Yes, AgLiving, this is absolutely correct and one of many reasons Catholics have always baptized our babies. Circumcision brought infants into the Covenant with God - Baptism does the same.

In John 3 Jesus says that no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and spirit. There are multiple accounts in the NT of entire households being Baptized with no mention of excluding children.

Jesus said let the children come to me and wants all of us to have a childlike faith. Even Jesus himself made it a priority to be Baptized in the Jordan in order to fulfill all righteousness - He essentially commanded John to Baptize him due to the importance of it.

Some other OT foreshadowing/ Types of Baptism (not exhaustive):
1. the Jewish people crossed through the Jordan River coming into the promised land led by Joshua (who also placed 12 stones in the Jordan)
2. Moses and the crossing of the Red Sea being saved from their bondage in the first Exodus
3. Noah and the 8 being saved through the great flood in the Arc
4. The prophet Ezekiel speaks of baptism and the Sprinkling of the Holy Spirit

Pints with Aquinas is an interesting podcast.

It's a "pro-Roman Catholicism" podcast, but he does seem to bring on people who are quite good at casting doubt on things.

I was listening to his interview with Erick Ybarra while running and couldn't help but wonder if the conversation did not go the way he expected. The interview was supposed to be on why Roman Catholics should not become Eastern Orthodox, but it really seemed to make a case why not to be Roman Catholic.

I'll link to the website, but I listened to it on apple podcast.

Link: Interview

I was running, so having to go from memory on what I heard, but some things that stuck out at me were:

- The Christian Church has dealt with splits well before the great schism and some were arguably bigger.

- Won't find a consensus belief in the current form of the Pope. That didn't come until Vatican 1. You should be able to find some fathers who said things that could lay the groundwork, but it's not this widespread consensus.

- Unity within Roman Catholicism is largely centered around belief that the Pope is the head of the "Universal Christian Church." Some Eastern Catholics don't hold the Pope to the same level as the Western rite.

- His take on the filioque was weak. His basic argument was that while the Pope had the authority to do what he wants because he's the Pope. He tried to nuance out that the Nicene Creed couldn't be changed per se, but the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed could be changed.

- There was acknowledgement that Councils gave other Bishops more control over areas, but that did not change that the Pope has universal control (though he never really defends this claim).

- Not as much unity within Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodox as you might think. He went into a lot of infighting that goes on.

- He did speak very highly of Eastern Orthodox and went so far as to say that he wasn't opposed to people going there to "test it out." Said some come back because it wasn't what they thought, but others stay.


I'm sure there was a lot more I missed, but I thought it was interesting. In the end, I think his main point is that the primary reason to be Roman Catholic is the belief that the Pope is the head of the universal church. He doesn't really defend this claim and readily acknowledges that the role of Pope today is different than it was in ancient times, but doesn't seem concerned with it.

As a Protestant, I found myself agreeing with a lot of what he said, simply because a big claim of the Reformation was that the Christian Church was never as unified as has been claimed and the "consensus of faith" is less consensus than might be said.

I listened to that one myself, and there were a couple of points where Ybarra's logic fell short, one that you mention was where he said there could be unilateral change to something that was a fundamental principal of one of the critical councils that defined the Church. It's the age old doctrinal evolution question.

There was another point where he referred to something pretty critical as "tantamount to..", that is, his whole position was based on sketchy analogy, and it was a critical point of distinction with EO, probably the role of St. Peter.

He also didn't address how Peter's unique role among the apostles necessarily transferred to his successors in Rome, nor did he address how Peter himself didn't always have something that would be recognizable as headship when he was alive.

Matt Fradd seems like a pretty good dude, I don't think he always gives the people he disagrees with a fair shake, but he's open to good faith Christians of all stripes. He's not a SSPX type, exactly, but he definitely does not embrace the Vatican II changes at all and goes to a Byzantine Catholic church (in communion with Rome) himself.

