The “definition” of Trinitarian is not an issue here. The fact is that the RCC recognizes the baptism performed anyone provided the Trinitarian FORMULA is used (i.e. “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost”); not what definition of “Trinitarian” they believe in (or whether they believe in it at all). If you don’t know your own Catholic doctrine, don’t blame me.
I was not interested in the religious affiliation of the author. I was merely trying to make a point that the word “church,” however you want to define its meaning or extract its etymology, means people. It defines a group of ***people ***who have something in common, in this case a religious belief. A church consists of the body of its membership. That is the definition and meaning of any church; and that is the point I was trying to make. I serched the Internet to find something that would make that clear, and I believe that article did, regardless of whether its author is Catholic or Baptist.Two things:
The first is that the Greek ekklesia is a compound, which means the people who are called out. And yes, Christ calls people into his Church. When they’re called out from the world, the Church is where they go.
Second, do you REALLY expect to make points with Catholics by quoting Baptists ? :hypno:uch: They deny the teaching of the Church, too, you know, including her teachings on the nature of the church.
Blessings,
Gerry
Actually, the source is Baptist. See the above posts.The source seems to be LDS. I have learned to treat with grave suspicion anything associated with LDS.
Much of what they preach is based on supposition and relativism. It is Enid Blyton stuff so do not believe in the validity of the alleged document.
Was the baptism of the Arian heretics valid in the theology of the Catholic Church or not? If yes (which it was), how do you square that with what you have just said?
The Baptist church was founded in 1610 by a man who later turned tail and went to worship amongst the Mennonites and you are going to use their definition to tell the Catholic Church, the One, Holy and Apostolic Church, which Christ himself founded in A.D. 33 how to define “Church”?
Are you sure you are a baptized Catholic? You don’t talk like one.
Do you not realize that YOUR definition of the Trinity is different than ours? Zerinus, I applaud your zeal for your faith, but do you really think you can presume to argue against a whole group of Catholic at a Catholic forum and tell them what they believe and how to define terms? Come on! You might share your information or the information your church has taught you, but stick to that. Until you are baptized Catholic, (using the proper form
), stick to your own faith. Unless of course you are trying to understand the Catholic way because you are ready to be baptized “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”?Hi Susan,
Because they intended to wash away sins and join the person to the body of Jesus Christ the Church, and they used the Trinitarian formula. Keep in mind, the minister doesn’t actually have to believe in the Trinity; he just has to use the Trinitarian formula, and intend to wash away sins and join the person to the Church of Jesus Christ.
You seem to need much more help than I can give you.
That is not good enough! If it is a matter of guesswork, then I think that my guesses are as good as anybody else’s—and I have explained in my blog what my guess is. I think that I have built a good case for my guesses.
Which “Christ’s Church”? The Catholic Church? The Protestants reject that too. How come their baptisms are accepted?
The Church of Christ (catholic, or “universal”) recognizes true Christian baptisms in the proper Tinitarian formula by any man, but not the Mormon sect. Is this blatant discrimination, or is there something wrong with the Mormon baptism? The Holy Spirit, who leads our faith, lead them to this conclusion.
Notice that Zerinus once again cites mormon “scripture” to bolster his allegations. Zerinus, mormon “scriptures” have the same vaue as the old Soviet ruble. They were worthless outside of the Soviet Union. Mormon “scripture” is worthless outside the mormon organization. No one accepts them as genuine, they are fabrications.
And we beleive that the Catholic Church is apostate.
What an idiot.Notice that Zerinus once again cites mormon “scripture” to bolster his allegations. Zerinus, mormon “scriptures” have the same vaue as the old Soviet ruble. They were worthless outside of the Soviet Union. Mormon “scripture” is worthless outside the mormon organization. No one accepts them as genuine, they are fabrications.