# Poll: Roman Catholic baptism



## blhowes

If a person is baptized as an infant in a catholic church, does your church consider it to be a valid baptism?

I'd be interesting in hearing discussion, pro or con, why the catholic baptism should or shouldn't be considered valid. As I mentioned in another thread, I would have a hard time believing that a pope (who in some confessions he or his office are considered the antiChrist) could baptize the infant of an unsaved person and the baptism be considered valid.

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Voted Presbyterian and valid.


----------



## Bryan

I myself have never understood how they can be viewed as valid. You have an apostate church administering the covenant sign? It just doesn't make sense.

Bryan
SDG


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Bryan_
> I myself have never understood how they can be viewed as valid. You have an apostate church administering the covenant sign? It just doesn't make sense.
> 
> Bryan
> SDG



I agree with this assessment


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> Voted Presbyterian and valid.


Do you agree that its valid? Why or why not?

Question for you or anybody...

Chapter 25, section 5, of the Westminster says:

V. The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error;[10] and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.

I assume here that they're talking about the catholic church, as an example. If a church has so degenerated, do they still retain the authority, as a synagogue of Satan, to baptize in the name of the trinity?


----------



## fredtgreco

Paedo and no.

This is one that Calvin was wrong on. His comments on the Mass are in clear contradiction to his comments on Romish baptism.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Paedo and no.
> 
> This is one that Calvin was wrong on. His comments on the Mass are in clear contradiction to his comments on Romish baptism.



Fred,
Was Calvin referring to Roman Catholic baptisms that were done prior to their apostasy? 

Bob,
When the WCF aludes to 'churches', I believe they are refering to churches that are compatable w/ those whom subscribe to the WCF.


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Bob,
> When the WCF aludes to 'churches', I believe they are refering to churches that are compatable w/ those whom subscribe to the WCF.


Oh, I just assumed that since the next section talks about the pope that it was referring to the catholic church.

BTW, when the confession was written, had some reformed churches already deteriorated to such an extent that they'd be considered the synagogue of Satan?

[Edited on 8-15-2005 by blhowes]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

During the Reformation, before Rome was excommunicated from the Reformed Church and demonstrated their apsotasy (see Trent) their baptism was valid since it was accomplished 1) by a lawfully ordained officer in the church, and 2) that it was Trinitarian. After, that, though, it would be impossible to fulfill #1. If a church is not considered a true church, then #1 is moot.

"There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: _neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word_ *lawfully ordained*."

Matt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 4:1; 11:20, 23; Eph. 4:11-12


----------



## DTK

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Paedo and no.
> 
> This is one that Calvin was wrong on. His comments on the Mass are in clear contradiction to his comments on Romish baptism.


I'm inclined to agree with Fred on this. I don't think Calvin was consistent here. I think the following quotes from him yield some light on his discomfort with Roman Catholic baptism...

In this first quote, Calvin calls into question the legitimacy of Roman priests to administer the sacraments...


> *John Calvin:* If those who profess to return to the right way feel hurt by these requirements, they are greatly mistaken. For it is impossible to accept them as Christian pastors if they have not renounced the papal priesthood in which they were ordained to sacrifice Jesus Christ, which is a blasphemy worthy of the highest detestation. In addition, they must solemnly promise to abstain henceforth from all superstitions and pollutions which are repugnant to the simplicity of the gospel. For how can they administer the Holy Supper unless they have separated from the abominations of the Mass? Moreover, they cannot be ministers of baptism unless they have rejected the confusions by which it has been corrupted. In sum, the church cannot accept them as pastors if they do not feel obliged to do their duty. Letter for Bishops and priests of the Papacy. John Calvin, _Calvin´s Ecclesiastical Advice_, trans. Mary Beaty and Benjamin W. Farley (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991), p. 59.


In this quote, Calvin is addressing the question of baptism being administered by laymen, but expresses his sentiment that such things are to be tolerated in a non-reformed (unrestored) church...


> *John Calvin:* This knotty problem cannot be resolved without sacrilege. There is, in addition, the apostle´s opinion: "œAnd no man takes this honor unto himself except the one who is called of God" [Heb. 5:4]. We think, therefore, that a baptism performed by a layman is spurious; this temerity would not be tolerated in a properly established church. Because this has happened in your midst at an early stage, however, before the church´s order was restored and when circumstances were still confused, the error should be forgiven and the baptism (of whatever sort it is) should be tolerated.
> This baptism, performed improperly and only once, should not serve as an example. God condones many things in a fragmented church that it would be wrong to allow in a well-ordered church. In former times, when religion was corrupt, circumcision was undoubtedly involved in many faults and corruptions, but we have read that it was not revoked when the people were recalled to a pure worship. It is not necessary, therefore, or even useful to investigate all the circumstances anxiously; this would produce countless worries. What God forgave under the papacy we should also lay to rest. Letter on Baptism Administered Improperly. John Calvin, _Calvin´s Ecclesiastical Advice_, trans. Mary Beaty and Benjamin W. Farley (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991), p. 98.


And in this quote, Calvin states specifically that a parent should not have his/her child baptized in a papal church...


> *John Calvin:* The same principle ought to prevail in the case of baptism. Even if imminent danger is threatening, it still is not permitted to do what God clearly disapproves. We know that baptism in the papacy has been corrupted by many base elements and almost adulterated. If fear were a factor, all the pious would readily agree that it is wrong for parents to bring their infant children to a sinful baptism. It is superficial to seize upon danger as an excuse, as if the baptism itself could change its nature because of that. We know that bearing witness to piety is more precious before God than for piety to yield to threats and fears, at least when fear forces us to a pretense that is a tacit approval of impieties. We grieve with our pious brothers out of affection, but it is not up to us to free them from God´s incontestable law. The Hebrew women in Egypt long ago did not hesitate to put their own lives at risk to save others´ infants [Ex. 1:17]; it is shameful for parents to be so fearful that they defile the souls of their own babies, to the extent that they can. Letter On Certain Controversies Among the Pious Brothers. John Calvin, _Calvin´s Ecclesiastical Advice_, trans. Mary Beaty and Benjamin W. Farley (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991), p. 118.


Now, it is true that Calvin accepted Roman baptisms in his day as valid, and I think his reason for doing so then was due to the fact that the Church was in a state of being restored. I don't think he would view their baptisms as valid in our day. But in all honesty, I am engaging in sheer speculation, and my posture toward my brethren who disagree with me is, I trust, charitable, and accepting.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## raderag

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> During the Reformation, before Rome was excommunicated from the Reformed Church and demonstrated their apsotasy (see Trent) their baptism was valid since it was accomplished 1) by a lawfully ordained officer in the church, and 2) that it was Trinitarian. After, that, though, it would be impossible to fulfill #1. * If a church is not considered a true church, then #1 is moot.*



What does this say for my Bible Church baptism?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

{MODERATE}

I understand your question, but this thread is about RC baptism and its validity today. Let's stay on course.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Post-Trent, no way. Never. Their heresies are "irreformable," according to them.


----------



## RamistThomist

Can a Baptist actually hold that Rome's baptisms count? I understand--even if I might not agree with it--some paedos saying that, but can Baptists logically hold that?


----------



## biblelighthouse

This is one issue where I definitely agree with the Reformers. I hold to the same belief as Calvin, Luther, etc. I believe Roman Catholic baptisms certainly are valid.

A friend of mine wrote a paper on lay-baptism, which of course is not the theme of our current discussion. However, many of his quotes, comments, and insights apply to the present question at hand: Are Roman Catholic baptisms valid?

(Please note, I am NOT advocating that RC baptisms are preferred. Neither am I suggesting that laypeople are supposed to administer baptisms. I am simply discussing whether a RC baptism is at least _valid_.)

Please consider the following excerpt from my friend's excellent paper. I have added emphasis at places, by putting some of his statements in *boldface type*:





To the testimony of Ambrose, we can add *Augustine*, the greatest of the Latin fathers. *Speaking of the usurpation of church office by a layman administering baptism*, he says, 

"œThough it be usurped without necessity, and given by any man to another, that which is given cannot be said not to be given, though it may be truly said to be unlawfully given"¦No devout soldier ever violates the royal stamp, though it be usurped by a private men: for though some by stealth and in a clandestine way set the royal stamp, not to the public money, but their own; yet the money so stamped, when they are either punished or pardoned for their offense, having the royal standard upon it, it is not defaced, but through into the king´s treasury." 

This comment needs little commentary, but there is one highlight to make. The analogy of the royal seal will be important when we discuss the views of John Calvin. *To the testimony of Augustine can be added that of local and ecumenical councils.* This is an important argument. *When the councils of Arles, Nicea, or Constantinople pronounced an anathema on heretics such as Arius or Nestorius, they also deposed these men of their ecclesiastical office.* This is very clear in their disciplinary cannons. *However, they still accepted baptisms performed within any heretical sect which used water and the Trinitarian formula. So, for instance, the council of Arles accepts the baptism of Arians, but not that of sects which did not use the Trinitarian formula.* But, if their baptisms were accepted, and they were deposed of office, the church essentially accepted the baptism of laymen. This is especially true when one considers that officers ordained in the ranks of deposed heretics were not always required to be re-ordained. Finally, I adduce the testimony of *Thomas Aquinas, *who says,* "œConsequently, if a layman were to baptize even outside a case of urgency, he would sin, yet he would confer the sacrament, nor would the person thus baptized have to be baptized again." * This needs no comment.

It is often assumed that the early church accepted lay baptism because the early church believed in baptismal regeneration. Not only is this a little anachronistic (In that such concepts were defined differently in earlier eras), it also does not make any sense. A belief in baptismal regeneration does not necessitate the acceptance of lay baptism anymore than it necessitates the acceptance of a baptism by a heretic, a baptism without water, or a baptism not performed in the Trinitarian name. The only way this argument could work is if the early church position was only concerned with "œemergency baptism," but it clearly goes beyond this. Nor can we simply reduce the position of the early church to superstition. (I.e. They believed that correct formula made baptism) Modern Presbyterians don´t believe anything else, they just add one more ingredient to the formula, as Hodge indicated. Furthermore, it would be somewhat strange to stake one´s trust in the opinions of the Westminster divines while not considering the opinion of those who framed Nicea and Constantinople.
Let us now consider the precedent laid for us in the writings of the magisterial Reformers. Who better to begin with than *Martin Luther*; 

"œSuppose a group of earnest Christian laymen were taken prisoner and set down in a desert *without an episcopally ordained priest* among them. And suppose they were to come to a common mind there and then in the desert and elect one of their number"¦and charge him to baptize, say mass, pronounce absolution, and preach the gospel. *Such a man would be as truly a priest as though he had been ordained by all the bishops and popes in the world. This is why in cases of necessity anyone can baptize and give absolution. This would be impossible if we were not all priests."* 

What is important here? Luther sees episcopal office as representative of a priesthood shared by the Christian community. This is especially indicated by the end, where he says that laymen would never be able to baptize unless all were priests. Obviously, he sees ministerial administration of sacraments as regular, but it is clear that he would not condemn the validity of lay baptism in principle. It is also quite clear that the Lutheran confessional tradition, including the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, has accepted lay baptism as valid, though not regular. Luther is quoted by one of the founding members of the LCMS as saying, 

"œWe hold fast to this, that there is no other Word of God save that only which all Christians are commanded to proclaim, and there is no other baptism than the one which all Christians can give; that there is no other remembrance of the Supper of the Lord than that which every Christian may celebrate." 

The opinion of John Calvin is very hard to nail down on this issue. Most authors (Including Ronald Wallace I believe) argue that he would have accepted a lay baptism. I have received correspondence on this particular topic from *Francis Nigel Lee*, who has perhaps written more than any other person of Calvin´s view of rebaptism. He *believes Calvin would have accepted a lay-baptism. *
The reason Calvin´s view is so hard to nail down is that he seems to never directly address the issue. He is clearer than any Reformer that lay baptism is wrong. Do not be mistaken. Calvin believed that baptism performed by a layman was a tremendous sin. He self-consciously disagrees with those father´s such as Augustine and Tertullian who were shaky on the issue. *Under no circumstance is baptism, for Calvin, to be administered by a layman. But this is a far cry from saying that baptism by a layman is null or invalid.* (Remember Hodge´s distinction) The only quotation I have been able to find where Calvin considers lay baptism "œnull," I have not been able to locate in primary sources, and the quotation also has Calvin recognizing lay baptisms in certain church-historical situations.
There are two things to take note of: Calvin´s theology of baptism, and his specific statements on the administration of baptism. But before I go on, I need to anticipate an objection. It is often assumed that in the following quotes, Calvin merely uses strong hyperbole to make a point. It is assumed that he merely speaks of the validity of Roman Catholic baptism by using strong language. While I could picture this in Luther, Calvin is very precise in his words and analogies. Many of his analogies are an argument from the greater to the lesser. Many do not even appear in a context discussing Roman Catholic baptism. I say this up front, so that these quotations are taken on their own merit. 
First, Calvin´s theology of baptism is demonstrated in his Institutes, when he says, 

"œNow, suppose what we have determined is true - that *a sacrament must not be judged by the hand of the one by whom it is ministered, but as if it were from the very hand of God, from which it doubtless has come. From this we may then infer that nothing is added to it or taken from it by the worth of him by whose hand it is administered. *Among men, if a letter is sent, provided the handwriting and seal are sufficiently recognized, it makes no different who or of what sort the carrier is. In like manner, *it ought to be enough for us to recognize the hand and seal of our Lord in his sacraments, whatever carrier may bring them." *

We need to pay very close attention to precisely what Calvin is arguing. First, notice he uses a similar image to that of Augustine, who uses it to vindicate the validity of lay baptism. It is true that* Calvin is discussing this in the context of the validity of Roman baptism*, but his analogy speaks of the minister as only the "œdelivery boy" and the sacrament as the "œletter itself." The sacrament is analogously separated from the minister. Consequently, it would be safe to infer that Calvin, even while opposing lay baptism, would recognize in such a baptism the seal of the Lord, no matter "œof what sort character" the "œcarrier may bring." But we do not infer his sacramental theology from this quote alone. Calvin, when he comments on *Exodus 4:25, discusses the often-used example of Zipporah. *Those who argue for the propriety of lay baptism often adduce her as an example of *a non-priest in the Old Testament who administered a sacrament. Calvin comments on the event,

"œCertainly the child was not duly circumcised; and still it is plain from the event, that the ceremony thus rashly performed pleased God; for it is immediately added, that "˜He let him go.´ For thus I interpret, that the scourge of God ceased or was removed, because he was pacified by the repentance both of Moses and of Zipporah, although it was improper in itself." *

This is an important passage, because it shows that *Calvin made a distinction between a proper administration of sacraments and the actual performance of them. *He is clear that God was pleased by the act. Calvin discusses this passage in two other places. (In his Institutes and in his Appendix to the Tract on Reforming the Church) In both cases he stresses how wrong Zipporah was for performing the sacrament, but he also stresses that God accepted the circumcision, though imperfectly administered. This leads us to a numbered list of* Calvin´s specific statements on the administration of sacraments. 

