Why does the Catholic Church accept protestant baptisms as valid sacraments yet not protestant communion?

[dogknox]

I’m always curious about what Catholics think of this particular quote that gets thrown around a lot:

“I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the Eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord in a Lutheran Lord’s Supper.”–Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratizinger) in a letter to Lutheran Bishop Johannes Hanselmann.

Hello Dave Noonan it is good to meet you…
**I reply: **The Cardinal does NOT want to slam the door on the face of the Lutheran.
To say anything other would stop all talk and dialog, Jesus prayed that all would be united!
THINK: God is every where, is he not? Yes even in the Lutheran church… The Lord is present!! No one can say; God CAN/CANNOT deny salvation…no man can say what God can or can not do! The Cardinal is NOT saying the Lutheran Bread is the flesh of Jesus and the Lutheran wine is the Blood of Jesus. He is saying “God is everywhere!”

YES: He is right there is a, problem of ‘validity.’ But that should not stop the Dialog!
YES The Catholic & Orthodox have succession back to the Apostles… the Lutheran is NOT Apostolic… BUT this FACT also need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord being EVERYWHERE is possible everywhere!

The Lutheran Communion is NOT the true Flesh and Blood of Jesus. The Lutheran does NOT have true Priesthood. The Lutheran priest has lost the Authority of God, authority that is ONLY passed on by, the direct laying on of hands!
Also
The Lutheran can’t believe God can take the form of bread… A dove yes, a pillar of fire yes, smoke yes, sheer silence yes… But God can’t take the form of bread… To the Lutheran, the Best God can do is; “Infill the bread” have the bread hold his being! Do you understand?
To the Lutheran, this is a lie…“This** IS** my body”! To the Lutheran Jesus should have said… “This HOLDS my body”!

**Dogknox **

 

[fbl9]

Even though all Protestant Christians invoke the trinity and use water in baptisms, their beliefs differ widely concerning its efficacy. Yet I believe it is true that they are all accepted by the Catholic Church. On the other hand, even when a Protestant doctrine of communion as a sacrament is very similar to Catholicism, such as the Lutheran view, it is not a valid sacrament in the eyes of the Catholic Church. I think the latter is because of apostolic succession. I’m grateful, but I would like to be able to explain why Baptism is not similarly affected by apostolic succession.

kk

 

[ReturningToRome]

Hello Dave Noonan it is good to meet you…
**I reply: **The Cardinal does NOT want to slam the door on the face of the Lutheran.
To say anything other would stop all talk and dialog, Jesus prayed that all would be united!
THINK: God is every where, is he not? Yes even in the Lutheran church… The Lord is present!! No one can say; God CAN/CANNOT deny salvation…no man can say what God can or can not do! The Cardinal is NOT saying the Lutheran Bread is the flesh of Jesus and the Lutheran wine is the Blood of Jesus. He is saying “God is everywhere!”

YES: He is right there is a, problem of ‘validity.’ But that should not stop the Dialog!
YES The Catholic & Orthodox have succession back to the Apostles… the Lutheran is NOT Apostolic… BUT this FACT also need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord being EVERYWHERE is possible everywhere!

The Lutheran Communion is NOT the true Flesh and Blood of Jesus. The Lutheran does NOT have true Priesthood. The Lutheran priest has lost the Authority of God, authority that is ONLY passed on by, the direct laying on of hands!
Also
The Lutheran can’t believe God can take the form of bread… A dove yes, a pillar of fire yes, smoke yes, sheer silence yes… But God can’t take the form of bread… To the Lutheran, the Best God can do is; “Infill the bread” have the bread hold his being! Do you understand?
To the Lutheran, this is a lie…“This** IS** my body”! To the Lutheran Jesus should have said… “This HOLDS my body”!

