Oneness Pentecostals passing out tracts about the Catholic Encyclopedia

  • Thread starter Thread starter Byzman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Byzman

Guest
My friend goes to a Oneness Pentecostal church, so naturally he and I debate about things that range from the Papacy being the Anti-Christ to women wearing pants. But a while ago he was given a tract that said the Catholic Church changed the formula of baptism at a early date…they believe a only valid form is baptism in the “name of Jesus Christ.” Now this tract seems to quote the Catholic Encyclopedia as reference to this change. We looked this up and to no avail found nothing. Has anyone else have different versions of the Catholic Encyclopedia and possibly see if this is actually found where they specify.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
“The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.”
Click to expand...
onenesspentecostal.com/matt2819-willis.htm
 
Byzman said:
My friend goes to a Oneness Pentecostal church, so naturally he and I debate about things that range from the Papacy being the Anti-Christ to women wearing pants. But a while ago he was given a tract that said the Catholic Church changed the formula of baptism at a early date…they believe a only valid form is baptism in the “name of Jesus Christ.” Now this tract seems to quote the Catholic Encyclopedia as reference to this change. We looked this up and to no avail found nothing. Has anyone else have different versions of the Catholic Encyclopedia and possibly see if this is actually found where they specify.
Click to expand...
You won’t find it. It’s bogus.
 
Here’s from the Catholic Encyclopedia. In summary:
  1. Solely in the Name of Christ is valid, but the full name is proper
  2. Using the Name of Jesus Christ invokes also the Father and the Spirit
  3. Biblical references to baptism in Jesus Christ are used to distinguish from the baptism of John, rather than to distinguish from the Trinity
  4. The Apostles would not introduce a novel form that goes against the teaching of Christ
  5. If Baptism should not include the Spirit in the form, then Paul’s surprise and re-baptism in Acts of those who had never heard of the Spirit makes no sense.
There has been a theological controversy over the question as to whether baptism in the name of Christ only was ever held valid. Certain texts in the New Testament have given rise to this difficulty. Thus St. Paul (Acts 19) commands some disciples at Ephesus to be baptized in Christ’s name: “They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” In Acts 10, we read that St. Peter ordered others to be baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ”. Those who were converted by Philip. (Acts 8) “were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ”, and above all we have the explicit command of the Prince of the Apostles: "Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins (Acts 2).

Owing to these texts some theologians have held that the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ only. St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and Albertus Magnus are invoked as authorities for this opinion, they declaring that the Apostles so acted by special dispensation. Other writers, as Peter Lombard and Hugh of St. Victor, hold also that such baptism would be valid, but say nothing of a dispensation for the Apostles. The most probable opinion, however, seems to be that the terms “in the name of Jesus”, “in the name of Christ”, either refer to baptism in the faith taught by Christ, or are employed to distinguish Christian baptism from that of John the Precursor. It seems altogether unlikely that immediately after Christ had solemnly promulgated the trinitarian formula of baptism, the Apostles themselves would have substituted another. In fact, the words of St. Paul (Acts 19) imply quite plainly that they did not. For, when some Christians at Ephesus declared that they had never heard of the Holy Ghost, the Apostle asks: “In whom then were you baptized?” This text certainly seems to declare that St. Paul took it for granted that the Ephesians must have heard the name of the Holy Ghost when the sacramental formula of baptism was pronounced over them.

The authority of Pope Stephen I has been alleged for the validity of baptism given in the name of Christ only. St. Cyprian says (Epistle 72) that this pontiff declared all baptism valid provided it was given in the name of Jesus Christ. It must be noted that the same explanation applies to Stephen’s words as to the Scriptural texts above given. Moreover, Firmilian, in his letter to St. Cyprian, implies that Pope Stephen required an explicit mention of the Trinity in baptism, for he quotes the pontiff as declaring that the sacramental grace is conferred because a person has been baptized “with the invocation of the names of the Trinity, Father and Son and Holy Ghost”.
 
There is the Catholic Encyclopedia and the New Catholic Encyclopedia. Maybe it was a citation from one or the other.

-Tim-
 
DavidPalm said:
You won’t find it. It’s bogus.
Click to expand...
I looked at both the Catholic Encyclopedia on the web and the New Catholic Encyclopedia, I own the set!..neither of these state that the Catholic Church changed the formula for baptism. In fact, I showed my friend the page number they listed and the page listed does not even mention anything remotely close to Baptism…it is another completely different topic!

