Did the Catholic Church change the way Christians baptize? Shouldn't we baptize "in Jesus' name" only?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,

         and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

This coming Sunday's first reading from Acts of the Apostles contains a verse that has led to the separation of another Christian group (one of tens of thousands of Christian denominations, each claiming that their interpretation of Scripture is the correct one.)

Then Peter responded,
"Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people,
who have received the Holy Spirit even as we have?"
He ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

There is a Christian denomination, the Oneness Pentecostals, which has separated itself based on this very text (plus 3 others) which appears to be proclaiming that baptism be done in Jesus' name.  They believe, based on this text, that we ought to be baptizing NOT using the Trinitarian formula, ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"), but "in the name of Jesus" ONLY.  They maintain that the Trinitarian baptism is a "tradition of men" that has been condemned by the Scriptures.

It is of such dire import to them that they started their own sect in the early 20th century because they felt that the rest of Christendom was contradicting the Word of God by baptizing using the Trinitarian formula (among some other doctrinal issues concerning their understanding of salvation and their understanding of the Trinity.)  And this movement is no small matter, claiming over 24 million adherents.

The short answer to the above question, is:  no, the Catholic Church did not change the way we baptize; we baptize the way Jesus commanded us to baptize in Matthew 28:19:

Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Catholics have been baptizing using the Trinitarian formula from the earliest days.  There is a document of early Christian practices from about 50 AD called the DIDACHE (pronounced did-a-kay) that details how the early Christians baptized:

"In regard to baptism - baptize thus: After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water; and if you are not able in cold, then in warm."

So why does this verse in Acts say we should be baptizing in Jesus' name and not in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? It is made to offer a distinction from other baptisms that were occurring during the earliest days of Christianity.  There were the baptisms done by followers of John the Baptist, baptisms done in Jewish liturgies, and baptisms done in pagan rituals.  By proclaiming baptisms be done "in the name of Jesus Christ", the inspired author of Acts was merely attempting to disassociate ourselves from the baptisms done by other sects.  It was not an instruction on how to baptize.

It is the Church that offers the authentic interpretation of the Scriptures.  Without an authentic interpreter of God's Word, what occurs is the chaos and confusion of tens of thousands of Christian denominations, each claiming that they have rightly interpreted Verse and the rest of Christianity has simply missed the mark on Verse .  This, clearly, is the work of the Great Deceiver, and not the will of Christ who prayed that "we might be one" as He and the Father are one.

Since becoming passionate about apologetics many years ago I have encountered some, frankly, weirder and weirder interpretations of the Bible--here's one that I just recently heard:  stairs to altars are condemned in Scripture.  Go figure.   This only serves to confirm this point:  we need someone to tell us what the Bible means.**

Without a guide to open the Scriptures to us (as Jesus did to those on the walk to Emmaus in Luke 24:32), we are left to our own destruction and "tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning and by craftiness in deceitful schemes"--Ephesians 4:14.  In fact, our first pope, in his first "encyclical" tells us that "there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures." 2 Peter 3:16

**Now, of course, Catholics are free to read the Scriptures without an authority telling us what it means to us personally. That is, if we are in a fight with our honey (hypothetically speaking ) and we open the Bible up to Psalm 45:3 which proclaims, "You are the most handsome of men" we are certainly free to interpret this to mean that we need to make up with our handsome, hunky husband.  But we are never free to interpret it contrary to what the Church has proclaimed.  And thus we would never been free to interpret Psalm 45:3 as permission, say, to commit adultery.  But of course we Catholics can read the Bible (and in fact are obligated to read the Scriptures) and apply them to our own faith journeys in personal ways. 

(Note:  The Catholic Church recognizes the baptism of all Christians baptized in other denominations, provided that the baptism was done using water and the Trinitarian formula.  Thus, people who wish to enter the Catholic Church but were baptized "in Jesus name" alone must be "re-baptized".)