**Dogknox **

That’s an interesting perception of Lutheran theology concerning the Lord’s Supper. I haven’t thought about the idea of God taking a form. I just read in a Lutheran resource Lutheranism 101, CPH] a distinction between Christ being “bodily” present in the bread and wine (what Lutherans teach) as opposed to Him being “physically” present. It claims Jesus’ body is present but doesn’t “take up space”; the bread and wine are the things taking up space. Personally, I find transubstantiation easier to “swallow.” This bodily but not physical presence seems just a twist on the “spiritual” presence claimed by other protestants, and just a little farther removed from the “symbolic” presence claimed by others. We certainly see in Scripture God taking on other forms, as you mention. But ultimately, the absence of Apostolic Succession, Holy Orders, and acknowledgement of the Deposit of Faith being entrusted to and guarded by the Church is at the heart of the issue. Without these, it’s everyman for himself.

 

[JohnVIII]

Dear Returning to Rome,

Simply because Protestants do use water and Baptize the way the Bible states…In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Protestants’ teaching on baptism is Biblical but their teaching on the Eucharist is not.

Short and sweet.

Joe

Is that so? Most Protestants that I have known teach that baptism has NOTHING to do with salvation and call those who believe in “Baptismal Regeneration” heretics! I personally know of one Protestant minister that has baptized the same person several times as a way to re-commit ones life to Christ. Catholics believe in “one” baptism for the “remission of sins”.

Having said this I do nevertheless believe that the baptism of Protestants has grace. The rules that a Catholic church makes for acceptance or rejection of a sacrament are based not on the current spiritual reality necessarily, but rather on what is the most likely economy that will lead a person closer to the grace of the Church.

 

[KathleenGee]

That is the beauty of the sacraments being concrete – no arguing or arbitrating…

 

[dogknox]

That’s an interesting perception of Lutheran theology concerning the Lord’s Supper. I haven’t thought about the idea of God taking a form. I just read in a Lutheran resource Lutheranism 101, CPH] a distinction between Christ being “bodily” present in the bread and wine (what Lutherans teach) as opposed to Him being “physically” present. It claims Jesus’ body is present but doesn’t “take up space”; the bread and wine are the things taking up space. Personally, I find transubstantiation easier to “swallow.” This bodily but not physical presence seems just a twist on the “spiritual” presence claimed by other protestants, and just a little farther removed from the “symbolic” presence claimed by others. We certainly see in Scripture God taking on other forms, as you mention. But ultimately, the absence of Apostolic Succession, Holy Orders, and acknowledgement of the Deposit of Faith being entrusted to and guarded by the Church is at the heart of the issue. Without these, it’s everyman for himself.

ReturningToRome It is good to meet you… I hope all is well…
I reply: It comes down to faith! Catholic’s believe the words of Jesus! Augustan said…“Jesus carried his own body in his hands, at the Last Supper”! Augustan believed Jesus is God and that God can do all things!

The God of the Catholic is ALMIGHTY, he tells us; “He can make his flesh as tasty as bread”, then we believe him! God tells us he CAN also make his blood as sweet as wine then we also believe this! We believe the words of Jesus, because we believe God can do all things!

Judas also rejected Jesus…
ReturningToRome to reject Jesus you MUST reject his words! Look at this WARNING Jesus gives us…
John 12:48
There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day.

ReturningToRome Do you see the WARNING? "**Reject Jesus **by NOT accepting his words!"
**Reject Jesus ****by Not accepting the scriptures **and you CONDEMN yourself!

ReturningToRome Right after this WARNING, Jesus holds up bread then announces; “This IS my body”! THEN…
Then we read this…
**John 13:27 **
As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him.

ReturningToRome Judas rejected the WARNING and he also he rejected these words of Jesus “This IS my body” … Thus he also REJECTED Jesus as a lier!
Satan took what belonged to him… All who reject the scriptures are rejecting Jesus, they are the Children of Satan!

To be Lutheran you are forced to think… “God cannot change the appearance of something without, changing what it is!” If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck then: It is a duck!

To the Catholic it is the opposite… We believe God can change the appearance of something and also keep what it is, the same!
God can make his flesh “Taste, feel, smell, and look as bread”!
God can make his blood “Taste, feel, smell, and look as sweet wine”!
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck then: It is a toad, rock, ship or what ever, God tells us it is!! Catholic’s believe the words of Jesus because; we believe Jesus is God! And God cannot lie!

