US Catholic Church and Protestant denoms agree to recognize each others Baptisms
Vincentius,


I re-read your #144 post and nowhere can I see, as you did not quote or provide the post number, and I'm dang sure not reading 17 pages to find it, that anyone said anyone can baptize validly such as in the case of those who do not use the proper form, matter and intent. Indeed, all protestations against your objections have provided the necessary contrary of the mind of the Church insofar as that limit is placed on the necessities of the Sacrament.

Your position is absolutely disagreed with by St. Thomas Aquinas, as demonstrated in post #106 by myself wherein I quote the pertinent parts of the Summa.

You quote Trent and then quote Canon X within it, out of context from the argument: "CANON X.-If any one saith, that all Christians have power to administer the word, and all the sacraments; let him be anathema. "

But this says ALL the Sacraments. Not Baptism in particular. Trent, in answering the Protestant heresy, was addressing the stupid idea that a Christian laymen can administer ALL the Sacraments. Baptism, however, can always be validly conducted if the proper form, matter and intent are present. If you read the full section on Baptism in Trent, you will see the "opposition" position expressed. Yours, however, will not be found.

Mormons do not use proper form. Others, even a priest, who is an ordinary minister, cannot confer valid baptism if he breaks from form, matter and intent.

Your high-sounding words and convoluted grammatical style do not impress us, bro. We read the same things you do. Writing like a pompous twit isn't going to get you anywhere, as if we shudder at your vocabulary and grammatical acumen.

Go back and read 106.
Reply
To answer your question Vincentius, the only thing that invalidates a baptism done by an extraordinary minister is the use of invalid matter, form, or intent. Just because such a baptism is not celebrated within cases of necessity does not make it invalid, it makes it illicit. It's quite simple and straightforward but you seem unable to grasp it. Illicit baptisms are not invalid. End of story.
Reply
(02-11-2013, 09:04 AM)GloriaPatri Wrote: To answer your question Vincentius, the only thing that invalidates a baptism done by an extraordinary minister is the use of invalid matter, form, or intent. Just because such a baptism is not celebrated within cases of necessity does not make it invalid, it makes it illicit. It's quite simple and straightforward but you seem unable to grasp it. Illicit baptisms are not invalid. End of story.

I am amazed that you agree with me but you don't see the point.  But since you said so, causa finita est.  You can have the last word if you want.
Reply
Quote:Your high-sounding words and convoluted grammatical style do not impress us, bro. We read the same things you do. Writing like a pompous twit isn't going to get you anywhere, as if we shudder at your vocabulary and grammatical acumen.

SMKMI, that's my style dude, not trying impress anybody.  Le style c'est l'homme.  I can write like them pulp novel writers like Mickey Spilanne but that's beneath my dignity, perhaps not to you.   I never questioned your prose style.  So leave mine alone.  Try reading John Henry Cdl Newman, Gerard Manley Hopkins, James Joyce or papal encyclicals and perhaps you will appreciate good prose.  But they are not your style, it's not in your neck of the woods.  "Twit"?  You don't even know what it means.  Perhaps having an intention of insulting me with your accusations and impress your group here, you score a TD, but you are at a loss at finding the right word to hurl, as an invective.  Sad.  And you're Catholic?  What happened to Charity?  Did envy replace it?
Reply
(02-12-2013, 06:07 AM)Vincentius Wrote:
Quote:Your high-sounding words and convoluted grammatical style do not impress us, bro. We read the same things you do. Writing like a pompous twit isn't going to get you anywhere, as if we shudder at your vocabulary and grammatical acumen.

SMKMI, that's my style dude, not trying impress anybody.  Le style c'est l'homme.  I can write like them pulp novel writers like Mickey Spilanne but that's beneath my dignity, perhaps not to you.   I never questioned your prose style.  So leave mine alone.  Try reading John Henry Cdl Newman, Gerard Manley Hopkins, James Joyce or papal encyclicals and perhaps you will appreciate good prose.  But they are not your style, it's not in your neck of the woods.  "Twit"?  You don't even know what it means.  Perhaps having an intention of insulting me with your accusations and impress your group here, you score a TD, but you are at a loss at finding the right word to hurl, as an invective.  Sad.  And you're Catholic?  What happened to Charity?  Did envy replace it?

Have I offended you brother? I apologize if you have taken my comment beyond a frustrated attempt at making known that your style is too twisted for virtually anyone, since we too read good prose and can understand it; your posts read like transliterated Greek. Hyperbole, obviously, but makes the point.

