If God is perfect, and God made the world then surely the World is perfect?? If that is the case, then surely it is us that makes the world and ourselves imperfect by us choosing to sin.

Ontop of this...is committing suicide a big sin and what happens to those that have committed suicide?

I realise that these questions might be vague but they are both on my mind at the moment and do not know who to turn to for answers.

God bless!! Dawn

-- Dawn Peters (Dawn@rrmkt.co.za), September 06, 2004

Answers

Hello Dawn. I am sure you know that at one time the world was indeed perfect. That God had made a perfect place for the first two people to live and raise a family, but as we also know these same two people disobeyed God and thus they were cast out of their perfect world into an imperfect one. One where they would have to labor and toil and eventually die. God is perfect, and he had ultamately planned a perfect place for his creations to live, but when Adam and Eve disobeyed, they brought sin and death to the world. No longer are we born perfect in a perfect world. We are born under original sin in a world where we will work hard, suffer illness and death. Our children will be sinful and disobedient....It goes on and on. That is why God also sent us THE perfect sacrifice; our Lord Jesus Christ.

As far as suicide goes, suicide is self murder and murder is a mortal sin. I believe that a person who willfully commits suicide has committed mortal sin and will not enter the kingdom of heaven, because he can not confess the sin and recieve forgivness after he is dead. I hope this helps. Have a great Labor Day !

Thanks and Glory be to God !

-- Suzanne (james-betsy@sbcglobal.net), September 06, 2004.

"As far as suicide goes, suicide is self murder and murder is a mortal sin. I believe that a person who willfully commits suicide has committed mortal sin and will not enter the kingdom of heaven, because he can not confess the sin and recieve forgivness after he is dead. I hope this helps."

Also if someone commits suicide they obviously have mental problems, so God judges everyone differernt, so you realy don't know if the person was aware they were committing a mortal sin.

Its realy is not as cut and dry as it sounds. You never know if someone repented after they did the deed ie, jumped of a building, took pills, pulled a trigger, etc...

I think as science and medicines advance forward there is much we are still learning about mental illnesses and the Church is reconizing this. Thats why people that kill themselves sometimes are allowed to have a Catholic funeral Mass now.

If we knew they were going to hell than what would be the sense?

God bless you

-- - (David@excite.com), September 06, 2004.

Makes perfect sense, Curious and David. I guess I never thought of it that way, but I suppose a person who is mentally ill might not know at the time what he is doing, but my best friend in highschool shot herself in the head because she was upset that her boyfriend broke up with her. She attended mass every week with her parents and seemed to be pretty in touch with God. I can remember sitting in her room with her and listening as she prayed the rosary. It never crossed my mind that she wasn't saved, and I couldn't imagine what would drive her to do such a thing as commit suicide. I also remember hearing told when I was younger that people who commit suicide were damned because there was no way to reconcile after death. But I suppose if the person is mentally ill or suffering pain beyond tolerance and isn't in his right frame of mind, then he might not be committing mortal sin. I'd be interested in what other people have to say on this topic.

Thanks and Glory be to God!

-- Suzanne (James-betsy@sbcglobal.net), September 06, 2004.

Suzanne,

The best thing you can do for your friend is pray for her everyday. Only God knows what was going on in her mind. She was obviously a very troubled girl. You can have a holy Mass celebrated for the repose of her soul.

Trust in Gods' mercy and keep praying. Pray in front of the Blessed Sacrament.

-- - (David@excite.com), September 06, 2004.

Suzanne,

The decision with regard to your friend's and for that matter, everyone's salvation is ultimately God's. This should be comforting as His justice is perfect.

If we can see the possibility of extenuating circumstances, we can be sure God will see and understand everything.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), September 06, 2004.

curious, preaching beliefs which are against catholic teachings here is against the rules. in the future, please note that what you are saying is NOT a catholic perspective so that you do not mislead those who come here for catholic answers.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 06, 2004.

But i wasn't preaching--just reminding Suzanne of biblical truth.

actually, you were reminding suzanne of YOUR personal and fallable interpretation of the Bible. YOU are not the source of truth, nor the arbiter of it.

