Can a orthodox or catholic be a born again Christian?

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

The Catholic conception of redemption, being "saved," and forgiveness of sins is DIFFERENT from that of the "Born-Again's."

Catholics are "Confirmed," not "saved." For Catholics, every day is a new day, and salvation is not established until the moment of death. The idea of being "saved" in mid-life is bizarre and ignores human frailties. Our sins are forgiven after confession, under power granted directly by Christ to his Apostles, and to today's priests tracing a direct line back to Peter.

We have a "personal relationship with Jesus" that a "Born Again" cannot even imagine. We re-enact the Last Supper ("Do this in remembrance of me!") every day, with the same experience as those Disciples who ate at that table. We commune with the living representatives of Christ on earth, who are Priests not Ministers. There is a huge difference.

I don't see how a Catholic can be a "Born-Again Christian." There isn't a Born Again in the world who accepts the Pope as the true successor of Peter, with the power to - under very limited and rare circumstances - speak for the Holy Spirit infallibly on matters of faith and morals.

It's almost like asking whether a Jew can be a Christian. It's difficult to imagine.

Sounds like a bunch of Jew speak to me.

 

[Blackrook]

For a Catholic to even consider being a "born again" would be like a man eating a gourmet meal at a fancy restaurant decide to go to McDonald's instead.

 

[emilynghiem]

Can a orthodox or catholic be a born again Christian?
I think they can if they have a personal relationship with christ and are born out of water and spirit. I have friends who are in free church and they told me a Catholic can be a christian if he has a personal relationship with christ. But not all catholics are christians. And we talked about the Pope and my friend said he is not sure if he is a christian I mean the Pope but that a Catholic can be christian.

Dear Mortimer
After I met an ATHEIST who lived by the spirit of Christianity
and even taught FREE GRACE (but just didn't focus on a PERSONIFIED God or Jesus)
anyone can adopt and live by the spirit of Christianity and be a neighbor and steward
in Christ Jesus, even if they remain secular nontheist or humanist in their approach.

Christ Jesus is a universal spirit of Peace and Justice for all humanity,
regardless of cultural language or tribe. All people can live by
Restorative Justice or Justice with Mercy and that's the same spirit
and message as Christ Jesus that is universal for all people.

Only if you REJECT this unifying, universal spirit of Christ Jesus
or Restorative Justice do you go against it.
In neutral secular terms, whoever is not against
Christ Jesus is for Him. As long as you receive and don't reject
those who work for his sake, then by receiving Children of God
this means INDIRECTLY receiving Jesus (and whoever receives Jesus
then receives the Father).

People are either directly or indirectly part of the church body
which means the body of people or all humanity/society collectively.

 

[buttercup]

For a Catholic to even consider being a "born again" would be like a man eating a gourmet meal at a fancy restaurant decide to go to McDonald's instead.

You seem to be looking at it as a denomination (in an elitist way, I might add) but that's not what this is about at all. It's not a denomination or a religion, it's something very real that takes place within someone, and it's an absolute necessity, in order to go to heaven.

These are JESUS' own words (In bold) :

Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.”

Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’

(John 3:1-7)​

Catholic opposition to the concept of being born again is extremely odd to me. Those are JESUS' own words. I hope you don't consider HIS words to be cheap and junky, like McDonalds. Is it that you just have a different way of defining being born again? It's about spiritual birth. Being "born from above," truly becoming a son or daughter of God. Not because of religion, or works, or a religious ceremony. It's about having a true change of mind/heart... genuinely believing and putting our faith in JESUS (not our own works) and what HE did for us on the cross. It involves a beautiful surrender, and when spiritual regeneration takes place, we literally become a new creation.

So, if someone goes through "confirmation" and thinks they're "born again" but then continues to live their life the same way as before, without an eventual transformation and good "fruit" then they were most likely never born again, they just went through the motions of a religious ceremony. This is not something that should be divisive, because it is very important. In fact, it's the most important thing we can ever do, and it is absolutely essential.

