Forensic Justification - what's your view about it?

[guanophore]

But the Protestants don’t have valid Sacraments. Except a few whose Baptism can be considered valid. But even they, when they submit to the Sacrament, deny its power and thus condemn themselves.

Certainly anyone can deny the power of their baptism and condem themselves. But the Church recognizes and accepts trinitarian baptisms as valid. It is not necessary that the recipient fully understand and accept the meaning of that baptism. They baptize seeking what the Church does, which is to be obedient to the will of Christ.

Whereas, those us of who await the Judgment of God, receive the grace to live amongst the Saints, when our sins are washed away as we call upon the name of the Lord.

Protestants also call upon the name of the Lord to wash away their sins. Those who have received the Teaching of the Apostles that we will be judged at the end of this life, and even those who commit the sin of presumption.

 

[guanophore]

There are a mix of Protestant beliefs just like there is a mix of Caholic beliefs (ex CA responses).

Yes, but there is a critical difference. No matter how many individual Catholics may believe different things, there is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith. Those who depart from it have lost Catholicity.

  When Mary said that she rejoices in her savior, do you believe she was confessing that she was a sinner in a need of savior, and she too was rejoicing in Christ but did not know the details?

I believe she is rejoicing and confessing exactly what the Scriptures say - Christ her savior. Catholics don’t need to add words to scripture (such as “she was a sinner”) to force the text to fit our theology.

Yes, I believe she was rejoicing in Christ, even though she did not know the details.

I'm just a Christian and not much of Protestant in the historic definition of the world.  I do embrace the historic ecumentical creeds like you do too, but also believe in a forensic justification version..

How do you account for the fact that there is no evidence, prior to the Reformation, for the “forensic justication version”? Reformed Christians love to cherry pick verses from Augusting, and believe he was a “Calvanist”, because they do not consider the whole of his life and writings. Augustine was unabashadly Catholic from start to finish.

Here is a challege for you. What gospel was preached to Abtraham in advance? Who is the seed? I believe that there is only one saving gospel which reconciles sinners to God.

Yes, Catholics also believe there is only one saving Gospel. There is no other name under heaven by which we may be saved but Christ the Lord.

 

[Porknpie]

There were over 400 texts floating around claiming to be inspired when the Catholic Church chose 27 to be canonized.

Guanophore…can you explain your source(s) & insight for the over 400…the point is the same but I understood “over 300” based on previous CAF postings I’ve read.

Tx, Pork

 

[guanophore]

You don’t like Protestants very much, do you? . In a way, I can understand that since there are Protestants out there who say the same things about you as being Catholic in what you say about Protestants. Those Protestants see you as apostate, and consider you to be a not true Christian too. So, I do understand your hostility in a way. - peace and grace to you!

Sadly there are prejudiced and bigoted individuals on both sides of the Tiber.

I have to disagree agreeably on this issue. Catholics are just like Protestants with a mixed bag of beliefs. I have lots of Catholic friends. The CCC even has a Companion to the Catechism, and you guys struggle to try to understand the true intent of CCC references all the time. You guys debate within yourself the meaning of a CCC reference. When the Pope stated that Luther was right in faith alone, I started to read a mix bag of Catholic beliefs in what the Pope meant by it.

I think you are confusing what indivduals might beleive (as Catholics or so called Catholics) with the Catholic Faith. Coptic has expressed very well that there is only One Faith, that was passed down to us from the Apostles. This faith is reflected in the Catechism as a sure norm.

Yes, individual Catholics are at various stages of understanding and obedience to that One Faith, but their insufficiency or immaturity in faith does not change the One Divine Deposit of faith. Of course it is our duty to study and to struggle to grow in grace and knowlege of the One Faith.

 We are all humans who know in part and the Catholic Church changes all the time:

Our understanding of the once for all revelation does grow,a nd the disciplines and practices of the Church may change, but the doctrine cannot. The Church believes that the public revelation by God of Himself is fully contained in Christ, and that it closed with the death of the last Apostle.

