OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 25, 2014, 07:29:05 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: questions from a catholic for the eastern orthodox  (Read 4346 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« on: March 24, 2013, 11:52:05 AM »

question 1
I have to go to a baptism at a greek orthodox church, my niece is 7 months old, my question is why do you wait so long to get your babies baptized, do you believe in infant baptism? If yes why not get baptized like the catholics shuld do within the 1st month. Catholics believe if a bay perished before getting baptized he can not go to heaven, do the orthodox believe the same thing? I know you get the baby anointed or something early on, but this surely can't replace the baptism? what is the point?

Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 24, 2013, 11:57:00 AM »

my question is why do you wait so long to get your babies baptized,

I was baptised when I was 2-day-old. Most people baptise their kids around 40th day. I agree 7 months is much.

Quote
do you believe in infant baptism?

Yes, as well as in infant chrismation and Communion. Just as the ancient Church did.

Quote
Catholics believe if a bay perished before getting baptized he can not go to heaven, do the orthodox believe the same thing?

No.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2013, 11:59:58 AM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #2 on: March 24, 2013, 11:57:40 AM »

question 1
I have to go to a baptism at a greek orthodox church, my niece is 7 months old, my question is why do you wait so long to get your babies baptized, do you believe in infant baptism?

Do you think that the Orthodox Church doesn't think that 7 months old children aren't infants? That would answer your question.

If yes why not get baptized like the catholics shuld do within the 1st month. Catholics believe if a bay perished before getting baptized he can not go to heaven, do the orthodox believe the same thing? I know you get the baby anointed or something early on, but this surely can't replace the baptism? what is the point?

40 days is just the traditional date. Baptism is the new circumcision and all that.


« Last Edit: March 24, 2013, 11:59:16 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,159


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #3 on: March 24, 2013, 06:04:48 PM »

question 1
I have to go to a baptism at a greek orthodox church, my niece is 7 months old, my question is why do you wait so long to get your babies baptized, do you believe in infant baptism? If yes why not get baptized like the catholics shuld do within the 1st month. Catholics believe if a bay perished before getting baptized he can not go to heaven, do the orthodox believe the same thing? I know you get the baby anointed or something early on, but this surely can't replace the baptism? what is the point?



In my experience, Russians and most other Slavs baptize their babies as early as possible (within a month or two from birth). Greeks, for all sorts of social reasons which have nothing to do with religious practice, tend to baptize them later. However, all Orthodox practice infant baptism where possible.

The only "anointing early on" I've heard of is the chrismation which is part of the baptismal service. I've never heard of an earlier, separate anointing.
Logged
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #4 on: March 24, 2013, 06:16:28 PM »

Baptisms are a big deal in Greek culture, and probably bigger than most Western weddings in terms of number of guests. Like weddings, they take a long time to arrange, which is why it is not uncommon for children to be quite old before the parents finally get around to doing the baptism.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #5 on: March 24, 2013, 06:25:54 PM »

question 1
I have to go to a baptism at a greek orthodox church, my niece is 7 months old, my question is why do you wait so long to get your babies baptized, do you believe in infant baptism? If yes why not get baptized like the catholics shuld do within the 1st month. Catholics believe if a bay perished before getting baptized he can not go to heaven, do the orthodox believe the same thing? I know you get the baby anointed or something early on, but this surely can't replace the baptism? what is the point?



In my experience, Russians and most other Slavs baptize their babies as early as possible (within a month or two from birth). Greeks, for all sorts of social reasons which have nothing to do with religious practice, tend to baptize them later. However, all Orthodox practice infant baptism where possible.

The only "anointing early on" I've heard of is the chrismation which is part of the baptismal service. I've never heard of an earlier, separate anointing.

Well, there's the anointing with the oil of gladness, but that's part of the baptism service. There may be anointings with holy oil prior to baptism and chrismation, but those anointings can happen at any time.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #6 on: March 24, 2013, 06:32:50 PM »

question 1
I have to go to a baptism at a greek orthodox church, my niece is 7 months old, my question is why do you wait so long to get your babies baptized, do you believe in infant baptism? If yes why not get baptized like the catholics shuld do within the 1st month. Catholics believe if a bay perished before getting baptized he can not go to heaven, do the orthodox believe the same thing? I know you get the baby anointed or something early on, but this surely can't replace the baptism? what is the point?



In my experience, Russians and most other Slavs baptize their babies as early as possible (within a month or two from birth). Greeks, for all sorts of social reasons which have nothing to do with religious practice, tend to baptize them later. However, all Orthodox practice infant baptism where possible.

The only "anointing early on" I've heard of is the chrismation which is part of the baptismal service. I've never heard of an earlier, separate anointing.

Well, there's the anointing with the oil of gladness, but that's part of the baptism service. There may be anointings with holy oil prior to baptism and chrismation, but those anointings can happen at any time.

I believe there's an anointing done at the birth of the child, both for mother and baby. Though, I've never witnessed this first hand and I can't say for sure, it seems like I remember mention of this being done.
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,159


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #7 on: March 24, 2013, 06:39:22 PM »

question 1
I have to go to a baptism at a greek orthodox church, my niece is 7 months old, my question is why do you wait so long to get your babies baptized, do you believe in infant baptism? If yes why not get baptized like the catholics shuld do within the 1st month. Catholics believe if a bay perished before getting baptized he can not go to heaven, do the orthodox believe the same thing? I know you get the baby anointed or something early on, but this surely can't replace the baptism? what is the point?



In my experience, Russians and most other Slavs baptize their babies as early as possible (within a month or two from birth). Greeks, for all sorts of social reasons which have nothing to do with religious practice, tend to baptize them later. However, all Orthodox practice infant baptism where possible.

The only "anointing early on" I've heard of is the chrismation which is part of the baptismal service. I've never heard of an earlier, separate anointing.

Well, there's the anointing with the oil of gladness, but that's part of the baptism service. There may be anointings with holy oil prior to baptism and chrismation, but those anointings can happen at any time.

I believe there's an anointing done at the birth of the child, both for mother and baby. Though, I've never witnessed this first hand and I can't say for sure, it seems like I remember mention of this being done.

According to the Book of Needs, there is no mention of any anointing of either mother or child at the prayers after birth, the prayers at the eighth day after birth, nor the churching of the child at 40 days (whether the churching occurs before or after baptism). The priest lays his hands on them, and makes the sign of the cross over them, but there is no anointing.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 24, 2013, 06:42:20 PM »

We use holy water at the 40th day.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #9 on: March 24, 2013, 06:48:55 PM »

question 1
I have to go to a baptism at a greek orthodox church, my niece is 7 months old, my question is why do you wait so long to get your babies baptized, do you believe in infant baptism? If yes why not get baptized like the catholics shuld do within the 1st month. Catholics believe if a bay perished before getting baptized he can not go to heaven, do the orthodox believe the same thing? I know you get the baby anointed or something early on, but this surely can't replace the baptism? what is the point?



In my experience, Russians and most other Slavs baptize their babies as early as possible (within a month or two from birth). Greeks, for all sorts of social reasons which have nothing to do with religious practice, tend to baptize them later. However, all Orthodox practice infant baptism where possible.

The only "anointing early on" I've heard of is the chrismation which is part of the baptismal service. I've never heard of an earlier, separate anointing.

Well, there's the anointing with the oil of gladness, but that's part of the baptism service. There may be anointings with holy oil prior to baptism and chrismation, but those anointings can happen at any time.

I believe there's an anointing done at the birth of the child, both for mother and baby. Though, I've never witnessed this first hand and I can't say for sure, it seems like I remember mention of this being done.

According to the Book of Needs, there is no mention of any anointing of either mother or child at the prayers after birth, the prayers at the eighth day after birth, nor the churching of the child at 40 days (whether the churching occurs before or after baptism). The priest lays his hands on them, and makes the sign of the cross over them, but there is no anointing.

I suppose I stand corrected then. I wonder if there's something else I'm thinking of and getting confused...
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #10 on: March 24, 2013, 07:30:59 PM »

question 1
I have to go to a baptism at a greek orthodox church, my niece is 7 months old, my question is why do you wait so long to get your babies baptized, do you believe in infant baptism? If yes why not get baptized like the catholics shuld do within the 1st month. Catholics believe if a bay perished before getting baptized he can not go to heaven, do the orthodox believe the same thing? I know you get the baby anointed or something early on, but this surely can't replace the baptism? what is the point?

If we don't believe in infant baptism, why is this Greek Orthodox Church baptizing someone at 7 months old?

As per some standards out there, the infant becomes a toddler at 12 months.

Anyone following age old Orthodox tradition would have started prayers for the infant on the first day.  I believe it was the midwife who should go to church the day following birth for the prayers.  Then on day 3 the mother and infant comes to church to be blessed at the door and to give the name of the baby.

Many Catholics postpone baptism, FYI.
Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,078


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #11 on: March 24, 2013, 10:14:00 PM »

question 1
I have to go to a baptism at a greek orthodox church, my niece is 7 months old, my question is why do you wait so long to get your babies baptized, do you believe in infant baptism? If yes why not get baptized like the catholics shuld do within the 1st month. Catholics believe if a bay perished before getting baptized he can not go to heaven, do the orthodox believe the same thing? I know you get the baby anointed or something early on, but this surely can't replace the baptism? what is the point?



We Orthodox believe that an infant can get to heaven without Baptism simply because we don't believe in Original Sin in the same context as the RCC does.  This 'stain' of Adam which you believe to be eliminated at your Baptism is non existent in our faith.  We do believe that all men are subject to death as the result of Adams sin of disobedience.  We don't believe in Purgatory or Limbo as such but we do believe that all those who are Baptized and have 'reached the age' ie who can tell the difference between good and evil, and die do enter a state whereby we await final judgement.  We soley rely on the Mercy of God and the prayers of intercession by the faithful not yet dead to help those who have gone on.

Orthodoxy teaches that, after the soul leaves the body, it journeys to the abode of the dead (Hades). There are exceptions, such as the Theotokos, who was borne by the angels directly into heaven. As for the rest, we must remain in this condition of waiting. Because some have a prevision of the glory to come and others foretaste their suffering, the state of waiting is called "Particular Judgment."

When Christ returns, the soul rejoins its risen body to be judged by Him. The "good and faithful servant" will inherit eternal life, the unfaithful with the unbeliever will spend eternity in hell. Their sins and their unbelief will torture them as fire.

The Orthodox Church links Baptism, Chrismation and Holy Communion, first the threefold immersion into sanctified water, the "new Christian" rising from the water into the fellowship of the Holy Spirit which leads to union with God. Such is the purpose of membership in the Church.

What explains the Righteous Enoch and Elijiah taken Bodily into heaven and are awaiting the great Tribulation?
« Last Edit: March 24, 2013, 10:19:33 PM by JoeS2 » Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,261



« Reply #12 on: March 24, 2013, 10:16:57 PM »

If yes why not get baptized like the catholics shuld do within the 1st month. Catholics believe if a bay perished before getting baptized he can not go to heaven,

If the situation is so crucial then why don't Catholics baptize babies the same day they're born, especially if sprinkling/whatever is an option?
Logged

Optimist: Throw enough ideas at the wall and one is bound to stick.
Pessimist: Throw enough poo at the wall and the room is bound to stink.
Realist: You don't really need to throw things at walls to solve problems.
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #13 on: March 24, 2013, 10:33:03 PM »

If yes why not get baptized like the catholics shuld do within the 1st month. Catholics believe if a bay perished before getting baptized he can not go to heaven,

If the situation is so crucial then why don't Catholics baptize babies the same day they're born, especially if sprinkling/whatever is an option?

There's a Canon Law that forbids baptisms in hospitals except in cases of necessity.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,261



« Reply #14 on: March 24, 2013, 10:38:10 PM »

If yes why not get baptized like the catholics shuld do within the 1st month. Catholics believe if a bay perished before getting baptized he can not go to heaven,

If the situation is so crucial then why don't Catholics baptize babies the same day they're born, especially if sprinkling/whatever is an option?

There's a Canon Law that forbids baptisms in hospitals except in cases of necessity.

Avoiding going to hell seems like necessity to me... but supposing such a dumb law was followed, why not insist on every baby being baptized the first day out of the hospital? Hell seems like a pretty crappy place to spend eternity, how can anyone justify such laziness as waiting a few weeks? Sickening...
Logged

Optimist: Throw enough ideas at the wall and one is bound to stick.
Pessimist: Throw enough poo at the wall and the room is bound to stink.
Realist: You don't really need to throw things at walls to solve problems.
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #15 on: March 24, 2013, 10:49:10 PM »

If yes why not get baptized like the catholics shuld do within the 1st month. Catholics believe if a bay perished before getting baptized he can not go to heaven,

If the situation is so crucial then why don't Catholics baptize babies the same day they're born, especially if sprinkling/whatever is an option?

There's a Canon Law that forbids baptisms in hospitals except in cases of necessity.

Avoiding going to hell seems like necessity to me... but supposing such a dumb law was followed, why not insist on every baby being baptized the first day out of the hospital? Hell seems like a pretty crappy place to spend eternity, how can anyone justify such laziness as waiting a few weeks? Sickening...

Some people actually do that.  I guess the only other issue is scheduling the baptism with the parish, which usually should be done weeks, if not months ahead.  You tend to schedule about a month from the due date just in case the baby is overdue.  But if the baby is born early, then there's a longer wait.
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #16 on: March 24, 2013, 11:27:11 PM »

thanks for the replies, I believe it's clear from the bible the Catholic teaching is the correct one, baptism should be done asap, 1 month is the latest
In the very last INSTRUCTION THAT JESUS CHRIST GIVES THE APOSTLES BEFORE LEAVING THIS WORLD – He gives His Apostles two commands: to teach all nations and to baptize.  This should tell everyone something about the importance and the necessity of baptism.  Baptism is bound up, by Jesus Himself, with the very command to teach all nations the Christian faith.  That’s because no one can be saved without it, as we see in St. Mark’s Gospel.

 

Mark 16:15-16- “And he (Jesus) said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be damned.”

 

Jesus says that those who believe and are baptized will be saved, which indicates that the unbaptized will not be saved.  But some ask: why didn’t Jesus say, “he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned,” after saying he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved?  The answer is that those who don’t believe are not going to get baptized, so it’s not necessary to mention baptism again.

 1 Peter 3:20-21- “… when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.  Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also…”
In the Shepherd of Hermas, dated 140 A.D., Hermas quotes Jesus in John 3:5 and writes:

 

“They had need to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:92.)

You can not enter the kingdom of God unless you are baptised, let me know how the Catholic church can be wrong using the bible.
Logged
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,027



« Reply #17 on: March 24, 2013, 11:39:02 PM »

to put it in roman catholic terms the person being baptized will also receive confirmation and first holy communion together. 
Logged

username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,027



« Reply #18 on: March 24, 2013, 11:40:08 PM »

if you all want to discuss the particulars of where a baby goes if he is unbaptized please start another thread.  Stay on topic please.  username! section moderator
Logged

Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #19 on: March 25, 2013, 04:24:07 AM »

thanks for the replies, I believe it's clear from the bible the Catholic teaching is the correct one, baptism should be done asap, 1 month is the latest

But that's just local Latin tradition (small-t). The Eastern Catholics have the same practice. There's no need in Latinising us.
Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #20 on: March 25, 2013, 04:56:57 AM »

thanks for the replies, I believe it's clear from the bible the Catholic teaching is the correct one, baptism should be done asap, 1 month is the latest
In the very last INSTRUCTION THAT JESUS CHRIST GIVES THE APOSTLES BEFORE LEAVING THIS WORLD – He gives His Apostles two commands: to teach all nations and to baptize.  This should tell everyone something about the importance and the necessity of baptism.  Baptism is bound up, by Jesus Himself, with the very command to teach all nations the Christian faith.  That’s because no one can be saved without it, as we see in St. Mark’s Gospel.

 

Mark 16:15-16- “And he (Jesus) said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be damned.”

 

Jesus says that those who believe and are baptized will be saved, which indicates that the unbaptized will not be saved.  But some ask: why didn’t Jesus say, “he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned,” after saying he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved?  The answer is that those who don’t believe are not going to get baptized, so it’s not necessary to mention baptism again.

 1 Peter 3:20-21- “… when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.  Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also…”
In the Shepherd of Hermas, dated 140 A.D., Hermas quotes Jesus in John 3:5 and writes:

 

“They had need to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:92.)

You can not enter the kingdom of God unless you are baptised, let me know how the Catholic church can be wrong using the bible.

If it was as clear cut as that, you'd be condemning the Good Thief to hell and calling Christ a liar.

James
« Last Edit: March 25, 2013, 04:57:14 AM by jmbejdl » Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,261



« Reply #21 on: March 25, 2013, 05:14:52 AM »

Some people actually do that.  I guess the only other issue is scheduling the baptism with the parish, which usually should be done weeks, if not months ahead.  You tend to schedule about a month from the due date just in case the baby is overdue.  But if the baby is born early, then there's a longer wait.

So some babies go to hell because the priest isn't willing to do things in a more timely manner?

Do you see the point I am trying to make?

Catholics don't believe this stuff. They can't. No one would put off a life-saving treatment for their infant for a month just because of convenience. Now imagine the idea that your baby couldn't go to heaven if you acted quickly enough. If things really were as serious as all that then it would be done ASAP.

This is another example of the "abortion is murder" stuff. People use the words, but their actions show that they don't really believe what they say.

Now, perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps someone really does believe that an unbaptized baby cannot be saved, and they also believe it's perfectly fine to wait weeks (or longer) to baptize. In that case I apologize for not believing them. They aren't lying or exaggerating, they're just delusional and disgusting.
Logged

Optimist: Throw enough ideas at the wall and one is bound to stick.
Pessimist: Throw enough poo at the wall and the room is bound to stink.
Realist: You don't really need to throw things at walls to solve problems.
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 3,949


Tending Brigid's flame


« Reply #22 on: March 25, 2013, 05:31:43 AM »

The Orthodox Church also acknowledges an 'air baptism' or 'baptism of necessity', which any layman or woman can perform if a baby's life is in immediate danger.
Logged

'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,078


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #23 on: March 25, 2013, 09:06:38 AM »

The Orthodox Church also acknowledges an 'air baptism' or 'baptism of necessity', which any layman or woman can perform if a baby's life is in immediate danger.


Bottom line: Orthodox and RC's do not view Baptism in quite the same way...
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #24 on: March 25, 2013, 10:52:06 AM »

Some people actually do that.  I guess the only other issue is scheduling the baptism with the parish, which usually should be done weeks, if not months ahead.  You tend to schedule about a month from the due date just in case the baby is overdue.  But if the baby is born early, then there's a longer wait.

So some babies go to hell because the priest isn't willing to do things in a more timely manner?

Do you see the point I am trying to make?

Catholics don't believe this stuff. They can't. No one would put off a life-saving treatment for their infant for a month just because of convenience. Now imagine the idea that your baby couldn't go to heaven if you acted quickly enough. If things really were as serious as all that then it would be done ASAP.

This is another example of the "abortion is murder" stuff. People use the words, but their actions show that they don't really believe what they say.

Now, perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps someone really does believe that an unbaptized baby cannot be saved, and they also believe it's perfectly fine to wait weeks (or longer) to baptize. In that case I apologize for not believing them. They aren't lying or exaggerating, they're just delusional and disgusting.

Even though I was a catechist in the Roman Catholic Church not too long ago, you're asking the wrong person here now. If you have issues with Roman Catholic faith, I suggest you talk to a priest of bishop from that Church, not a lay "apostate" Wink

And on a side note to your side note, abortion is murder regardless of what people are willing to do about it.  Just because we do not satisfy your personal opinion on what qualifies to be murder or not does not change the fact.  How sedevacantist related the belief of baptism in the Roman Catholic Church is what is actually taught.  Note that lay people are allowed to baptize in cases of necessity.  So if a baby is dying before the appointed time of baptism in the church, then the parent or anyone (including atheists and heretics) can baptize the baby.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #25 on: March 25, 2013, 11:09:51 AM »

question 1
Catholics believe if a bay perished before getting baptized he can not go to heaven, do the orthodox believe the same thing?
Stop misrepresenting the Catholic faith.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #26 on: March 25, 2013, 11:09:51 AM »

question 1
I have to go to a baptism at a greek orthodox church, my niece is 7 months old, my question is why do you wait so long to get your babies baptized, do you believe in infant baptism? If yes why not get baptized like the catholics shuld do within the 1st month. Catholics believe if a bay perished before getting baptized he can not go to heaven, do the orthodox believe the same thing? I know you get the baby anointed or something early on, but this surely can't replace the baptism? what is the point?

