Is Roman Catholic baptism valid?

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

matt01

Puritan Board Senior
Would/will your church accept into the membership one who was baptized as an infant in the Roman Catholic church and who believed that they couldn't be baptized again?

-Assume the person has a credible testimony.
 
In my opinion, the question depends on whether the RC church may be considered part of the visible church.
 
:ditto: if RC baptism is valid then we would have to accept RC priests a ordained ministers. Likewise we would have to accept the Pope.

blade
 
Originally posted by Bladestunner316
:ditto: if RC baptism is valid then we would have to accept RC priests a ordained ministers. Likewise we would have to accept the Pope.
Click to expand...

That is just not true. We do not have to "accept" RC priests or the pope. To my knowledge, NONE of the reformers or puritans would have agreed with you. Please take time to read this before you say something like that again:
The Reformed Churches and Roman Catholic Baptism

[Edited on 9-16-2005 by biblelighthouse]
 
It's interesting that the virtually unaminous testimony of the Reformers and Puritans was both that the Church of Rome was Antichrist and that Roman baptisms were valid.

I think an answer for this apparent contradiction can be found in a small but significant phrase in sec. 6 of Chap. XXV of the 1646 Westminster Confession:

VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.
Click to expand...

The Confession certainly denies that the Church of Rome is a true church but here we see reference to the Pope exalting himself in the Church against Christ. How can this be?

The Church of Rome apostasized from the true religion. But there is something of the true religion that still resides her. Much like those Pharisees and scribes who sat in the seat of Moses were vipers and hypocrites and yet Jesus told his disciples to do as they said, and much like Judas, a very devil who betrayed Christ, was permitted to baptize in his name; so likewise the Church of Rome, at one time a true church, but now an apostate church, yet retains at its core sufficient de facto participation in the body of Christ for the Protestant Church, which came out of Rome, to acknowledge her ministry and lawful sacraments, which are not dependent upon the character of those who adminster them but upon the Author of the sacrament, as valid.

I second Joseph's recommendation to read that paper. The Puritans cited therein explained this issue much better than I can.
 
For the old Scottish Presbyterian view of the validity of RC baptism and ordination of the Reformers, see John MacPherson's The Doctrine of the Church in Scottish Theology, entitled Unity of the Church: The Sin of Schism at this link.
 
I still have yet to hear anyone answer Thornwell's excellent observation that Roman Catholic baptism is not practiced the way Protestants do it. This point is too often overlooked. I'm not refering to baptismal regeneration here. I'm talking about the elements used. They use water AND oil. Not just water. If the oil were just an accident, it wouldn't matter. But it is intentional. They don't have the necessary elements for correct for baptism. Any thoughts?
 
Joseph,
I didnt mean to offend you. I just dont see how we can accept one without the other. I will read your paper though.

I mean we wouldnt let an atheist perform a baptism or a woman minister baptize, so why should we accept rome?(proceeding to reading the paper).

blade:book2:
 
Originally posted by puritansailor
I still have yet to hear anyone answer Thornwell's excellent observation that Roman Catholic baptism is not practiced the way Protestants do it. This point is too often overlooked. I'm not refering to baptismal regeneration here. I'm talking about the elements used. They use water AND oil. Not just water. If the oil were just an accident, it wouldn't matter. But it is intentional. They don't have the necessary elements for correct for baptism. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that, technically, the administration of chrism (oil) is associated with the "sacrament" of confirmation not baptism (which applied with water alone, albeit it is supposed to be "holy" water), although as a practical matter it takes place immediately after the baptism because it "must" be done while the recipient is "in a state of grace." Therefore, I think it is technically inaccurate to say that oil is part of the baptism, although I fully agree that it (chrism) is an unBiblical rite and as a matter of course it is given right after the baptism.
 
Originally posted by Bladestunner316
Joseph,
I didnt mean to offend you. I just dont see how we can accept one without the other. I will read your paper though.

I mean we wouldnt let an atheist perform a baptism or a woman minister baptize, so why should we accept rome?(proceeding to reading the paper).

blade:book2:
Click to expand...

Nathan, you didn't offend me. I apologize if I spoke harshly. :handshake:

I understand what you're saying, but think about the consequences. If we reject baptisms because of the qualifications/status/holiness of the minister doing the baptizing, then we become Donatists.

Let me be clear:
It is wrong for a women to be a minister and perform baptisms. Nevertheless, what if a female Presbyterian minister performed a baptism? Would it be a valid baptism, and should we accept it? Yes!

It would be wrong for her to do it. But baptism is what GOD says about the person being baptized. The person who happens to do the baptizing is incidental.




