Ihedinobi: @Enigma

Unfortunately, gestures like that are sniffed at by debaters holding emotional positions. I already warned him, but apparently, my warning didn't count. Seriously, if these arguments were court cases, some people would be jailed just for making their arguments. Smh

Look who is talking!!! If these were to be a law court you would be easily floored.You mean to tell me that in a law court you would produce an account written in the twenty first century to back up an event that occurred in the first four centuries!! What shallow reasoning.your own case might just be case of intellectual laziness or sheer dishonesty.

This is just common sense which you do not learn in school.I really shudder to think you passed through the four walls of a university or college

[/quote]314. Ihedinobi(m): Quote Post

Enigma: When one's position is honest, well considered intellectually and well informed ------ it is not difficult to rest in that peace which passes all understanding 

I figured, "what's the point?" I mean, even if you took them all the way back to the first to the fourth centuries, they wouldn't shift their opinions one bit. They'd rather adjust reality to suit their idiosyncracies.[quote]

That is what I want.Give first hand account from the first four centuries to back up your claim not a fictitious account by a deluded writer of the 21st century who was no where when these events unfolded

^^^^

You threw in your lot with MacDaddy? What a shame. And you intend to insist that you're a Christian, sir? Every comment that you have made is balderdash, absolutely not worth responding to. And like my brother Enigma did, I leave you to your conscience as well.

^Indeed, I was amused (just couldn't bring myself to get annoyed) that he would "pitch his tent in that camp/spot".

Amused and disappointed but not annoyed for some reason ------ maybe because it is just too daft.

Anyway, these things are not new to me --- they are things that I've observed about a number of people for a long time.

Even on this thread there is the example I pointed out to the fellow with the inferiority complex towards the atheists and Nairaland "intellectuals" who chose to agree with an atheist that his own claimed Anglican Church had no leg to stand on and was too cowardly to explain his own use of the word "catholic" ---- well, helping his fellow "intellectual" to remain in ignorance.

Anyway, why should that surprise me; no be the same person say the infamous Leopold Letter is a well known "historical document" and its authenticity can be compared to that of the gospels and the Bible. So much for claims to being an "intellectual"! Simply pathetic.

You guys have allowed yourselves to be so locked in your dogmatic prisons that it has even began to affect your sense of reasoning.

Any student of history be it atheist,hindu,agnostic,muslim e.t.c would easily know the history of the catholic church.

You guys should be ashamed that an atheist knows much more about the history of early xtianity than you guys.

Even you hypocrites the only thing you have in common is hatred for the roman catholic church.You do not belong to the same denomination nor share similar doctrines.Even the catholic and orthodox churches we argue about have more similarities than you guys.

Can you imagine even a heretical JW truthislight dabbling in argument about history of catholicism

^^ Are you now resorting to very plain (and not even subtle anymore) lying?

Where has either Ihedinobi or myself shown any "hatred" to the Roman Catholic Church.

We love the catholic church and it will please us no end if the Roman Catholic Church repents and rejoins the catholic Church.

Enigma: ^Indeed, I was amused (just couldn't bring myself to get annoyed) that he would "pitch his tent in that camp/spot".

Amused and disappointed but not annoyed for some reason ------ maybe because it is just too daft.

Anyway, these things are not new to me --- they are things that I've observed about a number of people for a long time.

Even on this thread there is the example I pointed out to the fellow with the inferiority complex towards the atheists and Nairaland "intellectuals" who chose to agree with an atheist that his own Anglican Church had no leg to stand on and was too cowardly to explain his own use of the word "catholic" ---- well, helping his fellow "intellectual" to remain in ignorance.

Anyway, why should that surprise me; no be the same person say the infamous Leopold Letter is a well known "historical document" and its authenticity can be compared to that of the gospels and the Bible. So much for claims to being an "intellectual"! Simply pathetic.

Good Lord! But I did have a somewhat higher opinion of him than that. I confess I was a lil disappointed when I happened on a thread where he'd described atheists as topping the ladder in debates. I wondered what kinda atheists you guys musta been debating in 2005 to 2007 that would beat any Christian. Until nairaland from June this year, I hadn't really debated any atheists. But I didn't debate them long before I lost all respect for them. Their arguments are frighteningly puerile and illogical. Their evidence insults the term. So, what kind of atheists were those?

