I found this page while looking for something on the net. It is a local congregation of the Washington Church of Christ (to see their site, click on the name).Since it's a church in my hometown, I thought I'd use it as a real-world Catholic apologetic exercise. There's a wealth of possibilities here for an aspiring Catholic apologist. My prayer is that my comments to the "answers" on this page will help a Catholic apologist understand how to respond to the Protestant notion of Jesus and His Church. (I wrote this up a couple years ago, and just looked at their site again. Most of the questions are the same except for the first one. But it's pretty close. You can see the complete question on their site.)
If you are either Catholic, High Anglican or Eastern Orthodox, you will readily see that yours is the only Church from which the "questions" could come. I mention this since it's amusing to me how many religions base their creeds not upon something but in contradiction to something - for evangelical Christians, that means basing their very existence on their contradiction to the Catholic Church. I can say with much certainty that no matter what the Bible says literally on a topic that is believed by Catholics, an evangelical Christian will not accept it. The most glaring example is the Eucharist - stated forcefully and clearly in the 6th Chapter of the Gospel of John.
I didn't change anything about the original questions and answers from the FAQ page, and I am including the Questions and Answers from the FAQ page in their entirety to avoid possible mischaracterization of the position of the Church of Christ. I added my comments below the Answers. Please let me know if I've made any mistakes here. I don't want to misrepresent the truth of the Catholic Church, nor do I want to be unfair to our separated brethren. I have no need to misrepresent or distort the teachings of another religion since I have the truth on my side.
The Truth
The real issue here is not that the Catholic Church has clergy and religious who have a specific "uniform", it is that non-Catholic churches must find as many things as possible to set themselves apart from the Catholic Church. This will backfire, though, since by moving away from the Truth, they invariable move closer to the world's view as opposed to the view of God. It is a purely modern notion that people are equal in every respect. And it is a modern notion that people in authority must act like they don't have any more or less responsibility, authority, knowledge, position, etc. than the "common folk". This is just another example of "Christians" proclaiming with their mouths that they aren't "of the world", but by their actions surely they are.
The Bible nowhere authorizes the use of special clothing for elders, deacons or ministers.
Nor does it condemn it. As Christians are so quick to state "where Scripture is silent, so are we", except, of course, when it serves them and their new religion.
The minister (or preacher) is a servant of God. He is no different than anyone else.
Of course he is different, we're all unique beings - no two of us are the same. But, I assume that this isn't what is meant. You state later on in this FAQ that your ministers go through special schooling and are ordained (however, these criteria are unnecessary for Protestants who have as one of their pillars of Faith the man-made invention of Sola Scriptura - which is another glaring inconsistency with Protestantism). So, a minister is certainly different, especially if you believe that he has been called, whereas the congregation has not been called.
We try not to set one person over another.
But you do, by the very fact that you have ministers. If everyone is equal, then let me preach your sermon next Sunday. By this answer, you are obligated to let me Preach a sermon. But if I'm not allowed, then you are saying that your minister, or your congregation is "set over me". If no one is "set over another", then why not have a different person each Sunday preach the sermon and do away with your minister? But I know this won't happen, it's really just another example of falling lock step into our modern Western culture that everyone is equal in all respects. That is certainly not Scriptural. We are all given certain gifts and talents in unequal proportion - that is scriptural (Romans 12:6; 1 Cor 12; Ephesians 4:7-13).
The Bible says that God is not a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34).
In order to follow your logic on this one, and to rip the verse you cite completely out of context to fit your pretext, you must agree that the context of this verse goes something like this:
Clearly, you have taken this verse out of context - a context which specifically disproves your point. St. Peter was "set above" in his mission, the Prophets are clearly "set above", and the witnesses who were chosen by God were "set above". I think that you are very confused between the people who can be saved (anyone who believes, is baptized and dies in a state of grace) and those who are given a special gift to preach, teach and lead.
The Bible says that all Christians are priests of God. (1 Peter 2:5,9)
More accurately, the Scripture states that believers are part of a priesthood, not that we are necessarily priests. I would like the reader to keep in mind that the reason for this question and answer is to try to establish in the reader's mind that there is Scriptural evidence against the ministerial priesthood in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church teaches in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) Number 1268.
"The baptized have become 'living stones' to be 'built into a spiritual house, to be a holy PRIESTHOOD.'[1 Pet 2:5 .] By Baptism they share in the PRIESTHOOD of Christ, in his prophetic and royal mission. They are 'a chosen race, a royal PRIESTHOOD, a holy nation, God's own people, that (they) may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called (them) out of darkness into his marvelous light.'[1 Pet 2:9 .] Baptism gives a share in the common PRIESTHOOD of all BELIEVERS."