That's one thing that I can't reconcile, if you're all in on the Pope in Rome being the one true infallible leader of God's unified Church on earth, why don't you worship as he expects you to worship? It's my (vastly oversimplified) understanding that he Byzantine rites are allowed by Rome on an exception basis so as to not break the traditions of an subset of worshipers that have been contiguous from the beginning in the Apostolic tradition and somewhat caught in the schism crossfire. But when they set up a few shops in the US, they become a "trad" alternative form of worship. This alternative is not SOP, but tolerated, and not endorsed by the rock upon which the Church is built.

If you're not following the directives of the main difference between the Church you follow and the alternative, aren't you actually closer to the alternative? You recognize the headship of the Pope, but prefer not to follow his directions, you're kind of ignoring his headship. But reaching back through history, there are entire centuries that you have to ignore the guy in the big chair in Rome if you don't want to come out the worse by the Magesterium's own standards. Who knows where you are at any one point.

I grew up going mostly to high Episcopal and Methodist churches, and I'm finding that it probably had more influence on me than I realized.

*Edit 3 - maybe that's predestination for you, am I now Calvinist?

chimpanzee said:

---

That's one thing that I can't reconcile, if you're all in on the Pope in Rome being the one true infallible leader of God's unified Church on earth, why don't you worship as he expects you to worship? It's my (vastly oversimplified) understanding that he Byzantine rites are allowed by Rome on an exception basis so as to not break the traditions of an subset of worshipers that have been contiguous from the beginning in the Apostolic tradition and somewhat caught in the schism crossfire. But when they set up a few shops in the US, they become a "trad" alternative form of worship. This alternative is not SOP, but tolerated, and not endorsed by the rock upon which the Church is built.

---

He did seem to say that there's a theme of eastern roman catholics essentially ignoring the pope, or maybe seeing him as having the authority of a Bishop, but not Papal level. It was odd because you're right. If the Pope is the head of the universal church and has authority over all, why does it seem they effectively dismiss him? He did go so far as to say that in those instances, they should probably leave roman catholicism for eastern orthodoxy.

bigcat22 said:

---

DirtDiver said:

---

Quote:

---

Would you say then that you believe in Sola Scriptura?

And, for reference, Sola Scriptura meaning that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.

---

Great questions. Let me dissect these a little.

1. One can hear the gospel message that God created the world, defines right and wrong, and we have sinned against God. God in his mercy sent His Son Jesus to die and rise again for payment for their sins. Once a person believes that Jesus did this for them, they are saved through their belief or faith in jesus.

One can do this without ever going to church, being baptized, or knowing there is such thing as a bible.
God saves through faith in Jesus.

2. Now Scripture is God's revelation of Himself to mankind, is true, and able to lead people to faith in Jesus.
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man or woman of God may be fully capable, equipped for every good work.

3. Scripture will not speak to every instance that we will experience in life as there are gray areas in which the conscious convincts. Romans 13 and 14. Example: eating food sacrificed to idols, celebrating with a christmas tree or on december 25th. Where there is no clear example in scripture there is freedom with the qualifier that we as believers in Jesus are not defiling our conscious.

The more we understand what the scriptures teach the more we understand the moral standards of God and where we have freedom.

If a church has a doctrine or teaching that doesn't align with the scriptures then we have false teaching. (ie a person receives the spirit at baptism vs belief.)

---

---

Who decided what writings were revealed by God and by what authority did they do that?

How do we decide when a teaching doesn't align with what is revealed in what has been determined to be Sacred Scripture?

To both question, the Holy Spirit. The one sent by the Father. The one that Jesus said would come at Pentecost.

AgLiving06 said:

---

chimpanzee said:

---

That's one thing that I can't reconcile, if you're all in on the Pope in Rome being the one true infallible leader of God's unified Church on earth, why don't you worship as he expects you to worship? It's my (vastly oversimplified) understanding that he Byzantine rites are allowed by Rome on an exception basis so as to not break the traditions of an subset of worshipers that have been contiguous from the beginning in the Apostolic tradition and somewhat caught in the schism crossfire. But when they set up a few shops in the US, they become a "trad" alternative form of worship. This alternative is not SOP, but tolerated, and not endorsed by the rock upon which the Church is built.