It is not revealed in Scripture that someone can lose their salvation if their salvation is real to begin with.

by all means then, please show me where it says "once you accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior you are automatically saved." hundreds of times we are told that the road is narrow and many who seek it will be lost, that we must be purified by fire to enter heaven, that those who profess belief must LIVE that belief in order to be saved... the only unbiblical belief here, curious, is yours.

The Bible also tells us what debt we owe and why. And it has nothing to do with sins in general--but that one ultimate sin by Adam and Eve.

every sin is a debt, curious. every sin is another pound on a nail in Christ's crucifixion, another strike with the whip, another thorn on the cross. we avoid sin because it is not only displeasing to God, but also because they are a part of what killed our Lord... our evil is our Christ's suffering and death.

You may not agree--but I am biblically correst--and you should respct that.

you may not agree, but you are still OUR guest here. your interpretations mean nothing to me, nor do they have relevance to a question directed towards catholics. we have rules here against infraction of what is a CATHOLIC FORUM (ie, sanctuary away from the endless and incessant yet hollow attacks of protestant fundies), and YOU should respect that.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 06, 2004.

"It is not revealed in Scripture that someone can lose their salvation if their salvation is real to begin with."

A: In fact it is not revealed in scripture that anyone still walking this earth is already in possession of his/her salvation. the Bible clearly states that a person WILL be saved (note the future tense), IF and only if he/she remains faithful until the end of his/her earthly life. The manmade traditon that we can be certain of salvation while still on this earth is only a few hundred years old, and directly contradicts the Word of God which says we must each work out our salvation each and every day of our earthly lives, or we will not RECEIVE salvation at the end of our days.

The sin of Adam and Eve affects us only in terms of our tendency or attraction toward sin, what is called concupisence. However, we are not guilty of their sin any more than they were guilty of ours; and if we forfeit salvation it is because of OUR sin, not because of theirs.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 06, 2004.

Ok, being that I and my entire family are in the process of converting to Catholisism from Southern Baptist, can someone answer the question of what happens to the soul of a person who commits suicide from a Catholic prospective? Thanks you.

Thanks and Glory be to God!

-- Suzanne (james-betsy@sbcglobal.net), September 06, 2004.

And it is you paul h..,who sends out the assaults and attacks.

incorrect, curious, it is i who helps defend this forum against the infringment of its rules by fundamentalists who don't have the courtesy to respect our forum.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 06, 2004.

suzanne,

dave and yourself pretty well summed up the position of the catholic church. the only deviation presents itself in the proposed heretical idea that once someone proclaims themselves saved they are free to do as they wish for the rest of their life.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 06, 2004.

"Those who belong to Jesus can not be taken from Him."

A: That is correct. As Scripture says, none may be "snatched away". However, there is a great deal of difference between being "snatched away" and simply turning our backs and walking away voluntarily.

"We can know we are saved when we are in Christ Jesus."

A: That is correct. We can know we are saved as long as we are "in Christ Jesus". However, what no person on earth can know with certainty is that he will in fact remain in Christ Jesus. Jesus invites us into His family. He does not take us prisoner. One who accepts Christ does not forfeit his free will. He is still completely free to reject tomorrow what he has accepted today, and many have done so. I know several. Don't you? And one who does so will not receive salvation.

"The one who ENDURES TO THE END, he WILL be saved". (Matthew 24:13)

"Jesus said to him, "No one who puts his hand to the plow but then looks back is fit for the kingdom of God." (Luke 9:62)

"I don't think that anything I said should be found offensive--since it is supported in Scripture."

Nothing can be truly "supported in Scripture" unless it is taught by God's Church, the Church which is responsible for putting the text into the Bible in the first place. Otherwise it is only "supported" by your own personal interpretations of scripture, which are not backed up by any genuine authority.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 06, 2004.

Remember that according to the Catechism, mortal sin requires:

1. grave matter
2. full knowledge
3. complete consent

Catechism on suicide:

2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.

2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal. Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law.
Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.

2325 Suicide is seriously contrary to justice, hope, and charity. It is forbidden by the fifth commandment.

The thread on "Invincible Ignorance also relates to this topic, if for some reason the person did not know or understand that suicide is wrong. I posted Scripture and Catechism teachings there to explain the concept.

