on Jun 25, 2012

Sinperium

A lot of scenarios popular in churches are very shaky speculations--but the general concept of a rapture/rescue is very plausible within scripture.

Care to explain where/how Scripture shows a general concept of a rapture/rescue?

Where is there any Biblical evidence as to why Christians should be rescued from tribulation?

As I see it, all Biblical evidence points to the contrary, that faithful followers of Christ have already undergone and will continue to undergo great persecutions and tribulations until the end of the world. Furthermore, Catholics believe that history bears witness that the Church thrives under persecution.

We should bear in mind that tribulation has a physical dimension (earthquakes, wars) and a spiritual one (false prophets, heresies, etc. ).

In St.Matt 24, Jesus pointed out the buildings of the Temple and said not a stone would be left standing. Which brought questions from His disciples about the Last Things (Endtimes). They asked when it will happen and what are the signs for they saw the end of the Temple and the end of the world as coinciding. Our Lord prophecied 3 events that seem to be interwoven.

Verses 4-14, Our Lord says that between then, 33AD, and the end of the world, the Gospel will be preached to every one. In the intervening period, the Church will experience all kinds of tribulations. They aren't signs of the end of the world, they are simple the normal context in which Christian preaching and teaching takes place.

Verses 15-22 tells of the signs of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. Flavious Josephus, a contemporary Jewish historian, writes in The Jewish War, that 1,100,000 people died during the seige of Jerusalem which gives some ideal of the scale of those events. To be sure for the physical safety of those Christians if Almighty God in His mercy had not come to the rescue by telling them the signs to look for and get out, they too would have died.

Verses 23-31, Interwoven with the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem comes Jesus' announcement of the signs of His Second Coming.

The main thing we must take from all this is that we should grow in trust of Jesus and His teachings and persevere in the faith until the end. Verse 25, "Lo, I have told you beforehand.." the same pattern as in verses 4-13, meaning between the fall of Jerusalem 70AD and the end of the world, Christians will experience tribulation, that is, suffering time and time again, persucution, false prophets, false messiahs who will lead others to perdition.

St.Matt. 24:11, 23-26 reference to false prophets has a continual application throughout time, but especially near the end of time 2Col 11:13-15; 1Tim4:1; 2St.Peter2:1; 1St.John4:1; Apoc 16:13; 19:20; 20:7-8.

St.Matt. 24:21 description of future "great tribulation" as the most dreadful time in history is fulfilled since the apostasy among those within the Church is unprecedented due to the arrival of the "man of sin", a man who will deceive people with signs and wonders as never before. 2Th 2:3-9; Apoc 18:21.

My point is Christians are not going to be "raptured.rescued" from tribulation, or the great tribulation.

62

lulapilgrim

on Jun 25, 2012

Jythier

reply 20

It is also clear that judgement is coming through the bowls and the trumpets and all that, but the Bible is clear that Christians aren't to be judged like that.

What does this mean?

63

lulapilgrim

on Jun 25, 2012

AERYCK

reply 22

Apocalyptic Language

Matthew 24:29 NKJV

“Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

Isaiah 13:9-10 NKJV

Behold, the day of the Lord comes,

Cruel, with both wrath and fierce anger,
To lay the land desolate;
And He will destroy its sinners from it.
For the stars of heaven and their constellations
Will not give their light;
The sun will be darkened in its going forth,
And the moon will not cause its light to shine.

Ezekiel 32:7-8 NKJV

When I put out your light,

I will cover the heavens, and make its stars dark;
I will cover the sun with a cloud,
And the moon shall not give her light.

All the bright lights of the heavens I will make dark over you,
And bring darkness upon your land,”
Says the Lord God.

Isaiah 34:4-5 NKJV

All the host of heaven shall be dissolved,

And the heavens shall be rolled up like a scroll;
All their host shall fall down
As the leaf falls from the vine,
And as fruit falling from a fig tree.

“For My sword shall be bathed in heaven;
Indeed it shall come down on Edom,
And on the people of My curse, for judgment.

Isaiah 19:1 NKJV

The burden against Egypt.

Behold, the Lord rides on a swift cloud,
And will come into Egypt;
The idols of Egypt will totter at His presence,
And the heart of Egypt will melt in its midst.