 

[Picaro]

There have always been evangelicals among Catholics, in any case, and more are becoming so these days, same with Jewish people; evangelicals are just more involved and happy, is all. Personally I like the Baptist view, no baptizing of children, they don't need it, since conversion must be a voluntary act, a personal decision, and a couple of other main things, and the rest is up to their own personal studies. The old joke " I'm not a member of any organized religion, I'm a Baptist" isn't really a joke. Pentecostals like Perry Stone seem to have the most fun, though.

 

[Lysistrata]

Why do Christians argue with each other so much? I guess this gives them something to do. Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Evangelicals are all Christian, so what's the fuss? I've just been wondering for years what happened to the teachings of Jesus, which seem to have disappeared despite the fact that his name gets bandied about a lot.

 

[james bond]

The main difference is a Catholic will speak to you in a liquor store.

Mary

Francis

 

[buttercup]

Why do Christians argue with each other so much? I guess this gives them something to do. Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Evangelicals are all Christian, so what's the fuss? I've just been wondering for years what happened to the teachings of Jesus, which seem to have disappeared despite the fact that his name gets bandied about a lot.

In my experience IRL it isn't like that at all. Even when I was involved with an inter-denominational international missions organization, there was almost no arguing, in fact usually the atmosphere was joyful and cooperative. The arguing is usually between Catholics and Christians, and that is because when people are believing unbiblical doctrines, it is imperative to address that. It's important because in some cases it involves the fate of one's soul, and that is not something to be casually brushed aside.

 

[zaangalewa]

Can a orthodox or catholic be a born again Christian?

No.

 

[gtopa1]

John 3 says it all. You must be born again. Jesus repeats that 2 or 3 times, and states it emphatically. Most Catholics I know (and I was raised Catholic, so I have a Catholic mom + relatives) don't understand salvation and some even seem opposed to the idea of being born again. Which boggles my mind, as Jesus clearly stated it is absolutely necessary.

Huh? Like toes and feet "Salvation" is just a fact of life; one is not ASSURED of course (at the risk of committing the sin of presumption) until Judgement is passed after death. Can't fool God even if we can fool ourselves.

Greg

Your first sentence "is just a fact of life" almost sounds like you believe everyone gets saved...that is not biblical. I'm sorry but I disagree with your beliefs. No religious ceremony is going to save someone. Especially an infant being baptized, who has zero idea what is going on. Being born again is not a church ceremony, where many people at that age (confirmation) are just going through the motions because their parents dragged them to church. It's infinitely more than that.

I did a video having to do with this topic, maybe I'll share it here if anyone wants to see it.

Can't fool God, Ma'am. It's not the action but the movement of the Holy Spirit. A look at the theology of the Church explains it better than I can. That's why I don't do Apologomenas on talk boards. But if you were interested you would have examined the Church's teaching on it and not gone on hearsay and generlisations. I challenge you to check it out with the Holy Spirit to guide you. That usually does it. Oh: and I do refer to Aquinas on this.

Article 1. Whether Baptism is the mere washing?

Objection 1. It seems that Baptism is not the mere washing. For the washing of the body is something transitory: but Baptism is something permanent. Therefore Baptism is not the mere washing; but rather is it "the regeneration, the seal, the safeguarding, the enlightenment," as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv).

Objection 2. Further, Hugh of St. Victor says (De Sacram. ii) that "Baptism is water sanctified by God's word for the blotting out of sins." But the washing itself is not water, but a certain use of water.

Objection 3. Further, Augustine says (Tract. lxxx super Joan.): "The word is added to the element, and this becomes a sacrament." Now, the element is the water. Therefore Baptism is the water and not the washing.

On the contrary, It is written (Sirach 34:30): "He that washeth himself [baptizatur] after touching the dead, if he touch him again, what does his washing avail?" It seems, therefore, that Baptism is the washing or bathing.

I answer that, In the sacrament of Baptism, three things may be considered: namely, that which is "sacrament only"; that which is "reality and sacrament"; and that which is "reality only." That which is sacrament only, is something visible and outward; the sign, namely, of the inward effect: for such is the very nature of a sacrament. And this outward something that can be perceived by the sense is both the water itself and its use, which is the washing. Hence some have thought that the water itself is the sacrament: which seems to be the meaning of the passage quoted from Hugh of St. Victor. For in the general definition of a sacrament he says that it is "a material element": and in defining Baptism he says it is "water."