If you are interested in reading other threads on the issue, there are some here: Sin/Morality threads. Just look for "suicide" in the titles.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), September 06, 2004.

Hello Suzanne,

The Church does not make any definitive judgements about the final destination of anyone's soul - not Judas, not Hitler, and certainly not those who commit suicide. Judgement belongs to God alone. the Church teaches that mortal sin deprives the soul of grace and its relationship with God, and that unrepented mortal sin therefore results in forfeiture of salvation.

However, for mortal sin to occur, three criteria must be met ...

(1) The act committed must be objectively grave. Suicide of course is always an objectively grave matter, so it meets the first criterion.

(2) The person who commits the act must have sufficient knowledge to appreciate the moral gravity of the act.

(3) The person who commits the act must give his/her full rational consent to commission of the act.

As you can see, the first criterion is objective, and is subject to definition by the Church; but the other two criteria are subjective, and are therefore not subject to judgment by anyone but God. Various factors may come into play which may mitigate personal culpability for commission of the act, and which may therefore render the act less than mortally sinful for that specific individual in those specific circumstances, even though the act is still objectively grave.

Thus we read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, section 2282 ... "Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide."

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 06, 2004.

Rapture is made up. It was a fad 200 hundred years ago, made up by one man and inserted into a heretical bible as a footnote. It is now believed as inspired by scripture when it is in fact a man-made concept.

Thank you.

-- Joel (joelFAUdugard@netscape.net), September 06, 2004.

*the only deviation presents itself in the proposed heretical idea that once someone proclaims themselves saved they are free to do as they wish for the rest of their life.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 06, 2004. *

Good Morning Paul H. I have never believed in my life, even as a practicing Baptist, that once you were saved you were "free" to just go about doing whatever pleases you. Oh I was always taught that concept, but in reading scripture I always knew that couldn't be right. It was inconsistancies in belief like this that drove me to begin studying other faiths. What I found was that most prodistant churches teach this same moral concept. That once you have "found Jesus" and have been saved, that by His grace you are saved no matter what. (The Church of Christ doesn't support this, but has repeatedly informed us that if we didn't attend their church we would go to hell.) Now for those who are not Catholic, I am not church bashing; just stating my own findings which I believe to be less that truth. One of my girlfriends asked my husband and I to attend Mass with her one Sunday and we went. It was like nothing else. We felt peaceful there, something my husband said he'd never felt at church before, so began my studies. I found the church to be the most accurate in teaching the truth than I had found anywhere else. I do believe that God has led us to His own church. I still have so much to learn, however, and I thank ya'll on this forum for all the help. It's wonderful to have a place to come to to get answers from.

Thanks for the links Emily and thanks to the 2 Pauls for the explinations. It gives me a better understanding of this serious topic. I have been haunted for 15 years about why my friend would want to kill herself and I will never really know the answer to that, but I do know that if she were in her normal state of mind she would have never done anything so drastic. We were just 15 years old and going through a rebelious age, but we weren't as bad as most of the kids our age, so when she did this, it totally blew me and others away. She was always a very happy young girl. I hope and pray that she is with God. I will know one day. Ya'll have a good day.

Thanks and glory be to God!

-- Suzanne (james-betsy@sbcglobal.net), September 07, 2004.

Good Morning Curious. I was taught that once saved always saved and that while a person was baptized as a symbol of his personal faith that it wasn't nessessary for salvation. So let me ask you this, do you believe that a person can never lose his salvation? And do you believe that baptism is nessessary for salvation? My mother is still a practicing Baptist. She is beside herself with grief that we are converting to the Catholic faith. She throws it up in my face that it is wrong every day about the Catholic belief that you can lose your salvation or that a person doesn't need baptism. I never argue out of respect for my mother, but I did give her a book that our priest gave to me for her, so she might understand the faith better. I don't want to argue with you either, but most Baptists and other prodistant faiths do believe in once saved always saved and that baptism isn't nessessary for salvation. If there is one thing I have learned on my journey it is this, salvation is an ongoing process. It doesn't stop when you place your faith in Christ. It doesn't stop at your baptism. It is a process that is carried with you all of your life. I have heard over and over that works will not save you (and works alone won't save you), but scripture also tells us that a tree is known by the fruit that it bears. And we as Christians are known by how we live. Faith without works is dead. Everyday I strive to be faithful to Christ. I am human though and I mess up. It only makes me see more clearly the need for confession and makes me see more clearly why I have to have an ongoing relationship with God in order to keep my salvation alive.