St.Matthew 24:29's language of the darkening of the heavenly bodies has multiple applications. Many of the references of the darkening are used as figures of judgment upon ancient Israel. Is. 5:30; 24:23; 34:4, (which is quoted here) and Joel 2:10; 3:15.

St. Matt. 24:29's language concerning the darkening and obliteration of the heavenly bodies also coincides with 2St.Peter 3:10-13 and Apoc. 21:1-5 cataclysmic end to the present world. They can each be understood as literally fulfilled at the end of time when the universe will be destroyed. The complete destruction is denoted by the specific inclusion of the stars being obliterated Is. 13:10; Joel 2:10;3:15; St.Luke 21:25; Ac 27:20 and Apoc. 6:13.

Reduced 89%

Regarding the chart you provided in #22, and specifically #4, this obliteration of the heavenly bodies means the end of the world would come immediately before the Second Second Coming for the Final Judgment.

64

lulapilgrim

on Jun 25, 2012

Aeryck,

Btw, Thank you for providing the chart.

I'm in the #4 green AMILLENIALISM camp becasue St.Augustine, leading the way of the Church Fathers interpreted Scripture as teaching that the millennium of Apoc 20:1-6, began with the first coming of Christ and will end with His Second coming and tansition into eternity. I have found in years of study that this view fits the preponderance of biblical passages better than any other.

Moreover, the Church Fathers rejected the idea of a future 1,000 year earthly millenium as did the Council of Ephesus in 431 and alot of it had to do with the binding of Satan as St.Augustine specified in his writings.

The CCC reiterates these same truths and accepts the amillenial eschatology as the teaching of the Church.

I could never accept Premillinnial eschatology because it was rejected by Pope Pius XII in hs statement against "chiliasm".

"In recent times on several occasions this Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has been asked what must be thought of the system of mitigated Millenarianism, which teaches, for example, that Christ the Lord before the final judgment, whether or not preceded by the resurrection of the many just, will come visibly to rule over this world. The anwser is: The system of mitigated Millenarianism cannot be taught safely." Denzinger, Henry, Sources of Catholic Dogma.

The CC's rejection of Premillennialism is also noted by theologian, Ludwig Ott. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

65

lulapilgrim

on Jun 26, 2012

Jythier

reply 18

The Bible is very specific in several points that make preterism not likely. Also, the things described in Revelations haven't happened yet. The way that the Bible specifically states the number of weeks that God will deal with Israel, but there's still a week left, is pretty clear as well. There's still 7 years that God is going to deal with Israel. It hasn't happened yet, and it doesn't say The Church. Israel is its own Biblical concept, while the church is a completely different Biblical concept, and putting the one into the other is incorrect, in my estimation. The Church is not the New Israel. Israel is Israel.

Lula posts:

lulapilgrim

reply 42

The Dallas Theological Seminary, a leading center for the Rapture theory issued the following: "Dispensationalists see a clear distinction between God's program for Israel and God's program for the church." "God is not finished with Israel. The Church did not take Israel's place. They have been set aside temporarily, but in the end times will be brought back to the promised land, cleansed, and given a new heart." Rod Dreher, "Evangelicals and Jews together: and unlikely alliance", National Review online, April 5, 2002.

Jythier posts:

AERYCK

reply 48

The pastoral staff at my church attended Dallas Theological Seminary, at least 2 of them did, and some continue to, so a lot of stuff I learn about comes from there, where people actually read the Bible and interpret it instead of relying on things outside of the Bible to interpret it.

The "stuff" you're learning comes from Protestant oral tradition, an unBiblical body of teaching that is passed down.

Aeryck posts:

AERYCK

reply 48

You say:

'....instead of relying on things outside of the Bible to interpret it.'

Of course, if you told you pastor that he'd probably laugh and tell you that he had to study a lot of 'thing outside of the Bible to interpret it'

Jythier posts:

Jythier

reply 49

The Catholic church has a lot of extrabiblical stuff going on that they consider to be as important as the Bible doctrinally, whereas we do not. Also, I used to listen to Calvary Radio with Pastor Chuck Smith.

lula posts:

lulapilgrim

reply 55

oh, but Protestants do have a lot of extraBiblical stuff....that would be the Protestant doctrines of Sola Scriptura, (the sole rule of faith is the Bible alone), Sola Fides, (justification by Faith Alone), "Once Saved, Always Saved", Rapturism, Dispensationalism, Christian Zionism and 2 Covenants existing side by side. Each of these doctrines exist becasue someone read the Bible, decided for themselves what it means and arrogated for themselves the right to coin new doctrines. That's why there are so many different Protestant churches with different doctrines.

