 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10th, 2007 12:04 am |
|
| My friend wanted to know why the Catholic Church claims to have a more valid Eucharist and to be the one and true church yet at the same time accepts baptisms from another denomination. I onder that to. How can we say they need a priesthood and and apostolic succession for some sacraments, but not baptism. What is it about baptizing (and marriage too I think) someone (even if they do not see it as a sacrament) that works outside of the church. How can we tell them they are not as completely a church, but then say we acknowledge their authority to baptize?
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10th, 2007 12:22 am |
|
brian wrote: My friend wanted to know why the Catholic Church claims to have a more valid Eucharist and to be the one and true church yet at the same time accepts baptisms from another denomination. I onder that to. How can we say they need a priesthood and and apostolic succession for some sacraments, but not baptism. What is it about baptizing (and marriage too I think) someone (even if they do not see it as a sacrament) that works outside of the church. How can we tell them they are not as completely a church, but then say we acknowledge their authority to baptize?
Jesus gave the instruction to baptize to all of us, not just to the apostles and disciples, just as he gave the mission to evangelize to all of us. I do not even need to be a Christian to effectively spread the good news, and I do not even need to be a Christian to validly baptize. All I need is to have the right intention, use the right words, and use water properly.
We do not recognize Protestant baptisms because their miinisters have the authority to baptize; we recognize Protestant baptisms because everyone has the authority to validly baptize.
Instructions for the Eucharist were given at the Last Supper, so only to the apostles and their successors and designees (bishops and priests). The powers to bind and to loose, to forgive sins, and to anoint were likewise restricted. But not the power to baptize.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10th, 2007 01:49 am |
|
In matthew 28 I see the same thing as at the last supper and in John 20. Jesus commissioning the apostles. They were the only ones there and were given a sort of empowering or authority. How is this command to all of us then when not all of us can consecrate the Eucharist or forgive sins.
And why if the intent is not to forgive sins do you say that the church accepts the baptism if the person has the right intent. Seems like a very different intent to baptize someone for the true forgiveness of sins vs. just as a symbolic act, yet the church accepts both.
Where do we see or learn that Jesus commissioned all of us to baptize?
|
|
|
BodRod
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Apple Valley, California USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | Cliff | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Raised an SDA, then Generic Christian, finally at home with ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10th, 2007 01:50 am |
|
cajunrick wrote: Instructions for the Eucharist were given at the Last Supper ........
"Last Supper" is an interesting term. In retrospect, it actually was the "First Supper".
____________________
Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro.
|
|
|
GordonH
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 16 |
| First Name: | Gordon | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Born Presbyterian, later Baptist with charismatic leanings. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10th, 2007 07:32 am |
|
BodRod wrote: cajunrick wrote: Instructions for the Eucharist were given at the Last Supper ........
"Last Supper" is an interesting term. In retrospect, it actually was the "First Supper".
Is there a limit to what baptisms are acceptable?
For example do they need to be in the name of the father, son and holy spirit? Presumably that would be a requirement. I am thinking here about some pentecostal groups that only baptise in the name of Jesus. I think the Mormons or Jehovahs Witnesses also baptise in one name only.
What evidence of proper baptism is required?
|
|
|
BodRod
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Apple Valley, California USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | Cliff | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Raised an SDA, then Generic Christian, finally at home with ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10th, 2007 09:49 am |
|
| My understanding is that baptism needs to be done in the names of ALL three members of the Godhead and involve the cleansing agent of water.
____________________
Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10th, 2007 11:22 am |
|
GordonH wrote: Is there a limit to what baptisms are acceptable?
For example do they need to be in the name of the father, son and holy spirit? Presumably that would be a requirement. I am thinking here about some pentecostal groups that only baptise in the name of Jesus. I think the Mormons or Jehovahs Witnesses also baptise in one name only.
What evidence of proper baptism is required?
Yes, there is a limit. Mormon's actually baptize in the name of the Trinity but since their understanding of the Godhead is different, it is not recognized. Jehovah's Witness baptism is not recognized, nor is a baptism in the name of Jesus alone. It must involve the words of Jesus ("I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit") and must include water either by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling.
