A problem with denying the validity of RC baptism

[Reformed Covenanter]

In another thread a few years ago, Bruce made this comment about the logical implications of denying Romish baptism:

It is a Donatistic error to connect the efficacy of baptism to the quality of the minister/church. Rejecting RC baptism due to the degree of apostasy therein puts us in the unenviable position of (among other things) requiring us to run the same analysis on EVERY other church body, for consistency's sake.

We can all agree that Romish baptism is irregular, but if it is totally invalid then where does one stop? Should a PCUSA or a Church of Scotland baptism be deemed invalid? If not, then why not accept Romish baptism as well?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

If one is puzzled why the likes of the early Reformers and more specifically post Trent men such as Rutherford et al, maintained the validity of Roman baptism, I've always found John MacPherson's lecture helpful. He founds it in their rejection of separatism and sectarianism. I don't think it should be any surprise that the rejection of RCC baptism in Presbyterianism came out of the US. John MacPherson - Unity of the Church: The Sin of Schism | Naphtali Press

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I don't think it should be any surprise that the rejection of RCC baptism in Presbyterianism came out of the US.

I don't mean this comment in a nationalistic sense, but any theological movement/position that originated in America needs to be treated with great suspicion. Not because it is American as such, but because (owing to the youth of the country in question) it is likely to be new.

 

[Rom]

"From the country that brought you the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses" doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement????

 

[JP Wallace]

I don't mean it in that nationalistic way either but I have often wondered what it was about 19th century America that produced Joseph Smith for example and that produced so many people willing to follow him? Was it living at frontiers? Hardship? I'm sure their are resources on this, any suggestions. Europe and Britain had its weirdos and cults but none ever took off the way such movements did in America, why is that?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

But didn't Ireland bring us John Nelson Darby?

 

[Rom]

I won't claim to be a church historian - but our civil magistrate opened the way for this when they said that the United States owed no allegiance to Jesus Christ, and (claimed) to be neutral in the affairs of religion.

Any schismatic can open up shop and start peddling their poison.

 

[JP Wallace]

Darby was just amother weirdo until Scofield popularised him ☺.

 

[Jack K]

My theory: Americans value progress and independence. New is better and I get to choose. It's much of our strength and also our weakness.

 

[Peairtach]

If Romish baptism isn't to be accepted ergo the Roman Church isn't part of the Visible Catholic Church ergo then the Pope isn't the Antichrist:

Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. (II Thess. 2:4)

 

[greenbaggins]

One of the difficulties here in understanding the Southern Presbyterian position on the invalidity of Romish baptism hinges on the question of whether it is the quality of the minister that is in question, or the quality of the Romish church as a whole. The Southern position does NOT argue based on the intention of a minister (here I would have to demur with my good brother Bruce's interpretation of the Donatist controversy, which hinged on the intention of the minister, not the quality of the minister), but starts with the more basic question of whether Rome is a true church or not. If Rome is not a true church, then what does that make its priests? The Reformers died to be able to say that Rome was no true church.

There is a vast historical difference between the Donatist controversy and the question of the validity of Romish baptism. The church was the church in early apostolic times. Donatists centered their critique on the traditores (any who handed anything or anyone over to the Roman authorities). Because of their fall into sin, the Donatists did not regard such people as being fit for service in the church. Not even the Donatists, therefore, were questioning the church as it existed then, but rather individuals in it. By contrast, the Southern Presbyterians question the identity of the RCC as being a true church at all. Only a true church can ordain true ministers. And only true ministers can perform true sacraments.

I fully realize that this is an intramural debate (I know that I am arguing against Hodge and the Northern Presbyterian tradition). I am also well aware that Calvin did not re-baptize anyone who was baptized in the RCC. However, I am not sure that any of those theologians really got at the proper issue, which is this: is Rome a true church? If not, then how can it have true ministers? I.e., how could they be properly ordained?