 Vatican 1 and Vatican 2 views of non-Christian religions, relationships and status of Protestants, and other issues changes with the times.

Yes, our views may change over time, and our expression of the One Faith may change, but not the doctrines handed down to us from the Apostles. It is the duty of the Magesterium, through councils such as the Vaticans, to provide pastoral instruction to the faithful in how to live out our fatih.

Heck, one Catholic on here considers me not to be a true Christian, and others embraces me as a sibling in Christ, all trying to reference official Catholic sources to support their mutually exclusive position.  The current CCC probably has only been around for 20 years or so, right? So prior to the current CCC, how many other catechism were floating around out there?

There have been a number of catechisms. The purpose of them is to direct the faithful in how to understand and live out the One Faith that we have received from the Apostles. When the Scriptures were written, there were no “Protestants”, so the Church needs additional direction in how to relate to our separated brothres and sisters. And, as you have discovered on this thread, there will be some few who will refuse to accept the instruction of the Church, and will assert that our separated brethren are not true Christians. As Coptic has said, though, this does not change the One Faith.

 

[De_Maria]

Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
It also seems it is by the will of God (sovereign grace) that a sinners is redeemed and united to Christ instead of the will of man (free will). Please share if you agree or disagree with my understanding of these Bible verses.

Huh? Not that I disagree, but I don’t remember saying such a thing. And I checked the link you provided and there is no such quote in there.

What’s going on?

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

In many ways I agree. I would sooner be Catholic than most virtually any other protestant.

I have enjoyed our conversation.

I have too.

Orthodoxy would say the same.

The Book of Concord

I beg to differ, of course.

Of course.

You are using authority and norm as synonyms.

I thought that was you doing that.

So, my question is, do you consider Scripture the final “authority” or the final “norm”?

Again, not from my perspective.

1. Did you not say that Sola Scriptura was a post apostolic doctrine which could not be found in Scripture? Have you now changed your mind?
2. If so, can you provide a Scripture which shows the Scripture as the final authority?

See above.

Lutherans do not claim that you have to believe in sola scriptura in order to be saved.

Then why is it so important to them?

Not everything, every doctrine. You have said yourself that the Church has the authority to teach. Does scripture specifically talk about how hermeunetics is done?

2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

there is only one Church. Lutherans disaprove denominationalism. There are more patriarchates in communion in Orthodoxy. Whose to say the one standing alone is correct?

Neither is a necessary criteria for truth. Truth can be popular or unpopular.

Jon

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

We follow Christ.

Did Luther follow Christ?

Alone regarding what? Alone regarding what is the final norm.

Ok. We’re going around in circles. To summarize, here are the points I was making.

1. The title “sola Scriptura” is either a misnomer or in error. It says nothing about “final” norm.
2. You have admitted that Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine from Scripture. In fact, you called it a “practice.” Which essentially makes “Sola” Scriptura an exception to its own "rule’. Since it is a rule which is imposed upon people by the authors of the confessions. Essentially making them the “final” authority.
3. The norms named in Scripture are “tradition (2 Thess 2:15)”, “teaching of the Church (Matt 28:19-20)” and Scripture.
4. Whereas, the final authority named in Scripture is the Church.

So long as Church teaching is in conformity with scripture, or at least not in contradiction.

That is Catholic Teaching.

1. For me as a layman, I am, as a Lutheran, bound to the confessions.
2. The confessions include the doctrinal statements of the Lutheran Church, which are determined by the Church, using the practice of sola scriptura.

I believe I’ve addressed everything in that statement except this. Practice and doctrine are not mutually exclusive. Sola Scriptura is a doctrine which explains its practice. And it is a false doctrine.

Yes, using the scriptures as the final norm to determine said doctrine.

I guess we’re going in circles concerning this also. The points I was making here are:

1. The Scriptures do not mention this “doctrine”.
2. The Church is the “final” authority as depicted in Scripture.

A norm norms, holds accountable, teachers, teachings and doctrine. The Church has authority, using that norm, to set doctrine. Its spelled out in quote I gave you.