Evidence includes a certificate, a statement from a witness, or even a statement from the baptized person. It varies from diocese to diocese and involves many factors, so failing a certificate or statement from the pastor performing the ceremony, it must be judged individually. Denomination also is a factor; a Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist or Presbyterian baptism is always acceptable; Baptist is usually acceptable; Pentacostal or non-denominational must be judged because of variability in those sects.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1715 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10th, 2007 09:51 pm |
|
Brian, somehow no one in the subsequent posts has answered your questions. I’ll try to make up for the oversight.
How is this command [to baptize] to all of us then when not all of us can consecrate the Eucharist or forgive sins?
The words Christ pronounces in Matthew 28:19–20 regarding baptizing and teaching are directed to the apostles (and their successors). But since these acts do not involve something like confecting the Eucharist or forgiving sins in persona Christi, which can only be done by an ordained priest, the Church, with its God-given authority, has allowed delegation to non-clergy. After all, anyone can validly and correctly teach doctrine, even non-Catholics. And if deacons can baptize, who have no special priestly powers, it seems anyone can.
Now with regard to intent, the Church requires only that the person baptizing intend generally “what the Church intends” in baptizing. This is taken in a broad sense; that is, detailed conformity is not necessary because it would then never be possible to produce a valid baptism outside of the Catholic Church. Therefore, the intention is not specifically “to forgive sins” and all the other things that we, as Catholics, accept that baptism does, but simply that a true and valid Christian baptism be imparted through water and the trinitarian formula. Distinctive beliefs (such as the idea that baptism is only a symbolic gesture, or that it can be repeated) are not considered.
Now you are about to say, “Whoa! Protestant communion is understood as a symbolic act, but it is rejected by the Catholic Church as invalid.” This is an entirely different case, because to make communion something more than symbolic requires special priestly powers, which Protestant clergy do not have because their ordination is not to a valid priesthood but to a ministry of service, more like that of the Catholic deacon. So Protestant communion is invalid not because of the Protestant belief that it is merely a symbolic act, but because of the lack of a valid priesthood whereby to confect the Eucharist. By the same token, wherever a valid priesthood exists, both it and the confection of the Eucharist are recognized.
Likewise with matrimony. This sacrament does not require special priestly powers either, and as a result, all marriages, even non-Christian marriages, are recognized by the Church as valid unless proven otherwise.
So do you see how it works?
David
|
|
|
BodRod
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Apple Valley, California USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | Cliff | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Raised an SDA, then Generic Christian, finally at home with ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10th, 2007 10:48 pm |
|
cajunrick wrote: Mormon's actually baptize in the name of the Trinity but since their understanding of the Godhead is different, it is not recognized.
Is that because they believe their members will be gods someday?
____________________
Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10th, 2007 11:06 pm |
|
BodRod wrote: cajunrick wrote: Mormon's actually baptize in the name of the Trinity but since their understanding of the Godhead is different, it is not recognized.
Is that because they believe their members will be gods someday?
My understanding is that they believe God was once human, Jesus was a lesser god, and they will also become gods. They do not accept the Divinity of God, much less of Jesus, in the same way we do.
Perhaps one of our Mormon or former Mormon members can correct me if my understanding is not valid.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1715 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10th, 2007 11:07 pm |
|
BodRod wrote:
cajunrick wrote: Mormon's actually baptize in the name of the Trinity but since their understanding of the Godhead is different, it is not recognized.
Is that because they believe their members will be gods someday?
No, it’s because Mormons understand the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit to be three separate and distinct (we would say, “polytheistic”) gods, not one single God in three Persons.
The Mormon belief that members will eventually become gods in their own right is based on their belief that the Son (Christ) started out as a mere man and after his resurrection and ascension became a god. Good Mormons would thus imitate him on earth in order to imitate him in the afterlife by becoming gods as he did. This is supposedly based on 1 John 3:2 (KJV):“Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him.”
