Thank you for your honesty.
Maybe we can remedy that:
. 
Posted on 03/01/2007 9:06:23 PM PST by Alex Murphy
No.
Do you read Greek?
No.
Are you a Born Again Christian?
What precisely is "the proper intention" when it comes to non-Catholic baptisms?
Almost a year ago, Catholic FReeper Campion and I discussed "validity" in regards to the Eucharist and Presbyterians. I would imagine that the same rules apply re baptism?
Well, Alex, since, e.g., Presbyterians reject apostolic succession, reject the idea of the priesthood per se, and reject transubstantiation or anything close to it, there's really not much chance of a Presbyterian Eucharist being a valid Catholic sacrament. Sacramental validity requires a valid minister, valid matter (bread made from wheat only, wine mixed with water), valid "form" (the words that are said, and valid intent (the intent to do what the Catholic church does). Unless your Presbyterian minister is a former Catholic or Orthodox (or perhaps Anglican) priest, he's not a validly ordained minister. He probably doesn't have a valid intent, either.
Haven't we already done this discussion?
For baptism:
Liberal Protestants who do stuff like baptizing in the name of the "Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier" may not be administering valid baptism, however. Mormon and JW baptisms are invalid because they reject the Trinity.
Are you? And, if you are, how do you define the term?
In accordance with John chapter 3: Ye must be born again.
I am born again.
I am a Born Again Christian.
Are you?
We did, IIRC, which is why I pinged you out of courtesy. "Valid intent" appears to be a sacramental buzzword among Catholics - I've been seeing it raised on a number of threads recently, but rarely challenged or even defined. In the last year I haven't found two Catholics who can actually determine whether this or that Protestant baptism-as-sacrament was actually "valid". I suspect this is because (using your example) you've already denied the validity of virtually all Protestant ministers who would have administered said baptism.
So yes, I believe that you're correct - you and I have already had this conversation. But sitetest and I haven't. I'm interested in his opinion at this juncture, unless you're presuming to speak for him in this matter.
And to you that means ... ???
Dear Alex Murphy,
Proper intention is intend to do what the Church does. In the case of baptism, it is the intention to baptize.
"Almost a year ago, Catholic FReeper Campion and I discussed 'validity' in regards to the Eucharist and Presbyterians. I would imagine that the same rules apply re baptism?"
Yes and no. The same general principles apply, but the details are significantly different.
"Sacramental validity requires a valid minister,..."
To confect the Eucharist requires an ordained priest. Only the ordained priest is the valid minister of the Eucharist.
On the other hand, any human being may be the valid minister of baptism (at least in the Latin Rite).
Hope that helps.
sitetest
Please re-read my last post, then.
Anyone is a valid minister of baptism.
"Intent" is a different issue than the validity of the minister. However, most theologians AFAIK would say that the intent must be to administer Christian, Trinitarian baptism. When your minister baptizes, does he intend to administer Christian baptism in the Name of the Trinity?
(This is not a trick question.)
read later
That's correct. It would be "No". I am not "born again". I am a baptized Catholic.
It means I have been born again.
It means I have been regenerated.
It means that I have been born of the flesh AND born of the spirit.
It means I am a new creature in Christ.
.
Are you a born again Christian?
Thank you for your honesty.
Maybe we can remedy that:
.
Dear P-Marlowe,
"No."
Yikes! Well, you really should stop!! ;-)
The problem here, P-Marlowe, is that if I'd asked the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" to actually elicit information from you, rather than as a rhetorical device, limiting you to "yes" or "no" would have been grossly unfair. And deceitful.
If folks here didn't realize that I was asking the question to make a point, not because I actually suspect someone of beating his wife, then if I were able to limit my interlocutor to "yes" or "no," his truthful reply ("no," because one can't stop what one never started) would leave the false and terrible impression that he was [still] beating his wife.
That's because of the assumption smuggled into the question that he was beating his wife in the first place.
If I were acting in charity and asking this question, I could only ask it of someone if I already believed that he was beating his wife. Thus the assumption that the husband has been beating his wife. The truthful answer, "no," only leads to the false conclusion that he is still beating his wife.
If, as the questioner, I somehow restrain the man to "yes" or "no," whether by spurious and irrelevant quoting of Scripture, or some legal subterfuge, or threat of force, or whatever, then I've constructively lied about the man and his reputation. I've committed a very grave violation of the Eighth Commandment (or whatever Commandment it is for you guys - 7th? 9th?).
If on the other hand, I DON'T constrain the man from answering more than "yes" or "no," and he insists on only saying "no," then he has told the truth insofar as he has spoken, but he has lied by omission. And he has then committed a grave violation of the Eighth Commandment.
His sin is not only against himself, but against me, too. By inducing me to continue to believe false and terrible charges against him, he sins against me. And he sins against everyone whom he induces to believe this falsehood.
Thus, if someone asks me "Are you a born again Christian?" and I know that the person is not Catholic, then I also know that it is possible that he may not understand a simple "yes" or "no" answer as I give it.
If I don't provide a little more information than "yes" or "no," regardless of his spurious and irrelevant Scriptural quotes to the contrary, then I may have led him into false belief, and will have sinned against him.
sitetest
I believe God did that at my baptism.
(What do I win?)
NYer, you were "born again" on the day you were baptized.
Dear Alex Murphy,
"In the last year I haven't found two Catholics who can actually determine whether this or that Protestant baptism-as-sacrament was actually 'valid'."
Folks might be hesitant to try to judge the particulars of a specific set of circumstances. I know I would be. Especially if the circumstances aren't clear-cut, or there are gaps in the information presented.
"I suspect this is because (using your example) you've already denied the validity of virtually all Protestant ministers who would have administered said baptism."
Every year, my parish accepts non-Catholics into full communion with the Church without requiring any sort of baptism, conditional or otherwise. That means that my priest has already decided that the individual's non-Catholic baptism was absolutely valid. If there were any doubt, the priest would perform a conditional baptism.
But that is a priest's job to determine, not mine. I know the general principles, but it really isn't my business to go applying them willy-nilly to folks whose circumstances I know incompletely.
sitetest
I am honestly a Catholic Christian :-)
Maybe we can remedy that:
Let's begin at the beginning, shall we?
If we wish to locate the Church founded by Jesus, we need to locate the one that has the four chief marks or qualities of his Church. The Church we seek must be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.
The Church Is One (Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13)
The Church Is Holy (Eph. 5:25–27, Rev. 19:7–8)
The Church Is Catholic (Matt. 28:19–20, Rev. 5:9–10)
The Church Is Apostolic (Eph. 2:19–20)
Among the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus. Every other Christian church is an offshoot of the Catholic Church.
Come on in! The water's just fine!
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.