Posted on 02/04/2013 7:12:54 AM PST by marshmallow
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 ~
“Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.”
Ya hear that, Cronos?
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.
As a Baptist let me say, “Dunkin’ is the only way”.
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.
THIS one is the One World Church/religion.
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.
(We probably recognize your baptism, too, if it was by immersion or pouring and your minister used the words, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit".)
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.
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.
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.
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?"
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?
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)
If you are baptised as per “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”, then your baptism is recognized as biblical.
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...
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.
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.