1. "œIf some Epicurean, inwardly grinning at the whole performance, were to administer the Supper to me according to the command of Christ and the rule given by Him, and in due form -- I would not doubt that the bread and the cup held forth by his hand are pledges to me of the body and blood of Christ." 
2. "œWhat the minister intends to do, is of little consequence to us"¦.Let it suffice then, to have been baptized in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit -- whatever may have been the ignorance or impiety of those who administered baptism to us. Man is merely the hand. It is Christ alone Who truly and properly baptizes." 
3. "œIt matters not to me whether he who performs the baptism is a diabolical man -- or even the devil." 
4. "œWe hold the ordinance of God to be too sacred to depend for its efficacy on man. Even if it were then to be that Judas or any other epicurean contemner of everything sacred is the administrator -- the spiritual nourishment of the body and blood of Christ [in the Sacrament] are conferred through his hand just as if her were an angel come down from heaven." 
5. "œSo it is with Baptism; it is a sacred and immutable testimony of the grace of God, though it were administered by the devil, though all who may partake of it were ungodly and polluted as to their own persons. Baptism ever retains its own character, and it never contaminated by the vices of men." 
*
There are several things to note about these quotations. *First, the devil is not an ordained minister. An Epicurean (A heretical Greek philosopher) is not an ordained minister. *Judas died before the command for apostles to baptize in Mat. 28. Once again, many could argue this to be mere rhetoric. But, second, some of these quotations, such as the last one, do not appear in contexts where Calvin is discussing the validity of Romish baptism. Third, his theology of baptism clearly distinguishes between propriety and validity. The validity of the sacrament, it is clear throughout, is dependent upon the fact that it is "œChrist alone Who truly and properly baptizes." Ministers baptize "œin the name" (read "œin the place") of God. Calvin´s theology would seem to indicate (recall the "œletter" analogy) that lay baptism is valid, because *the "œcarrier" is and never has been the issue.* Finally, we undo Calvin´s argument if we think that he is merely addressing Roman baptism. Often, his point in speaking of the devil or an Epicurean is to make an argument from the greater to the lesser. *If a baptism performed by the devil is valid, how much more is a baptism performed by a Roman Catholic minister?* To reduce his argument is to loose it.

[Edited on 8-15-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Scott Bushey

Joseph,
So, a JW's baptism would then be valid? I have a friend whom is a JW; she told me that they baptise in the name of the father, son and HS.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Which is precisely why I think we have to draw the line, Scott.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Joseph,
> So, a JW's baptism would then be valid? I have a friend whom is a JW; she told me that they baptise in the name of the father, son and HS.



I guess one could strain needles and say that their Jesus isn't divine.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Joseph,
> So, a JW's baptism would then be valid? I have a friend whom is a JW; she told me that they baptise in the name of the father, son and HS.



They may use those words, but that is no Trinitarian baptism, because JW's are not Trinitarian! The "Jesus" they speak of is the archangel Michael, not the eternal Second Person of the Trinity (which they don't even believe exists).

I would argue that Rome's baptism is Trinitarian, but the baptisms of JW's and Mormons are NOT Trinitarian. Thus, JW and Mormon baptisms are invalid.


----------



## biblelighthouse

For what it's worth, I wouldn't be surprised to see Rome's baptism change one day. In the past 100 years, Mary has really "climbed up the ladder" of veneration in RC theology. So it very well may happen in another few decades that she finally gets her "big promotion", and gets to truly be on the same level as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Then Rome may start baptizing in the name of the "Quadrinity" . . . ."baptizing them in the name of the Father, Mother, Son, and Holy Spirit". (I want to barf after writing that!) At that point, of course, it would no longer be a Trinitarian baptism, and would no longer be valid at all. So, for what it's worth, I do think it is possible that Rome will eventually apostatize to the point that even their baptism is invalid. They have gone very far. I just don't think they have quite gone _that_ far yet.


----------



## Scott Bushey

If the trinity that Rome believes in is established upon a Jesus (little 'J') that is not the tetelestai Christ, how is this any different from the JW's anti-trinitarian position. The Jesus of Rome is weak; he needs his mother to help redeem his people. He is a Christ whom did not accomplish 'everything' at Calvary, but needs to recrucify himself week after week.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> I must confess this issue challenges me. I need to study it further...I see valid points on both sides. On the one hand, Rome since the Council of Trent is clearly apostate and I grant that the validity of an apostate church's baptism is disconcerting. On the other hand, the claim that denying the validity of the Romish baptism, in light of the fact that it used to be a true church and the efficacy of the sacrament does not depend on the baptizer, would unchurch the whole Protestant world, is troubling to me as well.




This is a tough issue. The validity of the sacraments always seems to boil down to "How close to the original do you have to be?" 

Is grape juice ok?

Is leavened bread ok?

Do you use filtered water, dirty water, heated water (for infants)?

All of us have probably heard of people in the hippie generation serving communion with pizza and soda. We all know it is wrong, but it is sometimes hard to draw the line on what is _acceptable._ We all have ideas on what is BEST and CLOSEST to the originals, but that still doesn't answer what is _acceptable_ without completely abandoning the sacrament altogether.

James White brought up an interesting scenerio in a debate I heard that involved a pastor spraying the congregation with a hose, and baptizing them all in this fashion. Is it wrong? It sounds crazy!


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> If the trinity that Rome believes in is established upon a Jesus (little 'J') that is not the tetelestai Christ, how is this any different from the JW's anti-trinitarian position. The Jesus of Rome is weak; he needs his mother to help redeem his people. He is a Christ whom did not accomplish 'everything' at Calvary, but needs to recrucify himself week after week.



While I do not disagree with the theology mentioned above per se, that same reasoning would nail most evanjellyfish churches (which might not be a bad thing).

What I am saying is that arminian churches would not agree with your view of the substitutionary work of Christ. Both groups seek to apply the redemption that Christ tried to buy. Should we draw the line there?


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> If the trinity that Rome believes in is established upon a Jesus (little 'J') that is not the tetelestai Christ, how is this any different from the JW's anti-trinitarian position. The Jesus of Rome is weak; he needs his mother to help redeem his people. He is a Christ whom did not accomplish 'everything' at Calvary, but needs to recrucify himself week after week.



The Arminian Jesus is just as weak. He can't save anyone on His own. He needs the help of the sinner in order for him/her to be saved. Logically, if you invalidate RC baptisms on the grounds of the "weakness" of their Jesus, then we should invalidate Arminian baptisms as well. But I don't think we want to go there.

Does Rome believe the Father is the uncreated, eternal God? Yes.
Does Rome believe the Son is the uncreated, eternal God? Yes.
Does Rome believe the HS is the uncreated, eternal God? Yes.
Does Rome believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God, and not three Gods? Yes.

JW and Mormons cannot answer yes to all four questions, so their baptisms are invalid.

But the RC baptism is Trinitarian.

Calvin was correct. Luther was correct. (And to be anachronistic, I believe we can demonstrate that Augustine would agree, as well.) Modern Reformed Presbyterians who accept RC baptisms are correct, too.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> This is one issue where I definitely agree with the Reformers. I hold to the same belief as Calvin, Luther, etc.


I believe it was the single view of Presbyterianism until Thornwell (did he have any predecessors?). Certainly it was the view of the divines at the Westminster Assembly; it was a feature of Scottish Presbyterianism which is explained if not strongly defended by John MacPherson in his lecture on the _Unity of the Church: The Sin of Schism_ here:
http://www.naphtali.com/Macpherson.htm
But there has always been a tension as MacPherson illustrates from the Scottish Confession of Faith and the First Book of Discipline.


----------



## SRoper

I always thought that the baptism would be valid, but it would not be done lawfully. Of course I'm not entirely neutral here as I count my UCC baptism to be valid.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Just thinking this through - how can a baptism be valid but administered unlawfully? That is a contradiction. If it is not administered lawfully, then how can it be administered at all?


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Just thinking this through - how can a baptism be valid but administered unlawfully? That is a contradiction. If it is not administered lawfully, then how can it be administered at all?



Zipporah was out of line when she circumcised the son of Moses. She unlawfully administered the sacrament.

But if you were to take a look at the child afterwards, I don't think you would question whether or not circumcision had really been administered. 



God Himself turned away His wrath after the improper circumcision, thus agreeing that a circumcision had truly been administered.


Augustine, those who held to the early creeds, Calvin, Luther, and many other reformers, puritans, etc. have understood that there is an important difference between the _lawfulness_ of administration and the _fact/validity_ of administration.

It helps me to remember that ministers themselves, really, _do not administer_ the sacraments. Rather, God administers them. The ministers, whether lawfully ordained or not, are just the "delivery boys" for the administration. When you were baptized, Matt, God was making a statement about you. He is the one who really administered the baptism. The instrument He used to do it is immaterial. Hopefully, a lawfully ordained minister did it. But if not, your baptism is still valid, because the impropriety of the "delivery boy" does not change the validity of the baptism God Himself administered unto you. 

The same goes for the Lord's Supper. If, unbeknownst to you, (but knownst to everyone else), a Roman Catholic priest were to disguise himself as a PCA minister, and somehow convince your PCA church to let him administer communion, and you were to partake, you would still be receiving a valid Lord's Supper, and not the popish mass. The administrator may be unlawfully ordained, and his intent may involve thoughts of transubstantiation. But that would not affect YOU. In partaking of the bread and wine in faith, you would still be spiritually feasting upon Christ. I do not believe God would invalidate your participation in His body and blood due to the sin of a priest in sheep's clothing.

[Edited on 8-15-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## biblelighthouse

It might also be beneficial to consider marriage in this context, even though it's not a sacrament.

Is it right for a marriage to be performed by the state, with no mention whatsoever of God or the Scriptures? I think not!

Nevertheless, I think we all agree that a marriage performed by a justice of the peace is still a valid marriage that we would accept, should that couple join one of our churches.

Thus, the marriage was valid, though unlawfully performed.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Does Rome believe in the same Jesus of the scriptures? Is it the same Jesus?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> Zipporah was out of line when she circumcised the son of Moses. She unlawfully administered the sacrament.
> 
> But if you were to take a look at the child afterwards, I don't think you would question whether or not circumcision had really been administered.
> 
> God Himself turned away His wrath after the improper circumcision, thus agreeing that a circumcision had truly been administered.



Not the same - households / individual synaogues (when they came around) administered those things in the OT (Passover and Circumcision).

Case in point, if Zipporah administered it wrongly, God would have been upset with her.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Ultimately, Matt is correct. The concern should rest in lawful ordinations, not formula. If it is just formula, what would exclude me from dispensing the sacrament.

<Rome does not worship the same Christ>


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Can a Baptist actually hold that Rome's baptisms count? I understand--even if I might not agree with it--some paedos saying that, but can Baptists logically hold that?


I would think not, but added it just so all combinations were covered. I'd be very surprised if the 0% changes.

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by blhowes]


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Case in point, if Zipporah administered it wrongly, God would have been upset with her.



And you know He wasn't upset with her?


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Ultimately, Matt is correct. The concern should rest in lawful ordinations, not formula. If it is just formula, what would exclude me from dispensing the sacrament.



Wrong. You clearly don't hold to the church fathers, nor to the reformers, nor to the puritans, in this regard. You are failing to distinguish between *improper* and *invalid*. An improperly administered marriage is still a marriage. An improperly administered circumcision is still a circumcision. An improperly administered communion is still communion. An improperly administered baptism is still a baptism.

As a layman, you would be wrong to administer baptism. But if you administered it, the recepient would still have been baptized. Was it proper? NO! Was it nevertheless valid? YES!

Sex before marriage is wrong. But it nevertheless brings children into the world. 

Impropriety in the cause doesn't make the effect disappear.



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> <Rome does not worship the same Christ>



I challenge you to prove your assertion, beyond what could be said about any Arminian or liberal denomination. 

How about the lesbian minister who was just recently reinstated in the Methodist church? Is a baptism done by her invalid, since she shouldn't be ordained, and is obviously unregenerate? And now that the Methodist church has officially accepted her, how about ALL baptisms done by the Methodist church? Has their accepting of homosexuality and female-ordination and Arminianism been sufficient to prove that they don't worship the same God we do? 

How about the PCUSA and all their pastors and professors who don't even believe in the virgin birth, the substitutionary atonement, the inerrancy of Scripture, etc.? Do they worship the same God we do? Should we accept their baptisms?


Is Rome in heretical error? Certainly. But if you reject their baptisms, while accepting baptisms from the Methodist church, PCUSA, independent Bible churches, congregational baptist churches, pentecostal churches, etc., then such inconsistency and bias is beyond my comprehension. If you think we should really tighten up the definition for "baptism" to ONLY include those done by doctrinally correct ministers in doctrinally correct churches, then you at least need to be consistent and throw out a LOT more baptisms than just Rome's.



Furthermore, what constitutes "lawful ordination"? Is it lawful to ordain someone as a minister if he has never "really" been baptized? If not, then carefully think through the implications. How many millions of men were unlawfully baptized during the revivalism of the 1800s? How many thousands of them became ministers themselves? If their baptism wasn't valid, then was their ordination? If not, then 100% of their millions of parishoners were unlawfully baptized, since the minister baptizing them was not lawfully ordained. How many of _them_ became ministers in the 1900s? in the 1950s? Today? 

How many tens of millions of people's baptisms are invalid today, even though they were baptized by their own pastors? After all, even if that pastor was baptized by a pastor who was baptized by an unlawfully baptized pastor in 1840, that means that every one of those pastors were unlawfully ordained, and thus all of their baptisms are invalid. How many people now _in the PCA_ are therefore devoid of "true baptism"? 

Reducto ad absurdum. This entire path of thought leads to pure nonsense. A baptism is valid, regardless of whether or not it was properly done.


If you are a layman, should you baptize someone? NO! But if you do, has that person been baptized? YES! Just ask Tertullian, Anselm, Augustine, the founders of the early creeds, Thomas Acquinas, Martin Luther, and John Calvin. 

Should you be baptized by a Roman Catholic priest (or any other Trinitarian who is nevertheless a heretic)? NO! But if you are, have you been baptized? YES! Just ask Tertullian, Anselm, Augustine, the founders of the early creeds, Thomas Acquinas, Martin Luther, and John Calvin. 

This should not be difficult. I'm not even aware of a significant opposing view until Thornwell came along. 


I challenge you and Matt to dig up some early church father info, some reformation info, and some puritan info, demonstrating to me how many of these guys (if any) would agree with either one of you concerning the validity (not the propriety) of lay-baptism or RC baptism. (For the later, we can only focus on the reformers and puritans, of course).