Thanks and glory be to God !

-- Suzanne (james-betsy@sbcglobal.net), September 07, 2004.

suzanne,

i know it is difficult to deal with a parent who can't accept your conversion... my mom attends a VERY anti catholic fundamentalist church, and it can be difficult to both honor your parents and to remain true to the church of God at the same time. all you can do is gently and respectfully state why you have made your choice and then pray for her to understand and see as you have.

Truly, welcome to the catholic church... we'll be glad to answer any questions you may have and help you in any way we can

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 07, 2004.

Yes, we signify this by the full-body emmersion into water [which represents death to self] and the coming up out of the water [which signifies re-birth], but the Protestant believes that the real baptism actually occured in the heart the moment one believed and received Christ as their Savior

but this is HORRIBLE exegisis of the scriptures. The bible CLEARLY states that one must be baptised BOTH in the water AND the spirit. i would think this would become clear... that one is baptised to wash away sins, and confirmed in the faith to join fully in the spiritual faith of Christ. there is no "signified by the water" because it IS the water which is the baptism, as Christ Himself indicated.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 07, 2004.

Thank you very much, Paul. I have prayed fervently that God will help Mother to understand. My husband's mother is also Baptist, but she is more understanding of the choice that her son and I have made for our family.

Thanks and glory be to God !

-- Suzanne (james-betsy@sbcglobal.net), September 07, 2004.

I suppose it's important to also point out that nowhere in the New Testament do we see Jesus specifying that baptism has to be only for adults and only through full immersion...

To point to John's baptism as the example isn't helpful because the rite (by John) wasn't necessarily the only rite possible.

Paul baptised the greeks in prison and the chances are good that there wasn't some swimming pool there for this... and he baptised whole households...no mention of a ban on baptising infants.

I think therefore that a lot of protestants feel smug about knowing the scripture without actually bothering themselves to actually show us where exactly the idea of full bodily immersion in water comes from!

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 07, 2004.

It's a given that the apostles did not normally baptize by immersion. Jesus and the apostles lived in a desert land. Many of the towns they visited in their travels, where they preached and baptized, were built on oases, and the town well was the only source of water for many miles. They certainly did not lower people down into the well for baptism. They baptized the people of the town with water drawn up in a bucket.

It's also noteworthy that all early artistic representations of the baptism of Jesus depict Him standing in the river while John pours water over his head or onto His forehead. Of course the fact that full immersion was not the usual form of baptism in the early Church doesn 't mean that there is anything wrong with it. The Catholic Church fully approves baptism by immersion, and an increasing number of new Catholic Churches being built today include a baptismal pool for that purpose.

As for baptizing infants, Jesus clearly said that one cannot enter the kingdom without being born of water and the Spirit, a clear reference to Baptism. And He also said, in reference to babies and small children, "the kingdom of God belongs to such as these". Is it possible that the kingdom of God could belong to those who are banned from receiving that which makes the kingdom of God accessible?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 07, 2004.

"But is that a reference to the literal act of baptising--or of the baptism of the Holy Spirit?"

A: Clearly it is a reference to both, since both are mentioned in the very same phrase, as elements of the very same act, and it says that both are necessary to enter the kingdom.

And He also said, in reference to babies and small children, "the kingdom of God belongs to such as these". ... "That verse has nothing to do with baptism".

A: I didn't say this verse standing alone has anything to do with Baptism. What this verse about small children does have to do with is entering the kingdom - something that the other verse says cannot happen without baptism.

"Jesus was refering to their innocent trustworthy faith. He said that if we wanted to see the Kingdom of heaven--we had to be like them"

A: Precisely! Jesus held them up as the model WE must strive to be like if WE wish to be baptized and enter the kingdom. Therefore how could it be possible that they, the very model we are told to emulate, would be banned from baptism and/or entry into the kingdom?

