These guys have the electrifying enthusiasm of Pentacostal snake-handling but with the robust theological capacity of Catholic scholars. Pretty good stuff, what a great and desperately needed concept for a KZread series

Okay , I'm done listening today...my eagerness out does my ability. When I say I really like this, it's new and fresh and also very very old too...I mean it! The homing in on the 'Didache' the 'Fathers' and Scripture... ....well I haven't seen anybody do that in my little time. All I ever hear is, 'Read the Fathers'.......but some people really like a synopsis of their conversion... Thanks for your thoughts and insights, it's like a roundtable format.....it's also 'family'... Till, tomorrow! Cant wait!

@TheCatholicBrothers

Жыл бұрын

Thanks so much for tuning in and for the kind words and feedback. We really hope you enjoy the series and continue to be blessed by it. Always feel free to share your thoughts, comments, critiques, etc, as you move through it. Oh, and spread the word ! :) lol

just starting to listen to your channel, so interesting and thorough ~ anxious to learn more. thank you

I love your channel. I'm enjoying the videos of the history of the liturgy and the other sacraments. Maybe, you can do one on confession and confirmation.

@TheCatholicBrothers

3 жыл бұрын

Both will surely happen my friend! 👍🏻

Really interesting, thanks once again! This is not to dispute your conclusion but I recall that Newman in his Essay on Doctrinal Development cites the variation in approaching infant vs believer baptism for the first 3-4 centuries before infant baptism won out. I'm not suggesting this caused major disputes in the early Church but I just wondered 1) whether Newman is right here and 2) what might explain the variation - e.g. could it have been the Tertullian mentality having a lagged effect or something else.

@TheCatholicBrothers

2 жыл бұрын

Hey Tim! Thanks for the support. Unfortunately, because the sources are so scanty on whether or not infant baptism was an immediate practice of the church, I don’t think a firm conclusion can be made in one direction or the other. What we present here is the evidence, what it might be whispering to us, and our tentative conclusions. Given what we know about the ‘Judaism’ of the earliest Christians and their understanding of what baptism was all about, it would only make sense that, at the very least, both practices existed side by side and may have varied in emphasis from community to community. At best, of course, it was practiced seamlessly from the time of the Apostles onward, with varying levels of emphasis until the 4th century, when infant baptism becomes increasingly normative. In that case, Newman’s point would hold true- that the practice of infant baptism, regardless of how ancient or novel it may have been in the Late Antique Church, it eventually wins the day and becomes the normative practice of the universal Church. The resistance to be baptized early in life stemmed from a rising conception amongst some early Christian communities that post-baptismal sin (specifically, the deadly sins) could not be forgiven after one was already baptized (typically citing Hebrews 6). This idea gave rise to the *certainly* novel practice of baptizing only on the death bed, which of course is not the vision of baptism for the earliest Christians. Tertullian was of this rigorist ideological bend.. So, even when we see resistance to pedobaptism in the early church (a rarity in the sources, actually), it is never based on the catechumen’s ability to reason but on the objective, soteriological value of the rite and the fear of sullying it’s effect. So, on either score, low-church forms of Protestantism are two steps removed from the view of the Fathers on this. A fascinating topic, indeed ! What are your thoughts??

A quick question, do you guys think people were both baptised under the trinitarian formula and also in the name of Jesus or one just the former. I got confused on your position after watching parts 1 and 2 given the didache citation you did.

@TheCatholicBrothers

20 күн бұрын

The evidence is tough to clearly decipher, but I tend to side with the thesis that (at least in the earliest days of the Christian movement) Jews were baptized in the name of Jesus alone but gentiles in the name of Father, Son, and Spirit (Cyprian seems to allude this in one of his letters too).

@ultimateoriginalgod

20 күн бұрын

@@TheCatholicBrothers That is what I understood, just the plain directions of the didache to baptise in the Trinitarian formula made me second guess the position you guys were saying. I guess the intendened audience of the Didache helps to illuminate your position. I only have two follow-ups: What quote/work from Cyprian are you alluding to? And when do you think there was a concept of a "valid" and "invalid" baptism distiction? (I ask since to modern ears a baptism in the name of Jesus is "invalid")

@TheCatholicBrothers

20 күн бұрын

@@ultimateoriginalgod letter 72.17 “For the case of the Jews under the apostles was one, but the condition of the Gentiles is another. The former, because they had already gained the most ancient baptism of the law and Moses, were to be baptized also in the name of Jesus Christ, in conformity with what Peter tells them in the Acts of the apostles. . . Peter makes mention of Jesus Christ, not as though the Father should be omitted, but that the Son also might be joined to the Father.” If I were to make sense of this theologically, in light of oneness baptisms being invalid, I would say that Cyprian is careful to emphasize that he is referring to the “Jews under the apostles.” At the time of the apostles, Jews were merely in ignorance of the Son; beyond the era of the apostles, they were in willful rejection of the Son. Because in this post-apostolic era, they both know and reject, they must now receive baptism into the Trinity like the rest of us. Whether or not that is how the Church would handle the question, I cannot say. That’s just how I would go about explaining why trinitarian baptism is required for Jews now but (possibly) hadn’t been when the apostles were baptizing.