I'm Catholic and my wife is Born Again Christian, how should we baptize our first born?

[EnglishYew]

I’m Catholic and my wife is Born Again Christian, and we are having trouble either our first born son should be baptized to Roman Catholic or Born again Christian

Catholic.
(10 characters.)

 

[YourNameHere]

Catholic. No doubt about it, baptize your child as a Catholic.

 

[Vonsalza]

Yet all the while, despite all these procedural objections-
If the father performs the baptism in the Trinitarian formula, it is valid.

You’ve said as much yourself.

 

[Gorgias]

Yet all the while, despite all these procedural objections-
If the father performs the baptism in the Trinitarian formula, it is valid.

Another way of saying it might be, “despite all the procedural objections, if you rob a bank, you still have a wallet full of valid cash. You haven’t obtained it licitly, but they’re still valid $100 bills”…

 

[Vonsalza]

I’m afraid that comparison falls flat and will only appease those who already held your view.

Why?

In this case, the “bank” (church) recognizes your possession of those bills (baptism), assuming the bills were obtained in a trinitarian manner.

That’s match point on the matter. The rest is paperwork.

 

[Gorgias]

In this case, the “bank” (church) recognizes your possession of those bills (baptism), assuming the bills were obtained in a trinitarian manner.

Umm… you realize that this is actually what my comparison suggests, right? The bills are ‘valid’, although the way they were obtained was ‘illicit.’ The recipient of the bills that you obtained illicitly actually does accept them. No contradiction there.

That’s match point on the matter. The rest is paperwork.

Except that there are consequences for illicit acts. That’s the ‘match point’, here.

 

[Vonsalza]

What you’re refusing to see is that in your troubled comparison, the Catholic church doesn’t challenge their possession of the bills.

If you like the banking suggestion, a more accurate way to make your objection is that the person withdrew money from the bank outside banking hours. Still a valid transaction, just illicitly done.

The only folks that care would be bank employees.

Apologies, forgot to add the emoji I’m mirroring from you.

 

[Gorgias]

What you’re refusing to see is that in your troubled comparison, the Catholic church doesn’t challenge their possession of the bills.

The Church has the right to prosecute illicit acts as she sees fit. Whether she chooses to or not does not change the character of the act.

If you like the banking suggestion, a more accurate way to make your objection is that the person withdrew money from the bank outside banking hours. Still a valid transaction, just illicitly done.

OK: the person makes an illicit (i.e., illegal) withdrawal of money. The cash, itself, isn’t affected by the withdrawal. Everyone else is, though.

The only folks that care would be bank employees.

And bank customers, whose banking fees go to the bank’s expenses (including insurance against losses due to illicit withdrawals).

Apologies, forgot to add the emoji I’m mirroring from you.

LOL! If only you followed the content, rather than only the emojis!

 

[Vonsalza]

If the validity of a trinitarian baptism is part of the Deposit, the Church has no dominion over it. None. To say it does is akin to saying that the Church informs God rather than the other way around. Classic swap of horse and cart.

But I’m glad that you agree, even if in a roundabout and backhanded way, that if the father baptized his son in the trinitarian formula, it would be a valid baptism.

For anyone save the most dogmatic, the important part of the discussion concludes there.

Oh, and

 

[Gorgias]

For anyone save the most dogmatic, the important part of the discussion concludes there.

Right… 'cause the Church teaches that the ends justify the means, right?

If the validity of a trinitarian baptism is part of the Deposit, the Church has no dominion over it. None.

Try again. The Church has the authority to regulate her sacraments. Note that it’s the Church who defines what a valid baptism is (and what isn’t). So… you’re objectively mistaken, there.

 

[Vonsalza]

Apologies. I thought Church pronouncement, particularly as it refers to faith and morals, is done in revelation of the immutable Deposit.

That you seem to refute that makes it easier to justify my withdrawal from Catholicism, to be frank.

 

[Gorgias]

Apologies. I thought Church pronouncement, particularly as it refers to faith and morals, is done in revelation of the immutable Deposit.

Umm… part of the ‘deposit’ is Apostolic Teaching. The Successors of the Apostles – that is, the pope and bishops – participate in apostolic teaching.

So… yes. The Magisterium has the authority to regulate the sacraments. I’m not sure why that’s surprising to you.

That you seem to refute that makes it easier to justify my withdrawal from Catholicism, to be frank.

Oh. Now I get it. You’re at odds with the Church. That explains your contrary stance!

Look – don’t get me wrong: baptism is good. What would be better is baptism that is performed licitly, rather than by individuals on their own whim and in defiance of the Church’s direction.

 

[Vonsalza]

Umm… part of the ‘deposit’ is Apostolic Teaching. The Successors of the Apostles – that is, the pope and bishops – participate in apostolic teaching.

The Deposit is either immutable or it isn’t, Gorgias.

Which side do you want to settle on?

So… yes. The Magisterium has the authority to regulate the sacraments. I’m not sure why that’s surprising to you.

It’s surprising because the Church has the authority to administer the sacraments.

But let’s be completely clear, they weren’t instituted by the Church - but by Christ.

They aren’t subject to the Chuch’s revision in any material way. Period.

Oh. Now I get it. You’re at odds with the Church. That explains your contrary stance!

I’m guessing that’s an ad hominem dismissal?

Come now. That has nothing to do with the validity of Baptism.

Again, if the father were to baptize his child in the trinitarian formula, the child is validly baptized - as you agree with.

 

[Gorgias]

The Deposit is either immutable or it isn’t, Gorgias.

Which side do you want to settle on?