But this is not true. For since the sacraments of the New Law effect a certain sanctification, there the sacrament is completed where the sanctification is completed. Now, the sanctification is not completed in water; but a certain sanctifying instrumental virtue, not permanent but transient, passes from the water, in which it is, into man who is the subject of true sanctification. Consequently the sacrament is not completed in the very water, but in applying the water to man, i.e. in the washing. Hence the Master (iv, 3) says that "Baptism is the outward washing of the body done together with the prescribed form of words."

The Baptismal character is both reality and sacrament: because it is something real signified by the outward washing; and a sacramental sign of the inward justification: and this last is the reality only, in this sacrament—namely, the reality signified and not signifying.

Reply to Objection 1. That which is both sacrament and reality—i.e. the character—and that which is reality only—i.e. the inward justification—remain: the character remains and is indelible, as stated above (III:63:5); the justification remains, but can be lost. Consequently Damascene defined Baptism, not as to that which is done outwardly, and is the sacrament only; but as to that which is inward. Hence he sets down two things as pertaining to the character—namely, "seal" and "safeguarding"; inasmuch as the character which is called a seal, so far as itself is concerned, safeguards the soul in good. He also sets down two things as pertaining to the ultimate reality of the sacrament—namely, "regeneration" which refers to the fact that man by being baptized begins the new life of righteousness; and "enlightenment," which refers especially to faith, by which man receives spiritual life, according to Habakkuk 2 (Hebrews 10:38; cf. Habakkuk 2:4): "But (My) just man liveth by faith"; and Baptism is a sort of protestation of faith; whence it is called the "Sacrament of Faith." Likewise Dionysius defined Baptism by its relation to the other sacraments, saying (Eccl. Hier. ii) that it is "the principle that forms the habits of the soul for the reception of those most holy words and sacraments"; and again by its relation to heavenly glory, which is the universal end of all the sacraments, when he adds, "preparing the way for us, whereby we mount to the repose of the heavenly kingdom"; and again as to the beginning of spiritual life, when he adds, "the conferring of our most sacred and Godlike regeneration."

Reply to Objection 2. As already stated, the opinion of Hugh of St. Victor on this question is not to be followed. Nevertheless the saying that "Baptism is water" may be verified in so far as water is the material principle of Baptism: and thus there would be "causal predication."

Reply to Objection 3. When the words are added, the element becomes a sacrament, not in the element itself, but in man, to whom the element is applied, by being used in washing him. Indeed, this is signified by those very words which are added to the element, when we say: "I baptize thee," etc.

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The sacrament of Baptism (Tertia Pars, Q. 66)

To my understanding Baptism is not to do so much with the action of Man but with the Grace of God. One must remember that, without Faith, no sacrament comes to fulfillment. It is a fact that, with regard to myself, there was no single "road to Damascus" experience. I have always accepted the reality of Christ, first as a child, and later , well, still as a child. salvation through Christ has just always been a fact to me. As a consequence later in life I became more aware of the Movement of the Spirit in my life. Again no blinding flash but just a deep realisation that Jesus IS Lord and Savior and that the Holy Spirit IS; both leading to the Father. Now ask me to explain the Trinity and I cannot; three folds in one blanket is as good as any but as it is a Mystery I simply stand in awe and accept in faith.

Now you were suggesting that a quick dip and oiling were somewhat superficial?? lol

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Can a orthodox or catholic be a born again Christian?

No.

Have to be.You can't be Orthodox or Catholic unless you are "born again".

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

For a Catholic to even consider being a "born again" would be like a man eating a gourmet meal at a fancy restaurant decide to go to McDonald's instead.

No no no. lol. One must remember that Catholics GROW in the Faith which means that we simply don't wander about outside,. When we do it's a quick trip to the confessional, no? NO!! No Confession without REPENTANCE is valid. And frankly all those Hail Marys are the easy bit. Understanding that by our sin we hammered a nail into Christ's hands is the hard bit.

Nun's had some excellent imagery.