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Catholics Come Home

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

 

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15

Revisit: What if Jesus didn't really rise from the dead?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,

         and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

(See last year's similar discussion, posted here)

Every once in a while I will hear a homily delivered about the Multiplication of the Loaves that goes something like this: 

Let's be open minded and consider this possibility:  what if Jesus didn't actually cause a miracle of creating enough food for thousands out of just a few loaves of bread?  What if the actual miracle was that of Jesus inspiring the crowds to share the bread that they had actually hidden in their cloaks!  Jesus' preaching moved the crowds to remove the selfishness from their hearts and motivated their consciences into sharing with others.  

I've always hated it when I heard this type of homily because it humanizes Jesus and removes the supernatural element from our faith.  Yes, of course, Jesus was fully human and I suppose it's possible that the miracle of the Multiplication of the Loaves (the only miracle that is recorded in all 4 gospels, by the way) was more a "miracle of sharing" than a supernatural foreshadowing of the Eucharist.  But I don't think so.  In fact, our Catechism states this:

The miracles of the multiplication of the loaves, when the Lord says the blessing, breaks and distributes the loaves through his disciples to feed the multitude, prefigure the superabundance of this unique bread of his Eucharist. CCC 1335

So what does this have to do with the Apologetics topic at hand?


There are some Christian scholars who propose something they consider to be deliciously open minded:  Christ didn't really rise from the dead. He only "rose" in the hearts and minds of his disciples who understood Jesus' revolutionary message of "love one another" and "resurrected" it by proclaiming to the ancient Near East.  Jesus was a man.  A man who died tragically and horribly.  But he didn't actually rise from the dead.  The disciples were just a little freaked out after seeing their hero crucified so they got together and decided to perpetuate the love and tolerance their hero had espoused by telling a little white lie:  Jesus did not really die!

It's the same genre of people who want to disavow themselves of anything miraculous or supernatural (like the Multiplication of the Loaves). What's important to them is Jesus' message of love and tolerance.  In other words, it doesn't really matter whether Christ suffered, died and rose because, after all, we have his legacy:  we all now know, thanks to Jesus, that we must love one another.

How do Catholics respond?  By offering the words of the Holy Spirit:  "If Christ is not risen, our faith is in vain."--1 Corinthians 15:17.  Our faith proclaims:  The Resurrection above all constitutes the confirmation of all Christ's works and teachings. All truths, even those most inaccessible to human reason, find their justification if Christ by his Resurrection has given the definitive proof of his divine authority, which he had promised. --CCC 651

I humbly (and I hope charitably) submit that it is truly a ridiculous proposition to claim that one can be a Christian and can reject the Resurrection (that is, the literal resurrection of our Lord and Savior.)

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Catholics Come Home

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

 

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15

JW tract: How do you view Jesus? As a Newborn Baby? A Dying Man? Or an Exalted King?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,

         and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

A Jehovah's Witness (JW) left this tract at our door the other day.  It asks, provocatively, ""How do you view Jesus?  As a Newborn Baby?  A Dying Man? Or an Exalted King!" 





The Catholic answer is, of course, "Yes!" 

Again, as with most Catholic answers, the response is not either/or but both/and. 

Yes, we view Jesus as a newborn baby.  And as a dying man (we prefer to use the term "crucified savior").  And as an exalted king.

We might also add that we view Him as

healer
teacher
rabbi
priest
prophet
fisher of men
advocate of women
lover of children
2nd person of the Trinity
redeemer
the lamb of God
the word made flesh
the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist
suffering servant
messiah
son of Mary, the ark of the covenant
prince of peace
the Incarnation

and a multitude of other titles and adjectives that we all could add.

I find it interesting that the JWs are offering this tract as we approach the Easter Triduum (Holy Thursday, Good Friday and Holy Saturday/Easter Vigil), which are Christianity's most holy days.

(Not to mention I find it slightly amusing that the tract says, in response to the question "How do you view Jesus?", to come "hear the answer" at their Kingdom Hall.  How is it that I will hear the answer to how I view Jesus at their presentation? )

Their presentation is being offered in response to a very common criticism leveled at Catholicism:  that it is morbidly obsessed with the death of Jesus.  And this obsession is at its  extreme during our Good Friday services (through our veneration of the Cross, Stations of the Cross, reading of the Passion narrative, etc).  The JW position is:  why?  He is now reigning as an exalted king!  Why commemorate a bloody and horrific event? Why keep images of Him, suffering and dying, in your churches?  If your loved one had died a horrible death would you keep pictures of that around your home and church?