Like I said… “Catholic’s have Faith in Jesus”! Judas did not!

Dogknox

 

[JonNC]

That’s an interesting perception of Lutheran theology concerning the Lord’s Supper. I haven’t thought about the idea of God taking a form. I just read in a Lutheran resource Lutheranism 101, CPH] a distinction between Christ being “bodily” present in the bread and wine (what Lutherans teach) as opposed to Him being “physically” present. It claims Jesus’ body is present but doesn’t “take up space”; the bread and wine are the things taking up space. Personally, I find transubstantiation easier to “swallow.” This bodily but not physical presence seems just a twist on the “spiritual” presence claimed by other protestants, and just a little farther removed from the “symbolic” presence claimed by others. We certainly see in Scripture God taking on other forms, as you mention. But ultimately, the absence of Apostolic Succession, Holy Orders, and acknowledgement of the Deposit of Faith being entrusted to and guarded by the Church is at the heart of the issue. Without these, it’s everyman for himself.

As a Lutheran, I would take issue with this, and I’d quote the confessions. In the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Melanchthon references Vulgarius: “And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but is truly changed into flesh.”
The way you state what your source says, sounds like a drifting into accidents and substance language, which seems to me to be what the Lutheran reformers were trying to avoid in the first place. It appears a description of the mystery.
Christ’s words were “This is my body.” Is is is.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Is that so? Most Protestants that I have known teach that baptism has NOTHING to do with salvation and call those who believe in “Baptismal Regeneration” heretics! I personally know of one Protestant minister that has baptized the same person several times as a way to re-commit ones life to Christ. Catholics believe in “one” baptism for the “remission of sins”.

Then they can count me as a heretic with Catholics, and I’d enjoy the company.
Augsburg Confession

Article IX: Of Baptism.

1] Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary 2] to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God’s grace.

Jon

 

[dogknox]

That’s an interesting perception of Lutheran theology concerning the Lord’s Supper. I haven’t thought about the idea of God taking a form. I just read in a Lutheran resource Lutheranism 101, CPH] a distinction between Christ being “bodily” present in the bread and wine (what Lutherans teach) as opposed to Him being “physically” present. It claims Jesus’ body is present but doesn’t “take up space”; the bread and wine are the things taking up space. Personally, I find transubstantiation easier to “swallow.” This bodily but not physical presence seems just a twist on the “spiritual” presence claimed by other protestants, and just a little farther removed from the “symbolic” presence claimed by others. We certainly see in Scripture God taking on other forms, as you mention. But ultimately, the absence of Apostolic Succession, Holy Orders, and acknowledgement of the Deposit of Faith being entrusted to and guarded by the Church is at the heart of the issue. Without these, it’s everyman for himself.

ReturningToRome I hope all is well…
This is a small excerpt from a former Lutheran,
Titled…
A “Convert Me” Sign on My Head
By Greg K
*But the question didn’t stop there. Even if this bread really was Christ’s body—even if the Lutheran sacrament was valid—did that make it right? There’s a difference between can and ought, and even if a Lutheran minister can consecrate the bread and wine, is it right for him to do it? Clearly, he lies outside the established ministry of the New Testament. (While some Lutheran ministers try to ensure apostolic succession by seeking ordination from the Lutheran bishops in Europe, American Lutherans rarely do so, and my pastor had not.) *

*There was nothing else to do. I resigned as an elder, and my growing doubts about the validity of its sacrament finally pushed me out of the Lutheran Church. *

 

[JonNC]

ReturningToRome I hope all is well…
This is a small excerpt from a former Lutheran,
Titled…
A “Convert Me” Sign on My Head
By Greg K
*But the question didn’t stop there. Even if this bread really was Christ’s body—even if the Lutheran sacrament was valid—did that make it right? There’s a difference between can and ought, and even if a Lutheran minister can consecrate the bread and wine, is it right for him to do it? Clearly, he lies outside the established ministry of the New Testament. (While some Lutheran ministers try to ensure apostolic succession by seeking ordination from the Lutheran bishops in Europe, American Lutherans rarely do so, and my pastor had not.) *