As for your response to Chukwudi, I felt the same way. For some reason, after Frosbel, taking some professed Christians seriously has been an increasing difficulty. Their arguments more and more resemble the illogical ramblings of the atheist as their protestations escalate.

^^ If you notice, most of the older hand atheists are now simply sniping ---- they have been defeated in the serious debates. One of them whom I am going to name (thehomer -- yep the same one that his teachers told is an ape and he is parotting it all over the forum unthinkingly as is his wont) is a particularly despicably sly and obnoxious fellow and had to be put in his place.

The new ones are mostly ranting or talking senselessly and senselessness without realising it --- so some people just mock them openly, others laugh at them privately, and only few people bother to take them seriously.

Yep as for the other chap, I too had respect for him until I began to recognise very increasingly nothing more than a grandstanding empty vessel without true intellectual depth taking advantage of the saying ---'in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king'.

Enigma: ^^ Are you now resorting to very plain (and not even subtle anymore) lying?

Where has either Ihedinobi or myself shown any "hatred" to the Roman Catholic Church.

We love the catholic church and it will please us no end if the Roman Catholic Church repents and rejoins the catholic Church.

Hahahahaha

Catholic church is now a super brand!! Even fundamentalists now crave the brand name.It begining to look like they have realised the shallowness of their own history

Enigma:
We love the catholic church and it will please us no end if the Roman Catholic Church repents and rejoins the catholic Church.

This one realy makes me laff... You mean the RCC should repent and join the catholic church. Where/which is the catholic church?

Enigma: ^^ Are you now resorting to very plain (and not even subtle anymore) lying?

Where has either Ihedinobi or myself shown any "hatred" to the Roman Catholic Church.

We love the catholic church and it will please us no end if the Roman Catholic Church repents and rejoins the catholic Church.

We're witnessing a firm exit from the realms of "possible" or "maybe" dishonesty into the realms of full-blown dishonesty evidenced by ungrounded and obviously false accusations.

Rich4god: This one realy makes me laff... You mean the RCC should repent and join the catholic church.

Yes, I do mean that the Roman Catholic Church should repent and rejoin the catholic Church.

Rich4god: Where/which is the catholic church?

The catholic Church is the Church that has Christ as its head and not a pope; it is that which is known as the body of Christ.

Of course, we could also go back to Ignatius who originated the expression "catholic church": the catholic church is the Church that is seen wherever Jesus is.

Above all, the catholic Church is the Church of which Jesus said: "where two or three are gathered in My name, there I am in the midst of them."

Enigma: ^^ If you notice, most of the older hand atheists are now simply sniping ---- they have been defeated in the serious debates. One of them whom I am going to name (thehomer -- yep the same one that his teachers told is an ape and he is parotting it all over the forum unthinkingly as is his wont) is a particularly despicably sly and obnoxious fellow and had to be put in his place.

The new ones are mostly ranting or talking senselessly and senselessness without realising it --- so some people just just mock them openly, others laugh at them privately, and only few people bother to take them seriously.

Yep as for the other chap, I too had respect for him until I began to recognise very increasingly nothing more than a grandstanding empty vessel without true intellectual depth taking advantage of the saying ---'in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king'.

I know thehomer. That guy is the slimiest of snakes. He digresses and regresses infinitely apparently hoping that something will stick. I've never seen such despicable dishonesty.

I think now that their arguments need to be shown for what they are - empty, shallow and utterly idiotic. This is not only for their sake but for the sake of those who read the threads anonymously. I mean to use the occasion of arguing with them now to raise beacons for the many of the children of God that are yet to be gathered in.

Enigma:

Yes, I do mean that the Roman Catholic Church should repent and rejoin the catholic Church.




The catholic Church is the Church that has Christ as its head and not a pope; it is that which is known as the body of Christ.

Of course, we could also go back to Ignatius who originated the expression "catholic church": the catholic church is the Church that is seen wherever Jesus is.

Above all, the catholic Church is the Church of which Jesus said: "where two or three are gathered in My name, there I am in the midst of them."