As well in Number 1546.
"Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church 'a kingdom, priests for his God and Father.'[Rev 1:6; cf. Rev 5:9-10; 1 Pet 2:5, 9 .] The whole community of BELIEVERS is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal PRIESTHOOD through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ's mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are 'consecrated to be . . . a holy PRIESTHOOD.'[LG 10 # 1.]"
But that doesn't mean that there isn't also a ministerial priesthood which performs the functions that Jesus defined. The CCC has in Number 1120.
"The ordained ministry or MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD is at the service of the baptismal PRIESTHOOD.[Cf. LG 10 # 2.] The ordained PRIESTHOOD guarantees that it really is Christ who acts in the sacraments through the Holy Spirit for the Church. The saving mission entrusted by the Father to his incarnate Son was committed to the apostles and through them to their successors: they receive the Spirit of Jesus to act in his name and in his person.[Cf. Jn 20:21-23 ; Lk 24:47 ; Mt 28:18-20 .] The ordained minister is the sacramental bond that ties the liturgical action to what the apostles said and did and, through them, to the words and actions of Christ, the source and foundation of the sacraments. "
And at number 1547.
"The MINISTERIAL or hierarchical PRIESTHOOD of bishops and priests, and the common PRIESTHOOD of all the faithful participate, 'each in its own proper way, in the one PRIESTHOOD of Christ.' While being 'ordered one to another,' they differ essentially.[LG 10 # 2.] In what sense? While the common PRIESTHOOD of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace-a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit-,the MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD is at the service of the common PRIESTHOOD. It is directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians. The MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD is a means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders."
There is also Number 1592.
"The MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD differs in essence from the common PRIESTHOOD of the faithful because it confers a sacred power for the service of the faithful. The ordained ministers exercise their service for the People of God by teaching (munus docendi), divine worship (munus liturgicum) and pastoral governance (munus regendi). "
All of these citations from the Catechism point out that there is an additional priesthood that flows from Christ. It's interesting to note what I found on this page: http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ60.HTM :
Protestants - following Luther - cite 1 Peter 2:5,9 (see also Revelation 1:6) in order to prove that all Christians are priests. But this doesn't exclude a specially-ordained, sacramental priesthood, since St. Peter was reflecting the language of Exodus 19:6, where the Jews were described in this fashion. Since the Jews had a separate Levitical priesthood, by analogy 1 Peter 2:9 cannot logically exclude a New Testament ordained priesthood. These texts are concerned with priestly holiness, as opposed to priestly function. The universal sense, for instance, never refers to the Eucharist or sacraments. Every Christian is a priest in terms of offering the sacrifices of prayer (Hebrews 13:15), almsgiving (Hebrews 13:16), and faith in Jesus (Philippians 2:17).
In addition, I found a wonderful document at http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/ntpriest.htm that explains this in greater detail:
So the Bible clearly states that all Christians are priests (1 Peter 2:5, 9), as the Catholic Church clearly teaches for all who bother to read its teachings, see Catechism of the Catholic Church 1141-4, 1268, 1305, 1535, 1547, 1591-2 on the common priesthood. But the Bible also said the same thing about the Israelites (Ex. 19:6), yet this did not prevent there from being a separate, ministerial priesthood even before the Law of Moses was given (Ex. 19:22, 24).
Furthermore, since the top, Old Testament office of high priest corresponds to Jesus, the New Testament high priest, and since the bottom, Old Testament universal priesthood corresponds to the New Testament universal priesthood, the middle, ministerial priesthood in the Old Testament corresponds to a middle, ministerial priesthood in the New Testament.
For additional information on how the early church understood the ministerial priesthood, see the citations found at this page: http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/hlyord.htm.
The Truth
Of course there is a prerequisite. St. Paul stated that unless a minister has been sent by them (the Apostles) then he is not of them (Romans 10:14-15). And, St. Paul's training did come from God ultimately, but before he was certain of his mission, he met with St. Peter, the first Apostle, for 15 days to ensure that he didn't teach in vain. That was his training - to be taught by the head Apostle. And then, as St. Paul passed on (ordained) St. Timothy, he gave Timothy the power of ordination to pass on to others - that was part of their training. They were called by God, but they weren't necessarily infused with knowledge. They grew and learned and preached, just as Jesus taught.