[Edited on 9-17-2005 by biblelighthouse]
 
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Originally posted by puritansailor
I still have yet to hear anyone answer Thornwell's excellent observation that Roman Catholic baptism is not practiced the way Protestants do it. This point is too often overlooked. I'm not refering to baptismal regeneration here. I'm talking about the elements used. They use water AND oil. Not just water. If the oil were just an accident, it wouldn't matter. But it is intentional. They don't have the necessary elements for correct for baptism. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that, technically, the administration of chrism (oil) is associated with the "sacrament" of confirmation not baptism (which applied with water alone, albeit it is supposed to be "holy" water), although as a practical matter it takes place immediately after the baptism because it "must" be done while the recipient is "in a state of grace." Therefore, I think it is technically inaccurate to say that oil is part of the baptism, although I fully agree that it (chrism) is an unBiblical rite and as a matter of course it is given right after the baptism.
Click to expand...


Good points, Andrew.

It is good to recognize that the Roman Catholic Church fully recognizes that only water is necessary to have a valid baptism. Thus, they certainly do not count oil as a necessity. According to the baptism section in the Catholic Encyclopedia, "In speaking of the matter of baptism, we stated that true, natural water is all that is required for its validity."

As a sidenote, it is also interesting to know that Roman Catholics do not hold to strict baptismal regeneration by water. According to RC doctrine, a person may also be regenerated by receiving the "baptism of desire", which is "a perfect contrition of heart". They also recognize a "baptism of blood", which is received by martyrs. So they do teach that it is possible for a person to be regenerated without having water sprinkled on them. So, do they believe in baptismal regeneration? Yes, but their definition of "baptism" is a little broader than just water baptism.
 
It seems to me contradictory to say:

V. The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a church on earth, to worship God according to his will.
Click to expand...

and

IV. 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.
Click to expand...

...obviously a minister in the visible church

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church; but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ´s own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.
Click to expand...

It seems to me as if the the issue is whether or not the Roman Catholic church is still part of the visible church (subject to both mixture and error) or not (so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ). (Would a belief in the Trinity but not in the Gospel be enough to consider an organization in the visible church?)

If they are still part of the visible church then their ministers are lawfully called and their baptisms' valid. If they have so degenerated, then their baptisms' are not those that are done in the Church of Christ and you might as well accept those done in any other religous setting (mormon, etc.). It doesn't see like you can have it both ways:

V-->B
~V
:.
~B

What am I missing?

[Edited on 9-18-2005 by BrianLanier]
 
Originally posted by BrianLanier

It seems to me as if the the issue is whether or not the Roman Catholic church is still part of the visible church (subject to both mixture and error) or not (so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ).

If they are still part of the visible church then there ministers are lawfully called and their baptisms' valid. If they have so degenerated, then their baptisms' are not those that are done in the Church of Christ and you might as well accept those done in any other religous setting (mormon, etc.). It doesn't see like you can have it both ways:

What am I missing?
Click to expand...

You are missing this:
The Reformed Churches and Roman Catholic Baptism

Please take the time to read it.

The Reformers and Puritans rejected Rome, and simultaneously, they unanimously accepted Rome's baptism. Please don't say it's contradictory until you have read their arguments in the link I just gave you.
 
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by BrianLanier

It seems to me as if the the issue is whether or not the Roman Catholic church is still part of the visible church (subject to both mixture and error) or not (so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ).

If they are still part of the visible church then there ministers are lawfully called and their baptisms' valid. If they have so degenerated, then their baptisms' are not those that are done in the Church of Christ and you might as well accept those done in any other religous setting (mormon, etc.). It doesn't see like you can have it both ways:

What am I missing?
Click to expand...

You are missing this:
The Reformed Churches and Roman Catholic Baptism

Please take the time to read it.

The Reformers and Puritans rejected Rome, and simultaneously, they unanimously accepted Rome's baptism. Please don't say it's contradictory until you have read their arguments in the link I just gave you.
Click to expand...

With respect , I could just as easily post a link to an opposing article and discount your objections out of hand without dealing with them. However, that wouldn't be profitable to a discussion. You also assume that I am not familiar with the debate. I understand Hodges arguments which are basically those that the aritcle presents. I just don't find them very consistent with the WCF or convincing. I do find this ariticle rather persuasive here

I will however read the article you linked in more detail. But for starters, what specifically is wrong with my post.
 