Jythier

reply 56

Actually, those all come from the Bible. The letter God wrote. Remember God? Can you see him past the Pope's hat?

I know you truly believe that but in truth, none of them come from the Holy Bible.

Take Sola Scriptura---the central Protestant tenet that the Bible alone is the sole rule of Christian Faith. WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THAT?

The notion of the Bible being the sole rule of faith is nowhere found in the Bible either implicitly or explicitly. This is the fatal flaw for in order for the idea of Scripture being the sole rule of faith it must itself be expressed in Scripture or it is a self refuting proposition.

But guess what is in the Bible? The Apostolic teaching that we are to embrace oral Tradition, those unwritten truths that come from God Himself to the Apostles handed down to their successors through the Church. Furthermore the Bible specifically prohibits us from going by the Bible alone in an attempt to ignore those Traditions that came down to us by the Apostles word or mouth or letter. 2Thess.2:15. St.Luke makes it clear that the teachings of Christ and the Apostles were transmitted to later generations through both the written Word as well as the unwritten or oral teachings, called Tradition. St.Luke 1:1-4.

And as far as sacred Tradition, don't cite St.Matt. 15. For Our Lord was not condemning Tradition that St.Paul was instructing us to stand fast and hold in 2Thess. 2:14, but only the corrupt traditions of the Pharisees.

Secondly, the Bible alone as the sole rule of Christian Faith has no basis in the history of Christianity. How did Our Lord tell the Apostles to communicate the Faith, the truths which must be believed for salvation? He commanded them, "go forth and teach all nations, baptizing them..." He said to SimonPeter, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My church." And St. Paul taught clearly that the "house of God, which is the Church of God, the pillar and ground of truth."

Our Lord gave St.Peter authority, and He commissioned the Apostles to preach in His name. As the Father has sent Me, I also send you."

Our Lord wrote no books and He didn't tell His Apostles and disciples to write Bibles and let every man read and judge for himself which is the essence of Protestantism--as you have said yourself...each individual reads the Bible and decides for himself what it means! No!

Our Lord established a Church to teach in His name. "He that heareth you, heareth Me. He that despiseth you, despiseth Me."

"And if he will not hear the Church, let he be to thee as the heathen and the publican."

The Church and the Faith existed before the New Testament. The Church was administering the Sacraments, the Apostles were forgiving sins, the Church was spread throughout the entire Roman Empire making martyrs before one word of the NT was written.

The last book, The Apocalypse, was written a good 65 years after the Ascension of Our Lord. And then for over 300 years the Chruch didn't have all the Sacred Books compiled into the one Book.

Jythier

reply 56

Actually, those all come from the Bible. The letter God wrote. Remember God? Can you see him past the Pope's hat?

And this brings us to the question of Authority.

You give someone a book called "The Bible" and tell them everything in it is the infallible word of God and the first thing they ask, is "Who says so?"

Books don't write themselves....and books by multiple writers don't just compile themselves into one big book and then claim to be infallible word of God.

It was the Catholic Church at the Council of Carthage in 397 through the guidance of the Holy Spirit that settled once and for all what was the official canon of the New Testament ..that decided which books were divinely inspired and which were not. At the time there were a good bit of other "gospels" and "Epistles" circulating; some written by good men and others plain fabrications such as the so-called Gospel of Pilate or the Gospel of Nicodemus. It was the CC Tradition that produced the Bible and not the Bible that produced the Church.

This clearly shows the "Bible alone" has no basis in history. The Protestant religion can't answer the question, "Who says the Bible is the infallible written word of God?" Only the Catholic religion can.

