 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
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: Sun Jan 6th, 2008 05:42 pm |
|
In order to avoid continued off-topic posts in a thread dedicated to baptismal sponsors, I am quoting the following posts from the original thread and providing my reply in this new thread.
Please remember that follow-up questions, while welcome, are often off topic in the current thread and should be posted in a new thread to keep the subject matter available to subsequent users who may not realize that a thread that started out having nothing to do with the topic of interest to them has drifted off topic and contains information that would be helpful to them. It is a simple matter to hit “New Topic instead of “Reply.” We ask your cooperation.
Liz65 wrote:I am looking for some kind of a reply to a protestant friend, sola scriptura type, whose only defense for what she calls "believers baptism", is that "it's scriptural. Any input appreciated .........Blessings Liz
David W. Emery wrote:Liz65 wrote:I am looking for some kind of a reply to a protestant friend, sola scriptura type, whose only defense for what she calls "believers baptism", is that "it's scriptural.
The following information comes from another thread in this same area of the forum:
1. Col. 2:11: Baptism has replaced circumcision. (Circumcision was mandated at one week after birth, Luke 1:21.) And,
2. I have found no Biblical prohibition against infant baptism. That prohibition seems to have come about as the event was changed from a sacrament to an ordinance. (16th century or later)
Might I suggest that you research the older threads in the Baptism area to come up with more reasons why your friend is wrong? There are really quite a number of them mentioned.
David
Credo Catholic wrote:David, would you explain the difference between a sacrament and an ordinance, as they pertain to baptism? My baptism in the baptist church was accepted when I joined the catholic church. Is it what you have called semantics? Was the intent the same? Thanks
At this point we begin the new material.
Credo Catholic wrote:David, would you explain the difference between a sacrament and an ordinance, as they pertain to baptism?
Sacraments are signs, acts which accomplish spiritually what they signify materially. Baptists, who reject the ecclesiology and priesthood on which the sacraments depend, obviously don’t believe in sacraments. But the acts of the sacraments are in the bible. The two acts they ended up accepting, baptism and the Lord’s supper, then become “ordinances” — something that must be done because it’s scriptural, even though it really “has no significance.” Thus baptism “does not save” and the bread and grape juice are “only symbols.” But they are required anyway.
The question of the validity of baptism “of heretics” (with apologies to the Baptists, who being far removed from the basic idea of direct rejection of the traditional doctrines of Christianity because of their historical lack of contact, are not correctly styled as heretics) was settled at the beginning of the fifth century during the Donatist schism (and eventually heresy). St. Augustine was heavily involved in this controversy because it was taking place in his back yard, and eventually at the Council of Carthage in 401 it was decided that, because the Catholic principle of sacraments is that they are effective regardless of the spiritual state of the minister (which the Donatists specifically denied), it was also possible to view baptism by heretics as valid. Therefore, those who were baptized as Donatists and who later embraced the Catholic faith were accepted without rebaptism.
This is the general principle of why Protestant baptisms are accepted as valid by the Catholic Church. The specific question of the different viewpoints on the meaning and efficacy of baptism therefore does not enter into the question unless it is tied to a denial of a doctrine like the Trinity (as for example, is the case with the Mormons, who believe in a trinity of three separate Gods, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who like the Muslims simply reject the doctrine as radically opposed to God’s unity) or some other point that makes it clear that the sect is not even Christian.
The only other faith requirement is that the minister have the intention of doing “what the Church does when she baptizes.” Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, 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.
“Will” or “intention” is generally interpreted in a broad sense. This gives the Church a certain latitude in saying what will be allowed. I know some former Baptists who were conditionally baptised when they entered into full communion with the Catholic Church, while others were accepted through a profession of faith. It depends on the precise branch of Baptists to which the person belonged, the difficulty encountered in proving that the former baptism actually took place and was validly administered, and the approach taken by the bishop under whose jurisdiction the person was received into the Church.
My own Protestant baptism was celebrated under Methodist auspices, whose beliefs concerning the sacrament of baptism closely correspond to the Catholic doctrine. However, because of an irregularity in the actual rite of baptism (unacceptable even in the Methodist Church), this baptism was found to be invalid by the Catholic bishop under whose jurisdiction I was received into the Church, and I was baptized (absolutely) into the Catholic Church.
So there can be cases where a non-Catholic baptism is not recognized because of the non-Christian beliefs of the body under whose auspices the baptism took place, and there can be cases of irregularity or of lack of confirmation of the fact of baptism, where the person must be baptized either conditionally or absolutely when he becomes Catholic. But the majority of candidates coming from Protestant denominations will find their documented former baptism accepted by the Catholic Church.
David
|
|
|
Intercessor
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | Southcentral, Kentucky USA |
| Posts: | 859 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 6th, 2008 07:43 pm |
|
David W. Emery wrote:
The only other faith requirement is that the minister have the intention of doing “what the Church does when she baptizes.” Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, 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.