Perfect.

Ihedinobi:

I know thehomer. That guy is the slimiest of snakes. He digresses and regresses infinitely apparently hoping that something will stick. I've never seen such despicable dishonesty.

I think now that their arguments need to be shown for what they are - empty, shallow and utterly idiotic. This is not only for their sake but for the sake of those who read the threads anonymously. I mean to use the occasion of arguing with them now to raise beacons for the many of the children of God that are yet to be gathered in.

Honestly, in specific debates, the arguments of the atheists here have been thoroughly discredited over the years. Even they the atheists know it! For me and I think many who have been here longer, it is not really worth rehashing with them ---- and I have noticed this attitude about quite a few of the Christians who used to engage them.

Actually, I once hijacked a thread which was intended to be a humorous dig at the atheists and it turned to a compendium of some of the standard nonsense that the atheists used to say ---- now the wiser ones don't say a lot of the things anymore.

Here https://www.nairaland.com/298119/30-keys-being-effective-atheist

An interesting aside: recently on a thread I saw one atheist use the expression "Dunning-Kruger effect" (told off by Mr Anony). However, there was a time that the atheists used to throw that expression around here very liberally ----- until we showed them that the very worst exemplifier of the Dunning-Kruger effect is to be an evangelical atheist. The use of the expression here stopped pronto ---- until the recent example. The same is true of "flying spaghetti monster" ----- only the newer mumus are still using it here.

Enigma:

Yes, I do mean that the Roman Catholic Church should repent and rejoin the catholic Church.




The catholic Church is the Church that has Christ as its head and not a pope; it is that which is known as the body of Christ.

Of course, we could also go back to Ignatius who originated the expression "catholic church": the catholic church is the Church that is seen wherever Jesus is.

Above all, the catholic Church is the Church of which Jesus said: "where two or three are gathered in My name, there I am in the midst of them."

This is what they call delusion of grandeur or what macdaddy calls cognitive dissonance.I guess you are suffering from what I would now term intra-religious.inferiority complex.

St cyprians outlines the basis for christian unity thus

[b][/b] The Lord says to Peter: 'I say to you,' he says, 'that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven' [Matt. 16:18Ð19]). ...On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?"[b][/b] (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

This is the most interesting part of st Cyprians writing

although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity

^^^^ Look I have been letting you get away with your misrepresentations of various early Christians because it wasn't necessary for proving the case made on this thread.

With Cyprian, he and his fellow African bishops stated clearly that your so called "pope" Stephen was only a colleague of theirs and that the decision of the African bishops to sack some fellow could not be overturned by the Stephen guy.

Can't be bothered to link you with the actual document; it is in my front right now. It is also on the Interweb --- google it.

@Chukwudi

In addition to what Enigma said, how does "upon this rock" relate to "you are Peter"?

chukwudi44: You guys have allowed yourselves to be so locked in your dogmatic prisons that it has even began to affect your sense of reasoning.

Any student of history be it atheist,hindu,agnostic,muslim e.t.c would easily know the history of the catholic church.

You guys should be ashamed that an atheist knows much more about the history of early xtianity than you guys.

Even you hypocrites the only thing you have in common is hatred for the roman catholic church.You do not belong to the same denomination nor share similar doctrines.Even the catholic and orthodox churches we argue about have more similarities than you guys.

Can you imagine even a heretical JW truthislight dabbling in argument about history of catholicism

"you are from your father, the father of the lies, when he started he did not stand fast in the truth because the truth is not in him and when he speaks the lies he speaks according to his own disposition"

you have told us a lot of lies on this thread and you continue telling lies, i can point out many lies that have been spoken by you on this thread.

How can roman catholic church produce books that were written by Jews?

By their fruit we will recognise those men.

All the people you have quoted are people that live after the apostles have died and the bible warned that after the dead of the apostle that apostacy will come into the fold and that is what you are here defending and lying and cursing to deceive people to accept that the RCC gave us a book that they never wrote neither do they make use of it.

That the bible is not God's word but the words of the RCC, whose benefit is such a statement serving?
God or satan's? Is that not said to destroy peoples faith in God's word?