I agree with that. But I still don’t see Scripture teaching that Scripture is the final norm. Come to think of it, I don’t see the Catholic Church condemning the idea of Scripture as the final norm. Only the idea that Scripture is the sole rule or norm of faith.

And Orthodoxy.

Semanitcs. why wouldn’t it?

I get it. As I said above, the Catholic Church has not condemned a doctrine of Scripture as final norm. Only the idea of Scripture as only norm or only authority.

Ithink I already spoke to the fact that, while there are parts of the Bible that lend credence to this practice, it isn’t statedspecifically.

Ditto.

Of course you would.

No more nor less so than the early councils.

Were those Traditions known, or not known? I would say they were known. So, for example, the scripture says that we, the Blessed Virgin was “full of grace”. We agree. It never says she was a perpetual virgin. And while I (and most of the great Lutheran theologians in history) believe she was, the question is should this be set as doctrine, binding the conscience of the believer.

Of course it is. As I said, I have no intention of convincing you contrary to your belief.

I think we can drop this part of the discussion. You are defending Scripture as final norm. Whereas the Catholic Church has not spoken against such a doctrine.

However, if this doctrine of Scripture as final norm is the reason Luther separated from the Church, then he violated his own doctrine. Because all the Catholic Churches doctrines are in agreement with Scripture.

While sola fide contradicts Scripture, blatantly.

Jon

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

Certainly anyone can deny the power of their baptism and condem themselves. But the Church recognizes and accepts trinitarian baptisms as valid. It is not necessary that the recipient fully understand and accept the meaning of that baptism.

Isn’t faith required? Can a person have faith who does not believe and denies that God can save him through Baptism? What does “faith” mean then?

They baptize seeking what the Church does,

The Church teaches that God washes away our sins in Baptism. If they deny that God does that, how can they be seeking the same thing as the Church?

which is to be obedient to the will of Christ.

Many of them deny that obedience is necessary.

Protestants also call upon the name of the Lord to wash away their sins.

But many of them deny that God does it through Baptism.

Those who have received the Teaching of the Apostles that we will be judged at the end of this life,

Some do not accept that teaching. They claim judgment means punishment and they don’t believe they will be judged.

and even those who commit the sin of presumption.

All will be judged.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

Please educate me on the 5 additonal Catholic sacraments.

The five Sacraments which you deny?

Since I’m from Protestantism, it will help me understand the 5 additional Catholic sacraments through a Scripture alone presentation.

Certainly.

Quoting official Catholic sources does not mean much from my circle of Christianity as compared to Scripture references .

No problem.

I suppose you mean that you accept Baptism and Matrimony. If not, please correct me.

Confirmation is explained in this verse:

Acts 8:14-17
King James Version (KJV)
14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

Confession, the authority of the Church to forgive sin, is explained in these:
John 20:21-23
King James Version (KJV)
21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

The Eucharist, here:

1 Corinthians 11:23-30
King James Version (KJV)
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

The ordination of priests, here:
1 Timothy 4:14
Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

Anointing of the sick, here:
James 5:14-15
King James Version (KJV)
14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

I hope that helps.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[guanophore]

Isn't faith required?  Can a person have faith who does not believe and denies that God can save him through Baptism?  What does "faith" mean then?

The Church baptizes infants and others who are incapable of understanding or expressing faith in baptism. She also accepts baptism by non-Christians, so long as they intend to do what the Church does. So therefore, yes, baptism can be valid even if one does not believe, or even denies that God saves through baptism.

I think a better arguement exists, rather than asserting that Protestant baptism is not valid because they don’t understand what it does. Since the Church accepts it, it is a poor position to defend.

The Church teaches that God washes away our sins in Baptism. If they deny that God does that, how can they be seeking the same thing as the Church?

I am sure I am not in a position to say. The Church has decided that Trinitarian baptisms of Protesants are valid, and she accepts them. The Church (which is the final authority as you have stated) has chosen to accept them as valid.

