What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Discussing the teachings of Catholicism vs Scripture

JLB said:
What answer did you give yourself?
Click to expand...
My answer I gave myself was that Judas Iscariot was never saved.
The only key I could find prior to him turning in Jesus is that there is nothing in Scripture that says he ever called Jesus "Lord".
He always called him rabbi, which is a title of respect but not a title to recognize him as
God.
Now this does not prove anything but Jesus did call him a devil and one would have to wonder if a human "devil" could have been saved.

As far as being in Christ, He was called by Jesus to be an apostle, he did the works of an Apostle, would have to be considered to be in Christ as the other Apostles, but was never saved.
Final acts on earth, turn in Jesus and then commit suicide.

No, I don't believe he was saved but he was in Christ.
 
I guess this would cause us all to reconsider the exact meaning of being in Christ, which would then bring about a change in the OSAS debate.
 
Rollo Tamasi said:
My answer I gave myself was that Judas Iscariot was never saved.
The only key I could find prior to him turning in Jesus is that there is nothing in Scripture that says he ever called Jesus "Lord".
He always called him rabbi, which is a title of respect but not a title to recognize him as
God.
Now this does not prove anything but Jesus did call him a devil and one would have to wonder if a human "devil" could have been saved.

As far as being in Christ, He was called by Jesus to be an apostle, he did the works of an Apostle, would have to be considered to be in Christ as the other Apostles, but was never saved.
Final acts on earth, turn in Jesus and then commit suicide.

No, I don't believe he was saved but he was in Christ.
Click to expand...

You don’t believed he was saved, but you do believe he was in Christ.


You don’t have any scripture to share with us, but you think your opinion will bring about a change in the OSAS narrative which has no scripture to validate it.

HYPER FREE GRACE IS HERESY.



 
Here is an article that came up in the news. I thought I would share it, and get some feedback and discussion from those n this thread.

Here the link to the full article. —

https://www.freep.com/story/news/lo...ests-invalid-baptism-matthew-hood/3422325001/


Dearborn Catholic priest finds his baptism was invalid, impacting parishioners' sacraments


A Dearborn priest has learned his baptism was invalid after a notice from the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that baptisms using specific language were unacceptable.

Father Matthew Hood, of the Archdiocese of Detroit assigned to the Divine Child Parish in Dearborn, learned he was not a baptized Catholic on Aug. 6 after watching a family video of his baptism. He found the deacon, Deacon Mark Springer, used improper language.

In the note from the Vatican, if particular words were changed, then the baptisms were not valid — two words specifically: We and I. To say, “We baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” inaccurately portrays the sacrament of baptism. Instead, ministers must "allow Jesus to speak through them," by saying, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”


I have to say I feel for the priest. However there are some other things going on here.


Does anyone here think this man’s baptism was invalid?




JLB
 
Rollo Tamasi said:
Visions of Mary
Our Lady of Clearwater, Florida
December 17, 1996 this picture of Mary appeared at a church in Clearwater

View attachment 10063 View attachment 10064

This outdoor image became a place of worship where people from all around the world came to visit and they still do today.
Does this come from God, or satan, or just coincidence?
Click to expand...
If everytime you see an image that could be a head and body with a hallow is Mary, then you already have created the idea of cause and effect without any real justification. My wife took photographs of foam on the water in different positions, but the images though can reminded you of different things are not anything by random shifts.

Wish fulfilment is a powerful effect. Once you have the image you can invent the cause.

What for me is just odd, is the idea that holiness and a touch of God is linked to these events. God is much more alive and real in our lives, through His love and reality worked out in our hearts. Desperate people want some sign because the experiences they have make no sense and are obviously nothing to do with God. But the truth is the experiences they have need to be repented of, and they need to get right with God and a real change occur which is the exact opposite of what they want. Some external blessing is simply so much more powerful and costs nothing.

It is why to be born again is the hardest thing in the universe to occur, but also the greatest step anyone can take.
God bless you
 
JLB said:
Here is an article that came up in the news. I thought I would share it, and get some feedback and discussion from those n this thread.

Here the link to the full article. —

https://www.freep.com/story/news/lo...ests-invalid-baptism-matthew-hood/3422325001/


Dearborn Catholic priest finds his baptism was invalid, impacting parishioners' sacraments


A Dearborn priest has learned his baptism was invalid after a notice from the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that baptisms using specific language were unacceptable.

Father Matthew Hood, of the Archdiocese of Detroit assigned to the Divine Child Parish in Dearborn, learned he was not a baptized Catholic on Aug. 6 after watching a family video of his baptism. He found the deacon, Deacon Mark Springer, used improper language.

In the note from the Vatican, if particular words were changed, then the baptisms were not valid — two words specifically: We and I. To say, “We baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” inaccurately portrays the sacrament of baptism. Instead, ministers must "allow Jesus to speak through them," by saying, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”


I have to say I feel for the priest. However there are some other things going on here.


Does anyone here think this man’s baptism was invalid?




JLB
Click to expand...

The problem I have is were the people involved believers or just religious folk.
Baptism is a celebration of new birth in Christ as a believer, and given the catholic background, I do not think this is the context we are talking about.
 