My guess is that neither one of you will come up with much. I realize you both hold to your view very strongly, and I have to respect that. But I think you are standing alone against the history of the church. I have to wonder if even dispensationalism is a more ancient view than your view of "invalid lay-baptisms and invalid RC baptisms". And I say that seriously, not as a joke or as a jab. I just truly think your view is extremely new to the church. But I could be wrong. I still have a lot more church history to study. If I am wrong, I will welcome your correction. Please just point out the quotes and sources for whatever you come up with.

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> f I am wrong, I will welcome your correction. Please just point out the quotes and sources for whatever you come up with.



Ok - "œThere are only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord: *neither of which may be dispensed by any but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.* (Matt. 28:19; I Cor. 11:20, 23, I Cor. 4:1; Heb. 5:4.)" Article 27, paragraph 4, The Westminster Confession of Faith. 

Sacraments are disepnsed my ministers. 

The powers of the ministry are seen in preaching, in administering the sacraments, and in ruling. That power is part of the government of the church. Logically, if you accept the baptism of the formula, you accept the lawfulness of the ordination.

I do understand what you are saying. But you have to understadnt hat by opening up the floodgates, you allow ANYTHING to come through. And that logically flows to your acceptance of the "power" of the church resting in the administration of the sacrametns under Christ' rule by someone NOT lawfully dispensing them. Christ is more particular than that.

The Refomers accpeted baptism before Trent. The Puritans accepted it as second generation reformers and the finalization of the Presbyterian system of government they were fighting for. I cannot see how any of them, living today, would accept RC baptism. The WCF here dissents against that, and nowhere in the confession do they accept it other than by one lawfully able to dispense it.

(More here: http://www.apuritansmind.com/Pastoral/McMahonWhoAdministersTheSacrament.htm )

Section 27.3."”The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament *depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it*, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution; which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.

This section is levelled against two tenets of the Church of Rome. That Church holds that the sacraments, *when rightly administered*, are of themselves effectual to confer grace; and that the intention of the priest or administrator is essential to a sacrament; so that if a priest goes through all the forms of administering baptism or the Lord's supper, and does not in his own mind intend to administer it, it is in fact no sacrament. That the sacraments themselves cannot confer saving grace is evident; for if they had this power in themselves, they would be equally effectual to all who receive them. But many are partakers of the sacraments, who are not partakers of the grace of God. Simon Magus was baptized, and yet remained in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity."”Acts 8:13,23. That the efficacy of the sacraments *does not depend upon the intention of the administrator.* is not less evident; for this would place the administrator in *God's stead*, whose sole prerogative it is to render the sacraments effectual for the purposes designed by them. Besides, in this case, no one could be certain that he had received the sacraments; because he could not be absolutely certain of the intention of another. In opposition to these absurd tenets, we maintain that the efficacy of the sacraments depends upon the working of the Spirit on the souls of the receivers; and upon the word of institution, which contains a precept authorizing the use of these ordinances, and a promise of benefit by them to the worthy receivers.

So how does this practially work out?

Section 27.4."”There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the gospel; that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord; *neither of which may be dispensed by any but by a minister of the Word, lawfully ordained.*

We acknowledge only two sacraments instituted by Christ in the gospel, and these are baptism and the Lord's supper; the former being the sign and seal of our spiritual birth, and the latter of our spiritual nourishment. The Church of Rome has added five spurious sacraments"”ordination, marriage, confirmation, penance, and extreme unction. None of these have any divine appointment as sacraments; and the three last, as used by Papists, have no warrant at all from Scripture. None of them are seals of the covenant of grace, and, therefore, they are no sacraments, but are to be considered as gross corruptions of the purity and simplicity of the Christian ritual. *In opposition, also, to the Church of Rome, which permits laymen and women to administer the sacrament of baptism in cases of necessity, our Confession asserts that none but a minister of the Word, lawfully ordained, has any warrant to dispense the sacraments.*




> If you think we should really tighten up the definition for "baptism" to ONLY include those done by doctrinally correct ministers in doctrinally correct churches, then you at least need to be consistent and throw out a LOT more baptisms than just Rome's.



Ok - 



[Edited on 8-16-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## pastorway

so you would throw out any baptism not performed by a "lawfully ordained minister"?

how do you define a lawfully ordained minister then? cause a lot of us just got un-baptized......

Phillip


----------



## Peter

Joseph,
This is a very relevant question I have been troubled with for some time (though I've been putting it off). Your comments have been very helpful, thank you. However, the marriage analogy is waaay off, but I dont think i even need to point that out. Second, Matt and Scott are not guilty of Donatism here. Yes, the early fathers condemned the view that baptism preformed by a minister who lapsed into heresy was invaild, but that is not the question. The question is whether the trinitarian formula plus water done by someone who is not the officer of Christ equals a valid baptism.

Thanks for your input every one. I will be following this thread closely...

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by Peter]


----------



## fredtgreco

Matt,

While I agree with your assessment on Rome's baptism, your extrapolation just does not wash. Many, many Reformers, Puritans and successors to the divines accepted Romish baptism as valid.

Also, your statement here:



> The Refomers accpeted baptism before Trent. The Puritans accepted it as second generation reformers and the finalization of the Presbyterian system of government they were fighting for. I cannot see how any of them, living today, would accept RC baptism. The WCF here dissents against that, and nowhere in the confession do they accept it other than by one lawfully able to dispense it.



is self serving. Trent was a full century before the Westminster Assembly. Rome had codified her apostasy. She had continued to persecute the true Church. The Puritans were the victims of that very persecution under "bloody Mary." To say that they were more interested in the discussions regarding Independency than Popery flabbergasts me.

That is all beside the point however, since we do not have to throw out other baptisms because of Rome. Rome is antichrist. She has placed herself in the place of Christ Himself. Not only is her doctrine of justfication anathema, but her doctrine of the Sacraments is anathama. Calvin said EXACTLY that with respect to the Mass. In fact, he said that the Mass is so far from being a valid/lawful (whatever word one wants to use) that it justified the Reformers from leaving Rome's communion - something that Calvin says is only possible if Rome is no longer a true Church. Then he turns around and says that Rome's baptism is not so bad, but can be accepted. He is at 180 from himself on these two sacraments. I believe that this has far more to do with practical considerations than theological ones. Calvin wisely surmised the chaos and excesses that would arise (and did under the Anabaptists) if all Roman baptisms were invalid. So I believe he compromised, and covered his tracks. 

All this to say that Roman baptism is far different from Baptist or Methodist baptism. In fact, it has more in common with the cults than other denominations. The only thing that ties it to proper baptism is the formula. They do not use the same elements - inserting oil and perfume; they do not have the same intent - stating that it justifies ex opere operata; they do not have any of the marks of a true Church. Rome is out on her own (damnable) limb here.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> 
> if I am wrong, I will welcome your correction. Please just point out the quotes and sources for whatever you come up with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok - "œThere are only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord: *neither of which may be dispensed by any but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.* (Matt. 28:19; I Cor. 11:20, 23, I Cor. 4:1; Heb. 5:4.)" Article 27, paragraph 4, The Westminster Confession of Faith.
> 
> Sacraments are disepnsed my ministers.
Click to expand...


You are still failing to distinguish between the *propriety* of the act and the *fact* (validity) of the act. Your quote above shows that a layman *should not* baptize. But your quote above does not say that a lay-baptism is "no baptism at all".

You are pulling the "bait-and-switch" tactic. Your argument is basically going like this:

*Matt's move #1* --- Give a Reformed quote demonstrating that lay-baptism is not supposed to be done.
*Matt's move #2* --- Say, "See! Lay-baptism is no baptism at all!"

Sorry, but it does not follow. Proving my car is not blue does not prove that my car is not red. You have proven apples, and yet have tried to claim that you have proven oranges.

You need to demonstrate that the fathers, reformers, and puritans would have rebaptized laymen, for example, because their baptism was "no baptism at all".

(I'm sure you won't have any problems finding quotes if you will just flip over to some anabaptist literature!)



> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> The powers of the ministry are seen in preaching, in administering the sacraments, and in ruling. That power is part of the government of the church. Logically, if you accept the baptism of the formula, you accept the lawfulness of the ordination.



So, take preaching for example. If I fail to be lawfully ordained, and nevertheless go pastor a congregational church, then what will be the result of my preaching? If someone hears me preach the Gospel, will the listener's ability to be saved be thrown out the window because I am preaching unlawfully? I think not. A sermon given unlawfully is still a sermon. The Gospel preached under improper circumstances is still the Gospel.

Well, the same goes for the edible Gospel, and the liquid Gospel. If communion is administered by someone who is not lawfully ordained, the recepients still feast upon Christ by faith, and partake of Him spiritually. If I myself administer the Lord's Supper, I am wrong. But it doesn't shackle the Holy Spirit's ability to make communion fully valid for those receiving it.

The same goes for baptism.



> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> I do understand what you are saying. But you have to understadnt that by opening up the floodgates, you allow ANYTHING to come through. And that logically flows to your acceptance of the "power" of the church resting in the administration of the sacrametns under Christ' rule by someone NOT lawfully dispensing them. Christ is more particular than that.



Christ is particular. But I don't think He is particularly interested in starving His elect children, and depriving them of communion with Himself every time an unlawfully ordained minister or lay-person administers the Lord's Supper.

I do agree that Christ is particular about obedience. The offending administrator of baptism and the eucharist must stop what he's doing and repent. But his personal sin doesn't invalidate that which is received by those who are baptized and by those who receive the Lord's Supper.



> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> The Refomers accpeted baptism before Trent. The Puritans accepted it as second generation reformers and the finalization of the Presbyterian system of government they were fighting for. I cannot see how any of them, living today, would accept RC baptism.



For what it's worth, I cannot see how any of them, living today, would reject RC baptism. I do repect your opinion, the opinion of a doctor of the church. But if you expect me to change my mind, you are going to have to do better than to just give me your opinion. It was either Luther or Calvin that said he would accept the sacraments as valid if performed by an epicurean, or even by the Devil himself. Well, I figure the modern RC church fits in that range somewhere, so I figure the reformers would accept modern RC baptisms.

How about laybaptism? That's something the church had many centuries to think about. Can you show me some reformers and puritans who would have demanded a lay-baptized person to be re-baptized?



> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> The WCF here dissents against that, and nowhere in the confession do they accept it other than by one lawfully able to dispense it.
> 
> (More here: http://www.apuritansmind.com/Pastoral/McMahonWhoAdministersTheSacrament.htm )



Again, Matt, you are trying to demonstrate apples in order to prove oranges. I already am quite convinced that the reformers and puritans believed that a non-lawfully-ordained minister should not administer the sacraments. Got it. 

But you have not demonstrated anything concerning their beliefs about *what to do with a person who has been baptized by a layman or unlawfully ordained minister*. This is the "orange" you have not dealt with.



> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you think we should really tighten up the definition for "baptism" to ONLY include those done by doctrinally correct ministers in doctrinally correct churches, then you at least need to be consistent and throw out a LOT more baptisms than just Rome's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok -
Click to expand...


I completely disagree with you, and I think I have already amply demonstrated that the church fathers, reformers, and puritans would disagree with you.

But hey, at least I have to give you a thumbs up for being more consistent!  





Again, I challenge you to supply quotes from the early church fathers, the reformers, and the puritans, *demonstrating any of them who believed baptism must be redone if it was originally performed by a layman*. (That at least would move me closer to being convinced that they would also reject modern RC baptisms.) But I don't think you are going to succeed in finding many quotes to give me, if any at all.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> 
> 
> so you would throw out any baptism not performed by a "lawfully ordained minister"?
> 
> how do you define a lawfully ordained minister then? cause a lot of us just got un-baptized......
> 
> Phillip


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> All this to say that Roman baptism is far different from Baptist or Methodist baptism. In fact, it has more in common with the cults than other denominations. The only thing that ties it to proper baptism is the formula. They do not use the same elements - inserting oil and perfume;



Fred, please elaborate more here. I would be happy to throw out RC baptism along with JW baptism and Mormon baptism, but I cannot in good conscience do so. However, you may be helping me here. Are you saying that RC baptisms are with oil and perfume, and that water is not used?

If RC baptism is truly radically different from other baptisms, I am all ears, and am listening quite intently. I would be happy to kick RC baptism out the window if I can logically do so.



> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> they do not have the same intent - stating that it justifies ex opere operata; they do not have any of the marks of a true Church. Rome is out on her own (damnable) limb here.



Just curious: Are you therefore saying that Church of Christ baptisms are also invalid, since they also believe salvation is inseperably tied to the physical act of water baptism, and that you cannot be saved without it?


----------



## yeutter

Those who believe in Paedo Communion would have to reject the validity of Popish Baptism so they would have a ground to exclude Roman Catholics from the Lord's Table.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> All this to say that Roman baptism is far different from Baptist or Methodist baptism. In fact, it has more in common with the cults than other denominations. The only thing that ties it to proper baptism is the formula. They do not use the same elements - inserting oil and perfume;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fred, please elaborate more here. I would be happy to throw out RC baptism along with JW baptism and Mormon baptism, but I cannot in good conscience do so. However, you may be helping me here. Are you saying that RC baptisms are with oil and perfume, and that water is not used?
Click to expand...


It is not that water is not used, but that other elements are added, namely oil and perfume.



> If RC baptism is truly radically different from other baptisms, I am all ears, and am listening quite intently. I would be happy to kick RC baptism out the window if I can logically do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> they do not have the same intent - stating that it justifies ex opere operata; they do not have any of the marks of a true Church. Rome is out on her own (damnable) limb here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious: Are you therefore saying that Church of Christ baptisms are also invalid, since they also believe salvation is inseperably tied to the physical act of water baptism, and that you cannot be saved without it?
Click to expand...


Yes, I think that Church of Christ baptisms are invalid, because it is not a church, and hence has no authority to baptize. The crux of the matter is whether Rome (or anyone else) is a true (albeit imperfect) church.

I am willing to be completely wrong here - but I am guessing that the vast majority (perhaps nearly all) of those who accept Papist baptisms have never been a witness to it and the idolatry that surrounds it.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by yeutter_
> Those who believe in Paedo Communion would have to reject the validity of Popish Baptism so they would have a ground to exclude Roman Catholics from the Lord's Table.



Thomas,

I don't follow you here. My experience is that paedocommunionists are ardent "Rome's baptism is valid" proponents.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> stating that it justifies ex opere operata



Looks like we'd just about have to throw out Federal Vision baptisms as well, then ...


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> 
> stating that it justifies ex opere operata
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like we'd just about have to throw out Federal Vision baptisms as well, then ...
Click to expand...


Not so. One (Romish) is the official dogma of the body; the other is the abberant view of the minister in a body with an orthodox (Confessional) view of baptism.

