Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

USCCB, 4 Protestant Communities Agree to Recognize One Anotherís Baptisms
Catholic Culture ^ | 2/4/13

Posted on 02/04/2013 7:12:54 AM PST by marshmallow

Representatives of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Presbyterian Church-USA, the Christian Reformed Church in North America, the Reformed Church in America, and the United Church of Christ have signed an agreement formally pledging to recognize one another’s baptisms when water and the Trinitarian formula are used.

In 1948, the Holy Office declared that “baptism conferred in the sects of the Disciples of Christ, the Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, [and] Methodists” is “presumed as valid unless in a particular case it is proven to the contrary,” as long as “the necessary matter and form have been used.”

In 1993, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity called for ecumenical agreements about baptism, noting that

baptism is conferred with water and with a formula which clearly indicates that baptism is done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is therefore of the utmost importance for all the disciples of Christ that baptism be administered in this manner by all and that the various Churches and ecclesial Communities arrive as closely as possible at an agreement about its significance and valid celebration.

(Excerpt) Read more at catholicculture.org ...


TOPICS: Catholic; Evangelical Christian; Mainline Protestant; Theology
KEYWORDS: baptisms

1 posted on 02/04/2013 7:13:00 AM PST by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Where is Vlad ~ he's the sort who doesn't believe this sort of thing goes on ~ leastwise he's never been informed so it jus' can't be!

Been telling him all along that the Pope and I agree on a lot of things ~ one of them is that we have each been properly baptised ~

2 posted on 02/04/2013 7:20:47 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

“Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.”


3 posted on 02/04/2013 7:29:41 AM PST by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Representatives of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Presbyterian Church-USA, the Christian Reformed Church in North America, the Reformed Church in America, and the United Church of Christ have signed an agreement formally pledging to recognize one another’s baptisms when water and the Trinitarian formula are used.

Ya hear that, Cronos?

4 posted on 02/04/2013 7:39:26 AM PST by Alex Murphy ("If you are not firm in faith, you will not be firm at all" - Isaiah 7:9)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

After repenting of my sins and accepting Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior I was baptised by my Pastor in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Whether any given church accepts this baptism or not is totally irrelevant to me. That Jesus accepts is all that matters - and I know he does.


5 posted on 02/04/2013 7:47:56 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

As a Baptist let me say, “Dunkin’ is the only way”.


6 posted on 02/04/2013 7:58:16 AM PST by chesley (Vast deserts of political ignorance makes liberalism possible - James Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

What we see in what passes for a catholic church mirrors EXACTLY what is going on in Versailles-on-the-Potomac. Principles mean nothing; go-along-to get-along is the order of the day and they sure don’t want to be excluded from the cocktail circuit.

It is a slippery road to oblivion for both bishops and politicians who one day will be judged on their actions. Scary enough for us common folk, much less those who have great responsibilities.


7 posted on 02/04/2013 8:06:58 AM PST by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NTHockey
Everything in The Book Of Revelation (of Jesus Christ) is starting to coelesce.

THIS one is the One World Church/religion.

8 posted on 02/04/2013 8:21:54 AM PST by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

While the Catholics accept Baptist baptisms, it’s not necessarily the other way around. This is because of the Baptist doctrine of adult baptism. In theory, the Catholic rite of confirmation is the equivalent of Baptist baptism. Conversely, while Baptists don’t have a sacrament of infant baptism, Baptist churches usually have some kind of ceremony in which the parents pledge to raise the child in the faith and the congregation pledges to help them do so. Jews, analogously, have infant circumcision (dedication to God) and adult bar mitzah (acceptance of the law).

IMHO Jesus was circumcised dedicated on his eighth day, and baptized as an adult, so, that should be the way it is for us.


9 posted on 02/04/2013 8:36:18 AM PST by Redmen4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf
Rome has recognized non-Catholic baptisms since the Donatist controversy was settled in the 4th Century. Your "Book of Revelation coelescing [sic]" has been going on for a long time.

(We probably recognize your baptism, too, if it was by immersion or pouring and your minister used the words, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit".)