You also didn't seem to twist into addressing Aquinas, or even the argument. You feign offense, where there is no cause.

I su'prose that's to be expected. Address post 106.

Perhaps you should break down for us what your argument is proposing.

*As of now I am to understand you agree (but don't) that valid baptism is invalid and illicit is illicit, unless it's not.

*You have a problem with people not agreeing that normally-extraordinary ministers of the Sacrament incur a grave sin for conferring the Sacrament in abnormally-ordinary situations (come on, Vin, for a good prose reader such as yourself, you must recognize the goodness of that gem of a sentence): though, normally, we do not deny this, but this has nothing to do properly with the basics of sacramental theology as concerns baptism, elucidated by Aquinas, broken down, from the Summa, in post 106. In cases of those heretical sects, far removed from the days of Trent in their personal members, we recognize an ignorance which, per sacramental theology and the understanding of the Church, disallows a full charge of grave sin being done in ignorance so often.

*And somehow you're mad that we are (by your hand) reading heretical positions which, though we all likely stand guilty of our own material heresy, is objectively heretical though could be a result of your particular manner of writing, which, were we to pull books from our shelf, is claimed to be in a style we all read anyway and yet cannot understand your own brand.

*per Canon X of the (7th?) session of Trent, Christians cannot administer all the Sacraments, which we do not deny, yet, you interpret this as one Sacrament, which, as in post 106, Aquinas admits can be conferred, validly, by all, irrespective of whether or not it's licit.

*Perhaps a bullet system of outlining your grievance would shoot us down.

*Now, I have gained to employ here a variant of active listening, and would appreciate a simple response because though I and others read the same authors you reference, in a thinly-veiled jab, while appealing to charity, is, were I to call it, itself uncharitable.

ETA: bullet points.

Reply
Apologies SMKMI, I regret my comments and I take them back.  Recrimination and countercharge truly don't belong in debates but they seem to be part and parcel of it when things get heated up (don't all debates re religion end up that way?).  There must be some way to avoid this, however, this is as old as antiquity itself as those true defenders of the faith were not above hurling epithets of heresy.
Reply
Now that we have uncurled our fists can you extend a helping hand on what exactly your position is, in a manner which is broken down into parts, without the long-winded paragraphs?

It would be easiest, I think, to state a maxim you hold and then demonstrate with quoted documents or catechism.

None of us disagree that form, matter and intent is necessary for valid baptism. Our collective understanding, per the manner of Aquinas, is that if those three things are present, there is baptism. Even if the ordinary minister does not baptize, there is baptism with form, matter and intent.

Just as one could not recircumcize a baby, for the foreskin is gone, one cannot rebaptize.





Reply
(02-10-2013, 10:09 PM)Vincentius Wrote: Thanks for this SouthpawLink, but why the quibble over semantics.  The philological stunts, ostensible illusions, only cause an agitation of the mind (to many here, not mine, as I can see nobody seemed to have read the Bull Exultate Deo and the quoted statement on "Necessity).  All this displays nothing more than a philosophical rigmarole on theology.     

So "valid" is no longer acceptable in your sense of philology.  So in these kinds of debates we all have to accept and become lexicographers?

And why the reference to the Rituale Romanum?   The latest edition of 1962, revised in 1964, presumed to be the ritual to be followed, IS actually followed faithfully by the various parishes all over the world?  I doubt it.  I have been to several baptisms (infants and adults, some of which via videos taken of the ceremonies), nothing sort of what is asked for or required by proper authority is faithfully followed.  Of course everything that follows at the end of the ritual is all emotional.  The catechumens are now the new Catholics.  Well and good.

Lastly, as for your bolded comment:  who is to deny that, but yet you expect me to be in contrast since you had to make the point of emphasizing it.  Or is it simply your way of getting pats in the back from the rallying section of your group?

Vincentius,
I attempted to get to the heart of the matter and find out what you and others agree upon, because it seems to me that you guys were talking past each other.  One reason for this, I think, was that people were using the same words but applying different meanings to them.  Semantics is very important in theology; try looking up the subject "communication of idioms."*  We have to be very careful how we state what we're stating.

I read the bull and the section on necessity, but neither seemed directly relevant to our discussion, in my opinion.

I highlighted your use of valid because your phrase, "Anybody can baptize validly only in the case of necessity," can be understood in more than one sense, one of which is false, that sense also appearing to be the primary one, because we're speaking of the sacraments and "validity" has a particular meaning when it's applied to the sacraments.  Knowing that, you should have used a different word to avoid misunderstanding.