If we don't believe in infant baptism, why is this Greek Orthodox Church baptizing someone at 7 months old?

As per some standards out there, the infant becomes a toddler at 12 months.

Anyone following age old Orthodox tradition would have started prayers for the infant on the first day.  I believe it was the midwife who should go to church the day following birth for the prayers.  Then on day 3 the mother and infant comes to church to be blessed at the door and to give the name of the baby.

Many Catholics postpone baptism, FYI.
Many of them being Church Fathers.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,018


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #27 on: March 25, 2013, 11:09:58 AM »

thanks for the replies, I believe it's clear from the bible the Catholic teaching is the correct one, baptism should be done asap, 1 month is the latest
In the very last INSTRUCTION THAT JESUS CHRIST GIVES THE APOSTLES BEFORE LEAVING THIS WORLD – He gives His Apostles two commands: to teach all nations and to baptize.  This should tell everyone something about the importance and the necessity of baptism.  Baptism is bound up, by Jesus Himself, with the very command to teach all nations the Christian faith.  That’s because no one can be saved without it, as we see in St. Mark’s Gospel.

 

Mark 16:15-16- “And he (Jesus) said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be damned.”

 

Jesus says that those who believe and are baptized will be saved, which indicates that the unbaptized will not be saved.  But some ask: why didn’t Jesus say, “he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned,” after saying he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved?  The answer is that those sho don’t believe are not going to get baptized, so it’s not necessary to mention baptism again.

 1 Peter 3:20-21- “… when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.  Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also…”
In the Shepherd of Hermas, dated 140 A.D., Hermas quotes Jesus in John 3:5 and writes:

 

“They had need to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:92.)

You can not enter the kingdom of God unless you are baptised, let me know how the Catholic church can be wrong using the bible.

If it was as clear cut as that, you'd be condemning the Good Thief to hell and calling Christ a liar.

James

In addition, it is the teaching of the Roman and Orthodox churches that Christ descended into Hades and loosed the bonds of hell. St. Thomas Aquinas addresses this in his Summa (albeit in terms not entirely consistent with Orthodox patristics): "Directly Christ died His soul went down into hell, and bestowed the fruits of His Passion on the saints detained there; although they did not go out as long as Christ remained in hell, because His presence was part of the fulness of their glory."
 http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4052.htm
Logged
Orest
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 924


« Reply #28 on: March 25, 2013, 11:30:51 AM »

question 1
I have to go to a baptism at a greek orthodox church, my niece is 7 months old, my question is why do you wait so long to get your babies baptized, do you believe in infant baptism? If yes why not get baptized like the catholics shuld do within the 1st month. Catholics believe if a bay perished before getting baptized he can not go to heaven, do the orthodox believe the same thing? I know you get the baby anointed or something early on, but this surely can't replace the baptism? what is the point?



 

In my experience, Russians and most other Slavs baptize their babies as early as possible (within a month or two from birth). Greeks, for all sorts of social reasons which have nothing to do with religious practice, tend to baptize them later. However, all Orthodox practice infant baptism where possible.

The only "anointing early on" I've heard of is the chrismation which is part of the baptismal service. I've never heard of an earlier, separate anointing.




[/quote]

No historically in Russia babies did not get baptised before 6 months in Winter.  I mean the water in the baptistry was frozen!  It was considered too cold to take the baby to church.





Logged
lovesupreme
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 734


Out of This World


« Reply #29 on: March 25, 2013, 02:01:56 PM »

let me know how the Catholic church can be wrong using the bible.

Well, okay...

In the Bible there are no popes or priests to rule over the church. Jesus Christ is our High Priest (Heb. 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:5; 8:1; 9:11), and all true Christians make up a spiritual priesthood (I Pet. 2:5). Jesus Christ has sanctified all Christians who believe on Him (Heb. 10:10-11), so all priests today are unnecessary and unscriptural. Furthermore, the practice of calling a priest "father" is forbidden by Jesus Christ in Matthew 23:9. There is only ONE mediator between God and men (I Tim. 2:5).

...

The Catholic Church teaches that the "Holy Mass" is a LITERAL EATING AND DRINKING OF THE LITERAL FLESH AND BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST. The priest supposedly has the power to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.

Now, what does God's word say about such practices? If you'll read Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:11-12, and Acts 15:29, you will find that God absolutely FORBIDS the drinking of blood all through the Bible.

...

Exodus 20:4-5 says, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me."

...

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Eph. 2:8-9)

...

 "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Romans 4:5)

Ah yes, the Bible: THE final mediator between Orthodox-Catholic disputes.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2013, 02:03:00 PM by lovesupreme » Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,078


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #30 on: March 25, 2013, 03:46:34 PM »

Babies who die go to Hell? How absurd! Angry
« Last Edit: March 25, 2013, 03:47:31 PM by JoeS2 » Logged
mabsoota
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 2,417


Kyrie eleison


« Reply #31 on: March 25, 2013, 04:07:07 PM »

I believe there's an anointing done at the birth of the child, both for mother and baby. Though, I've never witnessed this first hand and I can't say for sure, it seems like I remember mention of this being done.

i know you asked for eastern orthodox opinions, but maybe there is a separate service for new babies like there is in the coptic church.

i went to the one for my friend's baby, it was at 8 days, where the baby gets it's (traditionally) first wash and gets named and prayed for by the priest, who comes to the house, and prays for the parents and the baby. i didn't find any information about it in english, and my arabic is rubbish, so i don't know more about it currently. close friends and family are invited to attend; it is a small gathering. after this, everyone has food (food accompanies all egyptian traditions!)  Smiley

it is not baptism nor chrismation, this happens (in coptic church) on (or after, if the exact date is not convenient) 40 days for a boy and 80 days for a girl. mum and baby are not expected to go to church before this (gives them chance to rest), although many do, they just don't take Holy Communion.
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #32 on: March 25, 2013, 11:06:15 PM »

thanks for the replies, I believe it's clear from the bible the Catholic teaching is the correct one, baptism should be done asap, 1 month is the latest
In the very last INSTRUCTION THAT JESUS CHRIST GIVES THE APOSTLES BEFORE LEAVING THIS WORLD – He gives His Apostles two commands: to teach all nations and to baptize.  This should tell everyone something about the importance and the necessity of baptism.  Baptism is bound up, by Jesus Himself, with the very command to teach all nations the Christian faith.  That’s because no one can be saved without it, as we see in St. Mark’s Gospel.

 

Mark 16:15-16- “And he (Jesus) said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be damned.”

 

Jesus says that those who believe and are baptized will be saved, which indicates that the unbaptized will not be saved.  But some ask: why didn’t Jesus say, “he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned,” after saying he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved?  The answer is that those who don’t believe are not going to get baptized, so it’s not necessary to mention baptism again.

 1 Peter 3:20-21- “… when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.  Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also…”
In the Shepherd of Hermas, dated 140 A.D., Hermas quotes Jesus in John 3:5 and writes:

 

“They had need to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:92.)

You can not enter the kingdom of God unless you are baptised, let me know how the Catholic church can be wrong using the bible.

If it was as clear cut as that, you'd be condemning the Good Thief to hell and calling Christ a liar.

James
The Good Thief cannot be used as an example of baptism of blood primarily because the Good Thief died under the Old Law, not the New Law; he died before the Law of Baptism was instituted by Jesus Christ after the Resurrection.  For that reason, the Good Thief, like the Holy Innocents, constitutes no argument against the necessity of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation.

 

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #33 on: March 25, 2013, 11:10:46 PM »

question 1
Catholics believe if a bay perished before getting baptized he can not go to heaven, do the orthodox believe the same thing?
Stop misrepresenting the Catholic faith.
if you make an accusation you should back it up, if you wish to debate baptism of desire and baptism of blood feel free to let me know
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #34 on: March 25, 2013, 11:15:35 PM »

let me know how the Catholic church can be wrong using the bible.

Well, okay...

In the Bible there are no popes or priests to rule over the church. Jesus Christ is our High Priest (Heb. 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:5; 8:1; 9:11), and all true Christians make up a spiritual priesthood (I Pet. 2:5). Jesus Christ has sanctified all Christians who believe on Him (Heb. 10:10-11), so all priests today are unnecessary and unscriptural. Furthermore, the practice of calling a priest "father" is forbidden by Jesus Christ in Matthew 23:9. There is only ONE mediator between God and men (I Tim. 2:5).

...

The Catholic Church teaches that the "Holy Mass" is a LITERAL EATING AND DRINKING OF THE LITERAL FLESH AND BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST. The priest supposedly has the power to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.

Now, what does God's word say about such practices? If you'll read Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:11-12, and Acts 15:29, you will find that God absolutely FORBIDS the drinking of blood all through the Bible.

...

Exodus 20:4-5 says, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me."

...

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Eph. 2:8-9)

...

 "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Romans 4:5)

Ah yes, the Bible: THE final mediator between Orthodox-Catholic disputes.
do you believe in faith alone? are you a protestant? you mention a few issues there which protestants bring up when debating, if you actually believe what you posted proves catholic teaching wrong let me know
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #35 on: March 25, 2013, 11:20:14 PM »

Babies who die go to Hell? How absurd! Angry
they go to hell where there's no fire, limbo, which biblical passage that I posted are you not in agreement with?
Logged
lovesupreme
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 734


Out of This World


« Reply #36 on: March 25, 2013, 11:23:28 PM »

let me know how the Catholic church can be wrong using the bible.

Well, okay...

In the Bible there are no popes or priests to rule over the church. Jesus Christ is our High Priest (Heb. 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:5; 8:1; 9:11), and all true Christians make up a spiritual priesthood (I Pet. 2:5). Jesus Christ has sanctified all Christians who believe on Him (Heb. 10:10-11), so all priests today are unnecessary and unscriptural. Furthermore, the practice of calling a priest "father" is forbidden by Jesus Christ in Matthew 23:9. There is only ONE mediator between God and men (I Tim. 2:5).

...

The Catholic Church teaches that the "Holy Mass" is a LITERAL EATING AND DRINKING OF THE LITERAL FLESH AND BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST. The priest supposedly has the power to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.

Now, what does God's word say about such practices? If you'll read Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:11-12, and Acts 15:29, you will find that God absolutely FORBIDS the drinking of blood all through the Bible.

...

Exodus 20:4-5 says, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me."

...

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Eph. 2:8-9)

...

 "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Romans 4:5)

Ah yes, the Bible: THE final mediator between Orthodox-Catholic disputes.
do you believe in faith alone? are you a protestant? you mention a few issues there which protestants bring up when debating, if you actually believe what you posted proves catholic teaching wrong let me know

No I'm not a Protestant I was being facetious to illustrate how silly it is to carry on a debate between Orthodox and Catholic theologies by quoting verses from the Bible. Tongue

Also to point out how easy it is for someone to "prove Catholicism wrong" by picking quotes from the Bible.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2013, 11:25:56 PM by lovesupreme » Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #37 on: March 25, 2013, 11:57:51 PM »

Babies who die go to Hell? How absurd! Angry
they go to hell where there's no fire, limbo, which biblical passage that I posted are you not in agreement with?

You must believe in another Jesus, one that is different than the ones taught by the Apostles.  We believe in a loving, merciful, Almighty God who is not limited by the Sacraments.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2013, 11:58:25 PM by choy » Logged
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #38 on: March 26, 2013, 04:27:46 AM »

thanks for the replies, I believe it's clear from the bible the Catholic teaching is the correct one, baptism should be done asap, 1 month is the latest
In the very last INSTRUCTION THAT JESUS CHRIST GIVES THE APOSTLES BEFORE LEAVING THIS WORLD – He gives His Apostles two commands: to teach all nations and to baptize.  This should tell everyone something about the importance and the necessity of baptism.  Baptism is bound up, by Jesus Himself, with the very command to teach all nations the Christian faith.  That’s because no one can be saved without it, as we see in St. Mark’s Gospel.

 

Mark 16:15-16- “And he (Jesus) said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be damned.”

 

Jesus says that those who believe and are baptized will be saved, which indicates that the unbaptized will not be saved.  But some ask: why didn’t Jesus say, “he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned,” after saying he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved?  The answer is that those who don’t believe are not going to get baptized, so it’s not necessary to mention baptism again.

 1 Peter 3:20-21- “… when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.  Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also…”
In the Shepherd of Hermas, dated 140 A.D., Hermas quotes Jesus in John 3:5 and writes:

 

“They had need to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:92.)

You can not enter the kingdom of God unless you are baptised, let me know how the Catholic church can be wrong using the bible.

If it was as clear cut as that, you'd be condemning the Good Thief to hell and calling Christ a liar.

James
The Good Thief cannot be used as an example of baptism of blood primarily because the Good Thief died under the Old Law, not the New Law; he died before the Law of Baptism was instituted by Jesus Christ after the Resurrection.  For that reason, the Good Thief, like the Holy Innocents, constitutes no argument against the necessity of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation.

 

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.

So what of all the unbaptised martyr saints? You do realise that a 'baptism of blood' is not a literal baptism right? The situation simply is not as clear cut as you maintain, thankfully. I'm not sure I'd consider a God who condemned those who were unable to get baptised to hell as being one worthy of worship. You're quite right that baptism is necessary for us. Nothing is necessary for God. He can save whomsoever he wills, baptised or unbaptised, and we know that He wills all men to be saved. And goodness only knows why you keep quoting post-Schism RC councils here as though they are trump cards that prove your point - you do understand that we're as unlikely to be swayed by such arguments as we are to be convinced of sola scriptura based on the words of Martin Luther, don't you?

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,078


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #39 on: March 26, 2013, 08:52:47 AM »

Limbo is a dance not a place.  We will have to just disagree on what happens to unbaptized babies, and leave it at that.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2013, 08:53:32 AM by JoeS2 » Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,078


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #40 on: March 26, 2013, 08:54:12 AM »

Babies who die go to Hell? How absurd! Angry
they go to hell where there's no fire, limbo, which biblical passage that I posted are you not in agreement with?

You must believe in another Jesus, one that is different than the ones taught by the Apostles.  We believe in a loving, merciful, Almighty God who is not limited by the Sacraments.

Exactly, who knows the true Mercy of God but God.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #41 on: March 26, 2013, 11:38:19 AM »

question 1
Catholics believe if a bay perished before getting baptized he can not go to heaven, do the orthodox believe the same thing?
Stop misrepresenting the Catholic faith.
if you make an accusation you should back it up, if you wish to debate baptism of desire and baptism of blood feel free to let me know
I have no desire to debate them. They are teachings of the Church so I accept them. Why would a Catholic debate those teachings? In addition to this, the idea that unbaptized babies go to hell has never been affirmed by the Magesterium, so it's not a teaching of the Church. Q.E.D.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #42 on: March 26, 2013, 11:38:19 AM »

Babies who die go to Hell? How absurd! Angry
they go to hell where there's no fire, limbo, which biblical passage that I posted are you not in agreement with?

You must believe in another Jesus, one that is different than the ones taught by the Apostles.  We believe in a loving, merciful, Almighty God who is not limited by the Sacraments.
^ This is the God that Catholics who are not in schism (sede's are in schism) believe in. We are in agreement on this Choy.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #43 on: March 26, 2013, 11:38:19 AM »

Limbo is a dance not a place. 
I agree with you and with Pope Benedict on this matter.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,078


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #44 on: March 26, 2013, 03:23:50 PM »



Exactly, who knows the true Mercy of God but God.

The Beatitudes come to mind: "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God".  No one is more pure in  heart than babies baptized or otherwise.
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #45 on: March 26, 2013, 03:50:45 PM »

question 1
Catholics believe if a bay perished before getting baptized he can not go to heaven, do the orthodox believe the same thing?
Stop misrepresenting the Catholic faith.
if you make an accusation you should back it up, if you wish to debate baptism of desire and baptism of blood feel free to let me know

I hope you are the RCC's answer to pasadi.

A Solomon like problem:

You have to kill one of your children. One is unborn. The other is one year of age and baptized.

Which do you kill?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #46 on: March 26, 2013, 03:51:30 PM »



Exactly, who knows the true Mercy of God but God.

The Beatitudes come to mind: "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God".  No one is more pure in  heart than babies baptized or otherwise.

Something else we can agree upon  Wink.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #47 on: March 26, 2013, 03:52:05 PM »

Babies who die go to Hell? How absurd! Angry

It's not quite hell. It is a like a really, really bad playground. I've seen pictures.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #48 on: March 26, 2013, 03:53:50 PM »



Exactly, who knows the true Mercy of God but God.

The Beatitudes come to mind: "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God".  No one is more pure in  heart than babies baptized or otherwise.

Something else we can agree upon  Wink.

I don't. It is hard to think of a more selfish and utterly depraved creature. This is where I always thought the RCs had it right and perhaps the total depravity folks, if you limited their views to infants, even when I didn't believe in God.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2013, 03:54:09 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #49 on: March 26, 2013, 04:04:43 PM »

Babies who die go to Hell? How absurd! Angry
I agree. Alas the text of the Council of Florence that is often used to say that the unbaptized go to "hell" can be translated in different ways. Here is the text:

"The souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or only original sin descend into the realm of the dead (infernum), to be punished however with unequal punishments."

The Latin word infernum can be translated as "to the dead" or "below", but it can also be translated as "hell." I tend to think that the first translation (as reflected in the text quoted above) is probably best.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #50 on: March 26, 2013, 04:07:52 PM »

Babies who die go to Hell? How absurd! Angry
I agree. Alas the text of the Council of Florence that is often used to say that the unbaptized go to "hell" can be translated in different ways. Here is the text:

"The souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or only original sin descend into the realm of the dead (infernum), to be punished however with unequal punishments."

The Latin word infernum can be translated as "to the dead" or "below", but it can also be translated as "hell." I tend to think that the first translation (as reflected in the text quoted above) is probably best.

The only problem with this is that there is no death any longer. St. Paul says so. And I have no idea how Eastern Catholics do it, but if you didn't understand St. Paul the Orthodox make it clear on Pascha.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #51 on: March 26, 2013, 04:11:20 PM »

Babies who die go to Hell? How absurd! Angry
I agree. Alas the text of the Council of Florence that is often used to say that the unbaptized go to "hell" can be translated in different ways. Here is the text:

"The souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or only original sin descend into the realm of the dead (infernum), to be punished however with unequal punishments."

The Latin word infernum can be translated as "to the dead" or "below", but it can also be translated as "hell." I tend to think that the first translation (as reflected in the text quoted above) is probably best.

The only problem with this is that there is no death any longer. St. Paul says so. And I have no idea how Eastern Catholics do it, but if you didn't understand St. Paul the Orthodox make it clear on Pascha.
That is a good point. Perhaps the authors of the decree of the Council of Florence are speaking about the "second death" mentioned in the Book of Revelations. One would probably have to read the acts of the Council - that is, if they are still extant - in order to determine what precisely is meant by "infernum."
« Last Edit: March 26, 2013, 04:12:47 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #52 on: March 26, 2013, 04:15:13 PM »

question 1
Catholics believe if a bay perished before getting baptized he can not go to heaven, do the orthodox believe the same thing?
Stop misrepresenting the Catholic faith.
if you make an accusation you should back it up, if you wish to debate baptism of desire and baptism of blood feel free to let me know

I hope you are the RCC's answer to pasadi.

A Solomon like problem:

You have to kill one of your children. One is unborn. The other is one year of age and baptized.

Which do you kill?
Neither. Murder is intrinsically evil.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #53 on: March 26, 2013, 04:15:13 PM »



Exactly, who knows the true Mercy of God but God.

The Beatitudes come to mind: "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God".  No one is more pure in  heart than babies baptized or otherwise.
Careful. Sedevacantist is going to denounce us as heretics.

Something else we can agree upon  Wink.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #54 on: March 26, 2013, 04:15:13 PM »

Babies who die go to Hell? How absurd! Angry

It's not quite hell. It is a like a really, really bad playground. I've seen pictures.
You must mean Espanola (Northern New Mexico. Look it up).
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #55 on: March 26, 2013, 04:18:52 PM »

question 1
Catholics believe if a bay perished before getting baptized he can not go to heaven, do the orthodox believe the same thing?
Stop misrepresenting the Catholic faith.
if you make an accusation you should back it up, if you wish to debate baptism of desire and baptism of blood feel free to let me know

I hope you are the RCC's answer to pasadi.

A Solomon like problem:

You have to kill one of your children. One is unborn. The other is one year of age and baptized.

Which do you kill?
Neither. Murder is intrinsically evil.

You are no Pasadi!

If you had to. If you didn't, then one million others would die, thus being murdered by your inaction.

