Catholic Answers to the church of Christ

The bread and wine in the Lord's Supper remain substantially bread and wine, not the Body and Blood of Christ

Like many heretic churches, the church of Christ is correct when they say that the bread and wine (grape juice in the case of the church of Christ) substantially remain bread and wine when they celebrate the Lord's Supper. Unlike these heretic churches, when the Lord's Supper is celebrated in the Catholic Church, the words of Christ are fulfilled, and the bread and wine substantially become the Body and Blood of Christ. This miraculous change from bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ has been given the name Transubstantiation. The word Transubstantiation seems to have been used first by Hildebert of Tours about the year 1079, and was followed by other theologians such as Stephen of Autun, who died in 1139, Gaufred about the year 1188, and Peter of Blois, who died about 1200. The word gained universal acceptance when it was used in several ecumenical councils, such as the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215 and the Council of Lyons in 1274. The word Eucharist is used to describe the true presence of Christ in the bread and wine, and is a much older word than Transubstantiation. The ancient word Εὐχαριστία (Eucharistia) appears in the writings of Ignatius, who lived from around 50 to 115, Justin, who lived from 100 to 165, and Irenaeus, who lived in the second century.

The day before Christ promises the Eucharist to his followers, he performs two miracles, the multiplication of loaves and fish (John 6:1-16), and walking upon the waters (John 6:16-21). These two miracles proved to his followers that he possessed power superior to, and independent of, the laws of nature, and could therefore provide the supernatural food of his own Body and Blood. In John 6:26-59, Christ promises the Eucharist, and says, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." Some say that Christ is not talking about the Eucharist here, but that he is using a Hebrew expression, "eat my body", which means, "accept what I am teaching." Verse 52 to 58 proves this to be a wrong interpretation. The Jews did not interpret Christ's words to mean accept his teachings, but that Christ would actually give his flesh to eat. This is why they asked, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" After which, Christ says, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever." Christ explicitly says, "For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink." If he were only telling the people to accept his teachings, he would not draw the parallel between eating his flesh and the Jews ancestors eating manna in the desert. Both the manna in the desert, and the flesh of Christ are true food. If we look at the Greek, the word φάγῃ (phage) is used in verses 51 and 53, which means, "to eat". In verses 54, 56, 57 and 58, the word τρώγων (trogein) is use, which means, "to chew". These two word would only be used in reference to actual food. When Jesus said these things, he was addressing the same crowd that he had fed with five barley loaves and two fish the day before, about five thousand (John 6:10). Most believe that this is just the number of men, so if we include the women and children, we would have a crowd greater than ten thousand people. These people had been following Jesus for the last couple of days because they enjoyed listening to what he was teaching, and were impressed by his miracles. These ten thousand people accepted what Jesus was teaching, and wanted to hear him teach more and watch him perform more miracles. They believed that he was "the Prophet," (John 6:14) and wanted to make him king, and follow his teachings. Then Jesus taught them something unexpected. In John 6:32-58, Jesus told these ten thousand people that had devoted themselves to him, that they could eat his flesh and drink his blood. At this point, many among this ten thousand rejected Jesus, and left him (John 6:66). They did not reject him because he was simply asking them to accept what he had been previously teaching, they had already accepted what he had previously taught. They rejected him because of the new teaching Jesus gave them: to eat his flesh and drink his blood. The Twelve Apostles also found this new teaching difficult to accept, and Jesus asked them, "Do you also want to leave?" The Twelve chose to remain with Jesus, but many speculate that it was at this point that Judas Iscariot secretly rejected Jesus, as this new teaching was too much for Judas to accept (Cf. John 6:70-71). Jesus taught his followers that they must eat his flesh, and drink his blood. When he taught this, he lost many followers because they could not accept this strange and hard to understand teaching. Still today, many that want to follow Christ find this teaching too hard to understand, and so they deny it. To follow all of Christ's teachings, a true follower of Christ will eat and drink his Body and Blood.

During the Last Supper, Christ institutes the Lord's Supper with the words, "This is my body", and "This is my blood". This can be found in Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:14-20, and 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. Many, including the church of Christ, interpret these verses figuratively, but the correct interpretation of John chapter 6 above demonstrates that these verses are to be interpreted literally. If we also look at other early writings, we see that a literal interpretation has always be the interpretation of true Christians. We find this in the Didache (Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles), and the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, Hilary, Ambrose, and many others. Only the true followers of Christ accept what he said, and eat his Body and drink his Blood, which is only found in the Eucharist.