But many of them deny that God does it through Baptism.

As you have accurately pointed out, people’s lack of understanding or faith does not invalidate the Truth.

**

I hope that helps.

Sincerely,

De Maria

**

Thank you for ressponding to post # 176.

 

[Reuben_J]

Thanks Ruben for your very nice post. I would say that there are very few verses in Scripture interpretation that is dogma for Catholics. I believe in regards to Catholic dogma and Scripture interpretation, the Pope spoke ex-Cathedra very little in regards to the number of Bible verses. So, the Catholic Faith has much room for discussion, debate, mystery between Catholic theologians and Bishops in the Catholic Church which is a very good thing. It’s okay to disagree agreeably… and respectful discussion is good.

Hi Christian Unity. I am unsure how to approach your post but can I make it simpler? I am not saying that you do not understand, but perhaps the different understanding we have with certain terminology could possibly make our talk passing each other.

I would like to point to the fact when you said Catholic have many mix belief which I denied. So I go from there.

The most appropriate way to find where the Catholic belief is is to look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). You can look it online easily and it covers everything about Catholic belief.

As I said, Catholics may disagree with each other in many ways but no Catholic will disagree with the CCC because they see it as the basic of their belief spelt out clearly. People can disagree with the Pope, in fact, contrary to what Protestants may think because some do, Catholics disagree with the Pope everyday. But of course the number is very small, but there are some. But when it comes to Catholic belief, Catholics would accept it as such.

It is not like when you disagree with your pastor, you would leave the church and start a new one. Catholics don’t do this because her belief is clearly spelt out. The disagreement sometimes is about how to implement certain things, disciplines, spiritualities, etc., on the local levels either because of over enthusiasm and get carried away or lack of it. This can always be checked out with the true Catholic belief or the hierarchy.

So the Catholic Church remains one and not very much fragmented. As I said, yes, there are disagreements, but she does not metamorphose into hundreds of churches. I think division and fragmentation of the Church would hurt Jesus very much, don’t you think?

I guess the Magestrium determines when a belief falls outside of acceptable orthodoxy and is heretical, but otherwise, the range of beliefs on certain issue seems quite broad (similar to Protestantism). For example, on the topic of eschatology, can Catholics have a wide range of views as Catholics?

You are about right with regards to the Magisterium (note the spelling ), yes it can be used to determine heresy in the sense that you can use it as a point of reference.

I am not sure about the wide range of belief that you mentioned – maybe you can give me example so that I can build on it.

Eschatology in Catholicism is quite obvious so I don’t see any different versions of belief there for the Catholics. What would you like to know about this? In my earlier post to you I quoted something from St. Paul (in Thess) about how the dead will rise up first and then the living, and all be together with the glorious Jesus. Purgatory? Belief about the coming of end time? No, we are not like the Jehovah Witnesses.

Reuben

 

[De_Maria]

The Church baptizes infants and others who are incapable of understanding or expressing faith in baptism.

She baptizes them based on the faith of their parents. Have a non-Catholic take a child to the Catholic Church for Baptism and see what happens.

She also accepts baptism by non-Christians, so long as they intend to do what the Church does.

In accordance with the wishes of the parents.

Regarding intention of the minister, despite what religious affiliation the minister may adhere to, the baptism is valid as long as the minister intends what the Church intends. For example, a child is dying in a hospital. The nurse, who is Hindu, knows that the Catholic parents would want the child baptized. In their absence, she takes water, sprinkles it upon the infant and says the words, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Her intent is to baptize as the parents believe. The baptism is valid.
cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=20

So therefore, yes, baptism can be valid even if one does not believe, or even denies that God saves through baptism.

Wrong. Faith is required. That means one must believe that God can and does work through the Sacrament.

I

think a better arguement exists, rather than asserting that Protestant baptism is not valid because they don’t understand what it does.

That is a straw man. I didn’t say that. I said, “because they deny that God works through the Sacrament.”

Since the Church accepts it, it is a poor position to defend.