Which is it? Isn't this the sorta stuff you study? This is straight up Anglo-American philosophy.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #56 on: March 26, 2013, 04:20:09 PM »

Babies who die go to Hell? How absurd! Angry

It's not quite hell. It is a like a really, really bad playground. I've seen pictures.
You must mean Espanola (Northern New Mexico. Look it up).

You are no Isa! My browser didn't take 32 seconds to load, jumping all around the place with the entire google images repository reposted here of that place.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #57 on: March 26, 2013, 04:25:25 PM »

Babies who die go to Hell? How absurd! Angry
I agree. Alas the text of the Council of Florence that is often used to say that the unbaptized go to "hell" can be translated in different ways. Here is the text:

"The souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or only original sin descend into the realm of the dead (infernum), to be punished however with unequal punishments."

The Latin word infernum can be translated as "to the dead" or "below", but it can also be translated as "hell." I tend to think that the first translation (as reflected in the text quoted above) is probably best.

The only problem with this is that there is no death any longer. St. Paul says so. And I have no idea how Eastern Catholics do it, but if you didn't understand St. Paul the Orthodox make it clear on Pascha.
That is a good point. Perhaps the authors of the decree of the Council of Florence are speaking about the "second death" mentioned in the Book of Revelations. One would probably have to read the acts of the Council - that is, if they are still extant - in order to determine what precisely is meant by "infernum."

Yeah, I doubt most take seriously the notion of the abolition of death. I've never truly believed that the RCC ever taught that babies go to hell or the unbaptized for being unbaptized alone.

It makes almost zero sense. And no RC who seemed well educated ever made such comments. Now some practicing RCs and some parish Priests certainly. Hence the hysteria around infant baptism and holding baptism of grandchildren and the like.

It is sorta like the Priest who told me my mother couldn't be cremated. He simply had zero idea what he was talking about.

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #58 on: March 26, 2013, 04:48:49 PM »

The Roman Church issued a study document a few years ago on the fate of the unbaptized. Those interested can click the link below to read it:

The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #59 on: March 26, 2013, 05:09:59 PM »

thanks for the replies, I believe it's clear from the bible the Catholic teaching is the correct one, baptism should be done asap, 1 month is the latest
In the very last INSTRUCTION THAT JESUS CHRIST GIVES THE APOSTLES BEFORE LEAVING THIS WORLD – He gives His Apostles two commands: to teach all nations and to baptize.  This should tell everyone something about the importance and the necessity of baptism.  Baptism is bound up, by Jesus Himself, with the very command to teach all nations the Christian faith.  That’s because no one can be saved without it, as we see in St. Mark’s Gospel.

 

Mark 16:15-16- “And he (Jesus) said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be damned.”

 

Jesus says that those who believe and are baptized will be saved, which indicates that the unbaptized will not be saved.  But some ask: why didn’t Jesus say, “he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned,” after saying he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved?  The answer is that those who don’t believe are not going to get baptized, so it’s not necessary to mention baptism again.

 1 Peter 3:20-21- “… when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.  Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also…”
In the Shepherd of Hermas, dated 140 A.D., Hermas quotes Jesus in John 3:5 and writes:

 

“They had need to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:92.)

You can not enter the kingdom of God unless you are baptised, let me know how the Catholic church can be wrong using the bible.

If it was as clear cut as that, you'd be condemning the Good Thief to hell and calling Christ a liar.

James
The Good Thief cannot be used as an example of baptism of blood primarily because the Good Thief died under the Old Law, not the New Law; he died before the Law of Baptism was instituted by Jesus Christ after the Resurrection.  For that reason, the Good Thief, like the Holy Innocents, constitutes no argument against the necessity of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation.

 

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.
Why did the good thief go straight to heaven, instead of spending some time in Purgatory? Generally, when a mortal sin is forgiven, there remains some small effects or stain of the sin which must be purged by spending time in Purgatory.
Logged
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #60 on: March 26, 2013, 05:22:35 PM »

Why did the good thief go straight to heaven, instead of spending some time in Purgatory? Generally, when a mortal sin is forgiven, there remains some small effects or stain of the sin which must be purged by spending time in Purgatory.

Because Our Lord gave him a plenary indulgence?  Tongue
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #61 on: March 26, 2013, 05:28:06 PM »

thanks for the replies, I believe it's clear from the bible the Catholic teaching is the correct one, baptism should be done asap, 1 month is the latest
In the very last INSTRUCTION THAT JESUS CHRIST GIVES THE APOSTLES BEFORE LEAVING THIS WORLD – He gives His Apostles two commands: to teach all nations and to baptize.  This should tell everyone something about the importance and the necessity of baptism.  Baptism is bound up, by Jesus Himself, with the very command to teach all nations the Christian faith.  That’s because no one can be saved without it, as we see in St. Mark’s Gospel.

 

Mark 16:15-16- “And he (Jesus) said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be damned.”

 

Jesus says that those who believe and are baptized will be saved, which indicates that the unbaptized will not be saved.  But some ask: why didn’t Jesus say, “he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned,” after saying he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved?  The answer is that those who don’t believe are not going to get baptized, so it’s not necessary to mention baptism again.

 1 Peter 3:20-21- “… when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.  Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also…”
In the Shepherd of Hermas, dated 140 A.D., Hermas quotes Jesus in John 3:5 and writes:

 

“They had need to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:92.)

You can not enter the kingdom of God unless you are baptised, let me know how the Catholic church can be wrong using the bible.

If it was as clear cut as that, you'd be condemning the Good Thief to hell and calling Christ a liar.

James
The Good Thief cannot be used as an example of baptism of blood primarily because the Good Thief died under the Old Law, not the New Law; he died before the Law of Baptism was instituted by Jesus Christ after the Resurrection.  For that reason, the Good Thief, like the Holy Innocents, constitutes no argument against the necessity of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation.

 

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.
Why did the good thief go straight to heaven, instead of spending some time in Purgatory? Generally, when a mortal sin is forgiven, there remains some small effects or stain of the sin which must be purged by spending time in Purgatory.

The presence of God is purging, paradise, hell, everything.

If you go with nouveau Orthodoxy, things get real simple.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #62 on: March 26, 2013, 06:30:15 PM »

Why did the good thief go straight to heaven, instead of spending some time in Purgatory? Generally, when a mortal sin is forgiven, there remains some small effects or stain of the sin which must be purged by spending time in Purgatory.

Because Our Lord gave him a plenary indulgence?  Tongue
Cred că ar fi cel mai bun răspuns din punct de vedere catolic.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #63 on: March 26, 2013, 06:32:13 PM »

Why did the good thief go straight to heaven, instead of spending some time in Purgatory? Generally, when a mortal sin is forgiven, there remains some small effects or stain of the sin which must be purged by spending time in Purgatory.

Because Our Lord gave him a plenary indulgence?  Tongue
Cred că ar fi cel mai bun răspuns din punct de vedere catolic.

translation...
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #64 on: March 26, 2013, 07:19:29 PM »

Why did the good thief go straight to heaven, instead of spending some time in Purgatory? Generally, when a mortal sin is forgiven, there remains some small effects or stain of the sin which must be purged by spending time in Purgatory.

Because Our Lord gave him a plenary indulgence?  Tongue

Ha!

I wanted to say it should be Peter but I figured at this point he hasn't received the keys yet. Wink
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #65 on: March 26, 2013, 07:29:28 PM »

Why did the good thief go straight to heaven, instead of spending some time in Purgatory? Generally, when a mortal sin is forgiven, there remains some small effects or stain of the sin which must be purged by spending time in Purgatory.

Because Our Lord gave him a plenary indulgence?  Tongue
Cred că ar fi cel mai bun răspuns din punct de vedere catolic.

translation...
Sorry Michal. I was waiting to see what sede was going to say. Anyway, I just said that this might be the best answer from the Catholic POV.
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #66 on: March 26, 2013, 07:53:06 PM »

Babies who die go to Hell? How absurd! Angry
they go to hell where there's no fire, limbo, which biblical passage that I posted are you not in agreement with?

You must believe in another Jesus, one that is different than the ones taught by the Apostles.  We believe in a loving, merciful, Almighty God who is not limited by the Sacraments.
^ This is the God that Catholics who are not in schism (sede's are in schism) believe in. We are in agreement on this Choy.
it's astounding how you consider yourself a catholic on this issue
 Peter 3:20-21- “… when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.  Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also…”

 

1 Peter 3:20-21 is one of the strongest passages in the Bible on the necessity of baptism.  Notice the force of St. Peter’s assertion here.  Baptism now saves you.  He is talking about water baptism (the Sacrament), of course, because he draws an analogy between the baptismal waters and the Flood waters.  Peter compares receiving the Sacrament of (Water) Baptism to being on the ark of Noe.  Just as no one escaped physical death outside the ark of Noe during the time of the Flood (only eight souls survived the Flood by being firmly planted on the ark), likewise no one avoids spiritual death or is saved from original sin without baptism!  Baptism saves you.  How clear does it have to be that the Bible teaches that water baptism is necessary for salvation?

 JESUS SAYS NO ONE ENTERS HEAVEN WITHOUT REBIRTH OF WATER AND OF THE SPIRIT

 

John 3:3-5- “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.  Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old?  Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?  Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

 

Deeply consider that when Jesus teaches this profound truth, He prefaces His statement by saying: “verily, verily” or “truly truly” or “amen, amen,” depending upon the translation you are reading.

 

This double-affirmation is an act of oath-taking.  In a Jewish court of law, no one could be put to death without the testimony of two witnesses (Deuteronomy 19:15).  Both of them had to raise their right hand and say: Amen.  Therefore, this solemn language indicates that what Jesus has to say here is extremely serious.  Jesus is affirming in a solemn oath that no one enters Heaven without being born again of water and the Holy Spirit. 

 

Jesus tells Nicodemus that unless a man is born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.  Nicodemus then specifically asks Him how that happens; how is one is born again?  Jesus answers, in John 3:5, by declaring that unless a man is born OF WATER AND THE SPIRIT HE CANNOT ENTER THE KINGDOM OF GOD.   So, being born again means being born of water and the Holy Ghost.  This clearly refers to water baptism.

Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #67 on: March 26, 2013, 07:56:24 PM »

thanks for the replies, I believe it's clear from the bible the Catholic teaching is the correct one, baptism should be done asap, 1 month is the latest
In the very last INSTRUCTION THAT JESUS CHRIST GIVES THE APOSTLES BEFORE LEAVING THIS WORLD – He gives His Apostles two commands: to teach all nations and to baptize.  This should tell everyone something about the importance and the necessity of baptism.  Baptism is bound up, by Jesus Himself, with the very command to teach all nations the Christian faith.  That’s because no one can be saved without it, as we see in St. Mark’s Gospel.

 

Mark 16:15-16- “And he (Jesus) said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be damned.”

 

Jesus says that those who believe and are baptized will be saved, which indicates that the unbaptized will not be saved.  But some ask: why didn’t Jesus say, “he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned,” after saying he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved?  The answer is that those who don’t believe are not going to get baptized, so it’s not necessary to mention baptism again.

 1 Peter 3:20-21- “… when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.  Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also…”
In the Shepherd of Hermas, dated 140 A.D., Hermas quotes Jesus in John 3:5 and writes:

 

“They had need to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:92.)

You can not enter the kingdom of God unless you are baptised, let me know how the Catholic church can be wrong using the bible.

If it was as clear cut as that, you'd be condemning the Good Thief to hell and calling Christ a liar.

James
The Good Thief cannot be used as an example of baptism of blood primarily because the Good Thief died under the Old Law, not the New Law; he died before the Law of Baptism was instituted by Jesus Christ after the Resurrection.  For that reason, the Good Thief, like the Holy Innocents, constitutes no argument against the necessity of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation.

 

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.

So what of all the unbaptised martyr saints? You do realise that a 'baptism of blood' is not a literal baptism right? The situation simply is not as clear cut as you maintain, thankfully. I'm not sure I'd consider a God who condemned those who were unable to get baptised to hell as being one worthy of worship. You're quite right that baptism is necessary for us. Nothing is necessary for God. He can save whomsoever he wills, baptised or unbaptised, and we know that He wills all men to be saved. And goodness only knows why you keep quoting post-Schism RC councils here as though they are trump cards that prove your point - you do understand that we're as unlikely to be swayed by such arguments as we are to be convinced of sola scriptura based on the words of Martin Luther, don't you?

James
all you have to do is ask

THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH ALL TAUGHT BAPTISMAL REGENERATION AND THAT BAPTISM IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION

 

From the very beginning of the Christian Church, the fathers of the Church unanimously believed in the necessity of water baptism and baptismal regeneration.  They based that belief on the teaching of the New Testament, John 3:5 and Apostolic Tradition.  Here are just four passages.  One could quote dozens of others.

 

In the Letter of Barnabas, dated as early as 70 A.D., we read:

 

“… we descend into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our heart…” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:34.)

 

In the Shepherd of Hermas, dated 140 A.D., Hermas quotes Jesus in John 3:5 and writes:

 

“They had need to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:92.)

 

In 155 A.D., in First Apology, 61, St. Justin the Martyr writes:

 

“… they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn… in the name of God… they receive the washing of water.  For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’  The reason for doing this we have learned from the apostles.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:126.)

 

St. Aphraates, the oldest of the Syrian fathers, writes in his Treatises, 336 A.D.:

 

“For from baptism we receive the Spirit of Christ… For the Spirit is absent from all those who are born of the flesh, until they come to the water of re-birth.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1: 681.)
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #68 on: March 26, 2013, 08:02:10 PM »

let me know how the Catholic church can be wrong using the bible.

Well, okay...

In the Bible there are no popes or priests to rule over the church. Jesus Christ is our High Priest (Heb. 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:5; 8:1; 9:11), and all true Christians make up a spiritual priesthood (I Pet. 2:5). Jesus Christ has sanctified all Christians who believe on Him (Heb. 10:10-11), so all priests today are unnecessary and unscriptural. Furthermore, the practice of calling a priest "father" is forbidden by Jesus Christ in Matthew 23:9. There is only ONE mediator between God and men (I Tim. 2:5).

...

The Catholic Church teaches that the "Holy Mass" is a LITERAL EATING AND DRINKING OF THE LITERAL FLESH AND BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST. The priest supposedly has the power to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.

Now, what does God's word say about such practices? If you'll read Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:11-12, and Acts 15:29, you will find that God absolutely FORBIDS the drinking of blood all through the Bible.

...

Exodus 20:4-5 says, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me."

...

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Eph. 2:8-9)

...

 "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Romans 4:5)

Ah yes, the Bible: THE final mediator between Orthodox-Catholic disputes.
do you believe in faith alone? are you a protestant? you mention a few issues there which protestants bring up when debating, if you actually believe what you posted proves catholic teaching wrong let me know

No I'm not a Protestant I was being facetious to illustrate how silly it is to carry on a debate between Orthodox and Catholic theologies by quoting verses from the Bible. Tongue

Also to point out how easy it is for someone to "prove Catholicism wrong" by picking quotes from the Bible.
you can't prove catholicism wrong, the biblical passages you quote are used by protestants to support their heretical beliefs, and all are refuted because they don't know their bible, in the case of baptism I don't see how anyone can possibly believe I (and the true catholic church) are wrong, astounding
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #69 on: March 26, 2013, 08:05:35 PM »

Why did the good thief go straight to heaven, instead of spending some time in Purgatory? Generally, when a mortal sin is forgiven, there remains some small effects or stain of the sin which must be purged by spending time in Purgatory.

Because Our Lord gave him a plenary indulgence?  Tongue
Cred că ar fi cel mai bun răspuns din punct de vedere catolic.

translation...
Sorry Michal. I was waiting to see what sede was going to say. Anyway, I just said that this might be the best answer from the Catholic POV.
from brother Dimond

Jesus didn’t ascend into Heaven until after His Resurrection, as John 20:17 proves.  So the Good Thief is not an example against the necessity of baptism for salvation.  That’s why the Apostles’ Creed, which Catholics recite, correctly states that Jesus was crucified, died and was buried; He  descended into Hell; on the third day He rose again from the dead and then ascended into Heaven.  He didn’t ascend to Heaven until after His Resurrection, and He descended into Hell on the day of His death.  What was this Hell?  It was Abraham’s bosom, the waiting place of the just of the Old Testament.  That’s where the Good Thief went with Jesus on the day of His Crucifixion; Jesus called it paradise because He would be there.

 
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #70 on: March 26, 2013, 08:08:44 PM »

sed,

If both Papist and I disagree with you, you are doing something right.

Could you just format your posts a little better and maybe make them a little more entertaining.

BTW, you never answered my question, which child do you kill?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #71 on: March 26, 2013, 08:24:48 PM »

question 1
Catholics believe if a bay perished before getting baptized he can not go to heaven, do the orthodox believe the same thing?
Stop misrepresenting the Catholic faith.

Good idea.

Naturally, everyone thinks he/she is in the true church; but it's clear that sedevacantist (with the aid of a few of the Orthodox on this forum) has been making posts that make it sound like he is (if you will) Catholic-in-the-usual-sense-of-the-word. That really ought to stop.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #72 on: March 26, 2013, 08:27:45 PM »

it's clear that sedevacantist (with the aid of a few of the Orthodox on this forum) has been making posts that make it sound like he is (if you will) Catholic-in-the-usual-sense-of-the-word. That really ought to stop.

That's your personal opinion. Not sure why should we (other posters) care about it.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #73 on: March 26, 2013, 09:00:29 PM »

question 1
Catholics believe if a bay perished before getting baptized he can not go to heaven, do the orthodox believe the same thing?
Stop misrepresenting the Catholic faith.
Good idea.

Naturally, everyone thinks he/she is in the true church; but it's clear that sedevacantist (with the aid of a few of the Orthodox on this forum) has been making posts that make it sound like he is (if you will) Catholic-in-the-usual-sense-of-the-word. That really ought to stop.
I thought Sedevacantist was a member of the Genuine True Roman Catholic Church of America. You know, the one that is not in communion with the bishop of Rome.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #74 on: March 26, 2013, 09:03:03 PM »

question 1
Catholics believe if a bay perished before getting baptized he can not go to heaven, do the orthodox believe the same thing?
Stop misrepresenting the Catholic faith.
Good idea.

Naturally, everyone thinks he/she is in the true church; but it's clear that sedevacantist (with the aid of a few of the Orthodox on this forum) has been making posts that make it sound like he is (if you will) Catholic-in-the-usual-sense-of-the-word. That really ought to stop.
I thought Sedevacantist was a member of the Genuine True Roman Catholic Church of America. You know, the one that is not in communion with the bishop of Rome.

But was it the first?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Hesychios
perpetual neophyte
Site Supporter
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 171


« Reply #75 on: March 26, 2013, 09:30:21 PM »

question 1
I have to go to a baptism at a greek orthodox church, my niece is 7 months old, my question is why do you wait so long to get your babies baptized, do you believe in infant baptism? If yes why not get baptized like the catholics shuld do within the 1st month. Catholics believe if a bay perished before getting baptized he can not go to heaven, do the orthodox believe the same thing? I know you get the baby anointed or something early on, but this surely can't replace the baptism? what is the point?

I am a bit surprised that you would take the decisions and choices of one family in their unique situation and extrapolate all manner of things about Orthodox from it.

My mother was baptized into the Roman Catholic church at the age of six (in about 1935), along with three of her siblings. This was not a 'convert' family. Similarly my own grandson was a year old before his parents (both lifelong Roman Catholics) baptized him into the Roman Catholic church.

Do I think this was stretching it? I certainly do,  these two examples are incredible breaches of normal practice. I myself was baptized into the RC church right out of the hospital (following RC custom of the day, my parents didn't go, but they filmed my godparents taking me away to church and bringing me back to the party). I had my children baptized in the Roman Catholic church very soon right out of the hospital (I attended Wink but the congregation was not present).

Among Roman Catholics there is such an incredible variety of adherence it would be foolish for anyone to make any assumptions of what is proper or correct by their example. This case of an Orthodox family is no different, one should not infer anything from the example of one family at any given time in their faith journey.

I suggest that if you have any more questions about Holy Orthodoxy there is plenty of written material available. Read "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" by Saint John Damascene (a Doctor of your church) for starters. It is available on Kindle.

You can learn more from "The Orthodox Way" by bishop Kallistos Ware.

kind regards
Logged

"Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living"
Jaroslav Pelikan
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,078


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #76 on: March 26, 2013, 09:41:44 PM »

Greetings Hesychios. Long time since we talked.

JoeS (aka St.MarkEofE- old CAF gang)  Orthodoc says hello.
Logged
Hesychios
perpetual neophyte
Site Supporter
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 171


« Reply #77 on: March 26, 2013, 10:01:57 PM »

Greetings Hesychios. Long time since we talked.