My response is: yes, if my loved one died a horrific death, in ransom for me, because of my sins and failures, out of the greatest love for me, then I would most certainly keep that event ever present in my heart and mind!

And we Catholics remain focused on His Passion because that is the primary purpose for Jesus' Incarnation:  to be the Lamb of God who takes away our sins. 

He did not come, primarily, to heal the sick, or to preach the Golden Rule, or to teach a new morality.  While all of those ministries of Christ were important, and ought not be dismissed, Pope Benedict XVI's beautiful words here confirm that Jesus' mission was to be the true Sacrificial Lamb.

The mission for which Jesus came among us was accomplished in the Paschal Mystery. On the Cross from which he draws all people to himself, just before "giving up the Spirit," he utters the words: "it is finished" (Jn 19:30). In the mystery of Christ's obedience unto death, even death on a Cross, the new and eternal covenant was brought about. In his crucified flesh, God's freedom and our human freedom met definitively in an inviolable, eternally valid pact. Human sin was also redeemed once for all by God's Son. As I have said elsewhere, "Christ's death on the Cross is the culmination of that turning of God against himself in which he gives himself in order to raise man up and save him. This is love in its most radical form."

Love in its most radical form.  Gotta love our pope!  Who could disagree with that?  And who would object to venerating and adoring The Act of Love that purchased for us so great a salvation?

Not to mention, we focus on the atoning death of Christ (but are not, as some point out, "morbidly obsessed" with it) because Scripture commands that we do.  St. Paul writes, "but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength" -1 Cor 1:23-25

and here he proclaims, "When I came to you, brothers, proclaiming the mystery of God, I did not come with sublimity of words or of wisdom.  For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified" -1 Cor 2:1-2

So, yes, Christ is our exalted King, as the JWs correctly proclaim, and we rejoice in this every Sunday.  But we also rejoice in Him whose suffering and death was a radical act of love for you and me.  Isn't that the right thing to do, if someone suffered and died for your sake?

For more in-depth study visit these websites:
Distinctive Beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses

Catholics Come Home

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

 

 

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15

Dissecting this video: Angelic Immersion Retreat

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,

                                               and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

So I went on a women's retreat in the 90's similar to the one shown on this video, although ostensibly more Catholic as it was directed by a Catholic nun and we actually had Mass.  (I had merely signed up for a women's retreat advertised in my parish bulletin--didn't know it was going to be all about men bashing and hierarchy-rejection,  telling "herstory" vs HIStory, incriminating Catholicism as patriarchal and authoritative, etc etc etc)

Video:  Angelic Immersion Retreat with an Angel Therapy Practitioner

On one level, there is much healing and spiritual nourishment on retreats such as these. It appears on the video to have been a lovely weekend and I am certain that the women left the retreat feeling immensely loved by God, accepted and empowered.  Their femininity was celebrated!

Nothing wrong with that, of course.

However, when I accidentally encountered this video online it gave me pause.  I think that these types of "alternative" spiritual encounters can cause great harm and we ought to have our antennae up whenever these New Age-ish spiritualities are proposed. 

In fact, I will go so far as to say that if we are offered a chance to attend a retreat/seminar/workshop such as this, we ought to run away as fast as we can! (Slight hyperbole intended.)

(I must also offer a disclaimer:  I did not attend the retreat that is shown on this video, so my comments are based only on generalities and my own experiences.)

So how can a retreat that endorses this type of spirituality cause great harm? Isn't the theme really harmless:  "whatever it is that you believe that makes you happy, go for it!"  What's so wicked and evil about that?

Well, firstly, because it's a lie.  Truth matters.  It's not true that "whatever you believe, as long as it makes you happy" ought to be pursued.  The story of ";The Emperor's New Clothes" is a great example of this.  While the Emperor believed the lies told to him that he was dressed in elegant finery--and that pleased him immensely--the truth was that he was parading around butt naked in front of his kingdom.  Eek!  Truth matters.  While the Emperor was happy, the truth was inevitably going to come back and bite him.  Or consider whether an adult ought to believe in Santa Claus--it may make him happy to believe in him, but do we really want to encourage him in his belief and tell him, "go for it!  If that's what makes you happy, I'm with you!" 