"I can't believe that you would make a comment that you *suppose* there is nothing wrong with full-body emmersion baptism. That is the only kind of baptism we see exampled in the Bible".

A: I don't recall saying I "suppose" anything. I said it is the teaching of the Church that baptism by immersion is fully valid and acceptable. Could you please direct me to a passage that you think refers specifically to baptism by immersion?

"I don't know how you come to the information you have about people practicing splashing water instead--but it isn't in the Bible."

A: I never heard of baptism by splashing. However, if you mean baptism by pouring, you are right. No specific method of baptism is mentioned in the Bible. But baptism by pouring dates back historically to the earliest years of the Christian Church.

"Personally--since it's only symbolic in my understanding--I suppose it doesn't really matter. "

A: If it were only symbolic, it would not be required for entry into the kingdom.

"And I wouldn't give a lot of credance to art work from way bak when-- those works were usually commisioned by the Vatican".

A: Well, works commissioned by and approved by the Christian Church of the day, the biblical pillar and foundation of truth, would be expected to reflect the truth. So I have no problem with that.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 07, 2004.

You’re really getting desperate aren’t you, curious. The fresco- painting of the Last Supper on the wall of the refectory of a monastery in Milan was obviously commissioned by the abbot of that monastery. Not by “the Vatican” and certainly not issued as an official publication of the universal Church. And the painter’s name is Leonardo da Vinci, so called because he was born in the village of Vinci. You display the same ignorance as the author of “The DaVinci Code”. The painter's name is not “Davinci”. That is as absurd as saying “Ofarc” to mean St Joan of Arc.

And why shouldn't the painting show foods that people of Leonardo's time were familiar with? Like all art, it's an interpretation to appeal to and inspire the viewer, not a historical photographic record.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 07, 2004.

Before Vatican II, one of the Pius Popes said that the Mass may not be changed, ever. If that was doctrine, how come its different now? Did doctrine grow in truth like many people say? Can other doctrines grow in truth?

Feldman

-- Jo (JoBFeldman@yahoo.com), September 07, 2004.

Jo, the words of the Mass are a matter of Church discipline, not doctrine. The words of the Mass have changed many times over the centuries. A Pope’s authority over the disciplines of the church is valid only for the duration of his papacy. He cannot bind future Popes concerning what they may rule concerning Church disciplines.

“Doctrine” means the beliefs of the faith which the Church teaches. The doctrines of the Catholic faith were given to the apostles and passed on to their successors. Our understanding of them has grown over the centuries and they may be expressed in different words as languages change. Some elements of Catholic doctrine have been formally defined as "dogma", that is they are essential parts of the Catholic faith and have not and cannot ever change.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 07, 2004.

No Faith, it is you who has totally missed the point. Of course I know that only unleavened bread is used at Passover meals and the Eucharist. But as I said, a work of art is not a historical document and so cannot be “wrong” in this sense.

I have seen a reproduction of a beautiful painting of the Madonna and Child by an African artist. In the painting, both figures have jet black skin. You would say this is historically “wrong”. I say it is “right” for those who see and appreciate its artistic intent.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 07, 2004.

"You assume that two things are being referenced--but perhaps there is only one saving baptism."

A: It is you who are insisting that being baptized (born of water) and being "born again" (baptized of the Spirit) are two different things. Clearly they are not. Look at the sequence of the passage!

In John 3:3, Jesus tells Nicodemus he must be "born again" in order to enter the kingdom of God.

In John 3:4 Nicodemus says in effect "Lord, I don't know what you mean by "born again". Can you explain this to me?

In John 3:5 Jesus replies in effect "when I say 'born again' I mean being born of water and the Spirit".

So Jesus says straight out that "born of water and the Spirit" is a single event, and that that event is also known as "born again". He couldn't have stated it any more clearly.

"Jesus was refering to their innocent trustworthy faith. He said that if we wanted to see the Kingdom of heaven--we had to be like them"

A: Nonsense! Babies and toddlers don't have "faith". What they have is innocence. "Becoming like little children" doesn't mean growing in faith. It means turning away from sin and regaining our initial innocence.