The age of miracles was in the first century, after that they ceased to happen

The church of Christ teaches that the apostles had the power to work miracles (2 Corinthians 12:12), and that they could pass this power on to others (Acts 8:18), although some received this power with out apostles passing it on to them (Luke 9:49,50). Only the apostles could pass this power on, so when the apostles and the ones they passed this power on to died, no one had the power to work miracles. Since the apostle John was the last to die, around the end of the first century, the one's he gave this power to were the last to have it. This means that after the beginning of the second century, miracles could no longer occur. The New Testament does not give any evidence that anyone other then an apostle could pass this power on, and 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 says that miracles would cease once the Word of God was revealed with the writing of the New Testament. Anything that appears like a miracle after this time is a deception of evil (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12). The church of Christ does not say that God cannot work miracles after this time, but that he chooses not to.

This teaching is completely contrary to the Catholic understanding of miracles, but before we discuss this, let us correct an obvious misinterpretation of Sacred Scripture. 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 says, "Love never fails. If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing. For we know partially and we prophesy partially, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away." The error is in believing that "when the perfect comes" means when the New Testament is written. First, if this was the case, it implies that Paul anticipated additions to Sacred Scripture, and that he knew that he was writing Sacred Scripture. This idea is not supported anywhere in the New Testament, and the idea of a New Testament did not even exist until the middle of the second century. Proof that "when the perfect comes" could not mean the New Testament is in the results of the American restoration movement. The attempt was made to reestablish Christ's Church using only Sacred Scripture, but the result was not just the church of Christ, but a number of other churches that disagree with each other's interpretation of Scripture. If the New Testament was the "perfect" that was to come, only one church would have been created, and there would have been no disagreement of interpretation. Lastly, the two verses that follow give a very different meaning. "When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things. At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known." (1 Corinthians 13:11,12) Could we say that Paul, and the other apostles only knew a portion of Christian doctrine and that when the New Testament was written they then had all Christian doctrine? In interpreting "when the perfect come" to mean when the New Testament is written, this is what is being claimed. Since John was the last living apostle, and he wrote the book of Revelation after most, if not all, the other apostle were dead, the above mentioned claim would mean that he was the only apostle to have all Christian doctrine. This is obvious heresy when we consider the fact that Christ promised all the apostle that the Holy Spirit would led them in all truth. "The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you." (John 14:26) "But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you." (John 16:13-15) Many members of the church of Christ accept the difficulty in interpreting "when the perfect comes" to means the writing of the New Testament, and avoid giving interpretations of 1 Corinthians 13:8-12.

Another argument is that there are no 2000 year old men walking the earth today, so miracles, raising people from the dead in this case, ceased to happen. The problem with this argument is that people died during the so-called age of miracles. "Then He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep." (1 Corinthians 15:6). Paul wrote this around 55 A.D., long before the supposed end of miracles.

The gift of miracles is one of the extraordinary spiritual gifts that are a result of receiving the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:4-11). God gives the gift of miracles to a few, not for their own good, but for the spiritual good of others. The gift of miracles was promised to accompany Christians in Mark 16:17,18 and John 14:12-14, to give credibility to the doctrine that they declare (Mark 16:20, Acts 14:3, Hebrews 2:4), but nowhere does Christ say that their was a time limit on this promise. No one but God can work miracles, and he motivates people into actions that result in supernatural works, but these people are only following the will of God and cannot cause miracles to happen according to own desires. Sometimes God makes use of contact with the relics of the saints, or visits to sacred shrines (Luke 8:44-47, Acts 5:15,16, Acts 19:11,12), but it is always God that works the miracle. God works miracles to strengthen the belief of his children, but the New Testament does not fill this need of his children. Members of the church of Christ believe that since miracles were recorded in the New Testament that is enough to believe in the Gospel, but many do not believe in the authenticity of the New Testament, and therefore the New Testament does not fulfill the role of miracles. From the creation of the world, God has always used miracle to prove his existence and power, and there is no indication in Scripture or human history that God stopped working miracles. On the contrary, the Catholic Church has been filled with miracles over the last twenty centuries. The Catholic Church has set down legal rules to verify the authenticity of reported miracles, and often does not approve a miracle until after the death of the one through which the miracle was worked. Reported miracles that have not been approved by the Catholic Church may be authentic; however, there is the possibility of fraud or the work of a deceitful spirit. Often the best test of a miracle is the message that accompanies it. Authentic miracles are always accompanied by one underlying message, which is the message of the Church and the message of Christ: repent, believer the Gospel message, and consecrate your life to Christ. The purpose of miracles is conversion; therefore, the Church does not require its member to believe in miracles that it has authenticated, but declares that these miracles are worthy of belief. God continually works miracles to strengthen the faith of Christians, and to bring more into his Church.