Greg

 

[Picaro]

John 3 says it all. You must be born again. Jesus repeats that 2 or 3 times, and states it emphatically. Most Catholics I know (and I was raised Catholic, so I have a Catholic mom + relatives) don't understand salvation and some even seem opposed to the idea of being born again. Which boggles my mind, as Jesus clearly stated it is absolutely necessary.

Huh? Like toes and feet "Salvation" is just a fact of life; one is not ASSURED of course (at the risk of committing the sin of presumption) until Judgement is passed after death. Can't fool God even if we can fool ourselves.

Greg

Your first sentence "is just a fact of life" almost sounds like you believe everyone gets saved...that is not biblical. I'm sorry but I disagree with your beliefs. No religious ceremony is going to save someone. Especially an infant being baptized, who has zero idea what is going on. Being born again is not a church ceremony, where many people at that age (confirmation) are just going through the motions because their parents dragged them to church. It's infinitely more than that.

I did a video having to do with this topic, maybe I'll share it here if anyone wants to see it.

Can't fool God, Ma'am. It's not the action but the movement of the Holy Spirit. A look at the theology of the Church explains it better than I can. That's why I don't do Apologomenas on talk boards. But if you were interested you would have examined the Church's teaching on it and not gone on hearsay and generlisations. I challenge you to check it out with the Holy Spirit to guide you. That usually does it. Oh: and I do refer to Aquinas on this.

Article 1. Whether Baptism is the mere washing?

Objection 1. It seems that Baptism is not the mere washing. For the washing of the body is something transitory: but Baptism is something permanent. Therefore Baptism is not the mere washing; but rather is it "the regeneration, the seal, the safeguarding, the enlightenment," as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv).

Objection 2. Further, Hugh of St. Victor says (De Sacram. ii) that "Baptism is water sanctified by God's word for the blotting out of sins." But the washing itself is not water, but a certain use of water.

Objection 3. Further, Augustine says (Tract. lxxx super Joan.): "The word is added to the element, and this becomes a sacrament." Now, the element is the water. Therefore Baptism is the water and not the washing.

On the contrary, It is written (Sirach 34:30): "He that washeth himself [baptizatur] after touching the dead, if he touch him again, what does his washing avail?" It seems, therefore, that Baptism is the washing or bathing.

I answer that, In the sacrament of Baptism, three things may be considered: namely, that which is "sacrament only"; that which is "reality and sacrament"; and that which is "reality only." That which is sacrament only, is something visible and outward; the sign, namely, of the inward effect: for such is the very nature of a sacrament. And this outward something that can be perceived by the sense is both the water itself and its use, which is the washing. Hence some have thought that the water itself is the sacrament: which seems to be the meaning of the passage quoted from Hugh of St. Victor. For in the general definition of a sacrament he says that it is "a material element": and in defining Baptism he says it is "water."

But this is not true. For since the sacraments of the New Law effect a certain sanctification, there the sacrament is completed where the sanctification is completed. Now, the sanctification is not completed in water; but a certain sanctifying instrumental virtue, not permanent but transient, passes from the water, in which it is, into man who is the subject of true sanctification. Consequently the sacrament is not completed in the very water, but in applying the water to man, i.e. in the washing. Hence the Master (iv, 3) says that "Baptism is the outward washing of the body done together with the prescribed form of words."

The Baptismal character is both reality and sacrament: because it is something real signified by the outward washing; and a sacramental sign of the inward justification: and this last is the reality only, in this sacrament—namely, the reality signified and not signifying.

