US Catholic Church and Protestant denoms agree to recognize each others Baptisms
#41
(02-01-2013, 10:39 AM)Parmandur Wrote:
(02-01-2013, 06:34 AM)TrentCath Wrote: Para you are trolling and sticking your head in the sand. Its been clearly demonstrated what the policy of the Church in this matter has always been, if you want to keep repeating ad nauseam that the bishops are doing nothing wrong or novel you do so out of malice as the opposite has been demonstrated.

T'ain't trollin' to point out the truth.  The Church accepts Protestant baptisms, very widely, as valid.  Does now, has in the past.

Not without an investigation, if there is no evidence for or against or probable doubt, the church orders conditional baptism to be given, and in the UK the church, sanctioned by Rome, conditionally rebaptised left, right and centre,  the evidence has been shown on this thread and yet you keep repeating the same thing ad nauseam, tad odd if you ask me
Reply
#42
(02-01-2013, 10:42 AM)Parmandur Wrote:
(02-01-2013, 05:38 AM)Vincentius Wrote: I posted the OP kind of hastily at the wee hours of the morning and was using my mobile devise, which I don't know how to cut and paste.  What I was intending to post was that an actual accord, pact, agreement, pow wow or whatever you call it was going to be signed and "entered into the books," similar to the "Joint Declaration" between the RCC and the Lutherans, where the RCC kowtowed and agreed that perhaps Luther was right after all and all that was required for salvation was faith alone.

My puzzlement was what was the need to go into a pack with the heretics and protestors?  The Catholic Church, even before Vatican II, recognized the Baptisms of the "separated brethren" but on a very limited scope.  Dubious baptisms were of the Jehovahs, Mormons, Baptists, Mennonites, Quakers, Amish and other non believers of the Triune God.  What the conciliar Church is doing is to do away with "conditional" baptisms in the case of conversions, except for those coming from the doubtful sects mentioned.  What is faulty, defective and deficient here is that it is a stretch to think that the "approved churches" may have doubtful baptisms themselves.  To have a valid Sacrament it needs four, not three, conditions:  Matter, Form, Intent and valid ministry.  The Anglicans, Lutherans, Episcopalians, et al., have priestesses, who have no valid orders whatsoever and cannot be known as "ordinary" ministers so called..  The only time they can validly baptized is when death is imminent and only if the person at deathbed assents to the baptism.  In such cases, anybody can baptized, even perhaps even an atheist as long as he has the intention of doing what the Church does and uses proper matter and form.

All this is about the U.S. Roman Catholic Church.  I wonder if Rome is aware (Apb Mueller are you there?).what the almost independent Catholic Church in America is doing. 


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/29/catholic-protestant-baptism-recognize_n_2575915.html


Quote:U.S. Roman Catholic Church And Protestant Denominations Agree To Recognize Each Other's Baptisms

Catholic Church, Christian Reformed Church In North America, Common Agreement On Mutual Recognition Of Baptism, Presbyterian Church (USA), Ecumenical Relations, Reformed Church In America, United Church Of Christ.

Catholic Protestant Baptism

In a monumental occasion for ecumenical relations, the U.S. Roman Catholic church and a group of Protestant denominations plan to sign a document on Tuesday evening to formally agree to recognize each other's baptisms.

Catholic leaders will join representatives from the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Christian Reformed Church in North America, Reformed Church in America and United Church of Christ at the ceremony in Austin, Texas, to sign the agreement, which is called the "Common Agreement on Mutual Recognition of Baptism." The event coincides with the national meeting of Christian Churches Together in the U.S.A.

Currently, the Protestant churches recognize Roman Catholic baptisms, but the Catholic church does not always recognize theirs. The mutual agreement on baptisms, a key sacrament in the churches, has been discussed between denominational leadership for seven years and hinges in part on invoking trinity of the "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" during the baptism.

In a report in the Austin American-Statesman, Bishop Joe Vasquez of the Diocese Austin told the newspaper that the effort "is part of our response to Jesus' prayer that 'we all be one.'"

The Roman Catholic church as a whole has generally recognized the baptisms of most mainstream Christian denominations since the Second Vatican Council, a series of historic church meetings from 1962 to 1965, but the formal baptism agreement is the first of its kind for the U.S. church.