I just read the relevent sections of the aritcle you posted (that is, revevent to the argument that I raised). (1) The aritcle does not even post for the reader Thornwell's case. (2) The section of the article on the WCF does not even address WCF XXV section v (which I am basing my argument on). (3) To make its case from the confession about Rome being 'in the Church" it quote the end of XXV section vi which isn't the revisions of the confession, so as not to be binding in sessions which hold to the revisions (the intent of the article was to assist sessions in this tough question).
 
What does this say for the 'halfway covenant'? If it doesn't matter who is applying the sacrament ("It is Christ who
ultimately performs the work of baptism."), lets just baptize everyone.......

all kinds of superstitions and idolatries are in full vogue. We hold thus
that all those who meddle with such actions, and communicate with
them, do separate and cut themselves off from the body of Christ
Jesus. Yet nevertheless, because there is yet some small trace of a
Church in the papacy, and that baptism as it is in the substance, hath
been still continued, and because the efficacy of baptism doth not
depend upon him who doth administer it, we confess that they which
are thus baptized do not need a second baptism. In the meanwhile,
because of those corruptions which are mingled with the administration
of that sacrament, no man can present his children to be baptized in
that Church without polluting his conscience.
Click to expand...

Key word here: "Yet nevertheless, because there is yet some small trace of a Church in the papacy,"

Is this the rationale to accept the RC baptism?


Calvin writes:

Moreover, if we have rightly determined that a sacrament is not to be estimated by the hand of him by whom it is administered, but is to be
received as from the hand of God himself, from whom it undoubtedly
proceeded, we may hence infer that its dignity neither gains nor loses by
the administrator. And, just as among men, when a letter has been
sent, if the hand and seal is recognized, it is not of the least
consequence who or what the messenger was; so it ought to be
sufficient for us to recognize the hand and seal of our Lord in his
sacraments, let the administrator be who he may. This confutes the
error of the Donatists, who measured the efficacy and worth of the
sacrament by the dignity of the minister. Such in the present day are
our Catabaptists, who deny that we are duly baptized, because we were
baptized in the Papacy by wicked men and idolaters; hence they
furiously insist on anabaptism. Against these absurdities we shall be
sufficiently fortified if we reflect that by baptism we were initiated not
into the name of any man, but into the name of the Father, and the
Son, and the Holy Spirit; and, therefore, that baptism is not of man, but
of God, by whomsoever it may have been administered. Be it that
those who baptized us were most ignorant of God and all piety, or were
despisers, still they did not baptize us into a fellowship with their
ignorance or sacrilege, but into the faith of Jesus Christ, because the
name which they invoked was not their own but God´s, nor did they
baptize into any other name.
Click to expand...

What does the above say to the Calvary Chapels whom mass baptise people by laymen?



[Edited on 9-18-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 
My friends, I was baptized in the Roman Catholic church at age one week. My father is Protestant and would not even consider having me baptized in a RC church. My mom, an Italian RC, waited until my father wen to work and took me to the local RC church. The whole operation was clandestine. We met late at night at the church. My mother, my "godfather" and the preist...not to mention week old me. Thus I was baptized into the church of Rome.

As I grew up, I was sent to CCD classes (Catholic Sunday School). I learned that I, a lay person, had the authority to baptize others in case of a life-threatening emergency. This would save them from possible hell and assure they were baptized in the "only true church." When the matter of baptisim was discussed, we were told that baptism brings the person in communion with the RC community. Baptism, along with the other sacraments, are avenues of grace by which the person will secure his/her entrance into heaven. I am not offering a lession on RC ecclesiology, just my experience.

I do not consider the RCC to be a christian church. It long ago abandoned that position. RC sacraments are sacraments of works. Of course I need to be honest about my view of paedobaptism in general. Some of that may influence my opinion of RC baptism. But RC's have baptized adults during their attempt to Catholicize the world. Since I do not consider the RCC to be part of the visible church, I view all of its sacraments to be of no effect.

Just the opinion of a Baptist....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Herald
  • Locked
Is Roman Catholic baptism valid?
Replies
8
Views
12K
dudley
dudley
Puritan Sailor
  • Locked
Is Roman Catholic Baptism valid?
4 5 6
Replies
160
Views
21K
Scott
Scott
Jerusalem Blade
  • Locked
Catholic & Eastern Orthodox baptism valid?
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
Jerusalem Blade
Jerusalem Blade
blhowes
  • Locked
Poll: Roman Catholic baptism
2 3 4
Replies
104
Views
9K
VirginiaHuguenot
V
Backwoods Presbyterian
  • Locked
What Baptism is Valid?
2
Replies
41
Views
7K
PuritanCovenanter
PuritanCovenanter
Back
Top