The proof of miracles is abundant and easily obtained; however, it is beyond the scope of this article. As well, since the Church does not require belief in the miracles it has authenticated, but only declares these miracles are worthy of belief, this article will make no attempt to convince anyone to believe in specific miracles. It is up to the individual to believe or not believe in these and other miracles. The only hope is that all will repent, believe the Gospel message, and consecrate their lives to Christ.

You do not have to confess your sins to a priest

The Sacrament of Penance, commonly called confession, was instituted by Christ, so that sins committed after baptism can be forgiven through the absolution of a priest. The penitent must come to confession truly sorry for their sins and promise to satisfy the penance administered to them by the priest. Confession is made not in the secrecy of the heart, nor to a layman as friend and advocate, nor to a representative of human authority, but to an ordained priest with the authority to absolve sins. The law of the seal of confession forbids confessors from disclosing any information given to them by the penitent during confession, and is defined in the Code of Canon Law. By confessing one's sins to a priest, they do not fall into the trap of concealing their sin in their heart and falling away from the grace of God.

Many outside the Catholic Church misunderstand the Sacrament of Penance, and misinterpret theological statements and historical evidences. For further clarification the following is quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

• that penance is not a mere human invention devised by the Church to secure power over consciences or to relieve the emotional strain of troubled souls; it is the ordinary means appointed by Christ for the remission of sin. Man indeed is free to obey or disobey, but once he has sinned, he must seek pardon not on conditions of his own choosing but on those which God has determined, and these for the Christian are embodied in the Sacrament of Penance.
• No Catholic believes that a priest simply as an individual man, however pious or learned, has power to forgive sins. This power belongs to God alone; but He can and does exercise it through the ministration of men. Since He has seen fit to exercise it by means of this sacrament, it cannot be said that the Church or the priest interferes between the soul and God; on the contrary, penance is the removal of the one obstacle that keeps the soul away from God.
• It is not true that for the Catholic the mere "telling of one's sins" suffices to obtain their forgiveness. Without sincere sorrow and purpose of amendment, confession avails nothing, the pronouncement of absolution is of no effect, and the guilt of the sinner is greater than before.
• While this sacrament as a dispensation of Divine mercy facilitates the pardoning of sin, it by no means renders sin less hateful or its consequences less dreadful to the Christian mind; much less does it imply permission to commit sin in the future. In paying ordinary debts, as e.g., by monthly settlements, the intention of contracting new debts with the same creditor is perfectly legitimate; a similar intention on the part of him who confesses his sins would not only be wrong in itself but would nullify the sacrament and prevent the forgiveness of sins then and there confessed.
• Strangely enough, the opposite charge is often heard, viz., that the confession of sin is intolerable and hard and therefore alien to the spirit of Christianity and the loving kindness of its Founder. But this view, in the first place, overlooks the fact that Christ, though merciful, is also just and exacting. Furthermore, however painful or humiliating confession may be, it is but a light penalty for the violation of God's law. Finally, those who are in earnest about their salvation count no hardship too great whereby they can win back God's friendship.