According to a prior statement from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which was released in 2010 when bishops were deliberating the agreement, the understanding between the churches "affirms that both Catholic and Reformed Christians hold that baptism is the sacramental bond of unity for the Body of Christ, which is to be performed only once, by an authorized minister, with flowing water, using the Scriptural Trinitarian formula of 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit.' The agreement encourages all local Christian communities to keep baptismal records."

The Austin newspaper reported that Tuesday's agreement says that “for our baptisms to be mutually recognized, water and the scriptural Trinitarian formula 'Father, Son, and Holy Spirit' (Matthew 28: 19-20) must be used in the baptismal rite."

The earlier bishops' statement explained the origins of the agreement:

    In 2002, concerns over certain practices (such as baptism by sprinkling) and spoken formulas (such as baptism in the name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier) used by some Christians led the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity to urge national bishops’ conferences to study their mutual understanding of baptism with other Christians. These questions were examined and resolved by Round Seven of the Reformed-Roman Catholic Dialogue-USA, which produced the Common Agreement, as well as a study entitled “These Living Waters.”

The agreement was first approved in 2008 by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). American Catholic leaders voted on the it in 2010 and the agreement was later approved by the governing bodies of the Christian Reformed Church in North America, Reformed Church in America and United Church of Christ.

A Hindu or a Muhamedan can validly baptize, if the right form, matter and intention are present.  Say, if an India doctor is asked by a mother to baptize her dying baby, and he does so intending to do what the Church does.  Absolutely no ministerial office is needed for baptism, not even being a Christian.  Ex opere operato.

:deadhorse:

No idea why you posted this as no one denies it  :shrug:

Guess you are still trying to ignore:

Quote: Den 1878 [From the decree of the Holy office, Nov. 20, 1878]

To the question: "Whether baptism should be conferred conditionally on heretics who are converted to the Catholic religion, from whatever locality they come, and to whatever sect they pertain?"

The reply is: "In the negative. But in the conversion of heretics, from whatever place or whatever sect they come, inquiry should be made regarding the validity of the baptism in the heresy which was adopted. Then after the examination has been established in individual causes, if it is found either that none was conferred, or it was conferred without effect, they shall have to be baptised absolutely. But if according to circumstances and by reason of the localities, after the investigation has been completed, nothing is discovered in favor either of validity or invalidity or probable doubt still exists regarding the validity of the baptism, then let them be baptised conditionally in secret. Finally, if it be established that it was valid, they will have to be received only for the profession of faith"

Quote: I say, that the Church "ordains that all becoming converts from Protestantism should, as a rule, be conditionally baptised" I can only repeat that the First Synod of Westminster does ordain it in the plainest of words. I should remark that the First Synod of Westminster was the Council of all the Catholic Bishops of England, held in 1852, and that its decrees were solemnly confirmed by the Pope, in 1853, so that they are the highest possible authority. Its decree runs thus -"As the reasons have become still more weighty which induced the Vicars Apostolic to ordain, in the beginning of the century that all persons born after 1773, and baptised amongst protestants should be, upon their conversion to the Faith, conditionally baptised, we absolutely re-enact this regulation, commanding that all converts from protestantism shall be conditionally baptised, unless it be made most clearly evident, from undoubted proof, that in their baptism all things respecting the application of the matter and form have been duly performed 'The Threshold of the Catholic Church, Rev John B Bagshawe, 1877

'It is to be remarked, also, that Conditional Baptism is, as a rule, administered for safety's sake to all converts from Protestantism, on their reception into the Church, from the fear that, as sometimes has been the case, what they received before as Baptism was not really Baptism, either for want of intention, or on account of some de- fect in the element used, or in the words uttered, or on account of some serious fault in the ad- ministration'  Catholic Belief, Canon Joseph Faa di Bruno, 1878


You are, as usual, trolling in your over eagerness to defend the bishops.
Reply
#43
TrentCath, the problem with your analysis is that you are presuming that the circumstances which made it practically impossible to determine validity still exist, or exist for the four groups the USCCB has recognized as baptizing validly.  The Holy Office decision you provided makes this same conditional judgment ("But if according to circumstances and by reason of the localities..."). Likewise, the di Bruno text you quote does the same in the rest of the sentence and footnote you did not include.  It conditions the injunction to use conditional baptism on the practical impossibility of verifying the previous one and in the footnote says if it can be verified, conditional baptism should not be used.  See page 235 here.

