questions from a catholic for the eastern orthodox

[orthonorm]

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?

[J Michael]

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  .

[orthonorm]

Babies who die go to Hell? How absurd!

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

[orthonorm]

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  .

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.

[Apotheoun]

Babies who die go to Hell? How absurd!

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.

[orthonorm]

Babies who die go to Hell? How absurd!

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.

[Apotheoun]

Babies who die go to Hell? How absurd!

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."

[Papist]

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.

[Papist]

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  .

[Papist]

Babies who die go to Hell? How absurd!

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).

[orthonorm]

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.

[orthonorm]

Babies who die go to Hell? How absurd!

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.

[orthonorm]

Babies who die go to Hell? How absurd!

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.

[Apotheoun]

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

[stanley123]

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.

[Romaios]

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? 

[orthonorm]

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.

[stanley123]

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? 

Cred că ar fi cel mai bun răspuns din punct de vedere catolic.

[mike]

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? 

Cred că ar fi cel mai bun răspuns din punct de vedere catolic.

translation...

[choy]

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? 

Ha!

I wanted to say it should be Peter but I figured at this point he hasn't received the keys yet.

[stanley123]

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? 

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.

[sedevacantist]

Babies who die go to Hell? How absurd!

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.

[sedevacantist]

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.)

[sedevacantist]

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.

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

[sedevacantist]

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? 

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.

 

[orthonorm]

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?

[Peter J]

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.

[mike]

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.

[Apotheoun]

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.

[orthonorm]

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?

[Hesychios]

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 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

[JoeS2]

Greetings Hesychios. Long time since we talked.

JoeS (aka St.MarkEofE- old CAF gang)  Orthodoc says hello.

[Hesychios]

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. 

Peace and all good things ...

[orthros]

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).

[sedevacantist]

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

[orthros]

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

[sedevacantist]

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 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."

[sedevacantist]

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

[TheMathematician]

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?

[Shiranui117]

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.

[orthonorm]

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.

[sedevacantist]

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

[orthonorm]

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.

[sedevacantist]

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

[Papist]

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 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. 

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: questions from a catholic for the eastern orthodox