Here (http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/1998-07-08/toc.html), you can find many wonderful articles that explain in great detail about the ministerial priesthood established by Christ, the One High Priest.
Our ministers are college trained and ordained.
So, you're saying that they're "set over" by their training. Their initial calling may have been from God (although that's a whole other issue that I would argue), but your decision to only use college trained and ordained people for ministry proves that you consider them set apart. It's only some kind of sense of cultural "fairness" that makes you say something other than what you do. This is not living in the light.
What does the word "ordained" mean in the understanding of this particular church? It is not a static term, it changes based on the context. So, I would be curious to know what they mean by "ordained".
However, the Bible gives no stipulation as to a prerequisite to preaching the Gospel.
As we see in the CCC, there certainly were prerequisites involved. In the case of the Apostles, it was Jesus' calling of them. Just like today, Jesus calls his ministers first, and then they enter the priesthood. For example, see CCC Number 551.
"From the beginning of his public life Jesus chose certain men, twelve in number, to be with him and to participate in his MISSION.[Cf. Mk 3:13-19 .] He gives the Twelve a share in his authority and 'sent them out to PREACH the kingdom of God and to heal.'[Lk 9:2 .] They remain associated for ever with Christ's kingdom, for through them he directs the Church:
As my Father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.[Lk 22:29-30 .]"
Also, we see that it was Jesus' command to the Apostles that they would be the ones to decide who would be preachers to follow them in spreading the word. (2 Timothy 2:2) You notice that Jesus didn't pick the 12 and then say - oh, and as you wander the world, just let whoever claims to be a preacher be a preacher. No, he said that the Apostles would decide. It is explained in Number 858.
"Jesus is the Father's Emissary. From the beginning of his ministry, he 'called to him those whom he desired; .... And he appointed twelve, whom also he named apostles, to be with him, and to be sent out to PREACH.'[Mk 3:13-14 .] From then on, they would also be his 'emissaries' (Greek apostoloi). In them, Christ continues his own MISSION: 'As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.'[Jn 20:21 ; cf. Jn 13:20 ; Jn 17:18 .] The apostles' ministry is the continuation of his MISSION; Jesus said to the Twelve: 'he who receives you receives me.'[MT 10:40 ; cf. Lk 10:16 .]"
The clearest denunciation of this Protestant notion that you can wake up one morning and claim that you're a minister is explained in the CCC at Number 875.
"'How are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men PREACH unless they are sent?'[Rom 10:14:15 .] No one - no individual and no community - can proclaim the Gospel to himself: 'Faith comes from what is heard.'[ROM 10:17 .] No one can give himself the mandate and the MISSION to proclaim the Gospel. The one sent by the Lord does not speak and act on his own authority, but by virtue of Christ's authority; not as a member of the community, but speaking to it in the name of Christ. No one can bestow grace on himself; it must be given and offered. This fact presupposes ministers of grace, authorized and empowered by Christ. From him, they receive the MISSION and faculty ('the sacred power') to act in persona Christi Capitis. The ministry in which Christ's emissaries do and give by God's grace what they cannot do and give by their own powers, is called a 'sacrament' by the Church's tradition. Indeed, the ministry of the Church is conferred by a special sacrament."
Really, the issue at hand (sorry for the preemptive pun) has to do with the laying on of hands to ordain a minister. Here is a link to an article on this issue: Hand - Authority. Later on in this document, it explains Apostolic succession, as well.
The Apostles were inspired into the knowledge of God's word by the Holy Spirit. Their "training" came directly from God. (John 14.26)
OK, let's just assume that this verse means what you claim it means. Here's the verse in the KJV:
"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."
You claim that this means that anyone who thinks they're a minister, they must be since the Holy Spirit teaches all things. Then, your ministers must know "all things", right? Since you want to stretch this verse to mean much more than it says, then you must accept that interpretation.
But if you're honest, you'll see that this isn't at all what the context of the verse is. It's in the context of Jesus explaining to his disciples how they will carry on after He's gone, how His Church can persist even though He won't be there in body as they saw Him then. This verse is part of an answer from Judas (not Iscariot) who wants to know how they will carry on without Jesus. And Jesus states that the Holy Spirit will be with them, but not to the whole world, but to them, the Church. So, is Jesus stating that Holy Spirit will only be with Ministers? I think not. So, this is not what the verse is saying.