Disclaimer: I don’t claim to be an expert on LDS theology. I’m only repeating what I’ve read from their own literature.
David
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 11th, 2007 01:41 am |
|
still think nobody answered my follow up question on where/how we know the authority to baptize was given to all of us and not just the 11 disciples present when Jesus gave the command. 
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 11th, 2007 02:18 am |
|
brian wrote: still think nobody answered my follow up question on where/how we know the authority to baptize was given to all of us and not just the 11 disciples present when Jesus gave the command.
Brian, the Catechism gives us the following:
1256: The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.57 In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize58 , by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.59
Canon Law gives us the following, cited as #57 and #58 in the CCC:
Can. 861 §1. The ordinary minister of baptism is a bishop, a presbyter, or a deacon, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 530, n. 1.
§2. When an ordinary minister is absent or impeded, a catechist or another person designated for this function by the local ordinary, or in a case of necessity any person with the right intention, confers baptism licitly. Pastors of souls, especially the pastor of a parish, are to be concerned that the Christian faithful are taught the correct way to baptize.
The ancient teaching and practice of the Church was that even women were allowed to baptize other women. They were called "deaconesses" although they were not ordained. Baptism was practiced in the nude, so men and women were baptized separately.
The understanding that baptism can be administered by anyone is taken from scripture passages that God desires the salvation of all humankind. One such passage, which is cited as #59 in the CCC, is 1 Tim 2.4:
[1] First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men,
[2] for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way.
[3] This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
[4] who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
I have quoted it in context here. Paul asks for prayers not for all the baptized, but for all men. If God desires all men to be saved, would God not want all men to be baptized?
So we combine the scriptural admonition that God desires all men be saved, with the early practice of the Church in allowing baptism by those who were not ordained, and we end up with the belief that all baptisms, properly administered, are valid.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1715 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 11th, 2007 09:25 am |
|
brian wrote:
still think nobody answered my follow up question on where/how we know the authority to baptize was given to all of us and not just the 11 disciples present when Jesus gave the command.
Then you did not notice my post above, in the midst of the discussion of the invalidity of LDS baptism. I gave you a theological view, while Rick has provided references from the Catechism.
David
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 11th, 2007 03:33 pm |
|
David W. Emery wrote: brian wrote:
still think nobody answered my follow up question on where/how we know the authority to baptize was given to all of us and not just the 11 disciples present when Jesus gave the command.
Then you did not notice my post above, in the midst of the discussion of the invalidity of LDS baptism. I gave you a theological view, while Rick has provided references from the Catechism.
David
sorry. I did indeed miss your reply. I may have another question coming, but wanted to tell you I now noticed it and am starting to understand it. Though I did think that somehow the idea was that Christ was baptizing us when we are baptized, because a sacrament is somehow touching something divine with something physical or a sign. Therfore does it follw that since Christ indwells us that he is the one baptizing regardless of it is a priest? And if Christ indwells us why can we not all act in persona Christi and forgive sins and confect the Eucharist. I suppose there is a difference between the way the priest takes Christ's identity with the way lay people do. Or am I mistaken about the idea that Christ baptizes us. I think I read it in an article. It said "By His power He is present in the sacraments, so that when a man baptizes it is really Christ Himself who baptizes. He is pressent in His word, since it is He himself who speaks when the Scriptures are read in church..." Thomas Richstatter, O.F.M.
So then what is the difference between Christ baptizing someone through a protestant minister (which is possible) and someone being able to act on behaldf of Chrsit in forgiving sins. I suppose it has to do with Holy Orders and the fact that there is a difference between Chrsit doing something through you, and your being given a special authority to act on His behalf.
The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.59
This part seems tough to square that it only means general intention, since there is such a big difference between the intention of a baptist and a Catholic. I mean, if somebody asked me in a different conversation about baptism if a baptist wills to do what the Catholic wills to do when he baptizes I would say that they do not.