Along those same lines, the joint statement at issue explicitly states that the proper Trinitarian formula and the use of water are necessary for recognition, and also affirms as necessary the idea that one is administering what Christ and His Church has instituted and what the Apostles administered (ie the proper intention).  It also encourages baptismal registries so this can be verified.  See here.

Obviously, if these things cannot be verified, conditional baptism is appropriate.  But error as to the effect of Baptism does not create a defect in intention and such error has generally not been seen as grounds for conditional baptism.  When the proper form and matter is used, the Church almost always presumes that as evidence of the proper intention. 

It should also be noted, that in the 19th century it was more difficult to verify whether one was baptized, as many Protestant groups did not keep records, neglected infant baptism inconsistently, etc.  In his 19th century essay, "the Workings of the Holy Spirit in the Church of England" Cardinal Manning goes into more detail as to these problems, but also expressed his hope in certain movements among the Anglicans and other groups that were being more careful about properly administering baptism. 

One last note that’s more of heads-up, I’m not sure which edition of the Bagwashe text you are using, but it appears to be much different. Given how the quotation marks are used, I think you may be using a text that is quoting the Bagwashe text (his doesn’t mention any Synod or anything like that).  See page 65 here.  Also, the paragraph preceding the one you provide says the reason for conditional baptism is the same as what Manning described, a lack of consistent practice due to a neglectful attitude concerning it arising from their beliefs.

In sum, the USCCB text essentially says if we do it right, we recognize as valid each other’s baptisms and each group professes its commitment to doing it right.  This is much different than than what was going on in those other circumstances and localities.
Reply
#44
I was responding to "o have a valid Sacrament it needs four, not three, conditions:  Matter, Form, Intent and valid ministry.  The Anglicans, Lutherans, Episcopalians, et al., have priestesses, who have no valid orders whatsoever and cannot be known as "ordinary" ministers so called..  The only time they can validly baptized is when death is imminent and only if the person at deathbed assents to the baptism.  In such cases, anybody can baptized, even perhaps even an atheist as long as he has the intention of doing what the Church does and uses proper matter and form."

Which is bad sacramental theology.  Anybody can validly baptize anyone else at any time.  Licitly, less so, but if they are Methodists that ain't surprising.
Reply
#45
(02-01-2013, 11:39 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote: TrentCath, the problem with your analysis is that you are presuming that the circumstances which made it practically impossible to determine validity still exist, or exist for the four groups the USCCB has recognized as baptizing validly.  The Holy Office decision you provided makes this same conditional judgment ("But if according to circumstances and by reason of the localities..."). Likewise, the di Bruno text you quote does the same in the rest of the sentence and footnote you did not include.  It conditions the injunction to use conditional baptism on the practical impossibility of verifying the previous one and in the footnote says if it can be verified, conditional baptism should not be used.  See page 235 here.

Along those same lines, the joint statement at issue explicitly states that the proper Trinitarian formula and the use of water are necessary for recognition, and also affirms as necessary the idea that one is administering what Christ and His Church has instituted and what the Apostles administered (ie the proper intention).  It also encourages baptismal registries so this can be verified.  See here.

Obviously, if these things cannot be verified, conditional baptism is appropriate.  But error as to the effect of Baptism does not create a defect in intention and such error has generally not been seen as grounds for conditional baptism.  When the proper form and matter is used, the Church almost always presumes that as evidence of the proper intention. 

It should also be noted, that in the 19th century it was more difficult to verify whether one was baptized, as many Protestant groups did not keep records, neglected infant baptism inconsistently, etc.  In his 19th century essay, "the Workings of the Holy Spirit in the Church of England" Cardinal Manning goes into more detail as to these problems, but also expressed his hope in certain movements among the Anglicans and other groups that were being more careful about properly administering baptism. 