This question is actually much, much closer to the Donatist controversy.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> This question is actually much, much closer to the Donatist controversy.



Explain briefly, please?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

I'm following all of you, but you have to be willing to allow the floodgates to open if you go there.

Some ideas:

Cyprian, with his fellow African Bishops, decreed that baptism administered by heretics AND schismatics was not true baptism, and that those baptized should be rebaptized. Letter to Januarius [Letter 69, ANF 5:375-77] Quintus [ANF 5:377-78] to Stephen [Letter 71 ANF 5:378-79] Jubaianus [ANF 5:379-86], and from the Acts of the Council of Carthage [ANF 5:565-72].

Turretin says that Cyprian disagreed in the exact same manner that I am disagreeing. I am not going to tell anyone that their baptism is invalid after the fact. I don't need to do that. I will let them make their own judgments and let their conscience fall where it may. Certainly, this is not the Donatist position, in which, as Turretin points out, they said that all baptisms, then, were practically invalid. Phillip's point is taken and practical horrors would occur.

Then you have another thing to consider, because we want to consider everything before we make a concrete conclusion. If a JW is not a JW yet, say he doesn't convert for a week, and baptizes you according to the formula, then you are bound to accept it, lawful or not, event hough int he next week he affirms his JW doctrine thought he previous week he had not. This is obviously problematic.

The Nicene council accepted some baptisms by heretics and not others. Which is somewhat funny. The Paulianists or Samosotians are excepted and one would have to be rebaptized. (See Nicene Canon 19).

Turretin says we should solve the question by distinguishing heretics. Baptism done by Socinians and Arians is not accepted, and by Novations, Donatists and Romanists, and Arminians, is accepted. One should also consider what "lawful" means - accepted, and unlawful, not accepted as in the WCF. 

Turretin makes an important point which is to be noted here - "the sacrament is the property of the church." (Vol 3, page 397). That means if a secret heretic administers the sacrament it is OK, even if they deny the Trinity, but do the formula right, int he church which he is involved with is orthodox on the formula and Trinity. (Will any of you go that far?) (How far WILL you go? - and that is my point)

Now the argument is made "the essentials remain there as much as to form as to matter (to with the word with the element and the formula prescribed by Christ - that it be administered in the name of the Trinity)." However, I think this is selling it short because that is not all Christ did - rather, He did that, and gave the authority to the rightful apostles to administer this in His name. 

Its true that we never read of any of those who were baptized by heretics were rebaptized by the apostles. But then again, we don't have a specific record of an infant being baptized either. 

It seems that the second generation reformers and after believed (and I certainly acquiesce to this) that heretics can accommodate the tongue and hand only in this act to God. But Turretin says, "It is God who baptized and who is efficacious through the minister." But I think, though, that this is my contention - how does one move from "heretics" administering baptism as valid, to "God being efficacious through the minister?" Thus, Balaam's ass could spit on an infant and we could call it baptism so long as it was done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

At least the Reformers on this were somewhat clear, though not readily as I would like them to be.  They say that receiving baptism from the first order of heretics (those who tear away the foundations of doctrine) are not to be seen as valid. No true baptism is among them, or the Lord's Supper for that matter. For those of the secondary sort, those that are not Trinitarian heretics so to speak, or at least as they judged, their baptism was valid. HOWEVER, they did believe that to seek out such a baptism should bring a measure of guilt. (Turretin, vol 3, page 398). Why? Because its invalid? Now that is about as inconsistent as I have ever seen Turretin on anything. He says, "although we think their baptism ought not to be repeated, still we do not judge that it can be sought or received without guilt." That's inconsistency. He should say, they should have no guilt whosoever because the baptism is completely and utterly valid. But I think, full well, that Turretin knows that "something is amiss."

Now with Rome, they do retain the formula for baptism. Yet, strikingly, Turretin says that their baptism is corrupted. He says that their baptism "cherishes grievous errors" and in practice it "sins in many ways, both by the use of a foreign tongue and by various rites partly superstitious, partly useless and impious." Strange that the rite can be accepted, and sinful? He then says that those "parts" of baptism that are not right, in the baptism that you are baptized with in their church by their priests, should be rejected. Okay, so we pick apart the good from the bad in the actual rite itself. Sounds very strained to me! But here, the argument is that baptism is spiritual, so those other things just don't count. And thus, the baptism remains valid. 

The arguments of the Reformers is three fold: 1) The essence of baptism still remains in Roman Baptism. 2) The power and efficacy of baptism does not depend on the heretic or erring minster, but on Christ, 3) There are still remains in the papacy remnants of the true church "and GOD HAS NOT YET WHOLLY LEFT THAT CHURCH." Strange statement. Do you agree? 

#2 is not going to completely work since Christ's authority resides in the Presbytery as the power of the keys to bind and loose and etc. Does the minister count as Christ works through them? Will Christ bless the sacrament if not done by a minister?

Yet, even though we've flipped flopped about sixty times now with the arguments they are straining, Turretin still does not really help us out here - he says that although Romish baptism is not to be repeated, it is still "sinful" (vol 3, page 409). I love that - its valid but sinful. He says in no uncertain terms, to cover himself, 1) Thus,m the error of the Romanists seem to be approved concerning the absolute necessity of baptism and its efficacy ex opere operato and the superstitious rites added by men, by which the sanctity of this sacraments is foully polluted. (Help me out - its is valid, but sinful and foully polluted?) 2) They who do this profess themselves willing to hold communion with a heretical and idolatrous church, since the end of baptism is no other than o introduce the baptized INTO the church in which they receive baptism. 3) An Antichristian ministry is thus approved." You cannot, then, be baptized in a Roman church without entering into a sinful practice. But its accepted? But then, WHY would you want to defend ti practically? Because Christ is the real administer? 

I think I will agree with Turretin on this and say "But because this cannot be done in the papacy without danger to life, it is better to say simply that it is not lawful." And so, I end on that same note. 

I wrote all that so you would know I have thought this through and ahve read the Reformers and I know what they taught. At the same time there have been guys in history, like Cyprian, and the practicalness of Turretin mimicking Bucer and Bullinger that said we ought just to call it unlawful. Personally, I really don't want to open up the door for Romish Baptism in our day performed by heretical apostate priests, or any others for that matter that are not lawfully ordained. Should you go and get re-baptized? Nah. But then be SURE you agree with the reformers, summarized very nicely by Turretin when he says that such baptisms are filled with sin, foul, and wicked. You explain this to Mrs. Smith who waltzes into your congregation and say, "Listen Mrs. Smith. Even though your baptism was wicked, sinful and foul in the eyes of God being administered by a heretic and in an apostate church, Christ still ministered that to you." Watch the glazed look form over her eyes. 

If lawful ordination was not an issue with me in terms of ecclesiology, maybe I would be less critical on this than Turretin or Calvin or Bucer of BUllinger or Luther. But for now it is. I'd rather be practically theologically consistent. 

My  (10 cents)

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> 
> This question is actually much, much closer to the Donatist controversy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain briefly, please?
Click to expand...


The Donatist controversy was whether a baptism administered by an apostate/schismatic/unbelieving minister in the Church was invalid. The answer was no, because the power of the sacrament resides in the Church, not the person administering.

Thus with the FV controversy. Even if we allow that every FV minister is apostate and unbelieving (which is a big assumption), the baptism would still be valid because they administered it in a branch of the true Church.

Rome's baptism, however, in addition to being ex opere operata, is also in a false church, hence the difference.


----------



## wsw201

The Hodge/Thornwell debates was mentioned earlier and I think that it wa one of the key debates regarding the RC church. If you haven't had a chance to read Hodge's or Thornwell's position, you should. The key between the two was how do we define the *Visible Church".* Each man defined it differently. Thornwell defined the visible church based on the definition of the *True Church.* Hodge took a different approach based on the WCF definition of the Visible Church.

Here is a LINK to Hodge's view of the RC Church and the validity of its baptism. I have never been able to find Thornwell's position paper on the web, so if anyone knows where it is, let me know.

I highly recommend reading these two position papers. These are not a couple of lightweight theologians and their arguments are pretty sound. Personally, I think Hodge's position and definition of the Visible Church is the most compelling.


----------



## blhowes

Very interesting discussion.

The poll so far is pretty much as expected. No surprises on the baptist side, and about two-to-one on the paedo side in support of the catholic baptism.

In Presbyterian and other paedo churches, is this a decision that's usually left up to the individual churches to decide about, or is it a higher-level policy?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> In Presbyterian and other paedo churches, is this a decision that's usually left up to the individual churches to decide about, or is it a higher-level policy?


PCA leaves to each session. Not sure of OPC and elsewhere.

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by NaphtaliPress]


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> PCA leaves to each session. Not sure of OPC and elsewhere.


Thanks. A 'dumb-baptist' question...and a session is a group of churches that are part of a larger general assembly?


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> Very interesting discussion.
> 
> The poll so far is pretty much as expected. No surprises on the baptist side, and about two-to-one on the paedo side in support of the catholic baptism.
> 
> In Presbyterian and other paedo churches, is this a decision that's usually left up to the individual churches to decide about, or is it a higher-level policy?



See http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-078.html


----------



## NaphtaliPress

"Session" is what Presbyterians call the elders of the congregation; the Reformed churches call it a "consistory."


----------



## DTK

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> The Hodge/Thornwell debates was mentioned earlier and I think that it wa one of the key debates regarding the RC church. If you haven't had a chance to read Hodge's or Thornwell's position, you should. The key between the two was how do we define the *Visible Church".* Each man defined it differently. Thornwell defined the visible church based on the definition of the *True Church.* Hodge took a different approach based on the WCF definition of the Visible Church.
> 
> Here is a LINK to Hodge's view of the RC Church and the validity of its baptism. I have never been able to find Thornwell's position paper on the web, so if anyone knows where it is, let me know.
> 
> I highly recommend reading these two position papers. These are not a couple of lightweight theologians and their arguments are pretty sound. Personally, I think Hodge's position and definition of the Visible Church is the most compelling.


However, it has to be said Hodge's opinion in his own day did not reflect the majority view. Emory University Professor E. Brooks Holifield, who has devoted a chapter to this controversy in his most recent work, has made this comment...


> *E. Brooks Holifield:* Yet he [Charles Hodge] resisted powerful currents of anti-catholic teaching in his own denomination. When the General Assembly in 1845 denied the validity of Catholic baptism and pronounced Catholics "œoutside the visible Church of Christ," Hodge opposed the majority. He argued that the Roman communion included professing believers and that it taught enough about God, Christ, and the Spirit to convey saving truth; while the Papacy was outside the visible church, many ordinary Catholics were within it. The ultraconservatives, led by Thornwell and Breckinridge, pronounced Hodge´s conclusions a disaster and launched another campaign to check the influence of Princeton, but Hodge refused to relent. E. Brooks Holifield, _Theology in America: Christian Thought from the Age of the Puritans to the Civil War_ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), p. 388.


I'm presently reading this book by Holifield, and it is fascinating, especially his treatment of the Mercersburg theology.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> "Session" is what Presbyterians call the elders of the congregation; the Reformed churches call it a "consistory."


Thanks. 



> _Originally posted by Fred_
> See http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-078.html


Thanks for the link. I skimmed part of it, will read it through later (have to take the boys to the store to get some fishing tackle now)


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> The Hodge/Thornwell debates was mentioned earlier and I think that it wa one of the key debates regarding the RC church. If you haven't had a chance to read Hodge's or Thornwell's position, you should. The key between the two was how do we define the *Visible Church".* Each man defined it differently. Thornwell defined the visible church based on the definition of the *True Church.* Hodge took a different approach based on the WCF definition of the Visible Church.
> 
> Here is a LINK to Hodge's view of the RC Church and the validity of its baptism. I have never been able to find Thornwell's position paper on the web, so if anyone knows where it is, let me know.
> 
> I highly recommend reading these two position papers. These are not a couple of lightweight theologians and their arguments are pretty sound. Personally, I think Hodge's position and definition of the Visible Church is the most compelling.
> 
> 
> 
> However, it has to be said Hodge's opinion in his own day did not reflect the majority view. Emory University Professor E. Brooks Holifield, who has devoted a chapter to this controversy in his most recent work, has made this comment...
> 
> 
> 
> *E. Brooks Holifield:* Yet he [Charles Hodge] resisted powerful currents of anti-catholic teaching in his own denomination. When the General Assembly in 1845 denied the validity of Catholic baptism and pronounced Catholics "œoutside the visible Church of Christ," Hodge opposed the majority. He argued that the Roman communion included professing believers and that it taught enough about God, Christ, and the Spirit to convey saving truth; while the Papacy was outside the visible church, many ordinary Catholics were within it. The ultraconservatives, led by Thornwell and Breckinridge, pronounced Hodge´s conclusions a disaster and launched another campaign to check the influence of Princeton, but Hodge refused to relent. E. Brooks Holifield, _Theology in America: Christian Thought from the Age of the Puritans to the Civil War_ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), p. 388.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm presently reading this book by Holifield, and it is fascinating, especially his treatment of the Mercersburg theology.
> 
> Blessings,
> DTK
Click to expand...


True. From what I have been able to glean about the issue, Thornwell's position had become the majority opinion and passed GA. (From what I understand, Hodge was not at that GA). But what I find interesting is how they came at the subject from totally seperate directions regarding how they defined the visible church. 

To me the question is what is the proper definition of the visible church? Hodge? or Thornwell? or a mix of the two?


----------



## rmwilliamsjr

> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> This is one issue where I definitely agree with the Reformers. I hold to the same belief as Calvin, Luther, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it was the single view of Presbyterianism until Thornwell (did he have any predecessors?). Certainly it was the view of the divines at the Westminster Assembly; it was a feature of Scottish Presbyterianism which is explained if not strongly defended by John MacPherson in his lecture on the _Unity of the Church: The Sin of Schism_ here:
> http://www.naphtali.com/Macpherson.htm
> But there has always been a tension as MacPherson illustrates from the Scottish Confession of Faith and the First Book of Discipline.
Click to expand...


No one has mentioned that the doctrine changed in the Presbyterian Church under the cultural pressure from the KnowNothings and anti-Catholic movements of the 1840 see: http://www.peterwallace.org/dissertation/abstract.htm chapter 3 which is at:
http://www.peterwallace.org/dissertation/3catholicity.htm where he writes


> The Old School General Assembly voted 173-8 to declare Roman Catholic baptism invalid. Given the general anti-Catholic sentiment of the times, this may not sound surprising. But this decision is remarkable because the Old School prided itself on its conservatism, and yet this was the first time that any Reformed church had rejected the validity of Roman Catholic baptism.[1] Presbyterians in Scotland and Ireland had historically followed the 1565 decision of the Scottish General Assembly accepting the validity of such baptisms.[2] While anti-Catholicism played a significant role (together with the traditional eschatological description of the pope as the "œbeast" or "œantichrist"), that alone cannot explain why the Old School chose to reject the validity of Roman Catholic baptism. Changing conceptions of catholicity, along with the common sense moral reasoning associated with what Mark Noll has called a Reformed literal hermeneutic were also crucial in developing overwhelming support for such a radical innovation.[3]


this is an excellent PhD thesis and worthwhile the time to read.