I suppose I am happy with the way the church has decided on it. Ultimately, the answer to my question may be, that the church is given the authority to make decisions on these matters. I was just looking to best explain why when asked about it. It seems tough for me to read both that statement and then to hear your explanation that it is only a general intnet to baptize and not to forgive sin, which the canon law does not get into the specific detail as to what its statement means or includes.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1715 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 13th, 2007 11:31 pm |
|
I’m unsure how to reply, Brian, because the questions you seem to be asking in your last post are things I thought were covered in Rick’s and my own earlier posts. At least you don’t seem to be upset over the Church’s position. Maybe you just need time for rumination.
David
|
|
|
docryde
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lutheran |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 13th, 2007 12:03 am |
|
So since I was baptized Methodist what do I have to do to be a member of the Catholic church or be baptized? Thanks for the info
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 13th, 2007 12:36 am |
|
docryde wrote: So since I was baptized Methodist what do I have to do to be a member of the Catholic church or be baptized? Thanks for the info
Hi, David, welcome to the Coming Home Network, we're glad to have you with us.
As a baptized Methodist, you do not have to be baptized again. Your baptism is recognized as valid by the Catholic Church, as is any valid Christian baptism.
The exact details of what is necessary to join the Catholic Church will depend on your own faith journey and familiarity with Catholic teaching, and also by diocese and parish. Technically you do not need to attend the normal process known as the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA) but in many areas, there is not a separate process available for those who are already Christian. Also, many who have been members of other faith communities may be poorly catechized, or have many misconceptions about the Catholic faith, and the pastor and catechists may judge that the full procedure is necessary.
If you are interested in becoming Catholic, you need to meet with the priest, deacon, assistant pastor, or RCIA staff in your parish so that they can make a determination of exactly what is needed in your case. Depending on your own circumstances, it could take anywhere from a few weeks to a year or more.
Welcome once again to the Coming Home Network and to the Catholic faith. We'll do our best to answer any questions you may have, and to assist you on your journey in any way we can.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Gnyssa
Member
| Joined: | Sat Nov 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 29 |
| First Name: | Gnyssa | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Episcopalian, Roman Catholic since 2003, RC priest 2006 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 13th, 2007 06:34 pm |
|
I believe there is a list issued by the Conference of US Bishops which lists the baptisms of other denominations which are recognised by the RCC, and which are not. In my Diocese we refer to the edition put out by the Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, which includes denominations found in the Pacific Rim outside the USA. Actually, it is a long list in which most other baptisms are indeed accepted.
Regarding lay baptisms being valid - this is because historically, baptism has been seen as an absolute necessity to salvation, then the grave need of it required that in an emergency anyone could admister it. This absolute necessity has been motified by various theologians, who have spoken of "baptism of intention" and the early catachumen martyrs being saved because they were "baptized intheir own blood." But in general, the Church has regarded Baptism to be of critical importance, and therefore should in an emergency be available to all. This argument is not mine - its in the Summa Theologica of St Thomas Aquinas , sec, 67, article 3. St Thomas cites various popes as authorities and also 1 Tim 2:4, to remind us that God wills all to be saved.
The Eucharist and Confession, while of the highest degree of importance, are not required of salvation in the same way as baptism. A man, baptized while dying, would not require the Eucharist or Confession to be saved, for example. Hence, these other sacraments are given by Christ to the magisterium, and through the Church administerly validly only through the ministerial priesthood.
best wishes
Gnyssa
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 877 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 14th, 2007 03:32 pm |
|
Gnyssa wrote:
The Eucharist and Confession, while of the highest degree of importance, are not required of salvation in the same way as baptism. A man, baptized while dying, would not require the Eucharist or Confession to be saved, for example. Would it not be of necessity that the man on his death bed repent of his sins to be in right standing with God more than anything else? What good is it, with regard esp. to an adult, if he is sprinkled with water but his heart has not repented? Would that not make the Baptism a mere form? In all the cases of those who came to Christ recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, it was necessary for repentance and baptism to occur before that one was truly saved. Not just one or the other, but both.Hence, these other sacraments are given by Christ to the magisterium, and through the Church administerly validly only through the ministerial priesthood.