Besides, if their training came directly from God, and you're claiming the same for your ministers, then what need do your ministers have of a college education? Seems a little irrelevant if God infused the "training" in them.
We believe that any Bible student, minister and non-ministers alike, should be trained in the proper method of interpreting and understanding the Bible.
So you're saying that they should be "set above", although you claim in your first question that no one is set above. Besides, the second part of this sentence puts a lie to the whole Protestant notion of Sola Scriptura. If you truly believe your foundational creed of "Bible Only", then there should be no need for ministers, especially not ministers who have to be properly trained. Properly trained for what? If the Bible is so totally able to stand on its own, then there should be no need for someone to be trained to teach someone else about it, right?
I would submit this as another piece of evidence against the truth and logic of Protestantism. It's a logical fallacy - one of many.
They should also have the ability to convey the message of God's Word to others.
Based on what criteria? Who has determined this criteria? Who is to judge this criteria. So you are saying that someone could come to you and tell you that they are called to be a minister - and by your admittance, all they need to say is that God is calling them - but you could turn them away and tell them that they really weren't called by God to be a minister because they aren't "fiery" enough?
We have Bible classes and Bible class teachers who are committed to a proper and full understanding of God's Word.
And what would that proper and full understanding be? Based on whose judgment? If it's "Bible Alone", then who would you be to tell me that my interpretation was improper and yours was proper? Add this to the inconsistencies.
The Truth
Hold on a minute. In the immediately previous Answer, you said that you needed to have a proper understanding of the Bible. But here you say that nothing else is necessary. Which is it?
Our creed, however, is the teaching of the Bible.
What does this mean? I'd love a more detailed explanation. By definition, a creed is: A formal statement of religious belief; a confession of faith." So you're claiming that the entire Bible is your formal statement of belief? I'd love to see your promotional flyer with that on the back.
The Bible is the rule of faith and practice we follow.
So, do you follow it when it says that women must have their heads covered in worship? Do you follow it when it says that a minister should, if at all possible, be celibate? (Matthew 19:12) Do you follow it when it says that some decisions must be made by the leaders of the entire Christian community in council? (Acts 15)
The Word of God is sufficient for doctrine and teaching (2 Timothy 3:16).
Wait, even your KJV says differently than what you posit. In the KJV, it says
2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
Here, it says that it is "profitable" for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
It doesn't say sufficient. In fact, you won't find a reputable
Bible that does say this. However, this is the Protestant twist
on the obvious meaning of this verse. And this twist is done out
of necessity. Just as Luther added the word "alone"
to Romans 3:28. It wasn't what the verse meant, but it was what
he wanted it to mean. In the same way, 2 Tim 3:16 is tortured
to mean what Protestants want it to mean, not what was intended.
Traditions of men and man-made religions are not necessary and are disapproved by God (Matthew 15:6-9)
You mean traditions of men like: Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide? These doctrines were invented in the 16th century by Protestants against the Catholic Church? You will not find these teachings prior to that time unless you research the heresies of the 4th and 5th centuries. It is a tradition of men that you can become a minister simply by wanting it. It is a tradition of men that all you have to do to get to heaven is say a magic spell at one time in your life, and that no matter what sin you commit against God, you still go into heaven. That is no where to be found in Scripture. It was an invention of Luther.
How about the man-made tradition of ripping books out of the Bible because they don't fit your predetermined theology? You see, the books that are in the Catholic Bible were in there for 1500 years without a shred of controversy, until Luther found some issues with them that ran counter to HIS religious beliefs - so he ripped them out. That is why they're gone - no other reason. He may have invented some reasons about them not being in Hebrew, but at least in a couple cases, this has been proven false.
You mean man-made religions like yours? I can trace the Catholic Church back to Christ's foundation of it. How far back can you trace your church?
I agree that these kinds of creations are offensive to God. He founded a Church that has been scorned, ridiculed and fought against for 2000 years. Only human arrogance and pride keeps most people of faith outside her walls.
In Matthew 15, Jesus is criticizing the Jews for being critical of the disciples for transgressing the Law of Moses by not washing their hands before eating. Jesus tells them that their denial of proceeds to their own parents, by claiming that the money is for the Temple is breaking one of the Commandments. It was not the Law, nor the money that Jesus was criticizing, it was the Jews' twisting of the meaning of the Law for their financial gain. So to will others be judged who ignore the clear teaching of Scripture and Sacred Tradition in favor of their predetermined belief of God and His Church.
