Poll: Roman Catholic baptism

[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?

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

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]

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!

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.

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]

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]

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.

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'