Besides that, if, as you say, the Bible is the sole rule of Christian Faith, if faith cometh only by reading the Bible, then what of the souls who lived 1500 years before the printing press was invented? How were the nations made familiar with Christ and converted to Christianity without the Bible for 15 centuries? Doesn't the Protestant notion of Sola Scriptura which stakes a man's salvation upon reading the Holy BIble impute to Almighty God a total indifference to the salvation of countless millions of souls who lived prior to the invention of the printing press? Doesn't the Bible alone as the sole rule of Christian Faith end logically in the blasphemous conclusion that Our Blessed Lord failed to provide an adequate means of conveying to every age the knowledge of His truth?

As it happened it was through the teaching and preaching of the Church that these countless souls in all countries and in all ages come to the knowledge of truth that they might be saved without either the written or printed Bible, both before and after its production.

And finally, the doctrine of the "Bible Alone" is contrary to reason. Because if you give a person a Bible and tell him he must read it and decide the meaning. The Lutheran congregation buys into Luther's private interpretation....the Methodists buy into John Wesley's interpretation, and so forth and so on.

And there are other self-styled Protestants who read the Bible and decide for themselves the meaning and if he is zealous and determined enough, he can start his own church. This is essentially the Protestant system. There is no Church for them established by Christ to teach infallibly in His name. There is no authority established by God to tell me that I might have made a mistake. This is how we know with certainty that the Bible Alone is not only nowhere found in Scripture but is contrary to Scripture for it ends up in thousands of erroneous and conflicting Scriptural interpretations and is contrary to what Our Lord established His Church to be.

66

lulapilgrim

on Jun 28, 2012

lulapilgrim

reply 30

As I understand it, the essence of the Rapture is that sometime soon, Christ will come to earth and secretly "catch up"--rapture--all the "true believers" (who would not include the doctrinally misled Catholics of course!). The "chosen" Protestants could then escape the 7-year tribulation which will see the rise and rule of anti-christ. At the end of the 7 years, Christ will come down to earth, defeat the anti-christ, the Jews will convert, and Christ will reign in Jerusalem for 1,000 years.

Jythier

reply 31

Lula, you are misinformed!

The rapture isn't going to be a secret.

I have read that the Protestant Rapture teaching is that Jesus is coming back, not once more, but twice. One of the times, which could be any day, any moment, He will come secretly to snatch away true believers from their troubles on earth. This event has been called the "secret rapture".

Where/how am I misinformed about the 'secret' part?

Jythier

reply 31

Catholics who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ for their salvation will be raptured, as well.

He doesn't care whether you believe you have to confess your sins to a priest as well, as long as you trust in Him first.

Who told you this lie? When Luther established the Protestant religion, he threw out the 7 sacraments, Confession being one. So, you got it from Luther handed down over the generations through Protestant oral tradition.

Christ instituted the 7 Sacraments as a means of giving us His grace. The early Christians received them from the Apostles who received them from Christ. Confession is called the Sacrament of Penance by which those who fall into sin after Baptism may be restored to God's grace.

Jythier

reply 32

Of course, he DOES care that you do that, because he IS your priest...

Yes, Our Lord DOES care. Yes, Our Lord is our Eternal Priest.

And Yes, Yes, Yes, Our Lord cares greatly about confessing our sins to a lawfully ordained priest...that's why He endowed His priests with power to forgive sins in His name.

And if you're shaking your head and disagreeing, here's the explanation.

Now Christ paid the price for our sins and He surely has the right to say how forgiveness shall be applied. We can't deny the right of Christ to administer forgiveness through agents of His own choosing, nor can we insist that He must forgive us on our conditions, while we ignore His conditions (as Luther did and Protestants do).

Catholics believe that God alone can forgive sins...and the way that God has chosen to administer that forgiveness is through His Priests.

I prove that God delegated that power to His ministerial priesthood of the New Covenant by first citing St. Matt. 16:18-19, "And I tell you you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the powers of Hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of Heaven and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in Heaven; and whater you loose on earth, shall also be loosed in Heaven."

Christ later made the same promise to the other Apostles, saying, "Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth...." St.Matt. 18:18.

And next, St.John 20:21-23, "As the Father has sent Me, I also send you." When He said this He breathed on them and He said to them, "Receive ye the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain; they are retained."

Now, Christ's mission was to destroy sin and He gave the same mission to His Apostles and He gave them the power of the Holy Spirit for this special work. To say that Christ did not confer this power is to gut the words of Christ of any true meaning.

