# Roman Catholic Bishops to Vote on Baptism Agreement with "Reformed Christians"



## Marrow Man (Nov 11, 2010)

A friend of mine posted this link on his Facebook page. He thought it was a good idea (he's getting all ecumenical I suppose).

The "Reformed groups," btw are the PC(USA), the CRC, the UCC, and the RCA. I realize there are some Reformed folks still in those denominations, but that ship sailed a long time ago with most. In fact, it is my understanding that the UCC would laugh at you if you called them "Reformed." Of course, they are all part of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, but as the Missus says, just because you stand in a garage doesn't make you a car.


----------



## AThornquist (Nov 11, 2010)

They are fully immersed in heresy.


----------



## kvanlaan (Nov 11, 2010)

We left the CRC for just this sort of thing, but there are indeed faithful members and faithful churches in the denomination. I don't know that I would put them down as 'fully immersed in heresy', though that does seem to label most in that list fairly well.


----------



## AThornquist (Nov 11, 2010)

By that lame pun I did not mean that every church or individual within those denominations is a heretic, or that those denominations equally deserve the given description. I was probably too general and thus not entirely accurate.


----------



## buggy (Nov 11, 2010)

Doesn't the RCC already accept any baptism as valid as long as it is Trinitarian? I think the actual issue is whether the Reformed side would accept Roman Catholic baptisms. (Which not everyone does)
Hmm, isn't the CRC supposed to be more evangelical in doctrine?


----------



## au5t1n (Nov 11, 2010)

AThornquist said:


> By that lame pun I did not mean that every church or individual within those denominations is a heretic, or that those denominations equally deserve the given description. I was probably too general and thus not entirely accurate.


 
Next time you should wait to say they are immersed in heresy until you have known them long enough to make an honest assessment of the sincerity of their profession of heresy.


----------



## AThornquist (Nov 11, 2010)

austinww said:


> AThornquist said:
> 
> 
> > By that lame pun I did not mean that every church or individual within those denominations is a heretic, or that those denominations equally deserve the given description. I was probably too general and thus not entirely accurate.
> ...


 

 That was great.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 11, 2010)

Wonder what Benedict thinks.

Didn't he denounce all others except those who were RC?


----------



## Ivan (Nov 11, 2010)

Sad thread.


----------



## Jack K (Nov 11, 2010)

Okay, and I was of the impression most Reformed/Presbyterian groups already accept most Trinitarian baptisms, not because these groups are liberal Catholic-lovers, but because the legitimacy of a baptism is not tied to the quality of the church is which it was performed, nor the faithfulness of the minister who performs it. When I read the article, it seemed to me the issue was the Catholics argeeing to accept non-Catholic baptisms. The Catholics want to make sure liberal-minded factions in the Reformed community stick to the Father-Son-Spirit language, which is one thing I think we'd all argee the Catholics are actually right to insist upon.

I'm no fan of liberal-leaning churches or knee-jerk ecumenicism. But in this case I don't see where these Reformed denominations are giving up any theological ground. I suppose maybe we'd be inclined to criticize them for just generally being cozy with Catholics and giving an appearance of friendship that might lead to worse things. But it seems to me the only change in practice these Reformed churches are making is agreeing to stick with biblical baptism language, which is actually a good change.


----------



## dudley (Nov 12, 2010)

Jack K said:


> Okay, and I was of the impression most Reformed/Presbyterian groups already accept most Trinitarian baptisms, not because these groups are liberal Catholic-lovers, but because the legitimacy of a baptism is not tied to the quality of the church is which it was performed, nor the faithfulness of the minister who performs it. When I read the article, it seemed to me the issue was the Catholics argeeing to accept non-Catholic baptisms. The Catholics want to make sure liberal-minded factions in the Reformed community stick to the Father-Son-Spirit language, which is one thing I think we'd all argee the Catholics are actually right to insist upon.
> 
> I'm no fan of liberal-leaning churches or knee-jerk ecumenicism. But in this case I don't see where these Reformed denominations are giving up any theological ground. I suppose maybe we'd be inclined to criticize them for just generally being cozy with Catholics and giving an appearance of friendship that might lead to worse things. But it seems to me the only change in practice these Reformed churches are making is agreeing to stick with biblical baptism language, which is actually a good change.



I agree with Jack and would like to add that The Presbyterian congregation I joined and all the Presbyterian churches I explored accepted my Roman catholic baptism. 

However, Baptists view the papist baptism as not a valid as to one who is Scripturally baptized, (even though he was once a recipient of the "so-called papist baptism)," is not being re-baptized, but is in truth being baptized for the FIRST time!

As I said my Presbyterian congregation accepted my Roman Catholic baptism. However I did renounce my Roman Catholicism and the pope before an elder and the pastor at a private question session before I made a public confession of faith in front of the congregation a few Sundays later and was received into the Presbyterian church and Reformed Protestantism.