“Will” or “intention” is generally interpreted in a broad sense. This gives the Church a certain latitude in saying what will be allowed. I know some former Baptists who were conditionally baptised when they entered into full communion with the Catholic Church, while others were accepted through a profession of faith. It depends on the precise branch of Baptists to which the person belonged, the difficulty encountered in proving that the former baptism actually took place and was validly administered, and the approach taken by the bishop under whose jurisdiction the person was received into the Church.
My experience was that a great deal depended on the view of the priest(s) involved. My reception into the Church was done under a cooperative arrangement between a religious community and a local parish. Out of four priests involved or consulted at the time, one felt a conditional baptism was definitely not required or even appropriate. Three were uneasy over the "doing what the Church does when she baptizes" question, since they knew my pastor-father did not have in mind bringing me into the Catholic Church as he baptized me.
After struggling with the issue, I decided to request and submit to a conditional baptism for these reasons:
1. I wanted no future doubts or questions in anyone's mind about the validity of my baptism or the subsequent sacraments which build on a valid baptism.
2. The conditional baptism was a private, quiet little ceremony with nobody else present but two priests. They each understood that I myself believed that my original baptism had been valid.
3. I decided my submission to the conditional baptism was a good first step in respectfully submitting to Church authority. The priests who were involved in my catechism and formation had shown me great kindness and generosity. It was appropriate for me to yield to a quiet, private little ceremony which gave them reassurance about the condition of my soul since they had assumed responsibility for that soul's protection and guidance.
I believe God honored the humility and obedience behind my submission. I've never regretted it.Last edited on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 12:33 am by Intercessor
____________________
"If our charity is arrested by the difficulties encountered in dealing with our neighbor, . . . our relations with our brethren are not regulated by our love of God, but by our love of self." Divine Intimacy p. 781, Fr. Gabriel, O.C.D.
|
|
|
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: Sun Jan 6th, 2008 09:48 pm |
|
Intercessor wrote:My experience was that a great deal depended on the view of the priest(s) involved. My reception into the Church was done under a cooperative arrangement between a religious community and a local parish.
The “view of the priest(s) involved” may be sufficient if they are parish pastors or superiors in a religious order, but some decisions are made directly by the bishop, who in any case has the ultimate authority.
Before the Second Vatican Council, the majority of baptized non-Catholics seeking full communion with the Catholic Church were received through conditional baptism. The presumption then was that, while the person “might be” already baptized, it was better to make sure. Since the Second Vatican Council, with its emphasis on ecumenism and peacemaking within the wider world of Christianity, the presumption generally has been changed in favor of accepting a non-Catholic baptism unless there appears to be an impediment to its validity.
This does not change doctrine (it being incompletely formed anyway), but only the pastoral approach. Either presumption appears to be acceptable, and I believe, Becky, that your own conditional baptism was a perfectly legitimate application of the Church’s law as it stands. Someone else’s profession of faith would be equally legitimate if approved by the appropriate authority.
Nevertheless, “bringing [a person] into the Catholic Church” does not seem to be a required intent. It was not the intent of the Donatist clergy when they baptized their own adherents, and this was acceptable to the Catholic Church in the 5th century; it should, therefore, not be a requirement today.
What I understand to be required (personal opinion here) would be something like “making the person a Christian,” “effecting the forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ” or “bringing the person into the society known as Church” (however “Church” might be understood by the baptizer). But this is still a theological question and not doctrine. So far, then, we have the bald statement about intent without the interpretation being pinned down.
David
|
|
|
Credo Catholic
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Greenville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 1212 |
| First Name: | Marsha | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 6th, 2008 11:40 pm |
|
| Thanks David, I knew you'd be able to explain it! I'm assuming marriage is also an ordinance when performed by a protestant pastor. Although nowadays weddings look more like productions than ceremonies!
|
|
|
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 Jan 7th, 2008 12:19 am |
|
Credo Catholic wrote:I'm assuming marriage is also an ordinance when performed by a protestant pastor.
Actually, no. Marriage is considered by most Protestants to be a natural union having no specifically Christian significance. This explains their easy attitude towards divorce and remarriage. “Ordinance,” by the way, is a Baptist term, not used by the majority of Protestants and certainly not by Catholics. This is why I put it in quotes in my former post and did not attempt to discuss it further.