Reply to Objection 1. That which is both sacrament and reality—i.e. the character—and that which is reality only—i.e. the inward justification—remain: the character remains and is indelible, as stated above (III:63:5); the justification remains, but can be lost. Consequently Damascene defined Baptism, not as to that which is done outwardly, and is the sacrament only; but as to that which is inward. Hence he sets down two things as pertaining to the character—namely, "seal" and "safeguarding"; inasmuch as the character which is called a seal, so far as itself is concerned, safeguards the soul in good. He also sets down two things as pertaining to the ultimate reality of the sacrament—namely, "regeneration" which refers to the fact that man by being baptized begins the new life of righteousness; and "enlightenment," which refers especially to faith, by which man receives spiritual life, according to Habakkuk 2 (Hebrews 10:38; cf. Habakkuk 2:4): "But (My) just man liveth by faith"; and Baptism is a sort of protestation of faith; whence it is called the "Sacrament of Faith." Likewise Dionysius defined Baptism by its relation to the other sacraments, saying (Eccl. Hier. ii) that it is "the principle that forms the habits of the soul for the reception of those most holy words and sacraments"; and again by its relation to heavenly glory, which is the universal end of all the sacraments, when he adds, "preparing the way for us, whereby we mount to the repose of the heavenly kingdom"; and again as to the beginning of spiritual life, when he adds, "the conferring of our most sacred and Godlike regeneration."

Reply to Objection 2. As already stated, the opinion of Hugh of St. Victor on this question is not to be followed. Nevertheless the saying that "Baptism is water" may be verified in so far as water is the material principle of Baptism: and thus there would be "causal predication."

Reply to Objection 3. When the words are added, the element becomes a sacrament, not in the element itself, but in man, to whom the element is applied, by being used in washing him. Indeed, this is signified by those very words which are added to the element, when we say: "I baptize thee," etc.

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The sacrament of Baptism (Tertia Pars, Q. 66)

To my understanding Baptism is not to do so much with the action of Man but with the Grace of God. One must remember that, without Faith, no sacrament comes to fulfillment. It is a fact that, with regard to myself, there was no single "road to Damascus" experience. I have always accepted the reality of Christ, first as a child, and later , well, still as a child. salvation through Christ has just always been a fact to me. As a consequence later in life I became more aware of the Movement of the Spirit in my life. Again no blinding flash but just a deep realisation that Jesus IS Lord and Savior and that the Holy Spirit IS; both leading to the Father. Now ask me to explain the Trinity and I cannot; three folds in one blanket is as good as any but as it is a Mystery I simply stand in awe and accept in faith.

Now you were suggesting that a quick dip and oiling were somewhat superficial?? lol

Greg

Do most Catholics then get 'baptized' twice, once when they are born, and again later on, as adolescents or adults?

 

[gtopa1]

John 3 says it all. You must be born again. Jesus repeats that 2 or 3 times, and states it emphatically. Most Catholics I know (and I was raised Catholic, so I have a Catholic mom + relatives) don't understand salvation and some even seem opposed to the idea of being born again. Which boggles my mind, as Jesus clearly stated it is absolutely necessary.

Huh? Like toes and feet "Salvation" is just a fact of life; one is not ASSURED of course (at the risk of committing the sin of presumption) until Judgement is passed after death. Can't fool God even if we can fool ourselves.

Greg

Your first sentence "is just a fact of life" almost sounds like you believe everyone gets saved...that is not biblical. I'm sorry but I disagree with your beliefs. No religious ceremony is going to save someone. Especially an infant being baptized, who has zero idea what is going on. Being born again is not a church ceremony, where many people at that age (confirmation) are just going through the motions because their parents dragged them to church. It's infinitely more than that.

I did a video having to do with this topic, maybe I'll share it here if anyone wants to see it.

Can't fool God, Ma'am. It's not the action but the movement of the Holy Spirit. A look at the theology of the Church explains it better than I can. That's why I don't do Apologomenas on talk boards. But if you were interested you would have examined the Church's teaching on it and not gone on hearsay and generlisations. I challenge you to check it out with the Holy Spirit to guide you. That usually does it. Oh: and I do refer to Aquinas on this.

Article 1. Whether Baptism is the mere washing?

Objection 1. It seems that Baptism is not the mere washing. For the washing of the body is something transitory: but Baptism is something permanent. Therefore Baptism is not the mere washing; but rather is it "the regeneration, the seal, the safeguarding, the enlightenment," as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv).

Objection 2. Further, Hugh of St. Victor says (De Sacram. ii) that "Baptism is water sanctified by God's word for the blotting out of sins." But the washing itself is not water, but a certain use of water.