best wishes
Gnyssa
Dear Gnyssa,
OK, how can this be? (as Nicodemus might ask  ) Why would the Eucharist not be of even more importance in one's salvation, according to Catholic teaching and dogma? John 6 is often pointed to as the support passage for the necessity of partaking of the Eucharist and why it is necessary to view it far more than as a mere symbol. "Unless you eat of the flesh of man and drink his blood,you hve no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him." How can you say that the Eucharist, according to Catholic teaching and dogma, is not required of in the same way for salvation? That does not seem to square wtih the John 6 passages. In fact, in John 6:59, Jesus says "he who eats of this bread will live forever." That's a rather blatant and emphatic statement summing up the importance and necessity of this sacrament.
How can one minimize confession and consider it less important than Baptism? If one is baptized, esp. as a baby, one at that time does not personally repent of their sins. So then, if one is only baptized, and later on in life commits sin, but does not confess that sin, nor receive Confession according to Catholic teaching and dogma, how can one be saved?
I just don't get it. I don't understand how Catholic teaching can say that on one hand, Baptism, not within the Catholic Church, which is considered to be essential to salvation, is acceptable, even though it is known that many of these other denominations do not consider it necessary for salvation. Yet, the Eucharist, which is the pinnacle of Catholic worship in the Mass, so much so that if one intentionally misses Mass for no good reason it is mortal sin, is not of the same or greater importance.
Can someone clarify for me please?
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1715 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 14th, 2007 04:06 pm |
|
He means that the requirement of baptism is more fundamental than that of the other sacraments, Darlene. You can’t receive the others until you have been baptized. So while one can truly say, as you have, that the Eucharist is the pinnacle of Catholic worship and the imparting of grace, it remains unavailable to the unbaptized.
Meanwhile, the statement that a dying man, being then and there baptized into the faith, will be saved without need for the other sacraments, is true because baptism removes all sin and places the man in the state of grace. What is needed to enter heaven is the state of grace, not the reception of all the sacraments. Baptism is the portal of entry into that state of grace.
The other sacraments (except penance) require that one first be in the state of grace before receiving them. Penance restores the state of grace when it has been lost by sin after baptism.
Yes, one’s attitude and behavior do play a role in the effectiveness of any sacrament, and ultimately they determine a person’s salvation. The role of the sacraments, especially the Eucharist, is to protect that attitude and behavior by making virtue grow and take root in the soul.
So the sacraments are all necessary and desirable in their season and their appropriate domain. This is why their reception is important as one progresses through life. But grace must always begin with baptism.
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 14th, 2007 04:59 pm |
|
Darlene wrote: Can someone clarify for me please?
Let me give you a thoroughly off-the-wall analogy. (I'm famous for those!)
God gave us a commandment to "be fruitful and multiply". We take that to mean we are to have children and raise them in the faith.
What is the fundamental act that opens a man and woman to procreate according to God's plan? It isn't sex, it's marriage. Even before that comes meeting, dating, emotional intimacy, and all the other things that come with it. Since the first step in creating new life is meeting your partner, does it seem right that it would require a priest to introduce you? Anyone can introduce you. You can even introduce yourself. However, when it comes time for the marriage to begin, a priest is (normally) required to sanctify it. But the process has already begun.
Baptism begins the process of salvation. Since we are all called to the royal priesthood, anyone can baptize (just as anyone can introduce two people who will eventually become parents). Baptism is our "introduction" to our Savior, and the beginning of our salvation, in the same way that the introduction is the beginning of the process of having children. It starts the ball rolling, so to speak. In a marriage, the introduction begins the process leading to a sacrament. In salvation, the "introduction" is so important it is elevated to the level of a sacrament itself.
There are a thousand analogies equally absurd that I could have used: Anyone can teach you to drive, but you need the right person to give you a license, etc. Jesus gave us all the Great Commission to preach the gospel to all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The other sacraments are restricted in their administration to the apostles and their successors and designees.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Current time is 12:45 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
