Austin, Texas – Leaders from several Protestant denominations met with representatives from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops last night to sign an ecumenical document agreeing to recognize each other’s baptisms. Posted on 02/24/2013 11:55:01 AM PST by daniel1212
Austin, Texas – Leaders from several Protestant denominations met with representatives from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops last night to sign an ecumenical document agreeing to recognize each other’s baptisms.
The document, entitled “These Living Waters: Common Agreement on the Mutual Recognition of Baptism,” has been approximately four years in the making. The Presbyterian Church USA was reportedly the first to deliberate the move, followed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
“The Common Agreement affirms that both Catholic and Reformed Christians hold that baptism is the sacramental bond of unity for the Body of Christ, which is to be performed only once, by an authorized minister, with flowing water, using the Scriptural Trinitarian formula of ‘Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” wrote the bishops in a news release about the matter two years ago.
Therefore, if a person is baptized by a Catholic priest but later converts to a Protestant church, the denominations involved in the ecumenical gesture agree to accept the baptism and not ask that the person be baptized over again — and vice versa.
The Common Agreement was signed last night in Austin, Texas by members of both the Presbyterian Church USA and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, as well as the Christian Reformed Church of North America, the Reformed Church of America and the United Church of Christ.
Writer Brian Cross says that while there has been somewhat of an alliance between Protestants and Catholics over the matter for centuries, disagreement has remained.
“The Catholic Church has long recognized the validity of Protestant baptisms in which the person was baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” he explained. “In the last ten or fifteen years, however, there were concerns among Catholic bishops regarding Protestant baptisms in which different names were substituted for the Holy Trinity, or in which a method of sprinkling was used that did not achieve any flow of water on the skin.”
“The Dutch and German Reformed traditions have generally recognized the validity of Catholic baptisms, as have most Presbyterian churches. The major exception to this were the Presbyterian churches in the United States since the time of James Henry Thornwell in the mid-nineteenth century, especially in the south. Thornwell argued that Catholic baptisms were invalid because Catholic priests were not ‘lawful ministers of the Word,’” Cross continued. “Some Reformed denominations in the United States remain on Thornwell’s side of that debate, and still do not necessarily accept the validity of Catholic baptisms.”
While there remains debate over whether Protestants — those who agree with Reformers such as Martin Luther, who rebuked and separated from the Roman Catholic Church with his “95 theses,” a document that outlined his many concerns with the establishment’s traditions and teachings — should agree to recognize Catholic baptisms, the greater question of whether Protestants and Catholics should engage in any forms of ecumenicism at all continues to be an issue among Christians.
“Everybody’s afraid to say that Roman Catholics are not Christians, and that if you make that statement, you are perceived as unloving or old school,” stated Pastor Jon Speed of the Log College and Christ is King Baptist Church in Syracuse, New York. “But, either we’re trying to hide what we believe about the Gospel, or we don’t really believe it.”
There are far more problems with the doctrines of the Catholic Church than just baptism. Just the fact that Protestants would be willing to sign ecumenical agreements with Rome should be warning flags to Protestants that they have left the reservation.
We should be asking ourselves, “Would Luther sign such an agreement?” If not, why not?
J.B. Phillips. I think a looser translation or paraphrase sometimes helps us to see the text with fresh eyes. It isn’t for serious study, but it is easy to get used to the wording and stop thinking about it. At least, I have that problem sometimes.
I'm willing to ask you why you posted that Protestants so as to imply it is all Protestants? Besides the fact the article doesn't say that.
ANYONE not adhering to God's Word ALONE and not Holy Spirit filled is off the reservation.
“Protestants that would be willing to sign ecumenical agreements” does not imply all Protestants.
It will be interesting to see where this goes. My optomistic self is ‘its a start.’
That’s exactly right.
‘“The Catholic Church has long recognized the validity of Protestant baptisms in which the person was baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” he explained. “In the last ten or fifteen years, however, there were concerns among Catholic bishops regarding Protestant baptisms in which different names were substituted for the Holy Trinity, or in which a method of sprinkling was used that did not achieve any flow of water on the skin.”’
Another argument in favor of staying with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit(or Ghost) and not doing the “Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer” routine.
I think catholics believe as Lutherans and confirmation is a renwal of your baptismal vow. Most of the liturgy from confirmation is simliar to the baptism liturgy.
One step closer to a one world religion?
Most passages listed do not teach about baptism in the church. None teach infant baptism. As a NT Greek reader, I’ve examined them all.
Like much of Catholic theology, your list is an eisogesis that supports ideas that did not come from Scripture.
I believe you are correct. From what I was taught, the greek word for household would have included infants..
Thank-you!
Please see post number 12. Thank-you.
There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults.
Salvation is limited to those who....
"That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9
"For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." Romans 10:10
Your laundry list of Scripture and the RCC 's interpretation of them is so far off - it's reserved for the truly dumbed down.
Your opinion, not mine.
As posted, this is why not just only at confirmation, but each at Easter, Catholics by “renewing” their baptismal promises do as you refer.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
presently no screen name wrote:
“Those Scriptures do not back up infant baptism as there aren’t any so you can’t find one.”
Wrong, they do.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.