Also, what I find so sinister about this type of spirituality is its use of Christian language.   We hear the familiar language of Christianity and are insidiously and complacently drawn into the lies.  We think, "Hey--they believe in angels. Catholics believe in angels!  We're on the same page here!"  "There is also talk of Christ, but this does not mean Jesus of Nazareth. “Christ” is a title applied to someone who has arrived at a state of consciousness where he or she perceives him- or herself to be divine and can thus claim to be a “universal Master”. source
Here are some phrases taken from these types of retreats/spiritualities/theologies:

Partnering with Your Angels, Getting to the Heart of Matter:  Using Heart Energy to facilitate healing in Mind, Body, and Spirit; Living in Balance and Joy!

In this role, she offers a clear translation of heavenly messages and healing energy in her Angel Healing Sessions

Immerse yourself within the heart of the divine

Labyrinth Meditations

Angelic Revelation

Sacred Art

Encouraging the Emergence of Each Soul's Voice

These phrases/concepts sound quite benign and generically religious and holy, and anyone might be tempted to investigate this type of retreat.  (Well, perhaps most men might not find these concepts attractive, but I'm guessing there are lots of women who might have their interest piqued by these activities. )  Yet, at its essence, this type of spirituality promotes concepts antithetical to Christianity.  We are definitely NOT on the same page doctrinally and credally with this type of spirituality.  In fact often the message of New Age religiosity is in direct opposition to Christianity.

For example, this spirituality denies sin.  Therefore there is no need for a Savior.  Jesus was an amiable and pleasantly good man who was just misunderstood.  That he was crucified was a tragedy but has no bearing on us today. 

There is no need for Revelation or Salvation which would come to people from outside themselves, but simply a need to experience the salvation hidden within themselves (self-salvation), by mastering psycho- physical techniques which lead to definitive enlightenment. source

This is contrary to Christianity!

Yet they take Christian principles that are attractive and palatable and apply it to their own theology: i.e:   "God loves us."  "He wants peace and harmony in our lives." **

Of course!  Who would want to disagree with a theology that espouses that?

A god is created that conforms to our own image and likeness, rather than encouraging us to conform our beliefs and image to that of God. 

Shouldn't it be the other way around?  Shouldn't WE be changing our beliefs?  Not finding a spirituality that conforms to that which we like and find palatable and acceptable.

**(Actually, they wouldn't say "He" wants peace and harmony in our lives.  That's too misogynistic.  They would say, "GOD wants peace and harmony in our lives."  Avoidance of any reference to God as Father or as "HE" is imperative in New Age religiosity!)

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Catholics Come Home

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15

Purgatory: "To be absent from the body is to be at home with the Lord!"

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,

                                  and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

If you've ever been in a discussion with a Protestant about Purgatory often this argument is proposed to refute Purgatory: 

Paul says in the Bible that "to be absent from the body is to be at home with the Lord." That is, if we're absent from the body (i.e. dead), we are present with the Lord (in heaven). Therefore, they argue, no Purgatory.  We're either in our body (alive) or at home with the Lord (saved) in heaven.  After all, that's what Paul says in Corinthians.

Except, that this verse by Paul, curiously, is not actually found in Corinthians.  Nor anywhere in the Bible.

What I think has been happening is, ironically, a man-made tradition of arguing against Purgatory, without actually going to Scripture to see what the verse says.  One person heard his pastor say it, who heard another man say it, who heard another man say it...but no one ever checked the Scriptures to see what it actually said.

The actual verse is this:  "We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord." - 2 Corinthians 5:6-8

In other words, "Oh, how I wish I could be away from this life and be joyfully present with God in heaven!"

That's rather different from the equation: "to be dead" is equal to "being saved in heaven."