In the same way, Jesus condemns those who criticize Catholics who pray the Rosary. Some will claim that this prayer is idolatry and blasphemous. Jesus would turn to them and say - "you break the same commandment as in Matthew 15:4 by criticizing those who would honor My mother". Think of it this way - what do you claim to be? A Christian, right. OK, what does that mean? It means you are striving to be "Christ-like", which is the meaning of the word. Now, how do you become "Christ-like"? By trying to follow Jesus' example in everything you do and in everything He did, right? Well, being God, He was perfect. As such, He acted perfectly. He was also a Jew who knew that to be perfect, He must perfectly fulfill the Law as given by God (not necessarily the Mosaic rules). One of those Laws of God was the commandment to Honor thy Father and they Mother. Jesus had to fulfill that perfectly by honoring His mother. If you want to be "Christ-like", you, too, must honor His mother. We are all brothers and sisters of Christ, right? Therefore, Mary is also our mother by adoption into the family of God.
Keep in mind also 2 Peter 1:20 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." So, if you can't privately interpret it, but you also hold to Sola Scriptura, what's your recourse? You must rely on Sacred Tradition - which you already do - for example, the Trinity and the dual nature of Jesus.
There is a concept that you may have heard of call the "Perspicuity (clearness) of Scripture". Your Protestant teaching of Sola Scriptura relies on this Perspicuity. Here is a wonderful article that explains this notion: The Perspicuity ("Clearness") of Scripture.
Many other scriptures speak of the church as a congregation of people. There is nothing sacred about the building in which we worship. The church can assemble in a house (Philemon 2) The Bible speaks of the church in two ways, (1) The church as a whole, or the universal church that exists throughout the whole world, and (2) The local church.
There is nothing sacred about the building in which we worship.
I agree - there is nothing sacred about the building in which you worship. However, in a Catholic Church, the presence of Jesus in the tabernacle certainly does make it holy ground. And just as the Ark of the First Covenant was an incredibly sacred place, so is the ark in which Jesus resides in the tabernacle. Also, in the same way was Mary perfected as the Ark of the New Covenant.
One thing that isn't stated directly in this answer, but which is obviously (at least obvious to a Catholic apologist) the intent is that there is no central, institutional hierarchical Church. To this, I would say that Scripture will not bear the Church of Christ implication. It is eminently obvious in Scripture that there is indeed a hierarchical institution established by Jesus. Matthew 5:14-16.
Here are quotations from the Church Fathers: Quotes From the Fathers on the Visible, Unified Church
The Truth
We believe that Christians in New Testament times used only their voices to worship God.
But, of course you have no proof for this belief. If Scripture is silent on this issue, how dare you claim some esoteric knowledge.
In fact, it can be demonstrated that instruments were not used in church worship for many years after the New Testament was written. Even then it came in with much controversy.
OK, I'll take you up on that offer - give me the proof for this assertion. Maybe there are some credible proofs, but why does that necessarily make using instruments a bad thing? I can't remember once in Scripture where this is condemned, can you? If it's your choice as a church not to use instruments, that's fine, but don't take it upon yourselves to claim that your doing it based on Scripture.
Since it tells us how to worship we believe it would be wrong to add to what the New Testament says. Therefore, we elect to not use musical instruments in our worship service.
That's fine if you elect to do so, but to claim in this instance that, based on your assumption and interpretation, that it's "adding" to scripture to use instruments is presumption. You add to what the New Testament says at all turns, as I've indicated above. Scripture does not teach that the Bible is the sole rule of faith, but you add this to the meaning. Scripture does not teach which books should be in the Bible, but you add this to Scripture. With these two issues alone, your decision about instruments during worship is almost comical.
The Truth
You almost have it right. My spirit groans for you to take the next step and recognize what Scripture is actually prompting you on to. You come so close to recognizing the need for the Eucharist, but your Protestant heritage rages against Him.
Aside from the fact that early church history records the church observing the Lord's Supper every Sunday
Not "aside" from it, but totally in line with it. But you don't go far enough. The early church records don't only show a Sunday observance, they also show a recognition of the true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus in the Eucharist. In fact, St. Paul speaks of this in the verses immediately following the ones you reference - 1 Corinthians 11:27-34. St. Paul could not be talking about a "representation" of Jesus. For example, if you burned a picture of your enemy, how many courts could put you in jail for murder? None. In the same way, how would God hold you in judgment for the death of Jesus for receiving a "symbol" unworthily? He wouldn't. However, if you receive Jesus unworthily, that is why you are sick and infirm, as St. Paul says.