10 posted on 02/04/2013 9:02:46 AM PST by Campion ("Social justice" begins in the womb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
That's not really a new thing. My understanding is that American Presbyterians recognized Roman baptisms as valid until sometime in the mid-19th century.
In 1948, the Holy Office declared that “baptism conferred in the sects of the Disciples of Christ, the Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, [and] Methodists” is “presumed as valid unless in a particular case it is proven to the contrary,” as long as “the necessary matter and form have been used.”

Yup, be careful on that. I've heard of some substituting gender neutral language in baptism. Something along the line of "Parent, Child and..." Eeech. I can't even finish it.

11 posted on 02/04/2013 9:49:01 AM PST by Lee N. Field ("You keep using that verse, but I do not think it means what you think it means." --I. Montoya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lee N. Field
Yup, be careful on that. I've heard of some substituting gender neutral language in baptism. Something along the line of "Parent, Child and..." Eeech. I can't even finish it.

There are a variety of heretical formulations; the one I have heard most often is "creator, redeemer, and sanctifier" ...

We (Catholics) reject it utterly; I believe that most sane Protestants do as well, and for obvious reasons. It's not from Scripture, and it expresses an unorthodox (Modalist, if you're keeping score) (mis)understanding of the Blessed Trinity.

12 posted on 02/04/2013 9:54:54 AM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet; marsh-mellow

Guys:

This is not a bad thing, in fact, it is a reminder to those 4 Protestant traditions, two of which [PUSA and UCC] have been moving to unorthodox views of the Trinity and Baptism [I am speaking Faith here, not politics], that moving further away on this point would result in Baptisms from those 2 traditions being viewed similar to the Oneness Pentecostals and Mormon Baptisms, which are “null and void”.

Rome only agrees to that what is doctrinally true here, that is the Doctrine of the Trinity and and the form and matter used in Baptisms, Trinitarian forumula and Water.

Nothing to get into debates with the “usual suspects” among the Protestant Bridgades here on FR.


13 posted on 02/04/2013 11:05:48 AM PST by CTrent1564
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Redmen4ever
While the Catholics accept Baptist baptisms, it’s not necessarily the other way around.

Baptists don't always accept other baptist immersings. But, they're usually quite cool with doing it over, as many times as necessary.

This is because of the Baptist doctrine of adult baptism. In theory, the Catholic rite of confirmation is the equivalent of Baptist baptism. Conversely, while Baptists don’t have a sacrament of infant baptism, Baptist churches usually have some kind of ceremony in which the parents pledge to raise the child in the faith and the congregation pledges to help them do so. Jews, analogously, have infant circumcision (dedication to God) and adult bar mitzah (acceptance of the law).

The curious baptist rite of baby dedication. "Samuel was dedicated." "Ok. So?"

14 posted on 02/04/2013 3:36:11 PM PST by Lee N. Field ("You keep using that verse, but I do not think it means what you think it means." --I. Montoya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Representatives of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Presbyterian Church-USA, the Christian Reformed Church in North America, the Reformed Church in America, and the United Church of Christ have signed an agreement formally pledging to recognize one another’s baptisms when water and the Trinitarian formula are used.

Interesting group, BTW. Three mainline groups, of Presbyterian/Reformed background, and the ex-conservative CRCNA which is scurrying as fast as it's little legs can take it in mainline liberal direction. (We still get the CRC denominational rag, somehow. It's distressing to watch.)

Being that the Romish side of the equation is the USCCB, how official is this?

15 posted on 02/04/2013 3:44:34 PM PST by Lee N. Field ("You keep using that verse, but I do not think it means what you think it means." --I. Montoya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lee N. Field
I actually don't "get it." The Catholic Church accepts ALL Christian baptism as valid, and has since before the Council Of Nicaea, which is a good long time.

The only exceptions being,

When my husband (baptized Baptist) and I (baptized Catholic) got married (Catholic Sacrament of Matrimony), all he needed was a document or statement from his church, stating that he was baptized.

So what, if anything, has changed? Sounds like nothing's changed. So why would the USCCB be signing it?

(scratching head, sniffing the air for carbohrdrates)

16 posted on 02/04/2013 4:18:49 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("You can observe a lot just by watchin' . - Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Unitarian Universalists of Wellesley to host auction -- Ya hear that, Alex?
17 posted on 02/05/2013 12:56:56 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

If you are baptised as per “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”, then your baptism is recognized as biblical.