*There was nothing else to do. I resigned as an elder, and my growing doubts about the validity of its sacrament finally pushed me out of the Lutheran Church. *

1. Catholic judgment on the authenticity of Lutheran ministry need not be of an all-or-nothing nature. The Decree on Ecumenism of Vatican II distinguished between relationships of full ecclesiastical communion and those of imperfect communion to reflect the varying degrees of differences with the Catholic Church.(164) The communion of these separated communities with the Catholic Church is real, even though it is imperfect. Furthermore, the decree positively affirmed:

Our separated brothers and sisters also celebrate many sacred actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each church or community, and must be held capable of giving access to that communion in which is salvation.(165)

Commenting on this point, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote in 1993 to Bavarian Lutheran bishop Johannes Hanselmann:

I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper.(166)

If the actions of Lutheran pastors can be described by Catholics as “sacred actions” that “can truly engender a life of grace,” if communities served by such ministers give “access to that communion in which is salvation,” and if at a eucharist at which a Lutheran pastor presides is to be found “the salvation-granting presence of the Lord,” then Lutheran churches cannot be said simply to lack the ministry given to the church by Christ and the Spirit. In acknowledging the imperfect koinonia between our communities and the access to grace through the ministries of these communities, we also acknowledge a real although imperfect koinonia between our ministries.

usccb.org/seia/koinonia.shtml

Jon

 

[dogknox]

JonNC

I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper.(166)

I reply: The Cardinal does NOT want to slam the door on the face of the Lutheran.
To say anything other would stop all talk and dialog, Jesus prayed that all would be united!
THINK: God is every where, is he not? Yes even in the Lutheran church… The Lord is present!! No one can say; God CAN/CANNOT deny salvation…no man can say what God can or can not do! The Cardinal is NOT saying the Lutheran Bread is the flesh of Jesus and the Lutheran wine is the Blood of Jesus. He is saying “God is everywhere!”

**YES: **He is right there is a, problem of ‘validity.’ But that should not stop the Dialog!
YES The Catholic & Orthodox have succession back to the Apostles… the Lutheran is NOT Apostolic… BUT this FACT also need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord being EVERYWHERE is possible everywhere!

The Lutheran Communion is NOT the true Flesh and Blood of Jesus. The Lutheran does NOT have true Priesthood. The Lutheran priest has lost the Authority of God, authority that is ONLY passed on by, the direct laying on of hands!

 

[JonNC]

=dogknox;7289064]JonNC

I reply: The Cardinal does NOT want to slam the door on the face of the Lutheran.
To say anything other would stop all talk and dialog, Jesus prayed that all would be united!

This is interesting because, quite honestly, you have spent a significant number of your first 94 posts doing just the opposite, IMO.
But that said, your perception that there is this level of condescension and patronization on the part of Catholic Bishops towards Lutheran theologians actually speaks poorly of them. I think they hold each other in much higher esteem than what you contend.

THINK: God is every where, is he not? Yes even in the Lutheran church… The Lord is present!! No one can say; God CAN/CANNOT deny salvation…no man can say what God can or can not do! The Cardinal is NOT saying the Lutheran Bread is the flesh of Jesus and the Lutheran wine is the Blood of Jesus. He is saying “God is everywhere!”

Obviously they do not deny the Catholic position regarding the necessity of AS. Lutherans are not unaware of that position, so again, for Catholic clergy to say this to mean what you think would be, frankly, an insult.

**YES: **He is right there is a, problem of ‘validity.’ But that should not stop the Dialog!
YES The Catholic & Orthodox have succession back to the Apostles… the Lutheran is NOT Apostolic… BUT this FACT also need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord being EVERYWHERE is possible everywhere!

Again, see above

The Lutheran Communion is NOT the true Flesh and Blood of Jesus. The Lutheran does NOT have true Priesthood. The Lutheran priest has lost the Authority of God, authority that is ONLY passed on by, the direct laying on of hands!