----------



## yeutter (Nov 12, 2010)

The historic standard of the Roman Catholic Church is that for a Baptism to be valid three things must occur. The Baptism must use water. [Thus a Quaker spiritual Baptism without water would not be valid.] The Baptism must use the right words; in English that would be "in the name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Ghost." Baptism in the name of "the Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer of the World." is not valid. The Baptism must be done with Trinitarian intent. Some cult that uses the right words but holds to Some non Trinitarian conception of God can not administer valid Baptism. St Augustine viewed Novation and Donatist Baptism as valid. He held they were schismatics not heretics. St. Augustine held that Arian Baptism was not valid, even if they used the right words, because they were heretics. Likewise we view Moonie, Christian Science, Jehovah's Witness and Mormon baptism as not valid because they are heretics..


----------



## Marrow Man (Nov 12, 2010)

AThornquist said:


> They are fully immersed in heresy.



Impossible, since none of those denominations are Baptist.


----------



## dudley (Nov 12, 2010)

yeutter said:


> The historic standard of the Roman Catholic Church is that for a Baptism to be valid three things must occur. The Baptism must use water. [Thus a Quaker spiritual Baptism without water would not be valid.] The Baptism must use the right words; in English that would be "in the name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Ghost." Baptism in the name of "the Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer of the World." is not valid. The Baptism must be done with Trinitarian intent. Some cult that uses the right words but holds to Some non Trinitarian conception of God can not administer valid Baptism. St Augustine viewed Novation and Donatist Baptism as valid. He held they were schismatics not heretics. St. Augustine held that Arian Baptism was not valid, even if they used the right words, because they were heretics. Likewise we view Moonie, Christian Science, Jehovah's Witness and Mormon baptism as not valid because they are heretics..



I generally agree with what you said. I am now a Presbyterian but I am an ex Roman catholic and that church has always taught the following in regards to Baptism. The priest, or deacon is the usual minister and while there are many rituals added to the ceremony of Baptism by the Roman catholic church she follows a very simple procedure in the event of an Emergency. 

In an emergency any baptized Christian may administer Baptism but according to the following recommendations.

What Constitutes an Emergency
It is an emergency if all of the following statements are true:
The candidate urgently requests baptism. 
Despite having received the best available medical attention, the candidate is reasonably worried that they might die. 
You have tried and failed to contact a member of the clergy, or a member of the clergy cannot arrive in time.
If you want the baptism to meet the requirements for as many churches as possible, it must have the following three features:
You must have the intention of performing a valid baptism. 
For example, if children are playing church or if you perform a baptism as part of a play, or you are horsing around in a swimming pool, it is not a valid baptism. 
Water must be involved. 
Immersion is valid in all churches, but since this is an emergency, that is probably not practical. Instead, pour water on the candidate’s head three times. (This instruction goes back to the first-century document called the Didache, or the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.) Sprinkling the water, daubing water on the candidate’s forehead, or pouring the water only once may be valid in some churches but it won’t be valid in many others. 
You must use the formula in Matthew 28:19. 
You must say to the candidate, “I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” You can add any additional wording that you like, but it’s probably best to stick to the bare essentials. If you substitute other formulas or if you baptize only in Jesus’ name, the baptism may be valid in some churches, but in most churches, it won’t be valid. 
In Matthew 28:19, Jesus gives us the words to say when we baptize in His name. 
If the person is unable to verify whether or not they were baptized, or it cannot be determined if the person’s baptism was valid, then you should say: “If you are not already baptized, I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” This avoid rebaptism, which most churches frown upon.

The Baptism
You don’t need special equipment for pouring. You can pour the water simply by cupping your hands and letting the water flow onto the candidate’s head. There doesn’t have to be a lot of water, but be sure to apply it three times.
Ask the candidate if they want to be baptized. If they say no, stop at this point and go no further. If they say yes, proceed. 
As you pour the water three times, use the candidate’s name and say, “_____, I baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” If there is any doubt about a previous baptism, pour the water three times, use the candidate’s name and say, “_____, if you are not already baptized, I baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” 
More information 
Roman Catholics should read paragraph 1284 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Paragraph 903 might also be helpful. (As you are reading the book, note that the paragraph numbers are in boldface; the italic numbers in the margin are cross references.)


----------



## Berean (Nov 12, 2010)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Didn't he denounce all others except those who were RC?



I've been waiting for an opportunity to use this smiley. Thanks, Randy.
Grade school girls used to pass out from the incense.


----------



## Rich Koster (Nov 12, 2010)

I need to reboot my brain. Something just isn't registering for me. Vote, bishops,valid OI!!!


----------

