US Catholic Church and Protestant denoms agree to recognize each others Baptisms
#51
(02-01-2013, 12:58 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(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.

Pity that synod, the pope, the holy office and those two writers didnt know that  :LOL:

They must intend to do what the Church does.
Reply
#52
(02-01-2013, 01:13 PM)TrentCath Wrote: 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.

Pity that synod, the pope, the holy office and those two writers didnt know that  :LOL:

They must intend to do what the Church does.
[/quote]

I acknowledge that at times and in certain places the Church has felt it prudent to be more liberal with conditional baptism; I'm not saying it should never be done.  But neither is there anything wrong with saying that as long as proper matter, form and intent are present and established, the Church will recognize it.
Reply
#53
This is just another example of the Church not understanding Protestants.  The Curia thinks there's a "Protestant Curia" in Geneva they're dealing with, and that there's a homogenous Protestant praxis that can be ruled upon.  I have news.  There never has been.  Maybe in the Missouri Lutheran.  

If I was a convert from Protestantism today, I would demand a conditional Baptism.  Fr. can do it in private.  No one has to know.  If Fr. won't, have your spouse of friend do it in the sink!  Never, ever, ever trust the variety of Protestantism. Ever.  No one's soul is worth it.  

Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong.  I also have car insurance, home insurance, and medical insurance, just in case.  I won't take worse risks with souls than I would with possessions...

Reply
#54
The concern is not so much the matter of 'intent' since this is very wide.  There are documented cases of Jewish physicians Baptizing infants.

Rather, the concern is that Protestantism being a complete 'believe in anything or nothing' situation now, there cannot reasonably be surety that proper form was used.  And 50 years ago when there was such peace of mind, the Church required conditional Baptisms anyway.

Reply
#55
(02-01-2013, 01:16 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(02-01-2013, 01:13 PM)TrentCath Wrote: 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.

Pity that synod, the pope, the holy office and those two writers didnt know that  :LOL:

They must intend to do what the Church does.

I acknowledge that at times and in certain places the Church has felt it prudent to be more liberal with conditional baptism; I'm not saying it should never be done.  But neither is there anything wrong with saying that as long as proper matter, form and intent are present and established, the Church will recognize it.
[/quote]

Except that the church cant know that without investigation,  so we go round and round in circles. 
Reply
#56
(02-01-2013, 02:02 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Except that the church cant know that without investigation,  so we go round and round in circles. 

Of course; and that is why a baptismal certificate is required.  But if it has been proven beyond  a reasonable doubt that water was used to baptise with a Trinitarian formula to do what Christ intended, then a conditional baptism is unnecessary.
Reply
#57
(02-01-2013, 02:35 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(02-01-2013, 02:02 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Except that the church cant know that without investigation,  so we go round and round in circles. 

Of course; and that is why a baptismal certificate is required.  But if it has been proven beyond  a reasonable doubt that water was used to baptise with a Trinitarian formula to do what Christ intended, then a conditional baptism is unnecessary.

I don't think that's sufficient evidence, I'm also not sure that "what christ intended" is the same as "what the church intends", I'm not saying its not but it seems pretty easy to me to hide dodgy intentions under the former but not necessarily the latter, besides in every book I've laid eyes on proper intent is "The intent to do what the church intends to do" not "what christ intended"
Reply
#58
(02-01-2013, 02:44 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(02-01-2013, 02:35 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(02-01-2013, 02:02 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Except that the church cant know that without investigation,  so we go round and round in circles. 

Of course; and that is why a baptismal certificate is required.  But if it has been proven beyond  a reasonable doubt that water was used to baptise with a Trinitarian formula to do what Christ intended, then a conditional baptism is unnecessary.

I don't think that's sufficient evidence, I'm also not sure that "what christ intended" is the same as "what the church intends", I'm not saying its not but it seems pretty easy to me to hide dodgy intentions under the former but not necessarily the latter, besides in every book I've laid eyes on proper intent is "The intent to do what the church intends to do" not "what christ intended"

Look: historically, the Church has judged that if a Protestant minister, before a baptism, specifically preaches against Catholic sacramental teaching, but still baptizes with an intention to do what the Church does as he understands it, it is a valid baptism.  You are making understanding a priority when it isn't.
Reply
#59
(02-01-2013, 02:58 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(02-01-2013, 02:44 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(02-01-2013, 02:35 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(02-01-2013, 02:02 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Except that the church cant know that without investigation,  so we go round and round in circles. 

Of course; and that is why a baptismal certificate is required.  But if it has been proven beyond  a reasonable doubt that water was used to baptise with a Trinitarian formula to do what Christ intended, then a conditional baptism is unnecessary.

I don't think that's sufficient evidence, I'm also not sure that "what christ intended" is the same as "what the church intends", I'm not saying its not but it seems pretty easy to me to hide dodgy intentions under the former but not necessarily the latter, besides in every book I've laid eyes on proper intent is "The intent to do what the church intends to do" not "what christ intended"

Look: historically, the Church has judged that if a Protestant minister, before a baptism, specifically preaches against Catholic sacramental teaching, but still baptizes with an intention to do what the Church does as he understands it, it is a valid baptism.  You are making understanding a priority when it isn't.

I am not talking about that, I am talking about the evidence I provided. You have not convinced me or provided any evidence that the two terms mean the same thing nor do we have a proper translation of that document and till we do I am not debating about it.
Reply
#60
Quote:Look: historically, the Church has judged that if a Protestant minister, before a baptism, specifically preaches against Catholic sacramental teaching, but still baptizes with an intention to do what the Church does as he understands it, it is a valid baptism.  You are making understanding a priority when it isn't.

Historically, we have been burned before.  Montanists baptized in the "Trinity", except that it was the Father, Son, and Montanus.  We cannot trust heretics to know the Church's business.  I don't trust them.  I see no reason to.  


Everyone should be conditionally Baptized when they enter the Church.  Every sane traditionalist priest I have known has insisted on it.  For my relatives, I beg for it.  Your opinions would be different if it was your spouse, trust me.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)