The Church does not accept it UNLESS THEY HAVE THE SAME INTENT AS THE CHURCH.

Those who deny that God saves through the Sacraments, do not have the same intent.

I am sure I am not in a position to say. The Church has decided that Trinitarian baptisms of Protesants are valid, and she accepts them. The Church (which is the final authority as you have stated) has chosen to accept them as valid.

There’s a big IF attached to that acceptance. If they intend to do the same as the Church.

As you have accurately pointed out, people’s lack of understanding or faith does not invalidate the Truth.

You are mixing subjects. The truth stands alone. But God will not wash away the sins of those who have no faith in Him. Faith is required in order to please God.

Infants are a different story. For them, the faith of their parents is required.

Thank you for ressponding to post # 176.

Why didn’t you respond?

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[guanophore]

 She baptizes them based on the faith of their parents.  Have a non-Catholic take a child to the Catholic Church for Baptism and see what happens.

De Maria, you seem creating strawmen so that you can knock them down. I have never asserted that faith was not necessary for baptism

In accordance with the wishes of the parents.

Regarding intention of the minister, despite what religious affiliation the minister may adhere to, the baptism is valid as long as the minister intends what the Church intends. For example, a child is dying in a hospital. The nurse, who is Hindu, knows that the Catholic parents would want the child baptized. In their absence, she takes water, sprinkles it upon the infant and says the words, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Her intent is to baptize as the parents believe. The baptism is valid.
cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=20

Wrong. Faith is required.

What the Church believes about baptism covers the Protestant just as the faith of the parents covers their children.

That means one must believe that God can and does work through the Sacrament.

Evidently your belief is inconsistent with what the Catholic Church believes and teaches.

I didn't say that.  I said, "because they deny that God works through the Sacrament."

I think it is clear that the vast majority of Protestants don’t believe this way, and yet, the CC accepts their baptisms as valid. Therefore, the faith you claim they must have for a valid baptism is inconsistent with what the CC believes and teaches.

The Church does not accept it UNLESS THEY HAVE THE SAME INTENT AS THE CHURCH.

This may come as a shock to you, but you are not the one who gets to determine their intent, or what type of faith is valid, and what is not. This is the duty of the Magesterium, and “Rome has spoken” on the subject. You seem to see yourself on a mission to “prove” that Protestant baptism is not valid because they don’t believe in the power of the sacrament, and do not baptize with Catholic intention. While I agree with your points, they are irrelevant. The Church accepts them, and therefore, the case is closed.

Those who deny that God saves through the Sacraments, do not have the same intent.

Irrelevant. Rome has spoken.

You are mixing subjects. The truth stands alone. But God will not wash away the sins of those who have no faith in Him. Faith is required in order to please God.

The Church teaches that baptism washes away all sins, both original, and personal. An infant cannot make a profession of faith and yet, the Church baptizes them.

Infants are a different story. For them, the faith of their parents is required.

How are they different? The Church has decided that the faith of the Church is sufficient to cover the baptism of Protestants.

It seems to me that finding fault with Protestants about their lack of proper intent is not a good use of apologetic energy. Trying to debate an issue that the Church has already settled is moot. It seems to me that a better use of energy would be approaching Protestants about why they don’t accept what the scripture says is true about baptism.

Col 2:9-13
9 For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have come to fulness of life in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Most Protestant evangelicals espouse “believer’s baptism”, and yet, deny the mystical activity that occurs with it.

 

[De_Maria]

De Maria, you seem creating strawmen so that you can knock them down. I have never asserted that faith was not necessary for baptism

How is it faith to deny that God can work through Baptism?

What the Church believes about baptism covers the Protestant just as the faith of the parents covers their children.

How can that be if they do not believe that God can work through water Baptism?

Evidently your belief is inconsistent with what the Catholic Church believes and teaches.

Evidently you want to ignore the complete teaching of the Church. They must have faith and the same “intention” as the Church.

I think it is clear that the vast majority of Protestants don’t believe this way, and yet, the CC accepts their baptisms as valid.