"The Bible gives many examples of water baptism. These baptisms are always done because of faith--belief in Jesus Christ."

A: That's right. When adults were baptized it was through their own personal faith. And when whole families were baptized together it was through the faith of the parents.

"And any example in the Bible that we do find--it is always an adult--and this adult is always emmersed in water."

A: There is no verse in the Bible that mentions being immersed in water, though there are many verses which suggest that this was unlikely. All it says about John is that he "baptized with water", which is necessary regardless of which form you use.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 07, 2004.

Now here is an amazing thing. Protestants often accuse Catholics of putting too much emphasis on allegedly over-the-top and excessive ritual, instead of concentrating on the meaning of the ritual. Yet here our friend Curious insists that the precise form of the ritual of baptism is the all-important thing!

Whether we are fully immersed (as is done sometimes in the Catholic Church), have the water poured over our heads (as is usual) or have it merely sprinkled or dropped on our heads (which happens rarely, for example in premature babies not expected to survive) the meaning and effect is the same – we are buried in Christ and rise born again with Him to new life.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 07, 2004.

Thank you everyone for shedding some light on the situation.

I think firstly, for one to try and commit suicide a lot must be going on in thier head which we will never know. The lonliness and pain must be far greater than any of us can comprehend. Sometimes the pain the of everything around us wants us to be with God now and not in years to come. I do not think it has anything to do with faith...its the pain.

I spoke to my parish priest here in South Africa, and he said that it is not a mortal sin but a grave sin as it is a sin that has been committed from total despair.

Once again thank you and God Bless.

Dawn

-- Dawn (dawn@rrmkt.co.za), September 08, 2004.

Feldman,

Before Vatican II, one of the Pius Popes said that the Mass may not be changed, ever. If that was doctrine, how come its different now?

it is not different now, actually. says Justin of Samaria, a scholar in the employ of the roman emperor in the year 155 AD,

"On the day we call the day of the sun (Sunday), all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place. The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits. When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things. Then we all rise together and offer prayers for ourselves... and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation. When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss. The someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the bretheren. He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts. When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying "Amen." When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the "eucharisted" bread, wine, and water and take them to those who are absent."

in this we can clearly see that there are several characteristics of early christian worship in the second century: 1) held on sunday, 2) possessing first a liturgy of the Word of God, 3) possessing the prayers of the faithful for the intercession of God in the lives of men, 4) a clearly defined sign of peace (the kiss), and 5) a liturgy of the eucharist very similar to that of today. If that isnt what mass is, unchanged, to this very day, then i must not be a catholic. no, the mass, while externals have changed, is the same form of mass as it has been since before even Justin of Samaria's time.

Did doctrine grow in truth like many people say?

no, the time of public revelation is past and there is no more revelation of new truths... the power of the pope lies in dogmatically defining existing truth, which is why we are not required to lend our assent to private revelations.

Can other doctrines grow in truth?

the form of the mass is predominantly discipline, not doctrine, and ultimately has not changed anyway. but no, doctrines do not "grow," they become more clearly defined over time.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 08, 2004.

Curious, I was baptized by being immersed (or dunked as my kids so humerously stated it). So was my husband and the girls when we were members of the Baptist church. My son is going to be baptized this Sunday at mass by our parish priest. My baptism was valid because it was done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Not because I was immersed completely under the water. I feel my son will be just as validly baptized as the rest of us, and when the baby comes, (I just found out I am expecting our 5th.) he will be baptized as well. His baptizm will be valid no because of HOW it is done but in WHOM it is done and that is the main issue here. Either way is fine so long as you are baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Ya'll have a wonderful day and pray for one another!

Thanks and Glory be to God!

-- Suzanne (james-betsy@sbcglobal.net), September 08, 2004.

"then we should probably consider how Jesus was baptized or how John the baptist performed it. "

That would be a good thing to consider, if we knew how Jesus was baptized or how John the Baptist performed it. But we don't. It is the tradition of some Protestant denominations that Christ was baptized by immersion, but there is no historical or biblical evidence to support such an idea. I'm not say He wasn't. That claim would be just as unsupportable as the claim that He was. We just don't know.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 08, 2004.

faith, check your tags... I'll get it for now

as to your arguement, if Christ were standing in the water to have water poured over His head, then going back onto the shore would be defined as going up out of the water. simply put, we cannot know what the original intent of the passage was.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 08, 2004.