The Church Fathers beginning as early as St. John's disciple St. Ignatius of Antioch, recognize the Eucharist as the Real Presence of Jesus. And the numbers of early Christians only grows outward from there. If you look to the early Church, at least look with an open heart and mind to the other beautiful truths there, and not ones that just fit your theology.
In Acts of The Apostles 20:7 we have, what seems to be, a reference to the Lord's Supper.
"Seems to be"? In my Catholic Bible (the one with all the books) published in the middle of the last century, there's a footnote that states about this verse:
"The first day of the week: Sunday had replaced the Sabbath (Saturday) as the day of worship. Breaking of Bread: the Holy Eucharist, celebrated in the evening."
So, this was something that has been recognized for centuries.
The Truth
Agreed. And it's truly Jesus' Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity at the Catholic Divine Liturgy. You should come and join us some time - but if you're not Catholic, you will need to refrain from receiving Communion until you are a full member of the Church. To receive otherwise would be a lie to God and would fall under the warning given by St. Paul about receiving unworthily.
The Lord's Supper is an observance and a memorial of what Jesus did for us on the cross. It is necessary for the Christian to observe and commemorate what the Savior did for us. Children are not accountable for sin. They are innocent and pure. Each parent needs to decide in their own mind what they would have their child do.
The Truth
But how do you know that anyone understands completely. I mean, by not discerning, you are condemning yourself to hell. St. Paul is very clear on that. So, if you only partially understand, is that good enough. Then the question must be - what's the dividing line?
This verse says that a person should examine themselves before taking the Lord's Supper. It is necessary for the individual to discern the body and blood of the Lord. It is obvious that children, who cannot completely understand the sacrifice of Christ, cannot do this.
How do you know that? Jesus was the one who said not to keep the little children from Him. Yet you have taken on this role in opposition to Jesus?
For a better and more detailed look at the Eucharist, check out these links: http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ11.HTM
The Truth
I have no comment.
The Truth
I would start by asking the questioner what church they were in, what emphasis was put on any other sacrament or rite and whether or not they knew anything about their church's teachings. I have come to find out in my many years of doing Catholic apologetics that very few people in any religion or sect really know their faith well enough to make any kind of judgment or comment on its seriousness and depth.
I agree with almost all of this answer. Salvation truly is a wonderful gift. Jesus' death and resurrection allows us the opportunity to get into heaven. If it weren't for His sacrifice, we couldn't do it. It is only through Him, with Him and in Him that we can do it.
Therefore, we practice water baptism just as the people did in New Testament times, i.e. immediately after a person has believed and repented they are baptized.
Just to clarify in case someone is reading this and misunderstands the Catholic teaching of baptism. Here is what the CCC says in Number 628.
"BAPTISM, the original and full sign of which is immersion, efficaciously signifies the descent into the tomb by the Christian who dies to sin with Christ in order to live a new life. 'We were buried therefore with him by BAPTISM into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.'[Rom 6:4 ; cf. Col 2:12 ; Eph 5:26 .]"
Also at Number 683.
"'No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit.'[1 Cor 12:3 .] 'God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!''[Gal 4:6 .] This knowledge of faith is possible only in the Holy Spirit: to be in touch with Christ, we must first have been touched by the Holy Spirit. He comes to meet us and kindles faith in us. By virtue of our BAPTISM, the first sacrament of the faith, the Holy Spirit in the Church communicates to us, intimately and personally, the life that originates in the Father and is offered to us in the Son.
BAPTISM gives us the grace of new birth in God the Father, through his Son, in the Holy Spirit. For those who bear God's Spirit are led to the Word, that is, to the Son, and the Son presents them to the Father, and the Father confers incorruptibility on them. And it is impossible to see God's Son without the Spirit, and no one can approach the Father without the Son, for the knowledge of the Father is the Son, and the knowledge of God's Son is obtained through the Holy Spirit.[St. Irenaeus, Dem. ap. 7: SCh 62, 41-42.]"
And we see at Number 694.
"Water. The symbolism of water signifies the Holy Spirit's action in BAPTISM, since after the invocation of the Holy Spirit it becomes the efficacious sacramental sign of new birth: just as the gestation of our first birth took place in water, so the water of BAPTISM truly signifies that our birth into the divine life is given to us in the Holy Spirit. As 'by one Spirit we were all baptized,' so we are also 'made to drink of one Spirit.'[1 Cor 12:13 .] Thus the Spirit is also personally the living water welling up from Christ crucified[Jn 19:34 ; 1Jn 5:8 .] as its source and welling up in us to eternal life.[Cf. Jn 4:10-14 ; Jn 738 ; Ex 17:1-6 ; Isa 55:1 ; Zech 14:8 ; 1 Cor 10:4 ; Rev 21:6; Rev 22:17.]"