Mr man, you are evil!

The shrines that all catholics keep in their houses and worship and the statue that they pray to is it base in the bible that you call "your book" ?

Only the unwise will put faith in what you are saying and end up saying that their is no God.

They have try telling you that peter was not a pop and the bible did not even mention where peter ran to after being release from prison by an Angel.

That some people claim that he was pope as you said when there is no such directive to such information in the bible, but you continue with your lies.

All those you mention are people' that live after the apostles have died and their authority CANNOT be relied upon to form a basis of what is Truth since the apostles warned that after their death that such apostacy will come up. How can we rely on them?
2thessolonian 2:6-8

there is no need for such Sine the bible massage is strike salvation of and and bearing witness to that.

You keep on mentioning men strugging for authority and posting what has such to do with the bible massage and christ directive?

your lying and choices of words on this thread speaks volume of were you are coming from.

Most of the witnesses that has been beheaded for the witness that they bear were Beheaded by who? Is it not your RCC?
Rev 20:4

if only you know what the bible says then you will have ran for your head/life

Like fathers like sons calling people heretics as to kill them.

This innocent bloods that you and your RCC have spill is still pushing you to do the wish of your "father"
Was killing part of what christ and the apostles taught?

You should rather repent and confessed your sins and get forgiveness and mercy from our peaceful christian leader christ and stop the killing,
stop worshiping idols,

start destroying all those shrines you keep in your houses and worshiping.

and start following the bible for a change and then you will start showing the fruitage of the spirit and showers of God's blessings/peace shall be yours

Enigma:

Yes, I do mean that the Roman Catholic Church should repent and rejoin the catholic Church.




The catholic Church is the Church that has Christ as its head and not a pope; it is that which is known as the body of Christ.

Of course, we could also go back to Ignatius who originated the expression "catholic church": the catholic church is the Church that is seen wherever Jesus is.

Above all, the catholic Church is the Church of which Jesus said: "where two or three are gathered in My name, there I am in the midst of them."

lol... I didn't ask for any explanation, i just asked, "where is the catholic church"? Cos, if you want to go by the notion "where 2 or 3 are gathered"... therefore, if 3 of my RCC friends gather together and pray in an RCC way, are we then part of the catholic church.

Rich4god:
lol... I didn't ask for any explanation, i just asked, "where is the catholic church"? Cos, if you want to go by the notion "where 2 or 3 are gathered"... therefore, if 3 of my RCC friends gather together and pray in an RCC way, are we then part of the catholic church.

Obviously, you needed the explanation; now you are in a slightly better state of health.

And as for the bolded, if you answer the following you will have the answer to your own question: if 3 "protestant" friends gather together and pray in a "protestant" way, are they then part of the catholic Church?

I repeat what I said before.The catholic church has become a super brand such that even pentecostal fundamentalists are dying to be associated with it.Since we are all 'catholics' as per enigma's definition of catholics we might now move ahead to discuss opinion of early 'catholic' fathers on key doctrinal issues most notably mariology,iconoclast,purgatory,veneration of saints,baptism of infants e.t.c

chukwudi44: I repeat what I said before.The catholic church has become a super brand such that even pentecostal fundamentalists are dying to be associated with it.

Of course, those pentecostal churches are no different, they are the daughters of that harlot catholic church.

Enigma:

Obviously, you needed the explanation; now you are in a slightly better state of health.

And as for the bolded, if you answer the following you will have the answer to your own question: if 3 "protestant" friends gather together and pray in a "protestant" way, are they then part of the catholic Church?

Na wa o... Why are you dodging away from my initial question "where/which is the catholic church"? And to the question you asked above, you are the one who need to explain(answer me) to me cos its you who quoted the notion (when two or three are gathered) and said its the true church.

@truthislight

I guess you have comprehension issues.Maybe the heretical teachings you are receiving from that your cursed JW fellowish is begining to affect you.

No where did I state that these catholic church councils wrote the books of the bible.I only stated the historical fact which is that these church councils selected the books that make up the bible from a wide variety of writings which were being circulated in the early church.