....


----------



## DTK

Wayne,

In summing up Hodge's position, notice this comment that (I think) goes to the heart of your question concerning the visible church...


> while the Papacy was outside the visible church, many ordinary Catholics were within it.


Now, assuming for the moment, that Holifield's description of Hodge's position is correct (and I suppose even that is up for argument), such a position on the face of things appears absurd, and here's why I would be of this mind - If Hodge believed the papacy was outside the visible church, but that many ordinary catholics (members of a visible communion that was outside of the visible church), how could they possibly, in any sense, be a part of the visible church? I am more than willing to grant that there are Roman Catholics who are indeed Christians, in spite of their being within the pale of a corrupt communion. But that would mean their membership, as such and at best, is only within that of the invisible church. In other words, I simply don't see how folk could possibly hold a visible membership in a papal communion *that is not part of the visible church, and yet be in the visible church.* If Holifield has correctly represented Hodge's position, then his view appears absurd on the face of things. But, I do want to be cautious enough to admit that either Holiflied has possibly misrepresented Hodge's view of the visible church, or there are other factors I'm not taking into account, which may very well be the case.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## Arch2k

If we ascribe the validity of the sacraments to the lawful ordination of the administrator, is this not sacerdotalism?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Not at all. Sacredotalism teaches that priests act as salvific mediators between God and humans aside from the Power of Christ. By thier power, they are able to consecrate the host and wine for salvific purposes. That is light years away from Ministerial Sucession, and the ordinary offices of the church in the regard that is being discussed.

The question rests on Christ's blessings not man's, but Christ's blessings through His ordained means.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

We've discussed this topic in detail before on this thread. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=1976#pid61886


----------



## DTK

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Not at all. Sacredotalism teaches that priests act as salvific mediators between God and humans aside from the Power of Christ. By thier power, they are able to consecrate the host and wine for salvific purposes. That is light years away from Ministerial Sucession, and the ordinary offices of the church in the regard that is being discussed.
> 
> The question rests on Christ's blessings not man's, but Christ's blessings through His ordained means.


Can't help myself, but this comment immediately brought to my mind the following words from Augustine...


> *Augustine (354-430):* Here the very painful thought occurs to me that I should remind you that Parmenian, who was once a bishop of the Donatists, had the audacity to state in one of his letters that the bishop is the mediator between the people and God. You can see that they are putting themselves forward in the place of the bridegroom; they are corrupting the souls of those others with a sacrilegious adultery. This is no mean case of presumption, one that would strike me as totally incredible had I not read it. You see, if the bishop is the mediator between the people and God, it follows that we must take it there are many mediators, since there are many bishops. So then, in order to read the letter of Parmenian, let us censor the letter of the apostle Paul where he says, For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tm 2:5). But between whom is he the mediator, if not between God and his people? So between God and his body, because the Church is his body. Truly monstrous, therefore, is that pride which has the audacity to set up the bishop as mediator, guilty of the adulterous fallacy of claiming for itself the marriage of Christ. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., _The Works of Saint Augustine, Newly Discovered Sermons_, Part 3, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermon 198.52 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1997), p. 220.



Blessings,
DTK


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> I simply don't see how folk could possibly hold a visible membership in a papal communion *that is not part of the visible church, and yet be in the visible church.* If Holifield has correctly represented Hodge's position, then his view appears absurd on the face of things.



Agreed here so long as those interpretations, as you said, are correct.

It would be impossible to be and not be in the visible church.
In the same vein, i think it would also be safe to say, if we are thinking through these things int he same way, impossible for something to be acceptable or not acceptable int he same way. Either Turretin accepts Romish baptism, or he sees it as sinful, foul and wicked. Its either lawful (accepted) or unlawful (not accepted) in regards to the visible church.

Maybe that distinction should be made more readily here (visible / invisible).

DTK - 

Great Quote.

"Truly *monstrous*, therefore, is that pride which has the audacity to set up the bishop as mediator, guilty of the adulterous fallacy of claiming for itself the marriage of Christ. "

Quite *monstrous.* 



[Edited on 8-16-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## Puddleglum

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> A 'dumb-baptist' question...and a session is a group of churches that are part of a larger general assembly?



Chris is right - the session is the elders at the local church. 
What you're describing is called the "presbytery". (The Dutch people probably have another name for it.)


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> Wayne,
> 
> In summing up Hodge's position, notice this comment that (I think) goes to the heart of your question concerning the visible church...
> 
> 
> 
> while the Papacy was outside the visible church, many ordinary Catholics were within it.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, assuming for the moment, that Holifield's description of Hodge's position is correct (and I suppose even that is up for argument), such a position on the face of things appears absurd, and here's why I would be of this mind - If Hodge believed the papacy was outside the visible church, but that many ordinary catholics (members of a visible communion that was outside of the visible church), how could they possibly, in any sense, be a part of the visible church? I am more than willing to grant that there are Roman Catholics who are indeed Christians, in spite of their being within the pale of a corrupt communion. But that would mean their membership, as such and at best, is only within that of the invisible church. In other words, I simply don't see how folk could possibly hold a visible membership in a papal communion *that is not part of the visible church, and yet be in the visible church.* If Holifield has correctly represented Hodge's position, then his view appears absurd on the face of things. But, I do want to be cautious enough to admit that either Holiflied has possibly misrepresented Hodge's view of the visible church, or there are other factors I'm not taking into account, which may very well be the case.
> 
> Blessings,
> DTK
Click to expand...


In looking over Hodge's comments, Holifield may be looking at this particular comment (or maybe not!):




> The next step in the argument is, of course, the consideration of the question, whether the church of Rome comes within the definition, the correctness of which we have endeavored to establish? It was very common with the reformers and their successors to distinguish between the papacy, and the body of people professing Christianity under its dominion. When, by the church of Rome they meant the papacy, the denounced it as the mystical Babylon, and synagogue of Satan; when they meant by it the people, considered as a community professing the essential doctrines of the gospel, they admitted it to be a church. This distinction is natural and just, though it imposes the necessity of affirming and denying the same proposition. If by the church of Rome, you mean one thing, it is not a church; if you mean another, it is a church. People will not trouble themselves, however, with such distinctions, though they often unconsciously make them, and are forced to act upon them. Thus by the word England, we sometimes mean the country, sometimes the government, and sometimes the people. If we mean by it the government, we may say (in reference to some periods of its history), that it is unjust, cruel, persecuting, rapacious, opposed to Christ and his kingdom: when these things could not be said with truth of the people [4].
> 
> Though we regard the above distinction as sound, and though we can see no more real contradiction in saying Rome is a church, and is not a church, than in saying a man is mortal and yet immortal, spiritual yet carnal, a child of God yet sold under sin; yet as the distinction is not necessary for the sake either of truth or perspicuity, we do not intend to avail ourselves of it. All that we have to beg is, that brethren would not quote against us the sweeping declarations and denunciations of our Protestant fore-fathers against popery as the man of sin, antichrist, the mystical Babylon, and synagogue of Satan, as proof of our departure from the Protestant faith. In all those denunciations we could consistently join; just as our fathers, as Professor Thornwell acknowledges, while uttering those denunciations, still admitted Rome, in one sense, to be a church. Our present object is to enquire whether the church of Rome, taking the term as Bishop Sanderson says, Conjunctim pro toto aggregato, just as we take the term, church of England, falls within the definition of a church given above.



The definition he is talking about is this:




> This definition is substantially the one given in our standards. "A particular church consists of a number of professing Christians with their offspring, voluntarily associated together for divine worship and godly living agreeably to the Holy Scriptures; and submitting to a certain form of government [sic] [3]. "Professing Christians" is here used as equivalent to "those professing the true religion," the form of expression adopted in the Confession of Faith and Larger Catechism. It is obvious that the definition suits all the cases mentioned above, applying equally well to a single congregation, and to a whole denomination united in one body.
> 
> "The church (visible) is a company of men and women professing the saving doctrine of Jesus Christ." This is but saying what Tertullian, Augustin, Jerome, Hilary, Chrysostom and the whole line of God's people have said from the beginning.


----------



## DTK

> Hodge: Though we regard the above distinction as sound, and though we can see no more real contradiction in saying Rome is a church, and is not a church,...


Wayne,

Just thinking on my own here - But it seems as though Hodge is wrestling with his own distinction, while trying at the same time to deny his struggle with it. I do understand the distinction between _ecclÃ©sia dÃ­scens_ (the church learning) and _ecclÃ©sia dÃ³cens_ (the teaching church), but the problem, as I see it with Hodge's distinction from a post-Reformation perspective, is that it simply doesn't make sense any longer for a definition of the visible church. The boundaries, i.e., the marks of the visible church were much more distinguishable in Hodge's day and are much more distinguishable in our own day, than they were in the day of the Reformers. The church is no longer in that kind of state of indistinguishable tension. It's almost as if Hodge was engaging in a bit of nostalgia, and using the Reformers as a pretense, for refusing to face the reality of the state of the Church in a post-Reformation context. For the life of me, I cannot understand his refusal, nor our own refusal today, to admit that with all of its dogmatic additions to the gospel, and its perversion thereof, how Rome can in any sense be a part of the visible church today. Our situation, simply put, is far far different than that of the Reformers. The lines have been drawn, and Rome has only retrogressed from bad to worse in its perversion of the gospel with the further official accretions of papal infallibility and the marian dogmas. And if we do embrace the principle of _ecclÃ©sia sÃ©mper reformÃ¡nda_, then Hodge, on this issue, rejected that principle against the tide of the church in his own day. 

I say this, and I'm not trying to make this personal by any means, I admire and respect you, and value your opinion. But I am wondering just how long it requires, and just how much farther a communion can persist in its perversion of the gospel, and still retain any vestige of a "visible church?" And how long must *we* continue to wrestle with this issue?



> "The church (visible) is a company of men and women professing the saving doctrine of Jesus Christ." This is but saying what Tertullian, Augustin, Jerome, Hilary, Chrysostom and the whole line of God's people have said from the beginning.


I agree with Hodge here, but Hodge is offering this comment as though he is oblivious to the fact that Rome does not define the church that way as "Tertullian, Augustin, Jerome, Hilary, Chrysostom and the whole line of God's people have said from the beginning," especially when it denies that---"The church (visible) is a company of men and women professing the saving doctrine of Jesus Christ"---is a proper description for those outside the Roman communion. Rome has never officially recognized, and has actually anathematized those who make any such claim outside of its own communion. I think Hodge missed it on this issue. Tertullian, Augustin, Jerome, Hilary, Chrysostom and the whole line of God's people from the beginning were not papists, exclusivists, or Gnostics who defined the church in terms of communion with Rome. Now, we both know that Romanists love to claim otherwise for these men, but that is a claim which cannot be historically sustained.

Thank you for your kindness and patience with me in indulging me on this topic.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> "The church (visible) is a company of men and women professing the saving doctrine of Jesus Christ"---is a proper description for those outside the Roman communion. Rome has never officially recognized, *and has actually anathematized* those who make any such claim outside of its own communion.



I don't think that is quite accurate.

True, the counsel of Trent was pretty dogmatic in a heretical way. And while the RC church doesn't want to lose face by denying the validity of Trent, they have greatly softened their views lately by "going through the backdoor", if you will. They don't want to go against Trent, so they verbally agree that only those in Rome's communion are in the true church. Nevertheless, because *they truly do not wish to anathematize protestants*, they have essentially declared that many protestant congregations are actually part of Rome's communion, but somehow just don't realize it yet. Rome now looks upon many protestants simply as erring brethren.

Is Rome being convoluted here? Of course. And that should be no surprise, considering how convoluted they are on most everything else. But the real point to notice here is that they are doing all they can to *not* anathematize protestants, and yet they also want to avoid embarrasing themselves by controverting Trent.

There are plenty of heresies with which we can accurately charge Rome. But I don't think it is helpful to charge them inaccurately on this. I do not agree that the modern RC church anathematizes all protestants.

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## DTK

> I don't think that is quite accurate.


I think it is very accurate, and I wasn't thinking specifically of Trent. I was thinking specifically of the Roman Council of Florence...


> *The Council of Florence (1441) declared in the Decree for the Jacobites, in the Bull Cantata Domino:* It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. See Henry Denzinger, _Enchiridion Symbolorum, The Sources of Catholic Dogma_, #714, p. 230.


Now, as any modern day Roman Catholic will insist, the word anathema is nowhere found there, but a consignment to everlasting fire is clear enough to me.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that is quite accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is very accurate, and I wasn't thinking specifically of Trent. I was thinking specifically of the Roman Council of Florence...
> 
> Now, as any modern day Roman Catholic will insist, the word anathema is nowhere found there, but a consignment to everlasting fire is clear enough to me.
> 
> Blessings,
> DTK
Click to expand...


You are missing my point. Within the last few decades, the RC church has *redefined* what it means to be within the RC communion. A number of protestants are now considered to be included, even though the protestants themselves might not realize it.

Rome doesn't want to directly contradict Florence and Trent. But they no longer want to issue a blanket-anathema on protestants either.

Please research a little recent RC'ism, and not just counsels from over 500 years ago.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> But the real point to notice here is that they are doing all they can to not anathematize protestants, and yet they also want to avoid embarrasing themselves by controverting Trent.



The Council of Trent stated "“ "œSince the power of conferring indulgences has been granted by Christ to His Church, this Holy Synod teaches and orders that the use of indulgences is to be retained in the Church. It also condemns under anathema those who say they are useless or who maintain that the Church has not the power to confer them." 

Vatican Council I stated "“ "œIt is divinely revealed dogma that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra (that is, when acting as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he, by his supreme apostolic authority, defines a doctrine touching faith or morals, which is to be held by the whole Church) said definitions are of themselves irreformable (infallible). If anyone shall presume to contradict this our definition, let him be anathema". 

"œIt fact it reaffirmed the canons and decrees of previous key councils: "˜This sacred council accepts loyally the venerable faith of our ancestors"¦and it proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea, of the Council of Florence (purgatory) and of the Council of Trent (masses said for the dead , papal infallibility, Catholic sacraments necessary for salvation)´ (Austin Flannery, Vol. 1, p.412). 

The Council of Trent denounced the Reformation and damned evangelicals´ beliefs with more than 100 anathemas. All of these condemnations of the gospel of God´s grace are endorsed and reaffirmed by Vatican II" (Dave Hunt: A Woman Rides the Beast). 

6th Session, Canon 9: If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification"¦let him be anathema (accursed, eternally condemned). 