18 posted on 02/05/2013 12:58:08 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: knarf
THIS one is the One World Church/religion.

What are you talking about? This is recognizing that the other groups have baptised their members in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that's it

you want to see about the One World religion, then see consumerism...

19 posted on 02/05/2013 12:59:17 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NTHockey
Principles mean nothing; go-along-to get-along

What are you talking about? This is recognizing that the other groups have baptised their members in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that's it. you think it's wrong to recognize commonalities?

If you talk between two communities, isn't it important, before talking of differences (no matter how many) to focus on what is common? For instance, between Presbyterian and Assemblies of God Pentecostal there are differences, but not in the baptismal formula -- but there is a wider difference between Presbyterians and Oneness Pentecostals who baptise only in the name of Jesus (they reject the Trinity).

Recognizing commonality is not compromise, rather it's the basis for human dialogue or even acknowledgement of differences as opposed to demonisation.

20 posted on 02/05/2013 1:10:27 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Redmen4ever

“This is because of the Baptist doctrine of adult baptism.”

I think that is more correctly called BELIEVERS’ baptism. Some of those who are baptised are children who are old enough to understand and accept the Gospel, but could, for instance be aged as low as 7 or 8, ie definitely not adults.


21 posted on 02/05/2013 1:24:40 AM PST by Diapason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
I was born in 1948 in a burb of Boston, Ma. to a Catholic family. My best friend was Congregational and I wasn't allowed to go to youth Fellowship because he wasn't Catholic.

Not that I wasn't Congregational ... he wasn't Catholic.

THAT is the attitude (and "theology?" ) the Catholic church programmed.

Fulton Sheen was a regular on our TV

We couldn't eat meast on Fridays and there was more than one time we six boys were enough for my father to lose his patience on Sunday morming, throw some words out of his mouth that forced him to declare he couldn't go to church and receive communion, thanks to US.

None of us knew what what was going on because it was in Latin and Sister St Eclaire made us kneel up straight and no talking during children's mass

After mass. we walked over to the Catholic school for Sunday school and could,'t yawn because we opened our mouth in front of sister eclaire and if we covered our mouth to yawn, we had to take our hands away from our mouths.


Don't try to give ME no modern day compromise that now it's all okey dokey to recognize another religion's way of baptism.

Gazillions of Catholics of my era (and earlier) toed a hard line of obedience and guilt for years.

THIS ex-Catholic got saved in 1981 and understood the sharia STYLE (don't misunderstand my comment, Cronos) of religion I had been taught and the freedom of the torn veil Jesus had provided.

22 posted on 02/05/2013 1:31:37 AM PST by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: knarf
Actually, you got saved when Christ died for your sins. You were baptised into Christ's salvation and you affirmed it at confirmation.

Don't try to give ME no modern day compromise that now it's all okey dokey to recognize another religion's way of baptism. -- hardly okey-dokey or compromise, the fact is that valid Trinitarian baptisms are recognized.

you weren't allowed to go to a fellow ship camp because of the same programming that got you into the Sufi style that happened in 1981

23 posted on 02/05/2013 2:07:09 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: knarf
None of us knew what what was going on because it was in Latin and Sister St Eclaire made us kneel up straight and no talking during children's mass

After mass. we walked over to the Catholic school for Sunday school and could,'t yawn because we opened our mouth in front of sister eclaire and if we covered our mouth to yawn, we had to take our hands away from our mouths.

So, there was discipline in your Sunday school -- and is it preferable to have the chaos of a modern day public school?

Sheesh, during your time education taught students something, the basics instead of it being a free-for-all chaos. And you reject that? why?

24 posted on 02/05/2013 2:09:15 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
You're not listeniung and doing exactly what I was commenting against.

NO ONE TALKED OR TRHOUGHT THAT WAY BACK THEN !!!!!


YOU are the one that learned the Jesuit apologetic arguments back in the sixties .... probably from a re-formed Sufi.