JoeS (aka St.MarkEofE- old CAF gang)  Orthodoc says hello.
Thanks Joe. My brother, I (fondly) remember the both of you very well.  Smiley

Peace and all good things ...
Logged

"Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living"
Jaroslav Pelikan
orthros
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite-Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Posts: 60


« Reply #78 on: March 26, 2013, 11:28:55 PM »

thanks for the replies, I believe it's clear from the bible the Catholic teaching is the correct one, baptism should be done asap, 1 month is the latest
In the very last INSTRUCTION THAT JESUS CHRIST GIVES THE APOSTLES BEFORE LEAVING THIS WORLD – He gives His Apostles two commands: to teach all nations and to baptize.  This should tell everyone something about the importance and the necessity of baptism.  Baptism is bound up, by Jesus Himself, with the very command to teach all nations the Christian faith.  That’s because no one can be saved without it, as we see in St. Mark’s Gospel.

 

Mark 16:15-16- “And he (Jesus) said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be damned.”

 

Jesus says that those who believe and are baptized will be saved, which indicates that the unbaptized will not be saved.  But some ask: why didn’t Jesus say, “he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned,” after saying he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved?  The answer is that those who don’t believe are not going to get baptized, so it’s not necessary to mention baptism again.

 1 Peter 3:20-21- “… when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.  Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also…”
In the Shepherd of Hermas, dated 140 A.D., Hermas quotes Jesus in John 3:5 and writes:

 

“They had need to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:92.)

You can not enter the kingdom of God unless you are baptised, let me know how the Catholic church can be wrong using the bible.

If it was as clear cut as that, you'd be condemning the Good Thief to hell and calling Christ a liar.

James
The Good Thief cannot be used as an example of baptism of blood primarily because the Good Thief died under the Old Law, not the New Law; he died before the Law of Baptism was instituted by Jesus Christ after the Resurrection.  For that reason, the Good Thief, like the Holy Innocents, constitutes no argument against the necessity of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation.

 

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.

So what of all the unbaptised martyr saints? You do realise that a 'baptism of blood' is not a literal baptism right? The situation simply is not as clear cut as you maintain, thankfully. I'm not sure I'd consider a God who condemned those who were unable to get baptised to hell as being one worthy of worship. You're quite right that baptism is necessary for us. Nothing is necessary for God. He can save whomsoever he wills, baptised or unbaptised, and we know that He wills all men to be saved. And goodness only knows why you keep quoting post-Schism RC councils here as though they are trump cards that prove your point - you do understand that we're as unlikely to be swayed by such arguments as we are to be convinced of sola scriptura based on the words of Martin Luther, don't you?

James
all you have to do is ask

THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH ALL TAUGHT BAPTISMAL REGENERATION AND THAT BAPTISM IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION

 

From the very beginning of the Christian Church, the fathers of the Church unanimously believed in the necessity of water baptism and baptismal regeneration.  They based that belief on the teaching of the New Testament, John 3:5 and Apostolic Tradition.  Here are just four passages.  One could quote dozens of others.

 

In the Letter of Barnabas, dated as early as 70 A.D., we read:

 

“… we descend into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our heart…” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:34.)

 

In the Shepherd of Hermas, dated 140 A.D., Hermas quotes Jesus in John 3:5 and writes:

 

“They had need to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:92.)

 

In 155 A.D., in First Apology, 61, St. Justin the Martyr writes:

 

“… they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn… in the name of God… they receive the washing of water.  For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’  The reason for doing this we have learned from the apostles.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:126.)

 

St. Aphraates, the oldest of the Syrian fathers, writes in his Treatises, 336 A.D.:

 

“For from baptism we receive the Spirit of Christ… For the Spirit is absent from all those who are born of the flesh, until they come to the water of re-birth.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1: 681.)

So, you believe, in addition to all Catholics since the 1960s, that St. Thomas Aquinas is also a heretic.  See below.

(from the Summa Theologica)


Objection 1. It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But those alone are saved who enter God's kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.

Objection 2. Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it is written: "We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism." But if it were possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have the "faith that worketh by charity" (Gal. 5:6). Therefore it seems that none can be saved without Baptism.

Objection 3. Further, as stated above (1; 65, 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.

On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.

I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.

Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."

Reply to Objection 1. As it is written (1 Kgs. 16:7), "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Rm. 2:29) that "the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God."

Reply to Objection 2. No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Cor. 3:15.

Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #79 on: March 26, 2013, 11:32:52 PM »

sed,

If both Papist and I disagree with you, you are doing something right.

Could you just format your posts a little better and maybe make them a little more entertaining.

BTW, you never answered my question, which child do you kill?

I'm not here to entertain you but to save your soul, I don't kill any child even if it means hundreds of others die as the ends don't justify the means
Logged
orthros
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite-Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Posts: 60


« Reply #80 on: March 26, 2013, 11:34:45 PM »

sed,

If both Papist and I disagree with you, you are doing something right.

Could you just format your posts a little better and maybe make them a little more entertaining.

BTW, you never answered my question, which child do you kill?

I'm not here to entertain you but to save your soul, I don't kill any child even if it means hundreds of others die as the ends don't justify the means

Finally, something we can all(?) agree upon
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #81 on: March 26, 2013, 11:40:29 PM »

question 1
I have to go to a baptism at a greek orthodox church, my niece is 7 months old, my question is why do you wait so long to get your babies baptized, do you believe in infant baptism? If yes why not get baptized like the catholics shuld do within the 1st month. Catholics believe if a bay perished before getting baptized he can not go to heaven, do the orthodox believe the same thing? I know you get the baby anointed or something early on, but this surely can't replace the baptism? what is the point?

I am a bit surprised that you would take the decisions and choices of one family in their unique situation and extrapolate all manner of things about Orthodox from it.

My mother was baptized into the Roman Catholic church at the age of six (in about 1935), along with three of her siblings. This was not a 'convert' family. Similarly my own grandson was a year old before his parents (both lifelong Roman Catholics) baptized him into the Roman Catholic church.

Do I think this was stretching it? I certainly do,  these two examples are incredible breaches of normal practice. I myself was baptized into the RC church right out of the hospital (following RC custom of the day, my parents didn't go, but they filmed my godparents taking me away to church and bringing me back to the party). I had my children baptized in the Roman Catholic church very soon right out of the hospital (I attended Wink but the congregation was not present).

Among Roman Catholics there is such an incredible variety of adherence it would be foolish for anyone to make any assumptions of what is proper or correct by their example. This case of an Orthodox family is no different, one should not infer anything from the example of one family at any given time in their faith journey.

I suggest that if you have any more questions about Holy Orthodoxy there is plenty of written material available. Read "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" by Saint John Damascene (a Doctor of your church) for starters. It is available on Kindle.

You can learn more from "The Orthodox Way" by bishop Kallistos Ware.

kind regards

why is it foolish that the church has certain guidelines of when to baptize, if the truth is we can't get to heaven unless we are are baptized then obviously we should baptize as soon as possible, if it's not true then it doesn't matter..I've shown without a doubt that it's true
I found this
Canon #867 states that, if an infant is in danger of death, it is to be baptized without any delay. Under ordinary circumstances, states Canon #867, parents are to see to the Baptisms of their infants within the first few weeks: "As soon as possible after birth, even before it, they are to approach the parish priest to ask for the sacrament for their child and to be themselves prepared for it."
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #82 on: March 26, 2013, 11:41:39 PM »

question 1
Catholics believe if a bay perished before getting baptized he can not go to heaven, do the orthodox believe the same thing?
Stop misrepresenting the Catholic faith.

Good idea.

Naturally, everyone thinks he/she is in the true church; but it's clear that sedevacantist (with the aid of a few of the Orthodox on this forum) has been making posts that make it sound like he is (if you will) Catholic-in-the-usual-sense-of-the-word. That really ought to stop.
how about you actually prove something I posted is wrong
Logged
TheMathematician
Banished and Disgraced
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 1,388


Formerly known as Montalo


« Reply #83 on: March 26, 2013, 11:44:16 PM »

Well, we have questions aimed at us Orthodox, but I cant seem to find the catholic who was supposed to ask them.

Or were you just passing these along form a catholic friend of yours sedevacantist?
Logged
Shiranui117
Formerly known as "Wandering Sheep"
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: ACROD/OCA
Posts: 150


PUDDI PUDDI!


« Reply #84 on: March 26, 2013, 11:47:14 PM »

question 1
Catholics believe if a bay perished before getting baptized he can not go to heaven, do the orthodox believe the same thing?
Stop misrepresenting the Catholic faith.

Good idea.

Naturally, everyone thinks he/she is in the true church; but it's clear that sedevacantist (with the aid of a few of the Orthodox on this forum) has been making posts that make it sound like he is (if you will) Catholic-in-the-usual-sense-of-the-word. That really ought to stop.
how about you actually prove something I posted is wrong
Well, there IS the fact that bays don't die. They are a special type of formation at a shoreline, and as such are non-living entities.
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #85 on: March 26, 2013, 11:50:11 PM »

sed,

If both Papist and I disagree with you, you are doing something right.

Could you just format your posts a little better and maybe make them a little more entertaining.

BTW, you never answered my question, which child do you kill?

I'm not here to entertain you but to save your soul, I don't kill any child even if it means hundreds of others die as the ends don't justify the means

Well you sir are no pasadi. The answer is quite clear . . .

Lets start with definition of Christianity.

Baptism = makes you dead as child of Adam and to Old Law and reborns you as child of God.

So to say somebody Hindu is better Christian than someone baptized  you imply that he is better Child of God than you so he has to be baptized. Unborn children are much more without sin than hindus that worship sick angels and according with documents they don't end up in heaven. So an elder say better kill a baptized child than an unborn baby if really there is need to kill somebody anyhow better no killing. I am reffering to aborted babies. Abortion is erased through confession.

Thanks be to God for pasadi.

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #86 on: March 26, 2013, 11:55:36 PM »

thanks for the replies, I believe it's clear from the bible the Catholic teaching is the correct one, baptism should be done asap, 1 month is the latest
In the very last INSTRUCTION THAT JESUS CHRIST GIVES THE APOSTLES BEFORE LEAVING THIS WORLD – He gives His Apostles two commands: to teach all nations and to baptize.  This should tell everyone something about the importance and the necessity of baptism.  Baptism is bound up, by Jesus Himself, with the very command to teach all nations the Christian faith.  That’s because no one can be saved without it, as we see in St. Mark’s Gospel.

 

Mark 16:15-16- “And he (Jesus) said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be damned.”

 

Jesus says that those who believe and are baptized will be saved, which indicates that the unbaptized will not be saved.  But some ask: why didn’t Jesus say, “he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned,” after saying he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved?  The answer is that those who don’t believe are not going to get baptized, so it’s not necessary to mention baptism again.

 1 Peter 3:20-21- “… when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.  Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also…”
In the Shepherd of Hermas, dated 140 A.D., Hermas quotes Jesus in John 3:5 and writes:

 

“They had need to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:92.)

You can not enter the kingdom of God unless you are baptised, let me know how the Catholic church can be wrong using the bible.

If it was as clear cut as that, you'd be condemning the Good Thief to hell and calling Christ a liar.

James
The Good Thief cannot be used as an example of baptism of blood primarily because the Good Thief died under the Old Law, not the New Law; he died before the Law of Baptism was instituted by Jesus Christ after the Resurrection.  For that reason, the Good Thief, like the Holy Innocents, constitutes no argument against the necessity of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation.

 

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.

So what of all the unbaptised martyr saints? You do realise that a 'baptism of blood' is not a literal baptism right? The situation simply is not as clear cut as you maintain, thankfully. I'm not sure I'd consider a God who condemned those who were unable to get baptised to hell as being one worthy of worship. You're quite right that baptism is necessary for us. Nothing is necessary for God. He can save whomsoever he wills, baptised or unbaptised, and we know that He wills all men to be saved. And goodness only knows why you keep quoting post-Schism RC councils here as though they are trump cards that prove your point - you do understand that we're as unlikely to be swayed by such arguments as we are to be convinced of sola scriptura based on the words of Martin Luther, don't you?

James
all you have to do is ask

THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH ALL TAUGHT BAPTISMAL REGENERATION AND THAT BAPTISM IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION

 

From the very beginning of the Christian Church, the fathers of the Church unanimously believed in the necessity of water baptism and baptismal regeneration.  They based that belief on the teaching of the New Testament, John 3:5 and Apostolic Tradition.  Here are just four passages.  One could quote dozens of others.

 

In the Letter of Barnabas, dated as early as 70 A.D., we read:

 

“… we descend into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our heart…” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:34.)

 

In the Shepherd of Hermas, dated 140 A.D., Hermas quotes Jesus in John 3:5 and writes:

 

“They had need to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:92.)

 

In 155 A.D., in First Apology, 61, St. Justin the Martyr writes:

 

“… they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn… in the name of God… they receive the washing of water.  For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’  The reason for doing this we have learned from the apostles.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:126.)

 

St. Aphraates, the oldest of the Syrian fathers, writes in his Treatises, 336 A.D.:

 

“For from baptism we receive the Spirit of Christ… For the Spirit is absent from all those who are born of the flesh, until they come to the water of re-birth.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1: 681.)

So, you believe, in addition to all Catholics since the 1960s, that St. Thomas Aquinas is also a heretic.  See below.

(from the Summa Theologica)


Objection 1. It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But those alone are saved who enter God's kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.

Objection 2. Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it is written: "We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism." But if it were possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have the "faith that worketh by charity" (Gal. 5:6). Therefore it seems that none can be saved without Baptism.

Objection 3. Further, as stated above (1; 65, 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.

On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.

I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.

Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."

Reply to Objection 1. As it is written (1 Kgs. 16:7), "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Rm. 2:29) that "the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God."

Reply to Objection 2. No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Cor. 3:15.

Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).

St. Thomas Aquinas, despite all of his fabulous writing and learning about the
Catholic Faith, being a fallible human being, was wrong on many points, including his
explicit statement in the Summa Theologica that “The flesh of the Virgin was conceived in
Original Sin.”
This simply proves again that the theological speculations of even our greatest sainted
theologians are just that – fallible speculations.  Only St. Peter and his successors, the
popes, when speaking from the Chair of Peter, have the unfailing faith.
 
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, ex cathedra:
“So, this gift of truth AND A NEVER FAILING FAITH WAS DIVINELY
CONFERRED UPON PETER AND HIS SUCCESSORS IN THIS
CHAIR...”244
 In Summa Theologica III, Q. 66, Art. 11, St. Thomas tries to explain his belief in baptism
of desire and blood.  He tries to explain how there can be “three baptisms” (water, blood
and desire) when St. Paul declares in Ephesians 4:5 that there is only one.  He says:
 
“The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy,
both from Christ’s Passion and of the Holy Ghost.”245  
 
     With all due respect to St. Thomas, this is a feeble attempt to answer the objection as
to how there can be “three baptisms” when God reveals that there is only one.  It is
feeble because St. Thomas says that the other two baptisms, desire and blood, are
included in the baptism of water; but this is false.  One who receives baptism of water
doesn’t receive baptism of desire and baptism of blood, even according to the baptism of
desire advocates.  Therefore, it is false to say, as St. Thomas does, that the other two
baptisms are included in the baptism of water; they most certainly are not.  

 Furthermore, in teaching the theory of baptism of desire, St. Thomas repeatedly
admitted that neither is a sacrament.
 
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, Q. 66, A. 11, Answer 2: “As stated
above, a sacrament is a kind of sign.  The other two [baptism of desire and
blood], however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign,
but in the baptismal effect.  Consequently they are not sacraments.”246
 
     The fierce baptism of desire advocate, Fr. Laisney, admits the same in his book, Is
Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 9:
 
Fr. Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 9: “Baptism of Desire is not a sacrament; it
does not have the exterior sign required in the sacraments.  The theologians,
following St. Thomas... call it ‘baptism’ only because it produces the grace of
baptism... yet it does not produce the sacramental character.”247
 
     But the Council of Trent (a few centuries after St. Thomas, in 1547) infallibly defined
as a dogma that THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM is necessary for salvation!
 
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of
Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the
sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf.
Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”248
 
     So, whom does one follow, St. Thomas or the infallible Council of Trent?  Compare
the two:
 
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, Q. 68, Art. 2: “... it seems that a man
can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible
sanctification...”
 
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7,
1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that
is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”249
 
      There is an obvious contradiction here.  The fallible St. Thomas Aquinas says that it is
possible to obtain salvation without the Sacrament of Baptism, while the infallible
Council of Trent defines that the sacrament is necessary for salvation.  And what does
“necessary” mean?  According to Part III, Q. 68, A. 2, Obj. 3 in St. Thomas’ own Summa
Theologica,  “that is necessary without which something cannot be (Metaph. V).”250  Thus,
“necessary” means without which something cannot be.  Thus, salvation cannot be – it is
impossible – without the Sacrament of Baptism (de fide, Council of Trent).  Catholics must
accept this truth and reject St. Thomas’s fallible opinion in the Summa Theologica on
baptism of desire.
 
Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is
preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”251
 
Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: “This deposit of faith our
Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the
faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the
Church.’”252
      
Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi dominic gregis (#45), Sept. 8, 1907: “It goes without
saying that if anything is met with among the scholastic doctors which may be
regarded as an excess of subtlety, or which is altogether destitute of probability,
We have no desire whatever to propose it for the imitation of present
generations.”253
 
     And just in case anyone argues that one can receive the Sacrament of Baptism without
water, I will quote the Council of Trent’s definition in Can. 2.
 
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of
Baptism, Session 7, 1547, ex cathedra:  “If anyone shall say that
real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on
that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a
man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are
distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”254
It would have been interesting to see, however, what St. Thomas would have said if
he had lived until the dogmatic Council of Vienne in 1311.  St. Thomas died in 1274, 37
years before the Council.  The Council of Vienne infallibly defined as a dogma that there is
only one baptism that must be confessed by all Catholics, and that the one baptism is
water baptism.
 
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311‐1312, ex cathedra:  
“Besides, one baptism which regenerates all who are baptized
in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as ‘one God
and one faith’ [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water in the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we
believe to be commonly the perfect remedy for salvation for
adults as for children.”255      
 
     This definition is crucial to this discussion, because one cannot affirm one baptism of
water and at the same time obstinately cling to the belief that there are “three baptisms,”
two of which are not of water.  That is a clear contradiction.  Those who understand and
comprehend this dogma must repudiate the so‐called “three baptisms.”


http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/2nd_edition_final.pdf
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #87 on: March 26, 2013, 11:55:52 PM »

sed,

If both Papist and I disagree with you, you are doing something right.

Could you just format your posts a little better and maybe make them a little more entertaining.

BTW, you never answered my question, which child do you kill?

I'm not here to entertain you but to save your soul, I don't kill any child even if it means hundreds of others die as the ends don't justify the means

Well you sir are no pasadi. The answer is quite clear . . .

Lets start with definition of Christianity.

Baptism = makes you dead as child of Adam and to Old Law and reborns you as child of God.

So to say somebody Hindu is better Christian than someone baptized  you imply that he is better Child of God than you so he has to be baptized. Unborn children are much more without sin than hindus that worship sick angels and according with documents they don't end up in heaven. So an elder say better kill a baptized child than an unborn baby if really there is need to kill somebody anyhow better no killing. I am reffering to aborted babies. Abortion is erased through confession.

Thanks be to God for pasadi.



Further in iconic form:

This is the story about aborted not baptized babies probably in Hell. Anyhow looks like the Roman Catholic Thomas Aquinass ended there. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/another_champion_of_abortion_becomes_defender_of_life_the_story_of_stojan_adasevic/
This is an orthodox icon of aborted babies and they are depicted being thrown into Hell:


The idea is that even without sins is so hard to make it to Heaven without BAPTISM. Neither unborn children don't make it that did not live one day.Anyhow the sin of abortion is erased through confession.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #88 on: March 27, 2013, 12:02:30 AM »

sed,

If both Papist and I disagree with you, you are doing something right.

Could you just format your posts a little better and maybe make them a little more entertaining.

BTW, you never answered my question, which child do you kill?

I'm not here to entertain you but to save your soul, I don't kill any child even if it means hundreds of others die as the ends don't justify the means

Well you sir are no pasadi. The answer is quite clear . . .

Lets start with definition of Christianity.

Baptism = makes you dead as child of Adam and to Old Law and reborns you as child of God.

So to say somebody Hindu is better Christian than someone baptized  you imply that he is better Child of God than you so he has to be baptized. Unborn children are much more without sin than hindus that worship sick angels and according with documents they don't end up in heaven. So an elder say better kill a baptized child than an unborn baby if really there is need to kill somebody anyhow better no killing. I am reffering to aborted babies. Abortion is erased through confession.

Thanks be to God for pasadi.


you better forget about whatever a pasadi is and concentrate on saving yourself, "So to say somebody Hindu is better Christian than someone baptized  you imply"...obviously I didn't say this...and if you believe the ends justify the means you are not christian so your question of who to kill is ridiculous
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #89 on: March 27, 2013, 01:54:35 AM »

question 1
I have to go to a baptism at a greek orthodox church, my niece is 7 months old, my question is why do you wait so long to get your babies baptized, do you believe in infant baptism? If yes why not get baptized like the catholics shuld do within the 1st month. Catholics believe if a bay perished before getting baptized he can not go to heaven, do the orthodox believe the same thing? I know you get the baby anointed or something early on, but this surely can't replace the baptism? what is the point?

I am a bit surprised that you would take the decisions and choices of one family in their unique situation and extrapolate all manner of things about Orthodox from it.

My mother was baptized into the Roman Catholic church at the age of six (in about 1935), along with three of her siblings. This was not a 'convert' family. Similarly my own grandson was a year old before his parents (both lifelong Roman Catholics) baptized him into the Roman Catholic church.

Do I think this was stretching it? I certainly do,  these two examples are incredible breaches of normal practice. I myself was baptized into the RC church right out of the hospital (following RC custom of the day, my parents didn't go, but they filmed my godparents taking me away to church and bringing me back to the party). I had my children baptized in the Roman Catholic church very soon right out of the hospital (I attended Wink but the congregation was not present).

Among Roman Catholics there is such an incredible variety of adherence it would be foolish for anyone to make any assumptions of what is proper or correct by their example. This case of an Orthodox family is no different, one should not infer anything from the example of one family at any given time in their faith journey.

I suggest that if you have any more questions about Holy Orthodoxy there is plenty of written material available. Read "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" by Saint John Damascene (a Doctor of your church) for starters. It is available on Kindle.

You can learn more from "The Orthodox Way" by bishop Kallistos Ware.

kind regards

St. John of Damascus is one of my favorite Scholastics.  Smiley
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #90 on: March 27, 2013, 01:54:35 AM »

question 1
Catholics believe if a bay perished before getting baptized he can not go to heaven, do the orthodox believe the same thing?
Stop misrepresenting the Catholic faith.

Good idea.

Naturally, everyone thinks he/she is in the true church; but it's clear that sedevacantist (with the aid of a few of the Orthodox on this forum) has been making posts that make it sound like he is (if you will) Catholic-in-the-usual-sense-of-the-word. That really ought to stop.
we're not here to sort out your schisms.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #91 on: March 27, 2013, 04:22:16 AM »

thanks for the replies, I believe it's clear from the bible the Catholic teaching is the correct one, baptism should be done asap, 1 month is the latest
In the very last INSTRUCTION THAT JESUS CHRIST GIVES THE APOSTLES BEFORE LEAVING THIS WORLD – He gives His Apostles two commands: to teach all nations and to baptize.  This should tell everyone something about the importance and the necessity of baptism.  Baptism is bound up, by Jesus Himself, with the very command to teach all nations the Christian faith.  That’s because no one can be saved without it, as we see in St. Mark’s Gospel.

 

Mark 16:15-16- “And he (Jesus) said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be damned.”

 

Jesus says that those who believe and are baptized will be saved, which indicates that the unbaptized will not be saved.  But some ask: why didn’t Jesus say, “he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned,” after saying he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved?  The answer is that those who don’t believe are not going to get baptized, so it’s not necessary to mention baptism again.

 1 Peter 3:20-21- “… when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.  Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also…”
In the Shepherd of Hermas, dated 140 A.D., Hermas quotes Jesus in John 3:5 and writes:

 

“They had need to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:92.)

You can not enter the kingdom of God unless you are baptised, let me know how the Catholic church can be wrong using the bible.

If it was as clear cut as that, you'd be condemning the Good Thief to hell and calling Christ a liar.

James
The Good Thief cannot be used as an example of baptism of blood primarily because the Good Thief died under the Old Law, not the New Law; he died before the Law of Baptism was instituted by Jesus Christ after the Resurrection.  For that reason, the Good Thief, like the Holy Innocents, constitutes no argument against the necessity of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation.

 

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.

So what of all the unbaptised martyr saints? You do realise that a 'baptism of blood' is not a literal baptism right? The situation simply is not as clear cut as you maintain, thankfully. I'm not sure I'd consider a God who condemned those who were unable to get baptised to hell as being one worthy of worship. You're quite right that baptism is necessary for us. Nothing is necessary for God. He can save whomsoever he wills, baptised or unbaptised, and we know that He wills all men to be saved. And goodness only knows why you keep quoting post-Schism RC councils here as though they are trump cards that prove your point - you do understand that we're as unlikely to be swayed by such arguments as we are to be convinced of sola scriptura based on the words of Martin Luther, don't you?

James
all you have to do is ask

THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH ALL TAUGHT BAPTISMAL REGENERATION AND THAT BAPTISM IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION

 

From the very beginning of the Christian Church, the fathers of the Church unanimously believed in the necessity of water baptism and baptismal regeneration.  They based that belief on the teaching of the New Testament, John 3:5 and Apostolic Tradition.  Here are just four passages.  One could quote dozens of others.

 

In the Letter of Barnabas, dated as early as 70 A.D., we read:

 

“… we descend into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our heart…” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:34.)

 

In the Shepherd of Hermas, dated 140 A.D., Hermas quotes Jesus in John 3:5 and writes:

 

“They had need to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:92.)

 

In 155 A.D., in First Apology, 61, St. Justin the Martyr writes:

 

“… they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn… in the name of God… they receive the washing of water.  For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’  The reason for doing this we have learned from the apostles.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:126.)

 

St. Aphraates, the oldest of the Syrian fathers, writes in his Treatises, 336 A.D.:

 

“For from baptism we receive the Spirit of Christ… For the Spirit is absent from all those who are born of the flesh, until they come to the water of re-birth.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1: 681.)

Could you answer the rest of my questions and not just the bit you find easy? I'm aware that baptism is necessary for us - it's just not necessary for God. I don't need you to come up with patristic quotes in response to my aside about your constantly quoting schismatic councils as authoritative. I'd much rather see you answer the question about unbaptised saints and whether or not you belief God is limited by necessity (i.e. not omnipotent).

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Shiny
Site Supporter
Muted
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #92 on: March 27, 2013, 04:30:59 AM »

So an elder say better kill a baptized child than an unborn baby if really there is need to kill somebody anyhow better no killing. I am reffering to aborted babies. Abortion is erased through confession.
That is absolutely brilliant.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,018


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #93 on: March 27, 2013, 09:12:27 AM »

One thing for certain - "knowledge" about religion may bring out the "crazy" in people. Thank God for faith, hope and love.
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #94 on: March 27, 2013, 09:29:04 AM »


St. John of Damascus is one of my favorite Scholastics.  Smiley

It's true Sad

As someone with a burning hatred of Aristotle I think that was St. John's only fault.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2013, 09:29:17 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #95 on: March 27, 2013, 09:44:26 AM »

question 1
Catholics believe if a bay perished before getting baptized he can not go to heaven, do the orthodox believe the same thing?
Stop misrepresenting the Catholic faith.

Good idea.

Naturally, everyone thinks he/she is in the true church; but it's clear that sedevacantist (with the aid of a few of the Orthodox on this forum) has been making posts that make it sound like he is (if you will) Catholic-in-the-usual-sense-of-the-word. That really ought to stop.
we're not here to sort out your schisms.

You're preaching to the choir. Your fellow Orthodox are the ones who need to hear that.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #96 on: March 27, 2013, 09:45:00 AM »

question 1
Catholics believe if a bay perished before getting baptized he can not go to heaven, do the orthodox believe the same thing?
Stop misrepresenting the Catholic faith.

Good idea.

Naturally, everyone thinks he/she is in the true church; but it's clear that sedevacantist (with the aid of a few of the Orthodox on this forum) has been making posts that make it sound like he is (if you will) Catholic-in-the-usual-sense-of-the-word. That really ought to stop.
how about you actually prove something I posted is wrong

It's not a matter of proving that it is wrong to call you a Catholic.

Look at it this way: a Lutheran saying "I'm a Catholic" must be considered correct if one accepts a definition of "Catholic" that included Lutherans. But the definition of "Catholic" on this forum is in terms of the pope (Pope Francis), hence a Lutheran isn't Catholic (according to that definition), nor are you.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #97 on: March 27, 2013, 10:40:53 AM »


St. John of Damascus is one of my favorite Scholastics.  Smiley

It's true Sad

As someone with a burning hatred of Aristotle I think that was St. John's only fault.
Burning?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #98 on: March 27, 2013, 10:40:53 AM »

thanks for the replies, I believe it's clear from the bible the Catholic teaching is the correct one, baptism should be done asap, 1 month is the latest
In the very last INSTRUCTION THAT JESUS CHRIST GIVES THE APOSTLES BEFORE LEAVING THIS WORLD – He gives His Apostles two commands: to teach all nations and to baptize.  This should tell everyone something about the importance and the necessity of baptism.  Baptism is bound up, by Jesus Himself, with the very command to teach all nations the Christian faith.  That’s because no one can be saved without it, as we see in St. Mark’s Gospel.

 

Mark 16:15-16- “And he (Jesus) said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be damned.”

 

Jesus says that those who believe and are baptized will be saved, which indicates that the unbaptized will not be saved.  But some ask: why didn’t Jesus say, “he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned,” after saying he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved?  The answer is that those who don’t believe are not going to get baptized, so it’s not necessary to mention baptism again.

 1 Peter 3:20-21- “… when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.  Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also…”
In the Shepherd of Hermas, dated 140 A.D., Hermas quotes Jesus in John 3:5 and writes:

 

“They had need to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:92.)

You can not enter the kingdom of God unless you are baptised, let me know how the Catholic church can be wrong using the bible.

If it was as clear cut as that, you'd be condemning the Good Thief to hell and calling Christ a liar.

James
The Good Thief cannot be used as an example of baptism of blood primarily because the Good Thief died under the Old Law, not the New Law; he died before the Law of Baptism was instituted by Jesus Christ after the Resurrection.  For that reason, the Good Thief, like the Holy Innocents, constitutes no argument against the necessity of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation.

 

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.

So what of all the unbaptised martyr saints? You do realise that a 'baptism of blood' is not a literal baptism right? The situation simply is not as clear cut as you maintain, thankfully. I'm not sure I'd consider a God who condemned those who were unable to get baptised to hell as being one worthy of worship. You're quite right that baptism is necessary for us. Nothing is necessary for God. He can save whomsoever he wills, baptised or unbaptised, and we know that He wills all men to be saved. And goodness only knows why you keep quoting post-Schism RC councils here as though they are trump cards that prove your point - you do understand that we're as unlikely to be swayed by such arguments as we are to be convinced of sola scriptura based on the words of Martin Luther, don't you?

James
all you have to do is ask

THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH ALL TAUGHT BAPTISMAL REGENERATION AND THAT BAPTISM IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION

 

From the very beginning of the Christian Church, the fathers of the Church unanimously believed in the necessity of water baptism and baptismal regeneration.  They based that belief on the teaching of the New Testament, John 3:5 and Apostolic Tradition.  Here are just four passages.  One could quote dozens of others.

 

In the Letter of Barnabas, dated as early as 70 A.D., we read:

 

“… we descend into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our heart…” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:34.)

 

In the Shepherd of Hermas, dated 140 A.D., Hermas quotes Jesus in John 3:5 and writes:

 

“They had need to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:92.)

 

In 155 A.D., in First Apology, 61, St. Justin the Martyr writes:

 

“… they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn… in the name of God… they receive the washing of water.  For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’  The reason for doing this we have learned from the apostles.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:126.)

 

St. Aphraates, the oldest of the Syrian fathers, writes in his Treatises, 336 A.D.:

 

“For from baptism we receive the Spirit of Christ… For the Spirit is absent from all those who are born of the flesh, until they come to the water of re-birth.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1: 681.)

So, you believe, in addition to all Catholics since the 1960s, that St. Thomas Aquinas is also a heretic.  See below.

(from the Summa Theologica)


Objection 1. It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But those alone are saved who enter God's kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.

Objection 2. Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it is written: "We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism." But if it were possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have the "faith that worketh by charity" (Gal. 5:6). Therefore it seems that none can be saved without Baptism.

Objection 3. Further, as stated above (1; 65, 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.

On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.

I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.

Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."

Reply to Objection 1. As it is written (1 Kgs. 16:7), "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Rm. 2:29) that "the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God."

Reply to Objection 2. No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Cor. 3:15.

Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).
This
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #99 on: March 27, 2013, 08:37:52 PM »

question 1
Catholics believe if a bay perished before getting baptized he can not go to heaven, do the orthodox believe the same thing?
Stop misrepresenting the Catholic faith.

Good idea.

Naturally, everyone thinks he/she is in the true church; but it's clear that sedevacantist (with the aid of a few of the Orthodox on this forum) has been making posts that make it sound like he is (if you will) Catholic-in-the-usual-sense-of-the-word. That really ought to stop.
we're not here to sort out your schisms.

You're preaching to the choir. Your fellow Orthodox are the ones who need to hear that.

Like spectators in a sporting event, we like telling the coach, players and referees what to do  Grin Grin Grin
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #100 on: March 27, 2013, 09:05:33 PM »

thanks for the replies, I believe it's clear from the bible the Catholic teaching is the correct one, baptism should be done asap, 1 month is the latest
In the very last INSTRUCTION THAT JESUS CHRIST GIVES THE APOSTLES BEFORE LEAVING THIS WORLD – He gives His Apostles two commands: to teach all nations and to baptize.  This should tell everyone something about the importance and the necessity of baptism.  Baptism is bound up, by Jesus Himself, with the very command to teach all nations the Christian faith.  That’s because no one can be saved without it, as we see in St. Mark’s Gospel.

 

Mark 16:15-16- “And he (Jesus) said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be damned.”

 

Jesus says that those who believe and are baptized will be saved, which indicates that the unbaptized will not be saved.  But some ask: why didn’t Jesus say, “he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned,” after saying he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved?  The answer is that those who don’t believe are not going to get baptized, so it’s not necessary to mention baptism again.

 1 Peter 3:20-21- “… when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.  Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also…”
In the Shepherd of Hermas, dated 140 A.D., Hermas quotes Jesus in John 3:5 and writes:

 

“They had need to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:92.)

You can not enter the kingdom of God unless you are baptised, let me know how the Catholic church can be wrong using the bible.

If it was as clear cut as that, you'd be condemning the Good Thief to hell and calling Christ a liar.

James
The Good Thief cannot be used as an example of baptism of blood primarily because the Good Thief died under the Old Law, not the New Law; he died before the Law of Baptism was instituted by Jesus Christ after the Resurrection.  For that reason, the Good Thief, like the Holy Innocents, constitutes no argument against the necessity of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation.

 

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.

So what of all the unbaptised martyr saints? You do realise that a 'baptism of blood' is not a literal baptism right? The situation simply is not as clear cut as you maintain, thankfully. I'm not sure I'd consider a God who condemned those who were unable to get baptised to hell as being one worthy of worship. You're quite right that baptism is necessary for us. Nothing is necessary for God. He can save whomsoever he wills, baptised or unbaptised, and we know that He wills all men to be saved. And goodness only knows why you keep quoting post-Schism RC councils here as though they are trump cards that prove your point - you do understand that we're as unlikely to be swayed by such arguments as we are to be convinced of sola scriptura based on the words of Martin Luther, don't you?

James
all you have to do is ask

THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH ALL TAUGHT BAPTISMAL REGENERATION AND THAT BAPTISM IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION

 

From the very beginning of the Christian Church, the fathers of the Church unanimously believed in the necessity of water baptism and baptismal regeneration.  They based that belief on the teaching of the New Testament, John 3:5 and Apostolic Tradition.  Here are just four passages.  One could quote dozens of others.

 

In the Letter of Barnabas, dated as early as 70 A.D., we read:

 

“… we descend into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our heart…” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:34.)

 

In the Shepherd of Hermas, dated 140 A.D., Hermas quotes Jesus in John 3:5 and writes:

 

“They had need to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:92.)

 

In 155 A.D., in First Apology, 61, St. Justin the Martyr writes:

 

“… they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn… in the name of God… they receive the washing of water.  For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’  The reason for doing this we have learned from the apostles.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:126.)

 

St. Aphraates, the oldest of the Syrian fathers, writes in his Treatises, 336 A.D.:

 

“For from baptism we receive the Spirit of Christ… For the Spirit is absent from all those who are born of the flesh, until they come to the water of re-birth.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1: 681.)

Could you answer the rest of my questions and not just the bit you find easy? I'm aware that baptism is necessary for us - it's just not necessary for God. I don't need you to come up with patristic quotes in response to my aside about your constantly quoting schismatic councils as authoritative. I'd much rather see you answer the question about unbaptised saints and whether or not you belief God is limited by necessity (i.e. not omnipotent).

James
You are looking at the issue in the wrong way , of course God is not limited, He can do what He wishes, and He told us we had to be baptised to be saved, I gave you biblical passages which are clear, I gave you the early church fathers, why can't you accept God's word? give me an example of the unbaptised saint and I will look into it
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #101 on: March 27, 2013, 09:07:20 PM »

give me an example of the unbaptised saint and I will look into it

All from the Old Testament, St. Dismas, the 40th one of the 40 Martyrs of Sebaste - some that come to mind
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #102 on: March 27, 2013, 09:27:08 PM »

question 1
Catholics believe if a bay perished before getting baptized he can not go to heaven, do the orthodox believe the same thing?
Stop misrepresenting the Catholic faith.

Good idea.

Naturally, everyone thinks he/she is in the true church; but it's clear that sedevacantist (with the aid of a few of the Orthodox on this forum) has been making posts that make it sound like he is (if you will) Catholic-in-the-usual-sense-of-the-word. That really ought to stop.
how about you actually prove something I posted is wrong

It's not a matter of proving that it is wrong to call you a Catholic.

Look at it this way: a Lutheran saying "I'm a Catholic" must be considered correct if one accepts a definition of "Catholic" that included Lutherans. But the definition of "Catholic" on this forum is in terms of the pope (Pope Francis), hence a Lutheran isn't Catholic (according to that definition), nor are you.
the definition of Catholic on this forum is in terms of the pope??? what are you talking about? I suggest you do research on what the popes have declared concerning the jews

Pope's Note to Chief Rabbi of Rome for Feast of Passover
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/pope-s-note-to-chief-rabbi-of-rome-for-feast-of-passover


". I ask you to pray for me, as I assure you of my prayers for you, confident that we can deepen [our] ties of mutual esteem and friendship. - FRANCIS

contrast to...
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #103 on: March 27, 2013, 09:28:03 PM »

give me an example of the unbaptised saint and I will look into it

All from the Old Testament, St. Dismas, the 40th one of the 40 Martyrs of Sebaste - some that come to mind
They died under the old law, just like the good thief before Jesus commanded everyone to be baptised.
Logged
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,159


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #104 on: March 27, 2013, 09:40:46 PM »

give me an example of the unbaptised saint and I will look into it

All from the Old Testament, St. Dismas, the 40th one of the 40 Martyrs of Sebaste - some that come to mind
They died under the old law, just like the good thief before Jesus commanded everyone to be baptised.

The Martyrs of Sebaste were definitely post-Ascension.
Logged
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #105 on: March 28, 2013, 04:56:42 AM »

give me an example of the unbaptised saint and I will look into it

All from the Old Testament, St. Dismas, the 40th one of the 40 Martyrs of Sebaste - some that come to mind
They died under the old law, just like the good thief before Jesus commanded everyone to be baptised.

How about St. Genesius of Rome? Or what about St. Emerentiana of Rome and St. Victor of Braga, both martyred as catechumens? Or what about the soldier converted by and immediately executed with St. Alban, or all the soldiers converted by the example of St. George and then immediately martyred? Are you saying that the Church, has been wrong from the earliest centuries and none of these are saved at all? Thankfully the Church has never held to the belief that you appear to and which would seem to make God a monster, unless you say He is bound by some necessity which renders Him unable to save the unbaptised.

Do you honestly not see that God saying to us 'you must be baptised' does not mean that he can't/won't save us if we are unable to do so. Are you a parent? If so, I'd hope you'd see this only too clearly. If I tell my children 'Do X or it's straight to bed.' I'd be a terrible parent if I carried through on the threat if they failed to do X through no fault of their own. If, on the other hand, they wilfully refused it's a completely different story. That baptism is necessary for us does not make it necessary to God and certainly does not preclude baptism by blood or baptism of desire. Else, why does the Church give catechumens a Christian burial and how do we have catechumen saints?

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #106 on: March 28, 2013, 05:56:15 AM »


St. John of Damascus is one of my favorite Scholastics.  Smiley

It's true Sad

As someone with a burning hatred of Aristotle I think that was St. John's only fault.
Burning?

I like superlatives.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2013, 05:56:24 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #107 on: March 28, 2013, 05:59:42 AM »


contrast to...
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

But you're schismatic from any possible point of view.
Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #108 on: March 28, 2013, 08:22:08 AM »


contrast to...
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

But you're schismatic from any possible point of view.

Actually, I would have to disagree. Not "from any possible point of view", but from both of the povs most relevant to this forum, namely the Catholic pov and the Orthodox pov.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #109 on: March 28, 2013, 08:23:44 AM »

It's not a matter of proving that it is wrong to call you a Catholic.

Look at it this way: a Lutheran saying "I'm a Catholic" must be considered correct if one accepts a definition of "Catholic" that included Lutherans. But the definition of "Catholic" on this forum is in terms of the pope (Pope Francis), hence a Lutheran isn't Catholic (according to that definition), nor are you.
the definition of Catholic on this forum is in terms of the pope???

Yup.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #110 on: March 28, 2013, 09:33:05 AM »


St. John of Damascus is one of my favorite Scholastics.  Smiley

It's true Sad

As someone with a burning hatred of Aristotle I think that was St. John's only fault.
Burning?

I like superlatives.

What did Aristotle ever do to you to make you hate him so superlatively?
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #111 on: March 28, 2013, 09:46:29 AM »

Actually, I would have to disagree. Not "from any possible point of view", but from both of the povs most relevant to this forum, namely the Catholic pov and the Orthodox pov.

Or you are twice schismatic if he is real Catholic.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #112 on: March 28, 2013, 10:17:46 AM »

Actually, I would have to disagree. Not "from any possible point of view", but from both of the povs most relevant to this forum, namely the Catholic pov and the Orthodox pov.

Or you are twice schismatic if he is real Catholic.

One of the least appreciated words in the English language: If


Quote

If I Were a Rich Man by Fiddler on the Roof Cast
[TEVYE]
"Dear God, you made many, many poor people.
I realize, of course, that it's no shame to be poor.
But it's no great honor either!
So, what would have been so terrible if I had a small fortune?"

If I were a rich man,
Yubby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dum.
All day long I'd biddy biddy bum.
If I were a wealthy man.
I wouldn't have to work hard.
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.
If I were a biddy biddy rich,
Idle-diddle-daidle-daidle man.

I'd build a big tall house with rooms by the dozen,
Right in the middle of the town.
A fine tin roof with real wooden floors below.
There would be one long staircase just going up,
And one even longer coming down,
And one more leading nowhere, just for show.

I'd fill my yard with chicks and turkeys and geese and ducks
For the town to see and hear.
(Insert)Squawking just as noisily as they can. (End Insert)
With each loud "cheep" "swaqwk" "honk" "quack"
Would land like a trumpet on the ear,
As if to say "Here lives a wealthy man."

If I were a rich man,
Yubby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dum.
All day long I'd biddy biddy bum.
If I were a wealthy man.
I wouldn't have to work hard.
Yubby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dum.
If I were a biddy biddy rich,
Idle-diddle-daidle-daidle man.

I'd see my wife, my Golde, looking like a rich man's wife
With a proper double-chin.
Supervising meals to her heart's delight.
I see her putting on airs and strutting like a peacock.
Oy, what a happy mood she's in.
Screaming at the servants, day and night.

The most important men in town would come to fawn on me!
They would ask me to advise them,
Like a Solomon the Wise.
"If you please, Reb Tevye..."
"Pardon me, Reb Tevye..."
Posing problems that would cross a rabbi's eyes!

And it won't make one bit of difference if i answer right or wrong.
When you're rich, they think you really know!

If I were rich, I'd have the time that I lack
To sit in the synagogue and pray.
And maybe have a seat by the Eastern wall.
And I'd discuss the holy books with the learned men, several hours every day.
That would be the sweetest thing of all.

If I were a rich man,
Yubby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dum.
All day long I'd biddy biddy bum.
If I were a wealthy man.
I wouldn't have to work hard.
Idle-diddle-daidle-daidle man.

Lord who mad the lion and the lamb,
You decreed I should be what I am.
Would it spoil some vast eternal plan?
If I were a wealthy man.
http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/fiddlerontheroof/ifiwerearichman.htm
« Last Edit: March 28, 2013, 10:19:51 AM by J Michael » Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #113 on: March 28, 2013, 12:53:28 PM »


St. John of Damascus is one of my favorite Scholastics.  Smiley

It's true Sad

As someone with a burning hatred of Aristotle I think that was St. John's only fault.
Burning?

I like superlatives.

What did Aristotle ever do to you to make you hate him so superlatively?

Straying from the true Platonist ways and being an incredibly boring writer.
Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #114 on: March 28, 2013, 01:20:37 PM »


St. John of Damascus is one of my favorite Scholastics.  Smiley

It's true Sad

As someone with a burning hatred of Aristotle I think that was St. John's only fault.
Burning?

I like superlatives.

What did Aristotle ever do to you to make you hate him so superlatively?

Straying from the true Platonist ways and being an incredibly boring writer.

But there's no need to take it personally and let it devolve into hatred, eh?  Grin.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #115 on: March 28, 2013, 06:40:54 PM »


St. John of Damascus is one of my favorite Scholastics.  Smiley

It's true Sad

As someone with a burning hatred of Aristotle I think that was St. John's only fault.
Burning?

I like superlatives.

What did Aristotle ever do to you to make you hate him so superlatively?

Straying from the true Platonist ways and being an incredibly boring writer.
I'm going to have to agree with you there. I LOVE reading Plato, and while I agree more with Aristotle than Plato, reading through Aristotle's Metaphysics was incredibly painful.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #116 on: March 28, 2013, 11:20:55 PM »

give me an example of the unbaptised saint and I will look into it

All from the Old Testament, St. Dismas, the 40th one of the 40 Martyrs of Sebaste - some that come to mind
They died under the old law, just like the good thief before Jesus commanded everyone to be baptised.

The Martyrs of Sebaste were definitely post-Ascension.
UNBAPTIZED SAINTS?
 
     One of the biggest objections from baptism of desire/blood advocates is the claim that
the Catholic Church recognizes saints who never received the Sacrament of Baptism. 
The answer to this is that the Catholic Church has never recognized that there are
saints in heaven who were not baptized.  Some historians have written accounts of the
lives of certain saints in which these saints died without baptism of water – by “baptism
of blood”; but the assertions of these historians prove nothing.   
 
     Not all of the information surrounding the deaths of martyrs is accurate.  For
instance, “According to St. Ambrose, Prudentius and Father Butler, Saint Agnes was beheaded. 
Others had said she [St. Agnes] was burned to death.  Our point is that not all of the
information given in the martyrdom narrative is necessarily accurate, consistent, or
complete.”173   
 
Pope St. Gelasius, Decretal, 495: “Likewise the deeds of the holy martyrs...
[which] with remarkable caution are not read in the holy Roman Church...
because the names of those who wrote them are entirely unknown... lest an
occasion of mockery might arise.”174 
 
Pope St. Gelasius is saying here that the acts and deeds recorded of the martyrs are
uncertain.  Their authors are unknown, the accounts may contain error and they were
not even read out in the holy Roman Church to avoid possible scandal or mockery
which might arise from any false statements contained therein.  In fact, in his work The
Age of Martyrs, the renowned Church historian Abbot Giuseppe Ricciotti says:  “For
guides we have appropriate documents.  These, however, as we have already seen, are often
uncertain and would lead us completely astray.  Especially unreliable are the Acts or
Passions of martyrs.”175  The infallible teaching of the Catholic Church, on the other
hand, is absolutely reliable, and it has never taught that souls can be saved without the
58
Sacrament of Baptism by “baptism of blood.”  Thus, in short, there is no proof that any
saint martyred for the Catholic Faith never received the Sacrament of Baptism.   
 
THE FORTY MARTYRS OF SEBASTE
 
     An example of how the baptism of blood advocates err in this matter is their assertion
that the fortieth martyr of Sebaste was unbaptized.  They say that he was unbaptized,
but that he joined himself with the other thirty‐nine martyrs and froze to death for
Christ on the lake.  The fact is that there is no proof that the fortieth martyr of Sebaste
was unbaptized, whose identity is unknown.  The accounts of the story reveal that he
“cried out with a loud voice that he was a Christian,” probably because he was already a
baptized Catholic who was spurred on to martyrdom by the example of the other thirty‐
nine.  Further, in the Roman Martyrology under the date of September 9, we read: 
 
“At Sebaste in Armenia, St. Severian, a soldier of Emperor Licinius.  For
frequently visiting the Forty Martyrs in prison, he was suspended in the air
with a stone tied to his feet by order of the governor Lysias...”176 
     
      It is certain that Severian was not the fortieth martyr (from the date and
circumstances of his death), but we see from this account that other people and soldiers
were able to visit the forty in prison.  Thus, the forty martyrs easily could have baptized
any soldiers who showed interest and sympathy with their cause, including the one who
joined himself to them eventually (if he wasn’t already baptized).  Thus, there is nothing
that proves that the fortieth martyr was unbaptized, and we know that he was from the
truth of our Faith.  The same can be said about all of the approximately 20 cases which
are brought forward by the baptism of blood advocates. 
 
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex
cathedra:  “And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless
we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter
into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5].  The matter of this sacrament is real and
natural water.”177
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/2nd_edition_final.pdf
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #117 on: March 28, 2013, 11:21:57 PM »


contrast to...
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

But you're schismatic from any possible point of view.
you don't know what you are talking about
Logged
SolEX01
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,985


WWW
« Reply #118 on: March 28, 2013, 11:26:08 PM »


contrast to...
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

But you're schismatic from any possible point of view.
you don't know what you are talking about

Yes he does and he's citing from your overused source.
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #119 on: March 28, 2013, 11:27:51 PM »


contrast to...
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

But you're schismatic from any possible point of view.

Actually, I would have to disagree. Not "from any possible point of view", but from both of the povs most relevant to this forum, namely the Catholic pov and the Orthodox pov.
you follow popes who go directly against the teachings of the past true popes..you should study more before commenting on the catholic faith
for example
Pope Pius XI,
Mortalium Animos
(# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “...
this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics
...”
2
All Catholic moral theology manuals before Vatican II
reiterated this truth.
They taught that it’s a mortal sin against the divine law for Catholics to partake in non-Catholic worship.
Pope Pius IX,
Neminem vestrum
(# 5), Feb. 2, 1854: “We want you to know that those same
monks sent Us a splendid profession of Catholic faith and doctrine... They eloquently acknowledged and freely received the regulations and decrees which the popes and the sacred congregations published or would publish – especially those which prohibit communicatio in divinis (communion in holy matters) with schismatics
...
They acknowledge that they condemn the error of the schismatic Armenians and recognize that they are outside of the Church of Jesus Christ.”
Notice that the decrees and regulations of the
popes prohibit communication in divine things
with schismatics.
Pope Pius VI,
Charitas
(# 31-32), April 13, 1791, speaking of priests who went along with
the notoriously heretical civil constitution of the clergy in France: “Above all, avoid and condemn the sacrilegious intruders...
do not hold communion with them especially in divine worship .”
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #120 on: March 28, 2013, 11:28:42 PM »


contrast to...
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

But you're schismatic from any possible point of view.
you don't know what you are talking about

Yes he does and he's citing from your overused source.
no he doesn't
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,533



« Reply #121 on: March 28, 2013, 11:38:16 PM »


contrast to...
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

But you're schismatic from any possible point of view.
you don't know what you are talking about

Yes he does and he's citing from your overused source.
no he doesn't

What an intelligent and rational refutation. You have me completely convinced.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
SolEX01
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,985


WWW
« Reply #122 on: March 29, 2013, 12:06:20 AM »


contrast to...
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

But you're schismatic from any possible point of view.
you don't know what you are talking about

Yes he does and he's citing from your overused source.
no he doesn't

You believe in UFO's and conspiracy theories rather than Christ.
Logged
alexandros-_
Practicing Orthodox
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco under the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 11



« Reply #123 on: March 29, 2013, 12:36:45 AM »

thanks for the replies, I believe it's clear from the bible the Catholic teaching is the correct one, baptism should be done asap, 1 month is the latest
In the very last INSTRUCTION THAT JESUS CHRIST GIVES THE APOSTLES BEFORE LEAVING THIS WORLD – He gives His Apostles two commands: to teach all nations and to baptize.  This should tell everyone something about the importance and the necessity of baptism.  Baptism is bound up, by Jesus Himself, with the very command to teach all nations the Christian faith.  That’s because no one can be saved without it, as we see in St. Mark’s Gospel.

 

Mark 16:15-16- “And he (Jesus) said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be damned.”

 

Jesus says that those who believe and are baptized will be saved, which indicates that the unbaptized will not be saved.  But some ask: why didn’t Jesus say, “he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned,” after saying he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved?  The answer is that those who don’t believe are not going to get baptized, so it’s not necessary to mention baptism again.

 1 Peter 3:20-21- “… when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.  Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also…”
In the Shepherd of Hermas, dated 140 A.D., Hermas quotes Jesus in John 3:5 and writes:

 

“They had need to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:92.)

You can not enter the kingdom of God unless you are baptised, let me know how the Catholic church can be wrong using the bible.
children that young are innocent and sinless, if the infant were to die before baptism im sure God would not banish it to some made up limbo as the Catholic church teaches.
Logged

God bless his people! Amen.
alexandros-_
Practicing Orthodox
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco under the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 11



« Reply #124 on: March 29, 2013, 12:38:54 AM »


contrast to...
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

But you're schismatic from any possible point of view.

Actually, I would have to disagree. Not "from any possible point of view", but from both of the povs most relevant to this forum, namely the Catholic pov and the Orthodox pov.
you follow popes who go directly against the teachings of the past true popes..you should study more before commenting on the catholic faith
for example
Pope Pius XI,
Mortalium Animos
(# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “...
this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics
...”
2
All Catholic moral theology manuals before Vatican II
reiterated this truth.
They taught that it’s a mortal sin against the divine law for Catholics to partake in non-Catholic worship.
Pope Pius IX,
Neminem vestrum
(# 5), Feb. 2, 1854: “We want you to know that those same
monks sent Us a splendid profession of Catholic faith and doctrine... They eloquently acknowledged and freely received the regulations and decrees which the popes and the sacred congregations published or would publish – especially those which prohibit communicatio in divinis (communion in holy matters) with schismatics
...
They acknowledge that they condemn the error of the schismatic Armenians and recognize that they are outside of the Church of Jesus Christ.”
Notice that the decrees and regulations of the
popes prohibit communication in divine things
with schismatics.
Pope Pius VI,
Charitas
(# 31-32), April 13, 1791, speaking of priests who went along with
the notoriously heretical civil constitution of the clergy in France: “Above all, avoid and condemn the sacrilegious intruders...
do not hold communion with them especially in divine worship .”

we all get batished in the name of the Holy Trinity, it is all the same except for tradition.
Edit: also the pope has many prayer services with the Patriarch such as them saying the Creed together.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2013, 12:39:58 AM by alexandros-_ » Logged

God bless his people! Amen.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #125 on: March 29, 2013, 04:00:02 AM »

you don't know what you are talking about

You severed yourself from communion with your bishop and your Patriarch. According to traditional Roman ecclesiology being in communion with Rome is the litmus test of determining whether someone is a Catholic or not. You failed the test.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2013, 04:04:05 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #126 on: March 29, 2013, 07:42:12 AM »


contrast to...
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

But you're schismatic from any possible point of view.
you don't know what you are talking about

Yes he does and he's citing from your overused source.
no he doesn't

What an intelligent and rational refutation. You have me completely convinced.
yet you accept "Yes he does and he's citing from your overused source."
interesting standards you set for yourself
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #127 on: March 29, 2013, 07:43:40 AM »

thanks for the replies, I believe it's clear from the bible the Catholic teaching is the correct one, baptism should be done asap, 1 month is the latest
In the very last INSTRUCTION THAT JESUS CHRIST GIVES THE APOSTLES BEFORE LEAVING THIS WORLD – He gives His Apostles two commands: to teach all nations and to baptize.  This should tell everyone something about the importance and the necessity of baptism.  Baptism is bound up, by Jesus Himself, with the very command to teach all nations the Christian faith.  That’s because no one can be saved without it, as we see in St. Mark’s Gospel.

 

Mark 16:15-16- “And he (Jesus) said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be damned.”

 

Jesus says that those who believe and are baptized will be saved, which indicates that the unbaptized will not be saved.  But some ask: why didn’t Jesus say, “he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned,” after saying he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved?  The answer is that those who don’t believe are not going to get baptized, so it’s not necessary to mention baptism again.

 1 Peter 3:20-21- “… when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.  Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also…”
In the Shepherd of Hermas, dated 140 A.D., Hermas quotes Jesus in John 3:5 and writes:

 

“They had need to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:92.)

You can not enter the kingdom of God unless you are baptised, let me know how the Catholic church can be wrong using the bible.
children that young are innocent and sinless, if the infant were to die before baptism im sure God would not banish it to some made up limbo as the Catholic church teaches.
you're sure about that? you better read more and you don't know what you are talking about
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #128 on: March 29, 2013, 07:49:21 AM »


contrast to...
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

But you're schismatic from any possible point of view.
you don't know what you are talking about

Yes he does and he's citing from your overused source.
no he doesn't

You believe in UFO's and conspiracy theories rather than Christ.
you believe in government made up lies instead of Christ...what conspiracy theories are you talking about? I thought this was a forum to discuss religious views, but if you would like to discuss "conspiracy theories" point me to the correct thread so I can crush all your false beliefs as you seem like a naive person who believes whatever their government tells them, but I know your type, to make useless accusations and then never back it up. concentrate on your salvation and don't get mixed up with debating conspiracy theories with me because I will embarrass you.
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #129 on: March 29, 2013, 07:51:18 AM »

you don't know what you are talking about

You severed yourself from communion with your bishop and your Patriarch. According to traditional Roman ecclesiology being in communion with Rome is the litmus test of determining whether someone is a Catholic or not. You failed the test.
you failed to realize Rome has lost the faith and it is not Catholic Church ,the vatican has been infiltrated by freemason / jewish agents, to follow the vatican 2 sect is to follow the enemies of Christ, how can you be so blind to the truth
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #130 on: March 29, 2013, 08:19:00 AM »

you don't know what you are talking about

You severed yourself from communion with your bishop and your Patriarch. According to traditional Roman ecclesiology being in communion with Rome is the litmus test of determining whether someone is a Catholic or not. You failed the test.
you failed to realize Rome has lost the faith and it is not Catholic Church

No, I have not failed to realise this.
Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,159


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #131 on: March 29, 2013, 08:22:04 AM »

you don't know what you are talking about

You severed yourself from communion with your bishop and your Patriarch. According to traditional Roman ecclesiology being in communion with Rome is the litmus test of determining whether someone is a Catholic or not. You failed the test.
you failed to realize Rome has lost the faith and it is not Catholic Church ,the vatican has been infiltrated by freemason / jewish agents, to follow the vatican 2 sect is to follow the enemies of Christ, how can you be so blind to the truth

Says he who scoffs at conspiracy theories ....  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
Logged
SolEX01
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,985


WWW
« Reply #132 on: March 29, 2013, 11:37:13 PM »


contrast to...
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

But you're schismatic from any possible point of view.
you don't know what you are talking about

Yes he does and he's citing from your overused source.
no he doesn't

You believe in UFO's and conspiracy theories rather than Christ.
you believe in government made up lies instead of Christ...what conspiracy theories are you talking about?

The ones posted on the Most Holy Family Monastery website.

If you want to discuss Politics, PM Fr. George for access to the Private fora.

I thought this was a forum to discuss religious views, but if you would like to discuss "conspiracy theories" point me to the correct thread so I can crush all your false beliefs

If you want to discuss Politics, PM Fr. George for access to the Private fora.

as you seem like a naive person who believes whatever their government tells them, but I know your type, to make useless accusations and then never back it up. concentrate on your salvation and don't get mixed up with debating conspiracy theories with me because I will embarrass you.