Whether it is the vast majority is not the subject. The subject is what is a valid Baptism. And a valid Baptism requires faith that God works through the Sacrament and the intention of the Church.

Therefore, the faith you claim they must have for a valid baptism is inconsistent with what the CC believes and teaches.

1. First, you have contradicted yourself, since you opened this message by saying that you never said that faith was not necessary. But here, you have repeated that claim.
2. Baptism is the Sacrament of faith. Faith is the most important criteria for all the Sacraments. You know what the Church says. You don’t know what the Church means. To know the SPIRIT of the word is just as important in the Catechism as it is in the Bible.

*1122 Christ sent his apostles so that “repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations.” “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” The mission to baptize, and so the sacramental mission, is implied in the mission to evangelize, because the sacrament is prepared for by the word of God and by the faith which is assent to this word:

The People of God is formed into one in the first place by the Word of the living God. . . . The preaching of the Word is required for the sacramental ministry itself, since the sacraments are sacraments of faith, drawing their origin and nourishment from the Word.*

1127 Celebrated worthily in faith, the sacraments confer the grace that they signify. They are efficacious because in them Christ himself is at work: it is he who baptizes, he who acts in his sacraments in order to communicate the grace that each sacrament signifies. The Father always hears the prayer of his Son’s Church which, in the epiclesis of each sacrament, expresses her faith in the power of the Spirit. As fire transforms into itself everything it touches, so the Holy Spirit transforms into the divine life whatever is subjected to his power.

Without faith it is impossible to please God.

This may come as a shock to you, but you are not the one who gets to determine their intent, or what type of faith is valid, and what is not.

But I’ve had children baptized. And I have known people who wanted children baptized and were refused. More than once. The common denominator is “faith”.

When the parents divulge that they do not live according to the Teachings of the Catholic Church, they are refused. Grandparents who try to force their wayward children to baptize their grandchildren, are refused. The parents must have faith. The individual must have faith if he is of the age of reason.

This condition is not dropped for Protestants. If they were baptized and did not believe in the efficacy of the Baptism, their Baptism was not valid.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

This is the duty of the Magesterium, and “Rome has spoken” on the subject. You seem to see yourself on a mission to “prove” that Protestant baptism is not valid because they don’t believe in the power of the sacrament, and do not baptize with Catholic intention. While I agree with your points, they are irrelevant. The Church accepts them, and therefore, the case is closed.

The Church does not accept them unless the intention was the intention of the Church. Every single case is considered separately. It is a general rule of thumb that you are taking as a law.

It is a guideline. Not a law. They don’t say, “Oh, you were Baptist, therefore your Baptism is valid.”

This is just one example I easily found in the internet:

*PASTORAL PRACTICE IN THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA
In light of further discussion and reflection on the topic, with both the statement of the Congregation in mind combined with the norm provided in the National Statues, the following is observed in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia for the Conditional Baptism of those seeking reception into the full communion of the Catholic Church:

Baptism is the doorway to all of the Sacraments. Therefore, the pastor needs moral certitude that a person was baptized with the Trinitarian formula and the water pouring/immersion before other Sacraments are celebrated. **This moral certitude requires more than the evidence of a baptismal certificate and must be the case in each individual circumstance. **Such moral certitude can often be readily obtained through inquiry with the candidate. If moral certitude is lacking, a conditional Baptism is necessary (see Canon 869 and National Statutes for the Catechumenate 37).
*

Each individual is questioned to ascertain with moral certitude whether condition Baptism is necessary.

Irrelevant. Rome has spoken.

Quite relevant. You don’t know what Rome has said.

The Church teaches that baptism washes away all sins, both original, and personal. An infant cannot make a profession of faith and yet, the Church baptizes them.

Because of the faith of the parents. A Hindu couple can’t bring their child in for Baptism ij the Catholic Church. Nor can an atheist. Nor can a non-practicing Catholic couple. Faith is necessary.

How are they different? The Church has decided that the faith of the Church is sufficient to cover the baptism of Protestants.

