belong only to God. Who can mysteriously use any measure He desires to keep the unborn His.

It is a good question...I am just going by logic of the Lord's mercy.

No one has that answer....so perhaps I am wrong too. But God is merciful.

 

[Carrye]

And it says."Born of original sin' so I believe the Mercy of God is great knowing that His beloved ones cannot be baptized in the womb...

And yet birth doesn't change anything in the person, it only changes a person's location.

Going by the fact we can do nothing for a baby which is one month in the making who can never be baptized [who is going to again become of the mother's flesh]...so it stands to reason, the mother desires their child to be given to Heaven [baptized by desire] and that she herself is a part of the child and is baptized, therefore sharing her baptism

But her baptism isn't of her flesh, it's of her soul. The baby, at the moment of conception, has his/her own human soul.

I believe God's mercy is that great.

As do I.

Altho Mary shared everything with her mother, she did not share sin... so she was pre baptized in utero [in a sense].

But she wasn't pre-baptized, because Mary preceded baptism. God intervened with a special work of grace for Mary.

Who can mysteriously use any measure He desires to keep the unborn His.

Absolutely! I think we agree in principle, WA, but we must be careful applying specifics to something we know nothing about.

 

[WarriorAngel]

But she wasn't pre-baptized, because Mary preceded baptism. God intervened with a special work of grace for Mary.

True, she was pre saved...and I only used in a sense because her sins were washed away by Christ b4 Christ and for Christ, and b4 baptism.
IE she was pre saved.

And I dont have the answers, but baptism is impossible for the baby in utero.
The baby's soul belongs to God.

He knew us b4 we were in the womb...and I believe there is a certain connectedness to a baby that the Lord protects in utero.

His grace is sufficient to render them saints in utero. Until they can receive the sacrament properly.

Perhaps that is all that is necessary to state.

 

[Lisa0315]

True, she was pre saved...and I only used in a sense because her sins were washed away by Christ b4 Christ and for Christ, and b4 baptism.
IE she was pre saved.

And I dont have the answers, but baptism is impossible for the baby in utero.
The baby's soul belongs to God.

He knew us b4 we were in the womb...and I believe there is a certain connectedness to a baby that the Lord protects in utero.

His grace is sufficient to render them saints. Until they can receive the sacrament properly.

Perhaps that is all that is necessary to state.

I think one of the most comforting things in scripture is where David loses his infant son, but knows that he will see that child again in Heaven. This is long before baptism or salvation. David knew that God was just, i.e., his sin required punishment, but David also knew that God was merciful, i.e., the surety that the child would be in Heaven.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I think one of the most comforting things in scripture is where David loses his infant son, but knows that he will see that child again in Heaven. This is long before baptism or salvation. David knew that God was just, i.e., his sin required punishment, but David also knew that God was merciful, i.e., the surety that the child would be in Heaven.

Without baptism in the OT, before Jesus had come and b4 the judgement in Hades He knew all souls and their works [good or bad] Whereas children unborn or too young were not yet held accountable.
This is true of all in the OT who were good.

This may be perhaps why the Church has no inclusive doctrines. Because all the unborn belong to the Lord.
In His infinite Mercy He knows the impossibility of baptism in utero.

There is no choice for baptism..... and He that gives can take away...and at no fault to the mother nor child, the baptism cannot yet be given nor required.

 

[Lisa0315]

Without baptism in the OT, before Jesus had come and b4 the judgement in Hades He knew all souls and their works [good or bad] Whereas children unborn or too young were not yet held accountable.
This is true of all in the OT who were good.

This may be perhaps why the Church has no inclusive doctrines. Because all the unborn belong to the Lord.
In His infinite Mercy He knows the impossibility of baptism in utero.

There is no choice for baptism..... and He that gives can take away...and at no fault to the mother nor child, the baptism cannot yet be given nor required.

Why would God be more merciful before Christ than after?