Invalidity of Roman Catholic Baptism ???

Status
Not open for further replies.
I will refrain from such activity, but was just addressing how we viewed the issue, and did not say infant baptism was wrong/bad practice, just not how we do it...
 
My wife and many friends have, in God's great mercy, come out of the RCC church and into confessional Presbyterianism. None have been rebaptized. Within American Presbyterianism the issue is up for debate. Where things get really sticky is when one is accepted to membership with RCC baptism by the session of one church and then transfers membership to a sister church whose session does not recognize the validity of RCC baptism. In our case they accepted the judgment of the prior session, but that's hard to do when they still must by conviction view my wife as unbaptized.

There are two justifications for the validity of RCC baptism. One is that the mode of baptism is essential (with water and in the Trinitarian formula) whereas the context of the baptism is accidental. I find this view to be most common amongst American Presbyterians who accept RCC baptism. The problem with this view is that it doesn't give enough consideration to the churchly nature of the sacrament and as such is at odds with the Reformers who generally held that a baptism by a RCC priest was valid as one with ordination from the catholic church but a baptism by an RCC lay-person was no baptism at all (even if in the correct formula) and that person must be baptized again (though technically for the first time). Many whom I respect greatly are of this opinion, however.

The other is that it must be administered by an ordained minister of word and sacrament in the catholic (small c) church. Many who oppose RCC baptism are of this opinion, but others, such as myself, accept RCC baptism on this position by taking a charitable view of the RCC church as Evan described. We can recognize that RCC baptism is irregular, performed by a minister who has pledged himself to the anti-Christ, and to which are affixed many errors, but yet it is still baptism indeed.
 
Last edited:
As Bruce already mentioned this was dealt with by Saint Augustine of Hippo. Augustine held that baptism was valid if:
1. The right words are used, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
2. Water is used, either dipping in, or pouring or sprinkling on the candidate for baptism.
3. The cleric performing the baptism has Trinitarian intent.

Augustine held that Arian baptism would not be valid, no matter what words they used; because of lack of Trinitarian intent. The same would apply today to Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter Day Saints. Jesus only Pentecostal baptism would not be valid because the right words are not used.
Schismatic baptism would be valid, according to Saint Augustine, because the Donatists and Novations used water, the right words, and had Trinitarian intent. Thus baptisms performed by clerics of the Church of Rome would be valid even though the Church of Rome schismed from the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church by her dogmatic decrees at the Council of Trent.
 
As Bruce already mentioned this was dealt with by Saint Augustine of Hippo. Augustine held that baptism was valid if:
1. The right words are used, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
2. Water is used, either dipping in, or pouring or sprinkling on the candidate for baptism.
3. The cleric performing the baptism has Trinitarian intent.

Augustine held that Arian baptism would not be valid, no matter what words they used; because of lack of Trinitarian intent. The same would apply today to Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter Day Saints. Jesus only Pentecostal baptism would not be valid because the right words are not used.
Schismatic baptism would be valid, according to Saint Augustine, because the Donatists and Novations used water, the right words, and had Trinitarian intent. Thus baptisms performed by clerics of the Church of Rome would be valid even though the Church of Rome schismed from the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church by her dogmatic decrees at the Council of Trent.

I agree with Augustine that schismatics can administer valid Baptism, as schismatics are usually orthodox Christians who separated from the visible Church Catholic over issues of ecclesiology (typically) rather than issues of doctrine.

But I struggle with the idea that Augustine would have held that heretics and non-Christians could administer valid Christian baptism just because they are right about the Trinity and say the correct magic words.

That being said; the issue in my mind is, were does Rome fall? How does Rome relate to the Protestant churches? Is it "merely" a matter of schism? (Not to say that schism is a non-serious matter.) Or is is a matter of Rome being a different religion entirely?

Our Confessions of Faith, (Westminster and London Baptist) seem to be worded so strongly that Rome ought rightly to be considered a different religion entirely. I don't know who else the Divines had in mind when "some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan" was written.

Augustine seems to consider the Donatists to be orthodox Christians in separation. I do not consider the Church of Rome to be a Christian church.

It seems that the Presbyterian Church GA of 1845 agrees with me in general.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top