And we believe our presbyter ordination by divine law is valid, as well. But of all our disagreements, this is one more easily resolved.

Jon

 

[dogknox]

This is interesting because, quite honestly, you have spent a significant number of your first 94 posts doing just the opposite, IMO.
But that said, your perception that there is this level of condescension and patronization on the part of Catholic Bishops towards Lutheran theologians actually speaks poorly of them. I think they hold each other in much higher esteem than what you contend.
Obviously they do not deny the Catholic position regarding the necessity of AS. Lutherans are not unaware of that position, so again, for Catholic clergy to say this to mean what you think would be, frankly, an insult.
Again, see above
**And we believe our presbyter ordination by divine law is valid, as well. **But of all our disagreements, this is one more easily resolved.
Jon

I point to the “Old Testament”, the priest was the “Hands and the Voice” of God! Moses spoke for God, Moses tossed his staff on the ground, it was NOT Moses that turned it into a snake… but God who worked through Moses! The People rose up against Moses, and the ground opened up and swallowed them!
The Bishop’s are the “Hands and Voice” of Jesus in the “New Testament”!

John 20:21
Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.”
22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven;** if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”**

JonNC the Catholic Church “Condemned” Martin Luther with the “Authority Of Jesus” Luther was called, “Anathema!” You are forced to reject John 20:23 (above) to believe what you do!

You are forced to reject…
Matthew 28:20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.** And surely I am with you always**, to the very end of the age.”

Martin Luther said… “Satan is the head of the Catholic Church”!
He wanted to believe Jesus lied… That; “Satan somehow overpowered God, that Satan TOOK the Body of Jesus away from him”!
JonNC You are forced to also believe Jesus lied, that his words…“ALWAYS with” are not true!
You are forced to think… “Jesus would leave his bride, the Catholic Church” for the thousands of Protestant churches…“Yours included”!
You are forced to think, Jesus would commit Adultery with the Protestant, man formed bodies!

You say… **And we believe our presbyter ordination by divine law is valid, as well. **But of all our disagreements, this is one more easily resolved.
Okay… “lets resolve it” with the scriptures!

Scriptures… “he who hears you hears me”!
Luther rejected this verse to say what he said!
Scripture is clear… “REJECT Jesus by not accepting the scriptures!”
JonNC FACT: You have placed the salvation of your soul on the words of a man… Martin Luther!
Martin Luther and Jesus are opposed to each-other!!
Jesus commissioned his “Catholic Church” not Martin Luther!
Dogknox

 

[The_Old_Medic]

There is no absolute requirement that the person baptizing be an ordained minister. In fact, in a case of absolute necessity, the Roman Catholic Church allows anyone to baptize another person (imminent death as the prime example).

Therefore, so long as the appropriate words are used, the baptism is valid, no matter who did it and where it was done.

 

[dogknox]

There is no absolute requirement that the person baptizing be an ordained minister. In fact, in a case of absolute necessity, the Roman Catholic Church allows anyone to baptize another person (imminent death as the prime example).

Therefore, so long as the appropriate words are used, the baptism is valid, no matter who did it and where it was done.

The Old Medic It is good to meet you… And…
And who are you addressing?
I do agree with you… the appropriate words.
In the name of the Father
In the name of the Son
In the name of the Holy Spirit

In the “Name Of” and with the “AUTHORITY” of God!

 

[JonNC]

The Old Medic It is good to meet you… And…
And who are you addressing?
I do agree with you… the appropriate words.
In the name of the Father
In the name of the Son
In the name of the Holy Spirit

In the “Name Of” and with the “AUTHORITY” of God!

Hey dogknox,
We finally found a point of agreement!

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=dogknox;7294147]I point to the “Old Testament”, the priest was the “Hands and the Voice” of God! Moses spoke for God, Moses tossed his staff on the ground, it was NOT Moses that turned it into a snake… but God who worked through Moses! The People rose up against Moses, and the ground opened up and swallowed them!
The Bishop’s are the “Hands and Voice” of Jesus in the “New Testament”!