There's also Number 804.
"One enters into the People of God by faith and BAPTISM. 'All men are called to belong to the new People of God' (LG 13), so that, in Christ, 'men may form one family and one People of God' [AG 1.]."
And Number 985.
"BAPTISM is the first and chief sacrament of the forgiveness of sins: it unites us to Christ, who died and rose, and gives us the Holy Spirit. "
The CCC also explains about the origin of Baptism at Number 1214.
"This sacrament is called BAPTISM, after the central rite by which it is carried out: to baptize (Greek baptizein) means to 'plunge' or 'immerse'; the 'plunge' into the water symbolizes the catechumen's burial into Christ's death, from which he rises up by resurrection with him, as 'a new creature.'[2 Cor 5:17 ; Gal 6:15 ; Cf. Rom 6:34 ; Col 2:12 .]"
And see Number 1216.
"'This bath is called enlightenment, because those who receive this (catechetical) instruction are enlightened in their understanding
. . . .'[St. Justin, Apol. 1, 61, 12: PG 6, 421.] Having received in BAPTISM the Word, 'the true light that enlightens every man,' the person baptized has been 'enlightened,' he becomes a 'son of light,' indeed, he becomes 'light' himself:[Jn 1:9 ; 1 Thess 5:5; Heb 10:32 ; Eph 5:8 .]
BAPTISM is God's most beautiful and magnificent gift....We call it gift, grace, anointing, enlightenment, garment of immortality, bath of rebirth, seal, and most precious gift. It is called gift because it is conferred on those who bring nothing of their own; grace since it is given even to the guilty; BAPTISM because sin is buried in the water; anointing for it is priestly and royal as are those who are anointed; enlightenment because it radiates light; clothing since it veils our shame; bath because it washes; and seal as it is our guard and the sign of God's Lordship.[St. Gregory Of Nazianzus, Oratio 40, 3-4: PG 36, 361C.]"
In relation to infant Baptism, the CCC states at Number 1226.
"From the very day of Pentecost the Church has celebrated and administered holy BAPTISM. Indeed St. Peter declares to the crowd astounded by his preaching: 'Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'[Acts 2:38 .] The apostles and their collaborators offer BAPTISM to anyone who believed in Jesus: Jews, the God-fearing, pagans.[Cf. Acts 2:41 ; Acts 8:12-13 ; Acts 10:48 ; Acts 16:15 .] Always, BAPTISM is seen as connected with faith: 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household,' St. Paul declared to his jailer in Philippi. And the narrative continues, the jailer 'was baptized at once, with all his family.'[Acts 16:31-33 .]"
Here, the Church points out the actions of the past in Number 1247.
"Since the beginning of the Church, adult BAPTISM is the common practice where the proclamation of the Gospel is still new. The catechumenate (preparation for BAPTISM) therefore occupies an important place. This initiation into Christian faith and life should dispose the catechumen to receive the gift of God in BAPTISM, Confirmation, and the Eucharist. "
Finally, a point is made about Infant Baptism in Number 1250.
"Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in BAPTISM to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.[Cf. Council of Trent (1546): DS 1514; cf. Col 1:12-14.] The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant BAPTISM. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer BAPTISM shortly after birth.[Cf. CIC, can. 867; CCEO, cann. 681; 686, 1.] "
The Truth
That's fine to decide that you want to do this, but to claim that Baptism by "sprinkling", whatever that is, is not efficacious is a strange claim to make coming from a Protestant perspective. See my next response for an explanation why I think it strange.
The Truth
As seen in question 6, baptism is by immersion only.
No, as seen in question 6, the original meaning of the word relating to Baptism meant immersion, not that it was the only way to baptize.
Infants have not been baptized according to the teaching of the Word of God. They have only been sprinkled.
No, they have been baptized. The formula given in the Bible is that they be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. That is the formula - not that it must be by immersion. That is your take on it. And, as you stand so strongly for this position, it's actually quite a dangerous stand. In essence, you are putting the invocation of the Trinity below that of the water. So, you are actually putting more emphasis on the water and less on the Trinity - something Catholics would never do!
