Irreconcilable Theology Part Ii

[Brother Adam]

In this part I want to discuss faith, belief, and works and how it relates to each other.

As I accept Catholics as Christian brethren, I realize that I believe faith involves four things: belief, trust, obedience, and commitment.

In Catholic theology, a baby is wiped clean of original sin through baptism. However, an infant cannot be intellectually "faithful" to Christ. Does faith merely mean a spiritual change, or is faith "belief, trust, obedience, and commitment". Or would you agree with Protestants that faith is only "belief"

As I sit here and consider Catholcism, I'm struck that while I can find a way to reconcile many beliefs with scripture, it seems that most anti-Catholics attack Catholicism on the grounds of what is said by popes and councils. Do you think this is a fair measuring stick, or is what is declared by popes and councils fallible?

[bluengold]

Brother Adam,

Good day to you and may Our Lord bless you.

You have a lot of great questions/statements in your post. I will be leaving work soon, so we may have to dialog via email if you like.

Infant Baptism: Yes, the stain of original sin is washed away whenever ANYBODY is Baptized. They are also incorporated into the Mystical Body of Christ. (ie the Church, and into the Holy Trinity).

Now, you will not find anywhere in the Bible a "minimal age" requirement for this. You may point towards Romans 10:13 and Mark 16:16 which seemingly point towards "believers baptism". These verses are taken out of proper context in that regard. (which can be another discussion in itself! :D )

However, let's concentrate on why infants can be Baptized. It comes straight from the OT. Genesis 17:9-12 speaks of the coventant of circumcision (sp). Notice it says on the eighth day these babies are brought into the covenant.

So, we fast-forward to Luke 2:21 we see that Jesus Himself was circumcized on the eighth day after His birth. Now, go to Acts 2:38-9. We see St. Peter says that this promise (Baptism) was made for believers and their children (I know, seemingly they must "believe", however, again there is NO minimal age requirement).

Then fast-forward again to Colossians 2:11-12. Here St. Paul explains that Baptism replaces circumcision for being brought into a covenant with God! If infants could be brought into a covenant with God in the OT, why not the new? They did not wait because they were instructed to do so by God Himself. This Tradition carried over with the new covenant.

I will post links to some tracts from Catholic Answers on this, but let me leave you with a "no-brainer" analogy:

When my kids were born, a couple of weeks later we had to give them their MMR shots. Why? So as to lessen their chances of getting a disease, and dying. I would never take the approach of "letting my kids make that choice" when they get older. They might not make it!

This is a great question BA. I commend you for perusing here on PM. Have a look at these links and pay particular attention to the early pastors of the Church and what they said about this topic:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Early_Teac...ant_Baptism.asp

http://www.catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp

[thessalonian]

"anti-Catholics attack Catholicism on the grounds of what is said by popes and councils. Do you think this is a fair measuring stick, or is what is declared by popes and councils fallible? "

I am not quite sure how to put this with regard to this comment. Last fall I did a debate with a Protestant Pastor on Papal Infallibility. I presented scripture generally, while his approach, ironically (since he was the "sola scriptura" guy), was a shotgun blast of historical quotes by Popes and councils. Of course I did not have time to answer all of the accusations. Perhaps out of ignorance it seems to me that his approach was very irresponisible. To illustrate my point one of the issues he raised was slavery. He quoted a bunch of Popes as being in favor of slavery and quoted some statements from Popes who said that slavery was an abomination. These quotes he got from a radical feminist nun, called "Rome Has Spoken". His point was to show that Popes were contradicting themselves on the issue and he was also praying on post cival war american thought regading the issue. Well to make a long story short the historical analysis of all of the quotes the Popes made about slavery shows that they were incredibly consistent. You see slavery is a much more complicated issue than racial slavery that we are so familiar with in post cival war America and makes us cringe whenever we hear the word. This kind of slavery, from its onset in the 1500's, was condemned by the Popes, starting in 1437 with a letter by Pope Eugene IV. Other types of slavery, such as captives from just wars and criminals, or indentured servitued like Jacob enslaving himself to Laban in the OT so that he could have Rachael for his wife, were tolerated by the Church . Any statement in support of slavery by the Popes can be shown to be tied to these forms of slavery. I am writing a long article or a short book on this topic. Don't know when it will be done. But the point is that most anti-catholics ignore historical context to make their cases. Thus I have found that papal statements are much more consistent than we have been told and much less in error. Anti-Catholics depend on people not having PHD's in History (which for some reason colleges give out even though history is so simple (sarcasem)). Okay, off my soapbox. Don't grant the anti-catholics near as many points on papal decrees without checking out the history is the point.