---

He did seem to say that there's a theme of eastern roman catholics essentially ignoring the pope, or maybe seeing him as having the authority of a Bishop, but not Papal level. It was odd because you're right. If the Pope is the head of the universal church and has authority over all, why does it seem they effectively dismiss him? He did go so far as to say that in those instances, they should probably leave roman catholicism for eastern orthodoxy.

---

Right, and I'm saying at some level, without saying anything offsides, folks go to a Byzantine rite church and some even have a lot of disdain for the way the Novus Ordo is often done. The heir of St. Peter, in an office that was divinely established (by Rome's account) to shepherd the one true Church is telling Catholics that the Byzantine and Tridentine masses are inferior, and they say by their actions that the Pope is wrong.

Edit to soften language a bit, it read like I was calling out Fradd or others that choice of worship, which I'm not, I subscribe to Pints w/ Aquinas and think he's doing good evangelization through it. I'm just hung up on the internal logic there.

I hear ya.

I subscribe to Pints as well. I don't always listen to every podcast, but this one caught my eye.

He's a good honest dude. Probably not the strongest apologist/podcaster out there, but I do like his laid back style for interviewing and debates (maybe it's the beer haha).

AgLiving06 said:

---

To both question, the Holy Spirit. The one sent by the Father. The one that Jesus said would come at Pentecost.

---

Thanks.

I don't think you have answered either question.

Regarding the real presence...

Hey y'all... been busy with life, happy New Year! Just giving my $0.02 cents on a couple of topics raised.


+++

"I'm no fan of contemporary worship, but.. man, every time I see a post like this, I think of the number of Catholic churches I've been to that are just historic landmarks and museums now." - swimmerbabe11

+++

I'm a fan of Rebecca St. James, DC-Talk, Newsboys, and Michael W. Smith to name a few. Actually saw several of these talented artist in concert (back in the day) and can say without a doubt that God has blessed them with incredible musical talents.

However, I recognize their talents as more of a form of musical "praise" and not so much a form of worship. For me, worship, is more of a ritual that transcends time and place. I do believe the older institutions have honed this into the various "rites" that are offered around the world. Growing up a Catholic, we used a phrase, "Smells and Bells" to capture the idea.

The repetition of prayers, the solemn chants, the standing, the kneeling, bowing during the prayers, and readings from the bible - are a treasure to behold! When I was a youth, I didn't quite get it - it was boring, I would tell my mom. I too wanted a little more excitement, maybe some newer music? Maybe some cool PowerPoint instead of a 15 minute homily? I kept thinking that I wasn't getting anything from this 1 hour or so every Sunday. A waste of my time.

It wasn't until much later, like 20+ years or so, that I began to understand that the mass was not for me "to get" something out of, rather, it was a time for me to give thanks to our Lord and "put something in" - namely my trials and tribulation onto the altar. It is in this context then, that the mass became real and transcendent. I began to understand the prayers, the words of our Lord, and the eucharist in a whole new light.

+++

On a lighter note, we do have what is called a Life Teen Mass as part of our Religious Education program on certain Sundays. At this mass, you will hear some Newsboys and Marty Haugen (I like his music!).

+pablo

XUSCR said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

To both question, the Holy Spirit. The one sent by the Father. The one that Jesus said would come at Pentecost.

---

Thanks.

I don't think you have answered either question.

---

Sure I did.

The Church does not unilaterally decide what canon was revealed by God. The Church receives the canon as it has been given to us from the Prophets through the Apostles. All of which was guided by God.

Second, and this is really the crux of it all, the Church doesn't just decide what the correct teaching of the Scriptures are. The Scriptures do, which again is guided by God.