I cited the Roman Ritual as a reminder that the Church accepts valid but illicit baptisms.  I bolded the doctrinal statement so that people would easily find the main point of my post.  I would think that, as we're all Catholics, we're all on the same side.  Besides, the people with whom you have a dispute in this thread are the same people who I argue with in other threads.  Like I said earlier, there seemed to be a lot of miscommunication in this thread and I attempted to get past that with my post by identifying statements or propositions which have been the major points of contention.  I actually think that you agreed with the "other side" but that the way in which you phrased your position led to a misunderstanding.

And with that, I'm done with this thread.  Vincentius, I was not attacking you nor trying to gang up on you.  I thought I had identified the cause of confusion and posted to try and remedy that.  That's all.  God bless and have a good day!

* http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2009/10/...f.html?m=0
Reply
(02-12-2013, 02:49 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(02-10-2013, 10:09 PM)Vincentius Wrote: Thanks for this SouthpawLink, but why the quibble over semantics.  The philological stunts, ostensible illusions, only cause an agitation of the mind (to many here, not mine, as I can see nobody seemed to have read the Bull Exultate Deo and the quoted statement on "Necessity).  All this displays nothing more than a philosophical rigmarole on theology.     

So "valid" is no longer acceptable in your sense of philology.  So in these kinds of debates we all have to accept and become lexicographers?

And why the reference to the Rituale Romanum?   The latest edition of 1962, revised in 1964, presumed to be the ritual to be followed, IS actually followed faithfully by the various parishes all over the world?  I doubt it.  I have been to several baptisms (infants and adults, some of which via videos taken of the ceremonies), nothing sort of what is asked for or required by proper authority is faithfully followed.  Of course everything that follows at the end of the ritual is all emotional.  The catechumens are now the new Catholics.  Well and good.

Lastly, as for your bolded comment:  who is to deny that, but yet you expect me to be in contrast since you had to make the point of emphasizing it.  Or is it simply your way of getting pats in the back from the rallying section of your group?

Vincentius,
I attempted to get to the heart of the matter and find out what you and others agree upon, because it seems to me that you guys were talking past each other.  One reason for this, I think, was that people were using the same words but applying different meanings to them.  Semantics is very important in theology; try looking up the subject "communication of idioms."*  We have to be very careful how we state what we're stating.

I read the bull and the section on necessity, but neither seemed directly relevant to our discussion, in my opinion.

I highlighted your use of valid because your phrase, "Anybody can baptize validly only in the case of necessity," can be understood in more than one sense, one of which is false, that sense also appearing to be the primary one, because we're speaking of the sacraments and "validity" has a particular meaning when it's applied to the sacraments.  Knowing that, you should have used a different word to avoid misunderstanding.

I cited the Roman Ritual as a reminder that the Church accepts valid but illicit baptisms.  I bolded the doctrinal statement so that people would easily find the main point of my post.  I would think that, as we're all Catholics, we're all on the same side.  Besides, the people with whom you have a dispute in this thread are the same people who I argue with in other threads.  Like I said earlier, there seemed to be a lot of miscommunication in this thread and I attempted to get past that with my post by identifying statements or propositions which have been the major points of contention.  I actually think that you agreed with the "other side" but that the way in which you phrased your position led to a misunderstanding.

And with that, I'm done with this thread.  Vincentius, I was not attacking you nor trying to gang up on you.  I thought I had identified the cause of confusion and posted to try and remedy that.  That's all.  God bless and have a good day!

* http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2009/10/...f.html?m=0

Thank you SouthpawLink for your comments which I think might put a lot of the misconceptions and the problem of understanding -- finding and using the mot juste (" the exact, appropriate word") -- in their proper context.

I am saying exactly what you are all saying but perhaps it is not read the way you all want it to be read and understood.  I think the consensus here is to have to say it EXACTLY the way you say it, word for word, or else no go, it's up for grabs.

To recap.

I wrote:  "So the principle of 'anybody' can baptize is valid only in cases of emergency or necessity, otherwise 'anybody' is not permitted by the Church to perform the Sacrament of baptism 'ex officio' (by right of office)."

You replied:  "— The word you're looking for here is either true or licit; using "valid" here will only confuse others as to your meaning.  Because nearly all Trinitarian baptisms performed by Protestants, none of whom are ordinary ministers, are done so outside of the case of necessity — and as the Holy Office teaches (cited earlier in the thread) — this circumstance doesn't call their validity into question."

