"A Humble Servant's Catholic Blog"

To understand why Catholics (and Lutherans, and some Episcopalians and Methodists, etc...) Batpize infants, 2 things need to be understood:  1) what the Church believes about Baptism, and 2) the Church's understanding of Original Sin.  I have posted quotes from the Early Church Fathers about what the earliest Christians believed about Baptism .  But in this article, I will stick strictly to Scripture. The Catholic position is that Baptism is: 1) a Sacrament which confers on us the Holy Spirit, 2) through which we are made members of Christ, and 3) Baptism saves us.   Baptism is sacramental (a visible sign, with an invisible grace, instituted by Christ) that confers the Holy Spirit, and washes away sin. “ I will sprinkle clean water upon you , and you shall be clean form all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.   A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you ; and I will take o...

I've heard it said before that Catholics don't hear as much of the Bible during our services, nor do we read the Bible as much as non-Catholics. I've even heard that the Church doesn't want Catholics to read the Bible. While I believe that ALL Christians can and should read their Bibles more often and learn the Scriptures, I will say these statements are false. I do have a feeling that if you asked the average Catholic if he/she reads the Bible regularly, you’d get a “no”. But, I think it’s likely that a non-Catholic would say the same thing, and I don’t think this speaks to the character of the Church, rather to the fallen nature of people who have not put God’s Word high up on their priority reading list. A set of polls [1] last year on Catholic Answers Forums showed that the Catholics there spend at least as much energy and time in learning the Scriptures as the non-Catholics. While these polls are limited in what they convey, reaching only a small audience,...

As we close the 6-part series on Boettner’s List, we look at several items revolving around the Papacy and things that, on the surface and only seeing what Boettner provides, appear to be scandalous…such as indulgences, forbidding Bibles and “the Cup”...even condemning Public Schools?!?! As before, to keep the length within reason, I’ll let Mr. Ariss’ examinations speak for themselves and add my own comments in blue where I feel more clarification is needed. Everything in black ink, from here on, is quoted directly from Wayne Ariss (with his generous permission…see link in the very first part of this series) with the bolded text being the direct quote from Boettner’s list : “ 12. Title of Pope, or universal bishop, given to Boniface III by emperor Phocas....607 . Boettner apparently wishes to give the impression that the office of Pope was invented by the Byzantine Emperor Phocas in 607, and conferred upon Boniface. The actual facts are not so simplistic. To begin with, the t...

Continuing where we left off in Part 4 we move now to some Church disciplines and touch on the topic of Authority and Sacramental Confession. As before, to keep the length within reason, I’ll let Mr. Ariss’ examinations speak for themselves and add my own comments in blue where I feel more clarification is needed. Everything in black ink, from here on, is quoted directly from Wayne Ariss (with his generous permission…see link in the very first part of this series) with the bolded text being the direct quote from Boettner’s list : “ 21. Fasting on Fridays and during Lent....998 . Fasting on Fridays is mentioned as far back as the Didache (140 AD) [39], thus rendering Boettner more than 800 years off the mark. As for the Lenten fast, Athanasius, writing in his Festal Letters of 331 AD, stated that the faithful should fast for 40 days during Lent [40]. This makes Boettner 667 years off the mark. Canon 69 of the Apostolic Canons, which pre-date 341 AD, admonishes bishops, clergy, a...

Do Non-Catholics really believe and practice "sola Scriptura", the belief that the “Bible alone” is the sole, or final, rule of faith? After a careful look, and asking several non-Catholics to describe what “sola Scriptura” (SS) means (to them, to their faith group, their church…whatever definition they were willing to provide), I don’t think there are ANY Christians who actually believe and practice this…even though they claim to. For example, a Lutheran friend (a member of the LCMS), quoting the Lutheran Confessions, described SS as Scripture being “the only final norm”. He continued, “Tradition is, as a result, not equal to scripture, but accountable to it.” So I asked what happens when two groups of Lutherans come to a disagreement about what Scriptures are saying or allowing for. The answer was that, ultimately, “an Authority in the Church”, interpreting the Lutheran Confessions’ view of what Scripture is saying, “must decide on the proper meaning of Scripture”....

Not often, but on occasion, one might be digging deep into the Old Testament Scriptures to defend their Christian beliefs only to hear, "but that's in the old law...it doesn't matter anymore" (or something kinda like that).  So what do you do?    Well, the first thing to recognize is that, while the Old Testament does contain some old laws that we are no longer bound to (like splitting the calf in half, and laying its parts across from one another and waking through them when making an oath), they are STILL the Word of God...they are STILL Scripture.  And we also need to be mindful of the fact that , even ignoring the many instances where Jesus and other NT figures quote from the Old, the New Testament does have a bit to say about these.   So, let's observe what the NT Scriptures tell us about the Scriptures themselves. Scripture says, “ All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training...