The argument against absolving sins was first conceived by the Scribes in Matthew 9:2-8 and Mark 2:3-12. The Scribes were right in saying, "Who but God alone can forgive sins?" But, Jesus is God, and to show that he had the power to forgive sins he performed a miracle of healing the sick. Christ then gave this power to Peter in Matthew 16:19, and later to the other apostles in Matthew 18:18. Christ told the apostles, "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." This binding and loosing refers to the spiritual bondage of sin, and power to bind and loose is unlimited, as the word "whatever" declares. Jesus had the power to forgive sins on earth, and he promises the apostles that whatever they bind and loose on earth God will bind and loose in heaven. Christ gives the apostles the power to bind and loose here, but this is not where he instituted the Sacrament of Penance. After Christ's resurrection, a miracle far greater than a healing of the sick, he then institutes the Sacrament of Penance. "Jesus said to them again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.'" (John 20:21-23). What Christ earlier stated figuratively, binding and loosing, he now states literally, and empowers the apostles to not merely announce to sinners that their sins are forgiven but to actually grant forgiveness. The apostles are not just given the power to forgive sins, but to retain sins, thereby giving them the responsibility to judge if the sinner deserves forgiveness. Sacred Scripture clearly states that Christ gave the apostles the power to forgive or retain sins, which God would forgive or retain in heaven. It would be unthinkable that this power to forgive and retain sins stayed only with the apostles, as the Church of Christ is made up of sinners who need their sins forgiven. It would also be unthinkable that this power to judge if sins should be forgiven or retained is given to all Christians. It is obvious that such a situation would led to abuse, and make a mockery of this sacred power. This is why the power to forgive and retain sins is passed on only to ordained priests, who can be striped of this power if they do not remain in communion with the Church. Clement I, who was consecrated Pope in 88 A.D., wrote, "submit themselves to the priest and receive correction so as to repent." The Didache, written in the first century, says, "In the congregation thou shalt confess thy transgressions"; and again, "On the Lord's Day come together and break bread . . . having confessed your transgressions that your sacrifice may be pure." Hermas wrote between 140 and 154, "Go and tell all to repent and they shall live unto God. Because the Lord having had compassion, has sent me to give repentance to all men, although some are not worthy of it on account of their works." He also wrote, "and he has entrusted to me the power of this repentance. And therefore I say to you, if any one has sinned he has opportunity to repent once." Clement of Alexandria, who died in 215, wrote, "For God being very merciful has vouchsafed in the case of those who, though in faith, have fallen into transgression, a second repentance, so that should anyone be tempted after his calling, he may still receive a penance not to be repented of." Pope Callistus, who was consecrated pope in 217, wrote, "I forgive the sins both of adultery and of fornication to those who have done penance." Hippolytus of Rome, who died in 236, recorded the prayer used at the consecration of a bishop, a part of this prayer is, "Grant him, 0 Lord, the episcopate and the spirit of clemency and the power to forgive sins." St. Cyprian in 251 writes, "Let each confess his sin while he is still in this world, while his confession can be received, while satisfaction and the forgiveness granted by the priests is acceptable to God." At the same time, the heretic Novatian stated, "it is unlawful to admit apostates to the communion of the Church; their forgiveness must be left with God who alone can grant it." This teaching was condemned by a synod at Rome in 251. It is sad, but true that most outside the Catholic Church do not have the absolution of sins available to them. If nothing else, this is one reason why heretics should want to return to the Church.

