FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: US Catholic Church and Protestant denoms agree to recognize each others Baptisms
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
When will this false ecumenism ever going to go away?  These prelates have nothing else to do?  How about the salvation of souls?  The Sacrament of Baptism cannot be compromised yet it is being sold down the river.  The Church recognizes some Protestant Baptisms which carry the requirements to make it valid but there is always the problem of "intention" (to do what the church does) which Protestant churches lack, therefor invalidates their Baptisms, and most if not all of them do not regard that Baptism is a Sacrament, the First precisely, as no other Sacrament can be conferred with being validly baptized first.
Www.huffingtonpost.com
What has always struck me about all these "joint declarations" and "agreements" is that there is still "no salvation outside the Church" so whether or not a given sect has valid holy orders, valid baptisms or whatever their members are still outside the Catholic Church.  One thing I've also noticed is that no longer does almost anyone talk of Church Unity as something already existing but rather, as something yet to come through ecumenical dialogue. The old Chair of St. Peter Ocatve has been replaced by the "Week of Prayer For Christian Unity" where there is no mention whatsover that the Catholic Church is the True Church and as such she desires and prays that all those outside her fold may be brought into her.
I'm pretty sure that the Church has always recognized most Protestant baptisms. The agreement seems kind of pointless, really.
(01-31-2013, 02:50 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]I'm pretty sure that the Church has always recognized most Protestant baptisms. The agreement seems kind of pointless, really.

As far as I know the Church has recognized Protestant baptisms if they were done in the Trinitarian formula as opposed to the "Creator, Redeemer and the Sanctifer" of some Episcopalian's or the baptism in the name of Jesus alone of some other Protestants.
(01-31-2013, 02:51 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-31-2013, 02:50 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]I'm pretty sure that the Church has always recognized most Protestant baptisms. The agreement seems kind of pointless, really.

As far as I know the Church has recognized Protestant baptisms if they were done in the Trinitarian formula as opposed to the "Creator, Redeemer and the Sanctifer" of some Episcopalian's or the baptism in the name of Jesus alone of some other Protestants.

Right, and I believe most Protestant baptisms are done according to the traditional formula.
Yes, it's rather mystifying why this is news. Ignorance on the part of journalists combined with eagerness to have something to show for ecumenical meetings and conferences on the part of church bureaucrats, I guess.
Before my confirmation, the priest--who had a traditional bent, mind you--said that my baptism in a baptist church was recognized, and that I would not need a Catholic baptism. 

Baptism is recognized, so long as it is done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
This was probably more about getting the Prot sects to recognize Catholic Baptisms, considering that Prot baptisms have been recognized as valid since the Reformation.  As the Council Fathers said at Trent: "If anyone says that the baptism which is given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true baptism, let him be anathema."
(01-31-2013, 04:13 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]This was probably more about getting the Prot sects to recognize Catholic Baptisms, considering that Prot baptisms have been recognized as valid since the Reformation.  As the Council Fathers said at Trent: "If anyone says that the baptism which is given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true baptism, let him be anathema."

But there is not particularly any way to know if they used the correct formula, or with the proper intent.

The Protestant concept of Original Sin has diminished and morphed since the Deformation.

It would be best for Conditional Baptism to take place for any Protestant converts to the True Faith.

Someone becoming a heretic can have the most valid and licit Baptism in the world, all for naught. The demons will love that mark.
(01-31-2013, 04:20 PM)SMKMI Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-31-2013, 04:13 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]This was probably more about getting the Prot sects to recognize Catholic Baptisms, considering that Prot baptisms have been recognized as valid since the Reformation.  As the Council Fathers said at Trent: "If anyone says that the baptism which is given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true baptism, let him be anathema."

But there is not particularly any way to know if they used the correct formula, or with the proper intent.

The Protestant concept of Original Sin has diminished and morphed since the Deformation.

It would be best for Conditional Baptism to take place for any Protestant converts to the True Faith.

Someone becoming a heretic can have the most valid and licit Baptism in the world, all for naught. The demons will love that mark.

Well, the Church disagrees.  Shrug
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18