St.Paul certainly exercised the power of binding and loosing from sin and the effects of sin in the case of the incestuous Corinthian. In 1Cor.5:3, we find him saying, "I have already judged him that hath done so" and in 2 Cor. 2:10, he justifies his forgiveness of the repentant man by saying, "If I have pardoned anything, I have done it in the person of Christ."

Christ commissioned His Church to teach all nations until the end of the world. The Apostles had to hand on all essential powers given to them by Christ to their successors. In Acts, we see this happened and other bishops and later, deacons were ordained.

If those subject to the Apostles had to obtain forgiveness, there is no reason why we should be exempt. We share the same Sacraments as the very first Christians and must have the same obligations. Till the Protestant Reformation (really Rebellion) all Christians went to Confession. We certainly have the writings of the Church Fathers to support this truth. That lawfully ordained Catholic priests have this power was Christian doctrine in the first century and it is the very same Christian doctrine today in the Catholic Church.

Confession is part of having Faith in Christ and believing all that He commanded.

67

Jythier

on Jun 28, 2012

"Receive ye the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain; they are retained."

So you don't believe that you have the Holy Spirit?

68

lulapilgrim

on Jun 28, 2012

Jythier

reply 67

"Receive ye the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain; they are retained."

So you don't believe that you have the Holy Spirit?

Why had the Father sent Jesus? To save sinners by pardoning their sins.

This verse is the moment that Our Lord conferred authority to forgive sins, this pardoning power through the institution of Penance was not a personal gift to the Apostles, but a permanent institution to last as long as there are sinners in the world. Confession is for reconciling the faithful who have fallen into sin back to God.

The penitent acknowledges his sin(s), has sorrow in his heart for the sin(s)he committed, confesses them with the resolve to sin no more, and while the penitent says an Act of Contrition, the priest forgives sins with the words, "I absolve thee from thy sins in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. This is called the Absolution.

At that moment his sins are forgiven he receives the Holy Spirit which produces sanctifying (divine) grace in his soul.

It's through the sacraments that we obtain God's sanctifying grace. They are channels through the Holy Spirit grace enters our soul.

The Sacrament of Confession is the means Our Lord established for Christians to wash their robes in the "blood of the lamb". Apoc. 7:14. Since all of us fall through sin, Christ's loving and wise sacraments of Penance is ther to help restore us to grace and heal the wounds we bring upon ourselves through sin.

69

Jythier

on Jun 28, 2012

So how long does he have the Holy Spirit after confession?

70

lulapilgrim

on Jun 28, 2012

Jythier

reply 69

So how long does he have the Holy Spirit after confession?

By virtue of their ordination, Priests always have the power to forgive sins. Our Lord said to them, "Receive ye the Holy Spirit." Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins you retain, they are retained." The action and words indicate an actual communication of the Holy Spirit to them, by whose power they would be able to effect what He told them to do. The Greek word used for "forgive" is in the active sense.

Again, As Christ conferred this power upon the Apostles, they conferred it in turn upon those whom they ordained and consecrated as priests. These in turn ordained others and by an uninterrupted succession of lawfully ordained bishops, the power has been retained and transmitted in the Churcch. And the Church exercises her absolving powers through priests. That's why St.Paul wrote to Titus, "For this cause I left thee in Crete that thou should set in order the things that are wanting and should ordain priests in every city, as I also have appointed thee." 1:5. Douay Rheims Version.

Our Lord instituted the sacrament of Penance for the necessities of men, and He certainly did it in a way in which it could be applied to them in their necessities.

71

lulapilgrim

on Jun 29, 2012

SemazRalan

reply 59

Christ established the "Church", which is all who believe, profess faith and baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The bible teaches the Trinitarian nature of God -Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Read http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html for definition. Bible also teaches Hypostatic Union of Christ being fully God and fully man in perfect unity. Any believe about the nature of God and Jesus Christ differing from the Trinitarian and Hypostatic are not Christian. Many, Islam, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Creflo Dollar types, Unitarians and others deny both and are cut off from the body of believers who are in Christ -which is what THE CHURCH is, not the Lutheran, RCC, Eastern Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, Anglican, or any other denomination.