I could say, "I would prefer to be away from the office and at home with my family", but that does not mean that when I am away from work that I must be at home. It's simply my wish, or my preference, that when I'm not at work that I'd like to be at home.  However, if I'm not at work I could be in, well, purgatory (here, fill in the blank with whatever your purgatory may be:  the dentist's chair, traffic, waiting in line at the License Bureau, listening to your 3rd grader relate in great detail the latest Pokemon episode....)

If you do a google search of alleged Scriptural arguments against Purgatory you'll find numerous hits offering the mantra, "The Bible says that to be absent from the body is to be at home with the Lord and yet those Catholics still keep teaching about Purgatory, which is clearly against the Bible!"

In fact, when I did a search, I came up with this site,
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22to+be+absent+from+the+body+is+to+be+present+with+the+Lord.+%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Over 10 pages of people using this verse to refute the Catholic teaching on Purgatory--all based on something that the Bible does not ever say!  (To be sure, some of those hits include the Catholic response: "The Bible does NOT say this!", but the majority of references claim that Paul said to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord).

Oh, the irony of folks criticizing Catholic doctrine with a Bible verse that isn't actually found in the Bible!

Incidentally, if someone is going to use this (non-existent) verse to deny the existence of Purgatory, then this Christian is also going to have to use it to deny the existence of Hell, too--something most Protestants are not willing to do.  For if it's true that "to be absent from the body is to be at home with the Lord" then, of course, it rules out the existence of Hell.   

Finally, I'd like to leave you with this wonderful quote by Christian apologist, CS Lewis (who was, curiously, NOT a Catholic, but apparently was an apologist for the doctrine of Purgatory)
 "Our souls demand purgatory, don't they? Even if God doesn't mind people entering heaven dripping with mud and slime, should we not reply, I'd rather be cleansed first,' even if it may hurt?"--CS Lewis.

Apologist Steve Ray's Article on this verse

Catholics Come Home

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15

How can Catholics say we believe "A" when it's only God ALONE who can do "A"?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,

                                  and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

I am not able to articulate this week's Apologetics question in a simple, pithy format, but here's the gist:
 
How can Catholics say we believe  "A"  when it's only God ALONE who can do "A"?
This objection takes many forms:

• How can a priest forgive sins?  Only God can do that!
• How can Mary be co-redemptor?  Only Christ does that!
• How can a saint help us to find our lost car keys?  Only God can do that!
• How can the Catholic Church say that she gave us the Bible?  The Bible comes from God!
• How can the Catholic Church say it has authority?  God is my authority, not the Church!
  

I find these objections curious, in light of this Sunday's second reading from 1 Corinthians:

Although I am free in regard to all,
I have made myself a slave to all
so as to win over as many as possible.
To the weak I became weak, to win over the weak.
I have become all things to all, to save at least some.
All this I do for the sake of the gospel,
so that I too may have a share in it.

Here we see that St. Paul declares that he can save souls! Yep, folks, that's what he says.  He (Paul) saves souls!  And he repeats it elsewhere in the NT: 

To the weak I became weak, to win over the weak.
I have become all things to all, to save at least some.-1 Cor 9:22

And here Paul says that we can save ourselves!  

Attend to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in both tasks, for by doing so you will save both yourself and those who listen to you.--1 Timothy 4:16

I thought only Jesus saves??!!!??

Now, naturally, all Christians understand that St. Paul can only save souls through the authority of Christ and the power of God, working through St. Paul.

So if non-Catholic Christians can tolerate St. Paul saying that he saves souls, without Paul having to qualify the statement with, "Of course, we all know that when I say that I save souls it's only through the power God has given me"   we can see how the Church understands that each of those things we proclaim we can do is ONLY through the power of God and authority Christ has bestowed on us.

Thus,

• The priest forgives sins only through his cooperation with Christ's forgiveness of sins.
• Mary is co-redeemer (as we all are when we assist in the salvation of souls!) because she has aligned her will to God's.
• St. Anthony finds our car keys only because God has assisted him in this regard.
• The Church discerned what ancient Christian writings were inspired only under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
• The Church has the authority to "bind and loose" only because she was given this authority by Christ.

It's just understood when we say those things that it's only through the authority God has given!

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Catholics Come Home

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15