No problem here. I don’t deny the role of the special ministry.

John 20:21
Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.”
22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven;** if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”**

Still good.

JonNC the Catholic Church “Condemned” Martin Luther with the “Authority Of Jesus” Luther was called, “Anathema!” You are forced to reject John 20:23 (above) to believe what you do!

Baloney. I don’t take the narrow triumphalist view that the Church exists soley in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

You are forced to reject…
Matthew 28:20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.** And surely I am with you always**, to the very end of the age.”

I don’t reject this at all.

Martin Luther said… “Satan is the head of the Catholic Church”!

Please provide source and context for this.

He wanted to believe Jesus lied… That; “Satan somehow overpowered God, that Satan TOOK the Body of Jesus away from him”!

Where does he say he wanted to believe Jesus lied? Source, please. Because if you can’t provide a source, then the 8th commandment comes into play.

JonNC You are forced to also believe Jesus lied, that his words…“ALWAYS with” are not true!

Forced by what?

You are forced to think… “Jesus would leave his bride, the Catholic Church” for the thousands of Protestant churches…“Yours included”!

Where did I say that the Holy Spirit has left the Catholic Church. And here’s what Luther said about the CC:

“It is our confession that in the papacy there are the right Holy Scriptures, the right Baptism, the right Sacrament of the Altar, the right keys for forgiveness of sins, the right preaching office, the right catechism, such as the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, the Creed. … Now if Christianity exists under the pope, it must be Christ’s true body and members. If it is His body, then it has the right Spirit, Gospel, Creed, Baptism, Sacrament, keys, preaching office, prayer, Holy Scriptures, and everything that Christianity should have. Therefore we do not rave like the ‘enthusiasts’ that we reject everything in the papacy”

Sounds nothing like what you are claiming.

You are forced to think, Jesus would commit Adultery with the Protestant, man formed bodies!

This is so absurd in its language, that it doesn’t merit a response, at least no one I am, in all charity, willing to make.

You say… **And we believe our presbyter ordination by divine law is valid, as well. **But of all our disagreements, this is one more easily resolved.
Okay… “lets resolve it” with the scriptures!

Scriptures… “he who hears you hears me”!
Luther rejected this verse to say what he said!
Scripture is clear… “REJECT Jesus by not accepting the scriptures!”

Again, a source where he says this. Link to a source.

JonNC FACT: You have placed the salvation of your soul on the words of a man… Martin Luther!
Martin Luther and Jesus are opposed to each-other!!
Jesus commissioned his “Catholic Church” not Martin Luther!

“My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus blood and righteousness.” That is where the salvation of my soul is placed. Apparantly, you are in conflict with your own catechism, as it says the same thing about me. and I’ll source it if you want.

As I said in my previous post, while you seem to think the Pope and Catholic bishops wish to keep the lines of communication open, your words seem to indicate an opposite desire.

Jon

 

[JohnVIII]

There is no absolute requirement that the person baptizing be an ordained minister. In fact, in a case of absolute necessity, the Roman Catholic Church allows anyone to baptize another person (imminent death as the prime example).

Therefore, so long as the appropriate words are used, the baptism is valid, no matter who did it and where it was done.

Mormons baptism uses the appropriate words, but the Catholic Church does not recognize Mormon baptism. Any comments?

 

[dogknox]

JonNC Thank you for your reply.
I point out…“You HAVE TO, reject the Catholic Church as being the ONLY Church, Christ formed!”
You want to believe the, “Lutheran Church” formed Sixteen Hundred years after Jesus, by the man “Martin Luther” is also; A Church Jesus formed!?

To believe “The Lutheran Church” is the true Church, you MUST reject…
“Listen to the Church” these are the words of Jesus… Jesus spoke “Listen to the Church” Sixteen Hundred years before Martin Luther was born! “Listen To The Church” was written in Luther’s bible as it is still in your bible to this day!
Martin Luther refused to “Listen to The Church” he had to reject the words of Jesus to reject the Church Jesus formed!
Do you understand?
Fact: To be Protestant you are forced to REJECT the scriptures otherwise there is NO protest!