Besides the Catholic Encyclopedia on the web and the New Catholic Encyclopedia were there other versions of the Catholic Encyclopedia?
 
Consult The Didache: The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles:

'The Didache was written around A.D. 70 and, though not inspired, is a strong witness to the sacramental practice of Christians in the apostolic age. In its seventh chapter, the Didache reads,
“Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

These instructions were composed either while some of the apostles and disciples were still alive or during the next generation of Christians, and they represent an already established custom.’

God bless you.
 
Byzman said:
I looked at both the Catholic Encyclopedia on the web and the New Catholic Encyclopedia, I own the set!..neither of these state that the Catholic Church changed the formula for baptism. In fact, I showed my friend the page number they listed and the page listed does not even mention anything remotely close to Baptism…it is another completely different topic!

Besides the Catholic Encyclopedia on the web and the New Catholic Encyclopedia were there other versions of the Catholic Encyclopedia?
Click to expand...
Well then there you have it!! That’s good work there Byzman here’s hoping God waters the seed you planted with your friend!

I think there are only those 2 versions.
 
The old Catholic Encyclopedia, in its article on Baptism, says this:
The requisite and sole valid form of baptism is: “I baptize thee” or “This person is baptized” in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." This was the form given by Christ to His Disciples in the twenty-eighth chapter of St. Matthew’s Gospel,
Click to expand...
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Baptism

Looking up Matt 28:19 will reveal Jesus saying:
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
Click to expand...
usccb.org/bible/matthew/28/
 
I don’t know where the so-called “quotation” comes from, but I think I know where the idea is coming from.

This goes back to around the year 250, which is actually the Third Century, but a lot of people make the mistake of thinking that the 200’s were the Second Century.

Anyway, there was a lot of controversy about people who had fallen in with various heretics, and were Baptized by these heretics, but later sought communion with the Catholic Church. Were their Baptisms valid?

Pope St. Stephen I decreed that Baptism by heretics (or anyone else) was valid, provided they used water and the Trinitarian form.

Some anti-Catholics try to contrive that Stephen had invented some new doctrine. But, of course, he was merely affirming that heretics must use the same form that the Catholic Church had always used in order for their Baptisms to be valid.
 
You need to also understand that the Catholic Church does not hold Oneness Pentecostal baptisms as valid due to it not being Trinitarian. The whole reason it’s called “Oneness” to begin with is that they hold to ONE GOD in ONE PERSON, which then mode in and out of being.

So God is The Father when He is the Father, He is the Son when He is the Son, and The Holy Spirit when He is the Holy Spirit. They don’t exist all at once.

Sub
 
This discussion has led me to ponder a related question - a surprising question that had never occurred to me. But it is a bit off-topic for this discussion, so I have opened a new thread. Please feel free to join in.
 
Subrosa said:
You need to also understand that the Catholic Church does not hold Oneness Pentecostal baptisms as valid due to it not being Trinitarian. The whole reason it’s called “Oneness” to begin with is that they hold to ONE GOD in ONE PERSON, which then mode in and out of being.

So God is The Father when He is the Father, He is the Son when He is the Son, and The Holy Spirit when He is the Holy Spirit. They don’t exist all at once.

Sub
Click to expand...
This is what I thought too!
 
DavidFilmer said:
I don’t know where the so-called “quotation” comes from, but I think I know where the idea is coming from.

This goes back to around the year 250, which is actually the Third Century, but a lot of people make the mistake of thinking that the 200’s were the Second Century.

Anyway, there was a lot of controversy about people who had fallen in with various heretics, and were Baptized by these heretics, but later sought communion with the Catholic Church. Were their Baptisms valid?

Pope St. Stephen I decreed that Baptism by heretics (or anyone else) was valid, provided they used water and the Trinitarian form.

Some anti-Catholics try to contrive that Stephen had invented some new doctrine. But, of course, he was merely affirming that heretics must use the same form that the Catholic Church had always used in order for their Baptisms to be valid.
Click to expand...
Yeah unfortunately people get their info from encyclopedias that are not religiously motivated and the encyclopedia will give half truths to be as brief as possible…Encyclopedia Brittanica gets the history wrong when it comes to what took place during Pope St. Stephen’s time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top