For example, the two natures of Christ aren't correct because the Council of Chalcedon says it's correct. It's correct because it was always correct in the Scriptures. However, mankind is sinful and fallen and this means that scriptural interpretation can be incorrect, either partially or fully. Our pride and arrogance gets in the way of productive pathways to reconciling because everyone is more terrified they are wrong than they are right.

AgLiving06 said:

---

XUSCR said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

To both question, the Holy Spirit. The one sent by the Father. The one that Jesus said would come at Pentecost.

---

Thanks.

I don't think you have answered either question.

---

Sure I did.

The Church does not unilaterally decide what canon was revealed by God. The Church receives the canon as it has been given to us from the Prophets through the Apostles. All of which was guided by God.

Second, and this is really the crux of it all, the Church doesn't just decide what the correct teaching of the Scriptures are. The Scriptures do, which again is guided by God.

For example, the two natures of Christ aren't correct because the Council of Chalcedon says it's correct. It's correct because it was always correct in the Scriptures. However, mankind is sinful and fallen and this means that scriptural interpretation can be incorrect, either partially or fully. Our pride and arrogance gets in the way of productive pathways to reconciling because everyone is more terrified they are wrong than they are right.

---

You still haven't answered either question. You're either being intentionally obtuse or you don't understand the question. From your other posts you are clearly intelligent and understand. I can only conclude that you realize the logical answers to both questions and just don't like them.

I have answered both, twice.

The issue, as is always the issue with Roman Catholics, is you want to downplay God in favor of man. You desire for many to have a synergistic role in everything.

So you want me to say that man decided the books of the Bible, but that would be as incorrect as when the crowds try to say that it was Moses who gave them manna. How did Jesus respond?

John 6: 30-33

"30 So they asked him, "What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'[c]"

32 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."


So it's not man that gave us Scriptures or decided right/wrong, but God who gave us His word.

------------------------------

The same holds with Scriptural interpretation. Man is not over the Scriptures. Popes or the Magisterium or Councils don't dictate right or wrong. Their teaching is only correct when it aligns with Scripture. When it doesn't, it's a false teaching.

I'll then point back to my example of two natures of Christ as an example of what I just said.
--------------------------------

I don't plan to respond a 4th time just because you don't like my answers.

Zobel said:

---

Scripture comes from God, you know, hand wavy stuff, a few centuries, yadda yadda yadda, and we have a Bible that's infallible that we can judge teaching against.

---

By infallible Bible, surely you mean the 1611 KJV, right? There was no Bible before then.

Thank you all for the discussion. I will be adding to this thread periodically, a bit randomly.

Briefly, this "meta" issue....do we really think the Bible came to us as the Koran supposedly did? From God directly to a scribe? Muslims view the text literally as the "word."

For the first 1,500 years of our religion, that simply wasn't the case, not at all. The canon, instead, was the difficult product of 3 centuries of debates, from councils, mostly from Rome and Anatolia.

Therefore, the Apostolic Church came first, and the Bible (holy and inspired!) is its literal product.

It is historically the case. An open and shut case.

One thing that's always confused me regarding canon issues is that Jesus held the priests at the temple accountable for what was written in Isaiah and 2nd Chronicles. So how did the believing Jewish man know those two books were Scripture, 50 years before Christ's birth?

Right. We even know that the Torah was a product of time, it was assembled, edited and translated and updated over time, sort of glommed onto in some places. So what is the "real" Torah? What Moses wrote directly himself? What we have today? Who decides? Who decided? In other words even the Pentateuch is a Tradition, with Mosaic origins, maintained in a tradition of faith.

It's easy to hand wave and say, well God acted and so what we have was His will. It doesn't solve any difficulties between translations, differences in canon, or interpretation of those texts. And it doesn't address the fact that the development of the canon was something that did happen over time, that is a matter of historical inquiry. But it is simple.

It is indisputable that Enoch was read and known by the houses of worship where Jesus preached as he traveled.

We know this because St. Jude quotes it directly.

