Some More Protestant Quotes

[CatholicAndFanatical]

hey what happened to joolyne?

*poof* all gone?

Somehow prots dont get the connection when it comes to Baptism and circumcision..their both a convenant by God.

in the OT in order to be a follower of God you had to be circumsized

in the NT in order to be follower of Christ you have to be baptized.

in the OT the people were called to be circumsized at 8 days old

its the same in the NT.

why is this so hard to comprehend??

[Anna]

Joolye? Any thoughts/rebuttals?

Pax Christi. <><

[Joolye]

hey what happened to joolyne?

*poof* all gone?

Somehow prots dont get the connection when it comes to Baptism and circumcision..their both a convenant by God.

  in the OT in order to be a follower of God you had to be circumsized

  in the NT in order to be follower of Christ you have to be baptized.

  in the OT the people were called to be circumsized at 8 days old

  its the same in the NT.

  why is this so hard to comprehend??

Okay, but you could be circumcised or baptised and not believe and the fact that you have been circumcised or baptised does not make you a follower of God if you do not believe.

Also, you could believe in God, but not have been baptised or circumcised. Like Abraham, and those who were before him. Abraham believed before he was circumcised. Those before Abraham, like Noah were not circumcised at all, but they were still followers of God. You can believe in God and not be baptised, but we expect that baptism would follow conversion.

I think that the Catholic church looks different from the church that Jesus began. The Catholic church evolved from the church that Jesus began but it changed and is not now the same as the first Christian churches. So what the reformers were trying to do was to re-form the Catholic church back to how it should be. Obviously you're all going to disagree with all that, and I pretty much know what your response will be.

See also what notbilln said above.

Baptism by immersion: Didn't John baptise in the Jordan River? I would think that was by immersion.

Also:

AC 8:36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?" 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. 39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing.

He went down into the water and came up out of the water. That sounds like immersion to me.

[Uncle Gus]

Yes, baptism by immersion is preferrable, but not essential. What is essential is that somehow the one being baptised gets wet and that the baptiser says the words and has the intention to do what the Church intends (as far as the baptism itself goes). This means that anyone, anyone can baptise, so long as they put water on the person and say "I baptise you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," and mean to make the person a Christian.

The matter of the Sacrament is water, and the form is the words.

[ICTHUS]

  in the NT in order to be follower of Christ you have to be baptized.

  in the OT the people were called to be circumsized at 8 days old

  its the same in the NT.

  why is this so hard to comprehend??

Okay, but you could be circumcised or baptised and not believe and the fact that you have been circumcised or baptised does not make you a follower of God if you do not believe.

(Me) That's correct. The Catholic Church holds this to be a mortal sin - it's called unbelief, and/or irreligion. If one is baptised, taught the Faith, and then refuses to live the Faith, then that person is culpable for a mortal sin and, as far as we know, going to Hell.

Also, you could believe in God, but not have been baptised or circumcised. Like Abraham, and those who were before him. Abraham believed before he was circumcised. Those before Abraham, like Noah were not circumcised at all, but they were still followers of God. You can believe in God and not be baptised, but we expect that baptism would follow conversion.

That's certainly true, but Abraham was not under a commandment from God to be circumcised, until He was, in fact, given that command. (Funny how that works?!) So he didn't have to be circumcised until God told him he had to be circumcised, because God hadn't previously told him he had to be circumcised. Sheesh!!

God commands us to be baptised. The Early Church believed it was necessary for salvation. You interpret Scripture in isolation from Apostolic Tradition, so you come away with the conclusion of credobaptism, by immersion only.

I think that the Catholic church looks different from the church that Jesus began. The Catholic church evolved from the church that Jesus began but it changed and is not now the same as the first Christian churches.

Well then, if you THINK that the Catholic Church is different to the Church that Jesus and the Apostles began, why dont you PROVE IT (note the dripping sarcasm), as we've been TELLING YOU TO DO FROM THE BEGINNING, proving the Catechism wrong using Scripture and the Early Church Fathers.

So what the reformers were trying to do was to re-form the Catholic church back to how it should be. Obviously you're all going to disagree with all that, and I pretty much know what your response will be.

They failed. How can thousands of denominations (or 4 distinct "traditions" as our confused brother mustbenothing claims) be one APOSTOLIC Church???

[Paladin D]

Better yet, if the Catholic Church did drift away...should the canonization of it be questionable?

After all, the Early Church Fathers believed what most of us believe today.

[cmotherofpirl]

THe Catholic Church has not evolved. Why do you think we are so hated.

WE have learned how to explain things better and have studied the ramifications of the teachings. After all we have 2000 years of consistant teaching and history and Sacred Traditon to back us up. WE haven't changed dogma we have protected it.

We still hold to baptism as entry into the Kingdom, a all-male sacrifical priesthood, the Real Presence as in John 6, the forgiveness of sins, the loosing and binding, and the infalliblity given by protectrion of the Holy Spirit, and the legitimate the hierarchy of the Church.

[Uncle Gus]

I wouldn't say that we haven't evolved. True, we have the fullness of Revelation, so there's no more truth to be discovered, but we are always understanding it more. Nothing new that the Church says contradicts anything that She has already said, but rather reinforces it, so none of the "old stuff" is lost, but that's not to say that She isn't still growing and learning.