6th Session, Canon 30: If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema. 

7th Session, Canon 4: If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law [canons and decrees of the Church] are not 
necessary for salvation but"¦without them"¦men obtain from God alone through faith alone the grace of justification, let him be anathema.

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> 
> 
> Hodge: Though we regard the above distinction as sound, and though we can see no more real contradiction in saying Rome is a church, and is not a church,...
> 
> 
> 
> Wayne,
> 
> Just thinking on my own here - But it seems as though Hodge is wrestling with his own distinction, while trying at the same time to deny his struggle with it. I do understand the distinction between _ecclÃ©sia dÃ­scens_ (the church learning) and _ecclÃ©sia dÃ³cens_ (the teaching church), but the problem, as I see it with Hodge's distinction from a post-Reformation perspective, is that it simply doesn't make sense any longer for a definition of the visible church. The boundaries, i.e., the marks of the visible church were much more distinguishable in Hodge's day and are much more distinguishable in our own day, than they were in the day of the Reformers. The church is no longer in that kind of state of indistinguishable tension. It's almost as if Hodge was engaging in a bit of nostalgia, and using the Reformers as a pretense, for refusing to face the reality of the state of the Church in a post-Reformation context. For the life of me, I cannot understand his refusal, nor our own refusal today, to admit that with all of its dogmatic additions to the gospel, and its perversion thereof, how Rome can in any sense be a part of the visible church today. Our situation, simply put, is far far different than that of the Reformers. The lines have been drawn, and Rome has only retrogressed from bad to worse in its perversion of the gospel with the further official accretions of papal infallibility and the marian dogmas. And if we do embrace the principle of _ecclÃ©sia sÃ©mper reformÃ¡nda_, then Hodge, on this issue, rejected that principle against the tide of the church in his own day.
> 
> I say this, and I'm not trying to make this personal by any means, I admire and respect you, and value your opinion. But I am wondering just how long it requires, and just how much farther a communion can persist in its perversion of the gospel, and still retain any vestige of a "visible church?" And how long must *we* continue to wrestle with this issue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The church (visible) is a company of men and women professing the saving doctrine of Jesus Christ." This is but saying what Tertullian, Augustin, Jerome, Hilary, Chrysostom and the whole line of God's people have said from the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with Hodge here, but Hodge is offering this comment as though he is oblivious to the fact that Rome does not define the church that way as "Tertullian, Augustin, Jerome, Hilary, Chrysostom and the whole line of God's people have said from the beginning," especially when it denies that---"The church (visible) is a company of men and women professing the saving doctrine of Jesus Christ"---is a proper description for those outside the Roman communion. Rome has never officially recognized, and has actually anathematized those who make any such claim outside of its own communion. I think Hodge missed it on this issue. Tertullian, Augustin, Jerome, Hilary, Chrysostom and the whole line of God's people from the beginning were not papists, exclusivists, or Gnostics who defined the church in terms of communion with Rome. Now, we both know that Romanists love to claim otherwise for these men, but that is a claim which cannot be historically sustained.
> 
> Thank you for your kindness and patience with me in indulging me on this topic.
> 
> Blessings,
> DTK
Click to expand...


David,

I appreciate your comments and I think you make some excellent points. It is like I say about Calvin; I respect him immensely as a great teacher of the church and though he was right about a lot of things, he wasn't right about everything and neither was C. Hodge.

One thing that has interested me about this topic are the implications. I don't know how it is at your church, but when I was on Session, we had to deal with a number of families that not only came out of the RC Church but Word of Faith churches (and I'm being generous calling them churches. The DFW area is the home of Copeland, and the Crouches plus Hinn comes here all the time), and other "bodies" that are questionable asking whether their baptism was valid. You have probably seen some of the questions asked in this thread about baptisms from other Churches. Considering the status of the "Mainline" churches and the rampant Liberalism, Neo-liberalism, neo-orthodoxy, Liberation theology, supporting the "Re-Imaging" garbage, its getting harder and harder to come up with a valid definition of the Visible Church much less baptism! 

You mentioned the changes in the church from the time of the Reformers to the times of Hodge. Well, I would say that we have had even bigger changes since Hodge!

BTW, I didn't take any of your comments personally. If you want me to take it personally, you're going to have to do better than that


----------



## DTK

> You are missing my point. Within the last few decades, the RC church has redefined what it means to be within the RC communion. A number of protestants are now considered to be included, even though the protestants themselves might not realize it.
> 
> Rome doesn't want to directly contradict Florence and Trent. But they no longer want to issue a blanket-anathema on protestants either.
> 
> Please research a little recent RC'ism, and not just counsels from over 500 years ago.


No sir, I'm not missing your point. It's just that I'm not buying your point, and neither should you. The last several decades of Vatican II and JP II do not reform past official, dogmatic pronouncements by the Roman magisterium. Rome has never repudiated such "infallible" decrees, because the Roman communion knows very well that would be a tacit admission of fallibility. I am well aware of the posturing of Roman Catholicism in recent decades, and I am well aware of how modern day Roman apologists subject such official decrees to the death of a thousand qualifications. But I would commend to your own study the Roman view of _semper eadem_, and its own official position of the irreformable nature of its official past decrees which this communion has never repudiated. 

As an aside, be thankful I'm not one of your history profs. I'd fail you on assessment of Roman history.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## DTK

> David,
> 
> It is like I say about Calvin; I respect him immensely as a great teacher of the church and though he was right about a lot of things, he wasn't right about everything and neither was C. Hodge.
> 
> One thing that has interested me about this topic are the implications. I don't know how it is at your church, but when I was on Session, we had to deal with a number of families that not only came out of the RC Church but Word of Faith churches (and I'm being generous calling them churches. The DFW area is the home of Copeland, and the Crouches plus Hinn comes here all the time), and other "bodies" that are questionable asking whether their baptism was valid. You have probably seen some of the questions asked in this thread about baptisms from other Churches. Considering the status of the "Mainline" churches and the rampant Liberalism, Neo-liberalism, neo-orthodoxy, Liberation theology, supporting the "Re-Imaging" garbage, its getting harder and harder to come up with a valid definition of the Visible Church much less baptism!
> 
> You mentioned the changes in the church from the time of the Reformers to the times of Hodge. Well, I would say that we have had even bigger changes since Hodge!
> 
> BTW, I didn't take any of your comments personally. If you want me to take it personally, you're going to have to do better than that.



Yes Wayne,

It is very difficult today, and my own sessions have wrestled with the very same scenarios you've referenced. In one sense, the marks of the visible church are very distinguishable today, but the problems you referenced from a whole host of weird communions do make it, on the other hand, patently difficult. So your point is well taken.

Thanks for the exchange and provoking me to think about these other issues again.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## SRoper

"Rome has never officially recognized, and has actually anathematized those who make any such claim outside of its own communion."

Maybe they haven't _officially_ recognized others, but my view is that they have gone too far in being inclusive.

_CCC_:

"838 'The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.' Those 'who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.' With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound 'that it lacks little to atain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist. [the EO would beg to differ, -SR]'"

After addressing the Jews, it goes on to say:

"841 _The Church's relationship with the Muslims._ 'The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.'"


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> 
> 
> You are missing my point. Within the last few decades, the RC church has redefined what it means to be within the RC communion. A number of protestants are now considered to be included, even though the protestants themselves might not realize it.
> 
> Rome doesn't want to directly contradict Florence and Trent. But they no longer want to issue a blanket-anathema on protestants either.
> 
> Please research a little recent RC'ism, and not just counsels from over 500 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> No sir, I'm not missing your point. It's just that I'm not buying your point, and neither should you. The last several decades of Vatican II and JP II do not reform past official, dogmatic pronouncements by the Roman magisterium. Rome has never repudiated such "infallible" decrees, because the Roman communion knows very well that would be a tacit admission of fallibility. I am well aware of the posturing of Roman Catholicism in recent decades, and I am well aware of how modern day Roman apologists subject such official decrees to the death of a thousand qualifications. But I would commend to your own study the Roman view of _semper eadem_, and its own official position of the irreformable nature of its official past decrees which this communion has never repudiated.
> 
> As an aside, be thankful I'm not one of your history profs. I'd fail you on assessment of Roman history.
> 
> Blessings,
> DTK
Click to expand...




Joseph,

The problem here is that you are not accounting for the tried and true Papist practice of giving with the right hand to take away with the left. Thus Rome makes this statement:



> "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." (NCC 837)



But then it is "qualified" by:



> Those "who believe in Christ and *have been properly baptized* are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist. (NCC 837)



And what is a proper baptism in this sense (as it is used)? It is a belief in baptismal regeneration:



> Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. *Justified by faith in Baptism*, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church." "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn." (NCC 1271)



You further should not take much comfort from Romist comments that it might be possible to be saved outside the Roman body. All that does for you, as a Protestant, is put you on a par with a Muslim:



> 841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."



The recent "change" with respect to Protestants is merely to single out the Reformers, and to say that those who descended from them are not (automatically) guilty of their sin of _schism_:



> 818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."



The only problem is, by rejecting the Pope, and rejecting the sacerdotal system, Protestants have brought themselves back under anathama, not for schism (as the Reformers) but for rejecting salvation:



> 1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. "Sacramental grace" is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. The Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior.



Rome is quite a whore.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> No sir, I'm not missing your point. It's just that I'm not buying your point, and neither should you. The last several decades of Vatican II and JP II do not reform past official, dogmatic pronouncements by the Roman magisterium. Rome has never repudiated such "infallible" decrees, because the Roman communion knows very well that would be a tacit admission of fallibility. I am well aware of the posturing of Roman Catholicism in recent decades, and I am well aware of how modern day Roman apologists subject such official decrees to the death of a thousand qualifications. But I would commend to your own study the Roman view of _semper eadem_, and its own official position of the irreformable nature of its official past decrees which this communion has never repudiated.
> 
> As an aside, be thankful I'm not one of your history profs. I'd fail you on assessment of Roman history.
> 
> Blessings,
> DTK



You should not think that I am unaware of Rome's dogmatic refusal to admit fallibility in its past decrees, especially since I already *said* as much in my previous posts.

If you truly recognize Rome's "thousand qualifications" used with many issues, then you should have no problem with my argument. I have simply argued that they have used those "thousand qualifications" to effectively _get around_ their unwillingness to controvert past decrees.




[Edited on 8-17-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> And what is a proper baptism in this sense (as it is used)? It is a belief in baptismal regeneration:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. *Justified by faith in Baptism*, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church." "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn." (NCC 1271)
Click to expand...


I see what you're trying to suggest, and you _may_ be correct, but I would have to see corroborating quotes. But that phrase "justified by faith in baptism" is ambiguous, and does not necessarily "mean what you think it means." (Anigo Montoya comes to mind again.) It could mean, "*justified by faith* in baptism", just as much as it could mean, "justfied by *faith in baptism*". You are assuming it means the later. But it just as well might mean the former. (And considering all of Rome's heresy's it wouldn't suprise me if they mean the later . . . I just need to see corroborating quotes.) Of the many errors I have heard about from Rome, that is not one of them. I know they believe in baptismal regeneration. But I am not aware of them requiring the baptizee to believe in it in order for the baptism to be efficacious. 



> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> The recent "change" with respect to Protestants is merely to single out the Reformers, and to say that those who descended from them are not (automatically) guilty of their sin of _schism_:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."
Click to expand...


I am already well aware of that recent change, Fred. I put Vatican II documents in my bathroom as personal reading material. In fact, the passage you quoted shows precisely the doctrine to which I am referring, which helps demonstrate my point that Rome does not anathematize all protestants. The passage you quoted above should virtually end this little side-argument, in my opinion.





> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> The only problem is, by rejecting the Pope, and rejecting the sacerdotal system, Protestants have brought themselves back under anathama, not for schism (as the Reformers) but for rejecting salvation:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. "Sacramental grace" is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. The Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior.
Click to expand...


What in your quote above demonstrates that "Protestants have brought themselves back under anathama . . . for rejecting salvation"? I don't see it.



> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> Rome is quite a whore.



I agree with you there!

[Edited on 8-17-2005 by biblelighthouse]

[Edited on 8-17-2005 by biblelighthouse]

[edited for content]

[Edited on 8-17-05 by pastorway]


----------



## DTK

> You should not think that I am unaware of Rome's dogmatic refusal to admit fallibility in its past decrees, especially since I already said as much in my previous posts.
> 
> If you truly recognize Rome's "thousand qualifications" used with many issues, then you should have no problem with my argument. I have simply argued that they have used those "thousand qualifications" to effectively get around their unwillingness to controvert past decrees.
> 
> It would have been kinder of you to simply ASK me whether I was aware of Rome's "official position of the irreformable nature of its official past decrees". (But then again, if you had been paying attention, you would have already noticed that I was not in the dark regarding that.)


1) You seem to enjoy the benefit of a double standard as to what you regard as kindness, my friend. It was you who first assumed that posture when you said...


> Please research a little recent RC'ism, and not just counsels from over 500 years ago.


I suppose, by your standard, "It would have been kinder of you to simply ASK me whether I had researched a little recent RC'ism, and not just counsels from over 500 years ago," wouldn't you agree? So, I would make this plea to you, please don't invoke one standard for yourself, and then another for me. I think you might be letting your pride get the best of you here.

2) It is because I am very conscious of Rome's principle of _semper eadem_ that I refuse to buy into your argument. Rome may play the chameleon to blend in with our present day culture under the pretense of tolerance, but at heart Rome is _semper eadem_. I'm not the one here who has brushed aside as irrelevant an infallible decree of Rome simply because it's over 500 years old. I encourage you to pay attention to Fred Greco's post. I think he has offered some helpful light on this matter.

Cheers,
DTK


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _originally posted by Joseph_
> which helps demonstrate my point that Rome does not anathematize all protestants.



You can't be serious here brother.
Read The Canons of Trent on Justification. They officially and irrevocably anathematize all Protestants who believe in Justification by Faith alone. (i.e. the _Counter Reformation_)

Canon 10 "If anyonje says that men are justified without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us, or by that justice are formally just, let him be *anathema*."
Council of Trent, page 43, Canons Concerning Justification

Canon 12 "If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than faith in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is theis confidence alone that justifies us, let him be *anathema*." (Ibid.)