No. It hasn’t. The Protestants must have faith themselves and the ministers must have the right intention. This is ascertained at the inquiry.

In general, as a guideline, certain groups are considered to have the right criteria. But it is by no means taken for granted that all criteria are met.

It seems to me that finding fault with Protestants about their lack of proper intent is not a good use of apologetic energy.

It seems to me that your supporting them in their errors is not good for any purposes.

Trying to debate an issue that the Church has already settled is moot.

Apparently, you have no idea how important this issue is to the Church.

It seems to me that a better use of energy would be approaching Protestants about why they don’t accept what the scripture says is true about baptism.

I do that all the time. And you’ve objected to that in the past as well.

Col 2:9-13
9 For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have come to fulness of life in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Most Protestant evangelicals espouse “believer’s baptism”, and yet, deny the mystical activity that occurs with it.

Isn’t that what I’ve been saying?

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[guanophore]

 How is it faith to deny that God can work through Baptism?

Granted, it is not the fullness of faith. But the Church has determined that submitting to it as an “ordinance” because Christ commanded it is sufficient for a beginning. Protestants to engage in “believers baptism” do so because they have come to faith in Christ, and they understand and accept that He has commanded it.

 How can that be if they do not believe that God can work through water Baptism?

It is a good question, and one which you might wish to direct to the Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith.

 Evidently you want to ignore the complete teaching of the Church.  They must have faith and the same "intention" as the Church.

Not at all, De Maria. I have decided, whether I understand or agree with it or not, that the Magesterium has ruled on the matter, and therefore it is incumbent upon me to accept their decision.

 Whether it is the vast majority is not the subject.  The subject is what is a valid Baptism.  And a valid Baptism requires faith that God works through the Sacrament and the intention of the Church.

Yes, I am aware of the Teaching of the Church. And I am aware that the Church accepts Protestant Trinitarian baptisms, including that vast majority done by those who do not believe that baptism is regenerative. Your assessment that the Magesterium is non compliant with your standards is an issue you will have to take up with them.

 1.  First, you have contradicted yourself, since you opened this message by saying that you never said that faith was not necessary.  But here, you have repeated that claim.

I beg your pardon De Maria. Magesterium has decided that the faith expressed by Protestants in believers baptism is sufficient, and accepts those baptisms. The Church does not rebaptize them because the Church believes and teaches that there is only One Baptism.

The People of God is formed into one in the first place by the Word of the living God. . . . The preaching of the Word is required for the sacramental ministry itself, since the sacraments are sacraments of faith, drawing their origin and nourishment from the Word.

Well there you have it! Protestants come to believe in Jesus because they hear the Word preached, and they become baptized because the Lord commands it.

 Without faith it is impossible to please God.

Protestants become baptized because they have faith in Jesus.

  But I've had children baptized.  And I have known people who wanted children baptized and were refused.  More than once.  The common denominator is "faith".

Yes, of course. And the Magesterium has decided that the faith of Protestants that brings them to baptism is sufficient.

 This condition is not dropped for Protestants.  If they were baptized and did not believe in the efficacy of the Baptism, their Baptism was not valid.

This is your private interpretation of the Church teaching and practice, De Maria. I have just pointed out that your private assessment appears to contradict the ruling of the Magesterium in the matter.

I have also suggested that using apologetic energy toward what the scriptures say about baptism might be a better course, rather than placing yourself in public disagreement with the Magesterium.

 

[guanophore]

The Protestants must have faith themselves and the ministers must have the right intention.  This is ascertained at the inquiry.

Then would it not be prudent to leave the matter to those appointed by Christ to make it, rather than taking on the roloe of inquisitor yourself?

It seems to me that your supporting them in their errors is not good for any purposes.

Believers baptism is something done in faith for the purpose of obeying Christ. Their engagement in it is a sign of their desire to obey His commandments, in spite of a lack of undersanding and knowledge about the fullness of the faith. In this sense, they stand in the tradition of Apollos. I urge you to consider taking the same approach as was taken toward him.

