Poll: Roman Catholic baptism

[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

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 ecclésia díscens (the church learning) and ecclésia dócens (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 ecclésia sémper reformánda, 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

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 ecclésia díscens (the church learning) and ecclésia dócens (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 ecclésia sémper reformánda, 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

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

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)

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."

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.

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.

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

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.

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)

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.

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.)

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