Catholicism Q&A

[Annolennar]

Please excuse my delayed response, I've been rather busy and forgot I owed you a reply in this thread.

(03-28-2009 08:03 PM)Paul.A Wrote:  Please do get me some authoritative support. I was hoping you meant being "baptized in the Spirit" rather than a water baptism. I don't mean the ability to talk in a tongue but simply being born again as laid out in John 3.

Indeed, that is what I meant. It is important here to have an in depth understanding of sacramental theology (which may or may not be beyond the purview of this thread).

A sacrament is an "efficacious sign of an interior spiritual reality". Seen above in paragraph 1257 of the Catechism, the Catholic Church affirms that "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments." Formal Baptism is the proper form of Baptism - indeed Scripture tells us we are to be reborn of both water and the Spirit - but the spiritual reality of Baptism is not exclusive to the formal sacrament, as God can most certainly work outside of the sacraments which He has given to His Church.

This is the domain of the Baptism of desire and Baptism by blood - when the spiritual reality takes place in the absence of the exterior sign, while the underlying principle at work remains the same.

In short, Baptism, whether in a formal ceremony or as an interior work of the Holy Spirit, has the same spiritual reality. The difference is that formal sacramental baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit has been instituted by Christ and passed down through the apostles, is known to be "efficacious" (meaning that it works), and is one of the duties of the Church.

-

Thats my layman's explanation.

A well-respected explanation can be found in the Summa Theologica, written by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, regarding Baptism. It is layed out as first the objection of others, and then his replies to those objections.

Summa Theologica on Baptism

Another great place to look for the Catholic understanding of Baptism can found in the Catechism. Since you seem fairly interested, I'll just give you the link to the section on Baptism and let you peruse at your own leisure, as that will probably serve you better than me just picking out what I think are relevant sections:

Catechism of the Catholic Church on Baptism

For both, it may be prudent to have an online Bible open in another browser window, so you can follow all the referenced scripture passages. There are also references to various writings of ecumenical councils and the like, but following all of those would stretch even my patience.

And as always, I'm available to discuss.

[muslim girl]

Is it enough to read one Bible or they are different?
Do you belive that there is one god or more?

---

I am not doubt about Islam
I just want to know

[Holy Babylon]

This guy has unfortunately left the forum, but I can pick up on your question. All publications of the Bible are different in translation. The Catholic Bible differs from the mainstream Protestant one in that we have seven more books that were taken out when King James formed his non-Latin translation.

We only have One God, we are monotheistic. Our God consists of the Trinity. We have The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit. The three in the trinity are God, but they are not each other. This can best be seen when looking at a Trinity Shield.

http://www.aug.edu/augusta/iconography/h...nglish.png

[Stereophonic]

(03-02-2010 06:33 PM)muslim girl Wrote:  Is it enough to read one Bible or they are different? Do you belive that there is one god or more?...

People who know Greek and Hebrew do not need to read English translations (or translations into whatever their native language happens to be). Usually only scholarly people have learned Greek and Hebrew, so most ordinary people rely on translations.

There are many fine translations of the Bible into English. The translations vary because of different translation theories. Some translation theories attempt a word-for-word translation from the original language into the target language, while other theories say that a more free, thought-for-thought translation is better. In between these two extremes, there are theories that advocate a compromise between word-for-word and thought-for-thought.

Additionally, some translations are targeted for children, or teenagers, or elderly people; some translations target less educated people, some target more educated people, and some target those who speak English as a second language. Virtually all of these translations are based on the same original-language texts.

The Christian New Testament canon (the list of accepted books) is the same for all Christians, whether Catholic or Orthodox or Protestant. The Hebrew Old Testament canon is mostly the same for all Christians, though the Catholics and Orthodox add several books which the Protestants do not accept as canonical. Protestants do read these extra books (referred to as Deuterocanonicals or Apocryphal) but they do not regard them as Scripture.

Christians worship one God only; we are monotheists. This monotheism is complicated by the fact that we believe the One True God has revealed himself as a relational community of three distinct "persons," for lack of a better word. We do not think of the "persons" of Father, Son, and Spirit as separate, independent "persons" as we are accustomed to seeing every day in human life. God is unique and we have no other categories to compare Him to, and so we use the term "person" only because we believe God is personal rather than some sort of impersonal "force."

The Trinity is a mystery, but we try to find analogies to help us comprehend something of the mystery. For example, imagine there is a two-dimensional world (instead of the three-dimensional world that we live in). And suppose a three-dimensional "spherical being" wanted to pass through that two-dimensional world and leave a trace of his presence. If the three-dimensional sphere were to pass through the flat, two-dimensional world, a video camera would capture frames that show a succession of circles of varying sizes. The two-dimensional creatures living in the two-dimensional world would have a very difficult time understanding and explaining how all of these separate, distinct "circles" could somehow all relate to a single, unified, three-dimensional "spherical being." This is the same situation Christians have when trying to comprehend or explain our One True God.

[biomystic]

I would like to know why the Catholic Church does not obey the teachings of Jesus re not calling anyone on earth their father? The whole Catholic Church enterprise is based on spiritual authority given to fathers, from the Pope (Father) on down to the priests. This goes directly against what Jesus taught.

[biomystic]

Silence from Catholics. Is this another Muslim rerun here where it's Catholics instead of Muslims avoiding answering any hard questions about their religion?

[Holy Babylon]

Silence? I have not been on, haha. I just got done answering this one on another forum anyways.

When God said, "Call no man on earth your father", he meant in terms of who created you. You can call your dad father because he did not create you, he begot you. The term father is used in many senses other than who created or begot you, "The Father of Medicine", "I was a father to those who truly needed my help.". So by father, the Bible means solely Creator, it all lies in the forms of literary speak.

[biomystic]

(03-03-2010 06:54 PM)Holy Babylon Wrote:  Silence? I have not been on, haha. I just got done answering this one on another forum anyways.

When God said, "Call no man on earth your father", he meant in terms of who created you. You can call your dad father because he did not create you, he begot you. The term father is used in many senses other than who created or begot you, "The Father of Medicine", "I was a father to those who truly needed my help.". So by father, the Bible means solely Creator, it all lies in the forms of literary speak.

Talk about lies in the form of literary speak..what a convenient interpretation for those protecting the Catholic Church dogma. The context of the words in Matthew make it plain that Jesus was talking about human beings calling religious leaders "father" because Jesus' commandment right before commanding us no to call anyone on our father was to not call anyone "Rabbi", meaning "Master" literally. Jesus' commandment right after the commandment not to call anyone on earth father is not to be called "Teacher". So your apologetic for the Catholic institution of fathers is not valid.

[biomystic]

Silence again from Catholics...shows that weak Catholic dogma cannot withstand scrutiny.

[Holy Babylon]

No offense, but you need to take a chill pill. Blatantly you know nothing about the Bible or the literature used back in its age. AND IF I DON'T POST IT MEANS I HAVE NOT LOGGED ON! So calm down, you haven't won anything. My argument is fully valid. Oh, and could you please quote the scripture where Jesus says to call none Rabbi?