Blessings in your walk Brother Adam. You are in my prayers.

[Hananiah]

In Catholic theology, a baby is wiped clean of original sin through baptism. However, an infant cannot be intellectually "faithful" to Christ.

The idea is that the faith of the baptizer counts for the child, a sort of faith by proxy. The idea is in the Bible.

"And behold they brought to him one sick of the palsy lying in a bed. And Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the man sick of the palsy: Be of good heart, son, thy sins are forgiven thee." (Mt. 9:2)

"And when they could not offer him unto him for the multitude, they uncovered the roof where he was: and opening it, they let down the bed wherein the man sick of the palsy lay. And when Jesus had seen their faith, he saith to the sick of the palsy: Son, thy sins are forgiven thee." (Mk. 2:4-5)

"And when they could not find by what way they might bring him in, because of the multitude, they went up upon the roof and let him down through the tiles with his bed into the midst before Jesus. Whose faith when he saw, he said: Man, thy sins are forgiven thee." (Lk. 5:19-20)

Does faith merely mean a spiritual change, or is faith "belief, trust, obedience, and commitment". Or would you agree with Protestants that faith is only "belief"

St. Thomas Aquinas defined faith as "the act of the intellect assenting to a Divine truth owing to the movement of the will, which is itself moved by the grace of God" (St. Thomas, II-II, Q. iv, a. 2). Your four-part definition seems more like "the obedience of faith."

it seems that most anti-Catholics attack Catholicism on the grounds of what is said by popes and councils. Do you think this is a fair measuring stick, or is what is declared by popes and councils fallible?

It depends on the context. Popes are only infallible when they make ex cathedra decrees. But they are authoratative in any context, so yes, this is a fair measuring stick.

The problem most anti-Catholics is that they often misinterpret whatever Pope or Coucil they are quoting, and refuse to be corrected.

[bluengold]

Hananiah! Excellent job!

I'll remember those.

[Mary's Knight, La]

it's me again though I think this is going to be shorter than my last post I hope...

1. infant baptism... when you and i say faithful as in mr. x is faithful we mean he acts on his faith and it should be interesting to note that the church requires every member to act on their beliefs to the level of their understanding while a newborn for all purposes has no understanding they in essence cannot be unfaithful that is to say they cant act against something that isn't there but as they begin to be taught they become bound to that teaching now for the other part... baptism does leave an indellible mark on the soul original sin broke man's nature which included a union with God baptism restores this union, sin can later block this union to the point where it is ineffective but it cannot be rebroken

same arguement restated

man was created in a covenant with God but the condition was the covenant was broken by sin hence a new covenant entered into by baptism entry into this covenant leaves man free to choose heaven or not and has a lifetime reset clause so that at any time during his life man can change his mind but the covenant never cancels. infant baptism in a way shows that adam was created with the old covenant already present.

hopefully that will answer enough of your questions on baptism

faith is belief, trust, etc..., as well as a spiritual state, if man re-enters union with God faith would almost be the bandwith of the connection if man is acting in faith then he is more in union with God if his faith is small/dead then the connection is there just nothing is getting through... faith also includes charity, for God and hence His creation 90% my own figure of sins are actually sins against our love for God and His plan, to sin against belief you would have to stop believing He is there, obedience and commitment stem from love/charity. confused yet...

ok now for the last part on infallibility... which is what you're discussing whether you realize it or not if you want to use popes and councils as part of the measuring stick then you're going to have to learn popespeak which is the official language of the church (j/k) but what i'm trying to say is you have to judge what they're saying by the point they're communicating i refer you to my post on the other thread (the part I thread). if you're going to use what popes and councils etc say as the measuring stick then you have to understand what they're really saying not just what words they use. interesting that we(catholics maybe others) believe the bible is the same way, just as important as knowing the words of the bible is knowing the spirit and the teachings behind them which most often was communicated orally.

as for the rules of infallibility surely that has been dragged out enough times that we don't need to go into it again if we do check the reading room and the reference section

[cmotherofpirl]

Ones persons faith can save another.

In Genesis 18: 16-33 Abraham intercedes for Sodom.

Matthew 8:5-13 where the Centurions' faith saves his daughter

Matthew 15:21-28 child is saved because mom asked for a cure.

Luke 5:17-26. THe guy whose friends bwelieved in Jesus so they let him down thru a roof, their faith saved him from his sins.

MY faith brought my children to baptism.

[Laudate_Dominum]

*pats everyone on the back*

Thank you Brother Adam for your honest and great questions! And thank you all for your great answers. I love phatmass!