When one brings this issue to the OP, I think we need to look carefully at what a true church is, since the issue of true ministers hinges on the true church. No, it is not a matter of the intent of the minister, or of the sin into which the minister may have fallen. All Presbyterians, Northern and Southern both, agree that the sacraments belong to Jesus Christ, not to us. He is the ultimate Person administering them in any case. But it would be good to make sure that we firmly dissociate the Southern Presbyterian position from the Donatist controversy, which which it has little in common.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

here I would have to demur with my good brother Bruce's interpretation of the Donatist controversy, which hinged on the intention of the minister, not the quality of the minister

Lane,
Is your disagreement with me, or with Augustin? Donatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The first question, therefore, was whether the Sacrament of Penance can effect a reconciliation whereby the apostate, or in some cases specifically the traditor, may be returned to full communion. The orthodox Catholic position was that the sacrament was for precisely such cases, though at the time the Church still followed the discipline of public penance whereby a penitent for such a grievous offence would spend years, even decades, first outside the doors of the church begging for the prayers of those entering, then kneeling inside the church building during services, then standing with the congregation, and finally receiving the Eucharist again in a long progress toward full reconciliation. The Donatists held that such a crime, after the forgiveness of baptism, disqualified one for leadership in the Church, a position of extreme rigorism.

The second question was the validity of sacraments celebrated by priests and bishops who had been apostates under the persecution. The Donatists held that all such sacraments were invalid; by their sinful act, such clerics had rendered themselves incapable of celebrating valid sacraments. This is known as ex opere operantis, Latin for from the work of the one doing the working, that is, that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the worthiness and holiness of the minister confecting. The Catholic position, according to Augustine, was ex opere operato — from the work having been worked; in other words, that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the holiness of God, the minister being a mere instrument of God's work, so that any priest or bishop, even one in a state of mortal sin, who speaks the formula of the sacrament with valid matter and the intent of causing the sacrament to occur acts validly. Hence, to the Donatists, a priest who had been an apostate but who repented could speak the words of consecration forever, but he could no longer confect the Eucharist. To Catholics, a person who received the Eucharist from the hands of even an unrepentant sinning priest still received Christ's Body and Blood, their own sacramental life being undamaged by the priest's faults.

The Donatists found the ministry of those leaders who had denied the faith under Diocletian lacking, and thus their baptisms invalid. Not because of their mal-intent, but because of their supposed lack of sanctity.

I think all agreed that the intent of either party was virtually identical. So, the matter had to do with whether the one (ad by extension the church) performing the sacrament still possessed the necessary charism. If Donatists had not questioned the legitimacy of the church (in some sense) how could they defend their separation? They thought of themselves within the church-catholic, but refused the ministry validated by the majority.

I don't have to fully buy-into Augustin's sacramental theology (which, despite what is claimed for it in the article, wasn't quite the later Medieval construction) to agree with him that the blessing is with God, and not with the ministry. Nor with his countenance of political enforcement of uniformity (to the point even of the sword).

I agree with you that one may argue whether Rome has so far become a "synagogue of Satan" that all her rites are abominable. But history cannot be utterly swept out the door, nor can the basic elements (water, name of the Trinity).

 

[MW]

From McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia, 1:649: "Repetition of Baptism. — In the third century the question arose whether the baptism of heretics was to be accounted valid, or whether a heretic who returned to the Catholic Church was to be rebaptized. In opposition to the usage of the Eastern and African churches, which was defended by Cyprian, the principle was established in the Roman Church under Stephen, that the right of baptism, if duly performed, was always valid, and its repetition contrary to the tradition of the church. In the next age Basil and Gregory of Nazianzen followed Cyprian's view, but by the influence of Augustine the Roman view became the prevalent one; but the Donatists maintained that heretics must be rebaptized. See Donatists (Hagenbach, Hist, of Doct. § 72 and 137, and references there). After the Reformation, the Roman Church, compelled by its old usage and principle, continued to acknowledge the validity of Protestant baptisms, while Protestants, in turn, admit the validity of Roman Catholic baptism."

 

[greenbaggins]

here I would have to demur with my good brother Bruce's interpretation of the Donatist controversy, which hinged on the intention of the minister, not the quality of the minister

Lane,
Is your disagreement with me, or with Augustin? Donatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The first question, therefore, was whether the Sacrament of Penance can effect a reconciliation whereby the apostate, or in some cases specifically the traditor, may be returned to full communion. The orthodox Catholic position was that the sacrament was for precisely such cases, though at the time the Church still followed the discipline of public penance whereby a penitent for such a grievous offence would spend years, even decades, first outside the doors of the church begging for the prayers of those entering, then kneeling inside the church building during services, then standing with the congregation, and finally receiving the Eucharist again in a long progress toward full reconciliation. The Donatists held that such a crime, after the forgiveness of baptism, disqualified one for leadership in the Church, a position of extreme rigorism.