25 posted on 02/05/2013 2:18:36 AM PST by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

I’ll explain; but don’t blame me if you are offended, it is the Catholic response. Protestanism grew out of dissension with the Catholic Church. If Protestants baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost with the INTENTION (emphasis mine) of performing what the Church performs”, it is true Baptism. (Council of Trent) The intention must be present to be a sacrament.

I am NOT opposed to conversions and acceptance of Catholic doctrines and teaching. I DO oppose reaching “across the aisle”, so to speak, and letting the dissent stand.


26 posted on 02/05/2013 2:44:03 AM PST by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Lee N. Field

isn’t that the methodists or something?


27 posted on 02/05/2013 4:06:16 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

...’gimme that old one-world religion’...


28 posted on 02/05/2013 4:08:24 AM PST by who knows what evil? (G-d saved more animals than people on the ark...www.siameserescue.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

“have signed an agreement formally pledging to recognize one another’s baptisms when water and the Trinitarian formula are used. “

As if paperwork is part of the salvation of souls. This is pretty amusing.

As with big government, it always has to be “their way” so they can capture the revenue stream and co-opt God’s promise to their financial benefit.

With this move, they’ve agreed to a Joint-Venture partnership to cross-brand market each others product in hopes of growing the customer base to each of the JV members benefit.

Somewhere in there is concern for the souls, which may or may not actually be genuine.


29 posted on 02/05/2013 4:34:24 AM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diapason

You are correct. A person does not have to be an adult, but only of the age of consent. This is similar to the Catholic sacrament of confirmation, and to the Jewish rite of bar mitzah. By tradition, a boy - considered to be a young adult - bar mitzah’s at age 13, and a girl at age 12 plus 1 day. As for me, I don’t see that Jesus was bar mitzah’d. Rather, he was circumcised on the 8th day and baptized as an adult. Baptism, according to Baptists, is a sacrament of forgiveness envisioned as re-birth. It should seal the deal. At that time, even though you will undoubtedly continue to sin, your sins are forgiven. This is not a license to sin. We sin because we are weak and ignorant, but we commit ourselves to follow Jesus although we know we will not do so perfectly. Baptism at the time of Jesus was a bit different. It, too, signified forgiveness. This would include ritual washing as after a woman’s period or after touching something unclean. These baptisms would be periodic. If anything, Muslims are even more adamant washing. But, the baptism of Jesus portrayed in the bible is a special immersion. In this form of immersion you signify whose interpretation of scripture you will follow. For example. Rabbi Hillel or Rabbi Shammai. This is why John said to Jesus, you should baptize me, as John was merely the herald and Jesus is our great teacher. But Jesus said he needed to be baptized. So, if we follow Jesus, baptism is a sign both of forgiveness and that we follow his interpretation of scripture. According to Maimonides, both circumcision and baptism are good, circumcision representing dedication to the law, and baptism forgiveness. But, of the two, baptism is better.


30 posted on 02/05/2013 5:45:26 AM PST by Redmen4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: knarf
Don't try to give ME no modern day compromise that now it's all okey dokey to recognize another religion's way of baptism

Don't try to give me the usual ex-Catholic load of manure that you know more about my faith than I do, by virtue of having walked away from it.

This "modern-day compromise" to which you refer was taught infallibly by Trent back in the fifties ... the fifteen fifties, that is. It was also taught by St Augustine in the 5th century, various Popes, etc.

I'm sorry Sister Whatever was more interested in how you yawned than she was in teaching you the Faith, but that doesn't change the content of the faith.

Persons who actually interested in learning what the church teaches (as opposed to those who confuse defection with education) may enjoy this essay

31 posted on 02/05/2013 5:54:26 AM PST by Campion ("Social justice" begins in the womb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
isn’t that the methodists or something?

Could be any number of different groups. A lot of mainline protestant denominations harbor weird feminist groups. Google up, for an example, "Voices of Sophia".

32 posted on 02/05/2013 9:50:01 AM PST by Lee N. Field ("You keep using that verse, but I do not think it means what you think it means." --I. Montoya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: NTHockey

Nope, not offended, just that acknowledgement that Presbyterians follow the Trinitarian baptism is not “principles mean nothing; go-along-to-get-along”


33 posted on 02/06/2013 12:07:03 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson