Spotlight on the Baptismal Mark or Character
The Roman Catholic Church claims that sprinkling water on a baby or an adult
while saying, "I baptise you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit" does amazing things. It takes away the sin we are born with,
original sin, and any other sins and grafts us on to Jesus making us his
servants. It puts Jesus and God inside us to live in us and inspire us. The
Church says that baptism heals the inclination towards sin that original sin
causes. Baptism is a sacrament. It pictures cleansing from sin and the effects
of sin and actually does what it pictures.
Roman Catholic doctrine claims that when you are validly baptised, a mark is put
on your soul. God puts the mark on so that you will never need to be baptised
again and to obligate you to belong to him. The 'mark' means we are
consecrated for Christian worship and faith. It is insane to believe that a mark
alone is enough to consecrate you and it is degrading. You would expect
something that causes moral or spiritual change for the better to be the
effective thing. A slave is not made a slave by being branded. A
slave is being a slave by being made to work.
A soul is a non-material thing so it cannot carry a mark. And you can mark
anything as yours and that does not make it yours.
The mark obligates you to carry out your Catholic duties. Is it really right for
people to take a baby to impose obligations on it by baptism? If it is bad to
take an oath of secrecy when you don't know what it is you are swearing to,
imagine how heinous it is to try and impose oaths on a baby!
It follows from the doctrine of obligation that if the Church could force them
to be obedient Catholics it should. The only objection to forcing is that it
does not work. In other words, "The Church would force you to obey if it would
work and it's a pity it can't for you are obligated to obey it."
The obligation doctrine accuses the careless or lapsed or defected Catholic of
stealing from the Church. If you belong to the Church and don't give yourself
then you are stealing.
The mark doctrine says you will be judged as a Christian even if you convert to
Hinduism in all sincerity. This is not the same as once a Catholic always a
Catholic. You could imagine God judging a person as follows, "You were obligated
to obey the Catholic Church and you left it for Hinduism. That was a hideous
sin."
The mark makes you capable of receiving all the other sacraments. The Church
holds that the sacraments don't work if given to an unbaptised person.
The Church claims to be an organised society. It cannot be organised then if it
has no method of enrolling its members and making a distinction between those
who are inside and those who are outside. See 1 Corinthians 5:12.
The Church says that if you are baptised as an adult, God takes away all your
sins and all the punishment due to them. That means you will go straight to
Heaven if you die.
So you can be evil incarnate and as soon as you get baptised you are an instant
saint. You don't even need purification from anything in your heart that makes
you out of line with God. I am referring to the Catholic doctrine that if you
sin and get forgiveness, some attachment to sin remains and that stops you
entering God's presence so you need purification in Purgatory. The Church says
that for the rest of us, getting forgiven in confession will not give us instant
access to Heaven should we die for we need to purify ourselves by penance. This
is superstition for it means the newly baptised person and the person who goes
to confession to get forgiveness have the same impurities and flaws in their
disposition but the newly baptised's faults are ignored. Is that fair? Of course
not! And it is contrary to the Church teaching that God has lovingly created
Purgatory for us to go after death so that when we go to Heaven we will do so
with our full consent and all hindrances to it will have been purged. The
baptised person then goes to Heaven despite not fully wanting to be there! He is
denied his need and right to purify his acceptance of God!
The Roman Catholic Church ridicules the Protestant doctrine that if you find
yourself believing that you are saved by the blood of Jesus then God has decreed
that you will go to Heaven the second you die even though you have many sins. It
sees this doctrine as immoral and absurd. It sees it as evilly refusing to admit
that purification is needed. And yet it agrees with the same principle! It
thinks an imperfect man can enter Heaven through baptism just because that man
was baptised.
The Church says it is unjust to a child to baptise him if there is no hope of
him being taught to live with the obligations he has got through baptism. This
can only mean that if the child will suffer if he does not live up to them. So
Hell will be worse for a person who is baptised but who has not lived up to it.
Consider this, "I should only believe or encourage what will not deliberately
upset or harm another even if it is wrong." Catholic baptism intrinsically
stamps upon that principle.
Canon Law says, "It remains clear, in any event, that the sacramental bond of
belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal
character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of
any act or fact of defection. "
This is a doctrine and not a part of law. A law cannot tell you what to believe
for if you believe something it just happens to you that you believe. It is
incorrect to imagine its Church law that we believe in the bond.
Anyway the law says you have a bond with the Church even if you defect. It at
least says defection is possible. It is possible to defect from something partly
not fully. The best interpretation of the law is that you defect in reality but
not completely. It does not follow that you have the right to be called Catholic
or have your name listed as a member. The Church says that those who have a bond
with the Church enjoy that bond to different degrees. Protestants if validly
baptised have that bond but are not Roman Catholics and have imperfect communion
with the Church.
The notion of an ontological bond does not make sense. It is taught by the
Church that there is an ontological bond between husband and wife. Ontological
is about what you are, what your nature is. A stone is a stone ontologically. It
is a strange kind of ontological bond that can end at death!
Some say it is like your bond with your biological brother. There is an
ontological bond even if you hate one another. You are still made of the same
flesh though you hate one another.
The bond means you are related but it does not make you family for only love
does that. Thus it does not follow that if there an ontological bond with the
Catholic Church that you are a member in any proper sense.
The ontological bond of baptism refers to the soul. But surely if our souls come
from God we have the bond by default? We are all souls who have come from the
same God. Souls are immaterial - they are not made of material things and they
do not have parts. The bond must come from the fact that they are somehow made
of the same substance.
The danger with thinking religion can effect ontological changes is that you
could say that a group of people who are cursed by your pope or Jesus are
ontologically changed by the power of that curse into demons and they will
gradually become more and more evil. Or you could say that blacks and whites
should not intermarry for blacks have their ontological bond and whites their's.
One thing is for sure, you are ontologically changed as a human being by baptism
into another kind of human being then you must have different rights to others
who are not baptised. You must be superior. And why stop there? Why not
kill the family next door for you had a dream that told you they have been
ontologically changed into Nazis and worse will be forever? The
ontological change doctrine is evil in principle.
Why can’t an ontological change be temporary? If it can happen then it
can. But the Christian religion hates the suggestion. It wants a
hold over people.
The ontological bond of baptism theology is full of errors.