There is no purgatory

The word purgatory is not found in the Sacred Scripture, and the teaching comes from Sacred Tradition; however, there are references to it in Sacred Scripture. Before proving the existence of purgatory, a definition of purgatory should be established. Purgatory is the place were the souls of those who die, and do not merit damnation, are purified so they can enter into the presence of God. Revelation 21:27 tells us "nothing unclean will enter" heaven, and Jesus says only "the clean of heart" will see God (Matthew 5:8). Very few that die do so with a completely clean heart and cannot enter into the presence of God, this is why God created purgatory, so we can be cleansed and then accepted into his presence. The clearest reference to purgatory in Scripture is in 2 Maccabees 12:46 which, although not accepted my many non-Catholics as Scripture, says, "Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin." This is speaking of the practice of praying for the souls in purgatory, that they will be cleansed and enter heaven. Whether or not the books of Maccabees are considered Scripture is not important in this case as it is a historical Jewish document, and proves that the Jews before Christ believe in purgatory, although they did not use this term. In Matthew 12:32, Jesus speaks of sin that is not forgiven, "either in this age or in the age to come." This implies that some sins will be forgiven after death, in purgatory. 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 says that the one who fails this test "will suffer loss" but they "will be saved, but only as through fire." This tells us that some that do not merit heaven will still be saved, but they must pass through the fire of purgatory. In 2 Timothy 1:18, Paul says, "May the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that day." Paul is praying for Onesiphorus who is dead, and he is asking that he be freed from purgatory and enter into heaven. Tertullian, who lived in the second and third centuries, mentions prayers for the dead as an Apostolic ordinance, and in De Monogamia, he advises a widow "to pray for the soul of her husband, begging repose for him and participation in the first resurrection". He commands her also "to make oblations for him on the anniversary of his demise," and charges her with infidelity if she neglect to succour his soul. Origen, who lived from 185 to 232, writes, "For if on the foundation of Christ you have built not only gold and silver and precious stones (1 Corinthians 3); but also wood and hay and stubble, what do you expect when the soul shall be separated from the body? Would you enter into heaven with your wood and hay and stubble and thus defile the kingdom of God; or on account of these hindrances would you remain without and receive no reward for your gold and silver and precious stones? Neither is this just. It remains then that you be committed to the fire which will burn the light materials; for our God to those who can comprehend heavenly things is called a cleansing fire. But this fire consumes not the creature, but what the creature has himself built, wood, and hay and stubble. It is manifest that the fire destroys the wood of our transgressions and then returns to us the reward of our great works." Clement of Alexandria, who died in 215, writes about someone who reconciled to God on their deathbed but had no time for the sacrament of penance. He writes, "the believer through discipline divests himself of his passions and passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, passes to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance for the faults he may have committed after baptism. He is tortured then still more, not yet attaining what he sees others have acquired. The greatest torments are assigned to the believer, for God's righteousness is good, and His goodness righteous, and though these punishments cease in the course of the expiation and purification of each one." St. Cyprian, who became Bishop of Carthage in 249, writes, "Our predecessors prudently advised that no brother, departing this life, should nominate any churchman as his executor; and should he do it, that no oblation should be made for him, nor sacrifice offered for his repose." St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who lived from 315 to 386, in describing the liturgy writes, "Then we pray for the Holy Fathers and Bishops that are dead; and in short for all those who have departed this life in our communion; believing that the souls of those for whom prayers are offered receive very great relief, while this holy and tremendous victim lies upon the altar." St. Gregory of Nyssa, who died in 385, writes, "When he has quitted his body and the difference between virtue and vice is known he cannot approach God till the purging fire shall have cleansed the stains with which his soul was infested. That same fire in others will cancel the corruption of matter, and the propensity to evil." From the first century, inscriptions in the early Christian monuments, particularly in the catacombs, describe praying for the dead. There is no point in praying for those who are in heaven, only for those in purgatory. On the tombs of the faithful were inscribed words of hope, words of petition for peace and for rest; and as the anniversaries came round the faithful gathered at the graves of the departed to make intercession for those who had gone before.

The Catholic Church had defined the existence of purgatory, but it has not defined the nature of purgatory. St Gregory of Nyssa, St. Gregory the Great, St. Augustian, and others speak of the cleansing fire of purgatory. St. Catherine of Genoa, and St. Bonaventure say the suffering of purgatory is the spiritual pain of those separated from God, but are not without hope of salvation. Most theologians today reject the idea of actual fire in purgatory, but the exact nature of purgatory is an open theological question. The question of the existence of purgatory is not open to debate, but is a fact.

Baptism means immersion

The word Baptism comes from the Greek word βάπτισμα (baptisma), which comes from the word βαπτίζω (baptizo), which means to make fully wet, or to give ceremonial ablution. Baptizo comes from the word βάπτω (bapto), which means to cover wholly with a fluid, to moisten a part of one's person, to stain as with a dye, or to dip. The word βαπτισμός (baptismos) also comes from the word baptizo, and means to ceremonially wash. As well, the word βαπτιστής (Baptistes) comes from the word baptizo, and refers to one who performs a baptizo. Baptistes is only used in the New Testament in conjunction with Christ's forerunner, John. With an understanding of all these word we see that Baptism ceremonially washes away our sins and gives us ablution. Baptism immerses us in the death and suffering of Christ. The act of baptism can be done with complete or partial immersion in water, or simply by moistening a part of the person being baptized. Some argue that since baptism symbolizes our participation in Christ's burial and resurrection, we must be completely immersed in water, but the example of the New Testament demonstrates that this is not necessary. In Acts 16:25-34, a family is baptized in the middle of a city, and in the middle of the night, obviously there would be no large body of water available to them to be baptized by complete immersion. As well, some scholars believe that while John baptized someone, they stood in the Jordan and John poured the water over their head. However, the New Testament cannot prove John poured water, or that he completely immersed the person, and any attempt to prove either point with the New Testament is an abuse of Sacred Scripture. In the Didache, which comes from the first century, we read, "Regarding baptism. Baptize as follows: after first explaining all these points, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize in other water, and if you cannot in cold, then in warm. But if you have neither, pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." The idea that baptism must be done by complete immersion in water actually comes from a Catholic liturgical directive that say immersion is the preferred form of baptism because it is "more suitable as a symbol of participation in the death and resurrection of Christ." The Catholic Church does not, and never has, said that immersion is the only way to baptize, but that it is preferred. To say that baptism must be done with complete immersion in water restricts baptism from certain individuals and cultures. Complete immersion in water is impossible in places such as deserts and the frozen North. Baptism means immersion, either completely or partially, or just moisten, what ever is convenient.