PeterJens said:
The problem I have is were the people involved believers or just religious folk.
Baptism is a celebration of new birth in Christ as a believer, and given the catholic background, I do not think this is the context we are talking about.
Click to expand...

I hear you. It’s doubtful any of them were born again in the first place.

There are many things I see in this article that troubles me.

But I guess this first line really is sad in so many ways.


A Dearborn priest has learned his baptism was invalid after a notice from the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that baptisms using specific language were unacceptable.


They are invalidating everything this man has done in his life as a priest, because the priest who baptized him, said “we” baptize you, instead of ““I baptize you....



I went back to check and it looks like the Vatican changed their tune.


The original version of this story included baptisms in a list of affected sacraments. However, baptisms performed by the Rev. Matthew Hood remain valid as baptisms can be performed by anyone, not just priests. The story has been corrected.


Now they are saying baptisms can be performed by anyone not just priests.


:shrug
 
JLB said:
Here is an article that came up in the news. I thought I would share it, and get some feedback and discussion from those n this thread.

Here the link to the full article. —

https://www.freep.com/story/news/lo...ests-invalid-baptism-matthew-hood/3422325001/


Dearborn Catholic priest finds his baptism was invalid, impacting parishioners' sacraments


A Dearborn priest has learned his baptism was invalid after a notice from the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that baptisms using specific language were unacceptable.

Father Matthew Hood, of the Archdiocese of Detroit assigned to the Divine Child Parish in Dearborn, learned he was not a baptized Catholic on Aug. 6 after watching a family video of his baptism. He found the deacon, Deacon Mark Springer, used improper language.

In the note from the Vatican, if particular words were changed, then the baptisms were not valid — two words specifically: We and I. To say, “We baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” inaccurately portrays the sacrament of baptism. Instead, ministers must "allow Jesus to speak through them," by saying, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”


I have to say I feel for the priest. However there are some other things going on here.


Does anyone here think this man’s baptism was invalid?




JLB
Click to expand...
catholicherald.co.uk

My baptism was valid... right? - Catholic Herald

Last week, the news broke that Father Matthew Hood of the Archdiocese of Detroit had this summer learned that he was not validly baptized— despite believing that he had been ordained a priest in 2017.
catholicherald.co.uk catholicherald.co.uk
 
Mungo said:
catholicherald.co.uk

My baptism was valid... right? - Catholic Herald

Last week, the news broke that Father Matthew Hood of the Archdiocese of Detroit had this summer learned that he was not validly baptized— despite believing that he had been ordained a priest in 2017.
catholicherald.co.uk catholicherald.co.uk
Click to expand...

The Vatican reversed their stance since the article came out, now saying his baptism was valid, because a person does not need to be a priest to baptize.

:shrug




JLB
 
JLB said:
The Vatican reversed their stance since the article came out, now saying his baptism was valid, because a person does not need to be a priest to baptize.

:shrug




JLB
Click to expand...

what do you mean by "The Vatican reversed their stance"
 
JLB said:
The Vatican reversed their stance since the article came out, now saying his baptism was valid, because a person does not need to be a priest to baptize.

:shrug




JLB
Click to expand...
When I was young and involved with the Catholic tradition we were taught that anyone can baptize, not just priests.
 
WIP said:
When I was young and involved with the Catholic tradition we were taught that anyone can baptize, not just priests.
Click to expand...

Well that seems to be the case here.

Which opens up the question why there was ever an Issue with this man’s baptism which potentially would bring into question all the “sacraments“ he ministered over the years. :shrug
 
WIP said:
When I was young and involved with the Catholic tradition we were taught that anyone can baptize, not just priests.
Click to expand...

From the Code of Canon Law:
..... in a case of necessity any person with the right intention, confers baptism licitly.

An example of "necessity" would be someone in danger of death.

My understanding is that outside of "necessity" the baptism by a lay person (not ordained) would be valid but not licit.
But I'm not a canon lawyer so I could be wrong.
 
JLB said:
Well that seems to be the case here.

Which opens up the question why there was ever an Issue with this man’s baptism which potentially would bring into question all the “sacraments“ he ministered over the years. :shrug
Click to expand...

The problem is that Fr. Hood's baptism was not valid.
Therefore his ordination as a priest was not valid.
Therefore any sacraments that he administered, that are only to be administered by a priest, were not valid.
 
Mungo said:
The problem is that Fr. Hood's baptism was not valid.
Therefore his ordination as a priest was not valid.
Therefore any sacraments that he administered, that are only to be administered by a priest, were not valid.
Click to expand...

That was the narrative in the beginning. But since then they reversed their stance.
 
Mungo said:
Of course you are. That's all this thread is about.
=
Click to expand...

Please show me where I or anyone else have said anything about hating Catholics or bashing their doctrines of the catechism.

This thread is entitled the teachings of Catholicism vs scripture and that and only that is what has been presented in this thread comparing the doctrines of the Catholic Church with the doctrines of Christ. Each side needs to be presented with the scriptures that have already been written in the Bible. I'm sorry you are upset with the comparison, but truth is only found in the words of God, not the doctrines of the Catholic Church within their catechism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top