Objection 3. Further, Augustine says (Tract. lxxx super Joan.): "The word is added to the element, and this becomes a sacrament." Now, the element is the water. Therefore Baptism is the water and not the washing.

On the contrary, It is written (Sirach 34:30): "He that washeth himself [baptizatur] after touching the dead, if he touch him again, what does his washing avail?" It seems, therefore, that Baptism is the washing or bathing.

I answer that, In the sacrament of Baptism, three things may be considered: namely, that which is "sacrament only"; that which is "reality and sacrament"; and that which is "reality only." That which is sacrament only, is something visible and outward; the sign, namely, of the inward effect: for such is the very nature of a sacrament. And this outward something that can be perceived by the sense is both the water itself and its use, which is the washing. Hence some have thought that the water itself is the sacrament: which seems to be the meaning of the passage quoted from Hugh of St. Victor. For in the general definition of a sacrament he says that it is "a material element": and in defining Baptism he says it is "water."

But this is not true. For since the sacraments of the New Law effect a certain sanctification, there the sacrament is completed where the sanctification is completed. Now, the sanctification is not completed in water; but a certain sanctifying instrumental virtue, not permanent but transient, passes from the water, in which it is, into man who is the subject of true sanctification. Consequently the sacrament is not completed in the very water, but in applying the water to man, i.e. in the washing. Hence the Master (iv, 3) says that "Baptism is the outward washing of the body done together with the prescribed form of words."

The Baptismal character is both reality and sacrament: because it is something real signified by the outward washing; and a sacramental sign of the inward justification: and this last is the reality only, in this sacrament—namely, the reality signified and not signifying.

Reply to Objection 1. That which is both sacrament and reality—i.e. the character—and that which is reality only—i.e. the inward justification—remain: the character remains and is indelible, as stated above (III:63:5); the justification remains, but can be lost. Consequently Damascene defined Baptism, not as to that which is done outwardly, and is the sacrament only; but as to that which is inward. Hence he sets down two things as pertaining to the character—namely, "seal" and "safeguarding"; inasmuch as the character which is called a seal, so far as itself is concerned, safeguards the soul in good. He also sets down two things as pertaining to the ultimate reality of the sacrament—namely, "regeneration" which refers to the fact that man by being baptized begins the new life of righteousness; and "enlightenment," which refers especially to faith, by which man receives spiritual life, according to Habakkuk 2 (Hebrews 10:38; cf. Habakkuk 2:4): "But (My) just man liveth by faith"; and Baptism is a sort of protestation of faith; whence it is called the "Sacrament of Faith." Likewise Dionysius defined Baptism by its relation to the other sacraments, saying (Eccl. Hier. ii) that it is "the principle that forms the habits of the soul for the reception of those most holy words and sacraments"; and again by its relation to heavenly glory, which is the universal end of all the sacraments, when he adds, "preparing the way for us, whereby we mount to the repose of the heavenly kingdom"; and again as to the beginning of spiritual life, when he adds, "the conferring of our most sacred and Godlike regeneration."

Reply to Objection 2. As already stated, the opinion of Hugh of St. Victor on this question is not to be followed. Nevertheless the saying that "Baptism is water" may be verified in so far as water is the material principle of Baptism: and thus there would be "causal predication."

Reply to Objection 3. When the words are added, the element becomes a sacrament, not in the element itself, but in man, to whom the element is applied, by being used in washing him. Indeed, this is signified by those very words which are added to the element, when we say: "I baptize thee," etc.

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The sacrament of Baptism (Tertia Pars, Q. 66)

To my understanding Baptism is not to do so much with the action of Man but with the Grace of God. One must remember that, without Faith, no sacrament comes to fulfillment. It is a fact that, with regard to myself, there was no single "road to Damascus" experience. I have always accepted the reality of Christ, first as a child, and later , well, still as a child. salvation through Christ has just always been a fact to me. As a consequence later in life I became more aware of the Movement of the Spirit in my life. Again no blinding flash but just a deep realisation that Jesus IS Lord and Savior and that the Holy Spirit IS; both leading to the Father. Now ask me to explain the Trinity and I cannot; three folds in one blanket is as good as any but as it is a Mystery I simply stand in awe and accept in faith.