FROM : The works of Luther
Letter of Martin Luther to Pope Leo X
In brief, trust not in any who exalt you, but in those who humiliate you. For this is the judgment of God: “He hath cast down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble.” See how unlike Christ was to His successors, though all will have it that they are His vicars. I fear that in truth very many of them have been in too serious a sense His vicars, for a vicar represents a prince who is absent.* Now if a pontiff rules while Christ is absent and does not dwell in his heart, what else is he but a vicar of Christ?*** And then what is** that Church but a multitude without Christ?**** What indeed is such a vicar but antichrist **and an idol? How much more rightly did the Apostles speak, who call themselves servants of a present Christ, not the vicars of an absent one!

Jesus said… “I am with you ALWAYS to the very end of the Age”!
Jesus said.. “the Church is HOLY, without stain, BLAMELESS!”
Jesus said… ““The Church” is the Pillar and the Foundation of Truth!”
Jesus said.. “I will send you the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth”!

JonNC You are forced to reject what Jesus said, to be Lutheran!
FACT: If the Catholic Church fell into error as Luther said, as you want to believe, THEN…
Then you and Martin Luther, are forced to believe the Holy Spirit lead his Church into ERROR! You are forced to believe God erred!
JonNC FACT: If God was to error then he would NOT be perfect, he would NOT be God!

Do you understand? To be Lutheran you are forced to reject the scriptures or…
Or you would be Catholic!

You are forced to REJECT the scriptures to believe in Martin Luther!
FACT: Scriptures are very very clear…** You REJECT Jesus** by NOT accepting the scriptures!
Jesus WARNS…
John 12:48
There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day.

JonNC You are even forced to reject this WARNING from Jesus, to stay in the Lutheran church!

JonNC I point you the words of Martin Luther… I did not write them, Luther did!
I point you to scriptures… The words of Jesus!
The words of Martin Luther are directly opposed to the words of Jesus!

Dogknox

 

[DavidKays]

Even though all Protestant Christians invoke the trinity and use water in baptisms, their beliefs differ widely concerning its efficacy. Yet I believe it is true that they are all accepted by the Catholic Church. On the other hand, even when a Protestant doctrine of communion as a sacrament is very similar to Catholicism, such as the Lutheran view, it is not a valid sacrament in the eyes of the Catholic Church. I think the latter is because of apostolic succession. I’m grateful, but I would like to be able to explain why Baptism is not similarly affected by apostolic succession.

Hi! Baptism can be done by anyone within the Church and as long it is in the formula of the Trinity, you are baptised. Most Protestants are baptised in the name of the Trinity. However the Sacraments become a problem because the rest of them I mean the other 4 sacraments can only be celebrated by an ordained Priest. The only Sacraments reserved for the Bishops are the sacraments of Holy Ordination and Holy Confirmation. The only exception to this is Confirmation when a priest can administer it only when the oils are blessed beforehand by the bishop. The priest is in reality an extension to the bishop. The bishop when valid can trace his ordination roots right to the source who is Jesus Christ. Because many of the protestant groups did not retain their apostolic origins after their split with Rome so did the sacraments. The only exception to this are the Anglicans and the Lutherans who have a high origin ( example the Swedish Church ) and resemble much the Catholic Church with Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. The Church of England is the closest to Rome and since the Holy Father Benedict XVI has been on St.Peter’s chair, he has made it much easier for Angicans to return. In fact in many cases the Holy Father will give permission for the returning Anglicans to still use their spiritual tradition by allowing them to celebrate the Mass according to the rite contained in the Book of Common Prayer. The Pope then is allowing the Anglican rite and giving his approval of it. If other protestants groups were allowed to return in great numbers I will think the Pope will not allow their Communion services to continue. I mean the form or rites they use. The Anglican situation is quite different and the Pope is allowing the Book of Common Prayer rite to be used thus giving the Anglican rite of Communion an accepted rite within the Catholic Communion, something he will not do for the other protestant rites.