One last note that’s more of heads-up, I’m not sure which edition of the Bagwashe text you are using, but it appears to be much different. Given how the quotation marks are used, I think you may be using a text that is quoting the Bagwashe text (his doesn’t mention any Synod or anything like that).  See page 65 here.  Also, the paragraph preceding the one you provide says the reason for conditional baptism is the same as what Manning described, a lack of consistent practice due to a neglectful attitude concerning it arising from their beliefs.

In sum, the USCCB text essentially says if we do it right, we recognize as valid each other’s baptisms and each group professes its commitment to doing it right.  This is much different than than what was going on in those other circumstances and localities.

Exactly; as I said, conditional baptism is today usually reserved for lack of a certificate or registry.
Reply
#46
(02-01-2013, 10:52 AM)TrentCath Wrote:
(02-01-2013, 10:39 AM)Parmandur Wrote:
(02-01-2013, 06:34 AM)TrentCath Wrote: Para you are trolling and sticking your head in the sand. Its been clearly demonstrated what the policy of the Church in this matter has always been, if you want to keep repeating ad nauseam that the bishops are doing nothing wrong or novel you do so out of malice as the opposite has been demonstrated.

T'ain't trollin' to point out the truth.  The Church accepts Protestant baptisms, very widely, as valid.  Does now, has in the past.

Not without an investigation, if there is no evidence for or against or probable doubt, the church orders conditional baptism to be given, and in the UK the church, sanctioned by Rome, conditionally rebaptised left, right and centre,  the evidence has been shown on this thread and yet you keep repeating the same thing ad nauseam, tad odd if you ask me

The investigation is along the line of, "do you have a baptismal certificate, or a registry from your old Church?"  I think it is bizarre that you are crusading over this issue, against the Church.
Reply
#47
(02-01-2013, 11:39 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote: TrentCath, the problem with your analysis is that you are presuming that the circumstances which made it practically impossible to determine validity still exist, or exist for the four groups the USCCB has recognized as baptizing validly.  The Holy Office decision you provided makes this same conditional judgment ("But if according to circumstances and by reason of the localities..."). Likewise, the di Bruno text you quote does the same in the rest of the sentence and footnote you did not include.  It conditions the injunction to use conditional baptism on the practical impossibility of verifying the previous one and in the footnote says if it can be verified, conditional baptism should not be used.  See page 235 here.

Along those same lines, the joint statement at issue explicitly states that the proper Trinitarian formula and the use of water are necessary for recognition, and also affirms as necessary the idea that one is administering what Christ and His Church has instituted and what the Apostles administered (ie the proper intention).  It also encourages baptismal registries so this can be verified.  See here.

Obviously, if these things cannot be verified, conditional baptism is appropriate.  But error as to the effect of Baptism does not create a defect in intention and such error has generally not been seen as grounds for conditional baptism.  When the proper form and matter is used, the Church almost always presumes that as evidence of the proper intention. 

It should also be noted, that in the 19th century it was more difficult to verify whether one was baptized, as many Protestant groups did not keep records, neglected infant baptism inconsistently, etc.  In his 19th century essay, "the Workings of the Holy Spirit in the Church of England" Cardinal Manning goes into more detail as to these problems, but also expressed his hope in certain movements among the Anglicans and other groups that were being more careful about properly administering baptism. 

One last note that’s more of heads-up, I’m not sure which edition of the Bagwashe text you are using, but it appears to be much different. Given how the quotation marks are used, I think you may be using a text that is quoting the Bagwashe text (his doesn’t mention any Synod or anything like that).  See page 65 here.  Also, the paragraph preceding the one you provide says the reason for conditional baptism is the same as what Manning described, a lack of consistent practice due to a neglectful attitude concerning it arising from their beliefs.

In sum, the USCCB text essentially says if we do it right, we recognize as valid each other’s baptisms and each group professes its commitment to doing it right.  This is much different than than what was going on in those other circumstances and localities.

Thats not what it says and thats not what will happen. There is no way of checking whether things were done right and no doubt some loons will still do it wrong.