The second question was the validity of sacraments celebrated by priests and bishops who had been apostates under the persecution. The Donatists held that all such sacraments were invalid; by their sinful act, such clerics had rendered themselves incapable of celebrating valid sacraments. This is known as ex opere operantis, Latin for from the work of the one doing the working, that is, that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the worthiness and holiness of the minister confecting. The Catholic position, according to Augustine, was ex opere operato — from the work having been worked; in other words, that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the holiness of God, the minister being a mere instrument of God's work, so that any priest or bishop, even one in a state of mortal sin, who speaks the formula of the sacrament with valid matter and the intent of causing the sacrament to occur acts validly. Hence, to the Donatists, a priest who had been an apostate but who repented could speak the words of consecration forever, but he could no longer confect the Eucharist. To Catholics, a person who received the Eucharist from the hands of even an unrepentant sinning priest still received Christ's Body and Blood, their own sacramental life being undamaged by the priest's faults.

The Donatists found the ministry of those leaders who had denied the faith under Diocletian lacking, and thus their baptisms invalid. Not because of their mal-intent, but because of their supposed lack of sanctity.

I think all agreed that the intent of either party was virtually identical. So, the matter had to do with whether the one (ad by extension the church) performing the sacrament still possessed the necessary charism. If Donatists had not questioned the legitimacy of the church (in some sense) how could they defend their separation? They thought of themselves within the church-catholic, but refused the ministry validated by the majority.

I don't have to fully buy-into Augustin's sacramental theology (which, despite what is claimed for it in the article, wasn't quite the later Medieval construction) to agree with him that the blessing is with God, and not with the ministry. Nor with his countenance of political enforcement of uniformity (to the point even of the sword).

I agree with you that one may argue whether Rome has so far become a "synagogue of Satan" that all her rites are abominable. But history cannot be utterly swept out the door, nor can the basic elements (water, name of the Trinity).

Lack of sanctity in the minister does not disqualify the baptism. I think we agree on this (together with Augustine, I might add). Where I don't think we agree is in the supposed application of this principle to the Southern Presbyterian position. The point the Southern Presbyterians were making is NOT that the RCC priest is disqualified because of his own lack of sanctity. They would argue that the RCC priest is disqualified because he does not have a lawful ordination from a true church.

The problem with the Northern Presbyterian position is fairly simple. In order to say that RCC baptism is valid, you have to say that it is performed in a true church. Hodge really squirmed in saying this, but he wound up saying that there was a remnant, however polluted, of the true church in the RCC. I believe the Southern Presbyterian position is therefore more consistent: no true church, no true baptism. And I would flatly deny that the Southern Presbyterian position is Donatist.

 

[greenbaggins]

From McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia, 1:649: "Repetition of Baptism. — In the third century the question arose whether the baptism of heretics was to be accounted valid, or whether a heretic who returned to the Catholic Church was to be rebaptized. In opposition to the usage of the Eastern and African churches, which was defended by Cyprian, the principle was established in the Roman Church under Stephen, that the right of baptism, if duly performed, was always valid, and its repetition contrary to the tradition of the church. In the next age Basil and Gregory of Nazianzen followed Cyprian's view, but by the influence of Augustine the Roman view became the prevalent one; but the Donatists maintained that heretics must be rebaptized. See Donatists (Hagenbach, Hist, of Doct. § 72 and 137, and references there). After the Reformation, the Roman Church, compelled by its old usage and principle, continued to acknowledge the validity of Protestant baptisms, while Protestants, in turn, admit the validity of Roman Catholic baptism."

I am well aware that the Southern Presbyterian position is the minority position, Matthew. It is a bit irritating to see that the Southern position is not even mentioned here.

 

[MW]

I am well aware that the Southern Presbyterian position is the minority position, Matthew. It is a bit irritating to see that the Southern position is not even mentioned here.

My only aim was to identify what Donatists maintained.