So, lest the reader worry in vain - if your child was baptized in any Christian Church with the words "I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit", that child has been validly Baptized.
St. Paul makes the comparison in Colossians 2:11-12 between Baptism and circumcision. Circumcision was performed on infant Jews. When St. Peter made his announcement about repenting and being baptized, he was speaking to a predominantly Jewish audience. He made no distinction between adult and infant Baptism.
Their parents have observed a religious rite which was not ordained by God and is in opposition to the command of God.
Now, to emphasize my point previous to this, I want to draw the reader's attention to 2000 years of Christian history. Look anywhere and you'll find what I say to hold true. Don't worry about what a self-proclaimed prophet has frightened you into thinking. If they are this quick to take upon themselves the norms for such an incredibly important Sacrament, imagine how they'll play with less important aspects of the faith.
In Acts 16:31-33 and 1 Corinthians 1:16, it states that the members of the HOUSEHOLD were Baptized into the Church - it doesn't say that only those who were out of diapers. Even Scripture, literally and on its face refutes this shocking statement of this so-called Church of Christ.
Here is an excerpt from an article by a wonderful apologist. You can find the entire article here: Infant Baptism?
Many commentators see an allusion to Infant Baptism in the words of St. Luke, "Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, 'Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God' (Lk 18:15-16). In the early Church this passage was understood as a command to bring the infants to Christ for Baptism. The very first time this passage shows up in Christian literature (c. 200), it is used in reference to Infant Baptism (Tertullian, De Baptismo 18:5). Even though Tertullian espoused a later baptism for children, he acknowledged that Infant Baptism was already the universal practice and does not try to avoid the interpretation of this verse's reference to Infant Baptism. The Apostolic Constitutions (c. 350) taught that children should receive baptism based on the words of Jesus, "Do not hinder them" (VI 15.7)
In the middle of the second century Infant Baptism is mentioned not as an innovation, but as a rite instituted by the apostles. Nowhere do we find it prohibited and everywhere we find it practiced. Early in the nascent Church we have St. Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 200) who provides a very early witness to Infant Baptism, based on John 3:5. Irenaeus wrote, "For He [Jesus] came to save all through means of Himself-all, I say, who through Him are born again to God,-infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men" (Against Heresies, 2, 22, 4).
Origen (AD c. 185-c. 254) who had traveled to the extents of the Roman Empire wrote with confidence, "The Church received from the Apostles the tradition [custom] of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentary on Romans 5, 9)
The Truth
You cannot "join" God's church. When you become a Christian, God adds you to His church.
Huh? How is this in contradiction to the question? Of course God "adds" you, but you must make the step to "join" the Church through Baptism and repentance.
The church is people. The church is the people of God. It is God's church. It is Christ's church. It was purchased with His blood. Only God can add you to His church.
It is God's Church, founded by Christ, led in Truth by the Holy Spirit, and promised by Jesus that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. So, with all of this being true, how is it that your Church has only existed for ??? many years? If the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church and that Church was founded at Pentecost, then shouldn't we be able to know that Church of Christ by following the Church from that day until now? Let's see, which Church is the only one around now that was around then?? Um, oh, yes, it's the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church - the Catholic Church.
In the Catholic Church, we have an unbroken succession from Peter to John Paul II - do you? We have the foundation of Jesus in reality, not in some bizarre, Protestant notion of foundation. We have the guarantee of Jesus that this Church would be protected by the Holy Spirit and guided into all Truth, does yours have this?
God will quickly let you into His Church - all you need to do is receive the Sacraments and remain in His Love. It's quite simple, actually. And by doing that - you have the hope that you will reach Heaven, not a presumptuous certainty based on some magic words. By remaining in His grace, you will be certain to reach Heaven. It won't be your actions that get you into heaven, but you can certainly lose heaven by your actions.
As with other issues raised in this FAQ, the reader must know that there is an unwritten point being made here - it is that you don't have to become a member of a Church to be a Christian. Primarily, it is an assault against the Catholic teaching that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. For a good explanation of this teaching, click on this link: The Necessity of Being Catholic. Basically, you are a Christian if you adhere to the teachings of Christ that are already contained in the Catholic Church. It goes something like this: The Whole Truth of Jesus and His Church is contained completely within the Catholic Church, but other churches may proclaim some of that truth, as well. But only within the Catholic Church is all of the Truth found.
|
The portions with the initial question and answer are Copyright © 2000-2002 Washington Church of Christ. All rights reserved. |