So, who decided it was not in the canon?

Zobel said:

---

Scripture comes from God, you know, hand wavy stuff, a few centuries, yadda yadda yadda, and we have a Bible that's infallible that we can judge teaching against.

---

Hey...just seeing a Catholic or Orthodox person acknowledge Scripture comes from God is a win in my book.

Redstone said:

---

Thank you all for the discussion. I will be adding to this thread periodically, a bit randomly.

Briefly, this "meta" issue....do we really think the Bible came to us as the Koran supposedly did? From God directly to a scribe? Muslims view the text literally as the "word."

For the first 1,500 years of our religion, that simply wasn't the case, not at all. The canon, instead, was the difficult product of 3 centuries of debates, from councils, mostly from Rome and Anatolia.

Therefore, the Apostolic Church came first, and the Bible (holy and inspired!) is its literal product.

It is historically the case. An open and shut case.

---

Just as long as we ignore the Old Testament of course...

Where has anyone ever denied that? Silly.

Zobel said:

---

Where has anyone ever denied that? Silly.

---

I just assumed because of the smile face you gave and your response that we were just going to give the worst take possible of the other persons theology.

I don't understand this comment. The Old Testament is as much a product of tradition as the New Testament canon. From the point of view of clarity about what is and isnt scripture it's "worse" for your argument, not better.

This is a fantastic argument against a claim that nobody has made that I'm aware of.

I'm sure somewhere out there, someone is claiming that God put the writers in a trance and had them scribe exactly what He wanted....but that's not going to be the mainstream claim.

My claim is going to be pretty simple. The Scriptures are the inerrant Word of God (which Redstone does not agree with on page 1). That's not a claim that there was a uniform writing style, nor that we even know who all the writers are (Hebrews for example). I'm not even going to claim that these writers necessarily understood the gravity of what they were doing. However, through these writers, God delivered to us something that is necessarily without error. Any other conclusion means that the book is on par with every other book created by man.

I was just messing with Redstone.

Among Redstones claim is "Therefore, the Apostolic Church came first, and the Bible (holy and inspired!) is its literal product. "

That doesn't work for the OT which preceded the Roman Catholic Church, which is also not THE Apostolic Church, but that's a different discussion.

Of course it works for the OT.

Christ is the fulfillment of the OT promises. Christians, especially those who worship in the Sacraments, the Source and Summit of Christian life according to the Catechism, are the people Israel. Adam was the first priest of this Sacramental promise - the first Man, and Christ the New Adam, the Son of Man.

By this logic, the people Israel, the monotheists with prophets, decided the canon - including Enoch, at the time. Later.... the Church decided Enoch was out.

Regardless, the Church debated and decided.

I strongly recommend David Bentley Hart's New Testament translation (he is Orthodox, a scholar of Koine Greek at Notre Dame).

Our concept of "author" goes back 400 or so years.

For a very long time, it was not like we understand. At all. For example.... St. John writing his Gospel meant several things, all at once:

he wrote
a follower wrote
someone edited
"school of" St. John wrote / edited

This is true throughout the NT, with the very notable exception of St. Paul - and even then - some of this.

So....who decided?

Would it be fair to say the church was the vessel through which God compiled the canon?

Quote:

---

I was just messing with Redstone.

Among Redstones claim is "Therefore, the Apostolic Church came first, and the Bible (holy and inspired!) is its literal product. "

That doesn't work for the OT which preceded the Roman Catholic Church, which is also not THE Apostolic Church, but that's a different discussion.

---

The New Testament Church is the fulfillment of the Old Testament Church. They are one in the same really. Without the OT Church we would not have the NT Church. Without the OT how could we understand or believe that all Jesus did was to fulfill the OT prophesies.

This is a confusing position to me as both the OT and NT belong to Salvation History and to the Church. We can discuss the Roman Catholic Church 's case for her claim as The Apostolic NT Church in a different discussion, but to say that the OT preceded the Church is a bit of a foreign perspective to me.