I've upset you.  Please forgive me.   angel
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #133 on: March 29, 2013, 11:44:01 PM »

you don't know what you are talking about

You severed yourself from communion with your bishop and your Patriarch. According to traditional Roman ecclesiology being in communion with Rome is the litmus test of determining whether someone is a Catholic or not. You failed the test.
you failed to realize Rome has lost the faith and it is not Catholic Church ,the vatican has been infiltrated by freemason / jewish agents, to follow the vatican 2 sect is to follow the enemies of Christ, how can you be so blind to the truth

Says he who scoffs at conspiracy theories ....  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
you have me mixed up with the other guy sol, I don't believe in conspiray theory, just conspiracy fact
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #134 on: March 29, 2013, 11:56:04 PM »


contrast to...
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

But you're schismatic from any possible point of view.
you don't know what you are talking about

Yes he does and he's citing from your overused source.
no he doesn't

You believe in UFO's and conspiracy theories rather than Christ.
you believe in government made up lies instead of Christ...what conspiracy theories are you talking about?

The ones posted on the Most Holy Family Monastery website.

If you want to discuss Politics, PM Fr. George for access to the Private fora.

I thought this was a forum to discuss religious views, but if you would like to discuss "conspiracy theories" point me to the correct thread so I can crush all your false beliefs

If you want to discuss Politics, PM Fr. George for access to the Private fora.

as you seem like a naive person who believes whatever their government tells them, but I know your type, to make useless accusations and then never back it up. concentrate on your salvation and don't get mixed up with debating conspiracy theories with me because I will embarrass you.

I've upset you.  Please forgive me.   angel
I don't need to discuss politics with Fr. George or whatever flora from this forum,  I came to this website with the hopes of saving souls, and as far as I can tell I'm not doing a good job,.... you made the false accusation that I believe in ufo's rather than Christ, so of course I take offense ,apology  accepted


Post edited to enforce forum rule that clergy receive the respect due their sacramental ministry in the Church  -PtA
 
Our records show that you've already received one warning for refusing to give our clergy their due respects by using their proper titles. For refusing to do this again, you are receiving this warning to last for the next 14 days. I don't care that you think us outside the Church or even non-Christian and our clergy therefore unworthy to be addressed as clergy. On this forum, you will refer to our priests as Father and our bishops as Bishop, Archbishop, Metropolitan, etc.

If you think this warning wrong, please appeal it to me via private message.

- PeterTheAleut
« Last Edit: March 30, 2013, 01:24:25 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,078


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #135 on: March 30, 2013, 12:00:04 AM »


I don't need to discuss politics with George or whatever flora from this forum,  I came to this website with the hopes of saving souls, and as far as I can tell I'm not doing a good job,.... you made the false accusation that I believe in ufo's rather than Christ, so of course I take offense ,apology  accepted

I converted to Holy Orthodoxy from the Roman Catholic church and I am saved thank you very much.
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #136 on: March 30, 2013, 12:02:26 AM »

you don't know what you are talking about

You severed yourself from communion with your bishop and your Patriarch. According to traditional Roman ecclesiology being in communion with Rome is the litmus test of determining whether someone is a Catholic or not. You failed the test.
you failed to realize Rome has lost the faith and it is not Catholic Church

No, I have not failed to realise this.
Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law:

“One who after baptism… rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic.”

Schism can be either refusing communion with a true pope (not an antipope) or refusing communion with the members of the Church who are in communion with the pope.
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."
so you are basically saying I should accept the pope no matter what or else I fall into schism, I'm telling you as a Catholic I can not accept the heretic as a pope, do you get it now?
Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,078


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #137 on: March 30, 2013, 12:08:10 AM »

you don't know what you are talking about

You severed yourself from communion with your bishop and your Patriarch. According to traditional Roman ecclesiology being in communion with Rome is the litmus test of determining whether someone is a Catholic or not. You failed the test.
you failed to realize Rome has lost the faith and it is not Catholic Church

No, I have not failed to realise this.
Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law:

“One who after baptism… rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic.”

Schism can be either refusing communion with a true pope (not an antipope) or refusing communion with the members of the Church who are in communion with the pope.
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."
so you are basically saying I should accept the pope no matter what or else I fall into schism, I'm telling you as a Catholic I can not accept the heretic as a pope, do you get it now?

You know that I cant help but think that if you were an Orthodox saying this on CAF you would have been kicked off long ago.....But we are much more understanding......Peace be with you!
« Last Edit: March 30, 2013, 12:08:44 AM by JoeS2 » Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #138 on: March 30, 2013, 12:14:15 AM »


I don't need to discuss politics with George or whatever flora from this forum,  I came to this website with the hopes of saving souls, and as far as I can tell I'm not doing a good job,.... you made the false accusation that I believe in ufo's rather than Christ, so of course I take offense ,apology  accepted

I converted to Holy Orthodoxy from the Roman Catholic church and I am saved thank you very much.
even the protestants believe they are saved, just because they believe it doesn't make it so, and to be frank deep down I do hope you are saved , I hope my good friends and family will be saved who don't practice the catholic faith to it's fullest , but after all the research I just don't see how it's possible, I believe the few are saved and I can only hope I will be saved, I'm not scared of anything in life any more except that I won't be saved....my salvation isn't secure because as the blessed Paul said we should work out our salvation with fear and trembling, so I do fear it, I think you should too

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all
those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or
heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the
everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they
are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this
ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do
the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and
other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal
rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given
away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he
has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”5
 
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #139 on: March 30, 2013, 12:16:24 AM »


I don't need to discuss politics with George or whatever flora from this forum,  I came to this website with the hopes of saving souls, and as far as I can tell I'm not doing a good job,.... you made the false accusation that I believe in ufo's rather than Christ, so of course I take offense ,apology  accepted

I converted to Holy Orthodoxy from the Roman Catholic church and I am saved thank you very much.
even the protestants believe they are saved, just because they believe it doesn't make it so, and to be frank deep down I do hope you are saved , I hope my good friends and family will be saved who don't practice the catholic faith to it's fullest , but after all the research I just don't see how it's possible, I believe the few are saved and I can only hope I will be saved, I'm not scared of anything in life any more except that I won't be saved....my salvation isn't secure because as the blessed Paul said we should work out our salvation with fear and trembling, so I do fear it, I think you should too

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all
those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or
heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the
everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they
are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this
ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do
the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and
other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal
rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given
away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he
has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”5
 


So the Pope of Rome saying that only those under him are saved.

Sounds Protestant.
Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,078


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #140 on: March 30, 2013, 12:16:57 AM »

Babies who die go to Hell? How absurd! Angry
they go to hell where there's no fire, limbo, which biblical passage that I posted are you not in agreement with?

Didn't the RCC do away with the myth of Limbo some years ago?
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #141 on: March 30, 2013, 12:20:35 AM »

Didn't the RCC do away with the myth of Limbo some years ago?

That's the original and real RCC, not the RCC of sedevacantist which personally interprets Canon Law.
Logged
SolEX01
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,985


WWW
« Reply #142 on: March 30, 2013, 12:21:55 AM »

I don't need to discuss politics with Fr. George or whatever flora from this forum,

Some things can't be discussed in the public fora.  If you want to discuss Jews and freemasons and things get polemical, it is better suited for the Private fora.

I came to this website with the hopes of saving souls, and as far as I can tell I'm not doing a good job

Proselytizing is not permitted according to the forum rules.

,.... you made the false accusation that I believe in ufo's rather than Christ

You parrot the Most Holy Family Monastery website which displays articles on UFO's and other conspiracy theories.

, so of course I take offense ,apology  accepted

You said you were going to embarrass me, which I interpreted as having upset you.  I hold no ill will towards you.   Smiley
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #143 on: March 30, 2013, 12:29:20 AM »

I came to this website with the hopes of saving souls, and as far as I can tell I'm not doing a good job

Obviously.  You're still a sedevacantist.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,473


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #144 on: March 30, 2013, 12:32:42 AM »

I don't need to discuss politics with Fr. George or whatever flora from this forum,

Some things can't be discussed in the public fora.  If you want to discuss Jews and freemasons and things get polemical, it is better suited for the Private fora.
Rather than misinterpret our guidelines on what should be discussed here and what should be discussed there, why don't you leave this to the moderators to explain and stop playing moderator yourself?

I came to this website with the hopes of saving souls, and as far as I can tell I'm not doing a good job

Proselytizing is not permitted according to the forum rules.
But dialogue between Roman Catholics and Orthodox is permitted here on the Orthodox-Catholic Board, even if the intent on either side is to convince others to convert from the other side. Again, this comes down to you reporting posts to the moderators rather than misrepresenting the rules in your attempts to play moderator.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2013, 12:34:11 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
SolEX01
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,985


WWW
« Reply #145 on: March 30, 2013, 12:43:40 AM »

I don't need to discuss politics with Fr. George or whatever flora from this forum,

Some things can't be discussed in the public fora.  If you want to discuss Jews and freemasons and things get polemical, it is better suited for the Private fora.
Rather than misinterpret our guidelines on what should be discussed here and what should be discussed there, why don't you leave this to the moderators to explain and stop playing moderator yourself?

It wasn't my intention to play moderator.  I should have quit at "PM Fr. George for access to the Private fora."

I came to this website with the hopes of saving souls, and as far as I can tell I'm not doing a good job

Proselytizing is not permitted according to the forum rules.
But dialogue between Roman Catholics and Orthodox is permitted here on the Orthodox-Catholic Board, even if the intent on either side is to convince others to convert from the other side. Again, this comes down to you reporting posts to the moderators rather than misrepresenting the rules in your attempts to play moderator.

I don't think sedevacantist is a Catholic; hence, the charge of proselytizing.  I didn't want to report him because of his self-admission at failing to save people.  I'll exercise better discernment.   angel
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,473


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #146 on: March 30, 2013, 02:04:06 AM »

I don't need to discuss politics with Fr. George or whatever flora from this forum,

Some things can't be discussed in the public fora.  If you want to discuss Jews and freemasons and things get polemical, it is better suited for the Private fora.
Rather than misinterpret our guidelines on what should be discussed here and what should be discussed there, why don't you leave this to the moderators to explain and stop playing moderator yourself?

It wasn't my intention to play moderator.  I should have quit at "PM Fr. George for access to the Private fora."

I came to this website with the hopes of saving souls, and as far as I can tell I'm not doing a good job

Proselytizing is not permitted according to the forum rules.
But dialogue between Roman Catholics and Orthodox is permitted here on the Orthodox-Catholic Board, even if the intent on either side is to convince others to convert from the other side. Again, this comes down to you reporting posts to the moderators rather than misrepresenting the rules in your attempts to play moderator.

I don't think sedevacantist is a Catholic; hence, the charge of proselytizing.
Well, he certainly isn't Orthodox. Wink It's well known that sedevacantist believes in the claims of the papacy to universal sovereignty and infallibility. AISI, that makes him a Roman Catholic. He's just a Catholic who believes that his Church has not had a valid pope since at least as early as 1962, if not earlier. That belief, however, does not make him any less qualified to represent the traditional teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in dialogue with the Orthodox than--let's say--Papist.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2013, 02:09:21 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #147 on: March 30, 2013, 05:00:25 AM »

so you are basically saying I should accept the pope no matter what

No, I think you shouldn't accept the Papacy and her claims to begin with.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2013, 05:00:32 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #148 on: March 30, 2013, 07:44:17 AM »

Quote
I don't need to discuss politics with Fr. George or whatever flora from this forum,

Some things can't be discussed in the public fora.  If you want to discuss Jews and freemasons and things get polemical, it is better suited for the Private fora.

I came to this website with the hopes of saving souls, and as far as I can tell I'm not doing a good job

Proselytizing is not permitted according to the forum rules.
 etc,
, so of course I take offense ,apology  accepted

You said you were going to embarrass me, which I interpreted as having upset you.  I hold no ill will towards you.   Smiley
I was going to embarass you with information to prove your position wrong, ie if you think the gov't didn't lie about 9/11, if I told you that you believed in ufo's instead of Christ  I think you would take offense too, ...I hold no ill towards you too

quote tags fixed. S1389
« Last Edit: March 30, 2013, 01:02:50 PM by serb1389 » Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #149 on: March 30, 2013, 07:46:21 AM »


I don't need to discuss politics with George or whatever flora from this forum,  I came to this website with the hopes of saving souls, and as far as I can tell I'm not doing a good job,.... you made the false accusation that I believe in ufo's rather than Christ, so of course I take offense ,apology  accepted

I converted to Holy Orthodoxy from the Roman Catholic church and I am saved thank you very much.
even the protestants believe they are saved, just because they believe it doesn't make it so, and to be frank deep down I do hope you are saved , I hope my good friends and family will be saved who don't practice the catholic faith to it's fullest , but after all the research I just don't see how it's possible, I believe the few are saved and I can only hope I will be saved, I'm not scared of anything in life any more except that I won't be saved....my salvation isn't secure because as the blessed Paul said we should work out our salvation with fear and trembling, so I do fear it, I think you should too

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all
those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or
heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the
everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they
are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this
ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do
the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and
other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal
rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given
away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he
has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”5
 


So the Pope of Rome saying that only those under him are saved.

Sounds Protestant.
protestants believe in faith alone...your list of nonsensical remarks just keeps growing by the minute
Logged
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,018


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #150 on: March 30, 2013, 08:16:45 AM »

you don't know what you are talking about

You severed yourself from communion with your bishop and your Patriarch. Cavorting to traditional Roman ecclesiology being in communion with Rome is the litmus test of determining whether someone is a Catholic or not. You failed the test.
you failed to realize Rome has lost the faith and it is not Catholic Church

No, I have not failed to realise this.
Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law:

“One who after baptism… rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic.”

Schism can be either refusing communion with a true pope (not an antipope) or refusing communion with the members of the Church who are in communion with the pope.
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."
so you are basically saying I should accept the pope no matter what or else I fall into schism, I'm telling you as a Catholic I can not accept the heretic as a pope, do you get it now?

A serious question: Assuming arguendo that you are correct regarding the status of the current Vatican organization, how are you "True" Catholics to restore the Papacy in the absence of any valid hierarchy? Are you not in the same logical position as the priestless faction of Russian "Old Believers"? (Theology aside....)
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #151 on: March 30, 2013, 08:30:12 AM »

I don't need to discuss politics with George or whatever flora from this forum,  I came to this website with the hopes of saving souls, and as far as I can tell I'm not doing a good job,....

No one said you were (well, as far as I can recall).
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #152 on: March 30, 2013, 09:25:22 PM »

you don't know what you are talking about

You severed yourself from communion with your bishop and your Patriarch. Cavorting to traditional Roman ecclesiology being in communion with Rome is the litmus test of determining whether someone is a Catholic or not. You failed the test.
you failed to realize Rome has lost the faith and it is not Catholic Church

No, I have not failed to realise this.
Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law:

“One who after baptism… rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic.”

Schism can be either refusing communion with a true pope (not an antipope) or refusing communion with the members of the Church who are in communion with the pope.
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."
so you are basically saying I should accept the pope no matter what or else I fall into schism, I'm telling you as a Catholic I can not accept the heretic as a pope, do you get it now?

A serious question: Assuming arguendo that you are correct regarding the status of the current Vatican organization, how are you "True" Catholics to restore the Papacy in the absence of any valid hierarchy? Are you not in the same logical position as the priestless faction of Russian "Old Believers"? (Theology aside....)
I answered on another thread that I don't see another true pope coming out in the vatican, it's funny you ask because I was talking to a fellow sedevacantist yesterday who says at the end we are supposed to get a true pope. if it's God's will anything could happen
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #153 on: March 30, 2013, 09:28:37 PM »

I don't need to discuss politics with George or whatever flora from this forum,  I came to this website with the hopes of saving souls, and as far as I can tell I'm not doing a good job,....

No one said you were (well, as far as I can recall).
when did I say someone said I was?, I meant  that it doesn't look like anyone here is interested in changing their views, what's your point? do you believe as a catholic you are supposed to convert others to the true faith?
Logged
SolEX01
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,985


WWW
« Reply #154 on: March 30, 2013, 09:37:56 PM »

you don't know what you are talking about

You severed yourself from communion with your bishop and your Patriarch. Cavorting to traditional Roman ecclesiology being in communion with Rome is the litmus test of determining whether someone is a Catholic or not. You failed the test.
you failed to realize Rome has lost the faith and it is not Catholic Church

No, I have not failed to realise this.
Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law:

“One who after baptism… rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic.”

Schism can be either refusing communion with a true pope (not an antipope) or refusing communion with the members of the Church who are in communion with the pope.
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."
so you are basically saying I should accept the pope no matter what or else I fall into schism, I'm telling you as a Catholic I can not accept the heretic as a pope, do you get it now?

A serious question: Assuming arguendo that you are correct regarding the status of the current Vatican organization, how are you "True" Catholics to restore the Papacy in the absence of any valid hierarchy? Are you not in the same logical position as the priestless faction of Russian "Old Believers"? (Theology aside....)
I answered on another thread that I don't see another true pope coming out in the vatican, it's funny you ask because I was talking to a fellow sedevacantist yesterday who says at the end we are supposed to get a true pope. if it's God's will anything could happen

In Orthodoxy, when the Old Calendarist Groups broke away, they retained their Bishops who were able to consecrate Priests and other Bishops to continue roughly 90 years after separation from the rest of Orthodoxy.

Since you don't acknowledge the Popes elected after 1958, where will you find your pre-1958 Bishops to consecrate Priests and other Bishops (and Popes) to continue forward.  If you die, who's left to continue to movement?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #155 on: March 30, 2013, 09:58:52 PM »

I don't need to discuss politics with George or whatever flora from this forum,  I came to this website with the hopes of saving souls, and as far as I can tell I'm not doing a good job,....

No one said you were (well, as far as I can recall).
when did I say someone said I was?

Oh, I never said that you said someone said that.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #156 on: March 31, 2013, 02:18:35 PM »

you don't know what you are talking about

You severed yourself from communion with your bishop and your Patriarch. Cavorting to traditional Roman ecclesiology being in communion with Rome is the litmus test of determining whether someone is a Catholic or not. You failed the test.
you failed to realize Rome has lost the faith and it is not Catholic Church

No, I have not failed to realise this.
Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law:

“One who after baptism… rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic.”

Schism can be either refusing communion with a true pope (not an antipope) or refusing communion with the members of the Church who are in communion with the pope.
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."
so you are basically saying I should accept the pope no matter what or else I fall into schism, I'm telling you as a Catholic I can not accept the heretic as a pope, do you get it now?

A serious question: Assuming arguendo that you are correct regarding the status of the current Vatican organization, how are you "True" Catholics to restore the Papacy in the absence of any valid hierarchy? Are you not in the same logical position as the priestless faction of Russian "Old Believers"? (Theology aside....)
I answered on another thread that I don't see another true pope coming out in the vatican, it's funny you ask because I was talking to a fellow sedevacantist yesterday who says at the end we are supposed to get a true pope. if it's God's will anything could happen

In Orthodoxy, when the Old Calendarist Groups broke away, they retained their Bishops who were able to consecrate Priests and other Bishops to continue roughly 90 years after separation from the rest of Orthodoxy.

Since you don't acknowledge the Popes elected after 1958, where will you find your pre-1958 Bishops to consecrate Priests and other Bishops (and Popes) to continue forward.  If you die, who's left to continue to movement?
like I said it's debatable what will happen in the future concerning a true pope, what's not debatable is that we haven't had a true pope since 1958, if you like you can try to prove me wrong although you being orthodox I doubt you would really care? no?
Logged
SolEX01
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,985


WWW
« Reply #157 on: March 31, 2013, 02:47:18 PM »

you don't know what you are talking about

You severed yourself from communion with your bishop and your Patriarch. Cavorting to traditional Roman ecclesiology being in communion with Rome is the litmus test of determining whether someone is a Catholic or not. You failed the test.
you failed to realize Rome has lost the faith and it is not Catholic Church

No, I have not failed to realise this.
Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law:

“One who after baptism… rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic.”

Schism can be either refusing communion with a true pope (not an antipope) or refusing communion with the members of the Church who are in communion with the pope.
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."
so you are basically saying I should accept the pope no matter what or else I fall into schism, I'm telling you as a Catholic I can not accept the heretic as a pope, do you get it now?

A serious question: Assuming arguendo that you are correct regarding the status of the current Vatican organization, how are you "True" Catholics to restore the Papacy in the absence of any valid hierarchy? Are you not in the same logical position as the priestless faction of Russian "Old Believers"? (Theology aside....)
I answered on another thread that I don't see another true pope coming out in the vatican, it's funny you ask because I was talking to a fellow sedevacantist yesterday who says at the end we are supposed to get a true pope. if it's God's will anything could happen

In Orthodoxy, when the Old Calendarist Groups broke away, they retained their Bishops who were able to consecrate Priests and other Bishops to continue roughly 90 years after separation from the rest of Orthodoxy.