Now you were suggesting that a quick dip and oiling were somewhat superficial?? lol

Greg

Do most Catholics then get 'baptized' twice, once when they are born, and again later on, as adolescents or adults?

Nope, but they do get baptised as babies and then Confirmed(Baptised in the Holy Spirit). That happens by about the age of 12yo. It was explained that, by the action of the Holy Spirit, we receive the Gifts of same: wisdom, understanding etc etc. It's the full on acceptance of the Holy Spirit into our lives. Of course there no big blinding light; just a transition as we mature in our Understanding of God with us but there is a real aspect to it on the occasion. You would need better than I to explain it more fully of course but the reality transcends "feelings" and stuff. But the Sacrament(sign) is related to God's Grace and the opening in a deliberate fashion of our souls to the Holy Spirit. The reality is there of course but do all understand the depth of the changes? Of course not; it's a lifetime learning thing.

"The Holy Ghost, Who comes down on the waters of Baptism bearing salvation in His flight, bestows at the font, the fulness of innocence; but in Confirmation He confers an increase of grace. In Baptism we are born again unto life; after Baptism we are strengthened." And therefore it is evident that Confirmation is a special sacrament.

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The sacrament of Confirmation (Tertia Pars, Q. 72)

Greg

 

[cnm]

Being born again is not a church ceremony, where many people at that age (confirmation) are just going through the motions because their parents dragged them to church. It's infinitely more than that.

As though Baptists don't do that to their kids.

 

[Lysistrata]

Why do Christians argue with each other so much? I guess this gives them something to do. Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Evangelicals are all Christian, so what's the fuss? I've just been wondering for years what happened to the teachings of Jesus, which seem to have disappeared despite the fact that his name gets bandied about a lot.

In my experience IRL it isn't like that at all. Even when I was involved with an inter-denominational international missions organization, there was almost no arguing, in fact usually the atmosphere was joyful and cooperative. The arguing is usually between Catholics and Christians, and that is because when people are believing unbiblical doctrines, it is imperative to address that. It's important because in some cases it involves the fate of one's soul, and that is not something to be casually brushed aside.

Catholics ARE Christians. So are Eastern Orthodox. There's your problem. What is your denomination?

 

[LittleNipper]

Christianity isn't about where you go --- but WHO you know.

 

[zaangalewa]

Can a orthodox or catholic be a born again Christian?

No.

Have to be.You can't be Orthodox or Catholic unless you are "born again".

Greg

Sophisticated bunkum. First you found an anti-apostolic no-church, where everyone says he wears virtual golden shoes, and then you say everyone, who wears shoes, is able to be a Catholic or Orthodox Christian. Sure - but also with sandals - or without shoes at all - someone is able to be an Ortholic or Cathodox.

 

[ding]

The Catholic conception of redemption, being "saved," and forgiveness of sins is DIFFERENT from that of the "Born-Again's."

Catholics are "Confirmed," not "saved." For Catholics, every day is a new day, and salvation is not established until the moment of death. The idea of being "saved" in mid-life is bizarre and ignores human frailties. Our sins are forgiven after confession, under power granted directly by Christ to his Apostles, and to today's priests tracing a direct line back to Peter.

We have a "personal relationship with Jesus" that a "Born Again" cannot even imagine. We re-enact the Last Supper ("Do this in remembrance of me!") every day, with the same experience as those Disciples who ate at that table. We commune with the living representatives of Christ on earth, who are Priests not Ministers. There is a huge difference.

I don't see how a Catholic can be a "Born-Again Christian." There isn't a Born Again in the world who accepts the Pope as the true successor of Peter, with the power to - under very limited and rare circumstances - speak for the Holy Spirit infallibly on matters of faith and morals.

It's almost like asking whether a Jew can be a Christian. It's difficult to imagine.

Sounds like a bunch of Jew speak to me.

You do realize that Jesus is a Jew, right?

Christians are effectively a sect of Judaism.

 

[ding]

All one needs to do to be a Christian is to believe that God so loved man that he chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth and sacrificed himself to reconcile justice with mercy.