David
|
|
|
Credo Catholic
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Greenville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 1212 |
| First Name: | Marsha | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 7th, 2008 12:37 am |
|
| Oh David! I think you'll find a great many protestants who were married in their churches by their pastors, and made vows before God to each other, who do believe Christianity plays a part in their marriages. (Sorry for the long sentence, I didn't know how to end it!) I know there are more and more exceptions now, but a lot of people still do consider it a vow between them and God, with the pastor officiating. Isn't that the general idea of the catholic wedding? I know we're off topic, I'm sorry.
|
|
|
Intercessor
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | Southcentral, Kentucky USA |
| Posts: | 859 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 7th, 2008 12:53 am |
|
David W. Emery wrote:
What I understand to be required (personal opinion here) would be something like “making the person a Christian,” “effecting the forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ” or “bringing the person into the society known as Church” (however “Church” might be understood by the baptizer). But this is still a theological question and not doctrine. So far, then, we have the bald statement about intent without the interpretation being pinned down.
I, of course, like your personal opinion about an appropriate interpretation.
However, I remember now that another problem for the priests involved was the Baptist failure to recognize baptism itself as having anything to do with the actual forgiveness of sins. For Baptists, one is baptized because the forgiveness of sins has already taken place.
And, since naughty Marsha has taken us off topic  , I wanted to add that my husband and I regarded our wedding as a most sacred business. The morning after the wedding as we stared down at the floating Cheerios, we were subdued as we pondered aloud the gravity and finality of what had taken place during our wedding ceremony with that exchange of vows before God. We truly wanted to be married; we were just struck by the seriousness of the covenant we had entered the night before.
Last edited on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 12:59 am by Intercessor
____________________
"If our charity is arrested by the difficulties encountered in dealing with our neighbor, . . . our relations with our brethren are not regulated by our love of God, but by our love of self." Divine Intimacy p. 781, Fr. Gabriel, O.C.D.
|
|
|
Credo Catholic
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Greenville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 1212 |
| First Name: | Marsha | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 7th, 2008 01:47 am |
|
| Amen Becky!
|
|
|
DrDave
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Mildura, Australia |
| Posts: | 211 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle - Lapsed - Renewed Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 7th, 2008 02:03 am |
|
Intercessor wrote: I remember now that another problem for the priests involved was the Baptist failure to recognize baptism itself as having anything to do with the actual forgiveness of sins.
My own opinion is that regardless of what the baptist might "believe" about baptism, the baptist is fully intending to do "whatever it was that Christ meant them to do", their own ignorance not withstanding.
The only instances where I have found that the church was confident enough of the invalidity of the original "baptism" to proceeded with a "full" baptism (for want of a better term) rather than a "conditional" baptism is where there is a clear violation of Christ's command. e.g. "I baptize you in the name of JEZUZ" or "I baptize you in the name of the creator, the redeemer, and the sanctifier", cases where water was not used or in the case of mormon baptism where they use the same formula (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) but are referring to three distinct "Gods"
Regards Dave
|
|
|
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 Jan 7th, 2008 09:19 am |
|
Credo Catholic wrote:I think you'll find a great many protestants who were married in their churches by their pastors, and made vows before God to each other, who do believe Christianity plays a part in their marriages.
Quite true. But this does not bring marriage, in their eyes, to the level of something supernatural with special graces from Christ if the marriage is celebrated in the context of their Christian congregation. This is “fitting and proper.” They are being married “in the sight of the Lord.” And we Catholics recognize this concern. Nevertheless, officially, in terms of their credo, there is no special recognition that the marriage is somehow different if the vows are pronounced before a minister. It is in this sense that I meant that there is “no specifically Christian significance.”
To say it in different words, Protestants in general do believe that they are pronouncing their vows before God when pronounced in church before a minister. However, this is not an official source of grace and virtue, according to the credo of their ecclesial body.
Intercessor wrote:I remember now that another problem for the priests involved was the Baptist failure to recognize baptism itself as having anything to do with the actual forgiveness of sins. For Baptists, one is baptized because the forgiveness of sins has already taken place.
Nevertheless, Baptists do recognize the forgiveness of sins taking place in the context of conversion to Christ and baptism required as the culmination of that process: “Believe and be baptized.” They just do not recognize baptism as the agent of forgiveness, and I do not see this as a definitive disqualifier. If the priests did, fine. It is a matter of interpretation, and as I said above, that is allowed until such day as the Church defines the conditions more closely.
DrDave wrote:My own opinion is that regardless of what the baptist might "believe" about baptism, the baptist is fully intending to do "whatever it was that Christ meant them to do", their own ignorance not withstanding.
This is the point I was making above. Since Vatican II, it is the most common interpretation. But the other interpretations expressed in this thread are still acceptable.
David
|
|
|
Intercessor
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | Southcentral, Kentucky USA |
| Posts: | 859 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 7th, 2008 12:51 pm |
|
| David, thank you for the beautifully presented explanations of both issues!
____________________
"If our charity is arrested by the difficulties encountered in dealing with our neighbor, . . . our relations with our brethren are not regulated by our love of God, but by our love of self." Divine Intimacy p. 781, Fr. Gabriel, O.C.D.
|
|
|
Current time is 01:11 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