Since the rise of Protestantism, the name "Christian" has been used in so many different senses as to have almost become meaningless. No quabbles with your definition as to who is a Christian...e.g. a person who is properly Baptised, believes in the Holy Trinity and the Divinity of Christ and I would add who practices the religion of Christ.

I know in popular usage today Christianity is used in reference to all those forms of religion who profess belief in Christ. In reality, Christianity rightly signifies only the religion of Christ correctly and completely presented. Christianity cannot therefore signify a multitude of sects (what is now commonly called denominations), blending isolated truths of the CHristian religion with various errors which form the basis of division amongst themselves.

SemazRalan

reply 59

Christ established the "Church", which is allwho believe, profess faith and baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The bible teaches the Trinitarian nature of God -Father, Son and Holy Spirit. ..............the body of believers who are in Christ -which is what THE CHURCH is, not the Lutheran, RCC, Eastern Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, Anglican, or any other denomination.

But your definition of "the Church" Christ established....

Scripture teaches that Christ established a Church, a specific Church and based upon Scripture, and particularly St.Matt. 16:18-19 your definition the Church is all who believe, profess faith and are baptized can not be correct.

Christ did not confer His own power of binding and loosing or the authority to teach the truth in His name to all nations until the end of the world to the Lutherans, the Eastern or Ethiopian Orthodox, the Anglicans, and for that matter, not to any of the other sects which all came into existence well after 33AD when Christ's Church was built on St.Peter.

I'm thinking of St.Paul's exhortation to unity to the Ephesians 4:2-6, "Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. One body and one Spirit, ...one hope, ....One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, One God and Father of all,.."

All who profess to be Christians, of course, ought to be united in Christ's one Church, one body, one faith, one baptism, but they are not.

Remember that Our Lord said, "I am the Truth". Truth excludes error. Jesus founded His Church and said, "And if he will not hear them, tell the Church. And if a man will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican." St.Matt. 18:17. Or ST. Paul, "Obey your prelates, and be subject to them." Hebrews 13:17. Or St.Paul calling the Church "the pillar and ground of truth."

One can easily see that your definition of the "Church" is a real problem with these passages. It just doesn't make sense because the Church, whose human authorities spoke for her had Christ's authority, and they instruct and direct the faithful.

In short, what I'm saying is no Church founded by a man or woman can possibly can possibly be equal to the one Church founded by the Son of God.

If one believes in Christ they must consider as necessary what Christ believed necessary. Scripture teaches He certainly thought the Church He established was necessary. For centuries, Christians have said, not only I believe in Jesus Christ, Our Lord....but also I believe in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. They made an act of faith in both Christ and in His Church.

If you no longer believe in Christ's Church, then something has gone wrong somewhere.

But history documents when and by whom that something gone wrong somewhere....

Luther taught Protestants "Sola Fides" to believe they become members of Christ by their individual faith alone. He rebelled against the Church, rejected her authority, doctrines, the Sacraments and so they do too. Protestants have become congenital individualists and unwilling in religion to recognize our dependence upon others in the doctrine of the Church, but rather insist on dictating their own terms and definitions.

What I'm saying here is not to impugn in any way Protestant's sincerely held belief in Our Lord Jesus Christ. No, not at all. Love and believe in Christ by all means.

The Church has the whole truth along with everything we need for our salvation, and those outside her do not. Do not let your belief in Christ serve you as an excuse to repudiate His Church and to assert that it is of no importance whatever to find that one true Church He thought fit to establish.

72

lulapilgrim

on Jun 30, 2012

SemazRalan

reply 59

RCC told me I was baptized as a non-denominational and it didn't count; others said the same thing. My mother, a confirmed/baptized RC, was told by some protestant denominations that hers didn't count. Still others said it didn't matter where we were baptized, we weren't baptized by them so we weren't in the eyes of God. How's that for the unified "body of Christ"? Thankfully, many churches recognize that one baptized in a Trinitarian church is valid and not ripping the body of Christ apart at the seams.

We are either all baptized and adopted in the kingdom of God or not.

As I see it, the only reason why the CC told you your Baptism may not be valid is because it wasn't done properly.

The Catholic Church covers her teaching on Baptism in the Catechism of the CC # 1213 through 1284.