Ah yes, the old "came up out of the water" argument. I figured you would quote that passage since the Protestant tradition of baptism by immersion is based solely on misinterpretation of that one verse.

You ask "If Jesus wasn't fully submerged in the Jordan River--how would he then COME UP OUT OF THE WATER? " The answer to your question can be found in Acts 8:38-39, where we read an account of another baptism ...

"And he commanded the chariot to stop. And they went down both to the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptised him. But when they CAME UP OUT OF THE WATER the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, and the eunuch saw him no longer, for he went on his way rejoicing."

Note that the exact same english phrase is used here which is used in describing the baptism of Jesus, which is correct since the exact same Greek phrase is also used in both passages. The problem is, this account says "THEY" came up from the water. So, if your interpretation of this phrase is correct, both Philip AND the man he was baptizing must have been fully submerged. Philip must in fact have baptized the man underwater! But of course, that is not the meaning of the phrase at all. It has nothing to do with immersion. Philip and the man were on dry land when the man requested baptism. So the two of them WENT DOWN INTO THE WATER. Once there, Philip baptized the man (no indication of how). After the baptism was finished they had no reason to remain in the water, so they CAME UP OUT OF THE WATER, back onto dry land. In this passage the meaning is so obvious that no-one could misinterpret it, either accidentally or intentionally. In the case of Jesus' baptism, John did not COME UP OUT OF THE WATER with Jesus, because John was continuing to baptize other people. Therefore Jesus, after being baptized by John, CAME UP OUT OF THE WATER by Himself, back onto the shore.

When the meaning of a phrase is absolutely certain in one passage, and the meaning of the exact same phrase is somewhat ambiguous in another, the incontrovertible interpretation is typically applied to both passages. This is a basic rule of exegesis, one which is often overlooked by the "one passage is enough" approach to doctrine used by many Protestants.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 08, 2004.

curious,

to repair a thread after a closing html tag is missed, simply place the appropriate html tag... for example, to end a run of italics, place a [/i], but replace the square brackets in that with the carrot brackets.

it should also be noted that ocassionally more than one closing tag will be missed and thus one closing bracket will not repair it since the effects of each tag is cumulative. at any rate, when posting your repair thread, place three or four of the closing tags, since it still won't effect the rest of the thread anyway.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 08, 2004.

“Couldn't John the baptist just have a jug of water and go just about anywhere”

You don’t seem to appreciate just how difficult it was to bring water any distance from a river or spring (and keep it clean) in the days before reservoirs and piped pressurized clean water.

Also you need to appreciate the symbolic significance of the Jordan River – the river the Jews had to cross to reach the Promised Land – a prefigure of baptism.

Also the Jordan River is quite a small stream. It would have been seldom if ever deep enough to completely submerge a man. Sometimes it stopped flowing completely.

It does not matter that an infant cannot understand or personally commit to the faith. The parents and godparents understand and commit to bring the child up in the faith.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 08, 2004.

Just by the fact that John the baptist is standing in the Jordan River and those being baptised are going into the River with him-- tells me that they are almost all-the-way submerged before they even begin the baptism

again, curious, i must point out the difference between a valid, and a sound arguement. below is your arguement that you were presenting:

1) Baptism while standing in a river is done by submersion

2) John baptised people while standing in the river jordan

c) ERGO, John baptised people by submersion.

Logically speaking, this is what is called a valid arguement. it follows the proper form, and the two premises (if true) logically point to the conclusion.

HOWEVER, it is NOT a sound arguement. that is to say, premise 1, which is that all baptisms ever done standing in a river are necessarily submersion baptisms is an a posteriori statement. granted that i have seen people baptised by pouring while standing in a river the statement is therefore empirically false, making the argument unsound and therefore unverifiable. as paul m said, there is no way to determine whether or not Jesus was baptised by submersion or by pouring.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 09, 2004.

The Didache

"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

-- D Joseph (newfiedufie@msn.com), September 09, 2004.