I'm not sure that they are not considered "ordinary" ministers and their baptisms are not "outside necessity" since the Catholic Church accepts them prima facie, and this is perhaps the primary reason for their agreement to recognize each other's baptisms without the need for going to the "conditional" route.  They are "ordinary" ministers in that sense.

For the sake of comparison to distinguish any difference (slight or considerable) between true, licit and valid as you indicated regarding the proper use of words in this discourse, if one needs to be scrupulous about it:

You said *valid* is the wrong choice of word that I used because it might confuse the meaning, but elsewhere in your post (#162) you use "valid" sparingly.. 

true:--

*being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false: a true story.
*real; genuine; authentic:


licit:--

*legal; lawful; legitimate; permissible

valid:--

*having force, weight, or cogency; authoritative.
*legally sound, effective, or binding; having legal force: a valid contract.
*Logic. (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction.

To continue,
I wrote:  "So the phrase 'anybody can baptize' cannot be true in its proper meaning because the only time anybody can baptize is when the need for it arises.  On the other hand, as you define it, " 'anybody can baptize' [u]validly[/u] holds true but the baptism is illicit."  [I use the word "true" in its proper context here; OTOH, the second sentence is in the same context]

Then you wrote: 
"— The only time 'anyone can baptize' licitly is when there is a case of necessity (which you understand to be the "proper meaning").  You seem to admit this in your second sentence.  The point others have been trying to make is that a valid (i.e. proper form, matter, intent) but illicit baptism still remits original and actual sin, and confers sanctifying grace on the soul (provided no obstacle is placed by the recipient).

Is the bolded statement agreeable to all here?"

I replied elsewhere in the affirmative.  As for the "provided no obstacle is placed by the recipient" which was my contention all along unfortunately was misunderstood or misinterpreted as "no provision is necessary to effect the Sacrament."  Anybody can baptize was the take on this.  Period.  And the disagreements followed.

So then there doesn't seem to be a disagreement, only in the choice of words, which is unfortunate.  But that's what debates are all about.  Many times both sides proffer the same premise or proposition which shouldn't be a  cause for disagreement; however, there are many who would for the sake of arguing, confound matters by the choice of words and make things complicated (adding fuel to fire).

I don't particularly see how the statement, as somebody here has commented:  "it is not that hard to read 'lay people can only validly baptize in cases of necessity'  as 'lay people MUST not do what it takes to perform a valid baptism, except in cases of necessity,' " -- is not understood as written.  I am only stating what the Church teaches regarding what is necessary and required to have a valid (true) Baptism in cases of "necessity."  And what exactly is it that the Church says what "necessity" is, or why the need to make known and declare its provision.  Further, I stated that the Church makes it clear that Baptism is to be performed by ministers of the Sacrament and lay people are [u]not[/u] given that right, in normal circumstances.  Yet, if one performs the baptism against what the Church intends, the baptism is still valid, regardless that it is illicit (which does not connote "invalidity").

But I see -- as I have seen all along -- that the question here in this discussion is about conferring baptism by anybody outside the Church's precepts to be a true and valid baptism, although outside of the state of emergency (imminent death), it is not lawful -- not licit.  I don't think I ever stated the contrary, except that -- what has been misunderstood: that there are certain conditions that would make the baptism invalid (not true) and one of these is the refusal and denial of the person being baptized ("an obstacle is placed by the recipient").  Am I to understand that regardless whether the recipient of this baptism firmly refuses (N.B.:  not a case of necessity), the baptism is still true and valid albeit illicit?  That the baptism takes effect and the recipient is actually baptized with all the privileges and rights of the graces afforded by this baptism?  The conundrum or puzzling question is simply that your side fails to see what I am trying to say. 

The above scenario is hypothetical and somebody in the throes of death would be foolish and presumptuous to say "I don't want to be baptized, I don't believe in it."  But not improbable.  Now, to make this clear, is there a true (valid) baptism and is there a true bestowal of the graces that the Sacrament imparts?  This is what I understand what we are arguing about and disagreeing with, that baptism can be conferred regardless?