Because Almighty God has bound salvation to Baptism, He kept it easy.

While ordinarily the Bishop, priest or deacon would baptize, in the case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize using the Trinitarian formula which consists in immersing the person to be baptized in water, or pouring on his head, while pronouncing the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity: saying I baptize you in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

In Baptism, our souls are washed from Original Sin and Actual sin, in the case of an adult. This is affected by sanctifying grace poured into the soul through the invocation of the Holy Trinity.

73

lulapilgrim

on Jul 01, 2012

Baptism on the Beach

It was a sunny afternoon in San Francisco. Shirley O'Neill and Albert Kogler, 18-year-old freshmen at San Francisco State College, went for a swim off Baker's Beach, near the Golden Gate Bridge.

They were treading water about 50 yds. offshore when Al Kogler cried out. "I turned around," Shirley said later, "and saw this big grey thing flap up into the air. I don't know if it was a fin or a tail. I knew it was some kind of fish. There was thrashing in the water. He screamed again. He said, 'It's a shark! Get out of here!'"

Looking down on the ocean from the Presidio, San Francisco's history-encrusted Army post, Master Sergeant Leo P. Day saw what happened next. "I could see the boy in the foaming red water, shouting and signaling someone to 'go back, go back.' Then I saw the girl, swimming toward him, completely ignoring his warning. It was the greatest exhibition of courage I have ever seen."

Shirley reached Albert and seized his hand, "but when I pulled, I could see that his arm was just hanging by a thread." She slipped her arm around him and began to swim for the beach. When she was near enough, a fisherman threw her a line. After they were on the sand, Shirley, a Roman Catholic, scooped up some sea water and let it run over the head of her friend (who had never been baptized and belonged to no specific faith). "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost,"* said Shirley, making the sign of the Cross, and whispered to Albert, "Is that all right?"

"O.K.," he gasped.

She told him to repeat after her the act of contrition: "0 my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended thee. I detest all my sins because I dread the loss of Heaven and the pains of Hell, but most of all because they offend thee, my God, who art all good and deserving of all my love."

Just before Albert Kogler lapsed into unconsciousness, he whispered: "I love God, and I love my mother and I love my father. Oh God, help me." Two hours later, in the Presidio's Letterman General Hospital, he died.

*A valid baptism in case of necessity, recognized by the Roman Catholic Church even if performed by a nonbeliever, provided that the one baptizing really "intends to perform what the church performs."

74

Jythier

on Jul 02, 2012

There once was a thief hanging on a cross next to Jesus. And the thief asked Jesus to remember him... and Jesus said, "But you're not baptized... too bad..."

So, in the end, your theology is directly contradicted by the Bible. That doesn't matter though, because a fallible human has said that what Jesus said was some sort of special exception and that salvation is through baptism and other religious rituals, which, if that were true, the Jews would have not been so yelled at by Jesus, would they? Basically, what happened in the church is that it decided that it wasn't a heart problem - it was a ritual problem. The Jews were doing the wrong rituals! So they created their own rituals by which to be saved. Anybody looking at a Bible, though, would have been able to figure out that these rituals were not necessary for salvation, though... and that half of the things taught from the pulpit had nothing to do with the scriptures or what Jesus said, and in fact, contradicted them.

So they hid the Bible from the populace, many believing that only a priest could interpret it properly, but the real problem being that anyone could figure out the truth from it and then would realize the church was turning into a power and money-hungry organization, where you could pay for your sins to be forgiven... The people in positions of power had gotten there not from being spiritual, but from being diplomatic and political, and were likely atheists.

So Martin Luther stood up and said that we needed to take our faith back from those who had stolen it, and split from what had become a political organization and created a church again. One that followed the words of Jesus and the words of the apostles, which, if you hadn't noticed, they wrote down in letters which became the Bible. The Catholic church leaders had sold themselves, and the only way for God to save the church was to not have it be tied to the political organization the Roman Catholic church had become. The church, as you see it, is a name, the RCC, and that could never fall because the Bible says it will never fall... but I highly doubt that God cares that you call it the RCC. The Church is the body of believers and always has been. The RCC is an organization of the body of believers, at it's best, and just an organization at it's worst. It's refusal to remember who Jesus really was and what he spoke against while clinging to those very things makes it a 'religion' in it's worst form - made up of many rituals, but no heart.