But I don't blame you since lack of comprehension of simple passages runs deep in that your heretical gathering which I do not even consider a church.You can even pray to your 'angel' micheal who died for your sins on the 'tree' to come and help you understand simple passages

frosbel:

Of course, those pentecostal churches are no different, they are the daughters of that harlot catholic church.

Frosbel... are you trying to say that all the churches are part(daugthers) of of the catholic church?. If so, which church/set is on the right track.

[/quote]326. Ihedinobi(m): Quote Post

Enigma: ^Indeed, I was amused (just couldn't bring myself to get annoyed) that he would "pitch his tent in that camp/spot".

Amused and disappointed but not annoyed for some reason ------ maybe because it is just too daft.

Anyway, these things are not new to me --- they are things that I've observed about a number of people for a long time.

Even on this thread there is the example I pointed out to the fellow with the inferiority complex towards the atheists and Nairaland "intellectuals" who chose to agree with an atheist that his own Anglican Church had no leg to stand on and was too cowardly to explain his own use of the word "catholic" ---- well, helping his fellow "intellectual" to remain in ignorance. 

Anyway, why should that surprise me; no be the same person say the infamous Leopold Letter is a well known "historical document" and its authenticity can be compared to that of the gospels and the Bible. So much for claims to being an "intellectual"! Simply pathetic.



For some reason, after Frosbel, taking some professed Christians seriously has been an increasing difficulty. Their arguments more and more resemble the illogical ramblings of the atheist as their protestations escalate.[quote]

Frosbel did you read that!! Your protestant 'catholic' brothers says you are not a christian!! Are you going to let it lie low

Enigma has solved a major problem in christendom.we are all now aware that we descended from the pre-schism catholic church hence we can now look up to their teachings and guidance in all key doctrinal issues.These means we all should now strive to practice the faith as practised by these catholic fathers.

chukwudi44:

For some reason, after Frosbel, taking some professed Christians seriously has been an increasing difficulty. Their arguments more and more resemble the illogical ramblings of the atheist as their protestations escalate.


Frosbel did you read that!! Your protestant 'catholic' brothers says you are not a christian!! Are you going to let it lie low

Why should I , You and Enigma are brothers without knowing it, both catholics with a different twist to the story albeit on the same level with the propagation of falsehoods that cannot stand up to the test of scripture.

Rich4god: Na wa o... Why are you dodging away from my initial question "where/which is the catholic church"?

You too have resorted to lying and even contradicting yourself in one post as with the other quote of yours below.

Anyway, here again is the answer to your question that that you claimed I am "dodging away from".

Enigma: . . .The catholic Church is the Church that has Christ as its head and not a pope; it is that which is known as the body of Christ.

Of course, we could also go back to Ignatius who originated the expression "catholic church": the catholic church is the Church that is seen wherever Jesus is.

Above all, the catholic Church is the Church of which Jesus said: "where two or three are gathered in My name, there I am in the midst of them."

Rich4god: And to the question you asked above, you are the one who need to explain(answer me) to me cos its you who quoted the notion (when two or three are gathered) and said its the true church.

You can of course choose to argue with Jesus; all I know is Jesus said: "where two or three are gathered in My name. there I am in the midst of them."

We would now start studying the teachings of our early catholic church which as enigma agrees applies to all of those who gather in the name of Jesus.

The catholic fathers on infant baptism

Hippolytus

"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (

The Apostolic Tradition 

21:16 [A.D. 215]). 

 

Origen

"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (

Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]). 

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (

Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]). 

 

Cyprian of Carthage

"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (

Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]). 

"If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (ibid., 64:5). 

 

Gregory of Nazianz

"Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!" (

Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]). 

"‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly [I respond], if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated" (ibid., 40:28). 

 

John Chrysostom

"You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members" (

Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 

1:6:21 [A.D. 388]). 

 

Augustine

"What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (

On Baptism, Against the Donatists 

4:24:31 [A.D. 400]). 

"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (

The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]). 

"Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born" (

Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]). 

"By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration" (

Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]). 

 

Council of Carthage V

"Item: It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they [abandoned children] were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the [North African] legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such [abandoned children] from the barbarians" (Canon 7 [A.D. 401]). 

 

Council of Mileum II

"[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration" (Canon 3 [A.D. 416])