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 ...
“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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
isn’t that the methodists or something?
...’gimme that old one-world religion’...
“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.
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.
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
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".
Nope, not offended, just that acknowledgement that Presbyterians follow the Trinitarian baptism is not “principles mean nothing; go-along-to-get-along”
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.