75

lulapilgrim

on Jul 02, 2012

Jythier

reply 74

There once was a thief hanging on a cross next to Jesus. And the thief asked Jesus to remember him... and Jesus said, "But you're not baptized... too bad..."

So, in the end, your theology is directly contradicted by the Bible.

Jythier, Jythier, Jythier,

First, the necessity of Baptism for salvation is not my theology. It is Christ's teaching....thoroughly Biblical Catholic Church teaching as per St.John 3:5; St.Mark 16:16; St.Matt.28:19; Gal. 3:27 to name some.

Jythier

reply 74

Basically, what happened in the church is that it decided that it wasn't a heart problem - it was a ritual problem. The Jews were doing the wrong rituals! So they created their own rituals by which to be saved. Anybody looking at a Bible, though, would have been able to figure out that these rituals were not necessary for salvation, though... and that half of the things taught from the pulpit had nothing to do with the scriptures or what Jesus said, and in fact, contradicted them.

Baptism is necessary for salvation of all men because Christ said, "Unless a man be born again of water and spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God." From the time of Christ this has been the unequivical teaching of the Church. The reason lies in the fact that only Baptism can remit Original Sin; no one with any taint can enter Heaven.

Secondly, we know that Baptism achieves its effects through the power of Christ's Passion. But Christ knows that for some, it's impossible to receive the sacrament. Those who through no fault of their own have not received Baptism through water, can be saved through what is called Baptism of Blood or Desire. An unbaptized person receives Baptism of BLood when he lays down his life for Christ or some Christian virtue. OUr Lord promised, "He who loses his life for My sake will find it." St.Matt. 10:39.

Jythier

reply 74

So, in the end, your theology is directly contradicted by the Bible. That doesn't matter though, because a fallible human has said that what Jesus said was some sort of special exception and that salvation is through baptism and other religious rituals,

Jythier, "there was once a thief hanging on a cross next to Jesus named Dismas, now commonly known as the "Pentitent Thief" or the "Good Thief", and this is how all of the elements were there for him to receive Baptism of Desire.

Here's the Scriptural passage and comments following; you all can be the judge.

St.Luke 23:39-43, “And one of the thieves who was crucified, blasphemed Him, saying, “If thou be Christ, save Thyself and us.” 40 But the other rebuked him, saying: “Neither dost thou fear God, seeing thou art under the same condemnation? 41 We, indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man hath done no evil.” 42 Then he said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when Thou shalt come into Thy kingdom!” 43 And Jesus said to him: “Amen, I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with Me in paradise.”

St.Ambrose wrote the episode of the 2 thieves invites us to admire the designs of Divine Providence. Both thieves are in the same position--in the presence of the Eternal High Priest as He offers Himself in sacrifice for them and all mankind. One of them hardens his heart, despairs and blasphemes while the other thief, repents, corresponds with grace and was thereby saved. He left the cross for Paradise. Here, St.Ambrose comments, “The Lord always grants more than one asks: the thief only asked Him to remember him, but the Lord says to him, “Amen, I say to thee, this day, thou shalt be with Me in paradise.”

The conversion of the penitent thief was a miracle of grace won by the merits of Christ. When the thief saw the patience and gentleness in which Jesus suffered and how He repaid injuries with love, and when he heard Him address God as His Father, he opened his heart to grace and believed that Jesus was the Messias and the Son of God. With this “faith” there was awakened in hope and confidence in the power of the Redeemer to pardon him.

He had committed great crimes and now, at the point of dying, he hoped to receive pardon. Love for Jesus also entered his heart and impelled him to do what he could to protect Him from the insults of the other thief whom he upbraided for his blasphemies. Verse 41, From his love of Jesus proceeded a deep contrition which he made known by a sincere confession of his great guilt, whereby he had deserved the punishment of death. He accepted his punishment and suffered willingly in satisfaction of his sins. He didn’t ask to be delivered from temporal punishment, but acknowledged that his sufferings were no more than his due. His conversion therefore was very real and perfect, and Our Lord remitted all his sins and promised him possession of Paradise.

.................................................