 

[yeutter]

The problem with the Northern Presbyterian position is fairly simple. In order to say that RCC baptism is valid, you have to say that it is performed in a true church. Hodge really squirmed in saying this, but he wound up saying that there was a remnant, however polluted, of the true church in the RCC. I believe the Southern Presbyterian position is therefore more consistent: no true church, no true baptism. And I would flatly deny that the Southern Presbyterian position is Donatist.

The problem with the Southern Presbyterian position is that this leads to seeing baptism as the work of a true Church as opposed to a false church. If baptism administered by a cleric in the Church of Rome is not valid where do we draw the line. Is baptism by a cleric in the Eastern Orthodox Church valid? Is baptism by a liberal Methodist cleric valid? Is baptism by a liberal Disciples of Christ cleric valid?
St. Augustine held that baptism was God's work not man's. Valid baptism depended on the application of water, in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit, with Trinitarian intent. therefore baptism by a schismatic like the Donatist, or Novation cleric was valid. Baptism by heretic like an Arian cleric was not valid, even if the right words were used.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The problem with the Northern Presbyterian position is fairly simple. In order to say that RCC baptism is valid, you have to say that it is performed in a true church. Hodge really squirmed in saying this, but he wound up saying that there was a remnant, however polluted, of the true church in the RCC. I believe the Southern Presbyterian position is therefore more consistent: no true church, no true baptism. And I would flatly deny that the Southern Presbyterian position is Donatist.

I think you should be a bit more clear here: it is not merely the Northern Presbyterian position, it is the historic, confessional Presbyterian position.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

"From the country that brought you the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses" doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement????

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

If Romish baptism isn't to be accepted ergo the Roman Church isn't part of the Visible Catholic Church ergo then the Pope isn't the Antichrist:

Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. (II Thess. 2:4)

It is interesting that you should mention this point, Richard. Many moons ago, I had a discussion with an adherent to the Neo-Donatist position who is also a big believer in the papal antichrist theory. He convinced me that Romish baptism is wrong, but he did not realise that the logic he employed in order to deny the validity of Romish baptism also caused me to question whether or not the pope was the antichrist.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I fully realize that this is an intramural debate (I know that I am arguing against Hodge and the Northern Presbyterian tradition). I am also well aware that Calvin did not re-baptize anyone who was baptized in the RCC. However, I am not sure that any of those theologians really got at the proper issue, which is this: is Rome a true church? If not, then how can it have true ministers? I.e., how could they be properly ordained?

So, Lane, are you saying that any baptism carried out by anyone who has not been properly ordained is invalid?

If so, then prepare to open a huge

This theory would surely require each and everyone of us to investigate whether or not the minister who baptised us was 1) a minister of a true church; 2) validly ordained.

 

[David Pope]

I've always thought it odd that RC baptism is acceptable while intermarriage with a papist is forbidden.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

In the PCA each session decides whether to re-baptize RCC baptized folk, correct? So, each PCA member on transfer to another PCA church could face the re-baptism question scenario?
The person's denying RCC baptism validity to which the founders of our Westminster theology were reacting, were separatists. See Rutherford et al on how they argue the question as I referenced earlier.
See Rutherford here: Rutherfurd Against Separatism: Part Three | Naphtali Press

 

[greenbaggins]

The problem with the Northern Presbyterian position is fairly simple. In order to say that RCC baptism is valid, you have to say that it is performed in a true church. Hodge really squirmed in saying this, but he wound up saying that there was a remnant, however polluted, of the true church in the RCC. I believe the Southern Presbyterian position is therefore more consistent: no true church, no true baptism. And I would flatly deny that the Southern Presbyterian position is Donatist.

The problem with the Southern Presbyterian position is that this leads to seeing baptism as the work of a true Church as opposed to a false church. If baptism administered by a cleric in the Church of Rome is not valid where do we draw the line. Is baptism by a cleric in the Eastern Orthodox Church valid? Is baptism by a liberal Methodist cleric valid? Is baptism by a liberal Disciples of Christ cleric valid?
St. Augustine held that baptism was God's work not man's. Valid baptism depended on the application of water, in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit, with Trinitarian intent. therefore baptism by a schismatic like the Donatist, or Novation cleric was valid. Baptism by heretic like an Arian cleric was not valid, even if the right words were used.