[Edited on 8-17-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> 
> 
> You should not think that I am unaware of Rome's dogmatic refusal to admit fallibility in its past decrees, especially since I already said as much in my previous posts.
> 
> If you truly recognize Rome's "thousand qualifications" used with many issues, then you should have no problem with my argument. I have simply argued that they have used those "thousand qualifications" to effectively get around their unwillingness to controvert past decrees.
> 
> It would have been kinder of you to simply ASK me whether I was aware of Rome's "official position of the irreformable nature of its official past decrees". (But then again, if you had been paying attention, you would have already noticed that I was not in the dark regarding that.)
> 
> 
> 
> 1) You seem to enjoy the benefit of a double standard as to what you regard as kindness, my friend. It was you who first assumed that posture when you said...
> 
> 
> 
> Please research a little recent RC'ism, and not just counsels from over 500 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suppose, by your standard, "It would have been kinder of you to simply ASK me whether I had researched a little recent RC'ism, and not just counsels from over 500 years ago," wouldn't you agree? So, I would make this plea to you, please don't invoke one standard for yourself, and then another for me. I think you might be letting your pride get the best of you here.
> 
> 2) It is because I am very conscious of Rome's principle of _semper eadem_ that I refuse to buy into your argument. Rome may play the chameleon to blend in with our present day culture under the pretense of tolerance, but at heart Rome is _semper eadem_. I'm not the one here who has brushed aside as irrelevant an infallible decree of Rome simply because it's over 500 years old. I encourage you to pay attention to Fred Greco's post. I think he has offered some helpful light on this matter.
> 
> Cheers,
> DTK
Click to expand...


I would also just point out (since David is obviously too humble to do so) that David is the author or co-author to three published books dealing with Roman Catholicism and _Sola Scriptura_. Not exactly unread on the subject.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Exactly, Matt.

AND, Trent is IRREFORMABLE.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

If we wouldn't marry a papist (according to the WCF), why would we extend the hand of ecclesiastical fellowship to them?? If they are no different than PAGANS as far as proper marital relations, why act like they are our Christian brothers in baptism?


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Exactly, Matt.
> 
> AND, Trent is IRREFORMABLE.



Yes, Gabe.

Trent is irreformable because the pronouncements are infallible.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> You seem to enjoy the benefit of a double standard as to what you regard as kindness, my friend. It was you who first assumed that posture when you said...
> 
> 
> 
> Please research a little recent RC'ism, and not just counsels from over 500 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose, by your standard, "It would have been kinder of you to simply ASK me whether I had researched a little recent RC'ism, and not just counsels from over 500 years ago," wouldn't you agree? So, I would make this plea to you, please don't invoke one standard for yourself, and then another for me. I think you might be letting your pride get the best of you here.
Click to expand...


You make a really good point. And so I apologize. I was really offended by what you said to me. But I didn't take it into consideration that I had earlier said something to you which provoked you. Please forgive me for this.




> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> I would also just point out (since David is obviously too humble to do so) that David is the author or co-author to three published books dealing with Roman Catholicism and _Sola Scriptura_. Not exactly unread on the subject.



I was completely unaware of this. Thank you for giving me this info, Fred. Had I known that about David, I never would have assumed he was unfamiliar with Vatican II.



David, I apologize!


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> And what is a proper baptism in this sense (as it is used)? It is a belief in baptismal regeneration:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. *Justified by faith in Baptism*, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church." "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn." (NCC 1271)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see what you're trying to suggest, and you _may_ be correct, but I would have to see corroborating quotes. But that phrase "justified by faith in baptism" is ambiguous, and does not necessarily "mean what you think it means." (Anigo Montoya comes to mind again.) It could mean, "*justified by faith* in baptism", just as much as it could mean, "justfied by *faith in baptism*". You are assuming it means the later. But it just as well might mean the former. (And considering all of Rome's heresy's it wouldn't suprise me if they mean the later . . . I just need to see corroborating quotes.) Of the many errors I have heard about from Rome, that is not one of them. I know they believe in baptismal regeneration. But I am not aware of them requiring the baptizee to believe in it in order for the baptism to be efficacious.
Click to expand...



FYI, I pulled out my book on the Vatican II documents, to look again at their stance on ecumenism and baptism. In my copy of the documents, it reads, ". . . all those justified by faith *through* baptism are incorporated into Christ . . . and are properly regarded as brothers in the Lord by the sons of the Catholic Church."

Thus, I would argue that my earlier comment about the "justification by faith in baptism" phrase was correct. They are not saying "justfied by *faith in baptism*". Rather, they are saying, "*justified by faith* in baptism". They are not saying you have to have "faith in baptism" to be justified. Rather, they are saying that baptism is that through which you are justified . . . the instrument and timing, not the object of faith.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> 
> _originally posted by Joseph_
> which helps demonstrate my point that Rome does not anathematize all protestants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't be serious here brother.
> Read The Canons of Trent on Justification. They officially and irrevocably anathematize all Protestants who believe in Justification by Faith alone. (i.e. the _Counter Reformation_)
> 
> Canon 10 "If anyonje says that men are justified without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us, or by that justice are formally just, let him be *anathema*."
> Council of Trent, page 43, Canons Concerning Justification
> 
> Canon 12 "If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than faith in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is theis confidence alone that justifies us, let him be *anathema*." (Ibid.)
Click to expand...


Matt, 

I am very aware of these utterly heretical statements in Trent.

I am just arguing that certain statements in Vatican II are totally contradictory to Trent.

Thus, I have to choose whether to believe that the modern RC church holds primarily to Trent, or to Vatican II. I happen to believe they go with Vatican II, since it is much more recent.

Regardless of what Trent says, Vatican II seems pretty clear (to me) in saying that the Reformers were guilty of damnable sin, but that their children (you and me) are not necessarily so. Vatican II seems to say that those of us born after the reformation schism are included in the catholic church in some sense, as long as we have faith and have been baptized. Rome believes that justification happens through baptism, but they do not believe that the recipient of baptism has to believe in baptismal regeneration for it to be efficacious. (Otherwise, how could they justify their baptisms of infants?)


Let me be super-careful this time around . . . Matt, I do not think you ignorant of Vatican II, Trent, or of RC'ism in general. On the contrary, I believe you know much more about it than I do. All I am saying is that you and I disagree over how to interpret the meaning of Vatican II. And even there, there is a very great possibility that I am wrong, and you are right. Please forgive my earlier arrogance toward Pastor DTK, and please do not think that I am still exercising such pride. I really do want to talk this out and discuss it. I do not disrespect you, Fred, DTK, or anyone else on here. You are my brothers in Christ, and all three of you are certainly my betters. So I need to be very careful and to watch my step. Please just be patient with me, even if I am completely wrong about Vatican II.

Your brother in Christ,
Joseph


----------



## DTK

Joseph,

Apology accepted, be at peace and let us dwell no more on it.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> Let me be super-careful this time around . . . Matt, I do not think you ignorant of Vatican II, Trent, or of RC'ism in general. On the contrary, I believe you know much more about it than I do. All I am saying is that you and I disagree over how to interpret the meaning of Vatican II. And even there, there is a very great possibility that I am wrong, and you are right. Please forgive my earlier arrogance toward Pastor DTK, and please do not think that I am still exercising such pride. I really do want to talk this out and discuss it. I do not disrespect you, Fred, DTK, or anyone else on here. You are my brothers in Christ, and all three of you are certainly my betters. So I need to be very careful and to watch my step. Please just be patient with me, even if I am completely wrong about Vatican II.



Amen brother. (see DTK's post above) 

On the question of Vatican II verses Trent, etc. this is a very important point to make - if the RC believes in the infallibility of the Pope, then, by dogmatic necessity, you are going to lose your argument no matter how "practical" it is or is not in light of modern day Romanism. It may very well be that (for sake of argument) NO RC believes in Trent at all. But that does not matter unless they do 2 things: 1) recant Papal infallibility (which establishes Trent) and then 2) recants Trent.

Otherwise, arguing practical arguments about who believes what and where is moot.

Does that make sense?


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> On the question of Vatican II verses Trent, etc. this is a very important point to make - if the RC believes in the infallibility of the Pope, then, by dogmatic necessity, you are going to lose your argument no matter how "practical" it is or is not in light of modern day Romanism. It may very well be that (for sake of argument) NO RC believes in Trent at all. But that does not matter unless they do 2 things: 1) recant Papal infallibility (which establishes Trent) and then 2) recants Trent.
> 
> Otherwise, arguing practical arguments about who believes what and where is moot.
> 
> Does that make sense?



Yes, it makes sense . . . I believe I understand your argument perfectly. You are saying that the "official position" of the church trumps what any or even all of the members of the church actually believe.

I don't agree with that formulation, but I do understand it.

I am more interested in focusing on what RC people actually believe, rather than focusing on what we can demonstrate that they logically should believe based on their official doctrines.

Arminianism is a case in point. Take Arminian doctrine to its logical conclusions, and it is a heretical, damnable doctrine. But then again, few Arminians are consistently logical! And I believe God is gracious to grant them some "blessed inconsistency" in the midst of their error. 

Another case in point is my own fuzzy view of the Trinity just a few months back. I certainly said that Jesus is "100% God and 100% man". I knew that was important, and I believed it. --- Nevertheless, if you had asked me how the incarnation worked out, I probably would have said something to this effect: "The Second Person of the Trinity inhabited a human body." --- Thanks to this board, I have thought it through more clearly, and I now realize that Jesus had to have a human soul as well as a human body to be fully human. But does that mean I was a damned heretic before? No, it just means I was inconsistent, and God has now cleared up my inconsistency.

I could also point out the PCUSA. Their "official doctrine" may include the WCF. But that doesn't mean that most PCUSA ministers really believe much of anything in it. I know a lot of them even deny basics like the virgin birth and the infallibility of Scripture. I am much more concerned over what they actually believe, rather than being concerned much with their "official doctrine".

Am I making sense? Have I understood your position, even though I disagree with it?


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> On the question of Vatican II verses Trent, etc. this is a very important point to make - if the RC believes in the infallibility of the Pope, then, by dogmatic necessity, you are going to lose your argument no matter how "practical" it is or is not in light of modern day Romanism. It may very well be that (for sake of argument) NO RC believes in Trent at all. But that does not matter unless they do 2 things: 1) recant Papal infallibility (which establishes Trent) and then 2) recants Trent.
> 
> Otherwise, arguing practical arguments about who believes what and where is moot.
> 
> Does that make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it makes sense . . . I believe I understand your argument perfectly. You are saying that the "official position" of the church trumps what any or even all of the members of the church actually believe.
> 
> I don't agree with that formulation, but I do understand it.
> 
> I am more interested in focusing on what RC people actually believe, rather than focusing on what we can demonstrate that they logically should believe based on their official doctrines.
> 
> Arminianism is a case in point. Take Arminian doctrine to its logical conclusions, and it is a heretical, damnable doctrine. But then again, few Arminians are consistently logical! And I believe God is gracious to grant them some "blessed inconsistency" in the midst of their error.
> 
> Another case in point is my own fuzzy view of the Trinity just a few months back. I certainly said that Jesus is "100% God and 100% man". I knew that was important, and I believed it. --- Nevertheless, if you had asked me how the incarnation worked out, I probably would have said something to this effect: "The Second Person of the Trinity inhabited a human body." --- Thanks to this board, I have thought it through more clearly, and I now realize that Jesus had to have a human soul as well as a human body to be fully human. But does that mean I was a damned heretic before? No, it just means I was inconsistent, and God has now cleared up my inconsistency.
> 
> I could also point out the PCUSA. Their "official doctrine" may include the WCF. But that doesn't mean that most PCUSA ministers really believe much of anything in it. I know a lot of them even deny basics like the virgin birth and the infallibility of Scripture. I am much more concerned over what they actually believe, rather than being concerned much with their "official doctrine".
> 
> Am I making sense? Have I understood your position, even though I disagree with it?
Click to expand...


Joseph,

Thanks for this helpful post. I think that I see where you are coming from now, and where I disagree (but graciously!  ). The structure Rome is completely different from that of a Protestant Church. It really does not matter whether individual - or even the overwhelming number - of Roman Catholics fail to follow official dogma. A better analogy than the one you offered with the Confession would be the Bible. Would the Bible cease to be authoritative with respect to sexual purity if many in a church deny it and contradict it? Of course not.

But you see, the official pronouncements of the Roman Church are of *exactly the same* authoritative value as the Bible. That is why "practice" means nothing w/r/t Rome. It is all about what the magisterium holds.

After all, most Ammerican Catholics are pro-abortion, pro-gay, etc., but that does not mean that Rome is. Quite the contrary.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> Joseph,
> 
> Thanks for this helpful post. I think that I see where you are coming from now, and where I disagree (but graciously!  ). The structure Rome is completely different from that of a Protestant Church. It really does not matter whether individual - or even the overwhelming number - of Roman Catholics fail to follow official dogma. A better analogy than the one you offered with the Confession would be the Bible. Would the Bible cease to be authoritative with respect to sexual purity if many in a church deny it and contradict it? Of course not.
> 
> But you see, the official pronouncements of the Roman Church are of *exactly the same* authoritative value as the Bible. That is why "practice" means nothing w/r/t Rome. It is all about what the magisterium holds.
> 
> After all, most Ammerican Catholics are pro-abortion, pro-gay, etc., but that does not mean that Rome is. Quite the contrary.



You make some very excellent points here, Fred. Thanks for reminding me of Rome's _"sola ecclesia"_ doctrine. (I don't remember who made up that phrase . . . but I liked it and swiped it.) I knew that they exalted tradition above exegesis, but I was not thinking about that in this present context.

However, I would still argue (with a sweet spirit) that the documents of Vatican II are _also_ official documents of the Church . . . not just the counsels of Trent and Florence. So, even with your excellent qualification of this issue, I'm not sure I should change my mind. If the documents of Vatican II are official documents of the RC church, then why shouldn't I judge RC doctrine by them just as much as by Trent?

However, I am no RC expert . . . you may be able to explain to me why only Florence and Trent should be considered, and why Vatican II doesn't hold the same weight. If that's the case, I am certainly listening. I am just not yet aware of why I should hold the RC church to Trent and not to Vatican II.

Your brother in Christ,
Joseph


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> Joseph,
> 
> Thanks for this helpful post. I think that I see where you are coming from now, and where I disagree (but graciously!  ). The structure Rome is completely different from that of a Protestant Church. It really does not matter whether individual - or even the overwhelming number - of Roman Catholics fail to follow official dogma. A better analogy than the one you offered with the Confession would be the Bible. Would the Bible cease to be authoritative with respect to sexual purity if many in a church deny it and contradict it? Of course not.
> 
> But you see, the official pronouncements of the Roman Church are of *exactly the same* authoritative value as the Bible. That is why "practice" means nothing w/r/t Rome. It is all about what the magisterium holds.
> 
> After all, most Ammerican Catholics are pro-abortion, pro-gay, etc., but that does not mean that Rome is. Quite the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make some very excellent points here, Fred. Thanks for reminding me of Rome's _"sola ecclesia"_ doctrine. (I don't remember who made up that phrase . . . but I liked it and swiped it.) I knew that they exalted tradition above exegesis, but I was not thinking about that in this present context.
> 
> However, I would still argue (with a sweet spirit) that the documents of Vatican II are _also_ official documents of the Church . . . not just the counsels of Trent and Florence. So, even with your excellent qualification of this issue, I'm not sure I should change my mind. If the documents of Vatican II are official documents of the RC church, then why shouldn't I judge RC doctrine by them just as much as by Trent?
> 
> However, I am no RC expert . . . you may be able to explain to me why only Florence and Trent should be considered, and why Vatican II doesn't hold the same weight. If that's the case, I am certainly listening. I am just not yet aware of why I should hold the RC church to Trent and not to Vatican II.
> 
> Your brother in Christ,
> Joseph
Click to expand...