Let me then ask: --

In a not too dissimilar scenario, say a person who has been born and raised a Catholic (baptized) but later in life rejects the faith, becomes an agnostic, atheist, and even an apostate, is on his deathbed.  In such throes, the anguish and torment of approaching death, he realizes that he is doomed, nevertheless, since having been previously a Catholic, in his subconscious he knows something about "salvation," the existence of an afterlife and what he is about to lose is his "salvation," but having lived a life of apostasy, remains adamant, and his family, good Catholics, who have known of his life of debauchery, calls a priest to give him his last rites.  This man refuses, though who is now in a state of mental torpor and disorientation, the priest nonetheless proceeds with the Last Sacrament. The question is, did Extreme Unction and the priest's absolution save him -- were the effects of the Sacrament truly conferred the graces it imparts?  Or should the priest simply get up and leave since it is said "he who believes not is not saved."  It is futile situation.  Is the Sacrament of Baptism so different from the Sacraments of Penance and Holy Eucharist?  He who goes to confession without the intention of amending his life and resolving not to sin again, and falls into the same licentiousness as before when he enters the confessional does not receive the graces of Penance, absolution is not efficacious but actually this confession aggravates his sin.  The same goes for receiving Holy Communion:  he who does not believe in the Real Presence does not receive any graces but actually condemns himself.  (St. Paul 1 Cor 11, 27,29)

In the final analysis, and as a footnote to the impasse, I think what I have conveyed here still would not be as clear and transparent as we all would like it to be, though I hope the preceding would be understood as speaking coherently and without disagreement -- or else, this matter will never be put to rest.  It will merely prolong the agony inflicted on both sides.

Some observations:

Quote:“The minister of this sacrament is the priest, to whom it belongs to baptize by reason of his office.  In case of necessity, however, not only a priest or deacon, but even a layman or woman, nay, even a pagan or heretic can baptize, provide he observes the form used by the Church, and intends to perform what the Church performs. The effect of this sacrament is the remission of all sin, original and actual; likewise of all punishment which is due for sin. As a consequence, no satisfaction for past sins is enjoined upon those who are baptized; and if they die before committing any sin, they attain immediately to the kingdom of Heaven and the vision of God”  -- Exultate Deo

Quote:The Church distinguishes between the ordinary and the extraordinary minister of baptism. A distinction is also made as to the mode of administration. Solemn baptism is that which is conferred with all the rites and ceremonies prescribed by the Church, and private baptism is that which may be administered at any time or place according to the exigencies of necessity.  -- CE

FURTHER
1* The right to confer baptism belongs to the chief priest who is the bishop, then to priests and deacons, but not without the authorization of the bishop. 

2*  It is to be noted that though every priest, in virtue of his ordination is the ordinary minister of baptism, yet by ecclesiastical decrees he can not use this power licitly unless he has jurisdiction. Hence the Roman Ritual declares: The legitimate minister of baptism is the parish priest, or any other priest delegated by the parish priest or the bishop of the place." The Second Plenary Council of Baltimore adds: "Priests are deserving of grave reprehension who rashly baptize infants of another parish or of another diocese." St. Alphonsus (n. 114) says that parents who bring their children for baptism without necessity to a priest other than their own pastor, are guilty of sin because they violate the rights of the parish priest. He adds, however, that other priests may baptize such children, if they have the permission, whether express, or tacit, or even reasonably presumed, of the proper pastor. Those who have no settled place of abode may be baptized by the pastor of any church they choose.

3* In case of necessity, baptism can be administered lawfully and validly by any person whatsoever who observes the essential conditions, whether this person be a Catholic layman or any other man or woman, heretic or schismatic, infidel or Jew.    (From the CE)


Controversial Recipient

4*  An atheist has made a lifelong study of the Bible in order to refute and attack it. Unexpectedly he learns that he has only three months to live. After reflecting upon his own mortality in a manner more serious than he ever has before, he decides to be baptized for the forgiveness of his sins. When asked if he has actually been converted to Christianity, he answers, “No, but the Bible teaches that this action is necessary, and at this point in my life I don’t need God (if He exists) as my enemy.”

5* Some teenage boys at a summer Bible camp are swimming in the lake. One of the boys is not a Christian. Suddenly two “friends” attack him. One crouches behind him, and the other pushes him backward. After the tangled bodies surface for air, the victim shouts, “What’s the matter with you guys? What do you think you’re doing?” They reply, “Well, you’ve never obeyed the Gospel; we just decided you needed a little help in being baptized.”

Thanks again SouthpawLink.  All in good faith.  Perhaps we should put all this aside and concentrate on Our Lord's Passion, which is more salutary than any other at the moment.

u.i.o.g.d.
That God may be glorified in all things.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)