I'm using the 1877 3rd edition of Bagshawe, an actual physical copy, so please don't try and claim its wrong  :grin:

Regardless an investigation will still be needed, you cannot go 'oh well because of this agreement, I'll presume it will be done properly', if this is not the result, then whats the point of the document?
Reply
#48
(02-01-2013, 11:44 AM)Parmandur Wrote:
(02-01-2013, 10:52 AM)TrentCath Wrote:
(02-01-2013, 10:39 AM)Parmandur Wrote:
(02-01-2013, 06:34 AM)TrentCath Wrote: Para you are trolling and sticking your head in the sand. Its been clearly demonstrated what the policy of the Church in this matter has always been, if you want to keep repeating ad nauseam that the bishops are doing nothing wrong or novel you do so out of malice as the opposite has been demonstrated.

T'ain't trollin' to point out the truth.  The Church accepts Protestant baptisms, very widely, as valid.  Does now, has in the past.

Not without an investigation, if there is no evidence for or against or probable doubt, the church orders conditional baptism to be given, and in the UK the church, sanctioned by Rome, conditionally rebaptised left, right and centre,  the evidence has been shown on this thread and yet you keep repeating the same thing ad nauseam, tad odd if you ask me

The investigation is along the line of, "do you have a baptismal certificate, or a registry from your old Church?"  I think it is bizarre that you are crusading over this issue, against the Church.

No its along the lines of:
a) was there proper form?
b) was there proper matter?
c) was there proper intent?

If there is no answer to these questions or probable doubt then conditionally baptise. What I said above is the logical consequence of sacramental theology, what you said you just made up.
Reply
#49
(02-01-2013, 11:53 AM)TrentCath Wrote:
(02-01-2013, 11:44 AM)Parmandur Wrote:
(02-01-2013, 10:52 AM)TrentCath Wrote:
(02-01-2013, 10:39 AM)Parmandur Wrote:
(02-01-2013, 06:34 AM)TrentCath Wrote: Para you are trolling and sticking your head in the sand. Its been clearly demonstrated what the policy of the Church in this matter has always been, if you want to keep repeating ad nauseam that the bishops are doing nothing wrong or novel you do so out of malice as the opposite has been demonstrated.

T'ain't trollin' to point out the truth.  The Church accepts Protestant baptisms, very widely, as valid.  Does now, has in the past.

Not without an investigation, if there is no evidence for or against or probable doubt, the church orders conditional baptism to be given, and in the UK the church, sanctioned by Rome, conditionally rebaptised left, right and centre,  the evidence has been shown on this thread and yet you keep repeating the same thing ad nauseam, tad odd if you ask me

The investigation is along the line of, "do you have a baptismal certificate, or a registry from your old Church?"  I think it is bizarre that you are crusading over this issue, against the Church.

No its along the lines of:
a) was there proper form?
b) was there proper matter?
c) was there proper intent?

If there is no answer to these questions or probable doubt then conditionally baptise. What I said above is the logical consequence of sacramental theology, what you said you just made up.

The answer to all three, with most Protestant sects, is unequivocally "yes."  They baptize with proper matter, using the Trinitarian form, intending to do what Christ commanded.  That is cut and dried.
Reply
#50
I think a more interesting question is the difference in the condition of the Catholic person after baptism and the condition of the NonCatholic (who has reached the age of reason) after baptism.

The Catholic has the theological virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity.  He has guilt of original sin removed, has the character of the sacrament imparted, is a member of the body of Christ through sanctifying grace, is justified, and heaven is open to him if in this state he were to die without mortal sin.

The NonCatholic (after the age of reason) in their nonCatholic heretical sect does not have supernatural virtue.  Charity is gone. Hope is not supernatural and is severely weakened. Faith is not true and not supernatural.  They may have the guilt of original sin removed, but the character of the sacrament, which they do have, will only serve to push them deeper into Hell were they to die before converting to the truth. There will be grace but it will be oriented to their conversion.  Heaven is closed to them.

There will be graces of conversion for the NonCatholic that they may not have had prior to baptism since they now have the character of the sacrament, but, prior to converting to the truth, death would result in a greater punishment.

Prior to baptism there was an infinite difference between the two.  After baptism the infinite difference remains. One is on the road to Heaven.  The other on the road to Hell.  

These are hard words, but they are the truth.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)