Posted on 09/17/2010 1:53:50 PM PDT by NYer
That was not the options that you presented.
Everyone claims to be catholic. Catholic means different things to different Christians. I suspect, although I am not certain, what you mean is Roman Catholic. If that is what you mean by catholic, the Anglican church is Protestant.
The problem is that the common teaching, at least as far as Roman Catholics are concerned, is that only a Baptism by a Priest ordained by a Roman Catholic Bishop is “valid.”
I respect their belief, however, and don’t argue it. I just disagree, and consider my Baptism, by a Priest of the Anglican Communion, valid. I just don’t make a big deal of it.
The problem is that the common teaching, at least as far as Roman Catholics are concerned, is that only a Baptism by a Priest ordained by a Roman Catholic Bishop is “valid.”Nope. The problem is that what so many people THINK they KNOW about what the Church teaches just 'tain't so. Like your belief. Here is the TRUTH:
1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.[57] In case of necessity, any person, even someone not baptized, can baptize, if he has the required intention. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.
I”m not sure I’m following ... The Catholic church considers any baptism valid as long as its done in the trinitarian form. (father, son, spirit). even lay people can perform a baptism in the event of an emergency.
Almost right, the form, matter and intent all have to be present. That quibble aside, you are right.
You wrote:
“Is English your second language? I cannot make any sense of what you saying. There must be translation problem.”
The problem of understanding is all yours. No one else has had that problem thus far. I suggest you try the hooked on phonics series - that seems to be about your level from what I’ve seen of children. Try it for a few months and get back to me.
A heretic with a common baptism?
You bet... And while humans mark time and experience time the same... God (all billions of years in service you know) blinks and a thousand of our years pass.
You are absolutely wrong about the roman catholic definition baptism... Many non-Catholic baptisms are deemed perfectly valid by the church including those of the Anglican and Lutheran traditions.
Maybe the problem is all mine. That is always a possibility. I will share your comments with others and see if I am the only one that cannot understand your assertions. Maybe they can make sense of them.
You wrote:
“Maybe the problem is all mine. That is always a possibility. I will share your comments with others and see if I am the only one that cannot understand your assertions. Maybe they can make sense of them.”
Feel free to do so. And since it will be the usual peanut gallery of posters you’ll be sharing it with I know there’s a great chance that they too will suddenly be unable to comprehend the written word.
If you don’t understand that Anglicans share a common baptism with Catholics... I really can’t help you.
Thanks for posting the background on the common baptism.
This is probably a waste of time on my part, but before you can have share a common baptism, you must first have a valid baptism. Does the Anglican community have a valid baptism? Is being baptized in the name of the Mother, Child, and Womb a valid baptism?
I absolutely welcome that correction.
I will amend my statement in this way:
My experience has been that my Baptism, which was performed by an Anglican Priest, is often considered invalid by Roman Catholics.
This leads me to ask, “If the Baptism is considered valid, why can those people not be considered Catholics?”
By no means am I attempting to incite an argument with Roman Catholics. I think by now people know I side with the Roman Catholics more often than not, and consider myself Catholic. I am just curious what you think of this aspect.
As I said to other posters who have offered correction, I appreciate it. Like many others, I am a victim of common teachings that are, apparently, wrong.
I do wonder, however, why so many Roman Catholics voice their opinions that I have not been Baptized because it was by an Anglican, rather than a Roman Catholic priest.
How does this influence the ability of those Baptized in the Anglican Communion to take the Eucharist at a Roman Catholic Church?
I was not talking about those, such as yourself, that have left the Episcopal Church. I commend you on your decision, and I suspect that it must not have been an easy one. There is much about the Anglican Church that I have found attractive. I was referring to those, such as the Scottish Episcopal Church, that have decided to rid itself of masculine references to God. Not that long ago I would never have questioned the validity of a baptism in the Episcopal or Anglican community. Today, I have to ask in what Name were you baptized?
Gotcha.
For what it is worth, it was an exceptionally easy choice. I started attending St. Vincent’s Cathedral just prior to the split, when all the REASONS for the split were being discussed. I was disgusted by what I heard, and was 100% behind the decision to split.
I didn’t have years and years of “loyalty to the Church” holding me back. I was able to focus on my loyalty to Christ and support a decision that truly honored Him, rather than a decision which would demean Him and His sacrifice.
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.