Infants cannot be baptized because they are not able to have faith

RJ's Weekly Thought for June 15, 2007 covers Mark 16:16 in greater detail.
RJ's Weekly Thought for August 17, 2007 covers Acts 2:38 in greater detail.
RJ's Weekly Thought for August 31, 2007 covers faith of the community in greater detail.

Many heretic churches, including the church of Christ, believe that the Catholic Church baptizes infants to absolve them from their parent's sins, which they call original sin. This is not the definition of original sin. The sins of the parents remain the sins of the parents and are not passed on to their children. The children have only their own sins, and do not take on sins of their parents. Often the children sin in imitation of their parents' sins; however, this is not original sin, and the children are only responsible of their own sins. The original sin was the one that Adam committed. The consequence of this first sin, is original sin, which is the hereditary stain we are born with on account of our descent from Adam. With sin, Adam introduced death to the human race, not just death of the body, but also death of the soul. Original sin is not an act, but a state of privation of grace. The doctrine of original sin comes primarily form Sacred Tradition; however, Sacred Scripture also makes reference to it: Genesis 2:17; Genesis 3:3; Genesis 3:19; Psalms 51:7; Psalms 88:16; Romans 5:12; Romans 5:18-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21. Sin, however, is a voluntary act made possible by our state of original sin. No one ever consents to original sin, original sin is in the soul at the time of conception. Baptism puts an end to the privation of grace, and takes away original sin, allowing us to receive God's grace. This, however, does not prevent temptation or remove the possibility of future sin. If baptism were only to wash our sins away, we would not need to be only baptized once, but every time we commit a sin.

From the moment of conception everyone has faith in God. It is through time that some loose this faith. Christ tells us in Matthew 11:25, Matthew 18:3-6, Matthew 21:15,16, and Luke 10:21 that all children know and believe in God, and adults have to learn these things. Matthew 21:16 uses the word infants, so we know this knowledge is not only in older children. After Jesus was conceived in Mary's womb, Mary went to visit Elizabeth. "When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the infant leaped in her womb." (Luke 1:41). The unborn John recognized his saviour in the womb of Mary, and demonstrated that even before he was born, he had faith in Christ. The faith of a child is much stronger than the faith of an adult.

The words used in the New Testament do not exclude children from baptism, but include them. In Acts 16:15, the Greek word οἶκος (oikos) is used, which means one's household, or one's entire property. Included in the household would be the children, the slaves, and the children of the slaves. Acts 16:34 uses the word πανοικεὶ (panoikei), which quite specifically means with all his house, or with his whole family. In 1 Corinthians 1:16, again οἶκον (oikon) is used, which is a form of oikos. Since words that are inclusive of children are used in the New Testament, and there is no explanation excluding children from baptism, we can only conclude that children may be baptized. Moreover, St. Paul says, in Colossians 2:9-15, that baptism in the New Law has taken the place of circumcision in the Old. It was especially to infants that the rite of circumcision was applied by Divine precept. Origen, who lived from 185 to 232, writes, "The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants". St. Cyprian, in the middle of the third century writes: "From baptism and from grace . . . must not be kept the infant who, because recently born, has committed no sin, except, inasmuch as it was born carnally from Adam, it has contracted the contagion of the ancient death in its first nativity; and it comes to receive the remission of sins more easily on this very account that not its own, but another's sins are forgiven it." The Council of Carthage in 253 reprobated the opinion that the baptism of infants should be delayed until the eighth day after birth. From the beginning of the Church, infants have been baptized, and it was not until the Petrobrusians heresy, in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, that the validity infant baptism was questioned. The Petrobrusians were later followed by the Henricians, Waldenses, Albigenses, Bohemian Brethren, and the Anabaptists. For the first ten centuries of the Church, infants were baptized, and no one opposed this practice.

As well as baptism, infants have also received the Lord's Supper. It is well established that in the early days of Christianity it was not uncommon for infants to receive Communion immediately after they were baptized. The writings of St. Cyprian, as well as others, make reference to this practice. In the East the custom was almost universal and even exists today in some places, but in the West infant Communion was not as common, and is not practiced today.