OK – think about it for a second. The Church has been teaching for the entirety of its existence. So, are you talking about what they’ve pronounced? That has been monotonically increasing. Moreover, doctrine develops – so, although the principles do not change, the particular expression of these principles does change.

On the other hand, you might be talking about the entirety of Christ’s teaching. That doesn’t change. However, our understanding of it does. The Church pronounces on it as it comes to understand it.

So… which are you talking about? The entirety of Christ’s teaching, or the Church’s expression of it? Only one is ‘immutable’.

But let’s be completely clear, they weren’t instituted by the Church - but by Christ.

Agreed. But, that’s not what we’re talking about, are we? We’re talking about the administration of the sacraments. That is within the control of the Church.

They aren’t subject to the Chuch’s revision in any material way. Period.

Oh, boy. I hope you never study the history of the Church. You’re in for a heck of a surprise!

I’m guessing that’s an ad hominem dismissal?

Nope. It just makes it easier to understand why you’re saying what you’re saying. All good.

Again, if the father were to baptize his child in the trinitarian formula, the child is validly baptized - as you agree with.

Right – and if you broke into a bank and stole cash, you’d have a bundle of valid bills in your wallet.

Not that that’s the right way to obtain that cash. You seem to be unwilling to admit to that dynamic.

 

[Vonsalza]

OK – think about it for a second. The Church has been teaching for the entirety of its existence. So, are you talking about what they’ve pronounced? That has been monotonically increasing. Moreover, doctrine develops – so, although the principles do not change, the particular expression of these principles does change.

Hey, I understand. Trinitarian baptisms have thus always been valid. Whether performed within or without the Catholic Church.

Agreed. But, that’s not what we’re talking about, are we? We’re talking about the administration of the sacraments. That is within the control of the Church.

Clearly valid baptism is not, if it can be performed outside the Church.

Nope. It just makes it easier to understand why you’re saying what you’re saying. All good.

As it clearly doesn’t have anything to do with the validity of Baptism, the shorter answer would be “yes”. Objectively. But I’ll not belabor a logical point with someone who emotionally opposes it. Different currencies.

Right – and if you broke into a bank and stole cash,

This is where you keep erring. Nothing was stolen. The bank recognizes that I have valid possession of the money and doesn’t challenge it.

The controller might be upset as policy wasn’t followed, but it’s still a valid transaction.

 

[Gorgias]

Trinitarian baptisms have thus always been valid. Whether performed within or without the Catholic Church.

Ever hear of “there is no salvation outside of the Church”? All baptisms are “within the Catholic Church”, regardless where or by whom they’re performed.

Clearly valid baptism is not, if it can be performed outside the Church.

That’s the whole point. There are no baptisms outside the Church. Outside a building? Sure. Not outside the Church, though.

The bank recognizes that I have valid possession of the money and doesn’t challenge it.

If the bank knew you took it illicitly, it would – at the very least – tell you to cut it out.

but it’s still a valid transaction.

No – maybe this is where you’re having problems understanding. It’s not a valid transaction, it’s an illicit transaction. The results are valid (i.e., you have cash in your wallet, or the baby is actually baptized), but the transaction itself is illicit, and should not be held up as praiseworthy. Objectively, you have cash in your pocket. Subjectively, you committed an illicit action. If you’re cool with that… I don’t think I’m ever gonna leave my wallet sitting out, around you.

 

[Vonsalza]

Ever hear of “there is no salvation outside of the Church”? All baptisms are “within the Catholic Church”, regardless where or by whom they’re performed.

Excellent!!!

Then the point is moot. If he baptizes his child in the family tub, it is still within the Catholic Church.

Good deal!

No – maybe this is where you’re having problems understanding. It’s not a valid transaction, it’s an illicit transaction.

Seems you have the problem separating the valid and illicit here…

But I’d readily concede that the creation of rational boondoggles like “valid but illicit” is an expected result with any system that derives too much joy from western legalism and scholasticism. Rhetorically painting oneself into a corner is an eventual certainty so bizarre solutions “like valid but illicit” become necessary to avoid, somewhat, accusations of “Contradiction!”.

And that’s not an ill-willed shot at the Catholic Church. I genuinely believe that’s what has happened over the centuries. The guys that write less down might be doing it in a smarter way.

But that’s going off topic…

 

[Gorgias]

Then the point is moot.

The point is not moot… unless you agree with the moral stance that “the ends justify the means.” That’s not what the Church teaches in its moral theology. That’s why it’s important.

But I’d readily concede that the creation of rational boondoggles like “valid but illicit” is an expected result with any system that derives too much joy from western legalism and scholasticism.

No… that’s an expected result from a system that says that ‘results’ aren’t the only standard by which we measure moral behavior.

 

[Peebo]

lonegreywolf20

Gorgias

12d

Do you think that humans choose the one that sounds all nice and pretty all the time?

Also, if you have read the Bible, which I am going to assume that you have. We are able to judge those in the church.

“What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?” 1 Corinthians 5:12

So with the above verse in mind, yes, judgement can come from within the church and that includes from it’s members. I still do not believe that it makes it right for my family to say you’re going to hell because I don’t want to be Catholic and would have chosen a different denomination.

No…it doesn’t make it right for your family to say you’re going to hell because you don’t want to be Catholic…just as when I was a Protestant it wasn’t right for many Protestants to say ALL Catholics were going to hell because they had been baptized into the 'WHORE OF BABYLON" (Catholic Church) and their souls were forever lost unless they came out of that idolatrous church

 

[Vonsalza]

In fairness, I don’t think I’ve seen @Gorgias declare that anyone was going to hell for doing or not doing something. He just finds value in doing it “by the book” and I find less value from it.

Probably an emotional discussion, making rational exchange useless, really. On both sides.