Joseph,

Here's my thought:

If official pronouncements from Rome are infallible, and if they have not been repudiated (I suppose that is possible, due to new revelation given to the magisterium), then must interpret new pronouncements in such a way that they are consistent with the previous. So if we look at Vatican II, we can acknowledge some sort of "movement" but it would have to be consistent with the pronouncements of Trent.

So...

1. Trent anathametizes those who confess _sola fide_.
2. Trent anathametizes those who are schismatic
3. The Reformers both confessed _sola fide_ and were schismatic (from Rome's view)
4. The followers of the Reformation could be considered schismatic, and hence anathama.
5. Vatican II expressly interprets "schism" to apply only to the 1st generation (if you will) Reformers, not their followers.
6. But Vatican II does not remove the anathama on _sola fide_ (#1)
7. Hence Rome gives you with the right hand (not anathama for schism) but takes away with the left (unless you fail to confess _sola fide_).

That is how I see it, as a Protestant, and former prisoner of the Papacy.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Joseph,
> 
> Here's my thought:
> 
> If official pronouncements from Rome are infallible, and if they have not been repudiated (I suppose that is possible, due to new revelation given to the magisterium), then must interpret new pronouncements in such a way that they are consistent with the previous. So if we look at Vatican II, we can acknowledge some sort of "movement" but it would have to be consistent with the pronouncements of Trent.
> 
> So...
> 
> 1. Trent anathametizes those who confess _sola fide_.
> 2. Trent anathametizes those who are schismatic
> 3. The Reformers both confessed _sola fide_ and were schismatic (from Rome's view)
> 4. The followers of the Reformation could be considered schismatic, and hence anathama.
> 5. Vatican II expressly interprets "schism" to apply only to the 1st generation (if you will) Reformers, not their followers.
> 6. But Vatican II does not remove the anathama on _sola fide_ (#1)
> 7. Hence Rome gives you with the right hand (not anathama for schism) but takes away with the left (unless you fail to confess _sola fide_).
> 
> That is how I see it, as a Protestant, and former prisoner of the Papacy.



Fred,

Thank you for this interaction. Your thoughts are very helpful!

What you are saying makes a lot of sense. But I am still left with some questions: If you do not think that Vatican II actually contradicts Trent in any way, then what does it accomplish? anything? Do you think they made such statements regarding the inclusion of protestants in "true" Catholicism for nothing? Did they really make such statements in Vatican II with _no intention whatsoever_ of truly widening the definition for "inclusion" in the RC church? 

On the other hand, if they really did have something in mind for their statements in Vatican II, and they really did intend to widen the definition for inclusion in the RC church, then who got included . . . the Mormons? Surely all protestant churches are out if Vatican II doesn't contradict Trent at all. But at least the Mormon church denies _sola fide_. In short, what congregations (if any) do you believe Rome intended to include with their declarations in Vatican II? (Clearly, they weren't talking about the Eastern Orthodox church . . . that twin sister of theirs got a seperate chapter especially for themselves.)

Anyway, I am certainly listening. I am finding your comments to be very helpful. Thank you!

Joseph

[Edited on 8-18-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## RamistThomist

Aww,
I was hoping Vatican II openly contradicted Trent. That way we could show that it ends in logical absurdity (a contradiction in the premises, use the rule of addition, deliberately add something stupid, use the rule of disjunctive syllogism, choose the stupid premise, _reductio ad absurdum_). Case closed
Protestantism wins.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Joseph,
> 
> Here's my thought:
> 
> If official pronouncements from Rome are infallible, and if they have not been repudiated (I suppose that is possible, due to new revelation given to the magisterium), then must interpret new pronouncements in such a way that they are consistent with the previous. So if we look at Vatican II, we can acknowledge some sort of "movement" but it would have to be consistent with the pronouncements of Trent.
> 
> So...
> 
> 1. Trent anathametizes those who confess _sola fide_.
> 2. Trent anathametizes those who are schismatic
> 3. The Reformers both confessed _sola fide_ and were schismatic (from Rome's view)
> 4. The followers of the Reformation could be considered schismatic, and hence anathama.
> 5. Vatican II expressly interprets "schism" to apply only to the 1st generation (if you will) Reformers, not their followers.
> 6. But Vatican II does not remove the anathama on _sola fide_ (#1)
> 7. Hence Rome gives you with the right hand (not anathama for schism) but takes away with the left (unless you fail to confess _sola fide_).
> 
> That is how I see it, as a Protestant, and former prisoner of the Papacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fred,
> 
> Thank you for this interaction. Your thoughts are very helpful!
> 
> What you are saying makes a lot of sense. But I am still left with some questions: If you do not think that Vatican II actually contradicts Trent in any way, then what does it accomplish? anything? Do you think they made such statements regarding the inclusion of protestants in "true" Catholicism for nothing? Did they really make such statements in Vatican II with _no intention whatsoever_ of truly widening the definition for "inclusion" in the RC church?
> 
> On the other hand, if they really did have something in mind for their statements in Vatican II, and they really did intend to widen the definition for inclusion in the RC church, then who got included . . . the Mormons? Surely all protestant churches are out if Vatican II doesn't contradict Trent at all. But at least the Mormon church denies _sola fide_. In short, what congregations (if any) do you believe Rome intended to include with their declarations in Vatican II? (Clearly, they weren't talking about the Eastern Orthodox church . . . that twin sister of theirs got a seperate chapter especially for themselves.)
> 
> Anyway, I am certainly listening. I am finding your comments to be very helpful. Thank you!
> 
> Joseph
> 
> [Edited on 8-18-2005 by biblelighthouse]
Click to expand...


Joseph,

To be honest, I believe that all Vatican II was was a PR job. It was so internally, to quell resistance that was building against the magisterium, and externally, to put a good face on Rome.

There is another very important point: Vatican II itself does not have the authority that the other ecumenical councils have (e.g. Vatican I and Trent). Any hard-line traditionalist Roman Catholic will point out that what they call the "charism of infallibility" was never invoked for Vatican II. The traditionalist Roman Catholics, who care nothing for Vatican II, will insist councils like Trent and Vatican I were infallible, while Vatican II was not.

To be honest, I believe that part of the purpose of Vatican II was to convince men such as yourself (who can read and understand the documents, but are perhaps not privy to the inner workings and duplicity of Rome) to "ease up on Rome." Have you ever wondered how Rome can vacilate between condemning and embracing other "churches" ? It NEVER comes as a papal pronouncement. It is always an offhand comment by a (senior sometimes) member of the clergy (e.g. Ratzinger's comments before becoming Pope) .

I think Vatican II was intended to be directed at Protestants who believed they could compromise on language on justification for a rapprochment. Isn't that _exactly_ what has happened to a degree with both the German Lutheran church and the Anglicans?


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Joseph,
> 
> To be honest, I believe that all Vatican II was was a PR job. It was so internally, to quell resistance that was building against the magisterium, and externally, to put a good face on Rome.
> 
> There is another very important point: Vatican II itself does not have the authority that the other ecumenical councils have (e.g. Vatican I and Trent). Any hard-line traditionalist Roman Catholic will point out that what they call the "charism of infallibility" was never invoked for Vatican II. The traditionalist Roman Catholics, who care nothing for Vatican II, will insist councils like Trent and Vatican I were infallible, while Vatican II was not.
> 
> To be honest, I believe that part of the purpose of Vatican II was to convince men such as yourself (who can read and understand the documents, but are perhaps not privy to the inner workings and duplicity of Rome) to "ease up on Rome." Have you ever wondered how Rome can vacilate between condemning and embracing other "churches" ? It NEVER comes as a papal pronouncement. It is always an offhand comment by a (senior sometimes) member of the clergy (e.g. Ratzinger's comments before becoming Pope) .
> 
> I think Vatican II was intended to be directed at Protestants who believed they could compromise on language on justification for a rapprochment. Isn't that _exactly_ what has happened to a degree with both the German Lutheran church and the Anglicans?



Excellent points. Thank you very much! I was not aware that Vatican II was somehow a "lesser" pronoucement from Rome, not on par with Trent & Vatican I.

If Vatican II had the same level of presumed infallibility attached to it as Trent (which is what I believed), then I would figure that Vatican II trumps Trent. But, since that is not the case, I admit that my argument doesn't hold water (or oil and incense, for that matter).

Apparently, Vatican II was a _really good_ PR job!

Ok, I'm finally on board with you guys. I agree that Rome still anathematizes protestants, and all who would claim _sola fide_.

The Roman Catholic church is certainly a #$&@%#@ abomination!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Just ask Mel Gibson what he thinks about Vatican II! 



> Vatican II corrupted the institution of the church. Look at the main fruits: dwindling numbers and pedophilia." - Time, January 27, 2003



[Edited on 8-19-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## biblelighthouse

Thank you for that link, Andrew . . . I pulled this interesting info off there:



> Traditionalist attitudes towards the Second Vatican Council
> Most traditional Catholics see the Second Vatican Council as a valid Ecumenical Council, but one whose decrees were not binding in conscience: it was, they say, a pastoral Council which produced no infallible definitions that Catholics must accept as a part of the Catholic Faith. In support of this claim, traditionalists point to Pope John XXIII's Opening Address to the Council, [10] Pope Paul VI's closing address, [11] the lack of formal definitions and anathemas in the Council's sixteen documents, [12] and the alleged ambiguity of the documents themselves. Some traditionalists claim that the Council was hijacked by Modernists and liberals, and that its documents were further twisted when interpreted and implemented after the Council. They attribute the success of this alleged Modernist influence to the disregarding of papal warnings, in particular Pope Pius X's encyclical Pascendi. [13]
> 
> Those traditionalists who consider John XXIII and his successors to be heretics and antipopes regard the Council as totally invalid - a misguided act at best, and a Masonic plot to destroy Catholicism at worst.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Joseph,
> 
> To be honest, I believe that all Vatican II was was a PR job. It was so internally, to quell resistance that was building against the magisterium, and externally, to put a good face on Rome.
> 
> There is another very important point: Vatican II itself does not have the authority that the other ecumenical councils have (e.g. Vatican I and Trent). Any hard-line traditionalist Roman Catholic will point out that what they call the "charism of infallibility" was never invoked for Vatican II. The traditionalist Roman Catholics, who care nothing for Vatican II, will insist councils like Trent and Vatican I were infallible, while Vatican II was not.
> 
> To be honest, I believe that part of the purpose of Vatican II was to convince men such as yourself (who can read and understand the documents, but are perhaps not privy to the inner workings and duplicity of Rome) to "ease up on Rome." Have you ever wondered how Rome can vacilate between condemning and embracing other "churches" ? It NEVER comes as a papal pronouncement. It is always an offhand comment by a (senior sometimes) member of the clergy (e.g. Ratzinger's comments before becoming Pope) .
> 
> I think Vatican II was intended to be directed at Protestants who believed they could compromise on language on justification for a rapprochment. Isn't that _exactly_ what has happened to a degree with both the German Lutheran church and the Anglicans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent points. Thank you very much! I was not aware that Vatican II was somehow a "lesser" pronoucement from Rome, not on par with Trent & Vatican I.
> 
> If Vatican II had the same level of presumed infallibility attached to it as Trent (which is what I believed), then I would figure that Vatican II trumps Trent. But, since that is not the case, I admit that my argument doesn't hold water (or oil and incense, for that matter).
> 
> Apparently, Vatican II was a _really good_ PR job!
> 
> Ok, I'm finally on board with you guys. I agree that Rome still anathematizes protestants, and all who would claim _sola fide_.
> 
> The Roman Catholic church is certainly a #$&@%#@ abomination!
Click to expand...


Thanks Joseph,

Please also do not take what I was trying to show as only an argument against the validity of Roman baptism. I believe that to be true - but many hold your position on baptism and yet acknowledge the paucity of Vatican II.

Blessings,


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> Ok, I'm finally on board with you guys. I agree that Rome still anathematizes protestants, and all who would claim _sola fide_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Joseph,
> 
> Please also do not take what I was trying to show as only an argument against the validity of Roman baptism. I believe that to be true - but many hold your position on baptism and yet acknowledge the paucity of Vatican II.
Click to expand...



I am certainly convinced that Rome still anathematizes _sola fide_. 


However, I am still not convinced that Rome's baptism is invalid. 


Here's is one thought to chew on:

How many RC baptisms were accepted as valid in the Protestant church between 1550 and 1850 (between Trent and Henry Thornwell)? I'll wager that quite a few people were admitted into protestant churches in those 300 years, without rebaptism being required. In fact, let's go all the way up to today . . . how many people _in the Presbyterian churches_ have had their RC baptisms validated over the past 450+ years?

Now, out of those many thousands of people, how many became ministers?

If those ministers were never properly baptized, then are their ordinations invalid? If so, then how about all of the baptisms performed by them?

If we categorically reject Rome's baptism post-Trent, then it would seem that even many Presbyterians just got unbaptized.

Your thoughts?

In Christ,
Joseph


----------



## Poimen

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Just ask Mel Gibson what he thinks about Vatican II!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vatican II corrupted the institution of the church. Look at the main fruits: dwindling numbers and pedophilia." - Time, January 27, 2003
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 8-19-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]
Click to expand...


I am quite sure that pedophilia was around long before Vatican II.

Traditionalist; progressive? Its like asking if there is a difference between Pharisees and Saducees.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Just ask Mel Gibson what he thinks about Vatican II!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vatican II corrupted the institution of the church. Look at the main fruits: dwindling numbers and pedophilia." - Time, January 27, 2003
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 8-19-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am quite sure that pedophilia was around long before Vatican II.
> 
> Traditionalist; progressive? Its like asking if there is a difference between Pharisees and Saducees.
Click to expand...


Mel Gibson is certainly casting stones in a glass house. But I do find it interesting that the traditionalist Catholic movement adheres consistently to the idea that Rome is irreformable and thus rejects the radical changes in Vatican II, such as mass in the vernacular. Yet the Catholic Church is not the monolith that Protestants often view her as. Popes and antiPopes have been battling each other for centuries. Which party represents true Rome? Does it matter? Both claim the authority of vicar of Christ; both reject the Biblical gospel. Pharisees and Saducees...reminds me of a children's song:

I don't want to be a pharisee
Cause their not 'fair you see'
I don't want to be a sadducee
Cause their so 'sad you see'


----------