Since you don't acknowledge the Popes elected after 1958, where will you find your pre-1958 Bishops to consecrate Priests and other Bishops (and Popes) to continue forward.  If you die, who's left to continue to movement?
like I said it's debatable what will happen in the future concerning a true pope, what's not debatable is that we haven't had a true pope since 1958, if you like you can try to prove me wrong although you being orthodox I doubt you would really care? no?

Things end for me at 1054.  This was what I told RC/EC apologists in that I'm not interested in debate because their faith is one of legalism while the Orthodox faith is one of freedom.

Attack Orthodoxy?  I don't attack Orthodoxy.  I push back at men like Isa and Father Ambrose when they attack the Catholic Church and make a mockery of all that is good.  I do that indeed.

You have dice lecturing me morally and referring to Catholic catechumen as the newly unillumined.

Nope, just those adults who are "received" via being baptized, chrismated and communed into Roman Catholicism.  While RCs baptize infants, they make the infant wait 7 years for Communion and 12 years for Chrismation.  When a RC turns 18 and learns that Humanae Vitae dictates that they go to hell for using contraception and having premarital sex without any recourse, then the "illumination" becomes chaos.   Wink

So what you would argue is that the Church of Rome teaches that 'all' who commit these unnatural acts are fully culpable in their sin and thus commit a Mortal Sin cutting themselves off from Sanctifying Grace that extends to them Eternal Life? Is that honestly what you are suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church teaches?

That is my understanding of Roman Catholic theology.  I do not have to justify it any more than you can justify Orthodox theology on any topic.

Brilliant reasoning.  I can say any untruth about your Church and it becomes true because that is how I understand it.

Most of us live by understandings because we do not have the "coins" or the "dice" to really discover the "facts" about Catholicism or Orthodoxy.  Orthodoxy remains a simple faith, unadulterated by the thousands upon thousands of Papal Encyclicals, Papal Bulls and other Papal documents that are legally binding on every Catholic of every flavor throughout the world.

I have many RC friends; I do not discuss theology with them because I don't want to engage in these "clanging of cymbals" discussions as experienced on the Internet.  However, because the Catholics and Orthodox are passionate (yup, that's not a healthy condition) about their stances, the only way to learn about the other's position is to "clang the cymbals" because we can also Praise God through the "clanging of the cymbals" just as Elijah ordered fire down from Heaven to burn the water drenched sacrifices

True genius.  I wish I'd had the coins to do that in my graduate theses.  Would have saved a great deal of time.

Big risks = Big rewards (if one has nothing to lose)   Wink
Eastern Orthodoxy is not a simple faith at all.

Freely you have received; Freely give. (Matthew 10:8 )

When one is received into Roman Catholicism; one is automatically bounded by the IC, by Humanae Vitae, et al. as the price paid upon entering the Catholic Communion.  What is there to give back when one has to obey more canon laws, some of them have automatic and permanent excommunications without recourse via Penance, than civil laws?   Huh

Quote
In worldly everyday conversations; we hear the familiar phrase…Nothing is free in life. Now the reality…freedom of any kind is a gift that is presented with a cost of humanity, dignity and the sharing with others. We need not receive a penny for a favor; but await a reward of gratitude and joyful heart of another human being.…!

source

It changes to meet the current theological winds.

What theological winds?  St. John Climacus is a Saint in your Church as well ... how many RC Bishops and Popes have we seen falling off the ladder?

For example, you used believe in Purgatory and Original sin, but now that it's in style to be as anti-Latin as possible you don't. How unfortunate.

You state that as fact; hence, I defer to those who can contest that better than I can.   Smiley


Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,473


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #158 on: March 31, 2013, 05:46:34 PM »

you don't know what you are talking about

You severed yourself from communion with your bishop and your Patriarch. Cavorting to traditional Roman ecclesiology being in communion with Rome is the litmus test of determining whether someone is a Catholic or not. You failed the test.
you failed to realize Rome has lost the faith and it is not Catholic Church

No, I have not failed to realise this.
Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law:

“One who after baptism… rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic.”

Schism can be either refusing communion with a true pope (not an antipope) or refusing communion with the members of the Church who are in communion with the pope.
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."
so you are basically saying I should accept the pope no matter what or else I fall into schism, I'm telling you as a Catholic I can not accept the heretic as a pope, do you get it now?

A serious question: Assuming arguendo that you are correct regarding the status of the current Vatican organization, how are you "True" Catholics to restore the Papacy in the absence of any valid hierarchy? Are you not in the same logical position as the priestless faction of Russian "Old Believers"? (Theology aside....)
I answered on another thread that I don't see another true pope coming out in the vatican, it's funny you ask because I was talking to a fellow sedevacantist yesterday who says at the end we are supposed to get a true pope. if it's God's will anything could happen

In Orthodoxy, when the Old Calendarist Groups broke away, they retained their Bishops who were able to consecrate Priests and other Bishops to continue roughly 90 years after separation from the rest of Orthodoxy.

Since you don't acknowledge the Popes elected after 1958, where will you find your pre-1958 Bishops to consecrate Priests and other Bishops (and Popes) to continue forward.  If you die, who's left to continue to movement?
like I said it's debatable what will happen in the future concerning a true pope, what's not debatable is that we haven't had a true pope since 1958, if you like you can try to prove me wrong although you being orthodox I doubt you would really care? no?

Things end for me at 1054.  This was what I told RC/EC apologists in that I'm not interested in debate because their faith is one of legalism while the Orthodox faith is one of freedom.
Don't you think that caricature overly simplistic? I do.
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #159 on: March 31, 2013, 06:35:52 PM »

where will you find your pre-1958 Bishops

I know where we can find them.
Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
SolEX01
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,985


WWW
« Reply #160 on: March 31, 2013, 07:12:55 PM »

where will you find your pre-1958 Bishops

I know where we can find them.

Where?  These are men approaching 100 years of age (if not older).  They have to be consecrated by a Bishop not assigned by a Pope elected after 1958.
Logged
SolEX01
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,985


WWW
« Reply #161 on: March 31, 2013, 07:32:10 PM »

you don't know what you are talking about

You severed yourself from communion with your bishop and your Patriarch. Cavorting to traditional Roman ecclesiology being in communion with Rome is the litmus test of determining whether someone is a Catholic or not. You failed the test.
you failed to realize Rome has lost the faith and it is not Catholic Church

No, I have not failed to realise this.
Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law:

“One who after baptism… rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic.”

Schism can be either refusing communion with a true pope (not an antipope) or refusing communion with the members of the Church who are in communion with the pope.
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."
so you are basically saying I should accept the pope no matter what or else I fall into schism, I'm telling you as a Catholic I can not accept the heretic as a pope, do you get it now?

A serious question: Assuming arguendo that you are correct regarding the status of the current Vatican organization, how are you "True" Catholics to restore the Papacy in the absence of any valid hierarchy? Are you not in the same logical position as the priestless faction of Russian "Old Believers"? (Theology aside....)
I answered on another thread that I don't see another true pope coming out in the vatican, it's funny you ask because I was talking to a fellow sedevacantist yesterday who says at the end we are supposed to get a true pope. if it's God's will anything could happen

In Orthodoxy, when the Old Calendarist Groups broke away, they retained their Bishops who were able to consecrate Priests and other Bishops to continue roughly 90 years after separation from the rest of Orthodoxy.

Since you don't acknowledge the Popes elected after 1958, where will you find your pre-1958 Bishops to consecrate Priests and other Bishops (and Popes) to continue forward.  If you die, who's left to continue to movement?
like I said it's debatable what will happen in the future concerning a true pope, what's not debatable is that we haven't had a true pope since 1958, if you like you can try to prove me wrong although you being orthodox I doubt you would really care? no?

Things end for me at 1054.  This was what I told RC/EC apologists in that I'm not interested in debate because their faith is one of legalism while the Orthodox faith is one of freedom.
Don't you think that caricature overly simplistic? I do.

Goes back to what I said in 1/2011: "Orthodoxy remains a simple faith, unadulterated by the thousands upon thousands of Papal Encyclicals, Papal Bulls and other Papal documents that are legally binding on every Catholic of every flavor throughout the world."

Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,473


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #162 on: March 31, 2013, 07:53:50 PM »

you don't know what you are talking about

You severed yourself from communion with your bishop and your Patriarch. Cavorting to traditional Roman ecclesiology being in communion with Rome is the litmus test of determining whether someone is a Catholic or not. You failed the test.
you failed to realize Rome has lost the faith and it is not Catholic Church

No, I have not failed to realise this.
Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law:

“One who after baptism… rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic.”

Schism can be either refusing communion with a true pope (not an antipope) or refusing communion with the members of the Church who are in communion with the pope.
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."
so you are basically saying I should accept the pope no matter what or else I fall into schism, I'm telling you as a Catholic I can not accept the heretic as a pope, do you get it now?

A serious question: Assuming arguendo that you are correct regarding the status of the current Vatican organization, how are you "True" Catholics to restore the Papacy in the absence of any valid hierarchy? Are you not in the same logical position as the priestless faction of Russian "Old Believers"? (Theology aside....)
I answered on another thread that I don't see another true pope coming out in the vatican, it's funny you ask because I was talking to a fellow sedevacantist yesterday who says at the end we are supposed to get a true pope. if it's God's will anything could happen

In Orthodoxy, when the Old Calendarist Groups broke away, they retained their Bishops who were able to consecrate Priests and other Bishops to continue roughly 90 years after separation from the rest of Orthodoxy.

Since you don't acknowledge the Popes elected after 1958, where will you find your pre-1958 Bishops to consecrate Priests and other Bishops (and Popes) to continue forward.  If you die, who's left to continue to movement?
like I said it's debatable what will happen in the future concerning a true pope, what's not debatable is that we haven't had a true pope since 1958, if you like you can try to prove me wrong although you being orthodox I doubt you would really care? no?

Things end for me at 1054.  This was what I told RC/EC apologists in that I'm not interested in debate because their faith is one of legalism while the Orthodox faith is one of freedom.
Don't you think that caricature overly simplistic? I do.

Goes back to what I said in 1/2011: "Orthodoxy remains a simple faith, unadulterated by the thousands upon thousands of Papal Encyclicals, Papal Bulls and other Papal documents that are legally binding on every Catholic of every flavor throughout the world."
Instead, we have thousands upon thousands of hierarchical encyclicals and scores of local councils that many Orthodox around the world think are legally binding upon themselves. How is that any different?
Logged
SolEX01
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,985


WWW
« Reply #163 on: March 31, 2013, 08:18:21 PM »

you don't know what you are talking about

You severed yourself from communion with your bishop and your Patriarch. Cavorting to traditional Roman ecclesiology being in communion with Rome is the litmus test of determining whether someone is a Catholic or not. You failed the test.
you failed to realize Rome has lost the faith and it is not Catholic Church

No, I have not failed to realise this.
Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law:

“One who after baptism… rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic.”

Schism can be either refusing communion with a true pope (not an antipope) or refusing communion with the members of the Church who are in communion with the pope.
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."
so you are basically saying I should accept the pope no matter what or else I fall into schism, I'm telling you as a Catholic I can not accept the heretic as a pope, do you get it now?

A serious question: Assuming arguendo that you are correct regarding the status of the current Vatican organization, how are you "True" Catholics to restore the Papacy in the absence of any valid hierarchy? Are you not in the same logical position as the priestless faction of Russian "Old Believers"? (Theology aside....)
I answered on another thread that I don't see another true pope coming out in the vatican, it's funny you ask because I was talking to a fellow sedevacantist yesterday who says at the end we are supposed to get a true pope. if it's God's will anything could happen

In Orthodoxy, when the Old Calendarist Groups broke away, they retained their Bishops who were able to consecrate Priests and other Bishops to continue roughly 90 years after separation from the rest of Orthodoxy.

Since you don't acknowledge the Popes elected after 1958, where will you find your pre-1958 Bishops to consecrate Priests and other Bishops (and Popes) to continue forward.  If you die, who's left to continue to movement?
like I said it's debatable what will happen in the future concerning a true pope, what's not debatable is that we haven't had a true pope since 1958, if you like you can try to prove me wrong although you being orthodox I doubt you would really care? no?

Things end for me at 1054.  This was what I told RC/EC apologists in that I'm not interested in debate because their faith is one of legalism while the Orthodox faith is one of freedom.
Don't you think that caricature overly simplistic? I do.

Goes back to what I said in 1/2011: "Orthodoxy remains a simple faith, unadulterated by the thousands upon thousands of Papal Encyclicals, Papal Bulls and other Papal documents that are legally binding on every Catholic of every flavor throughout the world."
Instead, we have thousands upon thousands of hierarchical encyclicals and scores of local councils that many Orthodox around the world think are legally binding upon themselves. How is that any different?

I don't know.   Huh
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #164 on: April 01, 2013, 04:56:28 AM »

question 1
I have to go to a baptism at a greek orthodox church, my niece is 7 months old, my question is why do you wait so long to get your babies baptized, do you believe in infant baptism? If yes why not get baptized like the catholics shuld do within the 1st month. Catholics believe if a bay perished before getting baptized he can not go to heaven, do the orthodox believe the same thing? I know you get the baby anointed or something early on, but this surely can't replace the baptism? what is the point?

I am a bit surprised that you would take the decisions and choices of one family in their unique situation and extrapolate all manner of things about Orthodox from it.

My mother was baptized into the Roman Catholic church at the age of six (in about 1935), along with three of her siblings. This was not a 'convert' family. Similarly my own grandson was a year old before his parents (both lifelong Roman Catholics) baptized him into the Roman Catholic church.

Do I think this was stretching it? I certainly do,  these two examples are incredible breaches of normal practice. I myself was baptized into the RC church right out of the hospital (following RC custom of the day, my parents didn't go, but they filmed my godparents taking me away to church and bringing me back to the party). I had my children baptized in the Roman Catholic church very soon right out of the hospital (I attended Wink but the congregation was not present).

Among Roman Catholics there is such an incredible variety of adherence it would be foolish for anyone to make any assumptions of what is proper or correct by their example. This case of an Orthodox family is no different, one should not infer anything from the example of one family at any given time in their faith journey.

I suggest that if you have any more questions about Holy Orthodoxy there is plenty of written material available. Read "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" by Saint John Damascene (a Doctor of your church) for starters. It is available on Kindle.

You can learn more from "The Orthodox Way" by bishop Kallistos Ware.

kind regards

St. John of Damascus is one of my favorite Scholastics.  Smiley
Too bad he isn't one (btw, my own priest makes that same mistake).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #165 on: April 01, 2013, 04:56:28 AM »


St. John of Damascus is one of my favorite Scholastics.  Smiley

It's true Sad

As someone with a burning hatred of Aristotle I think that was St. John's only fault.
Who was burning for hatred of Aristotle?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #166 on: April 01, 2013, 04:56:28 AM »

where will you find your pre-1958 Bishops

I know where we can find them.

Where?  These are men approaching 100 years of age (if not older).  They have to be consecrated by a Bishop not assigned by a Pope elected after 1958.
I found them

instant conclave.  Just add water.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #167 on: April 01, 2013, 06:37:41 AM »

where will you find your pre-1958 Bishops

I know where we can find them.

Where? 

The graveyard.
Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,078


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #168 on: April 01, 2013, 05:37:47 PM »


I found them

instant conclave.  Just add water.

 laugh
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #169 on: April 02, 2013, 01:53:04 AM »

where will you find your pre-1958 Bishops

I know where we can find them.

Where?  These are men approaching 100 years of age (if not older).  They have to be consecrated by a Bishop not assigned by a Pope elected after 1958.
No, they are done.  Only a supreme pontiff can make a cardinal, only cardinals can elect a supreme pontiff according to the rules in effect in 1958, only a "supreme pontiff" can change the rules, and all the cardinals made by "supreme pontiffs" before 1958 have all died long ago.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
SolEX01
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,985


WWW
« Reply #170 on: April 02, 2013, 02:05:53 AM »

you don't know what you are talking about

You severed yourself from communion with your bishop and your Patriarch. Cavorting to traditional Roman ecclesiology being in communion with Rome is the litmus test of determining whether someone is a Catholic or not. You failed the test.
you failed to realize Rome has lost the faith and it is not Catholic Church

No, I have not failed to realise this.
Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law:

“One who after baptism… rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic.”

Schism can be either refusing communion with a true pope (not an antipope) or refusing communion with the members of the Church who are in communion with the pope.
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."
so you are basically saying I should accept the pope no matter what or else I fall into schism, I'm telling you as a Catholic I can not accept the heretic as a pope, do you get it now?

A serious question: Assuming arguendo that you are correct regarding the status of the current Vatican organization, how are you "True" Catholics to restore the Papacy in the absence of any valid hierarchy? Are you not in the same logical position as the priestless faction of Russian "Old Believers"? (Theology aside....)
I answered on another thread that I don't see another true pope coming out in the vatican, it's funny you ask because I was talking to a fellow sedevacantist yesterday who says at the end we are supposed to get a true pope. if it's God's will anything could happen

In Orthodoxy, when the Old Calendarist Groups broke away, they retained their Bishops who were able to consecrate Priests and other Bishops to continue roughly 90 years after separation from the rest of Orthodoxy.

Since you don't acknowledge the Popes elected after 1958, where will you find your pre-1958 Bishops to consecrate Priests and other Bishops (and Popes) to continue forward.  If you die, who's left to continue to movement?
like I said it's debatable what will happen in the future concerning a true pope, what's not debatable is that we haven't had a true pope since 1958, if you like you can try to prove me wrong although you being orthodox I doubt you would really care? no?

Things end for me at 1054.  This was what I told RC/EC apologists in that I'm not interested in debate because their faith is one of legalism while the Orthodox faith is one of freedom.
Don't you think that caricature overly simplistic? I do.

Goes back to what I said in 1/2011: "Orthodoxy remains a simple faith, unadulterated by the thousands upon thousands of Papal Encyclicals, Papal Bulls and other Papal documents that are legally binding on every Catholic of every flavor throughout the world."
Instead, we have thousands upon thousands of hierarchical encyclicals and scores of local councils that many Orthodox around the world think are legally binding upon themselves. How is that any different?

I don't know.   Huh

I've thought about this based on the thread in Convert Issues about Legalism.

The hierarchical encyclicals and scores of legal councils are intended to provide freedom to the Orthodox.

One can argue that the Popes issue their documents for the freedom of their own people.  Since the Pope is a head of state and can speak ex cathedra because he's infallible, his encyclicals are like ones coming from a dictator - restricting freedom.
Logged
SolEX01
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,985


WWW
« Reply #171 on: April 02, 2013, 02:12:34 AM »

where will you find your pre-1958 Bishops

I know where we can find them.

Where?  These are men approaching 100 years of age (if not older).  They have to be consecrated by a Bishop not assigned by a Pope elected after 1958.
No, they are done.  Only a supreme pontiff can make a cardinal, only cardinals can elect a supreme pontiff according to the rules in effect in 1958, only a "supreme pontiff" can change the rules, and all the cardinals made by "supreme pontiffs" before 1958 have all died long ago.

Thank you.

sedevacantist wouldn't recognize any changes in papal election rules from Pope Francis because he doesn't recognize Pope Francis.  Maybe this idea of pre-1958 Bishops might have worked 30 years ago and sedevacantist would have a pre-1958 Pope and enough cardinals that can elect new Popes without the Vatican II taint.  In effect, the Old Calendarist version of Roman Catholic Church.  I was trying to be helpful.   angel
Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,078


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #172 on: April 02, 2013, 09:11:25 AM »

where will you find your pre-1958 Bishops

I know where we can find them.

Where?  These are men approaching 100 years of age (if not older).  They have to be consecrated by a Bishop not assigned by a Pope elected after 1958.
No, they are done.  Only a supreme pontiff can make a cardinal, only cardinals can elect a supreme pontiff according to the rules in effect in 1958, only a "supreme pontiff" can change the rules, and all the cardinals made by "supreme pontiffs" before 1958 have all died long ago.

Thank you.

sedevacantist wouldn't recognize any changes in papal election rules from Pope Francis because he doesn't recognize Pope Francis.  Maybe this idea of pre-1958 Bishops might have worked 30 years ago and sedevacantist would have a pre-1958 Pope and enough cardinals that can elect new Popes without the Vatican II taint.  In effect, the Old Calendarist version of Roman Catholic Church.  I was trying to be helpful.   angel

Would this non recognition of which I read be a case of self excommunication?
« Last Edit: April 02, 2013, 09:11:40 AM by JoeS2 » Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.719 seconds with 201 queries.