Apparently, you have no idea how important this issue is to the Church.

On the contrary, it is a matter for the ordained to determine, not that of lay apologists. You seem to have set yourself up as if you were a magesterial appointed inquisitor, making judgements that the baptisms are “not valid”.

I do that all the time. And you’ve objected to that in the past as well.

Not so, De Maria. In fact, the reason I invited you to this thread was so that you could address the scriptures on the regenerative nature of baptism. That is one reason I asked you to answer post # 176.

Isn’t that what I’ve been saying?

No, although maybe it is what you have been trying to say. What is coming across is your mantra that “the baptisms are not valid”. This is not up to us to determine. What we can do is discuss what the Scriptures say about baptism, and why Protestants reject those Scriptures.

 

[JonNC]

=De Maria;10050538]Did Luther follow Christ?

Yes.

Ok. We’re going around in circles. To summarize, here are the points I was making.

1. The title “sola Scriptura” is either a misnomer or in error. It says nothing about “final” norm.
2. You have admitted that Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine from Scripture. In fact, you called it a “practice.” Which essentially makes “Sola” Scriptura an exception to its own "rule’. Since it is a rule which is imposed upon people by the authors of the confessions. Essentially making them the “final” authority.
3. The norms named in Scripture are “tradition (2 Thess 2:15)”, “teaching of the Church (Matt 28:19-20)” and Scripture.
4. Whereas, the final authority named in Scripture is the Church.

With due respect, it seems we are going around in circles because you appear to want to put sola scriptura into the eangelical box, or solo scriptura. I say this because of the list here you provide.

That is Catholic Teaching.

and Lutheran.

I believe I’ve addressed everything in that statement except this. Practice and doctrine are not mutually exclusive. Sola Scriptura is a doctrine which explains its practice. And it is a false doctrine.

See my comment above.

I guess we’re going in circles concerning this also. The points I was making here are:

1. The Scriptures do not mention this “doctrine”.
2. The Church is the “final” authority as depicted in Scripture.

See my comment above.

I agree with that. But I still don’t see Scripture teaching that Scripture is the final norm. Come to think of it, I don’t see the Catholic Church condemning the idea of Scripture as the final norm. Only the idea that Scripture is the sole rule or norm of faith.

Therin lies the difference in our hermeunetics. This implies that you actually do understand. We simply say that Tradition is subject to scripture. Essentially that is sola scriptura.

I get it. As I said above, the Catholic Church has not condemned a doctrine of Scripture as final norm. Only the idea of Scripture as only norm or only authority.

Precisely.

I think we can drop this part of the discussion. You are defending Scripture as final norm. Whereas the Catholic Church has not spoken against such a doctrine.

Yep.

However, if this doctrine of Scripture as final norm is the reason Luther separated from the Church, then he violated his own doctrine. Because all the Catholic Churches doctrines are in agreement with Scripture.

Again, I would disagree.

While sola fide contradicts Scripture, blatantly.

Have you read the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification? Or Pope Benedict’s comments about Luther’s idea of Justification by faith alone? I’m not saying we have full agreement, only that the word “blantantly” seems to be fading into the past.

I woudl be happy todiscuss this further, but it appears we’ve veered off the topic of the thread. I’ll be happy to participate on a thread regarding sola scriptura or sola fide.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

You don’t like Protestants very much, do you? . In a way, I can understand that since there are Protestants out there who say the same things about you as being Catholic in what you say about Protestants. Those Protestants see you as apostate, and consider you to be a not true Christian too. So, I do understand your hostility in a way. - peace and grace to you!

I haven’t gotten the idea that De Matia doesn’t like me.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

How is it faith to deny that God can work through Baptism?

How can that be if they do not believe that God can work through water Baptism?

Just for clarification, and not to interdict into your conversation with Guan, it needs to be clear that at least Lutherans, and I’m sure Anglicans, believe in Baptismal regeneration, and that God works His grace in those who are Baptized, including infants.

Carry on,
Jon