So Roman Catholicism is not heresy? If not, and if the RCC is a true church, then we should all go back to Rome, since, as has been pointed out, schism is a terrible sin. We cannot live in schism from the true church. I don't buy the argument that there can be a true sacrament without there being a true church. They are both necessary to each other.

 

[greenbaggins]

The problem with the Northern Presbyterian position is fairly simple. In order to say that RCC baptism is valid, you have to say that it is performed in a true church. Hodge really squirmed in saying this, but he wound up saying that there was a remnant, however polluted, of the true church in the RCC. I believe the Southern Presbyterian position is therefore more consistent: no true church, no true baptism. And I would flatly deny that the Southern Presbyterian position is Donatist.

I think you should be a bit more clear here: it is not merely the Northern Presbyterian position, it is the historic, confessional Presbyterian position.

I was not aware that the question of whether or not to baptize Roman Catholics was confessionally set in stone already. Are you accusing Thornwell, Dabney, Gerardeau, and Palmer of unconfessionalism on this point? Everyone agrees that a person can be baptized only once. The question is whether or not RCC baptism is a valid baptism.

So, Lane, are you saying that any baptism carried out by anyone who has not been properly ordained is invalid?

If so, then prepare to open a huge

This theory would surely require each and everyone of us to investigate whether or not the minister who baptised us was 1) a minister of a true church; 2) validly ordained.

Every church has to make this judgment all the time when receiving members from another church. Obviously, someone who was dunked in a back-yard pool with the Trinitarian formula by their non-ordained uncle was not baptized. We cannot separate the sacraments from the church. If the question of a properly ordained minister of the gospel does not figure in to the question of a valid baptism, then why can't a non-ordained person pour some water over someone (even in the presence of the rest of the church??), recite the Trinitarian formula, and call it a baptism?

 

[greenbaggins]

In the PCA each session decides whether to re-baptize RCC baptized folk, correct? So, each PCA member on transfer to another PCA church could face the re-baptism question scenario?
The person's denying RCC baptism validity to which the founders of our Westminster theology were reacting, were separatists. See Rutherford et al on how they argue the question as I referenced earlier.
See Rutherford here: Rutherfurd Against Separatism: Part Three | Naphtali Press

I don't have a problem separating from Rome. I seriously doubt that any PCA church would deny a baptism coming from another PCA church! Do you know of any instances of this?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Are you accusing Thornwell, Dabney, Gerardeau, and Palmer of unconfessionalism on this point?

Did they modify how they received the Westminster Standards on baptism? If so, then I cannot accuse them of going against the teaching of the confession as received by their denomination. I think, however, that the original intent of the WCF was to accept Romish baptism as irregular, but valid.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

It would not have been addressed directly in the Westminster Standards because it was not an issue. The Reformed position at the time very clearly was to accept RCC baptism and the men at the assembly would have argued for it against the separatist position which was to unchurch their churches because they accepted it.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Gomarus was the outlier; his position arguing against accepting RCC baptism was translated for the first time and appeared in The Confessional Presbyterian 9 (appropriately with Thornwell on the cover).

 

[greenbaggins]

Are you accusing Thornwell, Dabney, Gerardeau, and Palmer of unconfessionalism on this point?

Did they modify how they received the Westminster Standards on baptism? If so, then I cannot accuse them of going against the teaching of the confession as received by their denomination. I think, however, that the original intent of the WCF was to accept Romish baptism as irregular, but valid.

I would love for you to prove that from the WS. I could not find any indications in the WCF, WLC, WSC, or the DPW that they regarded RCC baptism as irregular yet valid. In fact, the indications are actually hinting the other way (definitely short of proof, I admit). For instance, WCF 27.4 states that neither sacrament "may be dispensed by any but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained." Plainly the WS view the status of the minister as a minister lawfully ordained as essential to the right administration of the sacraments. It does NOT depend solely on the formula. Then, DPW, in the chapter on baptism, says that the sacrament is not to be administered "in the places where fonts, in the time of Popery, were unfitly and superstitiously placed." These two places do not prove that the Westminster divines regarded RCC baptism as invalid. However, I would ask these questions: can we really say that RCC priests are lawfully ordained ministers of the Word? They are not ministers in their own opinion, but magisters. And, in our opinion, they do not administer the Word, but something else. One can make a case that the Southern Presbyterian position is fully compatible with the WS.